Monster with tentacles

Dilvish the Danged's page

274 posts. Organized Play character for yu gnomi.


RSS

1 to 50 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I think Norah Jones is great too. Not a duet, but her version of My Blue Heaven is fantastic. I also like "The Little Willies" a lot.


When I try to download the new version, a red box appears on upper right of download screen saying

The"/sCoreForge Character Sheet/Pathfinder-sCoreForge-1.30.zip" file could not be found or is not available

P.S. I have ver 1.21 and I think this a very nice character generator you are developing, thank you for working on it.


'Please Read the Letter' almost is a Led Zeppelin song. Robert Plant and Jimmy Page wrote it, it just never made it onto any of their albums (at least to my knowledge).

I have the Plant-Krauss album "Raising Sand, I think it's very good. I also like their cover of the Doc Watson and Rosalie Watson song Your Long Journey


Alison Krauss and Robert Plant Killing the Blues

seeing Robert Plant in a ruffled shirt, singing country music has much novelty value for me.


the mostly forgotten Mary's Danish:
Leave It Alone

Don't Crash The Car Tonight

I have now fulfilled my rocker-chick-video-posting quota for this month.


I figure they must have a few fans left besides me. Here are links to the 2 songs on it that I like.

Fate to Fatal this is the official video for the song

Pinnacle Hollow this is just a fan putting some road trip video to the song, I don't think there is an official video.

Edit: actually, looking at the dates of the vids, it must have been released a couple of years ago. I just stumbled across the Fate to Fatal video yesterday while surfing U-tube


Have no advice per se, just wondering if you considered Anti Paladin instead of Bard. Anti Paladin is a Paladin archetype from the APG.


If you had a hexblade thread, then I think I missed it. I would like to ask a few questions to help me understand the approach you used.

Why is it a Prestige class? - it seems to me that a martial hexer could work as a base class.
closely related question is why doesn't it have BAB=HD? (like a martial class would)- I see that saves and BAB progress like Cleric, but I don't get why.


The term 'magic item' refers specifically to the sort of items described in the 'magic item' section of rules - potions, scrolls, magic rings, magic weapons, etc.
Casting a spell on an item does not make it a 'magic item'.

The term 'nonmagical item' refers to things that aren't 'magic items'

The term 'nonmagical material' (from the animate objects spell) is a head scratcher to me, and I am not sure how it is supposed to be interpreted.


I was really hoping for feedback regarding my initial post- weapon bonuses for Stand Still, Reposition and Dirty Trick. I can accept that I may be wrong about applying them to Trip, when the weapon doesn't have the property.


Re: the mapping challenge- I got very crunched for time and quit working on mapping projects, as well as other things. Also, that project didn't seem to be sparking much interest from other cartographers.

I was wondering if a culture like the Geats from the Beowulf story would be a good fit for this setting. The Geats are also referred to as 'spear danes' in the story, and were a Norse culture, although the story takes place centuries before Scandinavians started the habit of piling into their longships to go 'viking'

What follows is speculative, I am not a historian, but I am thinking that the Geats would probably be horseman, not mariners, who would have been fairly warlike. They would probably wear ring mail hauberks - which I think would be roughly equivelant to studded leather or a chain shirt, and commonly be armed with spears and large wooden shields. More details would, of course, have to be discovered or made up, in order to include them.

By proposing the inclusion of the Geats, I am not pushing for a culture that fits perfectly into the 'Viking' stereotype- they do not wear horned helmets, and are not commonly seen carrying war brides back to their longships, while some hapless community is being destroyed. This would be a slightly different Norse stereotype, from an earlier age- before they invented horned helmets and longships.


U-tube / Vevo link to Shadow of a Doubt by Sonic Youth Many of Sonic Youth's early songs are creepy (early means 1980's, Sonic Youth are practically senior citizens now).

Most of their music can be termed "noise rock", which involves playing electric guitars with a lot of distortion. This particular song, has much less of a noise rock feel to it, in fact it doesn't seem like a rock and roll song at all to me (I don't know how to categorize it). It is also creepier than any of the songs in my last post.


