Market Patron

Caliburn101's page

111 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

If it is indeed 'like butter' it would require prolonged high heat from a naked flame to make it burn.

Few spells or effects would set it on fire, and if they did the damage would be really low.

I read this and note

Estovion 'amost certainly' harmed other people and 'attempted murder'....

.... no actually proven murder here then.

To kill him would be unlawful and borderline evil.

You may personally equate 'fines' with a lack of true justice, but it isn't - check out nearly every legal framework on the planet - fines are common and even effective on occassions.

If I had been playing the paladin though, after taking all his worldly goods I would have marched him to a church monastery and forcibly enrolled him in a truly good faith and bound him to serve penance for a suitable period under the command of the faithful there. But the restrictions of the adventure may not allow for it of course - I haven't played it.

I have seen a great deal of questionable challenges to the way people play paladins and didn't agree with most of it. From something just shy of Judge Dredd to an armoured version of Mother Theresa, there are many ways to play a Paladin and stay within the Lawful Good 'box'.

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Caliburn101 wrote:
... An arguement is only reasoned if it has evidence to support it...
Simply not true. There is an entire field (philosophy) which is essentially based on reasoned argument without evidence. In fact alot of people would say that reasoned argument is impossible if there is clear evidence. Argument is only necessary when the evidence is insufficient or unclear.

You are referring to the 'inductive reasoning' used in philosophy. This however is based on observations - abstracted ones true, but evidence nevertheless.

I didn't not claim that evidence was required purely for 'deductive reasoning' - which you have incorrectly assumed....

CBDunkerson wrote:

Core rulebook, page 186:

"Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively."

"an" attack of opportunity. One. Uno. Singular.

So much debate because this has not been scrutinised correctly....

It is very clear and needs no clarification from Paizo at all except with the caveat I end this post with (see below).

You cast and fire the ranged touch attack at exactly the same time with the following potential consequences if you are threatened;

Cast Normally - casting normally and firing simultaneously means ONE AoO.

Cast defensively - firing the ranged touch attack STILL means ONE AoO.

Caveat: I cannot find a single reference stating that under any circumstances AoO's can be made 'simultaneously'. If this IS the case, and I have missed an entry somewhere, then the debate needs to continue - otherwise it's a lot of verbal wrangling over nothing....

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

I wouldn't call it nonsense. I can see it reasoned either way.

Having "an evil cunning ... that allows them to wield weapons" is not necessarily the same thing as intelligent enough to cooperate tactically to assist with grappling. They are less intelligent than animals and I've neer seen anyone say most animals can use assist to grapple.

On the other hand;

I can also see the side that says assisting in a grapple (mechanic) can be represented by a dogpile (description).

I would have no heartburn if my GM ruled either way. I'm not sure what I would do as a GM since none of my players ever seem to use combat maneuvers if ther is any possible way to avoid it. Even if they 'know' it is a better choice, they still won't do it.

An arguement is only reasoned if it has evidence to support it.

My arguement has the existence of a CMB, the description of cunning and the fact they can be commanded to attack - without stated restrictions on how (within the limits of their stat block).

The opposing arguement has no such evidence of validity - it is an unsupported opinion based on a loose and personal interpretation of the word 'mindless'.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As has been pointed out - an assisted grapple is entirely feasibly represented by my undead simply dogpiling and grappling.

Rules-lawyer arguements about 'you can't give a mindless undead a command to grapple' is anally retentive and assumes that simple is 'one-word', which, of course, is not supported by the rules anywhere....

Quote from Animate Dead spell;

"The undead can be made to follow you, or they can be made to remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature)".

It does not say 'simple attack'.

Quote from Skeleton entry in Bestiary I

"While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor."

.... and of course they have a CMB of +2, which they would not have were they not capable of grappling....

So - they can attack targets as directed, have an evil cunning and can grapple.

So enough with the 'they can't assist in a grapple' nonesense....

Bloody Flaming Skeletons.

Mob target, use assist other on a grapple and either way its a rattling, slimy, portable, self-recharging 'sphere of flame' which sometimes immobilises the target.

How is this innefective? I made a GM go with fire-immune mobs after three renditions of this.

It is effective.... trust me....

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What would I like to see fixed with Pathfinder?

All the people who play it that cannot see past the rules they can/cannot exploit. I would change them into roleplayers - not roll-players.

These forums are full of players who want to min-max until the rules break from stress, and GM's who don't have a backbone sufficient to the job of supporting the movement in their lower jaw as they say 'NO' to their munchkin players.

As a GM - if you find a player exploiting and not roleplaying then don't give them XP - they aren't roleplaying and don't deserve any.

If you have a GM who cannot say no to you regardless of the outrageousness of what you ask for - then show some integrity and don't ask.

The Pathfinder rules are just FINE if people do not take the piss. A decent GM of any stripe can run an entire campaign without having to refer to these forums for a solution even once - most of the queries and suggestions here are no-brainers considering that a campaign is run by the GM and therefore subject to his/her decisions on balance et al.

If the phrases 'optimised build' and 'monty haul' are what you like to hear - stay away from any game run by anyone I know.... you will get nowhere!

Buri wrote:
rat_ bastard wrote:
5th level commoners can afford magical weapons, 5th level commoners are also incredibly rare.

WRONG - you have to go high-powered on your game demographics before they are anything less than uncommon and you also have to assume they don't own anything BUT their precious magical item - which presumably must therefore provide the shelter & food they can't subsequently afford and a career alongside the 'bonuses to hit'....

Kakitamike wrote:
Unfortunately, I feel like video games and mmo's in particular have made people expect magic items to fall out of every 3rd creature they kill. Given, some monstera have always had a chance at magical loot on their treasure tables, but it just feels more prevalent today than it used to.


Junk food games lead to junk results....

Actually the mechanics of the magic item creation rules are fine.

It's the campaign world (in nearly all cases) which is in question here.

It really does pay dividends to work out the demographics of your game world.

How many people of what level ranges, what % of those who are magic users, what % of those are magic item crafters....

Once you do this - making reasonable assumptions of course, you will find most game worlds have a very limited number of item crafters who practice above the scroll/potion/wand level.

This makes them valuable and rare - and valuable/rare assets get snaffled up by the 'great and powerful' - they are not usually available to the general populace - they are retained by those who can afford them.

However, the PC's are EXCEPTIONS as has been stated - heroes whose legends are supposed to stand out in a game world and who stand apart from the normal demographic standards.

Fair enough - BUT - these exceptional heroes live IN the gameworld and don't make IT exceptional - they interrelate in all kinds of ways, and here's some examples of how....

