Dannorn's page

Organized Play Member. 114 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Slight correction the sun is not colossal, the sun is 1.3 million times larger than the planet colossal objects rest on (assuming Pathfinder's world and sun are about the size of ours). Therefore I suggest that the sun's modifier for size and light emitted negates the penalty for distance making it a DC 0 check to perceive the sun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like your original system. Yeah it has a lot of variance but that's probably why you're looking for an alternative to point buy, variety. My experience with point buy (YMMV) is that you see the same characters over and over. Rolling stats is a great way (IMO) to force people out of their comfort zone and try something new.

Would have to recheck but can't the Beast Rider Archetype get a Pteranadon? Even if I'm remembering that wrong an Order of the Beast Cavalier can wildshape their mount for hours by level 8, so as soon as you have the ability it lasts the whole day.

Ok so if I don't need a lot of feats which feats would people recommend for fighting on a mount? Mounted Combat seems a no brainer but of the fancier ones are their any recommendations?

Trying to decide on a mounted martial character for a Kingmaker Campaign I'm joining and I'm torn between these two. I like the bonuses and flavour of the Cavalier (especial Wild Shape your mount for Order of the Beast) but can't help but feel with the number of feats I need to make mounted combat effective he won't be very good off his horse.

So looking for recommendations straight Cavalier or Dragoon 16(15)/Cavalier 4(5) for the Mount, Expert Trainer, and Horse Master (possibly Banner).

Thanks everyone for the suggestions, I'm looking into the Kineticist and might rework the class, used Monk as a starting point because Flurry of Blows matches the style of hand to hand combat usually depicted in the show.

Rynjin wrote:
@The OP: The whole class feels very...clunky, to say the least. It breaks a general trend among PFRPG classes (HD and BaB are tied together, so d10 HD would tie with full BaB, though that's not such a bad thing), and the "Paths" are not very well fleshed out, nor do they really fit the archetypes of most DBZ characters (most characters tending to trend towards the "Lightning Brusiser" instead of being based on strength/speed/intelligence to the exclusion of other things).

The d10 is actually an editing error, I'd started looking into the Unchained Monk (with d10 and full BAB) and part way through decided to stick with Core Monk (mainly cause I'd already written up the table). Admittedly this is a very early draft and I'm looking to flesh the whole thing out more, but the paths specifically (and I'm thinking of calling them something different) are just meant as starting points. There's nothing keeping someone who took Path of the Bull from learning Close the Gap for example. I did try to model them after general archetypes (fast guys, big bulky guys, etc.) though I might shrink the total number or drop them entirely and just give the players more options they can pick from the beginning.

So after re-watching some Dragonball Z I had an urge to try and make Namekians and Saiyans using the Advanced Race Guide, while still in progress I also got the idea of trying to make a class that's able to pull off some of the same feel of the show. Made some progress just looking for some fresh eyes to see if things look balanced not just among the class options but against other classes as well. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated.

I think this misses the point of prepared spellcasting. Wizard's and the like don't have magic of their own, they don't have the innate ability to cast like Sorcerers, all the power for their spells comes from the preparation and casting of the spell itself. So a Wizard doesn't forget how to cast a spell she just doesn't have the power to cast it more times than she's prepared it.

If you do want to go ahead with your idea I'd say keep prepared casting but just separate spells prepared from spells cast per day. Give prepared casters the ability to prepare 1 less spell of each level than they can cast (or vice versa) and say that they can cast any spell they've prepared so long as they have a casting slot of that level.

This ties in well with your idea of ritual casting where casting a spell straight from a written source (scroll or spellbook) without erasing it normally takes a long time, but prepared spells most of the work is done before hand allowing them to cast a selection of spells more quickly.

Unfortunately restricted to materials we have physical copies of, so sadly no Savage Technologist. I'm also the one running the game and I'm the only experienced player, so I don't want to dip into Archetypes or anything else that will make the other players' heads spin more than they are already or make a character that overshadows theirs. The main draw of the Gunslinger dip is the free gun (which I can make masterwork with one day and 300gp which seems broken), but I'm thinking of avoiding multi-classing again to avoid confusing the new players.

