Seaweed Leshy

Cuuniyevo's page

Organized Play Member. 633 posts. 5 reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

venefica wrote:
The Aroden and Norgorber minis are great! Does anyone know which other deities have been rendered as minis?

Urgathoa, Pharasma, Cayden Cailen, Iomedae, Razmir if you're feeling charitable, Lamashtu, Nocticula, Deskari, and of course Shensen.

This year, not even having heard of it until a couple months before release, A Quiet Place made its way into my top 10 all-time favorite horror/thriller movies. When was the last time you had a new movie immediately jump into your favorites and which movie was it?

Do you have much experience with or tips for GMing with only two players? Thanks. =]

With PF2 around the corner, would next year be a good time for a Beginner Box 2, for example like that Sandpoint sandbox idea floated some years back?

This post can be taken as encouragement/interest in such a thing. =]

I'm planning on going to pick fresh blueberries today and was thinking: What collection of fruits would be in your ideal fruit salad for the summer?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the interest of converting a module or AP to PF2, will there be a quick cheat-sheet for converting statblocks on the fly included with the playtest? Even something like, "we're shifting CRs for xxxxx type of creatures up/down by 1" or "increase/decrease monster HP by xx%". I could see my players being interested in running one of the We Be Goblins modules with the new rules to see how it goes. Some of them have already expressed approval for the action overhaul.

Also, with 1/4, 1/3, and 1/2 CR no longer existing, will there be a trait or icon that some creatures get as a red flag for GMs? Something to warn them that, "hey, this thing is weak on its own but put a few together and it gets out of hand faster than some other weak creatures"?

Blog wrote:
For instance, it's pretty unlikely a nalfeshnee's call lightning is a good idea for a CR 14 monster to use in combat, and it doesn't have much of a noncombat application, either.

This may have already been solved in development, but how about an ability for monsters to use such signature abilities as reactions instead of using up their actions? Opening up the AoO space to more flavorful abilities like that would really keep players on their toes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:

What if I throw the fire at it really really hard and it made it more difficult to hold its form? Or perhaps the "new fire" started replacing the "old fire" in the elemental ship of theseus style and the fire elemental was struck with sudden existential dread?

The first part sounds like you're introducing partial force damage, which would apply in full. It'll just ignore the fire portion.

Actually, there already exist bombs that deal non-fire damage, or some combination. Sonic in particular jumps out as appropriate.

EDIT: To make my position clear, I'm fine with elementals having immunity or super resistance to their own element. Overcoming such immunity sounds like an actual Mythic ability or at the very least a high-level feat or archetype/prestige class ability rather than "I'm a great wizard/sorcerer so my fire can burninate anything".

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Smite Makes Right wrote:

So, a body (defined by race) should not determine alignment?

I don't care to get myself involved in the tribal or determinist portions of the thread but this question jumped out at me.

The answer is yes, body/race does not determine alignment. In PF1, types and subtypes can determine alignment, but the humanoid and monstrous humanoid types don't. Even angels, devils, etc. aren't alignment-locked, despite their statblocks giving that impression. The evil subtype and good subtype are almost always applied to those outsiders, but by the rules, they don't actually have to be, and even if they do get applied, they aren't a permanent alignment.

PRD wrote:
Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction).

The statblocks are only suggestions. Not every orc is evil, but for the sake of there being common villains to fight, nearly all orc societies tend towards evil. They do this by continuing to self-select, killing the "weak" orcs that stray out of line, just like most goblins and hobgoblins do. They're all capable of goodness, it's just hard to be good when doing so puts you in mortal danger. The same is true of "common" humanoids in Cheliax, Irrisen, Nidal, Razmiran, etc. Which is why those are great places for player-controlled heroes to visit. =]

13 people marked this as a favorite.

A Shelynite Monk at work.

I just went back and read a few of the other posts you mentioned, and yes, they do seem to be needling you in a couple of them. The keep civil advice applies to everyone, and it's on the moderators to step in if they have to. Let's not make them have to. We all want Pathfinder 2 to be the best it can be. =]

Have you ever tried your hand at painting miniatures or making 3D terrain/maps for your games?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does Tonya live on an airplane? o__o

Also,'grats GM's! =]

TheAlicornSage wrote:

How much of it was conveyed via numbers, stats, and mechanics?