1. A PC who goes the crafting route will become a competitor to the established suppliers - potential conflict.
2. The 'great and powerful' will want to snaffle up the PC's abilities and own them - potential interference from those who can afford to make the PC's life difficult if they don't provide their services on demand.
3. The Christmas Tree effect. This one is woefully underplayed by GM's - but if a group get a reputation for dripping with magical items - they will be targetted by capable Rogues etc. looking for the easy acquisition - or at the very least the periodic paying of protection money until such time as the PC's deal with the problem in a FINAL way....
4. The jealous temple who have discovered that your Wizard is making clerical items they regard as their 'monopoly market' - and put political or other pressure on you to stop.

Add to this the odd tweak - such as variability in the supply of necessary materials, the necessity to maintain work facilities (or pay for access to them) and the 'unbalanced' nature of enchantment levels out nicely.

No abilities on PC's exist in a vaccuum unless you are running a 'popcorn & bubblegum' casual 'paper-MMO' type of game - in which case what are you complaining about? The advantage of making your own kit and equip yourself just as you desire is reward enough. No-one gets to choose the loot from their latest adventure - and they shouldn't just convert it into cash and make exactly what they want as a matter of course.

There should be challenges there too.

GM's just need to get a grip of their own games and make those challenges reasonable and a part of the gameworld rather than rolling over every time a player insists that because it is in the book, they should automatically be able to do it as and when they choose.

NO campaign world should work like that, and thus no mechanics need to be changed. The challenge and roleplay should be about getting the enchanter into a position to make the item - not on some random roll. The GM's Guide is a rule book too!

In my campaign I have a list of undead which have class levels in the bestiaries, and/or which are 'created' in the text by 'evil rituals' etc. etc. For each there is a Trait available (2 Traits buyable per Feat remember) which represents the learning of the unique rituals or techniques necessary to make those undead - who are brought to unlife by the Create Undead spell (for which I have created a CR balanced list of level prerequisites).

This way seems balanced to me as a house rule and as my campaign is very 'dark magic' in style (I also have developed an entirely fiendish summon monster spell - Summon Fiend), it gets used a lot....

gnrrrg wrote:

She's moving side to side, but slowly compared to Pathfinder movement. Running 20-30 feet in 6 seconds and making a shot is going to be a lot harder.

Most games do ignore the fact that move and shoot is going to make your shots less accurate.

GURPS doesn't - it has got to be the best representation of ranged firing on the RPG market.

Apology accepted.

This one is very easy to circumvent.

Do you have a sorcerer or wizard with you?


Then memorise fireball (or if your sorcerer already has it)and counterspell it as you pass in a huddle through the room.

Alternatively take at least two dispel magics for other casters and do a double dispel counter (just to make sure) as you pass.

What could be simpler....

Human Admixture School Wizard; turn yourself into a damager/controller at the same time....

Str 10
Dex 14
Con 16
Int 19 (17+2)
Wis 13
Cha 15


1st - Intense Spells, Versatile Evocation, Spell Focus (Evocation), Combat Casting, Arcane Bond (Wand)

2nd -

3rd - Flaring Spell (Metamagic)

4th -

5th - Rime Spell (Metamagic)

6th - Eldritch Heritage (Primal - Cold)

7th -

8th - Elemental Manipulation

9th - Spell Penetration

10th - Greater Spell Focus (Evocation)

12th - Elemental Focus (Cold)

raven1272 wrote:
Caliburn101 wrote:

I would welcome various 'outsider' summon lists - it has always seemed thematically poor to have the summon monster list as is - it is too general and kind of all over the place.

I like the list.

The main problem I ran into is this: what would a summon demon or summon outsider list look like? And, how would it not turn into a subset of summon monster?

If it is demon only, do devils and fiendish outsiders count as well? If it is outsider, then demons, angels, devils, and many other things qualify as well. The list here appears to be something akin to summon evil =) (not that i'm complaining).

Yeah that's why it's called Summon Fiend - it summons evil outsiders.

I kept the choice to three per level though - too much flexibility makes summoning OP.

I will think about an 'angelic' list, an 'eidolon' and an 'elemental' type list next week when I have some time. I actually may have them replace SM in my campaign - like I said, I think thematically these would be much stronger.

Yes - I KNOW SL won't be converted becuase of the Golarion-driven business model. That's a no-brainer.

However - what I would LIKE, and what I EXPECT are two different things in this case.

I think that just a crunch conversion book or just PDF would 'fly off the shelves'. I would happily pay $40-$50 for a book and around $20 for a PDF - and I am not alone. Every single d20 player I know would do the same.

Without virtually no exceptions, anyone who has played or run SL that I know off (and I must know ~60 RP'ers well enough) thought SL was a fantastic setting.

Yes I am a 'fanboi' - but I hold it in high regard because it deserves it, not out of misplaced loyalty. My three complaints would be the artwork, the too-often encountered errata and the 'rush to finish' at the end of the series which left Asherak et al more of a footnote than a fully realised part of the gameworld.

But in terms of the fine art of world building - there is no commercially available gameworld which comes up to the same well-balanced level of depth, immersion and variety in my opinion. As a GM it was simply a delight to run - ideas just lept off the page at every turn, making my campaigns easy to build in the most engaging and immersive fashion.

A site with the full range of campaign book PDFs and a crunch PF conversion PDF would likely be very successful.

I would do it myself if I had the time....

What do you think of this?

Summon Fiend I (CR 1/2)
Fiendish Dire Rat
Fiendish Viper
Fiendish Ghost Scorpion

Summon Fiend II (CR 1)
Lemure (devil)
Fiendish Giant Fly
Fiendish Cave Scorpion

Summon Fiend III (CR 2)
Cacodaemon (daemon)
Doru (div)

Summon Fiend IV (CR 3-4)
Hell Hound
Accuser Devil (Zebub)
Schir (demon)

Summon Fiend V (CR 5-6)
Babau (demon)
Bearded Devil

Summon Fiend VI (CR 7-8)
Erinyes (devil)
Adhukait (asura)

Summon Fiend VII (CR 9-10)
Bone Devil
Vrock (demon)
Leukodaemon (daemon)

Summon Fiend VIII (CR 11)
Barbed Devil
Hezrou (demon)
Meladaemon (daemon)

Summon Fiend IX (CR 12-14)
Glabrezu (demon)
Ice Devil
Nalfeshnee (demon)

raven1272 wrote:
cranewings wrote:
So how does it work? Do they need dead bodies around to animate or do they just appear through a portal, or is it something even cheesier like they crawl out of the ground, even if there weren't any graves?

