Radi Hamdi

Apethae's page

Organized Play Member. 97 posts (211 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Brian E. Harris wrote:

Problem there is that you now have two lines of minis.

By having a single line of blind-packaged minis, the lesser-desired minis can be subsidized by the others.

I was suggesting it as a halfway point between totally blind and pick-and-choose. As there are two classes of purchasers here (ones that GM and ones that don't) I'd hope there'd be enough business within each to subsidize the unpopular options for both monsters and humanoids.

Brian E. Harris wrote:


As you mentioned further down, WotC already did this. It didn't work out well, because nobody wanted to buy a bunch of unicorns, and dealers were stuck with them.

When WotC released the Legendary Evils set, the fastest selling boosters were the Elder Iron Dragon and the Elder Green Dragon.

The Balor was also pretty popular.

The huge Remorhaz? The huge Goristro? Not so much.

I think you give WotC too much credit and the buyers not enough. In my mind the reason for the poor performance of their line had everything to do with their choice of minis and less to do with buyers getting tired of 'too many orcs' or what have you. In my experience, over the several campaigns I've been in where minis were used extensively, we often wanted for more variety among 'stock' foes (something to differentiate the tough orc sergeant from his ten run of the mill buddies, or the archers from the falchion-wielding marauders) than we did for unusual/novel monsters. WotC's earlier runs (Dragoneye, Archfiends, Giants of Legend, etc) were chock full of iconic D&D villains and humanoids that, even if they represented a particular type of character from a particular setting, could easily be adapted to other uses. As time went on, though, they increasingly chose to release things like:

* Crownwings
* Astral Hunters
* Kenku
* Manshoon
* Neogi
* Shardminds
* Swordwings
* Xeph
* Foulspawn
* Banshrae
* Kruthik
* Aforementioned spotted unicorn (their second unicorn in the series, btw)
How many of those have you run into in a campaign? I can't say I've ever seen, let alone heard of or read about, a single one. I don't know if they were trying to push sales of Monster Manuals with the minis or just had an overblown opinion of how popular these monsters were, but I'd honestly rather have more orcs, gnolls, etc.
So, blind pack monsters - sure. But a large part of WoTC's failure in this line is that a large portion of their monsters were crap.

Edit - The Players Handbook Heroes is a good case in point. They seemed so intent on pimping their 'new' races and classes (how many dragonborn do we need, honestly) they neglected more variety for iconic options like elven rangers, human fighters etc.

Liberty's Edge

I would be much better able to deal with with blind packaging if it were split into 'Random Monsters' and 'Random Humanoid Adversaries and/or Player Characters' - as it is now, I (as a non-DM) buy a bunch of WoTC boxes, pick out the ones that might make a cool mini for a PC or an animal companion/summoned minion, and end up giving or trading the rest to my GM.

Our gaming group just pooled together to buy two cases of the Lord of Madness series to do a draft on, since they're being discontinued... GM's about to make a killing. :3

Anyways, hope Reaper/Asylum has some luck with the Legendary Encounters line; we bought some of their stuff, but the variety is somewhat lacking at present. Hopefully success will breed more options.

Liberty's Edge

I don't have my PFRPG book with me, but the d20pfsrd will do in a pinch:

PF SRD wrote:
For example, let's say a 5th-level fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, and adds one level of wizard when he advances to 6th level. Such a character would have the powers and abilities of both a 5th-level fighter and a 1st-level wizard, but would still be considered a 6th-level character. (His class levels would be 5th and 1st, but his total character level is 6th.) He keeps all of his bonus feats gained from 5 levels of fighter, but can now also cast 1st-level spells and picks an arcane school. He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained from being a 5th-level fighter.

Notice it says '5th level fighter and a 1st level wizard', not '6th level fighter and a 6th level wizard'. There's also a section in the PFRPG that explicitly spells out class levels vs overall level and the powers that derive from each. Dig around the character advancement section just before the classes start and you'll find it.

Liberty's Edge

matthew scoppetta wrote:


i was one of those completists that had to have every figure and a few doubles of some of the better one, now sadly my collection of plastic sit in my closet, looking for something better then to die the death of recycling. well at least i wont have to shell out dubious amounts of money tracking down rare figures or buying endles pack to finish a collection... now i just need to find a good home for them.

I seriously doubt you'll have trouble finding them a home now that they've been dicontinued.

Liberty's Edge

Ha! Greater Aspect/Aspect/Large & Huge evolutions has me thinking of Paul Bunyan & Babe the Blue Ox. How long before someone tries to couple those with Enlarge Person, though? Scary. O_o

Liberty's Edge

malebranche wrote:


4) More sorcerer bloodlines. One can never have too many sorcerer bloodlines. How about rakshasa-blooded or daemon-blooded?

Slight threadjack, but KQ did a good writeup of a rakshasa bloodline that I've used for another character to good effect (.user file here for HL).

Liberty's Edge

gbonehead wrote:

Anyone have a good handle on speed?

I currently use PCGen, but on my laptop, PCGen is very slow. My laptop is a couple of years old, but I won't be replacing it until it goes to the big scrap heap in the sky.

Any chance that HL is any faster?

I've used HL on two systems; one was a first generation HP netbook with a VIA processor and truly terrible S3 Savage graphics. HL ran OK on this - not super snappy, and there were one or two things that took a noticeable delay to process (like adding a familiar or animal companion). However, this system is probably slower than a 2 year old laptop (it could not even run Flash video such as Youtube without stuttering).

On my current (2010) laptop it runs very, very fast. I have not, unfortunately, tried PCGen on this machine, so I don't have a direct comparison to relate. A large part of PCGen's sluggishness (when last I used it) was due to Java, though, and this hasn't really changed much outside the browser over the last couple years.
If I get a chance I'll throw PCGen on here and let you know.

