AlaskaRPGer's page

Organized Play Member. 198 posts (208 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Least complex character played, in a serious manner - two-handed fighter with the two handed archtype.

I either double moved/ran, single moved and attacked, or full attacked. The rest of the party essentially either healed me, buffed me or restored me. I didn't ask them to, they actually offered to - they were all casters and wanted me to take all the damage, and my character happily would.

My feats were either save-improving, luck improving (the human luck feats), or attack-bonus/damage improving.

My skill points were in perception and Profession (Soldier).

He was LN leaning LG, played like a soldier who lead his squad into battle. He WANTED to be LG, but under the difficulties of war and survival tended to be more practical.

At one time in the game, after I dropped mid-battle, there was a huge tactical effort to get the cleric to my body safely through enemies to cast breath of life on him. It worked, and I stayed prone and killed the enemies around me.

So mechanically, was he simple? Very. Other then for when I needed to re-roll saves, there's no times-per-day abilities, no spells, no temp abilities. Just go up to things and hit them. And it was fun! I've played witches, inquisitors, paladin-monks, sorcerers, wizards, bards...etc...and they were all fun. I knew what I was getting into with my one-trick pony and he was fun to play. Would play again.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So....uh...phonetically and typing-wise, what's the correct way to say and type it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:

if you're helpless, you can't perform a coup de grace

but if you are able to take a full rd action, and not balking at it (some people have mentioned a will ST?), you could perfom a suicide coup de grace on yourself, since you're not resisting... note, I think there are fortitude STss tied to surviving the thing, you can't voluntarily fail those, since will to live is an instinct, and the effectiveness of your attemps can't be assessed as waiving those.

Correct, if he could have completed the CdG, then there's the Fort save vs death, which I would have had him roll.

Kileanna wrote:

I'd rule as Klorox is saying.

By the way, I've been trying my best not to give way to my correcting obsession (specially as, not being a native English speaker I probably need a lot of correction too) but it's too hard to me to resist!!!
Coup de grâce.
I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.

Ah, there's the accent. Thanks, I knew there was an accent but for some reason I thought it was on the last e.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All - in this instance the PC was Warpriest of Naderi (Goddess of Suicides) and was adjacent to a strong enemy that was intending to capture him alive for its own uses (player suspected that enemy had access to Dominate Person).

Player said he'd try to Coup-De-Gras himself.

I ruled that it could work, as you could be voluntarily helpless, even to yourself (Character had previously shown he was looking to go out in a means that would please his goddess.) I tend to rule in the players favor in the heat of the moment to keep the game going, but if I later (after the game) determine I was wrong the next session I let the players know and that my previous ruling was a one-time-only thing.

However, player forgot that a CdG triggers an AOO, and you can be knocked out in the meantime by an AOO.

So by the end of the session, the character tried to kill himself 3 times and failed. Good times.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dotted for pure awesomeness

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unimportant wrote:

Given all the inherent problems with continuing to level spellcasting classes with no spells available past 4th level ones, you may want to consider just going the full Monty and capping *all* classes at, say, 6th to 8th level...

IOW, why reinvent the wheel when "E6/P6" has already been done and hashed out in thorough detail?

Apparently because I forgot about it. http://p6codex.com/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Griffith wrote:
Guys we can stop. The primary question already answered. Thanks.

hehehehe welcome to forums, my friend. Valiant effort.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My advice -

1) Read this guys post about an "unoptimized wizard" and what it can do. Click!

2) Read this about an optimized wizard Click!

3) Put tower in private demiplane that the PCs somehow enter, that prevents summoning, teleporting, or planar binding by people other then him, and prevents summoned, astral projected, or planar creatures from entering.

Go from there.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jasque wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the argument against reading scrolls with darkvision?

Not rules-wise, but old-school-wise, there's an arguement that since darkvision is the replacement for infravision from earlier editions that an only see heat signatures, it should't work.

But this is darkvision, not infravision, so it does work.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChaosTicket wrote:

Heh, when I think about my threads I can usually sum it up in one sentence.

Would you play with me as I am or do I have to change for you?