I will leave that to interpretation honestly. How does summon monster and ally work in your campaign? If it is a puff of smoke and the animal appears, then summon undead could work the same way. If they are ripped from another dimension or another place in the world, then summon undead could work the same as well. I guess you could even go as far as saying the caster has a spell component, some fragment of an undead, and can use that as a focus. Those are some off the cuff ideas.

Azten wrote:
Add the Fiendish Template and they become Outsiders. It's not hard to imagine Undead in the Abyss or Hell.

Good thought. That could help smooth out the gap at CR 11 or 12. This particular endeavor has spawn another idea. I want to toy with a Summon demon I- IX. But, summon monster already contains many demons and fiendish creatures.

I would welcome various 'outsider' summon lists - it has always seemed thematically poor to have the summon monster list as is - it is too general and kind of all over the place.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

****The Scarred Lands setting!!****

It is out of print and since begining my 'd20 life epic' when I picked up the first edition of D&D (after putting down my Chainmail rules), I have never enjoyed a gameworld so much.

Buy the rights, convert the crunch and spellcheck the fluff....

.... sorry to say it Paizo - but Golarion is unoriginal and flavourless gruel compared to Scarred Lands....

Far too much flexibility available with class levels on monster template for summoning - this would never get past initial review at PF.

The list needs to be without such inclusions to work like the summon monster and summon nature's ally spells.

Actually a Tetori Monk/Shadowdancer is interesting too - Str drain from Shadow after a grapple is established....

Are you sure this is entirely 'in-character'?

"If you were an Elf, you would have made that save" sounds like it isn't entirely.

But anyway - let's assume it is.

I would deal with this in-character, and have a scout for a mob of Dwarves overhear the Elves and decide to take things in hand.

A little bit of mob handed humiliation of the Elves by the overwhelmingingly large mob of Dwarves and then an opportunity for the PC Dwarf to stop them by quoting Dwarven honour and pointing out the childishness of racially-driven tit for tat.

Then if the taunting continues give the PC Dwarf an opportunity to speak to the Dwarven Ambassador to the Elves homeland and escalate things until the Elves own people get embarassed by their behaviour and step in.

PC's are all too often allowed to carry on as if the rest of the world is just background flavour and not a living, breathing and complex entity filled with its own agendas and the powerful people and organisations which drive them.

Give the Elves a dose of 'who the hell do you think you are!?' and it may well sort them out.

After ALL that - they still continue, have a group of outraged and vengeful Dwarves bust them up, take their property and trash their reputation in every place with a Dwarven enclave - after all, there is a reason Dwarves and Elves don't get on yes?

Blood feuds in the real world have been started for more petty reasons than this. If the Elf players then complain, point out that they had several opportunities to bow out gracefully and they pushed it - no more sensible than charging a fortified position of CR+3 mobs who know you are coming really....

I actually find spectral hand and a rack of illusion based defences most useful - mirror image, invisibility (vanish is GREAT for this - so economical) and dont forget darkness and darkvision.

You will also find summoning is useful - summon, monster grapples target - you cast and touch without much risk.

There are all kinds of ways to make this work and the extra damage output or heavy hitting effects of touch spells make the effort worth it if you specialise in this mode of caster.

My Necromancer has a few undead (a horse and two wolfhounds) which are raised as fast zombies and their corpses were prepared with the taxidermy craft skill (I took a 20) to make them look as alive as possible.

Unless people get really close they move at normal speeds and don't look undead. The only giveaway is the eyes - which of course are glass, but as they are 'feral' guard hounds, and I never stable my horse, my character gets away with it most of the time.

For raising other undead - well I ensure that is done in hostile areas only and used against the bad guys, with undead being ordered to bury themselves 'out of town' while we are in more civilised areas.

There are several useful utilities to having undead around whilst in dangerous areas.

* Guards that never fall asleep
* Burning dead skeletons are an instant campfire
* Zombies make great 'trapfinders'

At the end of the day, my LN Necro only ever makes unintelligent undead (skellies, zombies) and uses his control abilities to turn undead against themselves or their masters.

It works just fine even with a cleric in the party, and everyone appreciates the multiple flanking bonuses I can 'assign' soon after combat starts.

It's all in how you play it and how beleivable the rationale of your characters choices are. For instance - my character will NEVER raise intelligent undead on principle and makes sure everyone knows it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Swarm effectiveness depends on situation and target, but if you catch a melee character with spider swarm then slow them it is FANTASTIC.

I agree.

In my game there is one culture where assassins can be of any non-evil alignment (they kill their people's enemies this way and killingh enemies is not 'evil').

The whole issue of Necromancy and 'evil' spells etc. (including becoming a Lich) is dealt with by a modified version of the position on this in 'Hollowfaust- City of Necromancers' by S&SS. Liches do not have to be evil - they just require a damn good reason to exist.

Paladins are Lawful evil and involve themselves with Devils - I don't agree with the PF take on this making them demon related.

The Snap Shot feat is game-breaking rubbish in my opinion. It makes for instance crossbows extremely poor by comparison;

Attacks of Opportunity
Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow Yes
Load a heavy or repeating crossbow Yes

.... and allows full attacks without an issue. How the hell you draw, nock, aim and shoot whilst maintaining full defences is beyond me. The Feat is broken.

It should AT LEAST require a concentration check like spellcasting does - the act of shooting in melee is no less demanding in my opinion.

Personally if I came across an NPC doing this I would attack their bow as bows break easily. The fact they can ALSO get attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon in melee is beyond a joke.

It makes Weapon Finesse utterly pointless considering bow damage.

A very badly thought out feat.

It should not allow attacks of opportunity and should require a concentration check.

Fighting in melee with a ranged weapon should not be a preferential arrangement to using a melee weapon for a high Dex character.

Alienfreak wrote:
Beyond that-- you're rude, insulting, and ignorant. Your battlefield interpretations are devoid of facts and supporting evidence, and contain unbelievable analysis and conclusions. You have no professional expertise in the subject matter under discussion, and you're clearly not a trained historian. When you, a civilian, then want to bring up modern weapons that at best, you may have seen in some books, TV shows, and computer games-- to try to demonstrate your knowledge as part of more belittlements and insults-- dude, I've fired the RPG 7 before. Really, there's no point to even pretending to take you seriously.

1. My battlefield interpretations are straight to the facts and are according to reports of eye witnesses and not some fancy historicians having their own agendas, like the british always trying to glorify their few victories in history and feed upon them.

