Blymurkla's page

I've done this one ...

102. »The undead fey creature hits you with it slam. 7 damage and can I get a will save?«
»What, not fortitude?«
»No, will«
*player rolls* *fails*
*gets handed secret note that reads 'You feel that something's wrong. Your soul, it is somehow damaged, tainted'*
»Oh, f---«

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

102. GM: you all succumb to the confusing maddening scream of the otherworldly horror, everyone swap characters.

Ha! I'm running that right now. The PCs love it!

The PC's love that they're played by new players? Yeah, I'm just nitpicking ;)

So, I am not sure what your saying here.

The Point Blank would only be used for the Splash? or the normal direct hit was supposed to be 2D6+2? How in blue blazes would anyone add the damage again for the outlier effect? (Double dip, as you said)

I think what Nefreet means is that first, you'd do damage die + intelligence modifier + point blank shot on a direct hit.

The minimum damage of that is (minimum of damage die) + intelligence modifier + point blank shot. You can't do less than that.

For splash damage, you take the minimum. And, since you're within 30 ft. of your splash-damaged enemy, you get to add point blank shot. Again.

It's obviously not the intention. But if that's the context in which the FAQ was issued (loved to see the threads in question) then I can get where the confusion comes from.

102.

We found out the headquarters for the superhero team we're going to be playing soon is being funded by Kickstarter.

Kickstarter is all well and good, but surely the superheeo team use a Patreon campaign for running expenses?

But I agree with your players, you making up rules on the fly cause you think it should work a certain way would make me very upset. That's like playing a game of checkers with a 4 year old that makes up rules as they play. You expected a normal game of checkers, but what you got was just play time with a 4 year old.

As a GM, you're constantly designing encounter areas, unique monsters, new magic items and what not. Those aren't always going to follow the rules completely. And you can't share their rule with the players before the campaign starts, because the rules haven been made yet.

What is bad is to use made-up, new house rules as a sort of gotch moment. »Haha, you don't have your Dex to AC! Now I can hit you!«. That's very bad GMing.

Moorningstaar should inform the players before combat begins on what rules govern the encounter. Tell them what constitutes difficult terrain, what symbols mean etc. Tell them that anyone walking the ledge is flat-footed. If a player challenge Moorningstaar on this, fine, you could go looking for a rules quote. But it's equally fine that Moorningstaar says »I don't have a rules quote at the moment, we'll have to look it up afterwards. But this is how this encounter is going to work, it's what I've planed.« That is a strong cue that Moorningstaar has made an encounter with the PCs in mind, that it is balanced and intended to be challenging. If there's any trust between players and GM, the players should roll with it.

Now, roleplaying is hard. Maybe Moorningstaar, being a beginner GM, forgot to inform the player about the flat-footed rule. That happens. Even to experienced GMs. It should be handled by backing up. Rewinding. The player should be given the option to have the PC avoid the ledge, perhaps sniping from behind the corner instead. Or retreating to get the party to help (which would have accomplished what Moorningstaar set out to do - involve every player).

_____

It sounds to me, Moorningstaar, as if you've got a problematic player. Perhaps a beginner, like yourself? Though some never learn ... Throwing a hissy fit and threatening to leave because a single rule decision made it harder for his PC? That's not exactly good gaming. Now, I don't know how this played out. There might be mitigating circumstances, like if you didn't allow his PC to avoid the ledge once you informed him about the rule.

Out-of-character problems should always be handled as such. Talk to this player. Inform him about the fact that you're not out to get him, you're trying to create varied challenges that let every player shine. Remind him that most classes have weaknesses - wizards have spellbooks that can be taken away, most martials rely heavily on weapons that can be sundered, all spellcasters struggle in dead magic zones. It's dickish to overuse these tactics, but a good GM is well within her right to try them occasionally.