Liberty's Edge

Uh... wow. That got a lot more contentious than I thought it would.

Zurai wrote:
Incorrect. The percentage of reality varies by spell. Some of them are 90% effective even on a successful Will save; that's hardly "mostly fake". Furthermore, the rules simply say that if you have proof that the spell is not real; that is impossible for shadow spells because even 1% real is enough to disprove that the effect isn't real.

Based on this I looked up the Greater version of Shadow Evocation, Zurai, and I think the text there puts a hole in your point.

Shadow Evocation, Greater wrote:
This spell functions like shadow evocation, except that it enables you to create partially real, illusory versions of sorcerer or wizard evocation spells of 7th level or lower. If recognized as a greater shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only three-fifths (60%) damage.

The caster is always going to recognize the evocation as a shadow evocation, because s/he's casting it. If s/he couldn't recognize spells as illusions while they're being cast, they couldn't very well direct a figment like a major image - because they'd forget it was a figment once it appeared. Thus only the 'real' portion (the percentage that's energy from the plane of shadow) of a shadow evocation applies to him/her. The stuff that's just fantasy can be disregarded.

Liberty's Edge

Shadow Evocation allows its caster to duplicate any sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower. If one uses Shadow Evocation to duplicate the spell Detonate, does the caster get to disbelieve his own effect automatically (he 'knows', in the layman's sense, it's not real) or does he have to make a Will save?

Detonate wrote:

You flood yourself with a potent surge of elemental energy.

One round after completing the casting of the spell, the energy explodes from your body.

When this spell creates the explosion of energy, choose one of the following four energy types: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. The explosion inflicts 1d8 points of damage of that energy type per caster level (maximum 10d8) to all creatures and unattended objects within 15 feet, and half that amount to targets past 15 feet but within 30 feet. You automatically take half damage from the explosion, without a saving throw, but any other energy resistance or energy immunity effects you may have in place can prevent or lessen this overflow damage caused by the explosion.

IE in the case of a Shadow Evocation mimicking Detonate, does the caster automatically take 1/5 of 1/2 the total damage, or have to make a Will save for this?

Liberty's Edge

Joseph Caubo wrote:


I'm sad that you can't be an actual Paladin of Aroden and still get spells.

Technically paladins don't draw their spells directly from a specific deity, so this isn't necessarily true as long as you don't take the sacred servant archetype.

Liberty's Edge

Our Golarion campaign consists of:
- Emilio, Human Two-Weapon Warrior Fighter. The most optimized character of the bunch, he specializes in damage output via shortswords (wields a sunblade and an artifact shortsword). Ran an abolitionist society out of Galt for a while, currently our 'fearless leader' after the last one got 'et by an avatar of Rovagug (yes we use the air quotes - poor bastard is usually our scapegoat). Leans towards a mobility fighter, so tends to dance back and forth between the front line and the flanks.
- Hargar, Dwarven Monk of the Four Winds. Over 2000 years old (chronologically) via some planar time-flux, he doesn't have as much in common with modern-day dwarves as he'd like, so he sticks with us and serves as the group's token grumpy old man. Has an awesome CMB and CMD; unfortunately his player has the worst luck any of us have ever seen (as another character, he once managed to critically fumble with a bow 3x in a single session - actually, 3 bows since he kept flinging them off the side of mountains in the process). So of course he decided to play a monk, a class with a ton of rolls with low to-hit bonuses. Flurry of misses indeed. Tends to stay on the front lines to save Emilio and Gallus from the many grappling foes the GM throws at us.
- Bane, a Half-Elf Skirmisher Ranger from Andoran. Too new to the party to know much about his character, other than that he works for the Andoran Twilight Talons, is unfailingly pessimistic, is extremely annoyed by elves, and is accompanied by a black leopard that has survived some extremely improbable odds time and time again (seriously, our GM can't kill this thing). His player has a bit of character ADD; this is his third (first turned on the party and was cut down by Emilio, second player abandoned because playing a full caster was too complex). Generally provides artillery support from the rear with his oath bow.
- Shahasra, a Human Cleric of Sivanah from Cheliax. She was a childhood friend of the party's original leader Layth (deceased Aasimar Inquisitor of Sarenrae) and is a close friend of Darien (below). Was our primary healer and collector of cute little fuzzy things until she elected to stay behind in Absalom to assist a slave revolt we incited there. Player's currently deliberating as to a new character. Also has a bit of character ADD.
- Darien, Human Universalist Wizard/Lorekeeper, Absalom fashion plate, party brain trust, and flaaaamingly gay playboy, a DMPC. Was originally meant to be a plot device to get Shahasra together with the party, later lived on once our Inquisitor died and the GM realized we didn't have enough Knowledge skills between us to figure out half of the plot. Has 8's or 9's in both Strength and Constitution, so most of the time is on the ground at the middle of the party as we desperately try to keep him from going to -9 HP. Occasionally he stands up long enough to cast some spell that rends the fabric of the universe and makes us all go 'oooh'.
- Gammon, Human Cleric of Abadar, another DMPC (probably temporary). Darien's latest fling and our current healbot until Darien tires of him.
- Gallus Leonis, Human Rogue (Scout)/Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager)/Chevalier (Cayden Cailean's paladin-esque PrC). A minor Taldan noble with an anger management problem, spent some time in Casomiran prison before ending up in the same extradimensional jail that Hargar was rotting in for 2000 years (though by their perspective it was 2 and 20, respectively). Usually drunk. For a barbarian, mostly focused on damage output, but his high HP means he's also the party's tank (through attrition, thanks to his low AC). Swings an artifact sword he stole from the 'King of the Trolls' and hates giants who keep trying to steal it back. Always charges.