2. I may be rude but not insulting.
3. You are ignorant to scientific facts. Maybe you should stop trying to be the professional historician and get used more to scientific working? You even fail to read the proper results into Bane's work. Which is really poor for someone trying to pose as the real professional here.
4. I know a lot of archeologists and historicians and they can't even remember a freaking trigonometric function but pretend to be the pros when it comes to penetration and capabilities of alloys and materials. And yet they often fail alot.
5. So you fired a RPG 7V? Great! Whats the point here?
6. We know the alloys and techniques used for the construction of the Armor and the Arrows. So what keeps us from looking at it and saying what has been possible and what wasn't?
7. You even refuse to use COMMON SENSE.
Stick an Arrow in front of you into the ground. Then try to pull it out, ready it in your bow, lean back, draw, aim, wait for the command and then fire.

You even say that is doable in 2 seconds or even less. What the hell? This is just that far from reality I wonder what you do for a living. Are you a...

1. The British only had a 'few' victories? As a matter of fact, while building the biggest empire the world has ever seen, the British had more victories than can easily be counted. If you count the period before this, there are plenty of examples of victories on the medieval battlefield. Your first statement is unsupported by even a side reference to established historical fact.

2. "I may be rude but not insulting."

I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'rude' in this context and revise your statement. When critising the statements of others it really does help to understand the meaning of what you are saying. To put it in another way, other statements which are equally non-sensical would be;

"I may be a fool but I am not stupid."


"I might be a muppet, but there is no chance I am a puppet."

3. "ignorant of scientific facts". You are ignorant of scientific method, and why Bane's work had been contextually invalidated for years.

4. "I know a lot of archeologists and historicians" Surely you mean "archaeologists" and "historians"? - who if you did know them would surely have politely corrected such errors when you referred to them them by their occupation. I spent almost my entire first year during my BSc explaining the unusual spelling of the word "archaeologist" to the uninitiated, as you clearly appear to be.

5. Your first relevant point.

6. Your second relevant point - but refer back to 3 - this isn't a case you can make with any real validity when you show no rigour in your choice of supporting sources.

7. Proof of the pudding! The archers of that period put their arrows in the ground - are you REALLY saying they did it because it made them LESS effective? An unsupportable and unreasoned conclusion, and one any trip to Warwick Castle and observation of the longbow firing display can show to be incorrect.

Yes definately a worthy Feat - VERY worthy.

I am currently running an Augment Summoning LN 7th level Wizard who likes opening with a Summon Monster IV - fiendish rhino. The +2 to hit on the opening charge and the damage are tremendous. The extra HP means it really lasts for the duration.

You get even more bang for your buck if you go for the one level lower summons as the bonus goes on each extra monster - meaning they are competitive. For locking down multiple targets at once or shutting down casters with multiple attacks of opportunity - remember the damage requries a concentration check AND the casting in melee does too. The extra +2 to hit and damage can make all the difference against low AC targets.

Pure gold - don't leave home without it!

sunbeam wrote:

I'm looking for feedback and ideas from anyone who has played one.

I'd like to go into it from Rogue.

But as everyone knows the Rogue has problems, and the Shadowdancer isn't really considered to be that good. If anyone uses this Prestige Class at all, it seems to be a 1 (Hide in Plain Sight) or 2 level dip (Evasion, Darkvision, Uncanny Dodge).

Anyone got actual experience? Tactics? Equipment? Builds? Something they are actually good at?

Actually the Ninja/Shadowdancer is nasty. I would love to play one which played to it's strengths - i.e. the Str damage. Remember - any target which goes to 0 Str DIES if it has taken Str damage from a Shadow.

The Ninja abilities which complement this are;

Poison Bomb (Dragon Bile or other Str damage poison), Pressure Points (Str damage) and Flurry of Stars (poisoned of course....)

Add to this Ghost Step, Shadow Clone and Shadow Split (once at high level) and the Ninja becomes a damn scary assassin of considerable ability.

To give you and idea about how this might work;

1st round - Ninja and Shadow come out of the walls or floor and sneak attack - Shadow attacks with touch attack against flat-footed opponent whose AC is now in the toilet; Ninja flurries with stars - all poisoned with Str damage poison and pressure points effect. If enough poison is loaded onto the target, the fight is effectively over and the Ninja and shadow can withdraw and wait the few rounds for the poor target to collapse - after which the shadow hits the target once more, killing it.

Take the poison out of the equation and this is still a great tactic to soften up a target the other party members can wail on.

Awful way to go....

I have mixed feelings about the rules for Animate Dead and especially Create Undead.

I mean you can be creative with it - I personally love making hordes of humanoid burning skeletons and having them swarm someone (8 attack, 7 do assist other on 1 skeletons grapple check - group hug for 8d6 fire damage a round....+1d6 damage per one killed in such proximity!).

Like a bony, snaring low radius repeating fireball....

But yes - such devices aside, the spells are too weak.

Why would I want to create a Ghoul at 11th level????.... so I can ensure my enemies laugh at me before they kill me? Not only that - they don't even start under my command!

"Hah Paladin - eat my newly created Ghoul horde!.........erm, NO - THAT WAY!" *Paladin watches with raised eyebrow* "I'll just wait till you have finished destroying your 'servants' shall I?"

....... not that I need to worry about that though, because even as a Wizard or Sorcerer at 11th their +3 to hit means they will need a natural 20 to harm me.......


The undead 'created by rituals etc.' like Skeleton Champions should be available to creation Necromancers as spells or perhaps feats - or at least summonable by necro's with a separate Summon Undead I, II etc. list. Higher level spells/feats should allow advanced template undead and other tweakable choices to make them worth taking.

Any thoughts Paizo?

I have mixed feelings about the rules for Animate Dead and especially Create Undead.

I mean you can be creative with it - I personally love making hordes of humanoid burning skeletons and having them swarm someone (8 attack, 7 do assist other on 1 skeletons grapple check - group hug for 8d6 fire damage a round....+1d6 damage per one killed in such proximity!).

Like a bony, snaring low radius repeating fireball....

But yes - such devices aside, the spells are too weak.

Why would I want to create a Ghoul at 11th level????.... so I can ensure my enemies laugh at me before they kill me? Not only that - they don't even start under my command!

"Hah Paladin - eat my newly created Ghoul horde!.........erm, NO - THAT WAY!" *Paladin watches with raised eyebrow* "I'll just wait till you have finished destroying your 'servants' shall I?"

