paizo.com Favorited Posts by Dark Immortalpaizo.com Favorited Posts by Dark Immortal2024-03-24T03:08:19Z2024-03-24T03:08:19ZRe: Forums: Advice: What class makes the best magical blaster, for damaging spells?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ink?What-class-makes-the-best-magical-blaster-for#392021-11-15T23:10:01Z2021-11-14T00:44:27Z<p>Call me strange, but I'm a fan of the Geyser mage.</p>Call me strange, but I'm a fan of the Geyser mage.Dark Immortal2021-11-14T00:44:27ZRe: Forums: Advice: Highest Handle Animal Skill at Level 1?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43glq?Highest-Handle-Animal-Skill-at-Level-1#42021-11-16T05:36:42Z2021-11-13T15:52:28Z<p>I know this reply is a <i>tad</i> late but I'm bored and it might help someone else down the line. </p>
<p>Using more common races here are some decent numbers but I'm sure you can squeeze out more with uncommon races.</p>
<p>Halfling with the outrider alternate racial trait, Animal Whisperer campaign trait, Skill Focus: Handle Animal, and a class with Handle Animal on it's skill list can have a general +10 before ability score modifiers (which can take you to +15 at 1st level). This is before adding the +4 bonus from your Link to an animal companion. </p>
<p>Some more niche methods exist for higher bonuses, depending on what you want. </p>
<p>A half orc with the Beastmaster alternate racial trait, Animal Rustler, and Horse Lord, using a horse as his mount and Skill Focus at level 1, can have a +24 to their handle animal once per day for their Companion, or a +20 all the time for horses, or a +18 for everything. Otherwise they can have a +14 to handle animal for anything at 1st level. This assumes 20 starting charisma and 18 starting strength (and likely many dumped stats).</p>
<p>All of the NPC's should be able to afford training harnesses (10gp) at 1st level for a +2 bonus, and training whips can add an additional +2 to checks. A cracked pink and green sphere is 200 gold and they can select the +1 bonus to apply to handle animal.</p>
<p>Therefor, you can have, using NPC wealth, a +17/18 Handle Animal for all animals with up to an additional +12 depending on whether you are a half orc, pushing the animal or not, if it is or isn't a horse, and if it is your animal companion or not.</p>
<p>+29 sounds pretty reliable at first level (and a bunch of others) to me. :D</p>I know this reply is a tad late but I'm bored and it might help someone else down the line.
Using more common races here are some decent numbers but I'm sure you can squeeze out more with uncommon races.
Halfling with the outrider alternate racial trait, Animal Whisperer campaign trait, Skill Focus: Handle Animal, and a class with Handle Animal on it's skill list can have a general +10 before ability score modifiers (which can take you to +15 at 1st level). This is before adding the +4...Dark Immortal2021-11-13T15:52:28ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: At what level could one reliably bind a 9HD demon...Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ijc?At-what-level-could-one-reliably-bind-a-9HD#22021-11-04T19:51:55Z2021-11-04T19:04:57Z<p>I think money is your best solution here. Buy a scroll of Planar Binding and buy all of the stuff to make it more likely to work. It's not all too expensive, depending on your level, but it is pretty narrow. I made the mistake of somehow skipping a chunk (or two!) of text and didn't see your class or any of the slightly important parts. I got really fixated on the 'what's the earliest I could bind a Nabasu?' part. I'm just going to leave my ignorant response in the spoilers below and maybe there is enough specific information within to help you. As I know nothing about the cohort just yet, my hope is that you have the option of making it fresh and clear- in which case my statements below may still be valid. :D</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>I think money is your best solution here. Buy a scroll of Planar Binding and buy all of the stuff to make it more likely to work. It's not all too expensive, depending on your level, but it is pretty narrow. I made the mistake of somehow skipping a chunk (or two!) of text and didn't see your class or any of the slightly important parts. I got really fixated on the 'what's the earliest I could bind a Nabasu?' part. I'm just going to leave my ignorant response in the spoilers below and maybe...Dark Immortal2021-11-04T19:04:57ZForums: Rules Questions: How illusions interact with Truesight.Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42khc?How-illusions-interact-with-Truesight#12019-05-28T14:06:00Z2019-05-20T05:28:39Z<p>It's been a while since I have posted, however, I figured that I could shed some light on this issue and perhaps receive feedback in the event that I am incorrect.</p>
<p>Many posts dance around this issue or provide what I feel is decidedly erroneous information. This post should clarify and if I am wrong, provide accurate information in the responses.</p>
<p>True Seeing is a nasty spell. It sees through illusions and shows things as they truly are. This is not detailed explicitly in the spell but we do have two specific sources of information to clarify exactly what the result should be under some circumstances that I will mention.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.d20pfsrd.com/Magic/#TOC-Illusion" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Illusions and disbelief</a></p>
<p>A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false. What does this mean? It's a valid question because the next words tell us that phantasms and figments leave translucent outlines when disbelieved. This means that the other subschools do not leave said outlines. So what happens when you make your save vs an illusion that isn't a phantasm or a figment? You see nothing? You see the illusion exactly as presented but just know it isn't real? </p>
<p>The text linked above gives us some clues but a bit of spell research plays a part as well. In the case of glamers, the result should be that you simply don't see the illusion. You would ignore the typical +10 bonus provided by most glamers and probably similar spells since the bonus is coming from the illusory manipulation and if you can see that then the target gets that bonus on their actual disguise. This obviously doesn't make sense and undermines the nature of the True Seeing spell. So True Seeing must reveal nothing. True Seeing penetrates glamers and ignores the disguise bonuses provided by them revealing only the physical entity being observed and none of the illusory elements. </p>
<p>Shadow spells are partially real. Most of the time making our save against a shadow spell simply makes it less effective. The shadow spell doesn't become a faint outline or translucent. It's really there and still creating real effects. All making your save does is reduce the effectiveness once you make your save. What does it mean to disbelieve a shadow in practical terms? Unknown. That's fluff for the gm and player, I think.</p>
<p>This leaves us with True Seeing and the <a href="https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qg0" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">FAQ</a> which informs us that in the case of phantasmal killer you still see the mental impression but True Seeing reveals that nothing is PHYSICALLY there so you know the image is all in your head and therefor not real. You would then see a translucent outline of the phantasmal killer. </p>
<p>In short:</p>
<p>True Seeing reveals translucent outlines of phantasms, and figments within 120'.
<br />
True Seeing does not see glamers, at all. If it did, it would be paradoxical.
<br />
True Seeing sees shadows exactly as they are. Shadows are actually real (if only partially). Making your save reveals exactly what you see (it's just less effective) </p>
<p>So what happens when you see a pattern with True Seeing? Almost all are mind affecting. Patterns are real, though. You see light. Does true seeing not see the pattern or does it see the pattern and you still have to make the save (because knowing it is an illusion doesn't stop the effects of a pattern spell, necessarily). </p>
<p>I await your thoughts.</p>It's been a while since I have posted, however, I figured that I could shed some light on this issue and perhaps receive feedback in the event that I am incorrect.
Many posts dance around this issue or provide what I feel is decidedly erroneous information. This post should clarify and if I am wrong, provide accurate information in the responses.
True Seeing is a nasty spell. It sees through illusions and shows things as they truly are. This is not detailed explicitly in the spell but we do...Dark Immortal2019-05-20T05:28:39ZForums: Advice: Forced to take a level in another class; what can I do?Rune Lightmage (alias of Dark Immortal)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2u614?Forced-to-take-a-level-in-another-class-what#12017-02-08T13:23:48Z2017-02-07T15:50:14Z<p>Hi, </p>
<p>I've been playing an unchained monk in a home game where I found an item that only interacts with those who are arcane casters. My monk theme was about pretending to be a caster without actually knowing spells so I took the Serpent-Fire Adept archetype and a host of other feats and such to flesh out my 'Spell casting'. At any rate, I was the only character with any arcane casting ability so the item interacted with me. About a year later in game (currently last session), I sat in my observatory and pondered the nature of the heavens and the mysterious object I held- it then burrowed through my palm and arm and stopped once it was imbedded in my chest.</p>
<p>The gm then informed me that I was probably about to be very unhappy and that my next level gained had to be in the sorcerer class and that I could choose between these bloodlines: Psychic, Stormborn, and Starsoul. I am allowed to use my wisdom modifier for spellcasting and (I believe) class features that normally require charisma.</p>
<p>I already have Eldritch Heritage with the Stormborn bloodline selected from that. I just hit 7th and 8th level (I was 1 exp away from 7 before we started) so I haven't selected my 7th level feat yet. How do I keep this sorcerer level from becoming a burden or can I turn it into a benefit? At the moment tattooed wild blooded sorcerer for a familiar and selecting void touched to cause save vs silence on all my evocation type sla's seems like a salvageable option but I wasn't expecting this and could use some opinions and advice to help me out here. I feel like this could be an opportunity for something cool rather than a 'level tax'.</p>Hi,
I've been playing an unchained monk in a home game where I found an item that only interacts with those who are arcane casters. My monk theme was about pretending to be a caster without actually knowing spells so I took the Serpent-Fire Adept archetype and a host of other feats and such to flesh out my 'Spell casting'. At any rate, I was the only character with any arcane casting ability so the item interacted with me. About a year later in game (currently last session), I sat in my...Rune Lightmage (alias of Dark Immortal)2017-02-07T15:50:14ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: Best one-liner that made the whole table laugh?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mahp&page=25?Best-oneliner-that-made-the-whole-table-laugh#12152017-01-05T23:13:56Z2016-12-01T23:41:26Z<p>My first pfs character was a drunken master monk from back when crane style didn't make you regret taking it. </p>
<p>After a difficult scenario, we had returned to the npc who was high up in the society and was to give us our reward. But my monk had been drinking his way through quite a few fights and felt the inebriated need to say something. The end of the scenario thus went something like this:</p>
<p>Official- ...and for all of your hard work, Pathfinders, Absolom will be forever grateful. Now, as for your re-</p>
<p>My Monk- Hey, hey. •staggers and sways a little• You shut up. </p>
<p><b>•</b>official turns away, looks at the rest of the party and continues speaking<b>•</b></p>
<p>My Monk- Hey! You shut up and look at me when I'm drinking at you!</p>
<p>It took us a while to stop laughing. Fortunately, we still got our reward. :)</p>My first pfs character was a drunken master monk from back when crane style didn't make you regret taking it.
After a difficult scenario, we had returned to the npc who was high up in the society and was to give us our reward. But my monk had been drinking his way through quite a few fights and felt the inebriated need to say something. The end of the scenario thus went something like this:
Official- ...and for all of your hard work, Pathfinders, Absolom will be forever grateful. Now, as...Dark Immortal2016-12-01T23:41:26ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: 'Embarrassing' Gaming ConfessionsDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2u1mj?Embarrassing-Gaming-Confessions#312017-08-23T11:21:41Z2016-12-01T23:27:07Z<p>I read the forums. I hear a lot of optimization consensus that I disagree with fundamentally. I then make a character that literally proves the consensus wrong and then play it in games where nobody is aware of the consensus or even the forums. </p>
<p>The result- strange but effective things.</p>I read the forums. I hear a lot of optimization consensus that I disagree with fundamentally. I then make a character that literally proves the consensus wrong and then play it in games where nobody is aware of the consensus or even the forums.
The result- strange but effective things.Dark Immortal2016-12-01T23:27:07ZRe: Forums: Advice: Help creating "Drape Man"Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2u1jw?Help-creating-Drape-Man#62016-11-29T04:53:44Z2016-11-29T01:25:23Z<p>I was about to suggest the same with unseen servants x2. One on either side of you at all times holding the curtain and following you everywhere.</p>
<p>I would play a bard, in this manner receiving the spell on my list at full caster level and also having 3/4 bab with a means to buff your attack. I would then grab Equipment Trick (Cloak), which specifically calls out curtains as a usable instrument. Then I would grab the feats Dueling Cape Deed and Amateur Swashbuckler (or just dip a level of swashbuckler). There is the Sweeping Dodge feat that will allow you to have a chance to negate crits or sneak attacks with your cloak, but you won't gain the evasion from it usually. </p>
<p>I would seriously consider dueling cloak adept as a combat trait, and look into acquiring sneak attack or something if at all possible.</p>
<p>If you can manage to find a way to get unseen servant on your spell list as a magus or summoner, I would suggest playing a magus or vigilante archetype. Bonus points to the vigilante spellcasters if any can also have full bab and net unseen servant on their spell list through some class feature (or a normal silver spindle ioun stone or two will work as well).</p>
<p>Haunted shoes can aid you if you want to avoid being a legit spellcaster and need that unseen servant spell. </p>
<p>Assisting gloves will work for a single action (one round) of holding up your curtain at 180 gp a pop, if you need a lower level option.</p>
<p>Finally, for just under 4k gp, there is the Ushabti of the Willing Servant. One hour of unseen servant a day and you can burn it's stronger power in a desperate need to save your life but making it nonmagical.</p>
<p>If you grab the dazzling display line of feats, and take advantage of the swashbuckler element here, you actually could have a legitimate character.....that's just incredibly silly. I really like this idea. Respect.</p>
<p>•edit• Don't forget to take the Blind Fight Feats and/or save up for the magic items that make you blind but give you blind sight/blind sense. Combined with the mask that renders you blind while giving you a boost to your knowledge checks, you should be just fine.</p>I was about to suggest the same with unseen servants x2. One on either side of you at all times holding the curtain and following you everywhere.