Both of these songs may be more modern than what the OP is asking for, but they do not involve electric instruments. The first is jazz / ragtime and the second is bluegrass.

U-tube The Mooch by Duke Ellington "The Mooch" is a kind of odd song by Duke Ellington and his orchestra that has some creepy elements in it.

U-tube Oh Death performed on a clawhammer banjo "Oh Death" is a blue grass song, it was featured in the movie "O brother, where art thou", I like this version I found on U-tube better than the movie version.

Found one more U-tube The Devil by P.J. Harvey Ever since I heard Polly Jean sing 'Rid of Me', I have been certain that she would be an absolute freak in the sack. This song I linked to is fairly creepy.


Welcome to the boards Gamer Printer!

I don't know if you remember me from the Cartographer's Guild website, but I was registered there as yu gnomi. You made some Xara tutorial pdfs for me which helped me out a great deal.

I love the idea of an Iron Age setting, I used to play the Chaosium game called Runequest quite a bit (a long time ago), which was set in a completely fictional Bronze Age setting. Although the world setting for Runequest is too crazy to translate into D&D, I think that an Iron Age setting could capture much of the same feel that Runequest had. It would make for a welcome change from the default medieval and renaissance feel of most D&D settings.

I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this or not, but the Advanced Players Guide has Archetypes for all of the Core Classes, which swap various class features for new ones that are particular to each Archetype. For example, the Rogue class has about a dozen or so Archetypes- with names like Acrobat, Burgler, Rake, etc- which swap out either Trapfinding or Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge, for new features. So, instead of developing whole new classes for an Iron Age setting, a set of Iron Age Archetypes could be made. I think that this would probably be simpler.


Dilvish the Danged wrote:
Oliver McShade wrote:


I wonder if they will ever add Flesh to Stone to the Heal spell description as something that can be cured by this spell??
Not likely. Flesh to Stone and Heal are two of the oldest spells around. If the game developers wanted Heal to cure petrification, it could have been worded that way long ago.


Oliver McShade wrote:


I wonder if they will ever add Flesh to Stone to the Heal spell description as something that can be cured by this spell??

Not likely. Flesh to Stone and Heal are two of the oldest spells around. If the game developers wanted Heal to cure petrification, it could have been done long ago.


I could really use more feedback, so I am bumping.


Shadows are just silhouettes and don't have discernable facial features- like a mouth- the way ghosts, wraiths and spectres do. I think it's legitimate to question whether a shadow can speak.

I never gave it much thought before, but a shadow doesn't strike me as the sort of creature that would ever say anything.


I agree with everything that you just posted except for tripping with a weapon (sans trip property), which is not clear in the rules, and has not been made clear to me after perusing numerous, lengthy threads on the topic. I allow weapon bonuses to be added, but I could be wrong.

With regards to the Stand Still feat, I was sure that weapon bonuses could be applied to it's maneuver, and have already ruled accordingly, but I can't find any text to back it up (it's a bit moot now though). and with regards to Dirty Trick and Reposition, I'm just not sure.


But you don't need a weapon with the disarm property to use your weapon in a disarm attempt. The disarm property only gives you a bonus. I think it is more or less the same for trip, but the trip property allows you to drop the weapon in order to avoid being tripped.

At least that is how I have always played.


That makes sense, thank you.


By and large, I have no issues with PCs crafting items. I do want to share a few things from how I run my games.
If the PCs are starting at an advanced level, and already have the feats when there characters are made, then I only let them pay cost for 1 magic item per feat (Arcane Bond for an item counts as a feat), except for scribe scroll and brew potion which I allow 3 potions or scrolls at cost for those feats. Any other gear they start with is full price.

If they want to craft an item for money, they need to be comissioned to do so, in other words someone has to approach them and offer to pay them to craft an itme for them. It's completely up to the DM, whether this happens or not.

Likewise, selling a magic item, whether they crafted it or looted it, requires a buyer. Buyers, in general, pay cost for magic items, not the listed price.