....... not that I need to worry about that though, because even as a Wizard or Sorcerer at 11th their +3 to hit means they will need a natural 20 to harm me.......


Jason S wrote:
Banatine wrote:
Tell your realism to go shove it, coz if (already provably possible) archery has to go home, so do dragons, undead, angels, demons, fey, magical beasts, and IN has to come penalties to

The post is whether archery is realistic or not, if you didn't like the topic, you didn't have to read any farther than that.

Realism aside, the problem is that it isn't even balanced against melee currently.

Yes - range penalties are a joke - range increments should be halved for this purpose AT LEAST.

Also, if the target has taken a move action during the turn before you fire there should be a further penalty of -2.

Size modifiers for larger than medium creatures should be doubled however.

Finn K wrote:
Caliburn101 wrote:

Funny stuff.

Yes, yes it is (that was the poster for whom I have now quoted Bane a couple of times-- not because Bane did a full academically rigorous test, but because even Bane's tests and conclusions do not support the poster's positions).

BTW, Caliburn-- Since you've studied some of these battles more than I have-- anything you can see that I got wrong in my comments on Agincourt in the most recent reply, or on the utility of heavy cavalry in the centuries after Agincourt?

Not particularly - it is just useful for everyone to understand that bowmen of any type are pretty crap against cavalry when the cavalry have room to charge and the bowmen are not on good defensive ground.

I wouldn't stand in front of a charging knight & warhorse if I was dressed in titanium plated bomb disposal kit - never mind a yeoman's jerkin. However, if I was behind rows of stakes I might think differently.

Bowmen go down fast to good melee if they get engaged that way - they are massacred vs. good cavalry when it closes. Give them the opportunity to focus-fire on a target (expecially slow foot troops or mud-mired cavalry) and it's fish in a barrel.

When studying the battles in question - any analysis of the effectiveness of weapons or armour has to be addressed with a weather eye on the circumstances of use - not just the alleged mechanical properties.

However, if something is indeed 'useless' mechanically, then a good tactical position or strategic situation doesn't really help. Ask the Zulus at Rorkes Drift about how useful their spears were against the rifle, or the Greeks when using the Hoplon in Phalanx formation against the Roman soft-shafted javelin.

The English were not idiots. The English continued to use the longbow for many decades after Knight's routinely had steel plate. It's clear that it was still battlefield-effective because there was a cheap and widely available alternative that they never switched to.... the crossbow.

Additionally, the Mongol Khanates managed to last until the very early 16th century using bows no more powerful than the longbow as their signature weapon. I don't remember them being described as 'ineffective' either....

Win some battles, lose some battles - it doesn't make the weapons you use 'ineffective', nor does it mean you abandon a proven weapon which still works.

The proof was in a pudding no modern person ever ate, and therefore can't really conclude on the taste of....

Funny stuff.

The French clearly used to cut the fingers of English Longbowmen off because the weapon was crap. Unsporting to allow them to continue using something ineffective yes? How generous....

Obviously ALL the French Knights at Agincourt had the very best duplex breastplate (by far the thickest) armour covering every square inch of their bodies and didn't need to worry about getting hit regardless of location?

Also - it must have been that their horses were covered in duplex breastplates too huh?

Perhaps the English didn't bother to use swallowtail arrows which were specifically designed to be effective against horses becuase they didn't think the French would use their thousands of mounted knights eh?

.... and that the longbowmen were stupidly using the long bodkin designed to penetrate mail, rather than the short bodkin designed to penetrate plate? But then you would probably contest the existence and use of the short bodkin as 'longbows can't penetrate plate' right?

I wonder why they bothered to use the short bodkin when it didn't work? Those guys must have been stupid I suppose....

As for crap rate of fire - 13 arrows a minutes is crap? I wonder what you would think good was?

These men practised ALL their vigorous adult lives with a very high poundage weapon requiring them to be enormously muscular. You don't get bone deformation with wimpy muscles.

If the French didn't feel the longbow was effective against armoured knights, why did they complain so loudly against the 'unchivalrous' principle that commoners should be able to kill noblemen?

The fact is - the longbow was effective in battles where it was able to do it's work. In battles where it couldn't - NO bow or crossbow would have been effective due to positioning or particulars of engagement. Claiming the longbow wasn't effective as a weapon just because in 'Battle X' it wasn't efffective is merely stating your ignorance of the specific tactical elements which lead to it.

That is not to say that engagements like Agincourt didn't have overarching tactical reasons why the victory was so complete - muddy ground, bad French leadership and piss-poor strategy. However, none of this explains why an army made overwhelmingly of lightly armoured longbowmen conitnued to fire their 'inefective' longbows until they ran out of arrows. If the longbow was useless against the PRIMARY French 'teeth arms' of that war (i.e. Knights), I think Harry might have worked it out a little earlier don't you?

You also entirely disregard the fact that in these battles the armoured knights had SHIELDS - which COULD stop a longbow arrow - and yet they didn't close effectively when the longbowman had time to concentrate fire on them.

If I had armour which was impenetrable and a shield to cover the tiny gaps in it I would not be routed or killed by the enemy unless I bent over and painted a target on my arse.

Yes - the longbow was not effective when archers were caught in the open or had to move too much or didn't have defences against rapidly advancing charges. GUNS are less effective in such situations too by the way....

If you want to continue this arguement then explain WHY the English continued to use the longbow for so long after armours which made it 'redundant' came into common use even by knights of modest means by the end of the 13th century?

If you can't explain it, then any number of modern experiments by approximated longbows fired by people with less skill and less strength against the thickest plate armour angled and struck in optimal conditions (for the armour at least) taking no account of every other factor involved in a medieval battle is pretty pointless isn't it....

It rushes out in all directions but has no blast shockwave associated with it - so think of it as a 360 degree flamethrower effect and that should be about right.

Been running this two weeks now (with a simplification on the lethal/non-lethal) damage tracking and applied conditions.

Works well - IF the HP loss tracking is inbuilt on the character sheet.

This has made the rogue in my campaign very happy, the evocation mage more of a fight-decider and the fighter (cleave-meister) was neutral about it until he got the Toughness feat and started putting his favoured class bonuses into HP. He is happy now....

Still working out the odd kink, but have to say, this is not complicated really - not once you are used to HP tracking on the sheet and everyone has a copy of the relevant conditions close at hand.

Changes made to the above post so far;

Non-lethal bit taken out - non-lethal taken as VP, but once wound levels reached - damage becomes Fort saves v's fatigued and stunned (DC 10+ damage taken per strike).

