Almighty Watashi's page

My alchemist can apply poisons as a swift action. Does this apply to drugs as well?

Also, can I accidentally get high when applying opium to our ranger's arrow?

Apparently he did not get anywhere.

I don't know if it was the problem with that SRD rule that supposedly went "if you switch to 4e, you lose SRD rights to 3e" or what, but it's a terrible shame for all games that Ema provided sheets... um, for

A shame really, as I fail to see how his stuff threatened wotc in any way.

They charge money for their character builder, so I see how somebody would get this "c&d's for everyone" idea :/

I know about the hate towards necromancy, but I just had to bring this up again. Dos anyone know anything about the author(s)? Or the reason why they couldn't continue working with PF material?

I have d20pfsrd.com to replace good old d20srd.org and I would really like ema back, so I could have a fully comfortable 3.75 experience :)

You are not being attacked, that is for sure. :)

Sure you are! With a CLW wand! Except that you're not undead so all that positive energy strikes at your vitals mercilessly healing them!

In case of a real doctor, you're attacked with a scalpel

I hate to be a party pooper, but just pick an AP. Any AP. It's perfect for grindsmen, but they still have excellent stories for those that live to tell them

Books are great during sessions or while at home, but I'm often outside thinking about dnd and I love checking pathfinder data without being charged money for it or having to open huge pdfs. Convenience is a big reason why I prefer wasting money on pathfinder instead of any other system :)

Sory about stretching this discussion, I just tried to check if I missed something or if there's a new "angered" condition I didn't know about. Carry on :)

1) Suprise round: You activate caustic slur as a standard and all creatures of the same type are angered and spend their surprise round to close in on you giving up their cover bonuses to AC.

Sooo... If I'm a ranger and I just won initiative against a whole bunch of favored enemies that can't easily hit me, I'm better off using this feat then, say, shot on the run?

That kinda sounds like a fire mage still learning mostly fire spells while adventuring through hell "in case somebody vulnerable to fire actually shows up". That's not role-playing, that's forcing the DM to put training wheels on hell

And as for descriptive natural language mechanics: Ghost Sound. Do I have rules for what happens when I use that spell ? Are there rules that tell me how shall a monster react to a ghost sound if it fails the save ? It must/can/shouldn't/can't investigate ? It's all down to the DM. Some love such freedom, some - like you - don't, because you want mechanics for everything.

You don't have exact mechanics for prestidigitation or dancing lights either. Those aren't feats, they are 0th level spells :)

If you want to wing it, why do you need a feat anyway? This way it's even worse. I can't be a cool bluffing gnome that angers monsters, noo, now I have to be a ranger and have this extra feat and the monster must be my favored enemy for that. That's even worse. I could go as far as saying that the existence of this feat diminishes role playing

Almighty Watashi wrote:

Tanis wrote:

Almighty Watashi wrote:

Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?

And so you can TWF them with a full attack.

how do I TWF them after a standard action better then TWF-ing them after a move action?

You can't TWF with a standard action. You must have a full-round action to full attack.

rolf, i feel the urge to go through this as many times as needed:

option a)
1) You take a weapon focus or nimble fingers or any feat from phb.
2) You want to attack an enemy with twf?
3) You move towards him
4) YOU ATTACK HIM ONCE
5) he attacks you once
6) you TWF
7) Awesome!

option b)
1) You take caustic slur.
2) You want to attack an enemy with twf?
3) You spend your standard action
4?) YOU DON'T ATTACK HIM AT ALL
5) enemy attacks you once with power attack
6) you TWF
7) Awesome?

Do you notice ANYTHING better with option b? Because, as I said in the begining, any DM would be very happy for a player to grant power attacks to enemies for free. He don't need a feat to do that :D

Almighty Watashi wrote:

Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?

And so you can TWF them with a full attack.

how do I TWF them after a standard action better then TWF-ing them after a move action?

So, it is about wording. I found it strange since I didn't see anything about monsters having to attack me. Just about giving them free power attack against me in case they feel stupid and decide to leave the wizard and walk on on his grease

I may be a noob on rangers, so it may seem as a strange question, but why would I want monsters to attack me so bad that I'd spend a feat to do it?

Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?