As a GM I see myself like a host of a party. I create an environment/game and I want my guests/players to have fun. If I notice that they seem more involved in combat, I lean towards that more. If not, then not. I try to be upfront in what I expect in the game, but let the players take the lead in what they actually do.

As long as everyone is having fun, the game is being run correctly.

You don't need to change for me, but if you only like combat (Not saying you said this, this is just a hypothetical) and you are happy to let the others take the lead when it comes to non-combat, I won't force you to do something you don't enjoy to "just get to the good parts". On the other hand, I won't do only combat if the other players and myself want to do some non-combat activities.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am planning to start a game soon and I've asked the players not to look online for information, and I trust they all will respect my request. None of them have played the campaign I plan to run. It's not a GM vs PCs thing, its that I enjoy their surprises and accomplishments. I've given a fairly detailed idea of what the campaign will be (enough that they can make a character without worrying that they will be useless).

In the game I am currently playing, I inadvertently spoiled the campaign twice for myself. Once it was when researching a different game I was running and looking to use a unique creature, and in the wiki it said "it's been featured in the following campaigns..." and it was in the one I was playing. The second time in a game I am a PC I picked up a set of sheets on the floor (helping the DM clean) and happened to see three words (name + template) that ruined a major plot point/mystery for me which I *KNOW* I would have had more fun in the game if I didn't know it. Until the party came to the information naturally, I played a less idea-offering mode then I usually do to not spoil it for everyone else, and when I was asked I always offered ideas away from the truth, to not even mistakenly ruin it. It was worth it when we did find out. The players all had lots of fun.

If someone did know specifics of the game I am going to run, I would like to know, so I can change things up to give them more fun quite frankly. I don't know about you, but if my fave books had a "alternate scenarios" button so when I re-read it I DID NOT know what would happen, I would enjoy re-reading it more.

It's more fun gaming when no one knows the outcome. The players don't know all the answers, and the GM doesn't know what the players are going to do. Otherwise, in my experience, it's less enjoyable for all involved. Again, that's my experience.

Edited for clarity.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Veilgn wrote:

Its not I wanted them to work hard and whip all day. I will give em some good meal and sometimes wine (for cayden). Even gives them a clothes. I never told them to fight. Only tend wound, somwtimes tell them to give some buff so I will not waste my spell slot.

I could make them making magic weapon for me too. And I even give em sone vacation....

In the end I need slave :(

But I make a promise if the story/campain/module end I give em a freedom if he like it. Or he could follow.

I swear I will not treat them like slave traders.

If u didnt buy slave. Who know that he will got evil masters ?

To agree with all the above, this might work:

1) Buy slave
2) Tell them "Hey, you're a free person now. If you'd like, you can join me. I need help to do this stuff, and I'll employ you. I will never ask you to fight or break your own ethics, and I will pay you. I will look out for your safety. You can quit at any time, and I will treat you with respect."
3) Be not evil!

Arguably what you're looking for isn't a slave, it's a hireling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berinor wrote:
AlaskaRPGer wrote:

Thanks to all for the link!

How did people know about it other then opening each product page? I checked the blogs and no indication.

I got an email:

notification email wrote:

We have updated the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Equipment (OGL) PDF to reflect the changes made for the second printing of the hardcover edition. You may download a full listing of the changes by downloading the Errata document from the product page.

If you wish to download the updated version, you may do so for free at http://paizo.com/paizo/account/assets.

You have received this email because your paizo.com account settings allow sending you notifications about updates to your digital assets.

Ahhhhh.....Ok! Thanks!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks to all for the link!

How did people know about it other then opening each product page? I checked the blogs and no indication.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:
The recent Ultimate equipment errata made me sad.


http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gg --> Last updated: October 23, 2015.

Am....am I missing something?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Girken wrote:

As the GM, is it really my job after that to say "your god will punish you if you advocate worshiping other gods ESPECIALLY as a means of controlling people." that seems as odd as me saying "Watch out for that trap." to a rogue.

The issue is that these kind of things can be judgement calls and aren't objective.