The character is mainly a guide, I show them how character generation works by walking them through it while I build my own, and he's there to give little nudges if the players seem stuck on what to do.

Example I ran in to with another group of new players was I had them start off in a tavern, and they were all kind of staring at me with "what the hell are we supposed to do" expressions, until I asked if anyone wanted to order a drink or talk to people.

Writing up a character for a game and I want, eventually, to use Firearms, and I'm wondering what the most efficient way of doing it is. Right now I'm thinking my options are taking a level of Gunslinger, and potentially missing out on the capstone, or taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Pistol or what have you) and buying a firearm. Now it's going to be a while before I can afford a gun so I'm thinking Gunslinger is my best route. Also is Gunsmithing required to Craft and Repair firearms? Because there's no Normal listing under the feat, but it specifically mentions that with the feat you don't have to make a Craft check to create or repair firearms and ammunition. So without the feat can I make a Craft check to do it, or do I need the feat and it just says you don't need to make a check so there wasn't a skill tax of Craft (Firearms) for everyone who wants to use firearms.

Rynjin wrote:

I would probably have to slap a GM who said spells like Shatter could break my Extract vials.

I'm already eyeballing a certain Kobold who lets them get stolen or Sundered.

The whole concept of breaking spell slots is just asinine.

Sunder or Disarm I could understand as it somewhat balances out Alchemists not losing their extracts when attacked if they fail a concentration roll

Yeah that's the one I was thinking of

Ranged touch attack is dexterity, if that isn't any better i think there's a feat that makes it INT

Scythia wrote:
Nigrescence wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Would anything break if I made MWP a trait?
Scythia wrote:
I deal with it by making Martial Weapon Proficiency feat grant all Martial weapons, like it does as a class feature.
PrC would break.
So, just Eldritch Knight, since others tend to have pesky BAB requirements.

And unless I've missed something crucial in my reading (never seen an EK in play) Eldritch Knight was thoroughly broken when the Magus was released.

I'm looking to start a game with a group of all new players and I need some suggestions. While I normally like to run stuff I come up with on my own I just don't have the time so I'm gonna run an Adventure Path.

Which would you guys say are the kindest to new comers?

Thanks in advance,


Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
...Sarcastic passive aggressive stuff..

Nowhere does it say a wizard walks around in robes and a pointy hat with the word WIZZARD on it. You know who walks around in robes? Priests, scholars, sages, monks, librarians.

You know who has staves? Monks, priests, peasants.

Try again. This time without the passive aggressive anti-caster player tone.

I'm actually not anti-caster, I just react reasonably to them. Yes other people wear robes and carry staves but my point was that if you're going to walk around obviously being a wizard/sorcerer/summoner/what have you people are going to notice, and in a setting where magic is so common that it is wielded by wandering vagabonds those same people are going to recognize it and respond accordingly. If you're in a fight with bandits and launch mystical energies from your hands or call forth untold horrors to fight for you guess who the bandits are going to start focusing on. They might not all rush you on their next turn, but anybody who's not engaged or is using a bow is going to be gunning for you.

I subscribe to a very old school way of thinking, if you want to be powerful it's going to be hard.

Senko wrote:

The main one is in my home brewed world a mark on the body is used to represent a contract with a demon or devil (although they get to decide where on the body it's placed) and anyone bearing one is put to death. Even children born with suspiciously ordered birth marks (ones that look like things) bring in religious and state investigators to examine the state of the parents souls and whether they may have made a deal f the I'll give you my first born child variety. I admit if I were keeping the deal with an outsider strictly as is and not allowing for eidolons to be an expression of the summoners psyche it would fit thematically but it introduces a lot of difficulty in the do we kill the diaboloist or let the summoner go free?

Those who deal with demons are one of the most feared groups in the land because they can get anything in return strength, prosperity, vast magical powers,a guardian fantastical creature but the being they deal with always gets more. This doesn't even have to be a your soul, your first-born child deal since immortal evil outsiders with the power to make these deals have their eye on the bigger picture. If given you the item/ability you desire will cause others to fall or inflict chaos and suffering on a large part of the mortal world increasing the odds of others falling or dealing with them they may take it. Something smarter diabolists/demonolgists take advantage of.