I kinda have a feeling that somebody forgot to explain "angered" as a sort of condition, since this just looks like spending a feat and an action to give monsters the power attack so they might possibly attack me, maybe... with power attack

It would be awesome if monsters would take this feat, so the fighter would "maybe miss them" :D

I never noticed the difference between useability of splatbooks in 3.5 or PF. Except that phb2 classes suck even more now, but that got fixed with APG, so I have no complaints. My DM is just as suspicios towards bo9s as he was during 3.5

Hello there. I am only fluent in 3.5 as well as a few dabbling sessions in 2nd edition. I was wondering, from your perspective, how you would compare Pathfinder to 3.5 both in combat mechanics and Character options.

A lot more options. That's the good side and bad side in one. If you're a 3.5 player, you're gonna love PF. New players tend to get scared when trying to play something simple like barbarian and then getting lost in a huge number of rage powers

As for APG, it's like any DnD splatbook - lovely, but use with caution :)

Once you start arguing about milimetars of distance required for AoO, you're gonna start missing the good old grid :D

It's a beautiful book. I just don't understand this feat. Is there something I'm missing or the feat is missing? I just don't get it

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/caustic-slur-general

Why would I want to spend a feat fort my favored enemies to have better damage against me? Couldn't I just ask DM for that without spending a feat? I bet he would be delighted to do that for me

Wording aside, there's no point in making gnomes spend extra feat for using those weapons. If I wanted to play a fighter that uses one of exotic gnome weapons and had to spend a feat in any case, then I'd rather play a dwarf :D

... for the love of all you hold holy, do NOT call any class a thief. Seriously, NO. If you are selling this to kids, then class = thief = licence to steal from other PCs.

Ever tried reading Hobbit?

If we remove the battle grid but include location maps people will want to have a scale and will start measuring distances with some string or a ruler.

Which is just a more complicated, time-consuming version of the battle grid.

Then add a grid. It's not quantum rocketry, especially with basic dnd. Pick a grid. Any grid :)

Also, I recommended this version because it includes rules for ascending AC, since those backwards thac0s are not kid-friendly

I like the idea of psionics. They are awesome! You want fantasy versions of fremen? How about githyanki? Psionics are essential for that. I also always imagined aberration more fitting with psionics then with magics. But that's just me. I'm all hyped for psionics, until I see the ruleset. That kinda turns me away. But still, that's just me.

As for setting restrictions, if somebody still complains about DM banning a something he doesn't like, let me tell you a story. Sadly, it's a true story

Once there was a young DM and he wanted to run Rokugan in dnd. You know Rokugan? Old Japan with samurai, rat-people, elemental priests etc. Everyone was delighted. They always wanted to be in a world full of samurai, ninja, many-tailed foxes or tattooed raging monks

But there was one young player who wanted to play a dark elf with two scimitars

The DM, of course said "No, you can't play a drow in Rokugan. WTF are you thinking?!? Do you even know what Rokugan is?"

And the player said "I know a few things about Rokugan, but I still want to play a dark elf. Can I be a dark elf that was magically teleported to rokugan by accident?"

To that, the DM replied "No, you dumb $%#&t, I don't want dark elves in Rokugan, for the same reason I don't want dwarves, robots, little green men or cowboys"

So the player, wanting to play nothing else but a dark elf, decided against playing Rokugan

Zark wrote:

when is the Paladin is unconscious? - not often. That's pretty much the problem. He seldom or never becomes unconscious.

Hey... When an elf summons an Earth Elemental on top of you and you're at level 5 (To be fair it was a Sorcerer Paladin) bad stuff can happen...

I just got interested in this!

Summon moster 3 can summon an ape which is large... hmmm... Meh, haste is still better

Wild Shape is an alternate system, Lay on Hands/Smite/Detect is an alternate system, Bardic Music is an alternate system, Artificer item creation is an alternate system, invocations, truenaming, pact magic, shadow magic, supernatural abilities. All of these are not Vancian standard.

You forgot barbarian's rage and monk's fury of blows. According to this list, they would also be an alternative system that is not vancian standard :D

And I still don't see why a prayer-powered cleric can be vancian, and a psionic must be alternative

Hardly, CR2 implies it's made for four level 2 characters. Which does change it a great deal. I'm fairly confident the player I had could deal with it, he was competent.

