Belkar Bitterleaf

Aiken Frost's page

Organized Play Member. 78 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
On a final note, Focus is a VASTLY better name than spell points. :) But we don't need Resonance as a name for item slots. Just say you can invest 10 items per day. It doesn't need a name.
Uh, yeah it does need a name, in your suggestion you've just moved it to Invest/Investiture. Not having an official name for referring to the pool of 10 will just be really awkward when talking about it.

Wait, so the new wand rules are totally fine and immediately grokable, but not having a name to your slots is so incredibly awkward?

What!?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

to follow matthew's line of thinking.

Critical hits could just do the critical effects. It could add as little as an extra die.

Huh. A few days ago I was pondering how I could change the Critical Hit rule and that is exactly where I ended.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I could see the crit system being adjusted, but not removed wholesale; it is the single biggest fix to save-or-die spells that the system has ever seen, and I have no interest in losing that.
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the 4-tier success system was entirely created for that purpose, and a lot of the issues of tuning with Skill DCs and enemy ACs seem to stem from the application of a system broader than what it was designed for. There's a certain elegance in design for having the same system work across all rolls, but I can't help but think, maybe that elegance isn't worth the downsides.

Absolutely agree.

Just as an speculation, do you think the system could be better used across the board if the threshold for Critical Failure/Success was changed from 10 under/over the DC to 15, to allow for a less brutally bounded math?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:

Pathfinder pretty much is Anime though. Heck, most of D&D is. How else is three to four feet of metal being stabbed into a mountain-sized-dragon by an average-sized-human killing said dragon in a few shallow stabs?

Getting mad and transforming into a different form, perhaps able to fly and breath fire? Anime.

Having mystical martial arts? Anime.

I could think of other examples.

Shhhh, don't let the fantasy RPG nerds hear you or they'll flip in anime-like rage!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:

I agree that its not good to have this absurd reliance on magic weapons, but they may have painted themselves into a bit of a corner with this one.

If you tie it to level alone, then we are even further down the homogenization railroad and martial characters seem even less well.. good at being martial in comparison to their allies? I don't know, both options feel bad to me.

If you tie it to proficiency then you create a severe problem for any class that isn't fighter.. because you can't just choose to increase proficiency in weapons. It effectively down-grades barbarian, paladin, rogue or any future class that wants to use a weapon pretty immensely.

While I somewhat agree with your points, I feel this in particular is wrong because it is taking the current playtest rules as final. There is a really easy way to resolve that problem, in my opinion.

First, make the bonus damage dice be determined by Proficiency alone. After that, while Fighter will be the undisputed master of, well, fighting, you could give the other martial classes somewhat parity of damage by using the good old class abilities!

Remember, every single martial class used to have things that would give them better damage in certain circumstances. Barbarians and Rogues had (and still have, if in a different incarnation) Rage and Sneak Attack respectively, Paladins had Smite Evil, Rangers had Favored Enemy and etc. All they have to do is fine-tune the damage with the frequency it can be employed.

But allowing Fighters to still keep the best, uncircumstatial bonus to damage should probably be a feature, not a bug.


Leedwashere wrote:
Andrew Riebe wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Hugely approve of this, for all sorts of reasons - but one minor suggestion: change it to "A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves saving throw (Reflex)"

If you're going to call it a 'basic saving throw' then you should call it a 'basic saving throw'.

I like this, but think it might be best to put it into the statblock itself:

Evocation, Fire
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst; Saving Throw [Basic] Reflex

A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area.

I also like putting it there in the spell header. There could be three different sets of keywords to use there.

  • Binary [stat] (simple pass/fail, defined in the spells overview section)
  • Standard [stat] (uses the standard array, defined in the spells overview section)
  • Unique [stat] (follows neither pattern, defined in the spell itself)

I'm also all in favor of moving the powers, if a power is only accessible by that class then it's probably best to put it where it comes from. Although, as I think about it, a lot of effort has been spent making this edition elegantly future-proof, and the possibility certainly exists that those powers might later become accessible by other sources, in which case having them all located in the same place makes them less confusing to find without having to also reference which class the power can be found in. But they do feel cluttered in with the spells... so maybe have them in their own section, since you can never choose them when picking spells, and the magnitude of spells compared to powers makes finding them among the spells annoying.

It's also in the interests of future-proofing that I like that the spells don't specifically list what lists they're on. If a new spell list is created in the future which contains...

I also love all of this.


Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Hugely approve of this, for all sorts of reasons - but one minor suggestion: change it to "A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves saving throw (Reflex)"

If you're going to call it a 'basic saving throw' then you should call it a 'basic saving throw'.

Chess Pwn wrote:

I personally think a little mix could be really good like,

"Use the Basic (double, full, half, none) saving throw."
Something like this helps the in line reading to know what's going on while the full write up for this basic save will be somewhere else. That was one of my personal issues with the current layout, tons of key terms being thrown around with no basic overview of what they were from just reading in line.
worldhopper wrote:
Seems like a nice space saver. I still suggest also shortening the actions section to something like "2 actions (Somatic, Verbal)" too, though.
The BP wrote:

I like this change, and would add that when a range of results depends on a save that isn't "basic", they should be listed in order:

critical success
success
failure
critical failure

instead of the current order.

I like the changes and I would love to see all the above suggestions integrated as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Armor should be more consistent with real world history!

Quote:
Screeeeee, muh fantasy! Real armor is stupid and boring, I want amazing fantastical armor with spikes all over, studs in my leathers and shoulder plates bigger than barrels of manure! AND BOOBPLATES, DON'T FORGET THE BOOBPLATES!!!

Heavy armor should be better!

Quote:
Screeeeee, muh realism! You are a steel croissant, there is no way you could even move without being dragged around by a crane exactly like in real Dark Ages!

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder why people don't just petition Paizo to remove martial classes completely from the system.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

For a start it's something else that I'd have to unlearn and relearn. That would make me unhappy. Do you want your happy to be at the expense of my happy...

:P

I mean. You already need to relearn all the armors, considering that the entire game changed. Having different names for most of them would actually help you, by breaking your preconceptions inherited from the previous edition. ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N-Sphere wrote:
Historical accuracy isn't a reason to change the rules.

I don't agree with this.

The rest of your post, though? Perfection.

Also, to the people saying that they "don't care" about realistic armor... Then why not change to something accurate, allowing people that do care to be happy, while you continue enjoying your blissful ignorance?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I would second Performance just becoming a Lore, unless they're going to seriously augment it. But there is one very good way to augment it:

Personally I would ditch bard as a legacy class and instead turn it into an archetype, replace it with the witch as the Occult caster, and move most of the non-loremaster bardic abilities to Performance skill feats.

Now anyone can be a bard, reflecting different aspects of bardness by their base class (skalds are Barbarians with the Bard archetype for instance) and the particular bard powers (Performance skill feats) they choose.

Man, its so sad that this will never happen, because I loved this idea!


I, like many others, disagree hardly with the way shields are currently being mechanically portrayed in the Playtest. They make no sense compared to history, simulate no popular fiction about them and is simply no worth it in game.

I thought about my greatest grievances with shield mechanics and came to the following solutions. They weren't tested yet, I just came up with them and decided to submit them to evaluation.

Having said all that, here are my points:

1st- Eliminate completely the Reaction expenditure to block with a shield. Make it an automatic result of having spent an action to Raise your shield on your turn. You Raise you shield, you get its bonus to AC and block any attacks directed at you until you next turn, reducing their damage by the shield's Hardness;

2nd- Allow any character to Raise a shield as a Reaction. Simple as that. No "ifs", "buts" or conditions, no Feat tax, just allow it as base function of shields themselves;

3rd- Eliminate completely the possibility of shields being damaged by Blocking attacks. One exception to this: if the attack the shield blocks is a Critical Hit, then it takes the normal damage of the attack, possibly being damaged or even broken in the process;

4th- Make that any attack that causes damage above a certain threshold to a blocking opponent, makes the shield "un-Raised" until the opponent have the opportunity to Raise it again. This threshold could be Hardness + Strength or Hardness + Constitution (or both, more likely).

These suggestions allows shield users to feel a lot more empowered, making shields actually worth using instead of being a chore coupled with a money sink.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think assurance is made just to work with lower level easy skill checks that people feel they shouldn't have to roll.

The same checks the book flat out says you shouldn't bother rolling anyway?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:

This seems to be the main split on the reception of this rules set.

If you think it makes characters very quickly become far more powerful than enemies that once seemed powerful, you are correct.

If you think its a treadmill, you are also correct.

Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.

And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.

It can still work, bu they need to tune up the impact of these differentiating factors. Perhaps make Proficiency bonuses double at 5-10-15 etc. Or make them determine your per level scaling entirely, I don't know. But this is the biggest flaw in the system as I see it.