Obviously we need more casters/healers, but people keep starting them and then tiring of them. Sigh.

Liberty's Edge

I have a barb 6 (invulnerable rager) / rogue 4 (scout) who works pretty well... gets sneak attack damage on a charge, and when he hits the end of the Beast Totem chain he'll have pounce for full attacks on the end of charges. Pretty good for a first strike (especially since sneak attack can now potentially be applied to every attack in the full attack).

Another possibility is rogue (thug); combined with feats like Cornugon Smash or rage powers like Intimidating Glare and the Howl one you can potentially inflict Frightened status, which isn't easy to do with most forms of demoralize attacks. High strength plus the Intimidating Prowess feat makes this even more likely.

Liberty's Edge

Kender are Epic Trolls (see: this thread) with the Young template. They have a racial talent for sensing the insecurities and sore nerves of their opponents and using this information to cause Internet Drama.

Liberty's Edge

No go on the ogrekin from your other thread, huh?
Honestly dude other than the 1/2 CR races - and even these are generally only available if the GM thinks it'll balance with the party - there's not much you'll find in the bestiaries that's suitable for a PC. It's designed as a resource for DM's to draw NPCs from. The only templates commonly applicable to PCs are the age-based ones.

Liberty's Edge

memorax wrote:


More books does not automatically = bad.

More books in the same time period significantly reduces the chance of good, though.

memorax wrote:


Paizo for all thei talk of being freindly with 3pp really does not want you to buy from them. Why would they your buying the competition product. Friendly competitor but a competitor nonetheless. And really they should offer as much if not more than 3pp in house. Wotc created Paizo with the OGL. Paizo should encourage 3pp not create a potential cmpetitor. Of course this does not have to be all done right now this instant. They should make plans to develop psionics, epic play. Alternatiove race books and anything else that 3.5 offered that for the moment they do not have. Paizo has to push their products first. 3pp last.

This is heading out a bit on a tangent, but I think you are missing the point here. Paizo has to weigh cost vs benefit on every product they release. Psionics, epic play, a tome of assorted exotic races, these are things that not every gamer who bought the core rules is going to want. They are niche. They are risky. They may sell some, they may sell not at all. They are the *perfect* thing for Paizo to let 3PP take on, because if they fail, it's no skin of their back, and if they succeed, the 'Pathfinder Compatible' logo on the cover provides some incidental benefit to Paizo. And if 3PP Expansion Product X is a runaway success, they can always pull a Microsoft and fold an 'official' version of the expanded rules into the core product - the 3PP has already done all the playtesting for them, and nothing outsells Brand Y like an 'official' edition (I don't really think Paizo would do this, just mentioning for the sake of argument).

Put another way: What sells more, a PHB2-type product, or a Expanded Psionics handbook?

memorax wrote:
So far they have done an excellant job and really it kind of mystifies me that fans would automatically assume that more books by Paizo would make Paizo somehow incompetant in that regard all of sudden. I can understand posters not wanting to buy or invest in more books. To use the argument that more books would automatically mean a drop in quality in both books and staff output is just an excuse imo for not wanting to purchase more books.

I would love to buy more books, particularly more books I would enjoy reading and would use in play. This grab bag of PC races isn't one of them. Rather than (IMO) waste time on a book I'm not likely to crack the cover on, I'd rather they release something like the APG again, but more awesome. It's purely selfish, I know. I'm not even sure why I'm debating it at this point. LOUD NOISES!

Liberty's Edge

memorax wrote:

I think a better reason needs to be found for not doing a races book because some posters were in a game or witnessed a game that had too many non-standard player races.

...
To be honest I always thought the developers wanting to keep level of rules bloat down admirable yet at the same time naive. Eventually you cannot keep that from happening. As more and more releases for Pathinder and Pathfinder 3pp continues you will get more and more rules. It's inevitable.

It's funny reading about how poster accuse Wotc of ding so with 3.5 when they convientlly forget that like Pathfinder they started with a few books and more were added. It's not like they woke up one day and decided to release 3.5 with the intention of rules bloat happening. It happen with all rpgs and rpg companies. No matter how much you like Pathfinder and Paizo. Their not immune to that imo

a) Power creep. Dilution of developer effort and subsequent suffering in quality of output. Some people prefer a deep and narrow focus to shallow and broad. Etc.

b) Even if you believe it to be so, inevitable failure doesn't necessary mean they should stop trying and start churning out the endless stream of splatbooks WoTC foisted on us.
c) The problem many people have with WoTC, myself included, is not that they released 'more and more' books, but that they released 'crappier and crappier' books over time. Paizo's done a good job of sticking to their guns, not trying to cater to everyone in an equally mediocre fashion, and releasing quality product year after year. If they do decide to do an alt races book, I hope they do it to the hilt, but honestly I'd rather see more about what's already on the books than yet another version of the sea elf.

In my own view, Paizo's staff has a finite amount of output for a given month. While I'm not a fan of a menagerie of PC races book, personally, if they have time to do it - great. Pathfinder's still in sort of a young game, though, and there are much more important things I'd like to see them concentrate their talents on (such as fixing magic items & crafting, patching up some of the holes in the ruleset, and exorcising some of the more broken aspects of 3.5). So, no, opposition to a new Savage Species isn't entirely because 'some posters were in a game or witnessed a game that had too many non-standard player races'.

Liberty's Edge

I wonder if it wouldn't be more streamlined just to ignore the diagonal distance rules for movement and reach (make diagonals count the same as laterals) via houserule. Less math, more fun. Keep them for AoE for spells and whatnot. Any glaring, game breaking flaws in that plan I'm missing?