It's made for 4 level 2 characters to kill him easily, by expending only 25% of his resources. He had enough AC (which equals time since we can hit him for only quarter of the time and the lucky blows must bypass the DR) to drop one and infect two characters. He didn't kill us, the wolfsbane did :D

So yes, we love that but we also metagame during combat :D

Which AP was that again? I'll just look at the first encounter.

Kingmaker random encounter appropriate for first level explorers :D

There are enough differences (flavor) between power sources for arcane, divine, psionic, yada, yada, that one system to handle them all should be attainable.

I just wanted to say the same thing. A cleric (a healer of a god) has the same system as a wizard (a heathen killing people with mathematics) as does every other casting class and everyone's okay with that. But a psionic (futuristic crystal-obsessed jedi mind controller) suddenly needs a completely different system because otherwise it's "oh no! he's the same as wizard but with different spells!"

What? I've ran 1 paizo adventure and played in 2 others, the one I ran was completed by a single player. The others I played were easily bested.

How easily did that single player kill a CR2 werewolf in chainmail with AC21? I won't spoil the stronger monsters throughout AP's, but they are notorious for their nasty surprises

I completely understand your point about using fluff controls on crunch problems. It's a crippling weakness when used too often. But in D&D, paladins are the exception that...

Hmm, the forum snipped this quote mid-sentence. Anyway... 3e knight showed us how fluff can nicely be done through the rules. He had a code and it included not getting the flank bonuses and similar limits. If paladin's RAW told us that he can heal others more easily then self, it would make sense, and we would all be like "wow, this is awesome, he is so LG that he can heal others more easily then self". Current RAW, as you describe it, consists of "paladin can heal self more easily then others, but he really shouldn't, probably, I guess". Of course that people can fix any rule in-house, but still...

Almighty Watashi wrote:

That's because my group's characters are awesome :D

Or they are metagaming. I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

We enjoy fighting the merciless tpk-in-a-box paizo adventures, so combat easily becomes a number-crunching boardgame. Hence this thread

Have your players perceived a problem with this?

Not for now. But that's because the player currently playing the paladin is also paladin IRL. We're mostly concerned about rules abuse in later games, so we're looking into options and opinions :)

Almighty Watashi wrote:

Not that the players complain

-I'm gonna die
-You want me to heal you for 3d6?
-No, I want you to kill the %&$&er for 1d8+260!

Your group's characters inhabit a very different world from my group's characters. My group's characters don't know from 1d8+260. They don't know from swift actions. They know that they're holding their entrails inside their bodies with their left hand and the holy warrior standing alongside them could spare a moment to mend their shredded flesh with a laying on of hands.

That's because my group's characters are awesome :D

I'm probably the odd one out here but... your post assumes we have all heard of 0e. I have no idea what that is, do tell?

Here's an OGL remake. Yes, it's clunky, weird and lacks a lot of explanations, but that's how people rolled in the begining:

http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=6

Very rules-light :)

I rarely run, but when I do, I allow just about anything since I always play with same people and I know that they won't try that hard to outdo one another with output. But, if you are concerned about a person abusing the chaos of 3e splatbooks, explain to him that it's not exactly the same system and that his char might get nerfed on the way

Actually, just the fact that he showed up to pathfinder with a weird 3e build is a bit suspicious. Then again, it could have been worse, like, if he came with a gurps character or a borderlands character saved on a usb stick

Not that the players complain
-I'm gonna die
-You want me to heal you for 3d6?
-No, I want you to kill the %&$&er for 1d8+260!

would somebody hate me if I recommended 0e for starting? It's basic dnd with perfect rules for a child to grasp. In a few years, you can easily talk them into playing an actually good game

I am very delighted to hear that because I have too many miniatures and not enough money anyway. Also, who needs more goblin pyros when I got gretchin, lego pirates and a discounted šaman orkov from an unknown russian combat game

dealextreme has some android pads for about $100, but they are awful and slow and have terrible barreries and are awful and I do not recommend them to anyone

Almighty Watashi wrote:

In raw, wizards must offer money and whatnot. Aligned clerics need to just ask for help, since they're powerful clerics of that alignment and everyone in heaven is really impressed

Actually, it's quite the opposite! Clerics need to offer bribes or gifts, arcanists just compel servitude. Bribes or gifts can make it easier, but if you're confident of your charisma or have other methods, they're not required.