Lord_Malkov wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:
Lord_Malkov wrote:

This seems to be the main split on the reception of this rules set.

If you think it makes characters very quickly become far more powerful than enemies that once seemed powerful, you are correct.

If you think its a treadmill, you are also correct.

Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.

And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.

It can still work, bu they need to tune up the impact of these differentiating factors. Perhaps make Proficiency bonuses double at 5-10-15 etc. Or make them determine your per level scaling entirely, I don't know. But this is the biggest flaw in the system as I see it.

add to this that at some levels FOUR atributes are raised by 2 levels unless above 18, then 1.

Raising your 4 lower abilities is optimizing, you could build 1 over 18, but very few people will raise 2 atributes above 18.
Level 1 characters will be different, with these differences diminishing with level due to the +1/level and the atributes, besides for spellcasters, the low number of spells will make them choose the most effective ones.

My guess is that after 6 months there will be a power build for every archetype, with very few outliers and even them very similar.

I agree, this will lead to further homogenization as players learn to optimize.

There is an argument for making the gap between a character that dedicates no resources to a skill or action type versus a character that has invested as much as possible shrink. I think that it can open up space for more thematic or marginalized archetypes if you can put a hard ceiling on the benefits of min-maxing, while minimizing the cost of un-optimized choices....

Just wanted to say that I agree with the general idea of the above posts as well as the ones by Aadgarvven.

First off, let me say that I love the proficiency system and how he gates some things to certain proficiency levels. My problem with it is two:

- The +level is big numbers for the sake of big numbers and don't add anything to the mechanic of the game. It also degrades the benefit of higher Proficiency levels for things like combat and skills whose uses are not gated. If you added +1/2 level and the proficiency bonuses were doubled, it would vastly improve the system, in my opinion;

- The "gated" effects opened by higher Proficiency levels are, more often than not, extremely underwhelming. When they first talked about this, I became extremely excited, because I thought that Legendary Athletics would allow me to jump high enough to tackle a flying mage or swim up a waterfall. Things similar to the ones found in the Mythic Adventures or the Epic Level Handbook. No such luck...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

OP, I logged in just to say that I agree with you and you described my experience exactly!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I have to agree for the most part. There are a few systemic issues (Signature Skills, I'm looking at you...though those could be fairly readily removed), but the core system is really nice.

A lot of specific implementations? Not so nice.

That's exactly my take as well, though I'm certainly being a lot more vocal in my criticism. I absolutely love the core system, but a lot of the specifics?

SIGH.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blueskier wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
Cool, so martial classes are dead then. If you don't have spells, you can borrow them from a class who does. Sigh...

Nope

Mundane character concepts are dead. Which is good. Being non-magical is not a character concept that is level appropiate after lvl 5

Nope, Martial characters are dead, because some people, for some reason, can fathom that a lot of other people want to play as mythical swordsmen, not an arcane caster that can use a sword.

Why do people think that I want to play a mundane character just because I want to focus his skills in weapons instead of spells? Even though The Book of Nine Swords and Path of War exists?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kaineblade83 wrote:

I really like this idea in theory, and want to see more from it. My big concern is Fighter, though.

Presumably the dedication feats are class feats, which fighters get every level, yes? So what's stopping a fighter from doing everything and still having some class feats for their own base class?

They get their weapon proficiency increase baseline so they wouldn't need to feat out for that, meanwhile they also have 8th level spellcasting in 2 other classes, if they'd like, and some rogue skills. I know there's a dedication limit for the feats, but still, 20 levels of class feats doesn't make that feel totally like a stopgap.

I'm absolutely on board with this and I want to see where it goes, as I said, I'm just voicing concerns I have. I know we haven't seen the full system yet and there may be reasons NOT to be that monster I mentioned building above, but it's worrisome to imagine it'd be easily achievable for fighter; does that make sense?

I mean, God forbid a Fighter have any nice things at all, am I right? Its about time someone stopped the absolute Martial degeneracy and oppression that's been happening since the start of D&D 3rd edition!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
Cool, so martial classes are dead then. If you don't have spells, you can borrow them from a class who does. Sigh...

To be fair, I've been having that feeling since they announced that you need a whole action to not just stupidly let your shield hang to your side, like a complete amateur.