I also try to encourage PCs to spend money frivolously as often as possible, and look for rules regarding constant expenses to maintain their lifestyle, care and feeding for any beasts that they own, and any other expenses that I come across in the rules. Since crafting takes time, they might not be able to craft all the items that they think they can afford to make. (due to a steady dwindling of their finances)

Also, since crafting takes time, a new adventure might start before a crafter has made all of the items since he intended since the last adventure finished.


Are you talking about cliff edges and uncovered pits and such? If so, where can I find that in the rules?

It seems reasonable to me to allow that, I'm mainly interested because I didn't think the rules covered it.


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but you do not get a save versus being bullrushed, regardless if there is a pit or a cliff edge, or whatever behind you.

If the pit happens to be a covered pit, or some sort of pit trap that lists a save DC, you do get a save, but making that save could indicate that you are in the pit's square, but have somehow not fallen into it. Ordinary open pits don't have a reflex save associated with them.


I feel like I am late to this party, but could someone lay out for me why you don't need Quickdraw if you are throwing with TWF, or am I misunderstanding something?


I'm looking at the PRD combat section. Note 1 under the actions table states that regardless of action type, moving out of a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity.

I can't easily explain the entry on the action chart, except that I guess declaring that your character is going to charge as his action that round, does not provoke, but any actual movement involved in charging provokes as usual.

Hope that helps you.


This is pure opinion, not rules, but I intend to treat it like the gaseous form spell, meaning that you are unable to work any of the components- verbal, somatic, material or foci. With feats like silent spell, still spell, and eschew components, you would still be able to cast.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Or more specifically, can you add weapon bonuses to your CMB (either enhancement or from Weapons Training and or Weapon Focus, etc.), when you perform any of these maneuvers. (Reposition and Dirty Trick are new combat maneuvers from the APG).

For a long time I have been operating under the assumption that you can use a weapon with the Stand Still feat, but I can't find any text that actually indicates this.


vuron wrote:
I personally would rule that spell traps are akin to spellcaster spells, they don't show up as auras until they are actively triggered by the alarm spell. A spell trap that triggers a dispel magic effect wouldn't be that different than a spell trap that unleashes a destruction effect.

I understand the practical reason for ruling it this way, but by RAW I don't see why an Alarm spell is detectable and a Spelltrap isn't.

vuron wrote:


Also keep in mind that the mage is going to have to be up front to do his detect magic trick as he doesn't want the personal magic of the other PCs to interfere with his ability to detect magic especially if the PCs have big magic active and the aura in the room is weak. A mage up in front of the party is definitely more at risk than one that is huddled behind the fighter and cleric.

I don't know the mechanics for determing what number of auras and where is too many for Detect Magic. The spell doesn't state any, it just makes a vague reference that auras may obscure other auras, without really elaborating.

If someone has a system worked out for determining when auras obscure Detect Magic, and when they don't, I would like to see it.


I think this is an excellent idea. I also think that calling the feat 'Lackey' sounds better than 'Hireling', because it is more specific. But that is just my 2 cp.


I think that the 1e Elf class should be Pathfinder-ized, for all the people who want a 'gish' class. It would just have to be understood that all elves are gishes, and all gishes are elves.


Is this helpful? link to "Love in D&D" according to Phil Foglio


I haven't posted the rules that I intend to use for Magic Device traps, partly because no one has asked, but also because they are probably overly complex. This is because I treat certain trigger spells as being seperate entities from the actual traps, and cannot justify Detect Magic not detecting an area Alarm spell (it just seems to me like the sort of spell which Detect Magic ought to detect).
While I post them here, I also encourage DMs to come up with their own solutions, if these aren't suitable. And if you come up with something that is just plain better- meaning simpler and workable in most or all situations, please post it.

Plain Sight Rules for Magic Device traps:
Plain Sight Rules for Magic Device traps
Triggers
A magical sensor trigger is hidden, unless the Detect Magic-er has made the DC 20 Per check to notice the sensor.
An area Alarm spell trigger is hidden only if the Detect Magic-er cannot view the area the spell affects.
A touch range trigger is hidden if the associated Per check to notice the the trap, has not been made by the Detect Magic-er.
The aura of visual (e.g. True Seeing) and detection triggers (e.g Detect Good) is likewise hidden if the associated Per check to notice the the trap, has not been made by the Detect Magic-er.
If Magic Aura is built into a trap, the aura of touch range triggers, visual and detection triggers is hidden from Detect Magic.

