Dire Hobbit's page

All your ban are belong to us

Necromancer wrote:

Any tiefling with big teeth should qualify for Razortusk.

All the more reason Paizo should have a Tieflings of Golarion book.

Planetouched of Golarion, for Tieflings, Aasimar, and pretty much any race with planar bloodlines, from the elemental planes, to the outer planes...

I think Tieflings could have Razortusk. They could also have Pass for Human. But not at the same time!

The device could simply need to make three jumps to "triangulate" during the calibration process. Perhaps something about the process itself is dangerous to the occupants forcing them out of the ship.

Well, speaking as a player and not a GM...

One thing I hate is another player who wastes everyone's time. Either by telling one story after another that has nothing to do with anything going on, or by arguing every point of the story and rules.

Another thing I hate is another player who is hyper-critical of the GM. Geez, it's a really tough job that hardly anyone wants, give 'em some slack folks!

What I love in other players is teamwork. Folks who are ready (even eager) to help others get them most of their characters and the time in the game. Thank the gods I have found a few ppl like that from time to time.

I envision the somatic component as the bard crossing his fingers behind his back!

That said, I'm not sure why no verbal component either...

I think a great example of a low magic fantasy world is Tolkien's books. Yes, there are magic swords, but you could count them up pretty quickly. Their magic effects are quite subtle anyway. They are just really, really good swords that are really hard to break. Nothing flaming, or eating souls. Most "reputed" items could be masterwork items. There are only 5 wizards and at the time of the trilogy, there is only one working for the good guys. There is a reference to "conjurers of cheap tricks"... so perhaps there are partial casters. I really like that setting for a story, but I prefer the sort of world Pathfinder has described to play in.

Throw some oozes and fire elementals at him. I'd love to see him grapple a gelatenous cube! :-)

Doesn't that describe a glaive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaive

Perhaps the back end of the polearm could be used with the techniques of the polearm master fighter variant. Or perhaps with a TWF feat.

Being half-good at melee combat is as useful as having one leg.

Speaking as a parapalegic, I would appreciate a little more care and sensitivity in choosing your anologies.

How about Disruptive and Spellbreaker as Arcana (Arcanae?). Since it would be difficult for the Magus to qualify for them otherwise.

Er, and because I didn't say it in the last post, well done on the class. At first glance, it looks well-balanced and very representative of both sides of the coin. I was worried that it was going to invalidate playing a fighter or a wizard or a prestige class somewhere, but it looks unique and interesting. Nice job.

+1

Oh, of course this is not going to stop the people from complaining that there is no good fighter/mage class in the game... because this one is not full BAB, full spell progression! Ha!

New Apocalypse
Same as the old, new leaders
Sky is bright and blue

Ahoy, yee scurvy dogs! Kobold Cleaver is banned for looking like the prow of a Viking longship on Talk Like A Pirate Day.

I think it would be helpful to ask the player what types of characters she enjoys reading about in fiction. The archetypes are there even in popular TV shows.

Does she like Abby from NCIS? Then she probably wants a character with loads of knowledge skills... which would point to a bard.

Does she like Sabrina the Witch? Well, then a wizard or sorcerer... sorcerer is probably easier for someone new to the game.

Someone fierce and in charge? Ziva from NCIS would be a good example of a ranger or inquisitor.

There are a lot of decisions to make along the way of course, but holding onto the core concept and how she wants to deviate from it should help.

You could also explain a bit about the game and the world and ask how she would get by if she were thrust into it. Take one aspect of herself or her situation in life and extrapolate it. This is how I have come up with some of my favorite and most complex characters.

So Mr. Snarky, does the outsider simply die and not get reincarnated? Or does the hex work at all?

I hit the FAQ on the OP's post, because snarky answers are no substitute for authoritative ones.

Wizard or Sorc or arcane caster. It seems to be the main whole in the lineup.

They could use a Rogue if the GM is fond of traps.

I see that their is a wide varity of opinions on which point buy should be used.

For those who use a high point buy, 20 or 25, do you "up" the CR of encounters to reflect the strength of the PC's? Do you "up" the requirements of feats that have attributes as prereq's... such as the two weapon fighting feat tree.

For those who use a lesser point buy, 10 or 15, do you do the opposite?

4 abilities:

* Much of the better ability of a ring of sustenance (although not as little sleep), without a week of attuning

I'm leaning towards 1,000 gp for that

* Endure elements continously, but only within the bag. Normally a 2,000 gp ability or so, but I'd knock it down to 500

* Resting in armor normally requires a feat. Inclined to think this is at least a 500 gp ability.

* heal once per week. YIKES. Roughly a 26,000 gp ability, though the sleeping requirement ought to cut that in half to 13,000 gp, but still, that's a big-bad ability, and needs to be expensive just to keep it out of low-level hands.

The limitation of being hard to wake doesn't seem worth a price reduction for me.

15,000 gp off the cuff. 2,000 gp if it loses the heal.

I agree, the ability to cast Heal, even limited to once a week. That pretty potent.

I have a dumb question on the Disruptive metamagic feat.

It says the concentration check is equal to the DC to save against the spell it was tied to. What if the spell does not allow a save? Magic Missile for example? I'm sure that it's intended that the DC of the concentration check would be equal to a spell of the same level Disruptive was applied to... but it doesn't say so... something else for the errata file I suppose.

A twist you might throw in. Perhaps the Faerie Queen can not undo the magic that has trapped the women in the paiting.

"What is done, is done."

Only another willing person can take her place, by having their portrait painted over hers. Who would do this? The husband?

