Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
Yes, I can recall the early days of 3.0, and I can remember the either underpowered or overpowered material...but many Third Party publishers for Pathfinder aren't just good now (most of the time), they are amazing!
I would like to direct your attention to this thread as just one example that happened to be up right next to yours while I was browsing.
While the Paizo stuff does have balance issues, admittedly, it's pretty rigorously playtested and then errata'd. The 3PP stuff is...not, in my experience.
Can you kind, dear, sweet messageboard posters please point me to where there is awesome kobold art in the Paizo products?
What I'm aware of so far:
Crown of the Kobold King
Any suggestions on where else to look?
Current statblock is under the spoiler.
I went magus five for two reasons: 1, it allows me access to craft magic arms and armor. 2, it allows me to modify my weapon with damage enhancements through the arcane pool.
The craft feats are to allow me to have significantly better gear than I would otherwise at this level. (DM is fine with us crafting our own starting gear).
Also, this statblock is with smite, smite double damage, and arcane accuracy invoked. There would, ideally, also be improved weapon enhancements and enchantments from the arcane pool.
UNNAMED HERO CR 10
This ability has no effect for a paladin who does not have the smite evil ability. This ability replaces
Hero Lab® and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Very nice. I'm quite liking the Warrior of Holy Light and Oath of Vengence combination.
To answer previous questions:
Standard wealth by level. So, for 11, 82,000.
I'm not really tied to pumping up the magus side. Mostly, I looked at the classes and said, "Which gets what at which level?" So I shot for level three spells. I quite enjoy playing arcane casters, and the level three spells are where the fun really starts. That's really the main reason.
And good point about half-elves. I may do that.
I'll probably rebuild it more paladin focused later and see what I can get out of that.
It's a pretty simple concept: smite and spell combat at the same time.
I'm not worried about eking out every last possible point of statistical combat bonus. I don't want to be gimped in combat, but our party pretty handily takes care of everything the come up against. So not being absolutely optimized is not a problem.
Yeah, I know that going purely one class or the other would give me better numbers, but that's not what I'm after.
I want to stab evil things with divine fire, and then slap them in the face with arcane fire.
So...with that in mind...
Any suggestions on tweaks and feats that can help do that? :D
How do you envision him fighting? Other than strangely.
Under ideal circumstances, with the weapon modified by the arcane pool, using smite evil and spell combat.
Sticking the bad guys with the pointy end of a very large piece of very sharp steel and smacking them in the face with fire.
I'm building a level 11 paladin / magus to replace a dead character. Currently a magus 7 / paladin 4 for access to 3rd level spells.
I'm thinking bastard sword focused.
Human, so 7 feats plus the magus bonus feat.
Currently looking at the concentration tree (combat casting, uncanny concentration, warrior priest) with some crafting feats for better items at wealth by level and weapon focus.
Can anyone suggest an alternate build or a few things to help fill out the build?
Hi PMG and Ross,
Weird messageboard bug I just ran into. There is a post on the messageboards: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/sellingASpellbook
I happened to know of a thread that answered the question in this post, as I started it a couple months ago. However, the current post has the exact same name as the old post. When I go into my posting history and try to link to my old posts...it sends me to that new post above!
Right. I see a lot of tendency for GMs to enact rules unilaterally. They want to run something that is just so, and don't seem to realize that it's going to effect the players. This is a group, cooperative game. You don't GM in a vacuum. If the group doesn't want it, you're just going to disgruntle your players.
Dren Everblack wrote:
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
I don't think I can put this nicely...what he is describing is something that would elicit from me the quote, "Dick move!"
If it's not a rule you would play under, why would you possibly want to institute it?
My personal philosophy on DM'ing is that I run the game the players want to play. Before I start a campaign, we vote on house rules. I tailor encounters to play to their style and their strengths.
My job as a DM is to make the game fun for my players. It is not to impose rules and be a powermonger.
I don't pass down judgement and decision from on high. I'll make a call about something at the moment to make the game keep flowing, but if someone isn't satisfied in the aftermath, we'll talk about it, and the future ruling will be what the group decides. Always remember, though, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
So, yeah...making rules that you wouldn't like on the other side of the fence: not cool, bad DM'ing.