Then there are places with a no spellcasting rule and unless your able to cast subtly your bring the town guard down on you and a glowing great rune makes that a bit difficult and can serve as a disguise tax on the wizards skillpoints, or the eidolons.

Ok so were it me these are all reasons I'd keep the mark, and make a point of bringing it up with anyone who chose to play a Summoner, because they're all opportunities for interesting roleplay which I enjoy. Mainly it seems like you want to make a setting where magic isn't always welcome, and those who make pacts with outsiders (Summoners, Witches, specific Sorcerer bloodlines) are viewed with suspicion and given no benefit of any doubt, but you don't want to make it difficult for the players. It just seems like a half measure to me, if you're never going to allow negative aspects of your setting to effect your players what's the point of them?

Just a Guess wrote:
Having a rune on the forehead has very much consequences and because of that it is cheating to ignore them as a player and favouritism to do it as a gm. As if the summoner wasn't overpowered enough, just let's ignore his one and only little drawback.

This. So much this. I'll admit to being a bit of a dick to casters but in my mind it's justified. If you walk around in a wizard's robe, pointy hat, and arm yourself with a staff anybody with human level reasoning or better is going to immediately identify you for what you are and people will react accordingly. You wanna be the biggest threat in the party I'm going to treat you like the biggest threat in the party.

lemeres wrote:
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

No more consequences than the DM feels like giving it. If it's in a society that hates summoners it's a liability, if it's in one that worships them, it's a bonus.

However there are no mechanical differences inherent to the summoner regardless of his circumstances.

So it's not a rule. I wouldn't call it entirely fluff either. More like a strongly worded suggestion. Given how easy it is to disguise (wear a hat), it's not going to change anything mechanically if it shows up as a tattoo.

How is being the glowing weak point of the huge 12 armed pouncing monstrosity not a mechanical difference? No matter the standing of summoners in general, enemies will be rather much against you and in favor of the option that turns off the thing that is eating them.

And even if it can be just covered up with a hat...you said it yourself, it is a DISGUISE. You need a disguise check to cover up the glowing ruin, or it will be fairly obvious to anyone with a perception score (either it peaks out from under the hat, or you did not get enough layers to cover up the glow)

And considering how few skill points summoners have, along with the fact that they usually need linguistics (for summoning spells, since the beasties might not speak common)...you have hard decisions to make.

Gasp, you mean a player might have to [gulp] sacrifice making their idealized bulldozing caster in order to make it work within the game world. Oh say it aint so.

Another thing to keep in mind is what kind of GM you have and what style of game they're running. My current GM the most useful metamagic feats are Still and Silent Spell because any enemy with human level intelligence and any time to prepare is going to do everything they can to shut down your casting.

Zhayne wrote:
A paladin is just a cleric with bigger weapons, thicker armor, and less spellcasting. No reason for them to be alignment restricted.

Only if you remove the alignment restriction. Without the LG restriction, code, and other flavour aspects of the Paladin he's just a Fighter/Cleric, and if all you really want is a Fighter/Cleric that doesn't have to multiclass you've got the Warpriest now.

Not every deity employs Paladins, accept it and move on.

Unearthly Serpent wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Have you tried asking the player what they want to do with their character?
Point of that is that without experience he has no idea what route to take... nor that can be much different ones, probably.

Fair enough but he probably has some idea of what he wants to do. He might not know specifics of how but what is probably fairly easy to figure out.

Ok the party has entered combat, what do you want to be doing? The same question works for out of combat.

Unearthly Serpent wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
You said it looked like he was trying to build a tank, someone who doesn't necessarily deal out a lot of damage but gets a lot of attention and can absorb a lot of hits, so help him build that.
How do you do that, mechanically? I mean, in videogames you have skills that you use on a monster, and it'll keep its attention on you no matter what, but here, unless you use magic or some other ability (that a Core Fighter doesn't have), nearly any monster will prefer to go on easier prey, rather than tough and well-armed characters.

