You have defined such a broad category it will be unlikely to find a perfect fit. But imho principal is a good word.
Search Posts
The real monster is peer pressure.
Cool idea. What percentage of time do you see being spent on the past vs present? I think it would be interesting to mismatch or dice roll the npc to pc roles but then allow the abilities of the pc to bleed through in some way to make sure the players still feel connected to their own character. Being gestalt would make a great reason for why they ended up as legends. You should not fear to try an ambitious idea due to inexperience. Decide not based on the players current rules knowledge but on their inherent ability to understand and adapt in general.
Damage of the correct type from any source in any amount turns off the regeneration ability. If the creature's HP is negative enough to die in a round in which regeneration was shut off then it dies.
The strongest single move is probably to not be the alignment he can smite. If he is built for 2h weapons grappling or disarm could be worth it. Attacks that Target touch ac so a no-save caster or gunslinger might do.
If you are using it in a non-combat way it seems like the gm should be lenient. As long as you are careful you aren't trying to engineer a free action combat maneuver.
Because magic
I think the part about hands only is intended to be a special case for 1 single pullup not sustained climbing as in the other checks. Also I think you underestimate the ease of climbing ropes, that section of gym class was not as relaxing for some of us :p. Also also don't forget in your math that you can fail by 4 and not fall. One last also climb is in class for warrior and commoner so it would be very easy for an average npc statted level 1 person to get a +5 bonus your estimate of 0 is not realistic.
Contingency has range personal so it is not for rigging items. It sounds like you want to check the rules for crafting magic traps.
If your traps aren't dangerous why do they exist? If traps do not pose a threat how can a player who invested in trap countermeasures be expected to enjoy a return on that investment? Alternatively if traps are dangerous but just not instantly fatal how can you expect players to treat a contributing factor to a later death differently than an instant one?
Ghosts. Wraiths. Vampires. Mind control anyone with a low will save, level drain anyone with high will. Keep in mind that the players are supposed to win most of the time. Just because it seems to you that they are sitting pretty after a fight does not mean the players did not have fun or that they never felt at risk in the moment.
Are you planning for him not to be wizard I guess? Staff-like wand discovery would be pretty handy. offensive:
cure light wounds gets its own category:
buffs:
invisibility
Things that maybe don't meet the spamability requirement but make good backup plans anyway: versatile weapon
Necromancy command undead is probably op in an undead heavy game (plus enervate which is always fun). Really you can make a fun and viable wizard in any school. But you can't ever go wrong with conjuration. A properly prepared conjurer has something useful for every situation. You might check out the teleportation subschool power.
Yes. Henchmen followers and cohorts are specific aspects of the leadership feat that the paladin has more or less direct control over. The rule isn't intended to make the player responsible for everyone everywhere forever. It might be reasonable to require that all the top administrators / military be LG or at least represent themselves as such.
Yes. Although I think with details like this you have to be a little careful of situations where the player might not have a 100% perfect memory of what the character knows. The intent of the character is the important thing. Also, people often forget that simply not wanting to tell someone something is an option. Just because a paladin is bound to truth and honor doesn't mean he drinks sodium pentathol with every meal. When we get gaming with friends we tend to want to always have an answer to keep conversations going etc when in reality with politics the default answer to most things is "none of your beeswax" so lying doesn't happen as much.
Really need more details on this one to decide.
Definitely
Yes rules:
It might possibly be worth noting that the spell remove fear is both lower level and does the current job better.
Increasing weapon size gives something like 3.5 average damage increase possibly less depending on the weapon. For -2 hit that makes this feat weaker than several other standard damage related feats. 4.5 damage for greataxe makes it a tiny bit better if one handed but 20 x3 crtit range is sub optimal to begin with except at low low damage bonuses
4 swarms in 1 encounter could be pretty ugly if it comes after many other encounters on the same day and the casters don't have enough aoe spells left. Being immune to weapon damage is a pretty big reduction in the damage options for a low level party.
Haha that is pretty good. You should have wait until someone reaches in to get rations for breakfast and then grapple them and pull them inside with it.
I second the motion for combat reflexes. Like diskordant said if you don't have it you won't even be getting the full benefits of tripping 1 person. Much less tripping multiple enemies or taking advantage of aaos that enemies give you free for doing silly stuff. edit: too slow :(
I don't know if it is common enough to be worth putting in the chart but your round 3 chart doesn't account for the greater grapple feat.
In terms of power level this reminds me of the armor property "called" from 3.5 magic item compendium. It was very cheap for the convenience, not even a + mod. called:
Depends what you mean by worth it. It is pretty hard to say that the benefits outweigh the combination of penalties to move speed and weapon size. Then again it is pretty hard to say that the difference either way is likely to change your character from viable to not viable if otherwise built well. Go with what seems more interesting flavor.
I'm curious if anyone else in the party dealt with the demon and if so how would your paladin feel about that?
As a full caster the druid spell list has too much variety to say that this would be balanced easily. Imho if you want to make a wilderness fighter it would make more sense to start with ranger or barbarian and trade out the things you don't like.