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
May I humbly and respectfully submit that, if your therapy and the content of your weekly gaming session are in conflict, you ought analyze which is more important to you: the recovery you are attempting through your therapy, or the game.
I do not tell you which is important. I am asking you to ask yourself that question.
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
why can't we play children?
Well, as Hama said: children are weak, fragile, and inexperienced. An adventuring party is assumed to be competent and good at what they do.
Think of the average orc versus the average fighter or wizard. Pretty fair fight, yeah?
Think of the average orc versus the average altar boy. Not terribly pretty.
Children are a liability to the party.
With all that said: young template. The rules do support it. However, children do not qualify for any of the PC classes due to age. So, you'd have to have your level 1 (or 0) in an NPC class (I haven't even checked if any of them have minimum starting ages, they might).
If you and your mount both have acrobatics, and you wish to use acrobatics to move through a threatened square: Is it possible to do so? What check do you use?
I can see a couple possible interpretations:
1) You use the mount's check
Does anyone know of anything to support one of these positions? Or have another interpretation?
Actually...I'm pretty sure that the Blessed Book idea would not work, and is designed that way. If you look at all the crafting in Pathfinder, you cannot make a profit on it. By design. You can make something for half the market value, and you can sell it for half market value. Zero sum.
As Sean has stated, the cost of selling a spellbook is half the cost of the spellbook itself and half the cost of inscribing (though, if we're trying to keep this consistently zero sum, it should be half the cost of the spellbook and the full cost of inscribing - so, you're actually losing money crafting a spellbook and selling it [something I'm going to almost certainly house rule back up to zero sum now that I understand where this is all coming from]).
So, for the Blessed Book, it would be half the cost of the Blessed Book, regardless of the number and level of the spells in it. Zero sum. Intentionally. In order to keep adventurers from churning out that much profit in their downtime, to promote them actually going out and adventuring for their riches. You know, playing the game, not sitting in town, being a merchant (that's a valid game, but it's not the focus of this game).
So, there seem to be three schools of thought for what "cost of purchasing" refers to:
1) The cost that a wizard customarily charges to have the spellbook borrowed.
2) Nothing. It's just the inscription cost.
3) The cost of a scroll (possibly sans material components).
Is there anything at all definitive to back up one of these three positions?
Edit: I'm assuming there is nothing definitive. Otherwise, the debate wouldn't have raged and it wouldn't be a 4x flagged FAQ candidate.
It refers to the cost of purchasing a scroll. Basically spellbooks have a "price" equal to the total cost to create them, spell by spell, and a sell value of half that.
The purchasing part does seem like it could be more open to interpretation. Although, right before the Magic chapter explains the cost of inscribing spells, it explains how much to pay a wizard for borrowing their spellbook, so I'm guessing it is referring to that cost.
And that's why I'm asking. Which is it? One of these, or other? (There is a pretty big price difference between the two.)
I'm sure this has been asked before, but:
Pathfinder Core Rulebook wrote:
What does "the cost of purchasing" refer to? The cost of the casting of the spell, the cost of a scroll, or other?
Personally, I have chosen to get married, and honor my vows. But with that said, I fully recognize that in so doing I am fighting tooth and nail against my own biology. I admire the viewpoint that says that doing so is intellectually dishonest (although I'd hope for similar respect from people in the other camp on the grounds of my own position being a relatively herculean task, which it is).
Hmmm...You actually make a very good point, and make me see that my initial statement was too harsh. Considering that you acknowledge it, I would say that you are not dishonest.
What really sets me off is the idea that being in a committed relationship means that you should not have feelings for anyone else, and that if you do, you don't actually love the person you're with.
To give a kind of off-kilter example, House season 1 episode 7 "Fidelity". That episode makes me rage. I appreciate that the writers of the show don't take the "monogamy is good no matter what" line. (For those not familiar: dude finds out dying wife cheated on him due to what medicine worked and left her while she was still in the hospital.)
I understand that some people will choose to fight their own biology to be with someone who desires monogamy. But if you don't understand that it *will* be a fight, then...at best, you're going to have a rough time of it.
For the record: It's not cheating if it's not against the rules. =)
Steven T. Helt wrote:
I'm sorry, Steven, but I have to vehemently disagree with you on this.