Liberty's Edge

Rellen wrote:
My interpretation is that when it says destroyed instead of being suppressed it is referring to the results on a failed save that is not a natural 1 - where the item is suppressed.

Why then would an artifact (which is generally a very, very powerful magic item) be destroyed (the 1% per level chance seeming to function in place of the chance of the artifact rolling a 1 on its save) when disjointed when a lesser magic item would not?

Liberty's Edge

Erik Mona wrote:

Yeah, Iomedae is in no way evil. Heck, everyone dings us for not having enough good guys in the setting, and she is one of the goodest! Don't take her away from us, I beg you!

Hey man, I love that you guys have very few good guys in the setting. *big fuzzy hugs*

I played the Conan RPG and liked it! All gods are false gods! Abandon hope! Fiddle while the world burns! Woo hoo!

Liberty's Edge

Rellen wrote:

When an item is destroyed by Mage's Disjunction, by rolling a natural 1, what does this mean exactly? My interpretation was it was simply a way to differentiate between items that were having their magic suppressed and those that have had their magic completely removed. Others in one of my group believe it means the item crumbles to dust or is otherwise physically destroyed as well. I can see how it would be interpreted that way from the wording.

To me this later ruling would seem very odd for an abjuration which otherwise does no physical damage. So what do you think? If I have a +5 Shield that gets "destroyed" by Mage's Disjunction am I holding a MW shield or is there a pile of dust on the floor? or something else entirely.

Mage's Disjunction wrote:

All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are unraveled and destroyed completely (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item for the duration of this spell. An item in a creature's possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor's Will save bonus, whichever is higher. If an item's saving throw results in a natural 1 on the die, the item is destroyed instead of being suppressed.

You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

You can also use this spell to target a single item. The item gets a Will save at a -5 penalty to avoid being permanently destroyed. Even artifacts are subject to mage's disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. If successful, the artifact's power unravels, and it is destroyed (with no save). If an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. These abilities cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish. Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device.

The wording is a bit all over the map here, but I think the opinion of your group is the right one in this instance. The first paragraph makes a point to distinguish between being 'suppressed' (turned into a bunk normal item) and 'destroyed' (which presumably is much worse than being a normal item, because of the botched save). Still a bit in the gray area because 'unraveled and destroyed' seems like it could apply to only the spell or spell effect from the first para's wording, but then we get to artifacts: 'If successful, the artifact's power unravels, and it is destroyed' Here, the 'unraveling' of the spell effect is explicitly stated as a distinct effect from the 'destruction' of the item itself.

Liberty's Edge

KaeYoss wrote:
William Hacket wrote:
Hmmm what else... The ever constant threat of being one of his sexu@l fantasy's he would somehow play out in the game in a ENTIRELY inappropriate way

I know I shouldn't, but I must ask, because I really have to know:

What's the appropriate way to play out a sexual fantasy in a roleplaying game? And I mean the kind of roleplaying game where a bunch of friends sit around a table pretending to be knights and elves and wizards, not the kind that involves lovers and pretending to be naughty nurses or schoolgirls and principals.

Because I just can't think of any way to play out sexual fantasies in Pathfinder or D&D that would be appropriate.

Maybe I'm a shy, prudish prude, but neither do I want to let any of my buddies know what my favourite perverted fantasy is, nor do I want to know theirs. And I really don't want them to roleplay it at a table. I mean, get a room! And a willing participant.

Sorry, what were we talking about? Ah, yes: Did you clean your eyes, ears, and brain with industrial strength disinfectant each time this pervert told you how much he'd like it to get spanked by strict drow priestesses?

Personally, I'd have a bucket of cold water nearby when the guy's around, just in case.

Player characters all split off to different rooms at the brothel and players proceed to play erotic Pictionary for the other players to guess what their character is up to.

GM has the right to roll on the random encounter table and amend final sketches appropriately.
At least, that's how I'd play it.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
Groetus: madness/JUST PLAIN CRAAAAAAAZ-Y !

I always just figured he was Ghroth by another name, waiting for his chance to come wake up Rovagug.

Liberty's Edge

Thalin wrote:
4th has this, and it is a terrible idea. Literally everyone begins to pick classes just because a certain class "lines up" right. Imagine a legal Str/Dex or Str/Con -Chr race. It would be difficult to get front liners to play much else, almost regardless of racial abilties. You'd get the people who hate min/maxing doing it, but that would further widen the gap between optimizers and non-optimizers.

100% with you on this. Rather see the core 7 races made more versatile and unique so as to encourage a little variety (not *every* fighter a Half-Orc and *every* wizard an elf, etc). Traits that give the races a little uniqueness and utility (towards specialization) go a long way in this regard.

Also, the #1 item in the 4E description for 'Reasons to play a Dragonborn' being 'You want to play a dragon' made my brain hurt.

Liberty's Edge

Cool, that gives me a lot to go on. Thanks one and all for the tips. I don't have a pin vise but I have a variety of hand tools from papercraft and plastic modelling (of the air/auto variety) so hopefully I can make something work. Appreciate the help from all of y'all. :3

Liberty's Edge

Arcticfox6 wrote:
They are considered medium-sized creatures for the purposes of utilizing weapons, armor and other items dependent on size. This means that if they try to wield “large” weapons, they would receive the normal -2 penalty.

Looks great, very clean language.

meatrace wrote:
Apethae wrote:


Pathfinder RPG core rules (pp 141 & 144 in my printing), as a departure from the 3.5 rules, allows any medium character to wield a "large" light or one-handed (or 1.5 handed in the case of the bastard sword if they have the EWP for it) weapon at a -2 penalty, with no extra feats (ala monkey grip etc).