I would play a bard, in this manner receiving the spell on my list at full caster level and also having 3/4 bab with a means to buff your attack. I would then grab Equipment Trick (Cloak), which specifically calls out curtains as a usable instrument. Then I would grab the feats Dueling Cape Deed and Amateur Swashbuckler (or just dip a level of...Dark Immortal2016-11-29T01:25:23ZRe: Forums: Advice: Giving Wealth by Levels to characters at level upDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2u1h0?Giving-Wealth-by-Levels-to-characters-at#62016-11-27T20:01:13Z2016-11-27T19:58:01Z<p>Some of the benefits: </p>
<p><ul><li>You save time by not having to wait for the group to calculate who gets what and how much everything is worth. You get to skip all the rp and ooc debate/discussion related to that.
<br />
<li>It's easy. All you have to do is follow the table. Done.
<br />
<li>It's fair. Everyone gets a fair cut.
<br />
<li>It's fast. Again, all you have to do is go reference that table, give them the difference, and you're done. The biggest time detractor might be pc shopping. That's it.</ul></p>
<p>On the other hand, there are some drawbacks:</p>
<p><ul><li>You skip all the rp and sometimes interesting ooc social interactions that come about from handling loot (or any other activity). It's essentially a missed opportunity to interact.
<br />
<li>It can feel overly simplistic. hey, you beat the boss, everyone gets 5k gp, see you all next week.
<br />
<li>Suspension of disbelief can be impaired when things are this automatic.
<br />
<li>Cursed items, loot you can't identify but wish you could if the caster had a higher int and more than 3 ranks in spellcraft, these sorts of things disappear, although you are dealing with an AP some small aspects may stick around.
<br />
<li>Everyone gets a fair cut. Sometimes that is a detractor. I role played yesterday and we had 45k in loot and an additional piece of adamantine +3 armor worth around 19k. We gave that armor to a much lower level player (and no one else could use it) and the group split the remaining loot between each other. Obviously, the split wasn't fair. But it was the better choice.
<br />
<li>Three words: Magic item mart. If you don't like that being the case all the time, then you won't like this. Without a real random loot aspect to work with any longer, pc's will simply buy exactly what they want and need whenever they have an opportunity to spend/use their wealth rather than having those stretches where they must use the resources at hand, like the monk stuck bashing with a +2 vicious greataxe despite not being proficient, because it's the best option available under the circumstances. </ul></p>
<p>I hope this helps give you some perspective. I would advise you choose the best approach based on your group's social needs and play style. Either option works or some combination of loot distribution tactics can work.</p>Some of the benefits:
You save time by not having to wait for the group to calculate who gets what and how much everything is worth. You get to skip all the rp and ooc debate/discussion related to that.
It's easy. All you have to do is follow the table. Done.
It's fair. Everyone gets a fair cut.
It's fast. Again, all you have to do is go reference that table, give them the difference, and you're done. The biggest time detractor might be pc shopping. That's it.
On the other hand, there are...Dark Immortal2016-11-27T19:58:01ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Does such a feat or trait exist?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2u11g?Does-such-a-feat-or-trait-exist#52016-11-20T17:48:15Z2016-11-20T17:45:36Z<p>Eldritch Heritage will give you access to a bloodline power, also there are other feats in that tree that provide access to further bloodline powers.</p>
<p>There are a few traits which can help you, as well. Magical Talent provides you access to any 0 level spell from any spell list as a spell like ability once per day. Technic Tinkerer works very similarly.
<br />
Two-World Magic will function a little differently by adding any 0 level spell not on your class list, to your class list. If you are of genie blood there is minor wishcraft which is an interesting way to go about this, Greenblooded is a limited trait but provides a druids orison as an SLA, Infernal Bastard for a Tiefling in a home game is a potentially useful trade (you lose limited use Darkness for unlimited use 0 level spell). I thought there was another one, magaambyian arcanist, but I cannot find it. This list, however, should be sufficient.</p>Eldritch Heritage will give you access to a bloodline power, also there are other feats in that tree that provide access to further bloodline powers.
There are a few traits which can help you, as well. Magical Talent provides you access to any 0 level spell from any spell list as a spell like ability once per day. Technic Tinkerer works very similarly.
Two-World Magic will function a little differently by adding any 0 level spell not on your class list, to your class list. If you are of...Dark Immortal2016-11-20T17:45:36ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Problems with Spells like suggestion.Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tli8?Problems-with-Spells-like-suggestion#222016-04-14T14:27:08Z2016-04-14T06:58:38Z<p>Nevermind that sometimes people do not want to cast these sorts of spells in combat. In social situations a character may also want to swing things in their favor with magic on the sly. Pathfinder makes doing this involve the taking of any of the above feats I mentioned in my first post. Unless, of course, those feats do not all qualify.</p>Nevermind that sometimes people do not want to cast these sorts of spells in combat. In social situations a character may also want to swing things in their favor with magic on the sly. Pathfinder makes doing this involve the taking of any of the above feats I mentioned in my first post. Unless, of course, those feats do not all qualify.Dark Immortal2016-04-14T06:58:38ZRe: Forums: Advice: Hex Vulnerability + Healing Hex: OP or not OP?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rz75?Hex-Vulnerability-Healing-Hex-OP-or-not-OP#372015-02-17T01:49:26Z2015-02-17T01:17:04Z<p>I am pretty certain that split hex and wand of abrupt hexes factors into this at some point past tenth level, elsewise, the player has overlooked some pretty important options.</p>
<p>Split hex means you'll be getting two targets at a time usually. And a wand of abrupt hexes means you can drop two castings of hex vulnerability and heal each round right from the start of combat.</p>I am pretty certain that split hex and wand of abrupt hexes factors into this at some point past tenth level, elsewise, the player has overlooked some pretty important options.
Split hex means you'll be getting two targets at a time usually. And a wand of abrupt hexes means you can drop two castings of hex vulnerability and heal each round right from the start of combat.Dark Immortal2015-02-17T01:17:04ZRe: Forums: Advice: have you ever played a titan mauler? or a TWF barbarian?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rz99?have-you-ever-played-a-titan-mauler-or-a-TWF#62016-06-23T04:43:58Z2015-02-12T23:26:52Z<p>I have a fourth or fifth level invulnerable eager with a two level dip in lorewarden. He is planned to use an orc double Axe and twf without taking the feat for quite some time. At fifth level his attack bonus when using twf without the feat will be enough to hit level appropriate enemies most of the time but not bosses or enemies in strong encounters. Around level 8 he has enough bonus to hit everything but epic challenges. If he goes beyond that, he has enough room to grab the feat via a single level dip in brawler. So it is entirely possible.</p>
<p>IMO, twf barbarians do great damage with those additional attacks multiplying their damage per round. Everyone keeps saying that the math favors swinging fewer times so you can gain the +3 from pa instead of +2 and so you get an extra 1/2 of your str to your attacks. I argue that getting an extra attack at your full str modifier (with double slice) is almost about equal and that every additional attack you get from the offhand makes twf superior.</p>
<p>Level 8.
<br />
Assuming 30 str while raging, a +1 furious great sword, power attack at -3 for +9.
<br />
That's a +8 from Bab, +10 from str, +3 from weapon for a bonus of +21 to hit -3 from power attack for +18/+13.</p>
<p>Damage
<br />
2d6 from weapon, +9 from power attack, +15 from two handed str, +3 from enhancement. So 34 damage a hit on average.</p>
<p>Your target ac's are 21-25. 21 on same cr enemies and 25 for stuff that can tpk you.</p>
<p>Now if you're using twf and improved twf instead you've got the same attack bonuses but they look like this:
<br />
(Primary)+16/+11, (offhand)+16/+9.</p>
<p>Your primary weapon is smacking for 1d8+10+3+6 so 23.5 damage per primary weapon hit and the offhand is doing 1d6+10+3+3 so 19.5 per hit.
<br />
You both are hitting your targets with your two best attacks. In this case you deal 43 damage and he deals 68. But then then you still have two more attacks which can be used against the same enemies or weaker ones nearby. </p>
<p>Vs a single target, the two hander is generally going to outdamage you
<br />
purely on to hit chances over time until you get buffed and are reliably landing many of your extra attacks on the hardest single foes as well. Against multiple enemies you should equal or exceed his damage when both of you are full attacking. The disparity grows when you consider realistic factors like a two weapon fighter is more likely to set up or seek out a flanking opportunity than a two handed guy who isn't personally benefiting from it. Flanking is common enough that you can safely assume you will almost always have it if you want it. Buffs are reasonably common as well, and none of these make the two handed guy hit more often since he is already hitting all the time. But for the two weapon fighter they narrow the gap and skyrocket your damage over two handed. It's worse with extra dice damage dice sources and higher crit range weapons, and the addition of two weapon rend and critical feats. Twf isn't the weak sauce the optimizers swear it is. It's main disadvantage is when you can't full attack, it's a bunch of wasted feats and much less damage, it is feat intensive, costly (enchanting two weapons), and comes online late. But it is ultimately more damage and more versatile. </p>
<p>A pure barbarian can grab:
<br />
1.) Twf
<br />
3.) Double slice
<br />
5.) Power attack
<br />
7.) Improved two weapon fighting/two weapon defense/weapon focus.</p>
<p>If human it's easier as you can grab weapon focus, too. Personally, though, I think a shield bashing fighter/barb with the right enchantments, feats and rage powers selected does even more damage per hit, is more accurate, offers battlefield control and has superior defense. But that's just me.</p>I have a fourth or fifth level invulnerable eager with a two level dip in lorewarden. He is planned to use an orc double Axe and twf without taking the feat for quite some time. At fifth level his attack bonus when using twf without the feat will be enough to hit level appropriate enemies most of the time but not bosses or enemies in strong encounters. Around level 8 he has enough bonus to hit everything but epic challenges. If he goes beyond that, he has enough room to grab the feat via a...Dark Immortal2015-02-12T23:26:52ZRe: Forums: Advice: Gnome Flame OracleMayhem Havocrain (alias of Dark Immortal)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ryz4?Gnome-Flame-Oracle#142015-02-12T18:56:11Z2015-02-12T18:10:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Imbicatus wrote:</div><blockquote> Is Flaming Sphere and Scorching Ray worth a -4 to weapon attacks? Because that's all you get access to that is not reproduced on the Flame bonus spells. </blockquote><p>As a spontaneous caster spell options/flexibility is key. I was not sure how much mileage I would get out of scorching ray but flaming sphere, I felt was going to be a really useful and constantly applied spell. It turns out that both are useful but scorching ray, increasingly more so.
<p>Flaming sphere: because of my build (setting things on fire), this is an excellent spell to cast at the very beginning of combat I either cast this, fireball, or sun metal. The sphere gets cast the most on round 1. Sun metal the least.</p>
<p>The ability to 'nova' on damage is valuable since either a no action (if they don't move out of the sphere) or move action 3d6+6(or 9), combined with a 10d6+20(or 30) fireball, and potentially a quickened 8d6+16(or 24) scorching ray, with every single one of those spells healing an ally for half my HD and granting a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls for a round and immolating my target for 2 or 3 damage a round for the next four rounds, then being set on fire as with alchemist fire and depending on what I chose to do, also dealing its level in fire damage as it continues to burn some more....that can all add up very, very, fast. </p>
<p>Flaming sphere is goof at spreading the heat, intimidating foes and controlling their movement as well as simply giving you more choices on what you can do in a single round without expending resources. It's good stuff.</p>
<p>Scorching ray: this is a spell I like to use for single target murdering or for spreading the heat to multiple foes, particularly when one is near dead and another is fresh for some softening up. It is a nice alternative for when saving throws on enemies get annoying. Most can't deal with the +9 to +11 ranged touch very well. Unlike flaming sphere, this spell scales on a couple of fronts, allowing it to remain relevant all the time in virtually every combat. The best part here is the precision aspect which you really lack with all of your other spells. Fireball and burning hands hit areas. Flaming sphere and others are single target. But with scorching ray you can unload torpid hell onap a single foe- at range, or cherry pick multiple targets at range. I find that I have increasingly been falling back on this spell for one reason or another as I advance.</p>
<p>I have a +1 or +0 melee attack bonus. I'm a petulant child with boorish tendencies and who was designed to blow things up. Do I miss having that +4 to hit in melee? No. But I would miss having the two spells above if I suddenly had to go without them. Their loss would dramatically change my approach to combat.</p>Imbicatus wrote:Is Flaming Sphere and Scorching Ray worth a -4 to weapon attacks? Because that's all you get access to that is not reproduced on the Flame bonus spells.
As a spontaneous caster spell options/flexibility is key. I was not sure how much mileage I would get out of scorching ray but flaming sphere, I felt was going to be a really useful and constantly applied spell. It turns out that both are useful but scorching ray, increasingly more so. Flaming sphere: because of my build...Mayhem Havocrain (alias of Dark Immortal)2015-02-12T18:10:12ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Society: How often do you see mounted characters in PFS?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rwdm?How-often-do-you-see-mounted-characters-in-PFS#52015-05-05T01:42:40Z2015-01-20T19:24:42Z<p>I have been in pfs for over a year now and do not think I have ever seen even a single mounted character. To be honest, everybody tends to just play the same handful of classes and often plays them the same way. But not one mount, that's for sure. I actually intend to make a mounted hunter as my next character for pfs. </p>
<p>Heck, I may even make him a medium race just to prove a point.</p>I have been in pfs for over a year now and do not think I have ever seen even a single mounted character. To be honest, everybody tends to just play the same handful of classes and often plays them the same way. But not one mount, that's for sure. I actually intend to make a mounted hunter as my next character for pfs.