We can all agree that "Spiked Pit - CR2" Is a trap. And not spying a trap doesn't result in losing your class abilities.

We may not all agree that what the character is doing is not something Sarenrae supports.

Personally, if I was in your place and felt that Sarenrae didn't approve, I'd have the PC dream, and describe the dream as an omen - like "sun permanently set on the slaves" or something else Sarenrae-ish.

Girken wrote:

Really? I mean, he has no guarantee that the rebellion will succeed. And stated that his character believes that this religious control is the way to go - so at the very least isn't he advocating religious dominion?
It just feels to me like the buying time excuse would be fine if he was stalling with sermons or just being chatty or lying but giving the bad guy a better way to...

Maybe he gets a dream from Asmodeous tempting him with power then....

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ralphie O'Reilly wrote:

From what I've seen, women approach the game differently than men. Men often jump right in with confidence that they can learn all the rules, while women have more trepidation and/or want to dip their toes into PF, rather than learning all the pages and pages of rules. Sometimes the GM's instinct---and I have been guilty of this---is to chastise a player for not speaking up. "You didn't talk, so you can't make the diplomacy check." In general a better solution would be to figure out a way to include the player and have her be more involved. Though, really, this advice could apply to any player less apt to speak at the table.

I found this to be 100% accurate for my wife. She's always worried about making mistakes, let it be rolling the wrong dice, or "doing the wrong thing". The thing is she is an *AMAZING* roleplayer, and we all want her to play. So we told her that there's no wrong questions, always ask, and don't worry about making mistakes. Just say what you want to do and the party and DM will figure out how to do it. The rules are just the means, not the end, after all. Now I think this is more to the fact that she's not mathematically inclined and doesn't get enjoyment out of learning the fine details of the rules then any gender thing. I'd say the same thing to anyone regardless of their gender if they don't want to deal with the minutia of the rules.


I had this problem with my last group, until I finally sat down and talked with the GM. He revealed he had been taught that the old idea women must be protected was sexist, so he wasn't helping me in this context because he thought I could protect myself. I finally had to explain to him that what was sexist is protecting me more than he would any man. Protect me the same amount and it's fine. The problem player was ejected the next week and he...

I have been lucky that the only people invited to the games I play with my wife don't have that attitude. The only thing I was very careful about was not favoring - or overly disfavoring - her when I was DMing. The only time I admitting to favoring her is when - in character and in RL - she was brought to tears when a beloved NPC was on deaths door due to story and plot reasons. I was going to kill him off, but due to her efforts I let the party keep him alive and perform quests to cure/heal him. It made the story better, and I didn't have to sleep on the couch.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Only if the Paladin did something really, really bad. Like not saving the goblin babies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:

I'm about to say something that most people on this board hate: As GM you have to right to say no. Even if a player brings a a perfectly rules legal character to the table, you can tell that player "That's not going to work for my game". You have that control as the GM. The players either accept that you're doing it so everyone enjoys the game more, or they don't, in which case, find better players that will trust you as a GM.

Is that really contentious here? it's part of the "social agreement" that's implied when gaming, is it not?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...I'm on the latest version of FireFox and the forum looks exactly the same to me, FAQ buttons and all. I just had to hit the flatted/extend button and it went back to how it used to look...

....aaaaaaaand after I hit reply the "FAQ" buttons vanished. Ok that's odd.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

I'm all intimidated, now! I couldn't possibly! (But maybe. Just not right now...)

EDIT: No, for real, it's not because I'm intimidated. I mean, I am, but mostly I'm daunted by the size, rather than the project itself. And really, it's the size that would be the problem in doing it right now. What I'm trying to say is I don't have time at this point... aaaaaaaaaaaaand I spent a lot of words doing that. Sigh. I can quit any time I want! Any time I wwaaaaaaannnnnntttt~! >.>

No rush.

FYI, I printed off Hama's list and put it inside my Inner Sea World Guide book. You too can have your stuff printed (I actually likely will print your stuff you wrote and put in in the ISWG or one of the Chronicles books).