Don't be so hard on yourself there is much more to being a "great player" than understanding every detail of the rules or whatever. Tabletop rpgs are as much a social experience as anything else, being open to other peoples' ideas and fun to interact with are the most important things. The fact that your DM made a completely pointless call and you were willing to soldier on anyway proves that you are most of the way towards being welcome at any reasonable table.
Dragons don't swallow whole because they want to be able to sort through your pockets for loose change after.
Check out the sizing weapon property in magic item compendium.
Leadership is a helluva drug. Even without allowing cohorts to take leadership it is clearly stronger than any other ability because for virtually any ability in the game you could instead take leadership and have your cohort have that ability plus all the benefits of being a whole other person. Rule 0 is a pretty good rule. Regarding cohorts taking leadership here is an interesting line from the 3.5 dungeon masters guide that for whatever reason didn't make it into pathfinder.
Just a reminder but the secondary feats are not style feats! So unarmed fighter doesn't work.Yes they are. They are under the "style feats" table. If that were true master of many styles or unarmed fighter could take crane riposte at level 1. They just wrote it that way because if they separated them the chart would be unreadable. Crane style has both the combat and style descriptors in the full description section. The followup feats only have combat. That pattern holds for all the styles. The full description takes precedence over the quick reference table. edit: It isn't a big deal for purposes of your combo you could just take the fighter level first and it all still works. Plus it does appear gowen has solved the problem better by going human anyway.
I was reading about another system where instead of just saying you are dead when you run out of hit points they have something called consequences. If a character takes too many hits they are knocked out of the scene and you impose some long term handicap that is relevant to the situation that they failed in. Then later some plot line or ability should give a character a chance to earn their way out of a handicap. It might take some extra work and a little more willingness to deal with subjective outcomes on the part of everyone in the game but something like this seems like it would have a lot of potential for fun twists in the right hands.
Multi weapon fighting replaces twf but not improved or greater twf. Imo the best way to run it would be to consider level 1 flurry using mwf then higher levels with itwf and gtwf as normal. So at level 20 your guy would flurry at 18 18 18 18 13 13 8 8 3 with this interpretation
Except that your forgetting attacks from having a high BAB that monk has 5 attacks at 18/18/13/8/3 before any bonuses. He only gets one bonus attack from flurry but he still gets all of his other attacks just like a a fighter who has twf but not itwf or gtwf he only gets one extra attack but all of his normal ones. The difference from 3.5 is that in 3.5 flurry did not get special bab but at higher levels removed the twf -2 penalty and all flurry bonus attacks were defined to be at max bab. 3.5 monk 20 flurry is +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 3.5 monk 1/fighter19 is 17/17/12/7/2
Yes A natural 20 on an attack roll is always a hit. A critical confirmation attempt is an attack roll.
perhaps the intent is to force the defender to think about what special properties would be relevant to the situation rather than just throw it all at ac bonus all the time.
Have you checked out the Loremaster prestige class from the core book? That seems a good fit to me to match the researcher flavor of the narrator of Call of Cthulu. You could even maybe work with the DM to come up with some custom secrets relevant to the lore of your game. edit: Also If you want to be the normal human scientist rather than the cultist imho divination is the cultists choice. The scientist discovers the nature of reality through research not divination. To me abjuration is the school a lovecraftian hero would pick.
Are you trying to make encounters only out of large numbers of small monsters? I glanced at the list of monsters by cr 5 and everything had a much higher than +4 to hit and multiple attacks. Most of the things with less than 50% chance to hit your party had other good special abilities. Would you mind giving an example of an encounter in your game that was too easy?
Her character is saying that she would be willing to watch your character die in battle that you join as a group? In my opinion that is morally indistinguishable from you challenging her to the duel. In either case it creates a situation where the only possible outcomes are for one character to die or be bullied into submitting to the other player's opinion. Everyone who is saying that that challenging her to a physical fight is boorish is absolutely right though. What I am here to point out is that her offering to force you to die rather than have her character leave the party is 100% exactly as bad mannered. And it sounds like she did it first. So if it were me I would have one last discussion on the subject with the group. I would tell them that I consider passive aggressively trying to get a character killed to be pvp action. I would let them know that if such pvp action is to be considered valid by the group that I would consider it to be open season on any and all other means of pvp. I would further let them know that I do not WANT to bring pvp in the game, but that uncompromising attitudes are forcing the issue and that it is unacceptable for other players to threaten pvp action without the group approving. I would have this conversation far far away from a game table.
But in this case, it's clearly meant to be Not An Action.Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless defined otherwise by the ability's description. Technically. I agree. However I also think it is clearly meant that the raven is speaking by, you know, speaking. So I was trying to point out that if you want to argue technicalities they cut both ways.
Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless defined otherwise by the ability's description. Technically.
You can use sustained force, combat maneuver or violent thrust to remove the sword from the person's hand the checks made and results are different in each case. If you use cm, you make a disarm check with no save, if the disarm check is successful he drops the weapon. You could disarm items from both hands with this option. It is sort of a fuzzy call whether you can get the free weapon pickup per disarm rules. If you use violent thrust, the weapon receives a will save and no disarm check is necessary. Fling it once but then the spell ends. You could target many items at once with this option. If you use sustained force, will save, no disarm, continue to manipulate it. You can only target 1 item with this option. edited: for sanity.