You can do this in 3.5. Monkey Grip lets you wield something one size larger in the same amount of hands with a -2. In other words you can wield a large longsword with a -2 with no feats, and a large greatsword at -2 with a feat (or large longsword 1h).

The half-giant thing is a point of rather heated debate in my group right now, at least between myself the DM and a player playing one. In Athas.org the half-giant is a large creature with 2 racial HD and a level adjustment. I prefer the 3.5/XPH half giant that is just medium with powerful build. I just think it is a very well-designed race and I've found a place for them in all games I've run (and wrote a convincing enough backstory in games I haven't to let me play one). Right now the problem is doing ANY sort of pre-written dungeon crawl. You know with the occasional 5 and 10 foot wide hallways that make maneuvering a large creature nigh impossible.

Yah... ? I mentioned Monkey Grip. ;)

I hear ya about large creatures and dungeon crawls. Our party had an encounter with a single fire giant guarding a door at the end of a 10' wide corridor and he killed my inquisitor PC outright and almost killed our two frontline fighters... 30m later we fought 4 of the same fire giants in open ground and took them out in a few rounds, even down one PC for the party, while barely taking a scratch. One step up the size category chain in the right terrain merits a huge, huge shift in tactics.

I'm just glad OP didn't import the 3.5 Goliath version of powerful build. That + Monkey Grip + huge sized weapons in combination made for some cheestasticness. Huge Greatsword ftl. :( Don't even think that was technically allowed by the feat, but my GM at the time was a big FF7 fan.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Yes it is that clear. They are what they are. If you have read the write up which is the very first one then yes it is 100% clear. They are thieves that can not stop and often do not know they did it. They steal anything and everything that might catch there attention 2 seconds.

It says this outright, they simply are thieves and can be nothing else. It simply can not be more clear. They even added the claw hammer thing which you guys keep dismissing as hyperbole, but given the whole of the write up, it seems unlikely it was ever meant as hyperbole at all.

They simply can not stop.

Next week on Intervention: a chilling visit to Kendermore.

Liberty's Edge

Hi there. Most of my experience with painted minis involves accidentally bumping into a friend's W40K Space Marine table and knocking them all over (boy was that a chore to reset) so please forgive me if this is the most obvious question in the world.

I am about to acquire a Orc Banebreak rider and a Dwarven Thundertusk Cavalry. I intended to use the Dwarf for my Paladin PC who rides a rhino rather than a boar. The orc was just for fun.

Since the orc comes on a rhino though, I got to thinking about swapping the riders around. I'm not a collector so I don't really care about taking resale value. What would be the easiest but best looking way to do this? Cut at the waist, swap torsos and retouch the legs, or something else? What about the cutting tool? I have a Dremel but the heat involved seems like it might deform the edges of the cut. Sharp utility knife and perseverance? Very hot wire? Also, what is the best way to strip the paint off a small portion of a fig without corroding it, and what kind of paints stick to this plastic?

If anyone would be so kind as to offer advice or pointers I'd be indebted.

Liberty's Edge

Zape wrote:
... regrets not having that Orc Ferocity, at lease once. :)

Yah no kidding, at low- to mid-levels Ferocity is the bomb... saved our Cleric of Gorum more times than I can count. For a guy so concerned with being crippled by a lack of HD, not sure how he can pass this up for a STR buff that can be had from Manuals or belts down the road, sans the crippling Forrest Gump nerf.

Liberty's Edge

karlbadmanners wrote:
Why would it not be pronounced like the G in mage?? I have always heard the word pronounced; Maa-Jus.

It's a Latin word (for mage, as noted above); there are no soft g's in classical Latin. People who took/were forced to take Latin in school tend to nerd out when people flub all those commonly mispronounced terms. :3 (or pronounce them in ecclesiastical Latin form anyway)

Like the old Latin greeting 'ave' actually being 'ah-way' and Caesar being pronounced 'kai-sar' (like the German guy in the pickelhaube) and whatnot, there's no end to modern sources bungling the pronunciation of a tongue that hasn't been a living language for so many hundreds of years. The horror! ;)

Liberty's Edge

Man. Really wish you could edit more than immediately after a post was made, cuz my just-woken-up self really butchered the English on that last one. >.> <.<
"and (to a lesser but linked degree) privacy issues" was meant to be PIRACY (as in my early American forebearers loved to do it)
Mikaze looks like s/he took kind of a beating in the GMG thread, so not sure if s/he's up to responding... hope you feel better, regardless. Just color me slightly confused as to the desired outcome here. :)

Liberty's Edge

Minor quibble/note re: half-giants...

Arcticfox6 wrote:
They do not however gain any reach and do not take up a 10 Ft square themselves nor can they wield “large” weapons.

Pathfinder RPG core rules (pp 141 & 144 in my printing), as a departure from the 3.5 rules, allows any medium character to wield a "large" light or one-handed (or 1.5 handed in the case of the bastard sword if they have the EWP for it) weapon at a -2 penalty, with no extra feats (ala monkey grip etc). You may consider rewording this as 'and are considered medium-sized creatures for purposes of utilizing non-medium weapons, armor and items' or something similar so as to not penalize half-giant characters in relation to other races.

Looks awesome otherwise. I miss muls. :<

Liberty's Edge

KenderKin wrote:
Squidmasher wrote:

It's not as if the OP hasn't fallen into the discussion of Kender hate himself; check KenderKin's profile. You'll notice that he and Trapdodger Barefoot (the OP) are aliases of the same person.

I had like three takers on help with the build and about 100 jack-wagons that were no help, so yep went to my default poster, and continued to participate in my thread!