The tools used to convey info is an entirely different issue from the info conveyed.

I.E. telling the a character is a great leader is far more vague then telling you that they have a charisma of 16 and a leadership score of 19. The latter is less vague.

The module, much like Emerald Spire, doesn't detail all of the NPCs to that degree for space reasons. Some have page number references to other books, while some are left as blank canvases. In Emerald Spire, the Fort Inevitable hub has several key NPCs with class and level listed but no stats whatsoever, while Halls of Undermountain usually doesn't give their level. For example, there's a weakened captive elf wizard in one area that the book recommends using elf scout stats for from Monster Vault page 112. It doesn't explicitly mention what stats to use if they get healed and regain their magic, but again, that's for space reasons.


How about using traditionally non-combat abilities in combat? What about vague or unspecific abilities, like Silent Image.


4e doesn't allow something to be used in such a variety of ways like that. You use it exactly as the rules say, or you are throwing a wrench in a well oiled machine.

I don't understand how the rules prevent players and GMs from rolling with that. Does 4E simply not have spells like that anymore? Are players somehow prevented from fashioning makeshift camouflage or distractions? I'm having a hard time imagining a group playing through this module and the GM telling their players, "no, you can't do that, you're only allowed to do what this page says you can." Maybe people who like miniature board games did play it that way, but I don't see anything to stop roleplayers from playing their style instead.

It seems most of us here view these RPGs not as singular tools that must be taken or left exactly as they are, but toolboxes or bags full of a variety of tools that can be picked and utilized as needed and as preferred.

But this isn't actually what happens. And even for those who do something like this, they take chunks and use them exactly and consider this stuff that must be decided upon beforehand or if an unexpected problem arises only. Things like deciding how initiative works, but never making on the fly decisions customized to particular situations.

Basically, people avoid gm rulings in favor of solid rules. It isn't seen as good enough to make a one time call, it must always be a rule that always applies with full force.

This part of your concern seems like something that already applies to PF1, and almost every other RPG, so yes, it will probably still bother you in PF2. You seem to be critical of the way some people play, but honestly, that's not actually a problem. It's just a diversity of opinion and preference.

On the subject of initiative though, PF2 is explicitly moving toward making customized on-the-fly decisions instead of a basic +Init bonus that everyone has based on Dex + Feats.


This at once is a step in my direction and yet also points out that you aren't there.

This is a list of mechanics. Why is this a list of mechanics, and not options seen by the character?

Why is it not a list like this: look for a footpath, use a spell, have the barbarian carry you, use a grappling hook and a pully to hoist yourself up, make a hot-air/lighter-than-air balloon, etc?

Do you see the difference between the lists? Not the specific options, but that your list is a list looking at the mechanics for an answer vs a list looking at the world for an answer.

Yes, I see the difference and could easily have phrased it in that way, but as the GM, I see my job as being to interpret and facilitate what my players want, for the fun of the whole group (hopefully while also having fun myself). One of my players might think of something their character wants to do and phrase it in-character, but another might look at their character sheet and wonder what the optimal path forward is. I have to cater to both players, because both are valid and compatible play-styles.

This same sort of thing comes up in Numenera, which I also play. Characters have far fewer skills and skill ranks, but each one means more. Each "rank" is equivalent to a +3 to your check with that skill, so players are incentivised to use what they're good at. They can still attempt most things untrained, but +3 or +6 is a pretty big deal in that system. A diplomatic character will usually try to talk their way into a building rather than sneak or parachute or teleport, for instance and that's not a failure of imagination on the players' part.


Certainly, every option in my list could easily have mechanics chosen to suit them, but my list isn't a list of mechanics, it is a list of narrative milieu based options. My list could be be for any system. Some might be good for as there would be mechanics easily adapted or used directly (survival skill check for finding the footpath), while other options and systems might require something to be cobbled together (hoisting with the pulley).

My list is system agnostic, but relies on a an understanding about the narrative milieu, i.e. obviously magic exists as that is on the list.