Heck, I may even make him a medium race just to prove a point.Dark Immortal2015-01-20T19:24:42ZForums: Advice: Winter Witch: freeze everything.Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvst?Winter-Witch-freeze-everything#12015-01-31T04:49:47Z2015-01-15T04:36:39Z<p>I'm making a winter witch for a home game and possibly pfs. His name is Bruha Brumali, known by the elves as Taboo.</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>I wanted to emphasize the creepiness that can come with the witch title. To that end, this character wears a mask that he rarely removes. He has long, strawberry blond hair visible around it and from the sides one can see that the skin of his face is fair and smooth. He wears a blouse slotted to reveal his torso in a way bordering on sensual, though one might take note that the skin of his torso is clearly that of a darker skinned, more ethnic person. He speaks with an indecipherable accent- the lilt of a tribesman, the fluidity of elves, the cosmopolitan nature of knowing every language in the game besides secret ones. On his back is a large warhammer made of some strange material (I am thinking cold iron maybe or bone).</p>
<p>So, the idea was that if anyone sees his face he kills them. Period. He does this via slumber and coupe de grace with that warhammer, in secret.
<br />
His reasoning is that no one should ever again see the face of his loved one as no one deserves to. He wears a constant disguise making his face appear as that of the youth he so loved. </p>
<p>Brumali wants to protect all things beautiful and preserve them in ice. He seeks the power to make this happen.</p>
<p>He loathes primitive cultures like his own and affords them the barest hint of respect, even becoming openly hostile depending on if they have anything obvious that he values. He will willingly slay an entire village or tribe if given the opportunity. He does favor children, though. Children and elves. To elves and elves alone he will reveal his face without harm. He favors blond children, green eyed children and anyone with both he will whisk away (once strong enough to have his own realm and the power to whisk someone away).</p>
<p>He is brilliant, power hungry, prepared for virtually anything, very determined in his goals and cruel. To reach his goals he intends to keep accurate information about him to a minimum, utilize fear as a tool, perhaps focus on information acquisition so he has the upper hand.</p>
<p>Below are his stats, if you see something wrong or have any better suggestions, I would love to hear them.</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>There are some things I want/need based on the familiar or theme.
<br />
Bluff and disguise seem like they need to be on his list of skills along with intimidate and diplomacy and probably an additional knowledge skill; perhaps history or....I don't know. Dungeoneering? As he doesn't need to max linguistics, fly or perception, he will have plenty of spare points as he levels and acquires more int. </p>
<p>I would love to have witch knife and amplified hex but they aren't needed.</p>
<p>Also, water lung, beast eye, beast speech, soothsayer, scar, disguise and have eye all call me. I am tempted to remove cackle and get the hex from the blouse alone.</p>
<p>I could also drop craft wondrous item and even scribe scroll, but together those seem really, really potent for a prepared caster with high ambitions. Obviously, these are ignored in society.</p>
<p>I know the post is lengthy, sorry. Any thoughts before this guy is locked in stone?</p>I'm making a winter witch for a home game and possibly pfs. His name is Bruha Brumali, known by the elves as Taboo.
[Spoiler omitted]
I wanted to emphasize the creepiness that can come with the witch title. To that end, this character wears a mask that he rarely removes. He has long, strawberry blond hair visible around it and from the sides one can see that the skin of his face is fair and smooth. He wears a blouse slotted to reveal his torso in a way bordering on sensual, though one might...Dark Immortal2015-01-15T04:36:39ZRe: Forums: Advice: What's your trick?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qz7g?Whats-your-trick#352014-10-23T07:31:33Z2014-10-22T23:52:27Z<p>You wanted underused or unconventional ways to be effective and not as much of the 'norm'. So here you go:</p>
<p>Barbarian who tanks with HP and Dr and doesn't care about ac- at all.
<br />
To compensate for the brutal beatings, he is hyper efficient at being healed.</p>
<p>Human or half-orc Invulnerable Rager.
<br />
Diehard and stalwart line of feats.
<br />
Fast healer feat and lesser celestial totem rage power.
<br />
Start with a 19 or 20 con and get a +4 con belt eventually. If you start with 20 con push it to 22 through advancement. Take raging vitality for +2 con when raging. </p>
<p>You now have 1d12 HD + 8 HP per level and when raging gain +3 HP per level. A wand of cure light wounds heals you for 8-15 while raging, becoming a viable in-combat healing tool. A legitimate cure light wounds spell from a fifth level caster would heal for 16-23. Once you get into other, stronger healing magics and higher level casters, you begin healing close to some mid-level characters max hit points off a single casting. For instance, Cure Serious Wounds cast by a 10th level cleric heals you for 28-49. If you wanted to push this further you could take Fey Foundling at first level for an additional 2 hp healed her dice rolled. With healing this efficient combined with Dr 5+ and an average of 15 hp/level without toughness, you should be very capable of tanking almost anything very well without ever being concerned about armor class.</p>
<p>There is also the ultimate bad touch monk.
<br />
Pick monk and cleric.
<br />
This now provides you two domain powers and stunning fist.
<br />
Select any two domains with powers that apply horrible effects on a hit. Apply stunning fist to given hit.
<br />
Take crushing blow, scorpion style, and the enforcer feat and invest in intimidate. Purchase a conductive amulet of mighty fists, dilequescent gloves and if you have room grab the domain strike feat.</p>
<p>Now, you can add 2 domain powers, stunning fist, the shaken condition and either destroy enemy ac or destroy their mobility. It is advised to have a high wisdom modifier. I play an optimized version of this character who also uses spell storing bodywraps and stores scorching rays to unleash as needed for epicness. He also has martial flexibility for even more effects to add on a single attack. His saves are obnoxiously high making him very durable against magic and he supports the party and himself by giving advise (inspire courage). He is very different from the typical 'bad touch' build.</p>You wanted underused or unconventional ways to be effective and not as much of the 'norm'. So here you go:
Barbarian who tanks with HP and Dr and doesn't care about ac- at all.
To compensate for the brutal beatings, he is hyper efficient at being healed.
Human or half-orc Invulnerable Rager.
Diehard and stalwart line of feats.
Fast healer feat and lesser celestial totem rage power.
Start with a 19 or 20 con and get a +4 con belt eventually. If you start with 20 con push it to 22 through...Dark Immortal2014-10-22T23:52:27ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: Mechanically strong character- all the time.Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rle7?Mechanically-strong-character-all-the-time#252014-10-17T23:35:48Z2014-10-15T06:01:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Rynjin wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Dark Immortal wrote:</div><blockquote>Gimping yourself and not being superman are totally different things. When you play a social game, you play cyclops, captain america, hawkman, night wing, iceman, the flash, Spiderman, Wolverine, Gambit, thing. You don't play Magneto, superman, Thor, apocalypse, doomsday, darkseid, thanos, the beyonder, Pheonix, gladiator, or Galactus. Sure, anyone can make punpun, but then everyone else at the table is bored because of you.</blockquote>Then you should have picked a better example to prove your point than a character who is firmly in the "Daredevil" power category at best, considering you said other people were better than him at some things, and he sucked in combat.</blockquote><p>I didn't think I would need to since I was under the impression that people responding would read my post and reply to the point as though that was my argument and not the example given as though that was my argument instead. The example only served to facilitate but it appears that people want to obssess over it and make the entire discussion only about the example and not what I am actually attempting to discuss. It's become tedious.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Rynjin wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Your entire argument flies out the window when your version of "Superman" is simply Green Arrow being a prick and doing things other people can easily do as well.</blockquote><p>It has nothing to do with what my version of superman may or may not be and everything to do with who is actually at your table and what you then bring to it. Sometimes superman is only daredevil and other times he's goku. It is entirely relative and I am just saying that bringing someone far beyond the rest of the group or who makes multiple other players just sit back and watch is demonstrating a lack of good sportsmanshi or understanding in a social game such as this. The goal is for everyone to have fun. If playing punpun in a group of 'normals' is something you feel is fine and fun, I am here to argue that it probably isn't for the other players and is well beyond being necessary.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Rynjin wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dark Immortal wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Don't play punpun (or remotely similar conceptual characters).
</p>
Similarly, don't play spiderman, cyclops or wolverine when others are running daredevil and the punisher. This can't be helped in situations like pfs. But I am speaking in generalities and demonstrating that always playing a mechanically powerful character is not necessarily something everyone should always do as has been stipulated in other posts.</p>
<p>That is my point. </blockquote><p>It's a bad point.
<p>In a game like this, it's your fault for choosing to play the Punisher when the game easily supports you playing Spiderman.</p>
<p>You're asking other people to play poorly to accomodate you. It's a similar concept to getting mad at someone for being better than you.
<br />
</blockquote><p>You're putting words in my mouth.
</p>
Also, my point is not a bad one. It's quite valid. I am not alone in this way of thinking. Also, as seems to habe been misses and evidently needs some spelling out, this entire argument assumes you are a new player entering an established game or that you know who and what is coming into a game and you have the opportunity to make a character with such information in mind. Obviously, this holds no applicability in pfs or games where you are already established or got to make a character first.</p>
<p>I thought this would have been obvious but I seem to have been mistaken.</p>
<p>I am in no way asking to be accommodated, stating that I am playing a low tier or weak character, or upset that his character was good at something and better at some things. In the specific example which you refuse to take simply for what it is, I (and others) was annoyed because of an inability to meaningfully participate. If you can't understand that, you might be missing some key aspects of the game and human social interaction. I mean this as no sleight but as an actual honest statement. If you cannot participate or there is no purpose to your actions, then why are you there? People don't play games to watch other people play. You could just YouTube that. The characters in our group were not punishers but were stronger characters. And I saw no need to mention having played with said monk before and not having had the same experience because I thought people would be able to use the example provided in the context in which it was given. I did not expect.....this. The example served merely to demonstrate how his character was superman in that session and how a superman can make other valid heroes sit home and eat cheetos because they aren't needed despite being very good at what they do and covering multiple useful areas.</p>
<p>I should state that the reverse is true, though. It touches on what you said, if everyone is playing Iron Man, Hulk, Storm, and Cable, you need to bring a similarly powerful and capable hero to the mix or you're going to not only lag behind but hold people back. However, anyone playing a superman should consider carefully if that character is OK to play in the group they are in.</p>
<p>Obviously, you don't join a game filled with highly optimized characters of all top tier classes and bring an unoptimized low tier to the front unless that's your thing. And it should have been clear as pre-industrial age air that I wasn't saying to do that or anything remotely close to it.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Rynjin wrote:</div><blockquote>It happens (man I used to get PISSED when my friend would beat me at Soul Calibur IV for the 35th match in a row...funnily enough partly because he was skilled with higher tier characters, so the example fits), but it's still petty jealousy. </blockquote><p>I'm not now, nor was I previously, jealous. Nor do I feel I am or was being petty by merely using an example to facilitate my argument.
<p>Had I known an example would convolute and confuse people so easily I would not have used one, though seeing the effectiveness here, I may use them in the future to completely and utterly derail other threads since it has worked so magnificently (if unintentionally) here. </p>
<p>Topic: Is pizza the ultimate food item: Why or why not?
<br />
Example in post: Pizza has many of the food groups. Though, I did have a desert pizza once with only 2-3 food groups.
<br />
Discussion: pizza only has 2-3 food groups it is therefor not an ultimate food or healthy! Pizza is only desert, it barely qualifies as food! How dare you suggest people treat desert as a replacement for healthy eating!?
<br />
Why do so man americans want normal food made into deserts-this is why we are getting fat. Etc.
<br />
Me: I am not freaking talking about deserts! Are any of you actually listening to what I am saying at all? Can we get back to talking about (rather can we <b>start</b> talking about) pizza now?</p>Rynjin wrote:Dark Immortal wrote:Gimping yourself and not being superman are totally different things. When you play a social game, you play cyclops, captain america, hawkman, night wing, iceman, the flash, Spiderman, Wolverine, Gambit, thing. You don't play Magneto, superman, Thor, apocalypse, doomsday, darkseid, thanos, the beyonder, Pheonix, gladiator, or Galactus. Sure, anyone can make punpun, but then everyone else at the table is bored because of you.
Then you should have picked a...Dark Immortal2014-10-15T06:01:07ZRe: Forums: Advice: Not a typical "who's more powerful" Wizard vs. Cleric question.Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rljw?Not-a-typical-whos-more-powerful-Wizard-vs#102014-10-15T07:34:01Z2014-10-14T23:41:08Z<p>@ OP, I am in favor of the bard or the cleric archetype with bardic performance. Keep in mind that 3/4 Bab is totally fine. Bards and clerics can still reach very high attack and damage bonuses. </p>
<p>@eltacolibre, I disagree about clerics being boring at low level. I have a low level cleric who is a blast. A hybrid melee/Negative energy channeling cleric of Urgathoa with shatter resolve. He partners with a hybrid negative energy channeling cleric of Zon-Kuthon. It's hilarious fun for everyone, particularly when a paladin is in the group and casts detect evil or a party watches us command undead and heal the undead they are attacking because we want to 'save them for later'.</p>
<p>It is also amusing to listen to allies beg for heals, only for them to realize, 'oh, you're those guys with lots of harmful magic and no restorative stuff prepared like ever'.</p>
<p>Our parties do just fine, BTW.</p>@ OP, I am in favor of the bard or the cleric archetype with bardic performance. Keep in mind that 3/4 Bab is totally fine. Bards and clerics can still reach very high attack and damage bonuses.