Admittedly I don't know the best way to do it, but a few things come to mind like positioning and combat maneuvers. If he plants himself between enemies and the more attractive targets, and/or is able to shift to stay there, they're going to have to go through him whether they want to or not. Combat maneuvers are another way, if you're constantly knocking a guy prone or slapping him with other conditions making it more difficult to get to squishier targets they're going to focus on you.

Help him find ways to control the battlefield or just generally be annoying to enemies.

That's assuming that sitting there and taking hits is what he wants to do.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have you tried asking the player what they want to do with their character? You said it looked like he was trying to build a tank, someone who doesn't necessarily deal out a lot of damage but gets a lot of attention and can absorb a lot of hits, so help him build that. Stop looking at his choices and saying, "That's not how you're supposed to build a Fighter," and work with him to help make a character who can effectively do what he wants it to do.

Personal experience I made a non-lethal fighter in a game once. Feats and weapons were chosen to help Disarm, Trip, or incapacitate enemies rather than kill. My DM's initial reaction was the same as yours, "You're doing it wrong," but he talked to me and helped me make my character more effective at what I wanted him to do. If all he'd done is poke, nudge, and hint at how he thought I should make my character I'd have left after the second session, and I wouldn't have cared that he was trying to help keep my character from lagging behind the others.

At the end of the day it's his character, let him make it the way he wants.

felinoel wrote:

The problem was that I was flying straight up?


If the DM had said that that was the reason I would have not flown straight up...?

I have to ask, did someone else in the party just give you Fly or did you just find an item that would let you Fly and you were unaware of what the rules for flying were, or did you plan to Fly and just not think to look them up.

Not trying to be rude or mean spirited just curious.

Personal experience the best way to avoid Stereotypes and Pigeonholing is to shift emphasis away from mechanics. When the players are making the characters emphasize that you intend to focus on story rather than combat and you'll find most players gravitate away from the stereotypes on their own.

Almost nobody wants to play a stereotype as a character, and those who do generally want to do it for a laugh or because they're not comfortable coming up with their own character. Stereotypes come out in a mechanically focused game because they're mechanically well built. When you're rolling your Half Orc Barbarian with a Greataxe and dumped Int and/or Cha because he's a beast at what he does, you can't really expect to come up with any character other than Stereotypical Half Orc Barbarian #45,382.

Let the players know they don't need to optimize to survive while encouraging them to come up with characters they will have fun roleplaying, rather than standard, acceptable, optimized arrays of stats and abilities, and 9 times out of 10 they will do all the work for you.

Bioboygamer wrote:

At one point during a campaign, a player attempted to harvest the poison from some miscellaneous beastie. I pointed out that the player would have to roll to see if they were exposed to the poison, but the player retorted that, since their character wore gloves, there wasn't any way for the poison to affect them.

This got me to thinking...

Poison in general is almost comically useless. Applied to a weapon, it only lasts for one hit, and any opportunity that players could be exposed to it while attempting to harvest or apply it, they'll invariably be wearing gloves or other kinds of protection - especially since the typical explorer's outfit is explicitly stated to come with gloves.

Exposed skin between the gloves and sleeves, holes in the gloves, porous material like leather or cloth, etc. Harvesting and applying poisons has a chance of effecting you regardless of what they're wearing unless your setting has hazmat suits or similar and you spend at least 1 minute putting them on and taking them off with sufficient care that you have no exposed skin while wearing it and you don't come into contact with the outside of your protective gear while you're taking it off. Your player is wrong.

Bioboygamer wrote:

In addition, most poisons do a pitiful 1d2 or 1d3 of ability damage every minute or so, and are essentially only capable of reliably killing someone with a below-10 ability score in that stat.

Even the strongest of poisons have a chance of actually killing, and they cost more than a lot of minor magical items and have DCs of around 20 - fairly reasonable for a number of martial characters.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that, since all poisons require fortitude saves, almost all monsters with high fortitude saves (that is to say, almost all monsters) will shrug off the poison as if it was nothing?

Why are you using poisons on High-Fort enemies? Isn't this a lot like complaining that Enchantment spells are useless because enemy casters usually have high Will saves?