Agreed, and I assume your list would also work in 4E or 5E, and will also work in the PF2 Playtest.

Leyren wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Leyren wrote:

We're likely going from 12+con-modifier (e.g. elven wizard) to 22 (dwarven barbarian). With the elven -2 con and the dwarven +2 this results in a range of 12 points at level 1. [12 vs 24, 1:2]

Seems like a lot, but relatively, it stays about the same as in Pf1, only with higher numbers. Nevertheless, I don't feel comfortable with this huge difference.

PF1 actually had MORE proportional difference...

6 vs 14 (12 + 2 CON DIF) i.e. < 1:2 ratio (~133% increase), while what you described was exactly = 1:2 ratio (100% increase) including CON differential.
So introduction of racial HD/HP to 0HD races is LESS disparate than existing PF1 differential between Wizards/Barbarians.
There just isn't much difference vs. P1E starting play at Level 2 or with 1 NPC level to avoid swinginess except the extra HD is racially defined here.
You also ignore that one can choose to put floating bonus into negating racial penalty, CON in this case, if that is important to PC concept.
I tried to express that the relative difference is more or less the same, but not completely. 33% is a huge difference, I seem to have underestimated those 2 hit points there :P

Am I misunderstanding something or wouldn't the HP numbers in PF1 actually be 5hp vs 13hp? Assuming a base CON of 10, Elves' -2 makes for CON 8, or -1hp per HD. Dwarves' +2 makes for CON 12, or +1hp per HD.

So, at level 1 the difference between a basic Elven Wizard and a basic Dwarven Barbarian would be 160%, not 133%.

Since we don't know the numbers for PF2 classes, that part of the equation is guesswork.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for giving more detail. =]

I haven't played any 4E and don't own the main books, but I do own a few modules from it, so that's what I'll be looking through to compare with your points.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Okay, so the reason the new edition worries me,

D20 was always about being descriptive and giving tools that you could pluck and manipulate at need to serve any situation, and even had the expectation of the rules being bent in favor of narrative.

4e is a good example of the opposite. 4e has no tools for description of the world. The numbers in 4e do mot relate to anything at all, I.E. the difficulty of a trap depends on your level, not the skill of the trapmaker.

4e is however, a good combat minis game. It became a good combat minis game because it didn't even try to be useful in way other than act as a combat minis game.

With the caveat that I don't have the rules in front of me, or experience at the table, I don't see evidence of this in my 4E modules. For example, my copy of Halls of Undermountain has information on the world above, backstory and NPC's, as well as possible story hooks and advice on how to improvise more of these elements. Pages 14-15 (devoted to GM advice) mention at least 6 different times some variation of "you can and should add, remove or modify anything you want in here, to fit your group's needs/preferences and flesh out the details." Traps early in the book tend to be low-level, while traps later in the book are higher level, just like in a Pathfinder module. Room details and statistics seem to be presented similarly to the Emerald Spire PF1 module. There are suggestions on how certain factions of NPC/monsters might react to non-combat solutions or taking someone captive instead of killing them, as well as history and motives for quite a few of them, which an enterprising GM could easily expand upon. One module may be better or worse than another, but from my surface-level reading of it, I can't see anything about this that would prevent me from GM'ing the way I do PF1. The stat-blocks are formatted differently than what I'm used to but apart from that, it could easily have been released this year from Paizo instead of 6 years ago from Wizards.

It may or may not be true that the players and GMs who gravitated towards 4E were more preoccupied with tactical board-game-style combat than others, but that seems from my view to be their personal preference and not a hard limitation of the system.


My concern is that as pf2 heads away from d20 that'll go towards 4e, and lose more and more usefullness in these ways,

-it'll lose connection between numbers and the world milieu,
-it'll be more like legos and less like clay in terms of the scale at which flexibility is found.
-it'll try so hard to always have answer that it becomes harder to cobble together an answer when the system does fail to provide.
-it'll string things together so tightly, that it becomes a nightmare to make adjustments. I.E.,will the classes be so dependant on the class feat trees that it becomes impractical to alter a class to fit an individual's concept (not the greatest example given archetypes, but I figured simple and hopefully clear).