@eltacolibre, I disagree about clerics being boring at low level. I have a low level cleric who is a blast. A hybrid melee/Negative energy channeling cleric of Urgathoa with shatter resolve. He partners with a hybrid negative energy channeling cleric of Zon-Kuthon. It's hilarious fun for everyone,...Dark Immortal2014-10-14T23:41:08ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Paladin of one God, cleric of another?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rl1w?Paladin-of-one-God-cleric-of-another#252014-10-11T16:06:16Z2014-10-11T01:43:07Z<p>As long as you remain LG and are within one step of your cleric deities alignment, you are mechanically sound. Beyond that it is an issue of which two deities you worship and your gm.</p>As long as you remain LG and are within one step of your cleric deities alignment, you are mechanically sound. Beyond that it is an issue of which two deities you worship and your gm.Dark Immortal2014-10-11T01:43:07ZRe: Forums: Advice: Damned feats (from Champions of Corruption)Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rk0e?Damned-feats#52014-10-05T20:59:43Z2014-10-05T14:27:35Z<p>My current inquisitor/monk nightmare is looking very carefully at these feats. He has the enforcer feat so this is pretty relevant. Also the nidalise shadow piercing that gives the +5 competence(I think) bonus to intimidate made my mouth water. Insofar as boosting spell dc's, I am on the fence. A very brief and unthorough search did not reveal anything evil really worth casting over generic options barring flavor or dedicated casting. I'll have to check again. I do feel like I am missing something.
<br />
Either way there were definitely some gems in the book.</p>My current inquisitor/monk nightmare is looking very carefully at these feats. He has the enforcer feat so this is pretty relevant. Also the nidalise shadow piercing that gives the +5 competence(I think) bonus to intimidate made my mouth water. Insofar as boosting spell dc's, I am on the fence. A very brief and unthorough search did not reveal anything evil really worth casting over generic options barring flavor or dedicated casting. I'll have to check again. I do feel like I am missing...Dark Immortal2014-10-05T14:27:35ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: How to Build An Effective Character Every, Single TimeDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rk10?How-to-Build-An-Effective-Character-Every#202014-10-04T00:09:05Z2014-10-03T16:48:33Z<p>Jeebus cripes, this guy can't even link a blog post without people being <insert derogatory term of preference> about it. This is one of the reasons I have intentionally left my body of literary work unavailable to this community: Negative Nancy owns this place. </p>
<p>Neal, keep doing what you're doing. There are people out there who, whether they benefit from a particular blog or not, do appreciate your efforts and won't derail or otherwise attack them over something like say, a relevant image. I am sure you sort of expect this from the community here, though, as I know you have posted for a while. Still, I guess there are more people helped than those who heckle and harass and possibly there are more who respond with neutral to positive or hell- even constructive remarks than those who reply with hellbent goals to portray chaotic evil.
<br />
So there's that. </p>
<p>For what it is worth, you picked an excellent subject. I commend you on that as both a gamer and a writer. I'm actually jealous I did not think of it first.</p>Jeebus cripes, this guy can't even link a blog post without people being about it. This is one of the reasons I have intentionally left my body of literary work unavailable to this community: Negative Nancy owns this place.
Neal, keep doing what you're doing. There are people out there who, whether they benefit from a particular blog or not, do appreciate your efforts and won't derail or otherwise attack them over something like say, a relevant image. I am sure you sort of expect this from...Dark Immortal2014-10-03T16:48:33ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: How to Build An Effective Character Every, Single TimeDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rk10?How-to-Build-An-Effective-Character-Every#52014-10-04T00:08:05Z2014-10-03T03:11:09Z<p>Just because you disagree with the rogues viability doesn't mean it is not a worthy concept. Outside of pathfinder rogues can be extraordinarily formidable. Within pathfinder they can be any number of things as well, though I will refrain from stating what those things are due to the weighted opinions on the matter. The op did say 'any' RPG. Not just pathfinder. As such, a rogue is completely fine and worth taking incredibly seriously as we do not know what game we are referencing when making the comparisons.</p>Just because you disagree with the rogues viability doesn't mean it is not a worthy concept. Outside of pathfinder rogues can be extraordinarily formidable. Within pathfinder they can be any number of things as well, though I will refrain from stating what those things are due to the weighted opinions on the matter. The op did say 'any' RPG. Not just pathfinder. As such, a rogue is completely fine and worth taking incredibly seriously as we do not know what game we are referencing when making...Dark Immortal2014-10-03T03:11:09ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Does cold/fire resist negate hot/cold extreme weather?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rjn3?Does-coldfire-resist-negate-hotcold-extreme#352014-10-01T08:54:45Z2014-10-01T06:04:32Z<p>He is arguing from an unrealistic and hyperliteral interpretation of the rules where common sense has no feet to stand. He is admitting this, though. That said, each environmental condition is different, although there are some generalities. If Archive is to argue to this degree of literalness within the rules, let us take it down a logical path and see where we end up by the rules.</p>
<p>Heat is not defined as a type of damage. At 140° (such as lava, fire and boiling water) it becomes 1d6 fire damage when inhaled. Heat meanwhile deals a steady stream of nonlethal damage that is not officially a typed damage which can be resisted barring specific items and spells in the rules which state they can.</p>
<p>Cold damage from water and weather is listed as only non-lethal. Therefor, it cannot be resisted with energy resistance cold or immunity to cold (because there is no rule saying that this applies).</p>
<p>Immunity can stop secondary effects as per the monster ability description. However, for immunity to do so, it must apply to the effect source. Cold immunity, for instance, cannot protect a creature from frostbite or hypothermia unless the source was from cold damage.</p>
<p>Because these rules are no fully detailed and do not explain every interaction and possibility, however obvious, this creates other rules issues.</p>
<p>When players appear on the plane of fire and meet Salamanders, what do the fire immune salamanders use to stay alive? Their ecology states living in 500 degree environments but their stat blocks provide them no means to do so. Their race entries do not afford them immunity to fatigue, exhaustion, thirst, heat, etc. The monster entry does not posses spellcasting abilities and even if it did, would require specific spells to be available. No items are listed to explain how the salamander lives on their native plane or in their preceded environment. So a gm is forced to provide additional equipment or spell effects to compensate for this clear lack of rules forethought, else wise all salamanders would likely be dead or extinct and if a PC were to encounter one as they might an animal in the forest, the poor thing would be in dire shape, indeed.</p>
<p>Sharks: sharks are specifically listed in the rules as living in any ocean, including cold ones. Sharks have no cold resistance or immunity or damage reduction to speak of. However, a cold ocean deals non lethal damage. Therefor, by the rules, all sharks in cold oceans are damaged, dead, or dying because eventually, the non lethal damage will equal their HP and become lethal. These sharks are frostbitten and suffering from hypothermia and the CR's of the few Sharks in existence that are encountered in cold water needs to be adjusted accordingly.</p>
<p>The dire shark is 60 feet long. Should it choose to dive at all, we need to apply the water pressure rules and make it take pressure damage. Assuming the shark is 40 feet below the surface of the water when encountered, it has a very narrow range of movement available to it for a creature of its size. Because it is not explicitly called out as immune to these things, we understand that for any dire sharks to exist in these environments, they must all be encountered within a specific and narrow depth range or briefly at others. Anything else would mean that there are no dire sharks to encounter because they would be dead or dying.</p>
<p>I could be obnoxious and continue and find more absurd situations like water based creatures with low swim/str scores and no swim speed who are subject to drowning rules if in fast water. But I don't feel like looking for more proof to support this inane argument. </p>
<p>Archive is technically right, as much as I would rather not admit it. But I feel that we are arguing about some asinine point that goes beyond the realms of basic common sense and I do not know why. If this were a computer program, sure, we would need to address it because computers are stupid. But it's a game designed to be used by people via reading a book and we're arguing about whether or not fire resistance makes you immune to the effects of hot weather or not...</p>
<p>So, without some factual general proof, let's leave it at </p>
<p>'no, energy resistance and immunities have no effect in regards to allied weather conditions'</p>
<p>But let's play it as 'The game breaks down into stupidity if you play it that way and we all know how these things are supposed to work'.</p>He is arguing from an unrealistic and hyperliteral interpretation of the rules where common sense has no feet to stand. He is admitting this, though. That said, each environmental condition is different, although there are some generalities. If Archive is to argue to this degree of literalness within the rules, let us take it down a logical path and see where we end up by the rules.
Heat is not defined as a type of damage. At 140° (such as lava, fire and boiling water) it becomes 1d6 fire...Dark Immortal2014-10-01T06:04:32ZRe: Forums: Advice: How are you ever supposed to make saving throws?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rjnv&page=2?How-are-you-ever-supposed-to-make-saving-throws#542014-10-01T17:46:21Z2014-10-01T04:42:10Z<p>@op this is an issue about your level of preparedness. Honestly, it's OK not to be prepared for everything. My blaster is level 7 or 8 and has a high save of +5 fort....no cloak of resistance and -absolutely no plan on acquiring one. Ever.</p>
<p>His will save is around +2 or +3. If he gets dominated, he is probably killing or severely hurting the party. I just role play him through, keep him at a safe distance (most of the time) and the good and bad times roll. Eventually, he should die. But we have two fairly competent melee characters and a modest level cleric. I rely on that for when I inevitably get into serious trouble.</p>
<p>@Neo
<br />
As for a list of 'always prepared' type items, offhand:
<br />
Clear spindle ioun stone
<br />
Wand/potion of protection from evil.
<br />
Scrolls/potions of neutralize poison.
<br />
Cloak of resistance
<br />
Antitoxin
<br />
Air crystals
<br />
Smoke pellets/flash powder
<br />
Alchemist fire/acid bottles
<br />
Sunrods
<br />
Flint/steel
<br />
Scrolls of lesser restoration/restoration
<br />
Wand of enlarge person/water breathing
<br />
Ring of feather fall
<br />
Elixer of stealth/climb/swim
<br />
Alchemical grease
<br />
Alchemical energy resist oils.</p>
<p>This is off the top of my head. It covers mind control, summoned creatures, poisons, negative levels, energy damage, climb, swim, stealth, grapples, falling damage, drowning, reach, fire, light, swarms, ranged touch options, provides concealment and increases saves. If I were trying I am sure that I could add half again as many items to the list, keep it at less than a fraction of the wbl and cover more angles, but those should be plenty enough. If you still succumb with these sorts of things available, well- so what? You gave it one reasonable heck of a try.</p>@op this is an issue about your level of preparedness. Honestly, it's OK not to be prepared for everything. My blaster is level 7 or 8 and has a high save of +5 fort....no cloak of resistance and -absolutely no plan on acquiring one. Ever.
His will save is around +2 or +3. If he gets dominated, he is probably killing or severely hurting the party. I just role play him through, keep him at a safe distance (most of the time) and the good and bad times roll. Eventually, he should die. But we...Dark Immortal2014-10-01T04:42:10ZRe: Forums: Advice: Inquisitor - what gives?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rhnj&page=2?Inquisitor-what-gives#992015-08-03T00:44:23Z2014-09-28T22:19:12Z<p>Studied target vs judgement is a tough call. </p>
<p>Studied target can be used any number of times per day, judgment has a limit. </p>
<p>Judgment is faster to activate and applies against all foes. Studied target is a move action and applies to a single target but eventually multiple enemies).</p>
<p>Studied Target provides several bonuses against each target studied. Judgements provide a single bonus that can be switched and eventually can apply more than one bonus.</p>
<p>Sneak Attack is not very hard to do unless you play rocket tag or have an uncooperative party. Sneak attack should typically be relevant in most combats. </p>
<p>Slayer Talents add additional flexibility to build design and general options. I think that sneak attack + slayer talents + studied target are more than a fair trade for judgments. </p>
<p>You're trading one kind of flexibility for another. They both are different sets of combat flexibility, too. Several skill bonuses, attack, damage, immediate activation off a sneak attack, swift action activation at 7, sneak attack damage, Saving throw DC increases for class abilities and slayer talents vs:</p>
<p>Saving throw bonus, fast healing, attack bonus, damage bonus, spell penetration bonus, ac bonus, damage reduction, energy resistance and penetrating Dr. </p>
<p>Sounds like a good mix between both.</p>Studied target vs judgement is a tough call.
Studied target can be used any number of times per day, judgment has a limit.
Judgment is faster to activate and applies against all foes. Studied target is a move action and applies to a single target but eventually multiple enemies).
Studied Target provides several bonuses against each target studied. Judgements provide a single bonus that can be switched and eventually can apply more than one bonus.