I also want to echo wraithstrike. The rogue class, or at least the core rogue (he isn't playing an unchained rogue, is he?) is considered a very weak class. A rogue needs sneak attack to deal relevant damage, but sneak attack is unreliable (you're not normally always able to flank, core rogue sneak attack doesn't work if the target has concealment and there are several monsters who are immune to sneak attacks, like elementals). Further, rogues have not-that-great-HP, bad Fort and Will saves and aren't known to have sky-high AC either. If a rogue is dominating your game, there might be something that's a bit off. Perhaps a faulty rules interpretation that has greatly increased the reliability of sneak attacks.

Aren't all chromatic dragons chaotic evil except the green ones, who are lawful evil? That could hint at conflicts.

Check: You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.

Sounds like you tried to rule according to, well, the rules.

However, do note that you should not expect rules to emulate reality particularly well. The system quickly breaks down that path.

Linking screenshots of a readily available webpage? Now I've seen everything.

Yes, the advancement at 4th or 7th level is an addition. Take the constrictor snake:

Snake, Constrictor

Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 20 ft., climb 20 ft., swim 20 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d3); Ability Scores Str 15, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 1, Wis 12, Cha 2; Special Attacks grab; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

4th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +1 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Attacks constrict 1d4.

It has +2 natural armor at the beginning. It is increased by one, to +3, at level 4. It would make no sense if it's natural armor decreased.

As for the stats you've posted, I'm sorry but I can't find it in me to double check your math. And I can't help you with the bear either.

You mean the Defensive stance ability of the Stalwart Defender prestige class and feats with rage as a prerequisite such as Raging vitality and Reckless rage?

No, Defensive stance does not count as Rage for the purposes of meeting these feat's prerequisite. Defensive stance would need to include a clause like »Defensive stance counts as Rage for the purposes of feat prerequisites« for it to work. That they are similar makes no difference whatsoever.

What level are you starting at?

Maybe an Arcanist would be something for you? It's a 9th level caster, but perhaps it's not fully as hard to keep track of like a true prepared caster (i.e. wizard).

Perhaps a gnome arcanist? 'Settle' with 19 Int (after all, isn't it already better than what most have in their casting stat. Although the fact that you where able to roll a 19 hints at a non-standard ability score generation method ...). Gain Con, so you're not stuck with 11, and Cha which is a secondary stat for arcanists.

Gnomes have interesting racial traits for spellcasters (gain +1 DC in illusion, enchantment, necromancy or transmutation depending on what you chose), but the limited spell choices of Cha-based casters meant they haven't been fully exploited - until your arcanist comes along!

You're not the first to face difficulties with players who don't make it to every session (although the way this player acts is new to me). Paizo has offered a solution in the Scar of destiny. Not something for every type of campaign, but it might suit you.

Imbicatus wrote:

Vomit Swarm is a much better second level spell than ghoul touch. I'd go with that instead of ghoul touch even if ghoul touch was in the list.

Really? How come you say that?

Ghoul touch requires a melee touch attack. That means you need to be in melee (where the danger is) and that you can miss. Further, the stench that the subject gives off is a dual-edged sword - you're just as likely to make enemies sickened as you are allies.

Vomit swarm has the advantage of not requiring an attack roll, which means you can use it whilst renaming Invisible (if you have the spell). While it's advantageous to use it close to an enemy, it's not necessary since the swarm can move on its own. The swarm remains in place for several rounds, fairly reliably dealing some damage each turn against pretty much every type of enemy (whereas Ghoul touch fails against undead or enemies immune to Paralyze). The swarm forces two Fort saves against enemies it damages instead of just one, and although they're at a lower DC than that you'd use for Ghoul touch one of them (the Distraction ability) is really nasty (one might say almost as nasty as being Paralyzed, actually).

Although I'm not as sure as Imbicatus on which spell I'd chose if it was up to me, Vomit swarn sure has things going for it.

So is there anyone that disagrees that this is how it works, or does it seem pretty clear cut? It is for a PFS character so I'm trying to gauge how much table variation I'll get.

Just quoting an earlier thread I found.