Successful troll is successful in the way only true Kender can wind up a large, angry mob.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Breaking news: People do NOT die when they are killed.

Thanks, man, this is great news. I was really starting to worry there.

Imma go have my barbarian PC inform Cayden Caillean he's taking the whole operation off his hands now, starting with going to b*$@%slap Asmodeus for screwing up his beloved Taldor with all this Cheliax nonsense. Woo!

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
While I somewhat agree, I do have to wonder this: If they are barely worth the effort for someone who does like them, then why are they seemingly SO worth the effort for people who profess to dislike them.

Because someone is wrong on the internet, dangit.

What can ya do.

Liberty's Edge

Erik Mona wrote:

It almost seems like being the good guys is the job of the player characters.

Seriously the first thing my friends and I remarked after reading the first campaign setting book was (unanimously) was, "Man, this world is really dark." Even the colonial US analog made a point of emphasizing the 'we've got a ton of awesome rhetoric, so please ignore the capitalism run rampant exploiting and oppressing large numbers of our citizenry' aspect. They got a pass on the slavery and (to a lesser but linked degree) privacy issues but Andoran really ain't all that good when you start to drill deeper. In fact I suspect the international abolitionist fervor of much of the merchant class in Andoran may have as much to do with idealism as it does with the desire not to have to compete with foreign interests that can take advantage of cheap slave labor. A free pass to raid Chelaxian shipping so as to 'free oppressed peoples' and help themselves to the ship and whatever else is in the hold is probably icing on the cake.

Still, even a lovely dark and cynical place such as Golarion can tolerate one or two more ostensibly good nations somewhere on the globe. I just hope the devs don't feel pressure to substitute political correctness for creativity in order to ensure every continent (since we still have the Tien Xa, Vudran and Arcadian lands largely undeveloped) has its token beacon of light, shining among the blah blah. If the concern is for players not having an opportunity to play a good aligned char of their ethnic/cultural/national preference than it should be reiterated that some really great people come from some really horrible places and vice versa (be it Cheliax or the real world). Otherwise, why so serious? I love the overwhelmingly dreary turn Paizo has taken in crafting their world (makes for great fiction) and am a little confused by the urge to apply it to some racial or ethnic balance sheet (1 good here with 12 bad, 3 good there with 10 bad - does that mean we should rewrite that continent?). I honestly (no sarcasm) don't understand what the goal is there. Is it just for variety's sake or am I missing something?

Liberty's Edge

Shizvestus wrote:
Yeah, Alkenstar has been stockpiling guns for thousands of years... ;)

Somebody's gotta be ready for the Gebban zombie apocalypse.

Liberty's Edge

Demiurge 1138 wrote:
I've never played it, but I've always liked the idea of playing a barbarian as a noble scion who threw temper tantrums whenever he got hurt or didn't get his way.

Yeah, this is what I'm playing right now - a Taldan noble from a family with an illustrious military heritage, partly driven by a family predisposition towards frothing battle madness that skips a few generations. Who's got two thumbs, a familial curse of uncontainable fury & insanity and a life spent in and out of a Casomiran prison earned thereby? This guy!

Sure, the rest of the party looks annoyed at me when they need to track somebody and realize I have no ranks in Survival, but I lovelovelove what Paizo's done to make this class more than a one trick pony.

Liberty's Edge

holdenjn wrote:


I'm finding that the party has been getting lazy when it comes to planning and teamwork. When a fight ensues no one really tries to devise tactics or plan a strategy. Everyone kind of does their own thing with the Barbarian typically raging and charging the biggest threat. I've even had other characters ignoring the fight to tend to other things (such as identifying magic items they've just found) because they know that the Barbarian has it covered.

Aha, I got yelled at by my party for doing this same thing (charge + flail indiscriminately with 2HW). Now I hang back to run interference for the wizard and the prima-donna 2WF is complaining because he keeps getting plowed into negative HPs by the mooks I used to keep busy.

Sometimes a barbarian just can't win. >:|

Liberty's Edge

I play a somewhat similar build (Human Barb (Inv Rager) 6/Rogue (Scout) 4/Chevalier PrC 3) and have found there is a lot of stuff that can ruin my day pretty quickly.
Monsters with grapple/engulf/swallow hole, as previously mentioned. Even with rage/strength bonuses to CMD some of the specialized grapple monsters can dwarf (no pun intended) anything other than the monk or a specialized fighter on grapple checks.
Dominate - sure he's got the Dwarven magic resistance, but unless he picked his feats and Rage Powers to compensate his Will save is still probably pretty low. Any wizard/sorc/vampire that sees him tear into a bunch of minions like a wood chipper first round is going to try to turn that rage against the party itself.
Will-based illusions or sensory deprivation or the like - anything that causes the barb to burn off his energies chasing shadows.
Spells such as Bestow Curse, Calm Emotions (no more rage), Command, Confusion, Demand/Suggestion, Heat Metal (on armor), any of the Pattern spells suck pretty bad for us too (Scintillating Pattern was the worst - no save. Actually that messed up the whole party but w/e). Don't be afraid to tweak NPC statblocks with Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus or other feats/traits to offset the dwarf's resistances.
Other higher level Inv Ragers (Diehard turned out to be suck in this instance as I was making Bluff checks to play dead so he wouldn't coup de grace me).
How many healers do you have in your party? One of the constant issues with this char is the fact that 'down by half' for me means ~100hp of healing needed, rather than 25-50 for everyone else. I can soak up hits til the day is done, but after 2 or 3 encounters the cleric's just absolutely tapped out for channels/cures.