Assuming that is true, is there any ability that a character with 20 levels of rogue and no other talents can have that would break the game if guaranteed to win initiative?
I think that this type of bias against ranged weapons in the rules is usually done for balance concerns. If ranged weapons do not have significant drawbacks compared to melee there isn't ever any reason to use melee when the bow could be hitting from hundreds of feet away. The other reason to have enlarge effects cancel outside of the characters possession is it prevents people from getting up to shenanigans where they pick things up and then put them down at double the size for 20 minutes.
just an idea. shuffle [conjuration (teleportation)]
You swap positions with any 1 of the targets. You instantly swap from the new position with another target. You must continue to swap until all targets have been moved. No target may be moved more than 1 time. If valid targets exist within range you cannot choose less than the maximum possible targets. This movement does not provoke. If a creature succeeds on its save it is excluded from the spell but the spell continues as long as other valid targets exist. ps: I wanted to include some element of random rolling to choose the order of swapping but couldn't think of a good way to write the rule for a first draft.
And if it can be used to grapple, could you activate it after being grappled to have a better chance to break the grapple? You could use it to wield something while maintaining free hands to avoid the -4 penalty for not having two free hands.
The spellcraft check in the counterspell rules is solely to identify the exact spell being cast so that you can choose the correct counterspell. Using dispel to counter works the same regardless of what spell is being cast so it seems reasonable to skip the spellcraft check. As for the golem guarding example: desecrate includes distributing 5 pounds of silver dust around the area. Imho that is plenty of visible information for the suspicious golem to decide to attack. Ultimately though it is a matter of dm taste what constitutes "hostile" in the mind of a mindless creature.
It is not possible to change verbal and somatic components of a spell without some type of special ability. They are specific to the spell and have to be performed correctly or else the spell fails, that is why things like arcane spell failure and concentration checks can exist. The party knows for sure that he is performing magic by the nature of the actions he is taking, they should get a sense motive roll to know if his behavior is a reaction to seeing them, they should get a spellcraft check to identify the spells. Summon monsters automatically attack unless ordered to do otherwise so the players would get a perception check (probably easy dc) to hear the cleric speak the orders to remain hidden in elemental language. Plus a possible perception check or sense motive check if the guards react to the elemental appearing, or if any of the players is in a location to hear or see the elemental. If the players fail all those checks... well sometimes failing rolls is bad for your health.
given the 1 round duration most of your effects seem tame enough to make it a level 1 spell. That would make mass something like 5th based on core examples. I assume when you say "you" and "your" you mean the target of the spell? Might save some confusion later to be more specific with your wording. Speaking of confusion that is a pretty standard tool in the chaos toolbox. One option you don't have on your list is direct damage. Given the other options for this particular spell it couldn't be very much. However for a higher level spell might I suggest reversing the standard of many small dice and use 1 huge dice to increase randomness. For example a 15d6 damage spell would have an average of 52.5 and a 1d100 would have an average of 50.5 but the d100 would have 24 more possible values than the d6s.
Compare the use here to the real world object. There are many diverse kinds of cheese, made from different milks, with different recipes and definitions. You could discuss for a long time what it means to be cheese but it is much more effective to identify cheese by the taste and the smell.
I see this opinion expressed on these boards pretty frequently and I just wanted to say that it is wrong. When a character takes a crafting feat they have paid an opportunity cost of not having taken some feat that would more directly increase their power. If ownership of the crafting ability does not increase our character's wealth over the expected value by level then it is impossible that the benefit of the crafting feat can make up the difference in power of taking some other feat. As for the part about one character making a profit from another: As with all player on player action that is going to depend extremely heavily on the humans involved. I once had a character pay another character to be his personal biographer and herald, mechanically of course it was all completely senseless but in terms of players enjoying the game it was some of the best gold ever spent. Ymmv. Personally I think allowing the crafter to make a couple coins from the other character is potentially a good idea, here is why: There is a strong temptation from non-crafting players to look at crafting as a party resource. It can be frustrating at times to see the benefits of a personal feat choice plus the fruits of crafting time go to other players who take it for granted and then go on to use those items to achieve greater glory in battle. Obviously this is not always the case but I can definitely see building a reward into the system being beneficial to the enjoyment of some people.
Is ability focus: hex a feat option? In general if playing a build entirely focused on save spells doing as much as you can to make those saves more difficult is good. Your level 8/10 hex choices seem largely a flavor decision. But I will try to point out some objective points to compare: Tongues gets you an ability that can already covered by the witch spell list. Feral Speech and Disguise get you spells that are only level 1 spells for other classes. While they are not on your spell list it would be relatively cheap by level 10 to acquire a wand of those spells and use magic device is in class. Charm: the main advantage this has over just using diplomacy skill is it takes 1 standard action instead of 1 minute. The only time that likely matters is combat. However if the target is in combat with us it is probably a hostile attitude so the best result is indifferent. Depending on the opinion of the GM this could be of fairly little benefit. /me looks up. It seems I have argued that everything is worse than everything, my work here is done. |