Sneak Attack is not very hard to do unless...Dark Immortal2014-09-28T22:19:12ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Monk, Is there any reason for itDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ripd?Monk-Is-there-any-reason-for-it#162014-10-10T09:43:02Z2014-09-22T07:04:17Z<p>•has yet to play a monk that was not extremely powerful in any party he was in•.</p>
<p>Core monk is stronger than it looks, too. But once you touch the archetypes there are innumerable reasons to play a monk. Brawlers are a nice class but they don't get Ki abilities, have lower saves and aren't as defensive. Martial flexibility is awesome, true but monks have several abilities that are not readily cloned by any existing combat feats. </p>
<p>Monks are also faster, get more attacks a round, are more able outside of combat and one of the top classes to pick if you want to ensure your ability to survive any possible situation. There are quite a few that even a paladin can find daunting in which a monk will excell. </p>
<p>The monk needs work, true. But it is not an inflexible class with no power compared to others. It can tank, DPs, debuff and more with the rest of the gang. It takes a lot of knowledge of the game to play one effectively for optimization but they aren't the underachievers some might make you believe. Also, monks have great style. That matters, too.</p>*has yet to play a monk that was not extremely powerful in any party he was in*.
Core monk is stronger than it looks, too. But once you touch the archetypes there are innumerable reasons to play a monk. Brawlers are a nice class but they don't get Ki abilities, have lower saves and aren't as defensive. Martial flexibility is awesome, true but monks have several abilities that are not readily cloned by any existing combat feats.
Monks are also faster, get more attacks a round, are more able...Dark Immortal2014-09-22T07:04:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should DM's enforce the Child Characters ruleset?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rhxt&page=2?Should-DMs-enforce-the-Child-Characters-ruleset#842014-09-16T17:46:37Z2014-09-16T16:19:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">LazarX wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Dark Immortal wrote:</div><blockquote> All of you guys leaping to the assumption that a gm is being passive-aggressive when you can't actually know that is a bit irksome. </blockquote>Did you miss the posts of us who said that the GM was right, or were you too busy with the donuts? </blockquote><p>Honestly? When baked pastries are involved that is <b>all</b> that matters.LazarX wrote:Dark Immortal wrote: All of you guys leaping to the assumption that a gm is being passive-aggressive when you can't actually know that is a bit irksome.
Did you miss the posts of us who said that the GM was right, or were you too busy with the donuts? Honestly? When baked pastries are involved that is all that matters.Dark Immortal2014-09-16T16:19:42ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should DM's enforce the Child Characters ruleset?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rhxt&page=2?Should-DMs-enforce-the-Child-Characters-ruleset#622014-09-21T16:56:50Z2014-09-16T08:05:59Z<p>So, when a player asks their gm if they can play a kid and the gm doesn't simply say 'no you can't' because that is what you would prefer, but instead says, 'you can but...' They are a douche or passive-aggressive? </p>
<p>Wth?</p>
<p>I guess that when I ran a while back and a player wanted to be a divine caster and I said, 'you can but...' I was being a douche because I did not say 'no?' </p>
<p>What if I didn't want divine characters/kids but wanted to give the player the option to play one but with whatever conditions I set? Does my choice to compromise reflect negatively on me? Man, I have head the same nareowminded arguments about gm's who don't compromise. There is no winning when you guys make these kind of statements. You don't know my motivations or the GM's so why are you making judgements with so little evidence? This is rather bad form and in a rules forum no less (though the thread should be moved).</p>So, when a player asks their gm if they can play a kid and the gm doesn't simply say 'no you can't' because that is what you would prefer, but instead says, 'you can but...' They are a douche or passive-aggressive?
Wth?
I guess that when I ran a while back and a player wanted to be a divine caster and I said, 'you can but...' I was being a douche because I did not say 'no?'
What if I didn't want divine characters/kids but wanted to give the player the option to play one but with whatever...Dark Immortal2014-09-16T08:05:59ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should DM's enforce the Child Characters ruleset?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rhxt&page=2?Should-DMs-enforce-the-Child-Characters-ruleset#592014-09-22T04:10:58Z2014-09-16T06:56:04Z<p>All of you guys leaping to the assumption that a gm is being passive-aggressive when you can't actually know that is a bit irksome. What if the gm just believes that child characters should have the proper template since it exists? What if the gm doesn't know the details of the template but thinks it is a great idea and fitting? What if the gm doesn't see adventuring children as a thing in his world but thinks she is taking a step to meet the player halfway? What if.... What if.... </p>
<p>But apparently, the <b>real</b> reason and motivation is irrelevant because you guys seem to know absolutely what the reasons and motives are and can there for make statements about the nature of said GMs actions. </p>
<p>Oh wait- you can't.</p>
<p>And Kudos to Lemmy for at least taking an open minded response and admitting that other possibilities exist beyond the gm being passive-aggressive. </p>
<p>You guys usually demonstrate pretty logical arguments. Seeing such responses without any evidence (unless I forgot or missed it) is getting annoying to read.</p>
<p>Moving on.</p>
<p>If I wanted to play a child character, I would ask or inform my gm ahead of time about who the character is. Some of you claim that you have a minimum starting age and concerns about adventurers who would bring a child along. In your game I would ask for special permission to play the character as a child. It's really simple. You'll probably evaluate the group of players and how a child would work ooc and ic and simultaneously evaluate my personal ability to rp a kid. You'll pair all that up with any other concerns you have and make a decision. So!e GM's don't think like that or at all and make responses as a decision or something in the middle. •shrug• it's their prerogative.</p>
<p>My adventuring crew went through a big rp and mechanical issue when my child character died. I was actually glad of it and all ready to make a new character when the group, in character, was so distraught that they donated a very expensive magic item to an organization in order to get my kid raised- <b>much</b> to my ooc dismay. In real life, the group was scared because my kid is so integral to group performance that losing him would leave a notably gaping hole that nobody else could readily fill. Any new character I brought in would likely not be able to compensate in the same ways. </p>
<p>As far as I can tell, the group I am with is a good group for having a child along with. They try to keep me from being alone with strangers, make sure I don't drink or do drugs, tell me what is good and bad. They care. I wonder what kind of heroes your parties consist of that a child's presence brings to light some unsavory aspect of the players or their characters?</p>All of you guys leaping to the assumption that a gm is being passive-aggressive when you can't actually know that is a bit irksome. What if the gm just believes that child characters should have the proper template since it exists? What if the gm doesn't know the details of the template but thinks it is a great idea and fitting? What if the gm doesn't see adventuring children as a thing in his world but thinks she is taking a step to meet the player halfway? What if.... What if....
But...Dark Immortal2014-09-16T06:56:04ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should DM's enforce the Child Characters ruleset?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rhxt?Should-DMs-enforce-the-Child-Characters-ruleset#152014-09-17T03:28:49Z2014-09-16T00:06:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Stauffie wrote:</div><blockquote> Why would you want to play an 11 year-old char? </blockquote><p>Not sure that really matters. I assume it is because he wants to but I can see the investigative aspect of trying to find something that isn't a child for him to play because his real desire is to be be a chiby or something. I just assume that people are smart enough to say what they mean and clarify on their own if necessary. But as we know, that isn't always the case.
<p>I play a gnome who is 24 years old (which is about 12 in human years). He is a child. He has nightmares and everything. In pfs, I role play him as a child but officially he has to be an adult. People go with it and love the character.</p>
<p>An 11 year old elf is a lot younger than 5 unless the maturation process for elves is different than I remember. Actually, they might be effectively 11. I believe it is during puberty that their maturation cycle slows down and they remain a teenager more or less indefinitely. </p>
<p>In regards to the dm's decision, yes he <i>should</i> if it is what he wants to do. He's the gm after all. Conversely, if you dislike his decision you can approach him on the issue or not play the character. If a gm told me I had to play my child as an adult, I would simply put the character sheet in my folder and find another character to play or leave the table if necessary. If a gm told me I had to apply the young template to my child character, I would consider if it was something I would enjoy and if it was not, would speak with the gm about it. If that didn't work, I'd make another character.</p>Stauffie wrote:Why would you want to play an 11 year-old char?
Not sure that really matters. I assume it is because he wants to but I can see the investigative aspect of trying to find something that isn't a child for him to play because his real desire is to be be a chiby or something. I just assume that people are smart enough to say what they mean and clarify on their own if necessary. But as we know, that isn't always the case. I play a gnome who is 24 years old (which is about 12 in...Dark Immortal2014-09-16T00:06:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Does the cleric spell list suck?Mayhem Havocrain (alias of Dark Immortal)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rdwb&page=4?Does-the-cleric-spell-list-suck#1982014-09-07T23:44:52Z2014-09-04T20:39:42Z<p>@Seranov</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>I originally had spiritual weapon, spiritual ally and chain of perdition on the list but in pfs all or most of those use wisdom for the attack bonus. Either way, this list is for a 5 strength, 3 foot tall gnome pyromaniac treasure hunter. Me! I've only got some of the third level spells but they seem to get the job done. I suppose I am missing Air Walk and I do get another 4th level spell at 11. I had a list of fifth level spells but decided to just wait and see how things were going. Planeshift, Scrying, Spell Immunity (Communal), Life bubble, Wall of Blindness/Deafness/Stone were some of the ones that crossed my mind but I only get to pick two.</p>@Seranov
[Spoiler omitted]
I originally had spiritual weapon, spiritual ally and chain of perdition on the list but in pfs all or most of those use wisdom for the attack bonus. Either way, this list is for a 5 strength, 3 foot tall gnome pyromaniac treasure hunter. Me! I've only got some of the third level spells but they seem to get the job done. I suppose I am missing Air Walk and I do get another 4th level spell at 11. I had a list of fifth level spells but decided to just wait and see...Mayhem Havocrain (alias of Dark Immortal)2014-09-04T20:39:42ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Does the cleric spell list suck?Mayhem Havocrain (alias of Dark Immortal)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rdwb&page=4?Does-the-cleric-spell-list-suck#1952014-09-07T23:44:45Z2014-09-01T21:57:12Z<p>I found the antiwife she'll life conduit and animate nope the most amusing.</p>
<p>@Seranov, I have a super duper awesome spell list that everybody loves. It gets me and Mischief through the day. We can pretty much handle anything an adventurer needs for a dungeon crawl or a fight. Also, pages of spell knowledge are an excellent way for us oracles to cover a few niche needs without wasting our precious slots known.</p>I found the antiwife she'll life conduit and animate nope the most amusing.
@Seranov, I have a super duper awesome spell list that everybody loves. It gets me and Mischief through the day. We can pretty much handle anything an adventurer needs for a dungeon crawl or a fight. Also, pages of spell knowledge are an excellent way for us oracles to cover a few niche needs without wasting our precious slots known.Mayhem Havocrain (alias of Dark Immortal)2014-09-01T21:57:12ZRe: Forums: Advice: Most Awesome Captain America for PFS?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7dd?Most-Awesome-Captain-America-for-PFS#252016-03-29T04:04:03Z2014-08-31T20:57:13Z<p>OK, here is a shot at a Brawler based build for cap.</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>This one clearly has some advantages over the ranger but an important thing to note is that they both have the same number of feats and the ranger 'goes off' a lot sooner than the brawler. Shield champion actually adds little to the ranger build and regular Brawler or Exemplar are stronger choices, mechanically. A lot of shield champion features mitigate the need to burn feat slots and martial flexibility is pretty great. </p>
<p>Offensively and defensively the Brawler has more Martial Flexibility uses and knockout as well as an additional attack per full attack followed by a slightly higher touch ac (but not quite as good of a regular ac). The ranger, has tricks which can spike their damage and combined with favored enemy or boon companion can readily compensate for 2-3 feats from Martial Flexibility, despite the limited use per day in comparison.</p>
<p>The brawler is a fair bit more flexible in feat selection and gets progressively more potent and ridiculous in later levels such as 12-19.
<br />
Compared to a pure ranger version, the Brawler definitely is the stronger overall choice. However if you begin to multiclassing, I do not think that Brawler makes the stronger core. Rangers early access feats, larger skill selection, additional skill points, growing number of and uses of skirmisher tricks combined with favored enemy do a surprising job of keeping up while simultaneously being friendly to dipping more so than brawler. Brawlers get good and useful things at nearly every level. Everything good about the ranger is spread out five levels apart or comes rather late. you lose very little for leaving the class but gain quite a lot for dipping into others.</p>
<p>Anyway, that's all I got so far. I really thought the brawler might stand out more from the ranger and make it obsolete but it hardly seems to as long as your ranger dips fighter and/or brawler. If not dipping ranger 5/Brawler 5 has some potential depending on what you're going for. Otherwise pure Brawler or ranger-dipped seem the optimal choices.</p>OK, here is a shot at a Brawler based build for cap.