Poison are like any other offensive tool in the game, good if you target the enemies weaknesses, bad if you target their strengths. This low DC Con dmg poison won't do much good against that brute, but he might fail against a low DC Int/Wis dmg spell. Doesn't matter which attribute you bring to 0, they all pretty much agree if it happens you're dead.

Bioboygamer wrote:
Are poisons really just that lame, or is there something I'm missing? Some sort of feat that makes poisons to triple ability damage or doubles the DC or something?

Pretty sure the Alchemist has a few abilities that can play with poison DC's as well as improving the action economy for using them, even let you use them more than once per application. You have to invest a fair amount in it but that's true of most builds that rely on the target rolling badly.

Like the idea of Magitech Elves. Alternatively you could have the split be Divine vs Arcane magic. The Elves ask the powers that be (gods, spirits, nature, what have you) to grant them powers and allow them to do magic. When the Drow sided with the Jotunn the Aesir stripped them of this ability (not wanting it available to their enemies) in response the Drow turned to (or discovered) Arcane magic where they instead imposed their will upon reality rather than ask it to fold to their benefit.

Everything else would be much the same, retaining the artistry and sophistication of their cousins (though materials and mediums change from organic to mineral), they just have a different attitude toward their relationship with the world/universe. The intelligent races of the world aren't its children they're its master.

I'd say your interpretation is accurate. Anything from the Enchantment School (or any Charm/Compulsion effects). Unless described as Enchantment/Charm/Compulsion effects I wouldn't count Emotion spells.

I tend to Occam's Razor rule interpretations, keep them simple so they're easier to explain and harder to argue (thus people are less inclined to waste time doing so). Elves get a +2 bonus to enchantment spells and effects, that means spells and effects from or replicating a spell from the Enchantment school or subsets there of.

MeanMutton wrote:
I'm sorry for spamming but really - is Still Spell all that difficult for someone to take

Hell I'm currently running a sorcerer who has Still and Silent Spell, and the wizard laughed at me until we ended up bound and gagged. But that doesn't let them ignore ASF without penalty so it's not good enough.

Indagare wrote:
I wouldn't have it to start with. I don't understand it. I'd like one person to name a single spell that has enough complicated gestures mentioned in it to justify it!

Does any spell with Somatic components mention the motions involved?

Indagare wrote:
And what is with people always wanting to screw up wishes anyway? "Hi, I'm your GM and good friend. Congratulations, your character whom you've spent much time playing has now gained the ability to cast a wish spell! As a reward, every time you try to use it I will royally screw you over. You might as well be a Paladin for purposes of how badly I'll make you suffer."

Because that's how wishes typically work in fiction, you have to be very careful and precise in your wording lest it come back to bite you. Now I wouldn't do this kind of trickery from a wish spell cast by a PC, but if they're getting it from some other entity I'm going to have fun with wording and interpretation.

Key word there is fun and I'd try to keep it fun for the player as well rather than punitive. For example with the topic of the thread I'd probably grant the player Still Spell, allows them to bypass ASF at the cost of 1 spell level.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions, will definitely look into them.

Rynjin wrote:
Replace it with a free Variant Channel ability of their choice?

Seconded, if you're going with the idea that positive and negative energy don't exist in your world, making Clerics and Paladins choose one of these variants seems the best course.

Although I would still keep the Turn/Command Undead feats in play (though consolidated) since clearly something animates the undead and presumably someone could find a way to manipulate that something to their advantage, just don't have Turn/Command Undead be a matter of alignment but in the moment choice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok so I'm starting up a game in the next month or so and I got the idea to have a reoccurring villain, but rather than have him constantly escape I want him to die, and come back. Now current plan is making him a Clone Master Alchemist who prepares a clone of himself as needed and leaves it at his base, along with his best equipment. Now aside from this requiring him to be lvl 8 at least, is there a more efficient means of creating this kind of villain, someone who the players can kill, have a moment of accomplishment, and then later run into them again.

Have you considered Agile Manouvers? That way you aren't taking the -1 for the Racial Str penalty.