Basically, my concern is that it will become so much a game, that it's utility as a mere tool gets hindered.

Other systems, such as Savage Wirlds, Fate, Champions, Rifts, they all are less capable as tools than d20.

This bolded part, I believe, is the crux of this discussion. It seems most of us here view these RPGs not as singular tools that must be taken or left exactly as they are, but toolboxes or bags full of a variety of tools that can be picked and utilized as needed and as preferred. Many people even mix and match these tools from different systems entirely, collecting all of their favorites into one box or bag and discarding the parts they don't like. When I heard about the Advantage/Disadvantage system used in 5E, I thought that sounded cool and decided to let each of my Carrion Crown players have one non-combat skill of their choice be used with permanent Advantage. I know PF1 already has some abilities that grant the roll-twice-take-the-higher benefit, but the idea of allowing it on a regular basis hadn't occurred to me. They can still roll terribly, but it makes the clue-gathering phases of the campaign go a little more smoothly and doesn't hurt game balance. We also usually ignore the weight of any object that weighs less than 5lbs, with the tacit understanding that nobody tries to get too carried away with collecting junk.

At one point in a different campaign, one of my players had the idea to make their wolf companion try to cover for their poor stealth roll by pretending to chase a cat outside the building. I rolled a d100 and sure enough, there was actually a cat for them to chase. There's no rule in PF1 for that, but nobody needs permission to make the game more fun for the people playing.

The rules may say to use the Climb skill to scale a cliff, but someone can just as easily use a Survival, Knowledge: Geography or Nature check to find an easier path; a Craft or Engineering check to make a ladder; or a ranged attack roll to attach a grappling hook and rope. The rules present open paths with signs, not narrow hallways that must be traversed.


D20 is not only the most capable as a mere tool, but it also is highly popular. I can find people to play it, and even when they don't play my way, we can still play together, and when I gm (in person at least) I can give an exoerience beyond the mechanical.

If PF moves away from that, then I can no longer play my way with others who don't play my way. I'll be forced into playing their way or playing by myself.

Edit: I play with d20 for it's utility as a tool and the ability to play others who aren't like me. Removing the utility from the system removes all the reason I even use a system at all.

"Most" is a strong word, much like "best" but I don't think a semantic argument is helpful. I understand the desire to keep the player-base from fragmenting, but I'm hopeful that what you're worried about won't happen. Looking forward to the official Playtest to start so we can see for ourselves. =]


Okay, so… accepting as a given that there are different ways to play, and house-ruling is not just allowed but expected, in what way do the Playtest rules presented thus far jeopardize your ability to play the way you want?

I've played in 4 distinct RPG rule systems (not counting editions or variations), and read the rules for many more, and while the "feel" changes from one to the next, the core of the game stays the same throughout. Some are more crunchy while others are more free-form, but the core experience is available in all of them.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're trying to say about the difference between playing the rules and playing the game, but what I don't understand is how it relates to the Playtest.

I think stepping back and refocusing might be helpful here. =]

Have you heard of True History, by Lucian, perhaps the first Sci-Fi book ever written?

Also speaking of free will and fate, did you ever play Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning?

If you haven't, I recommend it for the Fae writing alone.

Happy new year!

Have you managed to find time to play in or run any RP's this year? Pathfinder or otherwise?

I think I've managed to run 3 sessions, but one of them may have been the last couple days of December. It's a little bit of a blur. =]

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe in 16-24 years, Captain Brown Bear. Even if they do continue making the hardcovers, there are 7 other APs between Throne and Shackles, and they don't put one out every year. My experience with modules and AP's is that I use a lot of print-outs, notes and scratch-paper even with the books I own physical copies of, so I wouldn't let the PDF format stop you from getting this one. It's good. =]

Did you get to see The Shape of Water yet and if so, did you enjoy it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have any plans this Friday the 13th, haunted house or otherwise? =]

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spaceships are crazy awesome and I don't especially trust leaving by airplane anymore.

Do you have a favorite moment from Kong?