Liberty's Edge

Happler wrote:
Apethae wrote:


Note that the latest Paizo errata has altered Smite Evil to be less 'OMG it's a fiend let's... jeezus it's dead already'.
Pathfinder RPG Errata wrote:

Page 60—In the Smite Evil paladin class feature, change the fourth sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows:

If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses.
So they can no longer two-hand power-attack full-attack with a +40-something to damage every strike against a fiend/undead/etc.
Still good to go with the paladin + 10 ranged followers + AoJ. But that does help with the single smite.

True, but it's slightly better than the celestial wood chipper that Smite Evil used to be. When your minimum damage is like 50-60/hit on every swing of a full attack DR 10 or even DR 15 gets rapidly overwhelmed (not that it makes much difference anyway, since most of the foes pally's get double damage on are DR X/Good).

Edit - Oh yeah, and "Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess" anyway. Herp derp on me.

Liberty's Edge

Scrogz wrote:

Thanks for the quick responses. It really helps to clarify the action situation.

Any suggestion on how to pose a threat to a party with 3 paladins =)

It's pretty scary for the GM. Pile a priest on top of that and they are hard to really damage if they pay attention. However, they do not have a Wizard so I still have a chance.

It does not help that the current iteration of the "world" they are in is heavy on Undead and Demons/Devils. Talk about a Paladin's sweet spot.

Note that the latest Paizo errata has altered Smite Evil to be less 'OMG it's a fiend let's... jeezus it's dead already'.

Pathfinder RPG Errata wrote:

Page 60—In the Smite Evil paladin class feature, change the fourth sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows:

If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses.

So they can no longer two-hand power-attack full-attack with a +40-something to damage every strike against a fiend/undead/etc.

Liberty's Edge

Pirate wrote:

Yar.

I haven't compared this with anything else, but off the top of my head, for a single hit only, I would go with an Order of the Sword Cavalier doing a critical hit with lance weilded with two hands on a Rightious Might-Knight's Challenge-Power Attacking-Spirited Charged while on an Elephant Mount vs a human.

** spoiler omitted **...

I'm not super familiar with the mounted combat rules (my usual GM hates all mounts and attempts to kill them first thing in every combat, so we just stopped trying to acquire anything but the cheapest horses we don't mind losing in the first random encounter of any journey) but can both rider + mount make a charge attack as part of the same full-round action? If so, the rhinocerous has strength & size equivalent to the elephant but also has a +4D6 'Powerful Charge' bonus on a gore.

Alternately the mount could take the Elephant Stomp feat from Sargava and, while attempting an overrun during the rider's charge, stop to do his gore as an immediate action. Pretty sure Powerful Charge would apply there as well.

Liberty's Edge

Monkeygod wrote:


Ok, let's take the Maneuver specialist. He'd need full BAB, and d10s. so that's Ranger, Paladin, and Fighter. But he should probably have Acrobatics and Bluff as class skils, which isn't on any of the those three classes skill list.

He should have good Fort and good Ref saves, so that's the same as a Ranger.

now then, as for class features, there has been plenty of suggestions posted already, including gaining bonuses to their CMB/CMD, which should probably be a little higher than the bonus gained via Weapon Training, which tops out at +4. In fact, I could see them adding their Wisdom or Int to such checks. They should also gain the Improved and Greater versions of the maneuver feats. While this can be handled via the bonus feats of a fighter, an above suggestion was made to split them up into either a quick, mobile warrior or a in your face, smash-mouthed kinda warrior which seems like a really good idea.

beyond that though, with the fighter, there are only 4 different class features to trade in(not counting Armor and Weapon Mastery, which i see as an extension of the Training features). If a designer were to attempt to implement all of these various ideas we've suggested, including advanced, non-standard options for each maneuver along with any other ideas they might have themselves, you suddenly find yourself with something that while it fights, is no longer anything close to a Fighter....

I don't see why he'd need Bluff necessarily (Feint doesn't seem like a huge thing for a wrestler-style maneuver master) but this could be implemented via a 'pick your poison'-style special power selection.

Don't get your nose out of joint but this seems better accomplished as a monk archetype, as that class has tons of powers you could eliminate / replace to tweak to get the end result that's desired. Look at how different the zen archer is from the base monk.
Keep Wis bonus to AC, dump Lawful alignment requirement, keep unarmed strike damage, keep maneuver training, keep flurry, keep stunning fist, expand list of selectable bonus feats, keep fast movement, dump still mind/ki pool/slow fall/high jump/x body/abundant step/diamond soul/quivering palm, get d10 hit die and full BAB. Basically a less-anime/wuxia-inspired monk. Ta-da.
Monkeygod wrote:
And this thread is about the possibility, however likely or unlikely, of a new class and what it will be.

Right, and not everyone's going to agree as to whether concept x differs enough from already existing options to justify a new base class.

I'd like to see a class that emulates monster powers from the bestiary via some sort of totemic/shapeshifting mechanic - not like a druid, but more of a 'I eat the heart of my slain foe and gain its power' kinda thing. Maybe that's not for UC, though.

Liberty's Edge

StarMartyr365 wrote:


What does wanting a little variety, something different from the same old fantasy tropes have to do with people who dress up as stuffed animals?

SM

MRblahface wrote:


I pointed out Giant talking Birds...
Kevin Mack wrote:


I bring it up every time something like this is mentioned but please give me catfolk (or similar) That is all
LadyWyrm wrote:
4. "Humanocentric." Yes, one of the game designers actually used the H-word on the forums (and yes, I do consider it a dirty word). Aren't we tired of Lord of the Rings yet? It's 20-freaking-10, and tons of people like playing exotic and/or bestial races. Deal with it.

Etc. Cuz however many times the designers point out that Golarion is designed very specifically as a largely low-to-mid-level human-dominated setting, where the other races presented (elves, dwarves, etc) are supposed to somewhat exotic and rare, people who want to play their favorite variety of anthropomorphized fuzzy woodland creature.