My read on it:

Mutagen (Su): wrote:

At 1st level, a mutation warrior discovers how to create a mutagen that he can imbibe in order to heighten his physical prowess at the cost of his personality. This ability functions as the alchemist's mutagen ability. This ability replaces armor training 1.

Mutagen (Su): wrote:

At 1st level, a mutagenic mauler discovers how to create a mutagen that she can imbibe in order to heighten her physical prowess, though at the cost of her personality. This functions as an alchemist's mutagen and uses the brawler's class level as her alchemist level for this ability (alchemist levels stack with brawler levels for determining the effect of this ability). A mutagenic mauler counts as an alchemist for the purpose of imbibing a mutagen prepared by someone else.

I am fairly sure that the ACG is already known for poor editing. This is another example of it. The Brawler gets a more robust explanation of how it works than the Fighter does, but for the bold part they are supposed to be the same. These levels stack to determine effect.

It sounds like we can both do a lot of control, is our role essentially setting up the right conditions (ie web, entanglement, etc) for our melee warriors? Can't witches finish opponents off as well?

They sure can. You just asked about cooperation with an Alchemist, and since alchemists are great damage dealers I think people gave you tips on how make your witch into a controller since that would synergies well with the alchemist.

There's a guide called A witch's guide to shutting enemies down. Maybe it will help you.

At low levels, the Slumber hex is probably one of the best way of finish opponents off. And then I'm not talking about one of the best ways for a witch, but one of the best ways in the game. And Slumber continues to be useful at higher levels too, though it wanes in power when you start fighting more dragons and other monsters who are immune to sleep.

Lady-J wrote:

research ghoul touch and add it to your spell list :)

How do I do that? :)

If you search for the phrase »Independent Research« on this PRD page you can find what Lady-J is talking about.

Researching spells, either inventing your own or adding existing spells from other lists to your list, is something that's up to GM fiat. If you've got a GM who's intrigued by the idea of a ghoul touching witch, she'll allow it. If not, well, that's that.

That means it acts as a spell-like ability rather than a spell taking up a slot, right? And it comes in at level 2, correct? It doesn't have a level in the description, but the description comes after the Cunning Initiative ability which is level 2.

Odd that it doesn't have it's level in the description, but yes, the Inquisitor gains Detect alignment at level 2. Evidence for this, in addition it coming after Cunning Initiative, shows in the class advancement table.

No.

You count caster levels separately. A Druid 2/Wizard 2 would have two different caster levels, both at 2.

And spell levels are completely different from class levels (apparently, back when D&D emerged, thesauruses weren't available). As you can see in their respective tables, Druids and Wizards both learn to cast 2nd level spells when they reach level 3. When they're level 5, they can cast 3rd level spells, and at level 16 they get the final spell level - 9th. Sorcerers are a little behind, learning 2nd level spells at level 4 but then gain a spell level every other level. Bards are so called 6th level casters (or 6/9 casters) because their highest spell level is 6. Rangers are 4th level casters and start to be able to cast 1st level spells at level 4.

This is why multiclassing spellcasters is generally a bad idea - you loose a lot of power since you don't gain higher level spells (as quickly) - all you get is lots and lots of low-level spells (and those aren't that useful when facing higher-level enemies).

Ah, no, you are right. My point still stands though. A fighter can get that feat earlier to become the ultimate reach control martial.

Absolutely. But a Slayer, which has full BAB like a fighter, would be a good choice too. And Slayer has much of the backstabbing, sly feel of the Rogue, which I suspect Fiuren is after.

Whip Mastery just needs weapon focus and BaB +2, so a Rogue should be able to grab it by level 3.

No ...? I think it's Base attack bonus +5.

Hobgoblins too have an alternate racail traits which makes them proficient with whips.

Since the core Rogue is a very weak class and what you're trying to do is probably rather hard (adding insult to injury) I suggest you look at switiching to either Slayer or the Unchanied rogue. Those classes will probably fit your whip-wielder better.