[Spoiler omitted]
This one clearly has some advantages over the ranger but an important thing to note is that they both have the same number of feats and the ranger 'goes off' a lot sooner than the brawler. Shield champion actually adds little to the ranger build and regular Brawler or Exemplar are stronger choices, mechanically. A lot of shield champion features mitigate the need to burn feat slots and martial flexibility is pretty
...Dark Immortal2014-08-31T20:57:13ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Does the cleric spell list suck?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rdwb&page=4?Does-the-cleric-spell-list-suck#1762014-08-27T19:39:39Z2014-08-27T03:35:17Z<p>Well, since someone is trying to argue the limited usefulness or even power of the third level spells for the cleric, I decided to see what my necromancer has listed to prepare. He's a battle cleric/necromancer.</p>
<p>So:
<br />
Animate Dead, Sands of Time, Prayer, Archon's Aura, Bestow Curse, Nap Stack, Speak With Dead, Vision of Hell, Contagion, Deeper Darkness, Discovery Torch, Blood Biography, Blindness/Deafness, Magic Vestment, Greater Stunning Barrier.</p>
<p>The problem he is having is that there are too many useful spells in this slot and he has to prepare some in fourth level slots as well. Hisl useful in combat and many serves out of combat utility as well. A typical preparation might be:
<br />
Animate Dead, Greater Stunning Barrier, Magic Vestment, Sands of Time/Archon's Aura/Vision of Hell.</p>
<p>But he is just as likely to want to prepare Archon's Aura with Prayer, Bestow Curse and/or Contagion. These lists are very good for what my character is trying to do. If I were playing a different type of cleric, the spells listed would be radically different. I have a cleric build that needs to put 2nd level spells in the third level slots because there are too many relevant and always useful spells at that level and not enough slots.</p>
<p>I don't see anything weak or wrong with the spells at any given level. The spell types tend toward subtlety and resolution so I feel this is more of a play style issue than mechanical. A lot of 'niche' and 'circumstantial' spells are really not. The reality is that if your gm is running a full-bodied game, you should expect to deal with poison, disease, curses, sneak attacks, night encounters, thieves, swarms, being mind controlled, being underwater, being in darkness, making lots of acrobatic checks (or falling), paralysis, sleep, traps, puzzles. These issues were common when I played second edition. Maybe the nature of the threats in the game have changed. When I played forever ago, a scroll or two to remove a condition would never have been enough. They would have been nice and helped, but not enough. Players didn't just deal with a disease by making a save or, on the rare occasion they roll a 1 and fail, by fixing it up after the adventure by cheaply dropping some gold and moving on like nothing happened. Instead, a player might be diseased for 2-3 sessions before finally getting rid of it-sometimes longer. Unless those effects are all largely irrelevant, being able to remove them strikes me as fairly powerful and useful. A scroll of each restoration/remove and 2 different ones prepared and maybe even a wand for a particular type sounds like the backbone of a generic clerics repertoire. Then you prepare your spells around that. That's how we played, it was fun, it worked. Maybe things have changed.</p>Well, since someone is trying to argue the limited usefulness or even power of the third level spells for the cleric, I decided to see what my necromancer has listed to prepare. He's a battle cleric/necromancer.
So:
Animate Dead, Sands of Time, Prayer, Archon's Aura, Bestow Curse, Nap Stack, Speak With Dead, Vision of Hell, Contagion, Deeper Darkness, Discovery Torch, Blood Biography, Blindness/Deafness, Magic Vestment, Greater Stunning Barrier.
The problem he is having is that there are...Dark Immortal2014-08-27T03:35:17ZRe: Forums: Advice: Using Terrain Effectively in CombatDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rf2y?Using-Terrain-Effectively-in-Combat#22014-09-14T22:18:16Z2014-08-24T20:33:30Z<p>Effective and interesting terrain in combat can be simple things like bogs, poor lighting conditions and pits. Even trees (especially enough of them) can impede combat or offer new opportunities. These are perfect for low level games.</p>
<p>Examples:</p>
<p><b>Bog</b>- the wet, sludgy mess reduces movement by half for any creature passing through its squares.
<br />
<b>Enemy advantage</b>- the bad PC's have to reach the bad guys as the enemy fires at them with crossbows from across the bog.</p>
<p><b>Poor Lighting Conditions</b>- It's dark, really dark, as clouds of smoke and fog blot out the sun. Everyone has their vision obscured and a 20-50% miss chance on all attacks and a circumstance bonus to stealth checks.
<br />
<b>Enemy advantage</b>- Bandits residing here all have the Blind-Fighting feat and animals with scent. Several are also trained in the stealth skill and use thrown, splash weapons as an opening salvo. </p>
<p><b>Pits</b>- a yawning pit, 30 feet deep and 10 feet wide stretches across the floor leaving only a narrow five foot passage on one side and a ten foot passage on the other. The ten foot path looks unstable but offers the most direct route to the PC's objective. A cult of lizardmen stand across the pit, performing a ritual that must be stopped. A PC who can leap across the center can land next to the lizardmans sacrifice.
<br />
<b>Enemy Advantage</b>-These lizardmen fight to the death and care little for their lives. Only the rituals completion matters and that involves a sacrifice. PC's must stop the ritual from being completed but have only so many rounds to do so. </p>
<p><b>Ledge</b>- A narrow ledge, ten feet wide, spirals a path up a tower. It is located on the outside and rises 40 feet into the air. Players move at half speed while climbing the ledge (counting it as difficult terrain) and cannot run or charge. The five foot square adjacent to the open ground is somewhat worn and loose. Anyone ending their turn on such a square must make a DC 10 acrobatics check or risk falling at the end of their turn.
<br />
<b>Enemy Advantage</b>- Enemies are ahead of the PC's giving them high ground and a +1 bonus to hit. Enemies also use disarm and bullrush combat maneuvers in hopes of ending the fight quickly and at least a couple have reach weapons.</p>
<p><b>Trees</b>- Enough obstacles like trees will make anyone frustrated. A few will limit archery. A few more will prevent melee from charging, more than that and flanking, archery, splash weapons and the like stop being viable options for either side as vision is obscured due to lack of line of sight for anyone. More trees than that and it's not a combat but a puzzle. :)
<br />
<b>Enemy Advantage</b>- the villains hide in the canopy, easily able to perceive the PC's while not being seen themselves. They use ranged weapons and rely on sneak attacking from the cover of the green. PC's must figure out how to stop their assault before the last arrow strikes home.</p>
<p><b>Wind</b>- The wind shrieks and gusts at a constant rate. Players cannot be heard over the howling and movement is impeded. Small items like potions cannot be withdrawn from inventory without making a reflex save or else they go flying into the distance. Vision is reduced to 1/2 thee distance and attack rolls take a small penalty. Spells with verbal components are restricted as are any other spell like abilities which operate on sound. Naturally, ranged weapons of any sort are not an option.
<br />
<b>Enemy Advantage</b>-The enemies use traps and prepare spells which don't require verbal components. The martial bad guys focus on defensive moves to keep the casters from being approached.</p>
<p>Dynamic Events- you can also have any of these things be a dynamic part of an encounter or story. A pit doesn't have to be there before combat. Have the ground collapse in the middle of a fight, creating such a pit for a much more thematic encounter. Maybe that ledge didn't exist until the rogue stepped too close to the chest and now the floor of the room has an entirely new layout that wasn't there a moment ago. </p>
<p>Maybe this will spark your imagination and get the ball rolling.</p>Effective and interesting terrain in combat can be simple things like bogs, poor lighting conditions and pits. Even trees (especially enough of them) can impede combat or offer new opportunities. These are perfect for low level games.
Examples:
Bog- the wet, sludgy mess reduces movement by half for any creature passing through its squares.
Enemy advantage- the bad PC's have to reach the bad guys as the enemy fires at them with crossbows from across the bog.
Poor Lighting Conditions- It's...Dark Immortal2014-08-24T20:33:30ZForums: Advice: Optimization Challenge: Caster Cleric with no popular spells.Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rem9?Optimization-Challenge-Caster-Cleric-with-no#12020-02-26T08:17:53Z2014-08-21T05:41:31Z<p>So, a lot of people on these forums know a little bit about this game and how to optimize things. A thing I've noticed is a distinct lack of ability to take something as is and optimize it as requested. So as part of the challenge (and for some maybe the hardest part) can you make an optimized cleric or oracle without suggesting another class that may or may not be better?</p>
<p>The subject was initiated with the idea being: what if you removed the things everyone thinks or knows are good and force yourself to make a character with what is left? Will you have something different? Something good? Both? Since people do what they are familiar with and what they know works, we aren't likely to find out without taking an intentional step down this path.</p>
<p>That said the rules are simple:
<br />
1.) Don't suggest another class, though oracle is an acceptable alternative. The discussion moves forward on the grounds that it is a cleric/possible oracle who has to be optimized.</p>
<p>2.) You're in a home game but you're building to 11 without 3rd party material. Most acceptable races are allowed (use your better judgment) and your fantasy world is no more slanted to one theme than it is another. Lastly all encounters are a realistic mix on any given day. </p>
<p>3.) You cannot bypass the cleric spell list through race selection or paragon surge or other bs. You can use domain spells and mystery spells not on the cleric list. </p>
<p>4.) You may never personally make weapon attack rolls that are not made through either a touch or ranged touch spell. You're a caster first and last.</p>
<p>5.) You may <b>not</b> fulfill these common party roles: Healer, Buffer, Martial Damage Dealer.</p>
<p>6.) If a popular (cleric) spell is granted to you by a domain or mystery, you don't get it. If your race gives you a popular sla you <b>do</b> get it.</p>
<p>7.) You may use any feats normally available to players. Though multiclassing is discouraged, prestige classing is not and any other classes used to enter one are acceptable. If a non PRC-related multiclassing takes place it has to enhance the builds theme through functionally related mechanics or actual, you know, role play feasibility.</p>
<p>8.) Have fun. You are free from being built normally and typecast into favored roles. Take this as a moment to flex your creativity and have it rewarded with <i>on topic</i> refinement and not just altered into what's already been commonly done before.</p>
<p>Other ideas are welcome.</p>
<p>That's all I could think of for now so here are the 'popular' spells you may never ever under any circumstance cast:</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>So, a lot of people on these forums know a little bit about this game and how to optimize things. A thing I've noticed is a distinct lack of ability to take something as is and optimize it as requested. So as part of the challenge (and for some maybe the hardest part) can you make an optimized cleric or oracle without suggesting another class that may or may not be better?
The subject was initiated with the idea being: what if you removed the things everyone thinks or knows are good and...Dark Immortal2014-08-21T05:41:31ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Are the older melee classes getting less attractive/obsolete?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2re9v?Are-the-older-melee-classes-getting-less#82014-08-19T10:14:26Z2014-08-19T07:12:41Z<p>I felt the same way Jasin, though not about the same issues. I have extraordinarily great difficulty justifying playing a fighter when I could just play a brawler- insofar as mechanical advantage and ability are concerned, as an example. </p>
<p>However, Even the core classes still have their respective merits which factor out better over time than in an given instance. If you exclude pfs (which new additions are not made exclusively for), then you have to consider the variety of ga!e tables, play styles, and adventures that can exist. In such a case, a very clear mechanical advantage can become a crippling class feature. Many people would, for instance, argue that the wizard is superior to the Sorceror. But played in a real game where that wizard cannot dictate future events such as having time to prepare, guaranteeing that he will have a particular spell or spell type to deal with a particular situation, etc, that wizard can become quite useless when the fourth, fifth, and sixth encounters crop up. Either they are nearly out (or completely out) of spells or they are withholding their magic for the long haul, limiting their capacity in any given encounter.</p>
<p>That Sorceror is still going strong if they selected their spells well. Never mind they have a plethora of useful passive and active abilities to fall back on or intermix in the encounter. Each encounter. Throughout the day.</p>
<p>Many argue that the wizard is likely more powerful than the cleric because They have a proactive spell list (and people around here love proactive +damage and sos over anything else), the largest and probably most flexible spell list and because magic is superior to any martial advantage a character might or could possibly ever have.</p>
<p>But clerics don't need rest to prepare their spells. They only need an hour to pray at a certain time of day (or a time within reason even if that specific time is not available). Despite what any one will tell you, a wizard is not likely to have every spell for every situation, no matter how many spells exist to cover any given circumstance. They don't have access to the entire spell list (let's ignore Paragon Surge, though). They have to research, study and otherwise encounter a particular spell. </p>
<p>Clerics literally <b>do</b> have access to their entire spell lost, alignment/deity restrictions permitting. And neutral clerics of those without a god have the entire list. Never mind a suit of additional powers with relative but generally relevant usefulness to any given party on any given adventure.</p>
<p>So when I compare an old class like the fighter to a brawler, I have to consider that there -are- games where a brawlers ability to use any qualifying feat a limited number of times a day becomes a liability as multiple encounters take place and those limit/day resources are expended.
<br />
A simple fighter has an unlimited use of the multitude of feats available to them, easier tools for increasing their defenses and usually earlier in their career and ways to become more effective with the armor and weapons of their trade, eventually negating the inherent penalties associated.</p>
<p>While I have not read every class in detail, this likely holds true across the boars. Though, I think I draw a line and make an exception at the Arcanist (and possibly the wizard archetype that copies it). That class seems to have decidedly replaced any need for a wizard. The addition of exploits every two levels more than makes up for the loss of metamagic feats and arcane bond while the spells per day are initially higher than a normal wizards are anyway, without having to make yourself worse in an entire area or two of magic. The arcane reservoir puts them well ahead of the arcane bond feature and the school abilities of the wizard, while useful, don't seem to make up for the difference in added value that every single other arcanist class feature has over whatever that weaker class um, oh right, wizard, can do. Wizards strike me as a niche class for very specific things while the arcanist is just the wizard, plus the Sorceror, plus more than it should have ever been. Sorceror, oddly enough, don't seem to lose as much to the arcanist as the wizard and even remain viable as a <i><b>strong</b></i> alternative to the class as their bloodline powers are numerous, potent, defining, and in many cases not readily duplicated or easy to acquire or scale to similar power. But wizards strike me as relics, the kind of item that used to be powerful and useful for its time and then was later replaced by a fundamentally superior device with all of the same capabilities, none of the drawbacks, additional features, and new (and better) options for use outside of the scope that the previous device was even designed for doing...and ways to refine 'those' as well. </p>
<p>But I confess, this is my knee jerk reaction still, even if I have looked over the class more than once. Everything else still seems balanced for overall play but for a while, the new classes will and should get a lot of love due to all of the new playthings that are now available and long waited for.</p>I felt the same way Jasin, though not about the same issues. I have extraordinarily great difficulty justifying playing a fighter when I could just play a brawler- insofar as mechanical advantage and ability are concerned, as an example.