"Heroic" indeed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
kpulv wrote:
Quote:

You surround a foe in a swirling storm of violent winds, roiling clouds, and crackling lightning. The storm deals 1d10 electricity damage to the target, depending on their Reflex saving throw.

Success Half damage.

Critical Success No damage.

Failure Full damage, and the target is sluggish 1 for 1 round.

Critical Failure Double damage, and the target is sluggish 2 for 1 round.

I really wish this was more like

Quote:

1d10 Electricity Damage to one target.

Target's Reflex Saving Throw:
* Critical Success: Target takes no damage.
* Success: Target takes half damage.
* Failure: Target takes damage, and is Sluggish 1 for 1 round.
* Critical Failure: Target takes double damage, and is Sluggish 2 for 1 round.

You surround a foe in a swirling storm of violent winds, roiling clouds, and crackling lightning.

Organize the information in order of importance in the moment that it's being queried. Half the time in combat is going to be spent parsing through flavor fluff that's mixed in with the actual mechanics. Also the order of success, crit success, etc, continues to confuse me every time I see it. You have a four degrees of success system so put them in the order of their degree. Best to worst or worst to best.

Amazing! I didn't even knew I wanted flavor text in the end so much!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aiken Frost wrote:
Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?
I mostly agree here, but think an exception can be made for Bard, as the 'high skill' caster Class just as Rogue is the 'high skill' martial one.

My only problem with that is the fact that the Bard already is a full caster and I bet his spells are going to give him absurd levels of versatility. And having that many skills alongside full 10 levels of spells will certainly just make the Rogue cry in a corner.

But if there must be an exception about skilled casters, I agree that the Bard should be it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Aiken Frost wrote:
Quote:
You also have the most trained skills at 1st level except for rogues, just barely edging out rangers. Finally, you begin play at 1st level with two compositions, the inspire courage cantrip (which has been detailed above) and the counter performance power.

Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?

Also:

Quote:
You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally is quick and can use the action to Strike, Stride, or Step.

The Allegro wording is terrible. It would be better like this:

Quote:
You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally gets one action he can use only to Strike, Stride, or Step.
The wording is the way it is because Quick is a status effect that doesn't stack with other abilities that give Quick and can be countered by Slow.

*facepalm*

This is even worse! Shouldn't "Quick" be capitalized/bolded or something in the description then?

Anyway, the Bard seems cool, but again: PLEASE, don't f!** the Fighter in the Skills department, Paizo! An adventure is more than just combat! Both the Cleric and the Paladin in the previews at EnWorld have more skills than the Fighter while haven LESS INT!


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
You also have the most trained skills at 1st level except for rogues, just barely edging out rangers. Finally, you begin play at 1st level with two compositions, the inspire courage cantrip (which has been detailed above) and the counter performance power.

Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?

Also:

Quote:
You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally is quick and can use the action to Strike, Stride, or Step.

The Allegro wording is terrible. It would be better like this:

Quote:
You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally gets one action he can use only to Strike, Stride, or Step.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Varun Creed wrote:

What about?


  • Wands are not consumables any longer, but can cast their spell for a 1RP cost of the receiver.
  • Staffs are like wands, but have additional bonuses (such as enabling their spell(s) to be used spontaneously costing a spell slot instead of a RP).
  • No item has charges, but instead use RP to use. Staffs don't have charges that need to be recharged.
  • All characters have CHA + 1/2 lvl resonance points in their reservoir. No flat rolls for overspending, but simply: If you overspend, you gain/increase the Sick condition after 1 minute, which can only be recovered by sleeping for 8 hours.
  • A character can synchronize their spirit each day with worn items, for a maximum of their total resonance points. This does not use up a resonance point.
  • Potions cost a RP to create, nothing to use.

This counteracts the CLW wand spam as well, as any wand now costs resolve points. "Then what about high level parties buying up 100's of potions?" > I answer: what store will have 100's of potions anyhow?? It's more normal that a store has 1d4 or 1d6 of healing potions.

I have to say that it is absolutely hilarious that I already need a "House Rules" document for a RPG that is not even in public playtest yet...

By the way, thanks for the idea, Varun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaemy wrote:

My two cents: went Resonance was first introduced, it felt weird, but also that there might be something in there. When I learned more about how you got it and what it was for, I started liking it more.

Now instead of having a shirt that gives you an extra move action 1/day and a cloak that turns you into a crow 3/day, you can wear both and decide with your 4 resonance points if you run 4 times, or turn into a crow 4 times, or any mix in between, and didn't have to track remaining uses for neither, just a global Resonance Pool.