Falling Wounding Damage - doubled to 2 per 10ft.

Toughness Feat - changed to +2 bonus for each wound category, not +3.

Bleed Attacks - after much debate, critical bleed attacks now do 1 wound per dice (or multiple of 3 total damage) per round.

Hero Points - these can now be used to ignore Wound penalties for the duration of one encounter. This works very well - and whilst being rather cinematic (aka John Wayne-style 'it's just a flesh wound - I'll collapse after the bad guys are dead'....), really makes the PC's FEEL like heroes....

On Heal checks - if a natural 20 is rolled or the healer takes a 20 then even if the healing does not bring the target out of a wounded status they temporarily lose the relevant conditions. If a Fortitude save is required, they run or are involved in combat (or some other physically stressful activity) they regain the status after the first round (the wound 're-opens', or they relapse).

Improved Initiative - no changes here - just thought I should say this has become the most taken feat in my game - the race to get Wound penalties on the enemy is a much more of a focus - as is gaining ambush surprise rounds - fights are really feeling more tactical and the players are really thinking about such things far more than they used to!

I know this isn't to everyone's taste, but my group are loving it, especially when I throw in Will saves in for low-moral opponents who are wounded to see if they flee or throw in the towel.

I would recommend the above - it really isn't as difficult to integrate into your game as it may appear.

Ok I am going to go for purely mundane solutions - the magical ones are easy enough to integrate as and when you wish.

Airflow - inflow passages remain open, outflow have fires and or lava in them to create a pressure differential - airflow achieved. Of course you can also have waterwheels running fans to circulate air.

Water - Much like surface cities - underground ones set up shop near subterranean rivers and/or lakes.

Food - subterranean fish, reptiles and insects. Fungi, algae, moulds. These can all be cultured and farmed intensively making them space-efficient.

Light - Impractical without magic but possible with a closed system (which doesn't use up all the oxygen!) - metal pipes and crystal sided lamps fed by oil. Not beyond the ken of engineers as good as Dwarves.

Waste - For non-biological wastes a mining culture creates it's own dumping space. Lava can be used (with good ventillation) and for biological wastes, the bio-waste can be composted for use by the fungi being farmed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Caliburn101 wrote:

The best way to control magic item availability is to take a realistic view of 'average campaign' demographics.

If you look at the following;

1. Population of a town/city/area
2. % of population of classes capable of casting spells
3. Level range of spellcasters
4. % of those who would take the Craft feats
5. % of those who would 'set up shop'

Once you have done this you find the availability of magical items 'off the rack' is FAR smaller than advertised in the rules - even in a magic-rich game.

Additionally, the availability would be further be reduced as 'pre-ordering' and monopolisation of services by the local nobility etc. would mean less was available.

Yes - this may be too anal an exercise to go through, but once you have done it it becomes clear why making things yourself or plundering dungeons etc. is a quicker route to becoming a Christmas Tree.

Actually it's completely inaccurate too (especially since it ignores the recommended standards of the CRB):

Especially steps 4 and 5 since anyone can take crafting -- and you forget that crafted magical items tend to last a nigh infinite amount of time.

Considering that 66% of classes including NPC classes can cast spells, and the Paizo given average level ranges from 2~9 easily with 'mover and shakers' going from 9~12 and the really 'high profile' going all the way up to 16th level.

Just counting the mover and shakers and lower you have plenty of room for magical items to be made.

66% of PC classes, 20% of NPC classes maybe - NOT 66% of the population!

A massive percentage of the population will be commoners unless your world is DAMN strange.

Also your level ranges are wrong too - by far the largest % of the population should be level 1-3.

Your arguement is entirely flawed I think.

As for the comment that 'everyone can take crafting'. Well - interesting logic here. I guess in your gameworld all the agrarian peasantry have one craft feat and the one which allows crafting magical items without spellcasting ability.

I am sure the nobility are happy for them to waive learning things like 'skill focus farming' or other things clearly useless to a 'magicmart' world.

Also if EVERYONE can make magical items (presumably mainly food creating items due to the poor output of farmers....) the prices would be in the toilet - unless of course 'magicmart' world also ignores even the basics of economics and trade.

Just because something is in a rulebook - does NOT mean a GM should switch their brain off and not consider how it fits into a campaign, nor does it give 'carte blanche' to players to demand their cake, icing and cherry on top whenever they put their hands out.

A lot of the debates on these forums boil down to 'it's in the rules but it's a problem for my camopaign/I should have it when I want - what do I do' threads.

GM'ing skills and roleplay (not rollplay) looks frequently like dying arts in d20.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Finn K wrote:


My apologies if I have offended you unnecessarily. My post, 2 posts above yours, was not a response to anything you've said, and if my other posts came off as attacks-- again, sorry 'bout that-- I should know better than to post when I'm pissed off, but sometimes I do it anyway; and sometimes I'm guilty of snapping at other posters as well when I'm really irritated with a different person. That being said-- this is the internet. Anyone can say anything... so sometimes, I do want to know a little more about someone's background when considering what they have to say-- your statement above is sufficient to satisfy my curiousity on that score, however. My apologies also for doubting your experience before.

I am still a little surprised that the British military put a longbow up against a 9 mm for armor penetration tests, but I'll take your word on it-- how did the 9mm fare against plate armor though? You stated how the longbow did, but not the results from the pistol, and I admit-- I want to know.

The 'British Military' didn't - but an enthusiast (a Sergeant Major friend of mine who was a member of the Sealed Knot re-ennactment group) and the range officer set the demo up.

One of the first things they do with new recruits is take them to the range to familiarise them with what guns actually do - not what Hollywood shows them doing. Metal jacketted assault rounds are FAR better than portrayed and soft rounds (and pistols ) are far LESS capable. For instance the Sterling submachine gun (which fires 9mm parabellum) can be stopped by a folded woolen blanket soaked in water at 100 meters. I kid you not....

The Browning did not penetrate the kevlar (as one would have expected), but the bodkin from the longbow went through it like it wasn't there frankly. The heavy breastplate deflected the browning (leaving an admittedly massive dent) but once again the bodkin went through. We even drafted a joke letter to the SAS recommending they be resupplied with a new 'carbine' version of the longbow....