Mine's probably the

bamboo spider!
Very unexpected and cool. :D

Also, for that end credits scene, which are you looking forward to most?
My favorite's

Mothra, in large part because it's the friendliest and most defensive of the group; very atypical for a kaiju

Proper Link.

Sometimes copy-pastes get confused and put spaces where they don't belong. =]

Great pics all, but Ileosa's portrait link has a typo and should be 1021 instead of 10210.

Looking forward to my copy arriving. :D

Mark Seifter wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
I was actually curious about the story in the last picture, the one with the... less good iconics. I like that one a lot.
It's a spell, so I ordered it, and that means I have a crazy story for it. We're looking at the treacherous teleport ruse spell. Seltyiel partied up with Mel, Oloch, and Damiel for an adventure and told them he was going to teleport them all back to safety. They all thought he was casting teleport, even Damiel with his high Int, but it was actually treacherous teleport, leaving the other three in a prepared cell that Seltyiel rigged to set off an antimagic trap to hold them, thus allowing him to make off with all the loot for himself. But he couldn't help but send himself nearby to gloat (even though he could have gone far away), so he better hope Oloch can't bend those bars!

Speaking of Oloch, is he wearing a Meligaster mask on his forehead for some reason or is he currently under the effect of a Mesmerist spell effect?

After recently watching Crimson Peak, my group decided they were interested in running Carrion Crown. So, in light of this development, I wonder if you could offer some insight for a PC backstory. =]

A player decided he wanted to play a Dhampir Alchemist with the Subject of Study campaign trait, focusing on magical beasts. He was also interested in the idea of being descended from one of the minor noble families in Ustalav and, without any knowledge of major locations in the AP, pointed to the hills Southwest of Lepidstadt and the Shudderwood as the location of his family home. One thing led to another and we decided it made sense for the magical beast attack he survived to have attacked and taken that home. The Basilisk seems like a good choice, being a nice challenge for them once they finish The Haunting of Harrowstone and head North.

Rule of Fear has a nice section on Lozeri county, but it's mostly on the Shudderwood, with the section mentioning the hills near Courtaud just a paragraph long while the section on Canterwall county's Tamrivena doesn't give any details on the hills at all.

Is that area more like a highlands or a moor, flavor-wise?

Are there other appropriate magical beasts in the area? I know there are Worgs, but that seems a little on the nose.

After possibly reclaiming his family home and crest/signet, would it be too disruptive to the plot for him to have a shot at honorary membership on the Palatine Council of Lozeri? Not right away, but perhaps during or after Trial of the Beast?

Thanks! :D

I suppose if you were to play in a campaign with rules like these, the ideal thing to do would be to make it an opportunity for a new story element. Maybe the party will have to find an NPC capable of casting Regeneration and willing to do it for a favor, or maybe a creature who can cast it as a Spell-Like Ability. That kind of story shouldn't happen all the time, of course, and such damage should be reserved for very important scenes with a major villain or monumentally poor decision-making on the part of the PC's.

Playing with relatively realistic physical consequences and healing times is certainly a valid play-style, but encounter CR and character tactics would need adjustments to compensate for it, at the very least.

Personally, I would prefer the ability damage route for most circumstances.

With the Academy Awards coming up again so soon, I was thinking about past winners and possible future winners of Best Picture. I've mostly given up on paying attention to the Oscars (simply due to how different my personal tastes are to the voting community in Hollywood, and not for any other reason) but with Fury Road being nominated this year, they've managed to briefly get my hopes up.

A few things that came to mind while thinking about it:
An adventure movie didn't win until 1956 (Around the World in 80 Days), and none have since;
A horror movie didn't win until 1991 (Silence of the Lambs), and none have since;
A fantasy movie didn't win until 2003 (Return of the King), and none have since;
A science fiction movie still hasn't won.

With that in mind, what do you think the odds are of any flavor of Lovecraftian film receiving the top honor in our lifetimes?

Bonus Question: There are many Small playable races currently available in Pathfinder, but only 1 Large that I'm aware of (Trox, which are only in a Bestiary but count as 0HD). Apart from logistical reasons relating to doorways, is there a reason for that?