I'd rule that Sense motive, much like Perception, is most often passively noticing signs. From that follows that onlookers can't really see you doing it and that you can't cooperate.

Using Aid other for sense motive implies you're discussing clues on the subject. »Look, he trembled! Is he nervous?«. Without a way of concealing your disscussion, that would very much be noticeable by the subject.

You haven't factored in racial ability modifiers yet, have you? If you haven't it screams wizard (or Arcanist or Witch) even more. 21 Int is impressive.

Anyway, what about Alchemist? It's a prepared 'caster', which you don't like, but at least it's a 6th level rather than 9th level caster.

A racial bonus to Dex and you'd be all right. Dex 15 isn't impressive, but since you're hitting Touch AC it'll work. And even if you miss more often than most bombers, you're sort of making it up by having such high Int which increases (among other things) splash damage and the reflex save DC to halve it.

Blymurkla wrote:

Well, that was sort of my point. There's no need to use VMC on critters with racial HD, since there's several different ways to accomplish what one would want through different means.

you mean via the massivly more powerful than what the cr suggests class templates that the players can also take?

Okay, now we have to deal with this statement of yours:

gms shouldn't use things they have outright baned their players from using

This is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, its very bad GMing to say »The Oathbound Paladin archetype are banned in my game because they are overpowered« and then field a bunch of Oathbound paladins against the party. But of course GMs have options available to themself that aren't for PCs. The game is designed with this in mind in several places and the GM should feel free to add more restrictions if these bring additional fun to the game (for players and GM alike).

Most notably, templates are with very rare exceptions never intended for the PCs to have access to, ever. Many a campaign through the ages have been played where the PCs have a specific template or one of a select few (such as the Vampire template) to give the campaign a distinct flavor, but in the vast majority of campaigns templates are solely for the GM to modify monsters with.

Another I think fairly common rule is that on monster feats are for monsters only, not PCs. I don't enforce such a rule myself, but I sure can see why a GM would rule that way.

Races are often more restricted for the GM. »Core races only«, a common way of playing, does not imply that the world is empty of orcs and goblins - these races exists for the GM only. Similarly, a GM might rule for thematic reasons that a certain class or archetype exist in the game world but is beyond the reach of PCs.

I do not doubt that one could play with every option available to the GM to also be available to the GM, as you seem to play, but that play style is way beyond what the game ever intended.

they would also lock themselves into losing feats later on for much less useful abilities and as animal companions only get to 16 hit die without boosting them in some way they are locked out of the vmc capstones so it wouldn't get the greater rage

No. Animal companions are, to a much larger degree than PCs, expandable resources. A Druid can replace a dead companion or release and replace a live one only by expending 24 hours (tricky in some campaigns, but not even a speed bump in others). The new companion does not have to be a clone of the old one, meaning you're not tied down by VMC once it has lost its charm.

Blymurkla wrote:

Sure, and a GM can do whatever anyway. But there's plenty of ways to accomplish something similar without the need for VMC, perhaps most notably the Simple class templates.

gms shouldn't use things they have outright baned their players from using

Well, that was sort of my point. There's no need to use VMC on critters with racial HD, since there's several different ways to accomplish what one would want through different means.

Though, on the other hand, it could also be an easy way for a GM to give monsters the feel of a certain class without actually having to add class levels to them.

Sure, and a GM can do whatever anyway. But there's plenty of ways to accomplish something similar without the need for VMC, perhaps most notably the Simple class templates.

so long as they have 3 int minimum i see no problem with an animal companion taking vmc, it also means the dragon can also vmc, the giant can vmc and anything else with racial hit die can vmc

I think Rage on an AC at effective Druid level 2 would be a huge power increase compared to what a single feat does and it would, to me, feel incredibly cheesy. Of course, your experience might be different than mine.

I don't think so.

With this system, each character can choose a secondary class at 1st level that she trains in throughout her career, without giving up levels in her primary class.