However, Even the core classes still have their respective merits which factor out better over time than in an given instance. If you exclude pfs (which new additions are not made exclusively for), then you have to consider the variety of ga!e tables, play...Dark Immortal2014-08-19T07:12:41ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Knee-jerk reactions from the Advanced Class GuideDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rctc&page=9?Kneejerk-reactions-from-the-Advanced-Class-Guide#4392014-08-15T22:11:47Z2014-08-15T09:51:51Z<p>I began reading, saw the arcanist first and even though it was not my class of interest, I read it to see what was going on with the arcane casters.</p>
<p>Five minutes later I wondered why anyone would play a wizard or Sorceror. I tried to justify their abilities over the arcanist, but genuinely couldn't. I did see some archetypes and feats that could be taken to close the gap. And I did feel that Sorceror managed a slight edge over wizards in terms of relevance compared to an arcanist. I just felt the Arcanist was a Sorceror with fewer spells per day but a few more core options and a lot of additional options each day. Meh. </p>
<p>The wild child picture sold me. I will play this. Mowgli will come to life! It's just too cute.</p>
<p>I felt that summoners aren't as broken or ridiculous now as some of the gap has been narrowed. However, I do not fully understand by how much or if it is significant.</p>
<p>I felt that they really considered the monk and made a genuine effort with them here. I just felt that more 'monk only' options or options where being a monk was easiest would have been pretty spot on.</p>
<p>Divine magic (specifically the cleric/oracle list) was not well attended compared to the wizard/Sorceror list which just got loved so very hard (as usual). There was not much a divine caster got that the wizard/arcanist/Sorceror didn't also get.</p>
<p>Overall I felt that martials covered a lot of ground and got a lot of attention. Casters were attended to with a good power leap that seemed mostly suited against other casters, and a lot more options for flexibility but not necessarily generic power. In fact, specialization, theme building and some feat trees all got attention that can make for very nice options and fun choices. </p>
<p>I have not read every class or archetype yet, in fact, I only covered about 3-4 classes and 5-8 archetypes but I spent time reviewing the spell lists and going over the feats. We'll see if I have a second knee-jerk reaction when I learn more about the over two hundred pages I didn't read. ;)</p>I began reading, saw the arcanist first and even though it was not my class of interest, I read it to see what was going on with the arcane casters.
Five minutes later I wondered why anyone would play a wizard or Sorceror. I tried to justify their abilities over the arcanist, but genuinely couldn't. I did see some archetypes and feats that could be taken to close the gap. And I did feel that Sorceror managed a slight edge over wizards in terms of relevance compared to an arcanist. I just...Dark Immortal2014-08-15T09:51:51ZRe: Forums: Advice: Wait, so now I'm a... girl?!Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rcw1&page=3?Wait-so-now-Im-a-girl#1112014-08-13T11:43:19Z2014-08-13T08:04:53Z<p>@lemeres, I covered that in my long post above. Basically, it is about projection. When I project myself into some character to live out a fantasy, I may or may not identify with certain elements based on gender. </p>
<p>We may not be plate armored dwarves and halflings wizards but we can imagine ourselves as such and identify with what we would do in those situations. We can even nuance how we think we would react in a given situation of we had those options and powers. Generally when role playing, we're projecting some aspect of our psyche and adapting it for presentation.</p>
<p>But a lot of guys have no idea or interest in projecting themselves as something they completely are not, like a female. The reverse can be true.
<br />
If you never identified with your feminine side, or dislike your feminine qualities or have an interest (for whatever reason) in fantasizing about being a female, then you probably won't want to project being one. You will probably have difficulty and experience discomfort.</p>
<p>That's why the game allows us to choose what we want to play. We play the things we feel we can identify with or that we want to connect with in some fashion. I would never assume that a person role playing should play a race or role (whatever it may be) or gender they did not want to. If I got heat for choosing to only play male characters and then got questioned on my motives underlying the choice...I'd put up my walls (intentionally) because nobody has any business knowing me that deeply unless they're intimately involved with me. Thoughts and feelings are not automatically shared for a reason, after all. So I find it odd that there is even an assumption that someone •should• be willing to play something they are not comfortable playing and that the reasoning behind that discomfort would come into question. Particularly on a subject that more than tangientally touches on gender identity, conformity and role. </p>
<p>If you don't want to play a male, don't. Whatever your reason it isn't for me to judge outside of a therapy session. The only times it should be an issue is if the whole party is supposed to be males or females or whatever. In cases such as that you're doing very superficial projection in which case it's fine if you are utterly untrue to the gender differences or preconceptions.</p>
<p>This guy doesn't want to be a girl. And honestly, if I was doing a cat, with the way I feel right now, I really wouldn't want to play it as female either. But in a few weeks or a month from now, I might have the interest or desire to play a female cat, specifically. As it stands I have a nature oracle idea that I feel great loathing at the idea of it being a male. I even have difficulty imagining it as such. The interactions, my personal comfort level and rp opportunities and capabilities scream female to me in every way. If I were surprised by a gm and told I was a male, I would simply refuse to play the character and make something else to play. In •that• case, gender matters a lot. It's defining. This is probably true with around 50% of my characters. The rest of the time I play around with which gender feels cooler or more fun or which I could rp better, etc with the concept.</p>@lemeres, I covered that in my long post above. Basically, it is about projection. When I project myself into some character to live out a fantasy, I may or may not identify with certain elements based on gender.
We may not be plate armored dwarves and halflings wizards but we can imagine ourselves as such and identify with what we would do in those situations. We can even nuance how we think we would react in a given situation of we had those options and powers. Generally when role playing,...Dark Immortal2014-08-13T08:04:53ZRe: Forums: Advice: Wait, so now I'm a... girl?!Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rcw1&page=2?Wait-so-now-Im-a-girl#982014-08-22T18:10:38Z2014-08-13T05:32:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">blackbloodtroll wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I know you are asking for advice, but you may be able to help me out.</p>
<p>I have a hard time fully understanding those uncomfortable with players playing PCs of a different gender, than their own.</p>
<p>I want to be able to make a better gaming experience for all those I play with, so I want to have some insight.</p>
<p>What, specifically, makes this so uncomfortable? </blockquote><p>It's different for each person. It's influenced by each culture and each time period you live in. There is no single answer to this question that will apply to everyone. However, males and females have different ways of thinking, different biological motivations and underlying thought patterns which influence how a given life experience will be internalized. When you are a male and make a female character, you're essentially taking a leap into the unknown. This makes it difficult to pretend to be something you're not when your reference points are invariably inaccurate.
</p>
The same applies to women playing males. All we can do is infer based on experience or use media clues and cultural contexts.</p>
<p>Some guys identify as masculine by nature, are shy, introverted to varying degrees in varying ways. Some guys in that position will find it problematic for them as a person to behave on the opposite end of what they feel or believe is expected of them or acceptable. If you're an insecure male, playing as a female or acting at all can make you uncomfortable. If you're not a risk taker or in knowledgeable about your opposed gender the same can be true/ the permutations for why a given individual or group of people may have difficulty or feel uncomfortable playing a role that is not theirs is effectively innumerable and as varied as the grains of sand on a beach. </p>
<p>I do not feel comfortable playing female characters in some normally masculine roles. It feels disingenuous to the gender and is difficult to imagine it in any practical way. On the other hand there are female characters who I •think• that I understand better and enjoy in some masculine roles. I can never be sure that I am really getting it right (how could I being a male?) Anymore than a woman will be certain to comprehend the nuances of a males core psyche and motivations. There are male characters that I use what I know about females to enrich their personalities and demeanors and vice-versa.</p>
<p>When you ask a person what is it about playing a different gender or gender role that makes them uncomfortable or makes them feel any particular way, you might as well schedule some counseling time if you want to get to the crux of it. It is also no different than asking someone what makes them uncomfortable about being something they're not. Some of us may not be armor-clad heroes and magic wielding villains but we can project who we are into who we want to be. Some guys never want to be a girl and some girls never want to be a guy. If you are one of them, you probably have a pretty good reason then for not wanting to project yourself as something you simply do not want to be.</p>
<p>I don't know if any of this helped you or not.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kikidmonkey wrote:</div><blockquote>They think that men and women must inherently act differently as characters.</blockquote><p>Well, we are inherently different. Different hormones, different brain development, different physical world experiences due to different body types, different ways of thinking, different emotional responses, different in a lot of ways that I have not mentioned. And while some are subtle and some are less than subtle, they add up when you are trying to imagine the subjective view of another. It's one thing if we were all the same gender pretending to bridge the gap between different regular experiences but now we are adding psychology and biology and years of the two interesting and influencing every society and all of pur development and perceptions. For some people that's a heck of a leap. In most cases, superficially speaking, men and women act more or less the same. But once you start to dig even a little bit beneath the surface let alone ask about motivation or attempt to predict future actions, most of us just don't know. A woman is not very likely to grasp why a male will react a certain way or how a male might come to a conclusion and a course of action in many situations. A male is just as unlikely to understand where a woman is coming from when she makes a decision based on stimulai and can only guess at what her underlying motivations or feelings are. We're all approximating based on experience and how comfortable we are delving into the unknown or what we think we know.
<p>I don't want to derail this in how much the genders are different. They are-quite dramatically. So go look up the science if you are of another mindset or in disagreement (it's really fascinating how different we are and yet so similar). I'd be happy to discuss on a separate thread.</p>
<p>But in truth, the genders do act differently with plenty of exceptions and overlap. Some people role play the overlap (it's all they understand of the other gender) while others role play the opposite gender as their own (is a male role playing a female as a male) because they only understand their own gender. I've seen female role players approximate how dumb and macho a guy can be so well that I laughed and loved it. I've seen guys play females utterly unlike any female I'd ever heard of or imagined and not in a flattering way. I've seen females play males poorly and thought 'almost no guy would do that-sigh'. </p>
<p>So you may be right in regards to how some folks look at it. But don't assume that any given group of members of any gender is thinking a certain way about their approach to playing another gender. It is far more complex and insidious than that.</p>blackbloodtroll wrote:I know you are asking for advice, but you may be able to help me out.
I have a hard time fully understanding those uncomfortable with players playing PCs of a different gender, than their own.
I want to be able to make a better gaming experience for all those I play with, so I want to have some insight.
What, specifically, makes this so uncomfortable?
It's different for each person. It's influenced by each culture and each time period you live in. There is no single...Dark Immortal2014-08-13T05:32:31ZRe: Forums: Advice: Cleric NOT healing in combatDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rc4y&page=9?Cleric-NOT-healing-in-combat#4092014-08-13T09:29:35Z2014-08-13T01:42:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Silas Hawkwinter wrote:</div><blockquote><p> A reach cleric may have got some AOOs in addition to that healing with some group cooperation:</p>
<p>1. Grease spell can be great vs low reflex save opponents.
<br />
2. The tank could move and force the enemy to take AOOs, sure they'd take an AOO too but wouldn't eat a full attack.
<br />
3. Potentially combat manoeuvres to trigger AOOs (tends not to scale well but is viable at low level, particularly if you use a reach weapon to trip)</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Sure, but maybe our cleric did not want to play a reach cleric. Maybe he dislikes the idea of using a reach weapon or finds them all ugly looking. It's like saying that a super optimized high DC wizard could have done better/more. What if he did not want to play a wizard, let alone one of a particular race with an extremely narrow selection of feats, an even more narrow focus on school specialization and more narrow than that race pick? This aspect of thinking leads to people playing the same sort of stuff because 'well, a this is better than that in this situation'.