To which I can only reiterate the only logical response:

joela wrote:
Aren't there plenty of third-party supps for such variants?

Rock on with your bad human-lovin' self, Paizo. Rock on.

Liberty's Edge

Because "And my axe!"

Liberty's Edge

Phneri wrote:
Apethae wrote:


Things that make me cry like a little girl:
- Anything good at grappling or with the grab monster ability (damn you, swallow whole - damn you to hell!).
- Anything that forces me to make a will save.
- Anything with a high AC so as to make PA less viable.

Your DM needs to mix things up a bit, ST. One monk with decent Disarm and Grapple capabilities and some AC buffs would ruin that dwarf battlerager's day, without needing to resort to TPK-inducing damage output.

Invest in some spiked gauntlets, dude. Let's you solve that monk AND swallow whole problem in one pointy, punchy go.

But yeah, power attack smashy build isn't broken.

I have armor spikes, but 1D6 + 1HPA/Str isn't really in the neighborhood of 2D8 + 1-5D6 Situational + 2HPA/Str. Plus my GM is of the 'you can't sneak attack something that's swallowed you whole, even with darkvision' camp, despite what's in the 3.5FAQ, which I can't even begin to comprehend.

I spent way too much time in the guts of monsters, and not in the cool Conan bathe-in-the-blood-of-your-foes way. >:|

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:


That being said last session in our Forgotten realms campaign we were fighting some evil clerics of cyric and our dwarven battle rager did like 77 points of damage in one criticle strike at 5th level.

The rest of us were doing ok danage(10-18pts per round) but when the BIG bad ogre fighter that was supposed to be a challeenge for the whole party gets almost taken down in one shot our DM was a little bit miffed.

I would be surprised if a Raging, Power Attacking Barbarian COULDN'T get near 70-80 damage on a crit with the x3 weapons they use.

If a normal, core melee class using normal, core rules is "breaking" the game, then some one is doing it wrong. Probably the DM.

I can hardly believe I'm about to say this, but... yeah, you right. I play a similar build in my game and don't 'break' anything.

Things I steamroll:
- Creatures that can't go toe-to-toe with a 200hp 11th lvl melee class that does 20-45hp on a normal hit (low AC, but I can soak up a lotta damage).
- Anything that forces me to make a fort save.
Things that make me cry like a little girl:
- Anything good at grappling or with the grab monster ability (damn you, swallow whole - damn you to hell!).
- Anything that forces me to make a will save.
- Anything with a high AC so as to make PA less viable.

Your DM needs to mix things up a bit, ST. One monk with decent Disarm and Grapple capabilities and some AC buffs would ruin that dwarf battlerager's day, without needing to resort to TPK-inducing damage output.

Liberty's Edge

On the other hand, the druid spell Strong Jaw becomes an epic buff for you...
I have a human Barb with Animal Fury's bite who's making his way up the Beast Totem rage power chain... tbh the bite attack is just too weak to stack up well against the 2H weapon possibilities like the falchion or greatsword (even when enlarged), both of which do more dmg and have better crit ranges. I do love it is a secondary attack action for flavor though (he also has a D4 headbutt from a 3PP, so his full attack is usually swing, swing, butt you in the face and then bite you while you're reeling). Anecdotally I have crazy good luck landing headbutt/bite crits, so YMMV.

Liberty's Edge

Quirken wrote:

I'm completely new to Pathfinder, and am about to start my first game.

I'd like to roll a Rogue with the Scout Archetype. The biggest difference between Scouts in Pathfinder and in 3.5e seems to be that the Pathfinder doesn't get extra movement speed. OK, not a huge deal (fights are generally not in a huge space anyway).

Here's my concern though... Without dipping into 3.5e stuff, it seems like there's no way to give a scout a "pounce" attack. That is, doing a full attack after moving.

The best I've thought of would be using the revised Cleave to get a second attack, which is definitely pretty good.

But comparing a vanilla pathfinder Rogue, who at 15+ gets 3 attacks (all potentially sneak attacks), with a Scout, which would only get 1 (or two with cleave)... it seems like I'd be "shooting myself in the foot" to choose this path.

Are there some feats I don't see that would give me a full-round attack after a charge, etc? Or any other way to overcome the huge damage potential difference between the two?

Thanks!

I have a Rogue (Scout) / Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager w/ Beast Totem Rage Power Chain) / Chevalier PrC character that works pretty well. Haven't got his Barb levels up to Pounce (Beast Totem Greater) yet, but with Rogue 4/Chevalier 3 he gets Sneak Attack + no AC penalty + first-round morale bonus when he opens up with a charge. PF sneak attack can be applied to multiple attacks in a full-attack action, so when he gets Pounce he'll be pretty scary, moreso if he's Smiting.

There are probably more optimized builds out there, but this one fit his character concept to a T.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:


We have not cooled on the idea of firearms at all.

We've cooled on the concept that firearms have been a part of Golarion for more than 4,000 years. They're still in the world, and the Inner Sea World Guide will still have rules for them. I like to think they're better rules than the current book's, in fact. Because they're (hopefully) more balanced and more fun.

Glad to hear I misinterpreted some of your earlier statements on this subject, JJ. I love the gritty kind-of-Swiss feel of Alkenstar and its standout oddness, which I think in part is due to their firearms. I think they have a lot of potential as mercenary wildcards outside of their immediate area, maybe as a kind of analog to the Papal Guards in their heydey, perhaps a counterweight (employed by Cheliax? Absalom?) to the Varangian-esque Ulfen Guard of Taldor.

Anyways, thanks for correcting me. :)

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>