It seems unlikely that you could have a secondary class without having a primary, i.e. It is reserved for characters with class levels. And I for one would cry shenanigans if a player wanted VMC her animal companion.

Why I need a backstory? Mostly to help the character come alive for me. My other characters (Human Cleric, Elven Alchemist in this campaign and Human Brawler in the other campaign) havent had backstories, I havent been able to realy think of anything other then "Joined the mercenary band to make money for drinks and to get people to fight" (That is what little I got for my brawler.. Not much to inspire me to play the character..)

So this time i decided to do it good, Make a backstory, Help me figure out the character and bring him alive, RP him better and figure out how he would act in diferent situations and what drives him and such.

Okay, great. You need some cues as to how to play your character at the table. While the character's previous life is important to explain how he behaves, you're probably more interested in personality rather than length back-story then?

Anyway, my favorite tip regarding developing characters is to keep it short. To for a concept that sums up everything important. You could start with the concept and then write additional, length backstory. Or you could start with one of those typical, 2-3 pages long descriptions of the character's upbringing and early life and summarize it with a concept once you're done. Or you just settle with the concept, it could be all you need.

So, what is a concept? To me, it should be a single sentence (or a handful, if you must) that describes the character in terms of class and race (actually, those are the least important bits), background, personality and appearance. Like this:

»Alyn Selwe is a good-looking, blue-haired half-elf swashbuckler who hides her insecurities, stemming from a harsh upbringing in an orphanage, behind a facade of daring bravado.«

That single (albeit fairly long) sentence tells us a little bit of everything about Alyn. How she looks, where she comes from. A bit about the first impression, the way she's likely to act when around strangers, and a bit of personality that will probably only be openly shown towards those she grows to trust (such as party members). What's missing is probably a goal or motivation - maybe one could be worked into the concept, maybe Alyn doesn't actually have one right now.

If you're not satisfied with only the single-sentence concept, it's fine to write more stuff. But since it should help you play the character at the table, it should be written with that in mind. Standard backstories are hard to reference during play, since they are often 2-3 pages long and written in first- or third-person prose without any meta (the backstories I've seen rarely acknowledge the fact that the character is a PC i an rpg, they're written 'in universe').

My favorite RPG, which really helps you develop an interesting character, is Mouse Guard (based on another game called Burning Wheel, but I haven't played that one yet). Mouse Guard makes you write down three things about your character on the sheet: Belief, Instinct and Goal. While they have mechanical meanings in Mouse Guard, they could be ported over to Pathfinder and used as guides.

Goal is short-term, sort of the 'quest' for the session. Only, normally only one PC has the actual mission as her goal - the other players choses goals for that develop their characters ('I want to learn to hunt') or develop their relationships with other PCs ('I will make Captain Sybel acknowledge that my eager and rapid decision-making is a boon to the patrol'). You could port Goal over to PF and make a small goal for your self each session. Perhaps to remind you to show different parts of your character ('this session, Alyn should tell the other PCs about what little she remembers of her parents').

Instinct is rather gimmicky, but actually says a lot about character. They can be something like 'I draw my sword at first sign of trouble', 'Always consult a mage when dark magic rears its ugly head', or 'Never delay when on a mission'. They should be something that you could mention/do almost every session.

Belief is perhaps the hardest to sum up. Its what your character believes in, perhaps what her motives or longterm goals are. 'I will make a name for myself' or 'No victory without sacrifice', 'Knowledge is a weapon'. Belief should influence your character's decisions. A character with the first belief should be on the lookout for ways to prove herself. A character with the second should be careful, anticipating what could be lost, what can be protected and then be ready to sacrifice what must be.'

Maybe Belief, Instinct and Goal isn't for you, but the gist of it is that you should have something at the table that reminds you of how to play your character.

Lastly, a tip on how to make your character's ..., well, character show in game. It's hard to convey large amounts of information in roleplay, nuances are often lost. Most of us aren't great actors and everyone is preoccupied with bashing goblins, which means that if you play with small clues to personality traits and hidden backstory chances are none will notice. You have to be open and direct.