<p>If all you are trying to do is play whatever is best in as many situations as possible rather than playing a character you like and attempting to make the character useful in as many situations as possible while not forsaking your own interests, then that sounds boring. I cannot invest hours of my day playing someone else's ideas and fantasies out for them. I'd rather play what I enjoy.</p>
<p>And a reach cleric would have added some damage but the fight would not have ended much sooner. He still would have been healing first and foremost. A reach cleric would not get many zoo's as our for had at least 10' reach, possibly 15. Once we entered melee few of us did more than 5' steps because the damage we were receiving needed to be mitigated through intelligent play. Our inquisitor had a teamwork feat allowing him to move through adjacent ally squares without provoking and he used that to get into a flanking position which I set up for him by being next to an adjacent square for him to move into. </p>
<p>Nobody had the ability to cast grease, even if they did there is no guarantee they would have had it known. Reflex saves seemed like they would have been the bosses weakest save. But it was largely irrelevant since breaking through the spell resistance required good rolls.</p>
<p>Touch attacks were fine and landed but scorching rays for 8d6+24 were blocked by spell resistance. Uggh.</p>
<p>The fighter could not afford to provoke aoo's because that would result in far more damage than we could handle. The enemy had reach and multiple attacks. We didn't have the reach advantage and the room was shrouded in darkness or deeper darkness this time around (we faced him before and had to flee very quickly- there was no darkness previously and we looked at our options and decided that healing was the only realistic way to have a shot at beating the guy).</p>
<p>We knew that the boss could gobble the inquisitor and cleric in a single round (both of them). We also knew it would take about two rounds to drop the fighter or myself, individually. We knew that we could not let him reach the inquisitor or the cleric and we had to keep ourselves alive because the fighter and my oracle do the most damage by far and have the best defenses. With buffs but no healing, neither of us can survive two rounds with the guy and cannot afford to risk provoking zoo's after a full round with him because that may very well drop either of us. Relying on save or suck spells or offensive magic seemed a wasteful tactic since we couldn't easily penetrate the SR and the remaining SR ignoring options wouldn't significantly change the outcome. He also had a pretty decent reflex save even after I slipped through the SR.</p>
<p>Melee damage was reliable but the miss chance and his decent ac and high HP just meant we were in for a grind. Without healing the right would have been 4-5 rounds shorter with us futiley attempting offensive tactics that worked some of the time while he killed 1-2 members per round since even with every buff up and running, we still barely beat him. Yes, our tank was fighting defensively and yes, I was glorious heating the tank and having him burn moment of glory on his iterative so he could land the second attack, possibly. We didn't play like newbies. We chose healing because not choosing healing as a major combat strategy in that situation would have meant starting a new campaign and rolling up new characters. Empowered heals were the difference between some of us even being able to take more than one hit. </p>
<p>But no. I'd say that 65-80% of our encounters don't require any healing. It's not our strategy. But we won't hesitate to use it, or build entirely around it, when it is the best option.</p>Silas Hawkwinter wrote:A reach cleric may have got some AOOs in addition to that healing with some group cooperation:
1. Grease spell can be great vs low reflex save opponents.
2. The tank could move and force the enemy to take AOOs, sure they'd take an AOO too but wouldn't eat a full attack.
3. Potentially combat manoeuvres to trigger AOOs (tends not to scale well but is viable at low level, particularly if you use a reach weapon to trip)
Sure, but maybe our cleric did not want to play a...Dark Immortal2014-08-13T01:42:58ZRe: Forums: Advice: Best Necromancer BuildsDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rd63?Best-Necromancer-Builds#132014-08-13T03:54:15Z2014-08-12T10:21:20Z<p>Sadly, you can no longer channel to harm people while healing undead. It is an either/or scenario in pathfinder. Now that I think on it, <i>could</i> we do that in 3.5? I no longer recall with 100% certainty as pathfinder is replacing my 3.5 knowledge.</p>Sadly, you can no longer channel to harm people while healing undead. It is an either/or scenario in pathfinder. Now that I think on it, could we do that in 3.5? I no longer recall with 100% certainty as pathfinder is replacing my 3.5 knowledge.Dark Immortal2014-08-12T10:21:20ZRe: Forums: Advice: Cleric NOT healing in combatDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rc4y&page=8?Cleric-NOT-healing-in-combat#3992014-08-12T10:09:11Z2014-08-12T08:16:34Z<p>I think that healing with any optimization behind it is cool. I reserved a high level (for my character) spell slot today for a heal because the threat was real. We healed every round of our boss encounter, sometimes twice a round. Our tank had shield other cast on him since we knew he could not survive the enemies damage wihpthout some healing and mitigation for very long. The bosses readied action when we opened the door was to hit the tank for 40+. I took half of that. I have 50 HP. Well, 45 thanks to a permanent negative level.</p>
<p>The following round the tank ate 20-30 more damage and that was after being missed twice. I took half. At this point, the healing began. Had it not, our options would have been to try and flee or to die. Healing is the only reason we won that fight and we were not built with an optimized healer. We have a cleric with the healing domain who burned through a lot of spells as he struggled to keep up with the damage. He never was in a position to do anything else normally deemed 'more useful' because not healing would have resulted in PC deaths. I was healing 3 HP/round and giving a +1 moral bonus each round. I managed to crack through the enemies spell resistance a couple of times but he made some saves and mitigated a lot of damage with his resistances. Still hurt him, though. Our martials layer into him landing power attacks and such, using two handed weapons and a sword and shield combo. Offense was necessary but we couldn't have dealt much more than we were already doing. The boss was tough, he hit really hard and really often. We hit hard, reasonably often but defense and healing were what was needed for that encounter. Fortunately we had it. If our cleric had been a battle cleric or a caster cleric we would not have fared well. In fact, I am pretty sure we would not have tried and skipped the encounter. </p>
<p>Healing isn't always the best choice. But sometimes, it is so needed, especially in fights that are fights and not 3 round rocket tags. We duked that one out for somewhere between 6-10 rounds. 3/4 of the party was nearly dead. And yes, we came in with buffs and items and everything precast and ready to go. We prepared for this fight and it was close. Was fun as heck, though. I don't see how a similar party of reasonably built PC's would have handled the encounter without some sort of healing.</p>I think that healing with any optimization behind it is cool. I reserved a high level (for my character) spell slot today for a heal because the threat was real. We healed every round of our boss encounter, sometimes twice a round. Our tank had shield other cast on him since we knew he could not survive the enemies damage wihpthout some healing and mitigation for very long. The bosses readied action when we opened the door was to hit the tank for 40+. I took half of that. I have 50 HP. Well,...Dark Immortal2014-08-12T08:16:34ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Does Animate Dead increase a Necromancer's final CR?Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rd2w?Does-Animate-Dead-increase-a-Necromancers#92014-08-13T07:48:24Z2014-08-11T18:08:37Z<p>If the necromancers wealth is part of his cr and he has used that wealth to make his army, then I would consider the cr the same. If the undead were not detracting from his wealth and that wealth instead went toward equipment he was using against the PC's I would count the undead as an additional cr adjustment.</p>If the necromancers wealth is part of his cr and he has used that wealth to make his army, then I would consider the cr the same. If the undead were not detracting from his wealth and that wealth instead went toward equipment he was using against the PC's I would count the undead as an additional cr adjustment.Dark Immortal2014-08-11T18:08:37ZRe: Forums: Advice: Wait, so now I'm a... girl?!Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rcw1&page=2?Wait-so-now-Im-a-girl#762014-08-12T12:34:49Z2014-08-11T03:48:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Personally, I doubt there will be another movie</blockquote><p>From what I have read, a particular faith-based organization boycotted the movie which created a less than desirable atmosphere impacting box office performance and resulting in a bit of development hell for the series which at this point means no sequel. All of the children from the film have grown up substantially, some aren't kids anymore. So the best we could hope for now is a remake which might actually be faithful to the material it is derived from if we can keep certain faith-based organizations from interfering with free speech (and a free speech organization was involved over this movie as well).
<p>I rather enjoyed the books, however Steinbekian they may have been.</p>
<p>Either way, I would like to have a familiar for free!</p>Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:Personally, I doubt there will be another movie
From what I have read, a particular faith-based organization boycotted the movie which created a less than desirable atmosphere impacting box office performance and resulting in a bit of development hell for the series which at this point means no sequel. All of the children from the film have grown up substantially, some aren't kids anymore. So the best we could hope for now is a remake which might actually be...Dark Immortal2014-08-11T03:48:57ZRe: Forums: Advice: Wait, so now I'm a... girl?!Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rcw1&page=2?Wait-so-now-Im-a-girl#702014-08-12T12:16:47Z2014-08-11T01:33:37Z<p>Aside from what motivates him to change gender in character, he may simply be uncomfortable with or feel uninterested in playing a gender he is not accustomed to out of character. I play both but I largely prefer male for most of my characters. Some of them have no business being female or are really awkward to imagine a female doing or to sell as a female. If he wants to be a male I think he should play as a male. Nothing worse than ruining his awesome chance at doing a cat and being forced to go beyond the range of his abilities to adapt, grow and be inspired. This is not to say he can't grow and all that or that he cannot exceed whatever his limitations may be. I just don't think that delving into his motives for wanting to play a particular gender is as valid as people are making it. If anything, this strikes me as fundamental human psychology: we play roles we are more comfortable with, understand better and are familiar with. Nobody questions your motive behind playing a martial or a caster or a male unless it directly affects gameplay. And no one judges or questions our inspirations when we want to play out our fantasies in an RPG. If his inspiration is a hulking brute with aggression problems and lockeroom mentality who is brawny and a womanizer, we don't question him choosing to be a dude (evem if he could choose to be a female-most guys have no clue what female locker mentakity is like to try to emulate it). We don't suggest he consider his motivations for having chosen to be a male and not a female then. He's been t-boned in the bad way. What we are really doing now is metagaming how to fix it. From that viewpoint we can worry about motivations in character. But I think that applying it before that is silly and hypocritical, probably.</p>Aside from what motivates him to change gender in character, he may simply be uncomfortable with or feel uninterested in playing a gender he is not accustomed to out of character. I play both but I largely prefer male for most of my characters. Some of them have no business being female or are really awkward to imagine a female doing or to sell as a female. If he wants to be a male I think he should play as a male. Nothing worse than ruining his awesome chance at doing a cat and being forced...Dark Immortal2014-08-11T01:33:37ZRe: Forums: Advice: Wait, so now I'm a... girl?!Dark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rcw1&page=2?Wait-so-now-Im-a-girl#542014-08-11T01:20:22Z2014-08-10T06:21:11Z<p>^ And there there is the circlet of speaking along plenty of other options allowing him/her to function. </p>
<p>Also, it's a role playing game and he gets to be a cat. Mechanical leniency is probably OK.</p>^ And there there is the circlet of speaking along plenty of other options allowing him/her to function.
Also, it's a role playing game and he gets to be a cat. Mechanical leniency is probably OK.Dark Immortal2014-08-10T06:21:11ZRe: Forums: Advice: Cleric NOT healing in combatDark Immortalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rc4y&page=4?Cleric-NOT-healing-in-combat#1832014-08-07T22:12:10Z2014-08-07T21:55:01Z<p>I treat this as a game where people want to have fun. If I can heal and someone drops I weigh whether getting them back up and in the fight is a good idea based on their typical ability to contribute. Many times I will make sure to heal them into consciousness so they can participate. This happens in the longer fights more often than short ones.</p>
<p>When the above situations aren't warranted, I usually don't heal until combat is over. However, about 50 post above someone argued about proactive vs reactive and how healing was not reliable.</p>
<p>Healing is -<b>FAR</b>- more reliable than an attack roll that can miss. Your healing won't. What matters is positioning, amount you can heal for and value of doing a guaranteed action over one that is not certain to succeed. I noticed how they skipped over the <i>variable</i> part of the situation. Most other forms of contribution are not automatic successes and if they are spells with a save they aren't guaranteed to go off. Sure, maybe you have an awesome spell that could end the fight. But that doesn't mean it will. You cast and it says will or fort negates and they save, well you just skipped your turn. If you had used a sufficiently potent healing spell you'd have two people up and running on the following round two do their fight ending actions which may not suceed but it does open up more beneficial choices: the enemies have another target to deal with which divides damage dealt. You have more action, overall to contribute rather than fewer and this increases the chance that any one or combination of those actions will result I'm victory.</p>
<p>So let's not act like healing is second fiddle to other options. It's not. It is just as good in the same number of situations as other choices can be. The <i>real</i> issue is to make sure you know when and how to do it and to know your reasons why. Healing for the wrong reasons? You're probably wasting an action. </p>
<p>Healing is a powerful and useful resource. You want to do it out of combat when you can because it streamlines your actions to defeat foes as efficiently as possible. Buffing follows similar rules. You'd much rather buff before a fight than during one. But when two enemy wizards win initiative and each cast fireball, dropping two party members and leaving the rest in the 'teens or low to mid 20's, if you take the 'offense is the best defense so you can end the battle sooner' option, you will end combat sooner just not the way you think. Heal, dummy. :)</p>
<p>As far as killing downed foes goes, usually it is not worth an action. However, if you know the enemy has a healer who can/will bring fallen enemies back into the Frey, this becomes a very valid tactic. It is a useful option for some builds when in a prolonged engagement (my cleric loves Death Knell). It can be useful for triggering some abilities that operate on the death of an enemy though none immediately come to mind. Typically, if you are going to kill a target doing it after the battle is best. </p>
<p>Enemies on the other hand tend to be just as strong or stronger than an individual party member or are wild or unintelligent creatures. As a result, smart foes with multiple attacks can readily forego their weakest one to kill a PC who is in range without it impacting their ability to kill a current threat. Unintelligent and wild enemies behave as is appropriate to their type or description. You can justify their killing a KO'd PC or not killing it. That's a gm call based on what they feel is appropriate for that particular creature/encounter.</p>I treat this as a game where people want to have fun. If I can heal and someone drops I weigh whether getting them back up and in the fight is a good idea based on their typical ability to contribute. Many times I will make sure to heal them into consciousness so they can participate. This happens in the longer fights more often than short ones.
When the above situations aren't warranted, I usually don't heal until combat is over. However, about 50 post above someone argued about proactive...Dark Immortal2014-08-07T21:55:01Z