My point was more that unless the Paladin has been carting this thing around for a decade already it isn't even a pre-adolescent, it's a toddler. The point about Intelligence was more a question of would it be aware that it's "supposed" to be evil. Yes it'll probably figure it out rather quickly but in terms of age categories you're looking at 15-20 years before you hit the rebellious teens/pre-teens.

I think you might be accelerating things a bit too much here. Keep in mind that a Black Dragon doesn't even have the intelligence to master a second language without special training until it's 26, which is when it becomes a Juvenile, which is about the time you'd expect to see the attitudes you're describing. Honestly if you're having the Paladin have this thing from hatching I'd just run him as easy to anger and extremely gleeful about violence to represent a natural inclination to evil, and have any issues be based more around him living down to expectations rather than trying to act tough or "evil" ("if people think I'm a monster then I'll be a monster" vs "Ok I'm a badass Evil Black Dragon and I gotta start acting like it").

It could just be me projecting my thoughts about human children onto fantastical dragons but unless the Paladin has been raising this thing for 26 years or more already, or somehow managed to pick the thing up and get it to follow her as something other than an egg or hatchling, it just doesn't seem old enough to be acting out like you describe.

Ultimately up to you just my two cents.

To just ride the horse you need Ride, you run into Handle Animal checks when you try to direct the horse in battle. Being a Warhorse I'd say it'd still fight if you fail but you need Handle Animal to make it do what you want.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, but I want to state (if it hasn't already been said) that lawful doesn't mean follows the law or even "legitimate" government.

Lawful (in context) really means order. As opposed to chaos.

So consider that lawful really means orderly when you see it written. Within context, and certain archetypes not withstanding, orderly for a monk does make quite a bit of sense.

Zahir from the Legend of Korra series is the Monkiest Monk to ever Monk in modern media and he's a full-fledged anarchist, his whole schtick is that the natural order is chaos. You couldn't make a Zahir type character under the current rules.

Anarchist or Revolutionist? Not familiar with the series at all so don't know the character, but are they trying to bring an end to order or just establish their own? The guy overthrowing the evil dictator doesn't rule out him being Lawful or Evil (Your reign of terror is over. Now a new reign of terror, my reign, begins).

Not asking what kind of campaign we were playing before rolling a character. I had a fire focused caster in a campaign that took place mostly on a boat. Wouldn't be bad if we were on the offensive but we always got surprise attacked from out of nowhere.

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
If you're looking for genuine redemption high Diplomacy Clerics and the like are probably your best bet, if you're looking for someone who's just extremely, perhaps suspiciously, good at getting people to change their behaviour you could look into an enchantment specialist. Hell there's a lvl 4 Bard spell that let's you modify a person's memories 5 minutes at a time, which doesn't sound like much but you change the right memories and you can get a remarkably different person with enough time.
Sounds like a character who is only a step or two away from calling themselves Mega-Mind and trying to invade Absalom.

Exactly, they're a quick switch to antagonist if the GM needs it, but are otherwise just a good person taking a shady route to protecting people. Might just be me but I like those kinds of things in games, I like when there aren't clear cut good guys and bad guys and you have to weigh goals with methods.

Do neither of you have a ranged weapon? Like at all?

If you're looking for genuine redemption high Diplomacy Clerics and the like are probably your best bet, if you're looking for someone who's just extremely, perhaps suspiciously, good at getting people to change their behaviour you could look into an enchantment specialist. Hell there's a lvl 4 Bard spell that let's you modify a person's memories 5 minutes at a time, which doesn't sound like much but you change the right memories and you can get a remarkably different person with enough time.

DominusMegadeus wrote:

You can be a naturally caring person who helps others out of the kindness of your heart and defends the innocent. You can also have a free spirit that puts freedom and individuality right up there with protecting nature on your priority list.

But if you put Chaotic Good on that character sheet, you're not gonna be a Druid.

That's the problem.

Not really it's the same rule as clerics, you have to be within one step of your power source. Druids draw their power from nature which is TN, neither malevolent nor benign, ordered or chaotic, it just is. So Druids can be LN, CN, TN, NG, or NE but LG, CG, LE, and CE are too far out of sync with the source of their divine powers.