Take my example, Alyn Selwe. She grew up on an orphanage, an experience which has scarred her with insecurities. She hides those behind daring bravado. But how would that upbringing and those insecurities show if she hides them? She'd come across exactly as every truly daring swashbuckler if you don't make an effort to show something more.

My favorite way of doing that is to describe my PC in third person. Most roleplayers have two ways of talking: they announce to the table what their character is doing ('I hit the orc' or 'I walk up to the baron to talk') and when their character is speaking, they speak as their character ('How do you do, baron? Do you know anything about these new orc raids?'). 'Roleplaying', as in showing who your character is, is thought to take place mostly in the second way of talking, when you talk as your character. That's when you use catch-phrases, disguise your voice with an accent and what not. All well and great, but the restrictions of information conveying built into roleplaying often means that you can't really show the full character that you want.

So lets focus on the first way of talking. When you say what your character do. Take these moments to also describe your character. 'I brush away a blue tress in my face and then hit the orc' (that one's important, a PC's appearance is often described at the start of the first session and then quickly forgotten by everyone involved). 'I slowly walk up to the baron, startled at first as for a moment he reminded me of the warden at the orphanage but then I put on my normal, brave and charming face'.

You can use this technique for dialogue, to describe how you speak as your character. '»How do you do, baron?« I say with my most honey-dripping voice, then I switch over to business and ask »Do you know anything about these new orc raids?«

Why do you need a backstory? To help you visualize and play your character? To give your GM hooks to develop stories with personal connections to your character? Another reason?

The answer should seriously impact the way you write your backstory.

You don't happen to have picked up Armor training (fighter class feature) somehow or the Armor Focus feat from Weapon Master's Handbook? Because if you did, I think you could get the Training weapon enchantment to your weapon of chose and having it grant you the Poised Bearing feat (also from WMH). It lets treat your size as one larger for the purposes of determining the size of creatures you can bull rush, drag, overrun and trip.

Is this for PFS? If not, any limitations on sources worth mentioning? What's your party composition?

sort of off topic, but did you know irl that the maximum range of a sling is longer than a bow.

Did you know that you replied to a thread from 2012!?

Anyway, cool fact. Do you have a source to back it up?

You could use the Simple class templates. That would be pretty close to your alternative B, but you get help doing it.

Adding class levels in NPC classes is also an option. The impact is much lower, since the creature doesn't gain any increases in their ability scores. A single level of Adept and you've got a simple mage that can annoy your players by using Cure light wounds on her buddies (players, at least in my experience, hate enemy healers undoing the damage they've done, even though in-combat healing is rather ineffective anyway).

To me, it sounds as if you should add more enemies to encounters. Single enemies are almost always easy to stomp over due to the laws of action economy, and you've got a bigger-than-standard party. Add one or two extra mongrelmen to those encounters with 2. Give the new ones ranged weapons if you want to spice things up a bit.

Umm... they do stack only in PFS is there a rule for these feats that you can only choose one class from which to check fort save.

I retract all my previous statements and claim the opposite.

Or, to put it another way, I totally missed that it was an PFS rule only. Thought I had missed something in Weapon Masters Handbook. Man, am I confused today (or is it everyday?).

Blymurkla wrote:

SheepishEidolon wrote:

But you still need a fitting item (maybe have to skip another helpful one in favor of it), you spend a feat on it

The Iron Caster build ignores those two problems. Martial versatility (through dip in Brawler or one of a few archetypes) or the Barrom brawler feat means you don't have to spend your feat slots on niched Item mastery feats that becomes obsolet when you level. Advanced Weapon Training Item Mastery means you can use any magic weapon.

This guide can tell you more about it, but it, like me, has missed the rule that Ascalaphus quotes.

Hmm, that's a good point. These builds shine at level 5 or 6, for little cost. Fighter (weapon master) 4 with a level 1 dip in brawler seems like the most straight forward choice, sacrificing just a bit of fighter progression.