Magic Device traps
The aura of a Magic Device trap is hidden, unless a Detect Magic-er has made the necessary Per check to notice the trap.
The Magic Aura spell may be included as part of trap construction, in which case the aura of the Magic Device trap is always hidden.

I also want to throw out a few ideas inspired by posters in this thread and in the other one in the rules section. Mynamesjake suggested mechanically triggering Magical Device traps. I think this is workable without bending the rules much, by using an undead rodent attached to a push rod, that gets pushed into a touch triggered trap. It should probably be an area affect spell that is triggered, such as Cone of Cold or Lightning Bolt, since logically any targeted spell would target the rodent. It would probably be pointless to have the trap be self-resetting, since the rodent involved would be destroyed when the trap is triggered.

Or a DM could simply rule that mechanical triggers, in general, are ok for magic device traps.

And Charender, a few posts up in this thread, suggested Detect Magic as a trigger for a Magic Device trap. I like this idea, particularly since I can find no rules that say that a trap can't have more than one trigger. However, while I am thinking that the Detect Magic cone should not have it's own aura (i.e. only the Detect Magic-er has the associated aura), that could be wrong. It may be that the Detect Magic cone, does have it's own aura, and that would change the scenario under which the trap is triggered. The trap would be triggered if the two detection cones overlapped. It becomes unclear to me how the trap would actually target anything, in that case.


This is the 'lets gimp it' thread, the apologizing for it thread is here Detect Magic and Magic Traps / Invisibility

I don't want to come off as being snarky, but this thread is intended mainly for people already convinced it is in need of gimping.


This may sound freakish, but I think that the lack of description of what a magical device trap actually is, means that it could apply to a book. (Magical device traps are a type of dungeon trap made with the Craft Wondrous Item feat). Using a touch range Alarm spell as a trigger, you could load it with the harmful spell of your choice, that would be cast on anyone but the book's maker, who touched it.

However, this may be a tough sell to your DM.


Concentration is a standard action every round, so it should halve the caster's movement rate out of combat. And yes, the spell ends if the concentration ceases, but since it is at will, it can always be re-cast.

As far as ruling that casting too many times makes a caster fatigued, it seems like a rational basis for a house rule. It just isn't actually in the rules.

Edit: got ninja'd


William Timmins wrote:


Taking your time can be killer in a dungeon.

I endorse this statement, but it is situational. There are plenty of times when PCs are at leisure to explore as slowly and methodically as they want to.


@ Cartigan
The point of any trap, or any encounter really, is to provide a challenge to the players. They get experience whether they overcome the challenge with finesse (such as finding and disabling a trap), or if they blindly stumble into it and suffer the consequences.

The issue with perpetual Detect Magic, is that finding an aura tells the party that something unusual is there. So they get a chance to go into 'extra cautious' mode, and start reaching into their bag of tricks.

Without perpetual Detect Magic they would probably at least have to make high DC Perception rolls.


Loopy wrote:


Detect Magic, in it's current RAW incarnation, affects negatively on game balance. We can overcome this with good dungeon design as it stands,

I just think it is much simpler to go after the bad actor, meaning the cantrip, and gimp it. You can limit what it does, and it will still be more useful than other cantrips.


@Cartigan

yes, I do
but at will cantrips are cost free. Getting smacked by a trap isn't


William Timmins wrote:


It cuts down on useful information unless you take time to examine each and every magic aura (at which point all you know is school, which may not be useful), and then have the rogue check each and every one.

With Detect Magic, you don't have to focus on each one seperately. You gain the information about all the auras you detect simultaneously.

Although, having a rogue check each and every one would be time consuming.


Cartigan wrote:
I'm Ok with Detect Magic revealing everything stuff

Would you give out normal experience point awards for PCs defeating traps?


@ William Timmins
Who is changing the system here. The thread is about de-powering a single cantrip, that is overpowered - especially if it can be cast at will.