As for monks I agree it's probably just a carry over that wasn't given a whole lot of thought, however I think initially the idea was that a monk had to be lawful to represent the discipline required to master their abilities. However earlier someone mentioned the Drunken Master as somewhat contradictory and to that I say, how coordinated are you when you're hammered? A Drunken Master needs even greater levels of self discipline and control as a regular Monk because they're doing all the same tricks plastered.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My issue with Magic and science working in tandem, particularly in a setting like Pathfinder, is that science and technology as we understand them rely upon natural laws. The world works a certain way so certain things are possible. Once magic is able to change these laws to a significant degree (like in Pathfinder or D&D) technology stops working reliably.

So high magic high tech doesn't work because in order to keep technology working while wizards are warping space, time, and energy on a whim it pretty much has to be magic.

Now you can meld the two, high tech-ish devices achieved through magic, or magic effects achieved through science, but you can't have both as separate and distinct.

Once you lower the power of magic to the point where altering the fundamental make up of the universe is impossible or just shy of it (like it happened once in myth) then you can have science and magic be different things but beyond that it just doesn't really work.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Finally realize why she's never approved of my vocation

I read "two claw attacks as a full attack" as you use the Full Attack full round action and get 2 claw attacks at your highest BAB. So at level 1 you get two claw attacks at +1 BAB but at lvl 9 you still only get two claw attacks at +9 BAB, as opposed to two at +9 and two at +4.

I don't think the rogue is the new cleric, healing was something only the cleric could do, finding and disabling traps can be done by anyone willing to invest in the skills, Perception, Disable Device, and Use Magic Device.

Is the trapfinder the new healer though? I'd say no, I think the healer is still the healer because trapfinding allows you to be active when the rest of the party has nothing to do while the typical healer is forced to do nothing while everyone else is in combat. I'm sure lots of people aren't thrilled to be the guy sent alone to find traps but I don't think it prevents anyone from making the character they want unless you're going for a skill dependent character with a class that's light on points, and it certainly doesn't keep you from participating outside of finding traps.

My group actually handles it the way the OP states (more or less). You take Adopted as a trait and it allows you to have 1 Racial Trait from your adopted race (provided it's not physical, a human couldn't get an Elf's keen senses for example), this is however a trade off for one of your existing Racial Traits (so the above mentioned human could gain Weapon Familiarity at the cost of the bonus skill point for example)

That's just how we have interpreted the rules and it's what we're all ok with, the OP's GM's idea that you have to sink two traits (one on Adopted and one on the Race Trait of your choice) seems stupid and ill balanced, but the OP's idea of trading just 1 trait for a Racial Trait (at no additional cost) also seems ill balanced.

My advice to the OP is find a new group, or offer to GM yourself, you and this GM are never going to gel so maybe see if the relationship works better the other way around or leave.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Talk to your brother and see how he feels and where he draws the line. As of yet you're just boasting, you aren't telling lies to avoid responsibility or gain advantage over otherwise honest people you're just a braggart which a Paladin might frown upon or call you to put your money where your mouth is but it really shouldn't be something he's fighting you about.

lastknightleft wrote:

Possession rules
Each time Faerune uses any Oracle ability or casts any spell granted by the Oracle class, she has a chance of being taken over. After resolving the action of the first ability in a day she has a 10% chance of being possessed. Each use of an ability or spell afterwards increases the chance of possession by 5%. When she fails a roll she becomes possessed.

This I'd probably change. Mainly because it spoils the first time. You or the DM starts rolling a percentile (or d20 since the percentage scale works with it) every time you cast a spell or use an ability and players are going to catch on that something's up.

The other reason is that it's just too random, maybe work on a variant of the Master Chymist rules; whenever she suffers a critical hit or fails a save (I'm leaning more towards Will here thematically but Fort probably happens more often) she has to succeed on a Will save 10/15 + 1/2 or full Oracle level + Cha Modifier (hers or the entity's) this not only gives other players a chance to prevent it from happening without preventing you from doing what you're good at, but also means it get's steadily more difficult as Faerune (and by extension the entity) grows more powerful.