As Ascalaphus pointed out, the Brawler dip doesn't help you qualify for Item mastery feats (in fact, it hurts). Unless, of course, you house rule that the base Fort save of different classes do stack for the purposes of Item mastery feats.

I think (without experience) that the Iron caster starts to shine as late as 9th level. With straight fighter levels, you've now got Weapon Training 2 and can select Abundant Tactics, meaning you can use Barrom Brawler 3 times every day. But I might be wrong, perhaps the powers of the Item mastery feats aren't that impressive at level 9.

A GM might decide that activating an item costs an use of Martial Flexibility, as for combat feats (which Advanced Combat Training is, while the item mastery feats are not). Then you are suddenly down from 4 uses/day to 2, at level 5. Increasing the uses per day of Martial Flexibility is expensive, and any increment will be reduced by this double-taxing.

Now you're way into house ruling territory ...

But you still need a fitting item (maybe have to skip another helpful one in favor of it), you spend a feat on it

The Iron Caster build ignores those two problems. Martial versatility (through dip in Brawler or one of a few archetypes) or the Barrom brawler feat means you don't have to spend your feat slots on niched Item mastery feats that becomes obsolet when you level. Advanced Weapon Training Item Mastery means you can use any magic weapon.

This guide can tell you more about it, but it, like me, has missed the rule that Ascalaphus quotes.

Blymurkla wrote:

As you can imagine, that can give some weird results. With the right (or wrong) multiclassing, a single save can sky-rocket while the other saves and/or your BAB stays low. You can also do some shenanigans, like gaining early access to item mastery feats like this one. I think it's a bit cheesy (though I suppose many disagree).

PFS leadership apparently agrees with you;

Additional Resources > Weapon Master's Handbook wrote:

When qualifying for and calculating the benefits of an item mastery feat, a PC uses the base Fortitude save bonus from only one of his classes.

Apparently, I missed that. And I know I'm not the only one. Nor is it (solely) a d20pfsrd problem, I've read the WMH but I must have skimmed that part.

Thanks for the correction!

They don't interfere at all with attunemet.

As a fan of ABP, I recommend you to read this blogpost. It contains an addition to the attunement rules. The math looks a bit intimidating, but in my experience it's overcomeable and really improves one of the glaring weaknesses of the conceptually fantastic ABP system.

Blymurkla wrote:

Ancient Dragon Master wrote:

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

Hobgoblin is also not great because it makes them sound like nice goblins for some reason.

Really? Can you explain how?

Can't speak for SilvercatMoonpaw, but to me 'hobgoblin' sometimes makes me reminisce about the film Labyrinth with David Bowie where the rather loveable and loony character Hoggle is a hobgoblin.

I thought he was referred to as dwarf. ("the dwarf is taking her to the beginning of the labyrinth...")

Huh, maybe my mind has twisted things.

I appreciate all of the great and thoughtful comments. My question is the save DC for a spell is 10 + spell level + relevant ability so most spells below 7 level are basically useless against them. Is that part of the point creep that occurs in high level games?

When the party was 7th level and could start using 4th level spells, did you find 1st level spells like Cause Fear, Color Spray, Hideous Laughter and Sleep to be very effective aganist them? Two of those spells are flat out impossible to affect 7th level characters with and I'd be surprised if you had good results with the other two.

1st level spells against PCs with the ability to cast and deal with 4th level spells is very similar to using 6th level spells against PCs who can cast 9th level spells. The difference in spell level is 3 in both cases.

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

Hobgoblin is also not great because it makes them sound like nice goblins for some reason.

Really? Can you explain how?

Can't speak for SilvercatMoonpaw, but to me 'hobgoblin' sometimes makes me reminisce about the film Labyrinth with David Bowie where the rather loveable and loony character Hoggle is a hobgoblin.