N N 959 wrote:

You're also overlooking the "silly" situations where someone takes a feat that let's them do something as a swift or free action instead of a move action, and while nauseated, the person who has the feats can't do the act but the person without them can.

I disagree with this assessment. By my reading, Quick Draw et al give you a quicker way to perform certain options but do not prevent you from using the original slower option. In the link above, notice it uses the language "you can" and "you may" instead of "you [do]" or "you must".

If I were writing the feat and wanted the slower form to be disallowed, I would have written it like this: "Benefit: When you draw a weapon, use a free action instead of a move action. When you draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) use a move action."

In Golarion, are people able to "size up" threats beyond general flavor? Specifically, as far as I know there's no rule on this but GM-to-GM, would you allow your players to use a Heal or appropriate Knowledge skill check to determine how many hit dice an npc or creature had?

The reason this comes up is that one of my players has and uses the Sleep spell, which only works on up to 4HD worth of enemies. It seems slightly unfair to not allow them a quick estimate of whether or not it will even have a small chance of success. For reference, my players (with the exception of one that I trade GM duties with) don't read the bestiaries and therefore have no stat-block knowledge to draw upon for strategic purposes.

Thanks in advance for any insight! =]

It seems the discussion has spread a bit from the original question. By my reading, the FAQ merely upholds rules that are already written, and does not address the use of Acrobatics to avoid the AoO (or both AoO's, as the case may be), which I still believe is allowed.

For reference:

CRB pg 193 wrote:

Moving Through a Square

Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. You can move through a square occupied by a helpless opponent without penalty. Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.

Ending Your Movement: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.

Tumbling: A trained character can attempt to use Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see the Acrobatics skill).

Very Small Creature: A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.

Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than itself.

A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is. Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures.

Designated Exceptions: Some creatures break the above rules. A creature that completely fills the squares it occupies cannot be moved past, even with the Acrobatics skill or similar special abilities.

A.) The part about being Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny overrules the part about being unable to end your turn in an occupied square, but does not modify the part about Tumbling.

B.) Tumbling requires that the user be trained in Acrobatics, which helps the Poison Frog but not the poor Stirge.

C.) Moving through occupied squares is called out as being a trigger for AoO's here, so it does make sense that the PDT would double-down on it with their ruling.

Alshoodone, yes, it is generally assumed that most of the loot your players will receive will not be exactly what they want, so they'll sell most of it. For instance, how many +1 Studded Leather Armors can they wear? How many magic swords can they swing at any given time? Those items help the NPC's who are using them, but the party is probably going to sell them so they can buy something they actually want.

To avoid things getting stale, you can sprinkle in consumables and the occasional custom-made item that you know one of your players will want to use and replace their old equipment with.

So yes, it should all more or less work out in the end. If they're +/- 15% WBL, that's fine, and and more can be brought back in line by a few loot-lite or loot-heavy encounters. Or, if you don't mind risking your players' wrath, you can have an NPC nemesis who makes clever use of the sundering rules. Don't over-use it, but in moderation it can make for a very hated villain. The inverse is a friendly NPC who can craft or enchant the occasional item as a favor.

@Errant Mercenary and David knott 242:
You'd only need multiple casters if you wanted it to work on multiple ropes. The first knot you cast it on would light up the whole rope, because the knot isn't a separate object. I think it's a fine addition to the other strategies brought up above.

Regardless, it's only in the top level, so even if your characters aren't set up to deal with it specifically, once you get past it, you'll be back in business for months of adventuring.

My party has a changeling, gnome, half-elf and aasimar. The changeling witch brought Dancing Lights and they all had torches. With some clever arrangement of the lights, they made it through without too much difficulty. If the whole mess of goblins had been alerted at once, I can see how the level could have been much more difficult but it didn't come to that. Once they reached the end, everyone got a little peeved that the aasimar completely forgot they had Daylight. :P

In short, there are many ways to play the game, and darkvision is not required. That said, if your players really want to change their race, it's certainly worth considering. Roleplaying is a collaborative affair, after all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was Lotus Leshy all the way. ;__;

kinevon wrote:
On the original issue, does a metamagicked cantrip, which is also affected by wayang spell hunter or magical lineage (or both) so that it remains a 0 level spell, remain infinitely castable?

