Holy crap dude. They aren't THAT powerful, no idea what organized play even means. Never heard the term and i've been playing DND for like over 8 years at least, and this as soon as it came out. Did get an answer though, gonna see what others think... but thanks for your input.
Blessing of Darkness (Tiefling)
Benefit Whenever a spellcaster capable of channeling negative energy casts a beneficial spell on you, she acts as if she were one level higher for the purpose of determining that spell’s effects.
Taken from PFSRD. The way this is written, suggests that a spell caster merely has to do it. Therefore couldn't said spellcaster be myself? I'm playing a Tiefling cleric in an upcoming game and i've spent all week figuring out working builds and working backstory to have my evil wereboar being functional. I was unsure however if this trait implys that I can cast the spell on my self and gain the benefit or if it must be an ally. Because technically the way it is worded simply says a "Spell Caster that can channel negative energy" I apply to both of those.
So heres the TLDR, Does the player himself count as a spell caster?
Yes I did like warlock in 3.5 and the third party warlock some folks made for pathfinders I thought was no good...
At this point though they aren't necessary, at least I don't think. Paizo's created much more interesting classes, and they have created classes that are a bit better than warlocks were mechanically. What I could see is like an archetype for Alchemist where Warlocks are actually painted as those ugly gross guys that live in some giant tree trump in the swamp and use like rats to make brews and things. While for combatives they get a hideous ray attack similar to the bombs only it does electrical damage over fire. Their extracts become cast-able as spells and their mutagen is more of their special brew so to speak.
mika life wrote:
but aren't you like, underwater? I mean wouldn't fire damage not work underwater at all? also how did you get warforged? is that homebrew or did paizo make something (If they did make something I want to see it for personal use)
Sounds like a zombie lord might fit. That Carrion Golem pegged above looks ideal, though!
Well, I'll see what the DM says about the zombie lord cause I remember I looked at that and the CR would defintly be lower... a CR 1 creature would put my cohort at like level 3 or 4. had just a few minor issues with it... I mostly need to make sure it will survive being level 3/4 while the rest of us are level 7. naturally we would be up against mobs made for a level 7 party. So I guess that's an option too... I like Carrion right now though.
My DM is allowing one of my characters a Voodoo Shaman (Oracle with Juju Mysteries) leadership so I could have an army of undead followers. Then came the part where I had to decide upon a cohort. The idea I had was beautifully morbid. It would be a beautiful frankenstein like woman stitched together from other body parts. The name for her was "Iwa". She would play my villains sort of created Monster/strange wife. Obviously we came to the conclusion that such a monstrosity would be a flesh golem. However I looked at the rules for Leadership, and having a monster as a cohort, and to be frank... I don't want to wait till level 13. So is there any alternatives to fleshgolems in this case? Basically I need something with the same principles but not quite such a high CR? Thanks!
Everyone on this board wants me to either give my brother a noogie, a wedgie, or put him on a coat rack. I like this thread :3.
I like that post too, logical look at it; and in the end ruling is ultimately up to the GM, and you mention good points that I didn't think of to be honest. O.o
8 months from now our DM is going to run a Pathfinder Fantasy Adventure Path (I belive skull and shackles). Where we all get to be Pirates by the sound of it. Anyway I was helping my fellow players come up with character ideas... and then I had it. The ultimate troll vs Lycanthrope Hunters.
Ratfolk, were-rat. Only thing is I'm concerned about a few things in regards to this actually kinda funny idea. When I came up with it I came to the conclusion that: If Ratfolk are small rat humanoid hybrids, and were rats are in term similar. How would people know when he transforms? I believe by rules they would stay the same size so they could potentially wear the same armor. The transformation I couldn't see much of a difference, statistical difference shore, and defintly a difference in attitude/emotions/thought process would be much more animalistic than the normal ratfolk. So I guess the major question is...
Would a ratfolk wererat be as "stealthy" so to speak as it sounds? (What I mean by that is how would people tell the difference if they can.), would this confuse lycanthrope hunters? What level of DC of whatever skill would they need to spot the difference? Am I even right about physical differences not really changing much?
It's a funny idea, but it also seems horribly confusing so I would like to see other input on it.
Wow, all these replies. That was fast. To make this easier on myself cause i'd probably quote a ton of ya and i'm still fairly new to these forums, infact I made an account mostly to get play tests and things and cause hey I might buy something. Because PDF's are useful. However on the topic at hand...
I'm quite sure 3.5 writers would agree with him (granted they really couldn't write for kobold feces but...) and even by 3.5 standards he's wrong too huh?
Yeah that's what I thought. "Vitals" wouldn't be limited to simply "Organs". Tendons, genitals, special nerves etc.
@WraithStrike "In short your brother has no idea what he talking about with regard to the sneak attack rule. He also is behind the power curve if he can't make another class work that is not a full caster." Yes. All I can say to that is "Yes."
@Davor I like your take on it, it's logical and it makes sense.
According to my younger brother: "Small Sized Rogues cannot sneak attack an ogre" he claims this is one of varying reasons why he feels rogue is a worthless dumb class. "Because the DM can easily deny one sneak attack".(Note: My younger brother feels no class but druid, cleric, and wizard are viable. so this is coming from one of THOSE guys). His argument is based off of this in rogue sneak attack description: "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.". Basically according to him the ogre is SO BIG. It's like a dragon in comparison to a human, and so the small sized rogue (pretty much halfling, gnome, ratfolk, etc small sized races) cannot sneak attack an ogre with a melee simply because he feels they cannot reach the vitals. I ask him for where it says that specifically, he just insistently points to that particular sentence. The other part of the arguement is comparing ogre size to Small Size reach. According to acrobatics with a vertical jump, the small sized creature can only go 4ft above the ground. the ogre overall is 10ft tall. Now he did not take into account, arm length, and weapon length. When those were brought up he just said "It's two weapon fighting" which, doesn't mean anything at all. He also said like that, there is no way the rogue can roll a full attack roll by attacking that way.
Now, keep in mind NONE OF THIS; is actually in writing. It just says they have to be able to reach the vital, I assume that this is for creatures that levitate above the ground out of the small sized rogues reach or something that is obviously very massive. So I figure to end this by just asking Paizo boards and maybe Paizo themselves about how they feel on this. Can a Halfling rogue sneak attack an ogre with melee? or is it really not capable of doing so?