So no pressure either.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Yeah, Toril's history and Golarion's have some similarities to them. Some things that just kind of happened way back when in Toril are actually still-relevant things in Golarion and some still-relevant things from Toril just aren't really in Golarion; and vice-verse.

I heart me some Forgotten Realms (like, a lot), but I also really enjoy Golarion.

For some reason the FR world always felt more of a "made up as we go along" and less coherent, while Golarian feels more...uh.....natural? With less Mary Sues? However, I really read into FR in my teens and now really reading Golarian in my 30s, so it might be a case of my thinking more then the actual writing/designing.

Also, for a "Quick-Version" of the Inner-Sea World, see this thread: Here!

Tacticslion, if you want to do something similar to what Hama did for the Golarian Gods or the Outsiders, I promise to read it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chris settlemoir wrote:
Do they stat out their gods do the have an epic book or anyhow like the world's largest town or dungeons books

To add to what's already been said, there's a lot of 3rd party support to PF. Rappan Athuk can easily be plunked into Golarian, just to give one example.

Tacticslion wrote:

Golarion is a very coherent setting (for a given understanding of "coherent") and has more ancient lore than you can shake a stick at....

That is a really good summary. Kudos to you Tacticslion.

I played DnD 2ed, 3.X ed, and 5th along with PF. I find that Golarian is "cleaned up" Toril, and while I love the PlaneScape multiverse, the Outer Planes of PF have a unique and interesting feel to them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sam Calinean wrote:

I have played this archatype more than any other. Let me say that this archatype is pretty much one of the best buffers in the game when combined with drunken master.

Unlimited true strike for everyone!
Unlimited breath weapons!

Its just unlimited ki with the ability to give non monk classes ki powers.

Would you say it's.....sensaitional?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I once saw a mythic gunslinger who could solo Cthulhu in one round. It was disgusting.

A non mythic wizard can do this, it isn't that special.

Mythic is super broken though, yeah.

Mythic time stop is just so dumb omg. What do you even do for 20 hours of time stop???

Maybe you have surprise guests and need to clean your tower and do laundry?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:

love this, +1 for you

edit: you forgot to do one for the Mana Wastes

I think this one is the Mana Wastes

Shhh, don't tell the DM, but we snuck a bunch of guns into his campaign setting....

1 person marked this as a favorite.

....I wish the team that made PoE would get the Pathfinder license and make a game using the PoE mechanics. I am playing it now, and while I am enjoying it - game wise and story wise (It really is an upgraded Baulder's Gate!), and the visuals are great, I wish I could play Pathfinder that way too. Heck, just turn APs into modules for DLC.

Ah, a man can dream, can't he?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
nosig wrote:

Someone comes to the board and asks a question, something he wants to do but doesn't know if the rules will allow it.

and get's told "You can't do that!"

...but then other posters come on to say "but let's see if we can come up with some way in the rules to let you do something like it... see how close we can get you to what you want to do."

Thanks... this made me feel better about PFS.

And it's comments like this that make my opinion of certain posters go down.

If you're going to quote someone, quote someone. Don't interject words or tone where none were to begin with.

"Don't be a jerk" isn't just for during gameplay.

Nefreet, I think quite the opposite occurred. nosig stated that he likes that this occurred:

1) OP wants to do something, asks if it's possible.
2) People respond (initially) "Nope, sorry".
3) People then respond "...but, lets see how close we can get to what you want to do!"

That's a good thing man.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
XLordxErebusX wrote:

Lovecraft had psychological horror down to a science.


I like Lovecraft as much as the next geek. But he was never that great.

He was great in world building, but I prefer other writers writing in his world.

Kinda like how people enjoy Pathfinder, but prefer the 3PP stuff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1 to the above, and in addition.....

If you can answer "yes" to the question "Is everyone having fun, myself included?" then you're doing it right, regardless of anything else.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I vastly prefer Spontaneous to Prepared casters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

(doing my best Mr Plinkett voice) ....what's it with Ricks?

Sorry, I had to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Defiance_v wrote:

Yeah, my bad as well -- I wasn't entirely clear from the beginning. The class does appear to have its benefits; Prehensile Hair will allow a secondary ability to melee if need be. Perhaps breaking grapples if need be?