I would say that this doesn't make any sense if I wasn't playing this awesome wizard right now

We had a Barbarian/Fighter just like that in Rise of the Runelords, same level distribution. He died in the same fight as the Paladin to a Barbarian BBEG, but not before singlehandedly weakening the boss to the point that the other PCs could pick up the pieces. So in that way, he managed to share glory with the Paladin. How's your group's Barbarian/Fighter built? Ours was a standard 2-hander, though he had a tower shield that he would switch out if necessary.

Are you in canada? Our fighter died so many times that the player moved to canada a few months ago. It might be the same person!

do any of your PCs have stat boost items yet?

We lack the money due to fighter dying a lot

Come to think of it even Good Conjurers should be asking themselves dome hard questions before doing such a thing. Maybe for some short term service in an appropriate cause might be arguable.

In raw, wizards must offer money and whatnot. Aligned clerics need to just ask for help, since they're powerful clerics of that alignment and everyone in heaven is really impressed

I agree there should be some extra work involved, but that could derail the AP

Luckily, PFRPG nerfed summoning HD's from 3.5. I have yet to see how that works out for us. In age of worms 3.5, most of the work was done by Angelica the angel, we gave her some lovely magical equipment, and then stood by and watched her burn stuff with holy anger (yes, I'm exaggerating, but not a lot)

But Kingmaker specifically has safe-guards against this: While exploring, the PCs have a 25%+ chance of a random encounter each night. If the PCs don't get their 8 hours of sleep, they don't restore their spells. and 80% of those wandering monster tables are N animals or N giants... If you have an issue, make this 25% into 40%.

All right, we get to have double lycanthropy :D

Isn't there a goodwin't law against discussing alignments?

What if a caster binds or summons an angel to heal the whole party, at higher level? You ban it because of action economy abuse?

As a caster, I always feel bad about people binding angels. And it's not because of in-game morality :D

As a trained soldier -that is freaking terrible tactics. Bad Guys avoid the enemies strengths and erode his weaknesses.

As a gamer, I'd agree with you. As a gamer playing a wizard, I should ask you politely to stop spreading that, you're gonna get me killed :D

The PF APs I've played usually aren't that slow paced.

In small encounters, nobody notices the paladin since it basically boils down to blasting a few enemies and perhaps one character falling. In any bigger encounter, paladin starts getting massive damage and keeps standing. Everyone else just hides behind him

drop the Cleric

Yes, good luck with that too :D

Tell me at which point did the Paladin achieve some kind of ability that allows him to keep his enemies from walking away from him and eating his buddies, because I am clearly missing something here.

There's the problem! If he really did have that ability, it might fix a few issues

But isn't this sort of the role one expects of paladins? It is just in past editions they were not really able to do so, now in Pathfinder they can actually fill the role that one (well, okay me - can't speak for everyone) sort of expects from paladins in combat.

It's all a very good idea since it reduces the absolute need for clerics. As long as the baddies keep hitting the paladin and as long as he regenerates while hitting, it's like christmas for the whole party

But it is a bit stronger then it should be. Not a huge problem, but it's still a little wtf

I believe that while, say, LoH itself may not be overpowered, and certainly nothing (except Aura of Justice) could even approach the status where it should be called "broken", the net package of Paladin is definitely significantly stronger in Adventure Path games that I have played and GMed (Rise of the Runelords and Council of Thieves) than other non-casters.

Is that a problem?

It's not a world shattering problem. Like I said, in any edition prior to 4e you can play whoever you want without feeling weaker since the classes are so much different. But still, when one melee hitter holds the line while healing up, and the other dies a lot, you either need both of them or just the first one

I don't actually mind that at all, I'm mostly here to enjoy how people zealously defend any bit of PF ruleset, just for the sake of worshiping it. After this dies down, I might try reading up on the slumber hex :D

Point being, that fighter must be played well. Sorry to be harsh, but it's not a class for everyone sometimes.

You're not harsh to me, just to my group's fighter. Next time he plays, I'll force him to become better then the paladin *goes off to practice wedgies and indian burns*

You are still trying to be cool'n'hip without actually proving your statements with any real data.

I'm trying to defend a poor little barbarian that has to get in the front row with awfully low AC. All he has going is damage dealing. If even a fighter beats him at his own thing, something must be terribly wrong with rage