Caliburn101 wrote:

For those who still think Bane is authoritative - well - enough said about their 'academic rigour'. As for claims that a 'high' draw weight bow could not be shot straight - I am speechless. The only significant functional difference between launching a straight shot and a volley shot is angle of release. Firing a bow angled up REDUCES pull strength, it

On your second point - I had a chat with someone far more knowledgeable than me and was assured that with modern bows the relatively low pull weights you are correct here. The issue comes when dealing with what it now thought about the extreme longbow poundages which were actually used. The bowmen did indeed bend over backwards to volley fire, but apparently the strain at this angle meant less draw. This however is received wisdom and based on educated assumptions about the nature of shoulder blade (scapula) damage on archer skeletons (the non-undead variety of course...)

In any case - my thanks for the reasoned rejoiner Finn.

Rolling for stats should have gone the way of the Dodo a LONG time ago.

Now hopefully I can say that I have been roleplaying D&D et al since the days of monochrome gazettes and 'Chainmail' without getting any blowhards calling me a liar.

That would be nice....

The point being that I have never seen an iteration of 'd20' which really benefitted from random stat generation.

It's like saying;

"OK guys, the game is FULL of very random outcome generation, but no matter how well you roll after today, your character's life will be either considerably easier or harder for those of you who roll extremes THIS ONE TIME."

Throw it out with the garbage, or better yet, do a statistical study of the correlation between dice rollers who are in the habit of quickly picking up said dice and claiming a timely crit against those with 'honestly rolled' high stats.

You will love the predictable results....

On the issue of 7 players.......... erk.......... did it ONCE - never did it again, and you have to twist my arm till something cracks to make me run a game for 6 players.

It is too many - d20 combat is slow enough without hoovering up entire game sessions with crowded battlemats, too many players and one big fight.

Of course you are there on high stats and too many players already!

Just learn from the experience and do things a little differently next time.

For now - difficult terrain, the odd surprise 'levelled' goblin, a few open pit traps to make moving in formation a pain, intro with a crude rockslide which kicks up dust AFTER the surprise round volley and have mildly poisoned arrows from a local widely available plant.

You will be amazed how 'bad' the Goblins can be....

Some groundlessly dismissive posters here - who in citing lack of documented empirical proof in what I made perfectly clear was personal experience only underline their own lack of said proof.

I studied Archaeology at Leicester University UK and my time in the military gave me the opportunity to see a longbow made by a craftsman skilled in doing so put against a 9mm browning pistol. I lost the bet on penetration on both counts. It left an impression on me so to speak.

I don't see the point of posting my CV or service record to make a point - this is a roleplay forum, not an interview panel....

What I meant by straight shot was a projectile still travelling under a significant amount of it's own kinetic energy - not relying on gravity from being volleyed.

I would suggest you actually watch a REAL longbow being fired by a REAL person before discounting the experience of others. The proof of the pudding and all that....

On draw weights - pay some attention to the Mary Rose studies - I worked on skeletal remains from that while studying for my BSc in 1987. The issue of the longbows they found came up at the same time.

Shadrayl - if you lack understanding on how an archaeologist can understand the nature of weapon damage to skeletal remains then I suggest you read Cox and Mays or any half-decent textbook on osteology.

For those who still think Bane is authoritative - well - enough said about their 'academic rigour'. As for claims that a 'high' draw weight bow could not be shot straight - I am speechless. The only significant functional difference between launching a straight shot and a volley shot is angle of release. Firing a bow angled up REDUCES pull strength, it doesn't increase it as this implies.

The longbow was not indeed a 'superweapon', but it was a lethal and effective one. The fact of the matter is, if it hadn't been, it would not have been so widely utilised by those with the good fortune to have it available for so long.

Argue all you want from your armchairs, but don't think for a minute that the English failed to start using the crossbow - which COULD penetrate heavy armour, because of a sentimental attachment to the longbow. They didn't - the longbow continued to deliver the goods at short to medium range whilst having better volley fire characteristics and greater maximum range.

The best way to control magic item availability is to take a realistic view of 'average campaign' demographics.

If you look at the following;

1. Population of a town/city/area
2. % of population of classes capable of casting spells
3. Level range of spellcasters
4. % of those who would take the Craft feats
5. % of those who would 'set up shop'

Once you have done this you find the availability of magical items 'off the rack' is FAR smaller than advertised in the rules - even in a magic-rich game.

Additionally, the availability would be further be reduced as 'pre-ordering' and monopolisation of services by the local nobility etc. would mean less was available.

Yes - this may be too anal an exercise to go through, but once you have done it it becomes clear why making things yourself or plundering dungeons etc. is a quicker route to becoming a Christmas Tree.

The longbow was fully capable when using a bodkin arrow of penetrating the best french plate armour of the period at short to medium range on a straight shot which landed squarely.

Volley shots were not as effective, but were known to penetrate the top of bascinets and go into the brain, go through gorgets, penetrate limb armour and of course hit your horse.

I have worked as an archaeologist on skulls with such damage. I have also been in the military and seen a longbow put up against a 9mm parabellum round against armour.

Lets just say the longbow was far better at penetrating even when shot (at up to 25 meters) against even kevlar or duplex plate. For those saying cm's of penetration was as good as it got I call foul. I have personally seen a 110lb longbow with a bodkin arrow penetrate period field plate at 25 meters and go through the arming jack behind it an go through 3 inches of pine behind that poking out around 1 cm. The 90lb bows were likely used for training younger bowmen - they were not used on the battlefield.

Skeletal damage (especially around the skapula) and raised muscle anchorages on archers is testament to the stress of pulling the powerful 'standard issue' bows. Modern studies on skeletal deformity and damage estimate the average draw weight to be 120-140lbs.

The longbow was good in volley, excellent in straight shot up to 100 meters against iron armour and a real threat even against steel plate at 50 meters or less.

At Agincourt the combination of extremely muddy ground, defensive stakes and English archers who could have three volleyed shots in the air at the same time was just devastating. Then if you were lucky enough to close you got straight shots which could go through your breastplate if they hit squarely. The French described the arrow fire as terrifying....

The English model of training was of course a MAJOR factor. Having every able man trained every Sunday by the Parish Priest (after church) with serious punishments for slacking allowed the English Monarchs to have a large body of well-trained archers at their beck and call. The Yeomanry trained all their active lives in effect, meaning that for the period in question the issue of how long it took to make a good bowman was not the great issue alluded to here. Coppiced yew trees and expert fletchers serving every population center also made availability ubiquitous.