An open relationship/marriage is just as valid as as a closed one.
Your vows may say that you do not get to have feelings with anyone else. Mine do not.
Personally, and I know this is a relatively unpopular opinion, I believe that monogamy has a higher tendency to failure due to its contention with human biology. I would not enter into a relationship that is purely monogamous, as I believe that a person who is willing to do so is, at their core, lying to themselves about their feelings and desires.
The point I was making was that you're getting stuck on one word in the name of the item. The text of the item does not in any way restrict the items that may be used in it.
The APG entry for Scabbard of Vigor wrote:
Once per day, as part of the action of drawing forth the weapon held by the scabbard, the wearer can order it to endow the weapon with an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The duration of the effect depends on the desired enhancement bonus for the weapon.
If the item were named the Paperclip of Vigor and had the exact same item and ability text, would you tell me that you could only use it with sheets of paper?
The item text does not say blades only. It says weapon. RAW does not restrict what can go into it.
That's not text for the Scabbard of Vigor. The Scabbard of Vigor very distinctly does *not* specify a bladed weapon.
I think that you are quite limiting yourself by the word scabbard.
Here, let me create you a new magic item, really quick. I promise it's completely balanced.
This item functions just like Scabbard of Vigor, but may explicitly hold any weapon.
There, now it doesn't matter whether the weapon is bladed or not.
I must disagree that a product focusing on a "non-optimized" race is an inferior product. The quality of the product is in the presentation of value of the ideas, not in how min-maxy the race is.
I would *love* to play a goblin. Would it hit as hard as a minotaur? No. Does that make it inferior? Maybe for the way you play, but not for the way I play.
Does that make the product that presents goblins inferior? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
When I was looking at natural attacks for creatures with multiple primary attacks, I couldn't tell how many of these they received at a time.
Do you need to make a full attack to receive multiple primary attacks, or do you receive multiple primaries on any attack? Or is there some other way you receive multiple attacks?
Example, a bear has a bite and two claws. When does it receive them all?
It's not even so much about touch spells. It's the idea that they're inherently designed to be casting in melee. I think that most people who take such a class will be taking combat casting to combat the difficulty of the concentration checks for that in the earlier levels.
Yes, it does interact with oddly with some of the other abilities. But, it stands that it feels like a feat tax right now.
I believe that the magus needs combat casting as a first level bonus feat. Otherwise, it will simply end up being a feat tax that every magus ends up taking. Concentration is truly pivotal to what they do, it seems both necessary and to make sense.
Perhaps second level if first is too early/powerful? But it definitely needs to be there and early.
1) Sure. Can you touch your own shoulder blade? With a tool, that would be even easier. Not saying it would be easy, but sure.
2) Con I would use to determine whether or not he bleeds out from the damage he's doing to himself. Maybe even have him actually roll damage with the knife or what have you. Give the wings a small hp threshold to come off. I would actually use a will save or two to see if he can grit his teeth through the pain.
3) Is he crazy or driven? If it's dementia...maybe. If he's considered and made a decision to do it and has a history of resolve...sure. After a will save or two, maybe one for each wing.
Ok, I lied: I'm not too lazy to find it
I don't have a link handy, as I'm too lazy to look it up, but there's an Order of the Stick that addresses this: statistically, one in twenty rolls is a hit, no matter what. They get so many rolls, they are bound to hit eventually. And enough hits will bring anything down.
You can make hundreds of die rolls if your players really want you to roll every single swing by that zombie horde...or you can let you can give your players a fair swing at a creative escape and play it out cinematically if they don't manage it. That's how I would do it.
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
One of my more jerky DM's turned my alignment evil when I spent a few rounds coup de gracing some lizardfolk that I *really* didn't want getting back up. I'll admit, I was a bit morally ambiguous. But, really, I had just spent the last couple of rounds actively lighting these things on fire and shoving lightning in their...orifices. And suddenly making sure they stay down is evil?
I lay the mini down. I like to keep track of where things happened in case, say, someone wants to go for the sword that guy was holding.
I don't usually treat it as difficult terrain unless the enemy was at least large. If you're watching where you're going, you can easily stop over a body on the floor (or stand on, if you want to, bodies are pretty solid).