When I learned potions costed resonance, I was also up for it. This encourages you to drink that one big level-apropiate powerful potion instead of drinking 20 crappy ones in a row after a fight, same for wands (wich I asumed would cost resonance to activate and would have no charges neither, so if you have 10 resonance points to use on wands, you want to make those 10 heals be better, so you buy better wands).
Making potions cost a valuable resource (Resonance) was also the perfect excuse to make them more powerful (since you are limited to how many you can use in any given day) so you would track your 3 AWESOME POTIONS instead of 20 crappy situational ones; and things like drinking a Healing Potion in Combat wouldn't be so much of a waste of actions (if it did for once heal more than what ANY enemy in the battle field could damage with half their attacks).

I was so into resonance, that I started homebrewing it in my current campaign, giving players wands and items that all have abilities that cost resonance, so they decide what/how they use them. And I do like having a resource similar to "How many spells do I have left? Do I want to burn one for this?" for all clases.

Then the last 2 Blog Posts happened... What a mess... 3 or 4 new kinds of actions that have never been explained to us and that seem that could be easily replaced with "Somatic, Verbal and Material". If you want to have a "Amazing Opperator" Feat later that removes the Opperation Action from items, you can...

A-freaking-men! It is laughable that they thought this was a good idea!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Except there is no reason for that restriction to be on everyone that is trained to wield massive weapons.... -.-

Except they all are part of an Order that trains them to use those weapons, and Orders have Codes?

How is that hard to wrap one's head around?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
graystone wrote:
Take a 1d4 and put it on 1 when you rage and advance the number as you keep raging: when you flip it to 4 you're fatigued. Seems super simple to track.
Line up 4 shot glasses with spirit of choice...

Line up THREE shot glasses with spirit of choice and one empty, quaff one at the start of each turn of Rage. When you get to the forth glass, get sad because its empty. That's how you know this is your Fatigue round.


Corrik wrote:
With the Lv 15 Legendary stealth feat, you no longer have to tell your DM "Just assume I'm stealthing unless I say otherwise."

Oh wow, so legendary...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If you ask me if you can wear two helmets, I'd rule no (unless you play an ettin, that's it)

I agree with you on everything else, but for this point, let me present you the cervelliere: https://youtu.be/cHRhtshjpHs?t=4m34s


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Strachan Fireblade wrote:
Has it occurred to people that this article has been tempered down to not show off the super human things the rogue can do to avoid early controversy without full understanding of the rules.

Debilitating Strike was pushed to 9th level. So no, that absolutely wasn't even a consideration.

And what kind of insane person was accusing the Fighter of being "too superhuman", given that it takes him 14 levels to learn how to properly use a shield? And even then, he needs to concentrate real hard to not just let it hang in his hand uselessly each turn...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

I'm also a little concerned that some of these abilities sound like they kick in at too-high levels (in part because where will spellcasters be at those levels? probably getting class options that leave the poor Rogue in the dust if it's anything like PF1)

But I guess we'll have to wait and see whether this all feels well balanced in playtesting

Exactly what worries me as well...

Quote:
In addition to dealing extra damage when attacking flat-footed foes, at 9th level the rogue also applies debilitating strikes to such attacks, allowing her to entangle or enfeeble her foes on top of the normal punishment.

Why do they keep putting these kind of cool stuff at high levels? Applying conditions should begin happening at level 3, 5 at absolute most. Like the Fighter's preview, the Rogue's is making me kind of sad with the direction they are going.

Quote:
At 2nd level, a rogue could take Mobility, allowing her to move at half her speed and ignore all sorts of reactions triggered by movement, such as attacks of opportunity.

So Rogues can, by level 2, just do a hard-counter to what they are peddling as one of the defining features of the Fighter? Greeeat...

I'm kinda bummed.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Or they all are Sun/Moon/Earth/trade/whatever gods. Why couldn't multiple deities of the same phenomenon exist?

Well, the question is, how does that work?

Suppose Apollo is angry and wants to take the sun away. Ra doesn't want that to happen. What happens now?

Apollo cast a disc of shadow over the entirety of Greece, turning it into a eternal night, but Egypt is still good and Ra's people is fine.

But then, I don't like the "multiple gods with the same aspect" option. I like the following option more:

- They're the same god, just known by a different name.


Mind Blank + Gentle Riposte. I think this is your best bet.