Plus, in your examples, why wouldn't a Detect Magic-er simply detect all of the auras?


@ Jess Door
And I was worried that maybe I was being to severe, with my gimping. (Although I wasn't very worried).

However, limiting it to touch range does accomplish everything that I see as being needed and it is very simple. And in a magical world, it is hard to see even a touch range Detect Magic as being less powerful than the other cantrips.


@ William Timmins
You mean cluttering up a dungeon with 'red herring' spells?
1- I don't think that I would do it. It is a smaller overall change to gimp the cantrip, than to do that.
2- The line about stronger, multiple auras obscuring Detect Magic, has no mechanics to give it bite. Someone would have to make them up.

The thread is about alternatives, if you come up with a workable system to keep Detect Magic from spoiling secrets, feel free to post it. It should have some more details about what the results of Detecting Magic in an area full of red herrings would be like.


Nikolaus Athas wrote:

I would have ruled that detect magic doesn't reveal Illusions as such.

My understanding of the illusion of a wall (or anything really) even though a magical effect, affects the mind of the observer such that they are fooled in believing it is real.

Figments aren't mind affecting. I would otherwise agree with you, that it is reasonable that a mind affecting Illusion would affect the Detect Magic-er.

Nikolaus Athas wrote:

Firing off a Detect Magic in the direction of a piece of architecture every 6 seconds would tend to exhaust you as well. I would have thought it would be like focusing every 6 seconds on every single item around you - eventually the word migraine comes to mind.

YMMV ofcourse

This would require some sort of house rule, although it is a reasonable premise for making a house rule. My idea is that since Detect Magic is the bad actor (as I see it), the house rule should be for Detect Magic.


@jreyst
From what you have posted, It looks to me like detecting magic traps would be difficult, but it would still work as an effective Illusion buster. This could be a DM preference issue, I am opposed to common, low level magic spoiling higher level spells. But I know that there are other examples of lower level beats higher level - Protection from Evil can prevent a lot of bad stuff, and I have no intention of house ruling it.


For the people who see no problem with Detect Magic it currently is, I would be interested in your answers to the following questions (peple who already answered, please don't re-post, I read them and any one still can read them):

If you have a player who declares that his character is always detecting magic, when not in combat, how do you handle:

Spell traps and Magical Device traps?

An Invisible creature that is not necessarily trying to attack (i.e. it might simply be trying to hide)?

I would also like to add a new question, that I didn't think of when I started thread, and would encourage anyone to answer- namely, what use are long lasting figment spells like Illusionary Wall, Permanent Illusion and Hallucinatory Terrain, if their aura is virtually certain to be detected?

@ Nebelwerfer41- I really don't understand how the 'a PC can only do it if he gives me a reason' scheme is supposed to work. What is wrong with saying "I like to see magical auras"

I generally allow PCs to do things that the rules allow, I would even allow your goofy example of attacking every single square, I just don't think that the other PCs would want to be slowed down by your character, and the party would continue a man short.

Edit: And I agree with Caineach, if PCs can do it, monsters can do it too.


I don't want to change how cantrips at will works over a single, overpowered cantrip.

I have no objection to your idea of making it a 1st level spell, I just don't get how the checks are supposed to work.

jreyst wrote (in other thread):

Quote:

Concentration Check:

1d20+level+(ability modifier) for free
1d20+level+(ability modifier x2) as a standard action

Free Check (assuming 3,4,5,6 ability mods)
1 1d20+1+3= 5-24
5 1d20+5+4= 10-29
10 1d20+10+5= 16-35
20 1d20+20+6= 27-46

Standard Check Range (assuming 3,4,5,6 ability mods)
1 1d20+1+6= 8-27
5 1d20+5+8= 14-33
10 1d20+10+10= 21-40
20 1d20+20+12= 33-52

If you could elaborate on this part, it would help me. Also if you want to repost your idea here, that would be good. More alternatives is a good thing.


It would really only be moving in the middle of a Whirlwind Attack, that would seem crazy to me. I don't see any problem with moving prior to it.

1 to 50 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>