I had an inn which was called The Weeping Catfish. Unfortunately, the players (or PCs) never inquired as to why it had that name - they would have been told the story about the legendary catfish, first discovered by the founding king of the country, who's tears give rise to the region's largest river.

Blymurkla wrote:

Yes, that works just fine.

Also, you don't need Improved Disarm to be able to make a Disarm attempted as an attack of opportunity (though without it, you'd provoke an AoO, which could spawn the infinite loop of AoOs ...)

If the opponent is already tripped and is now prone, would be even be able to make an AoO?

Yes. Being prone gives you a –4 penalty to melee attack rolls (among other things), but you can still attack. In fact, I think there's builds out there who's whole shtick is to fight while being prone. Though someone else have to fill you in on the details.

Svirfneblin - presumably of Norse origin (see Svartalfar).

To the best of my knowledge, Svirfneblin isn't of Norse origin. It doesn't sound overtly Norse either. Nor is a Norse connection mentioned in the critters Wikipedia page either. I could be wrong, though.

And no comment on I'm Hiding In Your Closet's idea that they are a Yule pastry.

Yes, that's correct. You simply add whatever base saves you get for the appropriate levels of classes you have.

As you can imagine, that can give some weird results. With the right (or wrong) multiclassing, a single save can sky-rocket while the other saves and/or your BAB stays low. You can also do some shenanigans, like gaining early access to item mastery feats like this one. I think it's a bit cheesy (though I suppose many disagree).

Anyway, with Pathfinder: Unchained came an alternative system called Fractional base bonuses. It involves a bit of additional math but gives smoother progression of saves and BAB for multiclassed characters. You can ask your GM if this alternate system is in place in your campaign (or suggest that it should be).

Blymurkla wrote:

Yes, that works just fine.

Also, you don't need Improved Disarm to be able to make a Disarm attempted as an attack of opportunity (though without it, you'd provoke an AoO, which could spawn the infinite loop of AoOs ...)

There is no infinite loop because after a certain point you lack the resources to make more AoOs.

Have you spent your AoO before you have made it?

Okey, you're probably right =)

In the unlikely event of the spell being available and relevant to him, Bed of Iron would be nice. Can't be bothered to undress, right?

I'm also thinking Polypurpose Panacea.

Barroom brawler in order to adapt your tactics to suit different opponents (although I suppose levels in Brawler would be a good way to represent a professional boxer, making it rather superfluous).

The spell is instantaneous so there's no time limit. Assuming the 'statue' does not succumb erosion, the subject can be brought back to life hundreds and thousands of years later.

Would be nice to know the type of stone it turns you into. Granite is a lot harder and more resilient than limestone or pumice. Since damages to the statue is carried over to the live person when Stone to Flesh is used, it's also rather painful to imagine what certain types of wear and tear could expose one to. Acidic erosion (such as that from car exhausts, but volcanic activity would result in the same thing) would basically eat away your skin fairly evenly across your entire body.

But why are the Deeds listet at 1st, 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th and 19th Level?

Or is it only the hint, that new Deeds are available?

Yes. Swashbucklers can access new deeds as they gain levels.

Take Kip up:

Kip-Up (Ex): At 3rd level, while the swashbuckler has at least 1 panache point, she can stand up from prone as a move action without provoking an attack of opportunity. She can stand up from prone as a swift action instead by spending 1 panache point.

As you can see, it starts with 'at 3rd level' and then goes on to tell you what you can do. You can't use it if you're do not have at least 3 levels in Swashbuckler =)

No. As you can read on the bottom of this page, a Burning skeleton deals fire damage with its melee attacjs. There's no mention of ranged attacks, thus they are unaffected.

Mirage Wolf wrote:

Gory Finish (Combat)

(...) If you reduce your target to negative hit points, you can spend a swift action to make an Intimidate check to demoralize all foes within 30 feet who could see your attack.

Hmm, is it actually possible to reduce an object to negative HP?

Huh. That means you can't scare a necromancer by destroying her undead servants, or a wizard by destroying his homunculus.