Expect table variation because I don't think there's official clarification on that point. If you tried to abuse it, expect the table variation to weigh more heavily against the idea. If you're just thinking of extending the range (for example), the GM would be more likely to let you do it.

I do think that would technically be allowed though.

@The Dragon:

Yes, I see what you mean. I didn't actually look up the Oracle-specific VMC rules last time and was basing my opinion on the assumption you could get it more or less the same as an oracle would. Having seen the restrictions now (including the inability to take the Extra Revelations feat AND the fact that you can only take revelations as an oracle of character level - 6!), I agree that it is totally impractical for this application.

I will say that in other circumstances, teleport+standard action can be quite powerful though. Some character builds do rely on one very powerful hit instead of a few smaller ones.

Sorry, I disagree. I think Time Hop is far superior to Shift.

• It can be used in increments of 5ft all the way up to your maximum of 10ft per level (capped at 200ft), as you please, while Shift can only move a maximum of 5ft per 2 levels (capped at 50ft).
• You don't waste any "uses per day" by choosing a short distance so if you only used 5-10ft increments you'd have far more uses available in a given day.
• You can take people with you by expending distance.

The only thing Shift is better at, apart from being a swift action, is that it's usable from level 1. This is, admittedly, a very useful feature and makes it a much better choice for dipping.

The book Cheetah's Sprint is in had not yet been released at the time we were talking about this. It's nice though, yes. =]

HWalsh wrote:
Spellcraft is only trained for recognizing what the spell is, not recognizing that a spell is being cast.

Granted, my mistake. I do believe that spellcasting is ordinarily visible to people paying attention. I have no problem with people who rule still and silent spells invisible though; that's their table's prerogative.

If you're looking for any more VMC options, I recommend an Oracle of Time. The Time Hop revelation at level 7 grants 10ft per level (usable in 5ft increments) teleportation as a move action that doesn't provoke AoO's. If you're judicious about it, that's enough to bounce around and provide plenty of flanking as soon as you get it.

For the base class, I'd probably choose Ninja. So many excellent talents. :D

Freehold DM wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

For this situation, I vote Neutral act unless there is some evidence of vindictive behavior on the PCs part. This creature was trying to kill them a moment ago.

The Alignment scale shown above is interesting, but the good arguments are nothing more than Lawful and Neutral Evil arguments repeated in flowery language.

Can you expand on your post? I am particularly interested in the part about 'flowery language'.
what is there to expand upon? This is hardly the first time that the difference between good and evil has been portrayed as good having a long, responsibility-vanquishing dialogue beforehand before doing the exact same thing.

Assuming you were talking about my list of possible examples, I'm still not sure what you mean. I can certainly understand why the LN example could be seen as being the same as the NG or LG, but in what way are any of the G examples similar to LE or NE?

Even setting that aside, you seem to be coming from the perspective that the act of killing is more important to alignment than the intent behind the action, which I disagree with. Most societies make distinctions between complete accidents, negligent manslaughter, aggravated murder, and premeditated murder. In each instance, the same action may occur and in each instance the same result, but we tell them apart by the person's intent (and we try to tell intent by testimony and circumstance). I wrote more "flowery" language* for the last three examples because I hold Good to a higher standard than Evil or Neutral. The Good are expected to think before they act, while the other alignments are more apt to follow their gut with less care to the consequences. Also, those examples were meant as possible examples of how a Good character might justify the killing of a fleeing animal. They were not meant to be taken as factual or ironclad reasoning by any higher authority. Just possible character motives. If you like, I could easily provide several more examples of why characters of any given alignment would not kill a fleeing animal and feel justified as they did so.

*Now I will absolutely agree with the sentiment of disgust at "so-called good" people using flowery language to weasel their way out of responsibility. I know of examples of people pretending to be speaking from moral authority while actually being false and corrupt, and it's terrible every time, but my examples were not meant to be taken as cynicism or an indictment. They assumed the character honestly felt the way portrayed. Simplistic, perhaps, but it was off-the-cuff.