The much quoted Battle of Verneuil (1424), and rout at the Battle of Patay (1429) were both caused by poor positioning and the archers not having time to set up stakes etc. They were not down to the longbow or it's mechanical effectiveness. The battle at Poitiers in 1356 did show that at usual engagement ranges the longbow was not as effective against the most expensive steel plate. But this was not cheaply available until the 15th century, so wasn't a massive factor

The Longbow was in truth a battlefield dominating weapon from it's introduction to its demise with the advent of cheap and widely available black powder weapons. It just became less useful against the best armoured knights towards the end of it's use, but then it was still good against their horses (and of course their rather less well-equipped troops!), and English Foot Knights were widely acknowledged as practically the best in Europe (mounted English Knights rather less so) which meant closing to melee this way didn't mean you improved your chances of success very much....

artofcheatery wrote:

My GM is still not happy with this answer. He says that it breaks the game if we are levitating, that line only existing for the lava part of the spell. He also claims that we would have to make fly checks.

Does anyone else want to put in their two cents?

This is incorrect - I can assure you that the levitation statement applies to ALL the granular, liquid and frozen fluids mentioned (Mud, oil, snow, quicksand, running water, ice, and even lava....) not just to lava.

You would not of course levitate over any solid ground, stone or soil etc.

Nowhere does it say this is a 'flight' or full levitation effect - the character has to 'walk on' the relevant surface - so it should require no more effort that walking normally.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Exactly, and the fact that adrenaline and biological reactions do not apply is not realistic. I don't consider it not being realistic a problem, I just accept it for what it is.

The issue of adrenaline and it's effects on what can be done in the heat of combat compared to 'on the range' seems a valid point until one looks at real world martial arts of history.

In all the effective ones - including archery, the true masters (and PC's MUST belong to this group considering their lifestyles) all used techniques for reducing and smoothing out the delivery of the initial mind-scrambling adrenaline dump during the opening moments of threat situations. There is a reason focus and meditation techniques are taught exhaustively by martial arts masters!

The trouble is today - health and safety fluffiness means training VERY rarely includes the harsh and often dangerous combat simulation training necessary to develop this response and learn how to find the internal 'eye of the storm' in a battle.

I can assure you, the likes of Miramoto Musashi mastered their adrenaline and learned to keep a calm mind focussed on the job long before he was travelling the Japanese countryside embarrassing fully armoured katana-wielding samurai whilst wearing travelling clothes and a pair of sticks....

Add to this the following fact. As a physical skill becomes truly honed, control of the neural pattern created to use it is passed from the complex brain into the far less complex spinal cord. This is the point at which you can 'do it without thinking'. The spinal cord is not effected by adrenaline nearly as significantly as the brain - meaning the master of a skill at this level does not suffer the hestitancy or breakdown of fine motor skill characteristic of the 'fight or flight' response in the brain.

Thus if a feat could be pulled off on the range, a veteran with the above characteristics could pull it off in the middle of complete chaos and high stress. Moreover, as they would be relatively calm through the adrenaline rush they would retain greater situational awareness and be able to identify and react to sudden threats more quickly - bring their skill to bear the vital seconds, or fractions of seconds quicker than their foes.

This is what made such masters so feared and respected, and of course, so successful.

How about this;

1. Assign a 'Penetration Value' to weapons based on the following cumulative menu;

Damage Type:
Slash 0
Pierce 1
Blunt 2

Unarmed 0
Light or Natural (Small-) 0
One Handed, Natural (Med+) 1
Two Handed 2

Thrown 1
Projectile 2
Heavy Projectile 3

So for instance a Heavy Crossbow firing standard bolts penetrates 4 points of DR/Armour and a Bastard Sword penetrates 1.

Armours gain a Shield Bonus equal to +1 for Light, +2 for Medium and +3 for Heavy and convert the rest of the normal AC bonus into DR/Armour and introduce the following Dodge Bonus progression:

+1 DB per 2 BAB

So for instance a breastplate gives +2SB and 4 DR/Armour and a Chain Shirt +1SB and 3 DR/Armour.

Enhancement bonuses progress as follows for weapons/armour;

+1 - +1 Att Bonus or +1 SB
+2 - +1 Armour Pen or +1 DR/Armour
+3 - +1 Att Bonus or +1 SB
+4 - +1 Armour Pen or +1 DR/Armour
+5 - +1 Att Bonus or +1 SB
+6 - +1 Armour Pen or +1 DR/Armour

Armour based AC bonuses from other sources (Bracers, Mage Armour, Natural Armour) alternate between SB and DR starting the progression with DB, so a Mage Armour spell would give +2SB and +2 DR/Armour; Bracers of AC 3 - +2 SB and +1 DR/Armour. Force effects simply add their full total bonus to Touch AC as Deflection Bonus.

Monk AC bonuses are all classes as Dodge bonus.

Adamantine weapons add +1 Penetration for Light, +2 Pen for One handed (or Improved Unarmed) and +3 Pen for 2 Handed. Armours progress similarly - +1 DR/Armour for Light, +2 for Medium and +3 for Heavy.

Weapon Finesse - Allows the substitution of Dex for Str as the bonus to hit for any melee weapon

Improved Weapon Finesse - Allows the wielder of a weapon using finesse techniques to sacrifice attack bonus for + penetration the same as Power Blow increases damage

Sneak Attack - gains a penetration bonus equal to number of extra damage dice

Improved Sunder - in addition to it's normal effects, anyone with this feat gains a +1 penetration bonus with any weapon wielded

Improved Unarmed - in addition to it's normal effects, anyone with this feat gains the Improved Weapon Finesse feat bonuses with Monk Weapons or Unarmed attacks for free


My latest game does them differently alongside another House Rule of mine.

All players get an 'overlaid' secondary character class on their primary at 1st level. So if they pick let's say Warrior and Wizard they get the best HP, Skill, BAB etc of EITHER one or the other as their starting stat. If you pick Commoner - you get compensated with an extra Trait.

They also get a bonus 1st level feat.

Humans in my game are regionally flavoured using the racial build rules and NO race gets a bonus feat.

Everyone starts with the same number of feats as a regular PF human, and playing any one of the human regional variants is an 'advantage' over any other race.

I also have half-elves stated as full elves, and my full elves as an advanced race with 30 points and they are fae (think Sidhe).

My Goblins are intelligent and 'alchemically engineer' hobgoblins as their enforcers (they are all born from eggs). Goblins are essentially nomadic Ferengi in my game.

The Dwarves are all dead (aka Golem/Construct builders like the Dwemer in Skyrim) and Gnolls (Shagaal), Cat People (Simbani), Lizard Men (Scaled), Snake People (Skath) and the Xill (Hive) (non-evil variants of all) all have vibrant civilisations which trade, war and conduct themselves as competitors/allies based on their self-interest.

I have NO Gnomes or Halflings.

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>