Don't bother with the hair, it's a trap (mechanically speaking). You don't care being in a grapple, you can hex them all you want (Grapple doesn't interfere with hexes), and you have high HP. They grapple you, you put them to sleep/agony...etc.

Defiance_v wrote:

I've read a good number of the guides already; most of them point to being an amazing debuffer and controller.

Exactly. You will excel dealing with individual or small # of tough enemies. You will depend on your spells to deal with large quantity of smaller enemies, or swarms.

Defiance_v wrote:

Would the Orc feats of Orc ferocity and Ferocious Resolve help or hinder as compared to the Shaman's Apprentice and Sacred Tattoo suggestions?

Take Sacred Tattoo. The plusses to saves are a godsend, and can mean the difference between life or death. I don't find ferocity and the like to be helpful as a PC - actually lead to one death of a fellow player who was a paladin. If he dropped @ zero, the baddy would have left him alone. But we was up and took the next attack....of course, YMMV.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berti Blackfoot wrote:

I actually sent out hints to players before they rolled up characters, told them which skills would matter (as in, we never use swim but in my campaign there will be swim checks) and which terrain and monster types would be most prevalent for favored ** choices. I even gave them copies of relevant pages from Golarion books (which no one has since we used to play in Faerun).

Of course only two of five people read it but hey I tried and kept reminding them.

I think that's a fair approach. In the games I play and run, I get/give a heads up on the expected terrain, and campaign concept (planar/underground/aquatic...etc). Doesn't mean 100% only that, but I don't want them to feel like they've been screwed over by the DM purposely.

I also let them retool their characters 2 sessions in if a certain feat/skill/spell/ability doesn't do what they think.

As for "falling Paladins", or alignment stuff.....I don't like it being a sudden thing. I tell the character that they feel their moral compass shifting...etc. That way it's a heads up, but not adversarial.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HoneyBadger92 wrote:

My group recently started a a new campaign together and so far everything is going fine, the group is awesome and

So here i am asking this question, how do you defeat a skill monkey rogue without killing him?

I hope this can be resolved - lots of good advice. I thankfully haven't had anything like this at all in any of my games, DM or player!

Please keep us updated!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Illeist wrote:

The most useless spell is, without a doubt, malfunction, from Ultimate Magic. Let's just run down the list here:

-It's from the "transformation" school.
-Though it only targets constructs, it grants a Fortitude save, which constructs are immune to (except from effects that affect objects, which the spell does not).
-It allows spell resistance, and a good number of constructs are immune to magic.
-It's a 4th level spell that duplicates a 1st level spell (lesser confusion), except it only works against one creature type, targets that type's best saving throw, and lasts slightly longer.

Wow. That is horrible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5 Had a cool book for fluff for the undead


Remember, the scariest thing in any adventure is a prepared enemy. And liches (as previously mentioned) are likely *very* prepared. Think like a PC - if you knew for a fact if a group of people whose life purpose is to destroy your kind, and you knew they were coming for you, what would you do?

Creating magical items
Creating mundane traps (lead is wonderful)
Researching spells that harm others uniquely
Having minions who do the dirty work for you - not created undead, but those who work for you for money/power/fear...etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

If they'd called it Tzabaoth, changed the writeup slightly, and NOT PUT HEBREW ON THE CHESTPLATE it would probably have been obscure enough to fly under most people's radar.

To be fair, the Hebrew on the chest plate is just saying "Elohim" on one side, and the letters are mirrored on the other side.

*Why* it needs it's (race's?) name on its clothing is a different question altogether.

There's an added fun bit: in Jewish belief, writing one of Gods names in Hebrew on a paper makes it sacrosanct, and as such the entire book is considered holy and should not be mistreated or destroyed.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
You're not actually supposed to win against Cthulu.


You're supposed to prevent his coming, not fight him.

Claxon wrote:
Also, if you seriously want a chance at winning you're supposed to have mythic tiers. And mythic changes everything.

I have zero experience with Mythic, so I can't advise here.