• Faerune’s type changes to native outsider.
• Her alignment changes to Chaotic Evil.
• She gains one additional revelation, each separate time she becomes possessed a different revelation can be chosen.
• All known Cure spells become equivalent level Inflict spells. (Fearune can use a spell known slot to memorize an additional cure spell of that level, while this means the slot is wasted while she is in control, when the creature takes over this additional cure will remain when the rest become inflict)

Up to here it all seems ok though I'll give you the same advice I give anyone throwing an evil character into the mix, you want to stay with the group. No matter how anti-social or down right twisted they might be come up with a reason they want to keep the group around. Maybe in this case the entity needs Faerune to reach a certain level of strength so it can use her as a doorway into the Material Plane and wants to keep the party around to help keep her safe. Whatever you come up with make sure going in, and as soon as the rest of the group realizes what's up make sure they know, that whatever agenda this thing has it will not start just trying to murder the party.


• Faerune becomes unable to communicate by any means and cannot use charisma based skills that require communication, if she was under the effects of a spell that allowed telepathic communication anyone able to communicate with her by said means must make a will save DC 10+1/2 oracle level+ charisma modifier or the effect ends and they are stunned for 1d4 rounds as the sheer overwhelmingly alien nature of the mind consumes their thoughts. If they make the save they are able to withstand the creatures mind and may communicate with it mentally, the creature can use previously blocked skills on anyone that made the save. (DM speaks for the creature)

1 question - why? Presumably this thing is ever-present lurking somewhere in Faerune's mind, why can't it talk? This not only gives you (I wouldn't let the GM speak for the creature) the opportunity to roleplay, but turns the entity into something truly horrifying, it's not just some raving monster, unless the party continually detects alignment on her they have no way of knowing if Faerune is actually Faerune or if the creature is just playing the part.


• Faerune continuously sheds darkness as per the spell centered on herself. This darkness has no effect on her senses although other forms of darkness act as normal.
• Faerune floats 1 foot above the ground. Treat her movement as normal but she is never affected by difficult terrain. If knocked prone she still hovers on her back 1foot above the ground, but treats it with all the same rules of being prone. While possessed she is treated as if under the effects of feather fall.

This I'd drop, if this things riding shotgun in another body that seems to suggest it wants to remain hidden. Aided by Faerune wanting to keep it hidden for fear of rejection or violent stabbing perhaps. Also if you are going to keep the % chance of losing control you become a major burden on the party if in any encounter there's a decent chance you'll botch a roll and blind them all.


• Each use of an oracle power or spell causes its control to weaken, treat this with the same rules as Faerune falling under possession. When the creature fails its roll Faerune returns to normal, all above effects end and she gains the Exhausted condition until she rests for 8 hours. If she continues to adventure and use abilities, she can become possessed again. If possessed while exhausted the exhausted condition ends when she becomes possessed but she dies when the possession ends. If Faerune sleeps while possessed she does not wake for 8 hours but wakes with no deleterious effects.

I'd drop this and just make it a straight, increasing duration per level. Rounds, minutes, or hours is up to you but this is again to feed the idea that as Faerune grows more powerful so does the thing inside her and it's able to maintain control for longer. Also maybe have it so that someone else can cast a spell on her to allow a second save with a bonus (Protection from or Dispel Evil/Chaos)

How you handle it is really dependent on where you want to go. Whether you want to keep playing the conflict between you and the Paladin or resolve it so everyone can move on. Keeping the conflict going is difficult because it eventually hits the wall of why are they keeping your character around if they can't rely on him/her.

If you want to resolve it and move on have an OOC conversation with the players and GM to discuss what it would realistically take for your character to earn their trust again, because no matter how well reasoned your decision, no matter how noble your intent, no matter that it was their own damn fault, when the chips were down you ran. So work out with the players what it would take and then work with the GM to work an opportunity into the game.

Eponine Lokrien Savet wrote:

I want to make a gnome illusionist, but that class doesn't really exist.

Do you have a particular gripe with the Illusion Specialist Wizard?

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>