My personal take on it is not that there are giant glowing runes but rather that there is a a magnetic attraction that draws the eye, a pulsation of power, subtle shifting of the light or even something as simple as a subtle aura about the casting (though for a particularly showy spell or if you have detect magic up, maybe there are actually runes in the air…).

Spellcraft is "Trained Only" meaning that the average commoner cannot see these signs and only notices if the caster is showing off or after it's too late. Only someone TRAINED in spotting and understanding magic can notice and identify spells without obvious visual cues. Still and Silent don't mention any modifiers to visuals so I don't apply any modifiers. If the spellcaster wants to roll for Stealth to be more subtle than they usually are, I feel perfectly justified in allowing it, but I don't allow already valuable metamagic feats to be more powerful than they already are.

Stealth seems to be the perfect fit. Spellcraft requires that you be able to perceive the casting, and Stealth is explicitly attempting to avoid or "oppose" Perception. If someone is actively observing you, a Bluff check is to be used first. It solves all the issues without changing any of the rules, in my view. Everyone's welcome to their own view, but this has worked for me so far.

I went ahead and hit the FAQ button but I do sympathize with those who would rather leave it to table variation.

I've never heard it called Wutenstag before. We get the word Wednesday from "Woden's-day", and Wuten could very well be a variant of Woden (known in Scandinavia as Odin). Regardless, all of my German relatives say Mittwoch, or "mid-week". =]

thorin001 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
It was going so well for a while with a couple of FAQs each week. Now there is a veritable FAQ drought.
It got errataed. They will now issue FAQs only on Fridays whose date does not end in a real number.
They issue them now on days that don't end with 'y'.
That is easy, I want my FAQs on Freitag.

The letter "g" is too similar to the letter "y"; it could cause confusion among anyone using a non-standard font. They'll have to schedule for Mittwoch instead.

LazarX is correct, but I personally would allow Horse Lord Keleshite to be taken by someone who had been born and grown up there, because it has to do with the character's childhood instead of their ethnicity.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I see where the confusion was, graystone. I don't want to put words in LazarX's mouth but from my first reading of your earlier post I thought you were talking about allowing a human with Racial Heritage to use it to get the native outsiders' feats, which wouldn't be technically allowed (though I would personally allow it if the character in question were the "human" descendant of such an outsider from a previous campaign). It's now a bit clearer that you were talking about a native outsider character qualifying for Racial Heritage to take something like, say, an elven feat. I haven't bought Inner Sea Races yet so I'll take your word on the trait's wording. That does open up some interesting possibilities, especially if you threw in a sorcerer bloodline or two. With many of these features, there is the implication that the mixing of bloodlines happened many generations ago and are just rearing their head now, so it could certainly work.

As an aside, my family tree has something like 20 different countries represented on it (just for ancestors alone, not counting cousins), so I've come to embrace the idea of being a mutt. :P

The idea of a human with half-elven blood was one that especially popped out at me while compiling the list. Here could be someone who felt attached to their family origins but wouldn't be seen as "part of the club" anywhere they went. They certainly wouldn't be accepted as being elven and they wouldn't be seen as half-elven, but neither would they feel human. Hmmmm… I may need to introduce them as an NPC.

@kyrt-ryder and Starbuck_II:

Hmm, good to know about the natural armor rule. I'd just like to point out that none of my suggestions above were made with any regard to game-balance. Even if I did think stoneskin would be a problem (I don't), I wouldn't have ruled against it for that reason. I just thought that you had to have some before you could "increase" it. Thanks for the heads-up!

Speaking of balance though, Born of Frost could be downright terrifying with the right build.

@Natan Linggod 327:
Good call, I had forgotten about that. Kind of embarrassing considering one of my players is playing a Witch at the moment. >_<

That could be interesting. While making the list I was actually thinking of how interesting it would be to play a character with Racial Heritage: Goblin who wants to organize and improve his cousins' lot in life. Generally speaking, I'm willing to ignore or set aside a rule for the sake of RP, but it's nice when you can have your cake and eat it too. ;P

@Chris Lambertz:
You do good work, thanks! :D

1 to 50 of 633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>