Huahuaha, great topic. Dotting for the fun.


Doting for future reference.


15. Ifrit (humanoids with efreet ancestry)
55. Gargoyle
25. Vanara (monkey-folk)
85. Darfellan (powerful humanoids with orca-like skin)
35. Nagaji (reptilian humanoids originally created by the naga as a servant race)

Hah! Five races, all of them from a number ended in five! Obviously I'll have to include this number as important in-setting!

I just couldn't find anything about this "Darfellan" race. Going to think more about this and create a setting latter.


Doting for future reference.


Interesting. I'm going to dot this for future reference.


Finn K wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
...was the creation of 'minions', i.e. generic bad guys like goblins or skeletons who have the same AC, attacks, special abilities, etc. of their comrades but only a single hit point. Nothing is more tedius than keeping track of 10 or 12 goblins hit points, having them nicked by a low roll and carrying on.
Minions were done by other games, long before 4E-- so I wouldn't give 4E the credit for that (Mutants & Masterminds, for example-- the mechanics are slightly different, but the bad guy's hordes that go down on the first real hit-- yep, same idea-- and although M&M is the first one that comes to mind, there were other games that had minions too).

7th Sea did minions (called "Brutes") back in the '90s.


DrDeth wrote:

Why isn't Bob's way right?

Maybe because it involved murder?


Hey James, I think you must missed this post:

Tirq wrote:

Bucklers were called the Poor-Man's-Shield, and was used by itself or with a dagger. Someone would ram the edge of the Buckler into the opponents face, with devistating power. Imagine a Boxing Glove made of Steel or hardened leather wide enough to hit both eyes, thin enough to hit precisly where you were aiming it, strong enough to be used repeatedly, and cheap enough to be bought by everyone. If you didn't have a knife on you, you would have a Buckler. Friar Tuck from Robin Hood used a Buckler and deflected his arrows at point blank range.

That is attacking with just a shield. I heard there was evidence of using two Bucklers with a two handed sword, and using two Bucklers at once, but never anything bigger.


A Kodo Beast, of course!


My group once paid a particularly talented bard, specialized in the sublime art of erotic paintings, to do a portrayal of two members of our group in a particular... scene.

What made the prank more funny was that the two players had missed the gaming session where they got drugged by a trap in a dungeon, lost conscience and we had to drag them back to the city. One was a female paladin of Kelemvor (the god of death in Forgotten Realms) and the other a warrior who was a boy of 16. We got the painting, made copies by magic, and when they woke up (in the next gaming session), the paintings where hanged in the entire inn and tavern... Good times.

That may give you an idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you guys also thinks that this last post just cemented AM BARBARIAN victory?

Yeah, I thought so.

Most funny topic EVAH! Team AM for the win!


dot


What Aberrant Templar said. Also, I would suggest taking Furious Focus, if you are going to use the Katana two-handed. It let you have the benefits but none of the penalty of the Power Attack in your first strike.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Do elves move faster if they're in a snit or if they're in a huff?

When I asked that question to my orc-loving friend, he said: "Red 'uns go fasta!" I have no idea what it means.


So... No help?


joeyfixit wrote:
So last night my GM introduced me (out of play) to the spell Feeblemind. I didn't know PF had something so awful as a 5th level spell. After seeing my reaction when I saw what the spell does, GM did a "bwahahahaha" and promised to build a villain around this spell so he could destroy my alchemist with it.

And after that, you punched him in the face and promised to never play in one of his games again, right?


I'm creating this character for a Warcraft campaign of a friend. We are using Pathfinder with 3.5 things allowed on a case by case basis (I'm actually not very interested in using 3.5 stuff, but if there is anything too irresistible to pass...).

My character is a Orc Paladin 3/Cavalier of the Blue Rose 2. I will probably go Cavalier 4 and Paladin the rest of the way. He is focused in using a big hammer-thing from the Warcraft book as a weapon, but I am willing to change if anyone get a better idea.

My stats are: Str 16, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Car 18.

Since Warcraft's orcs get Rage as a racial ability and there is at least one other orc in the party, I took Amplified Rage as the Cavalier Teamwork Feat for the Tactician Ability.

My objective with this character is to represent a wise and older orc, who became sick of a life of bloodshed and is trying to make his race become respected and change their ways. He do this by smacking people's faces with a big hammer causing non-lethal damage. =)

Any ideas, guys? Especially for feats?

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>