Also from many of the old legends and tales the Fae were far from nice. Even the "Good" Fae were prettyed twisted, dark and scary by our terms. They would do horrible nasty things to people seemingly without care. They just didnt seem to see the world on the same terms as mortals. Some viewed mortals as playthings.

Perhaps the group could be sent into the painting to "find" the trapped women. Only to have the Fae altering the painting while they are inside. Painting in horrible traps, events and creatures.

+1! Cool ideas

And do we keep our interest during what could be a “boring” development period? All thoughts, ideas and input welcome!

Laugh a lot. Whoever decides to GM will make a lot of mistakes. If you can see the humor in them, then you'll enjoy the experience a lot more.

I don't know if it fits the flavor of your campaign, but Oni are essentially oriental fey. You could use an Ogre-mage or apply the Oni template at the bottom of the page to any other monster you might want to use.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/oni.html#oni-ogre-mage

Play an old man fighter type who uses a sword cane. Make him some kind of war vet who has great physical stats and lots of combat experience, the kind of guy you'd never expect to be able to kick your ass.

Find a way to give him immunity to fear because of all the things he's seen, and maybe even some command type abilities...

I am really intrigued by the sword cane... I think it would be really cool to have TWF and use the sword in one hand and the scabbard in the other.

In the campaign my friend is running, we recently had a neat scenario. Our sorcerer "levelled up" and chose fireball. We got into a big battle on a river where our boat was being closed on by warriors in dugout canoes. He pointed at the canoes and shot a fireball.

The reactions of the party were awesome. Several people turned and looked at Aramek (the sorcerer) and said "Since when can you do that??" or some thing like that. The Lawful annoying ranger started screaming at everyone to stop gawking keep firing arrows at the warriors, etc. It really was a huge moment for the party! Typically, we don't playout his new spells so dramatically, but fireball is a very dramatic spell!!

Before this turns into a full-on flame war and destroys a prominent thread, can I please return the discussion to how Eidolon's are to be roleplayed? Whether or not it's the player's or GM's responsibility, the question remains: Do Eidolons have feelings? Hopes, dreams, plans for the future? Or are they merely summoned figments of the Summoner's unconscious? They do have an INT of 7, so they are hardly Oscar Wilde, but they are certainly not animals.

As to the question of PC/NPC, are they under the direct control of the Summoner, or can they act independantly and under their own initiative? Suppose the Summoner is chatting up the local bar maid, and his Eidolon is waiting in the stables outside. Can it get bored? Would it chase rats, annoy the horses and amuse itself? Or does it merely wait until the Summoner has need of it, sitting quietly by itself?

What if it saw a thief going through the party's saddlebags? Would it necessarily warn the Summoner, or would it only do so if it was specifically told to guard?

As I see it, if the Eidolon only acts under the PC's control, whether directly ("attack that kobold"), or indirectly ("protect me"), thenit's part of the PC, and how the PC role plays it is part of how he role plays his character.

On the other hand, if the Eidolon is more independent, acting as a close friend of the PC, with that comes certain advantages (it will act in the PC's best interest, on it's own), but also with that comes the responsibilities inherent in maintaining a positive relationship with a thinking being. If it is truly capable of independent thought, and a player treats it merely like a clever golem, then I think the GM should cause that to have consequences, such as having the Eidolon sulk, or interpret orders as maliciously and literally as possible, within it's intelligence.

In other words, if the player gains the advantage of an independent, intelligent ally, then that has role playing responsibilities, just as if they chose to play a Paladin, but didn't want to role...

+1

And FWIW I think the idea of the "Intelligent Ally" occasionally getting into trouble of it's own has real plot line hooks. I think it would be a real shame if a player gave up that opportunity for funny sideline adventures and memorable moments just for absolute control of another character. But that's just how I look at it.

The reason i ask is the ranger variant weapon style , would alow me to skip the whole 2 weapon fighting in getting shield master, and get it at 6 level!.

seems like it would work rules wise , and a 1.5 str bonus dmg on shield slam would be good ,, no?

Well, even if a GM was crazy enough to allow you to weild a large shield in two hands, it's definitely an improvised weapon and should require Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to weild it that way.

I'm confused when you say you can get Shield Master at 6th level though. Shield Master is not a Combat Feat on the Ranger list, so you have to meet the prerequisites to choose it. And Shield Master has a lot of hefty prereqs.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

A +1 weapon is a magical weapon, and adds 1 to attack and damage. A masterwork weapon adds 1 to attacks rolls only. A magical weapon must also be masterwork, but a masterwork weapon does not need to be magical.

Edited for clarity.

Okay, let me make sure I understand you. For 375 gp, I get a non-magical masterwork longbow that gives me a +1 to attack.

If sometime in the future I want to add a +1 to the longbows damage it will cost 2000 gp.

Yes, although that's an additional 2,000. All weapon enchantments must be added to masterwork weapons. So the total for the +1 longbow is 2,375.

Note that a magic weapon may also help overcome DR, which masterwork weapons do not.

I kinda think Tolkien elves would be Pathfinder Elves with the Celestial template.

What do you think of Orcs with the Fiend template? That would make them Urukai! :-)

32 Phylactery of Sending - these items come in pairs. They appear to be boxes with a string attached, the string ends in a plain cuff that fits over the wearers ear, from this a small post extends toward the wearer's mouth. They wearer of phylactery can contact the other so long as neither is blocked by a stone wall of 1' in thickness, lead or gold of 1" thickness or a mountain range. Activating the phylactery causes the target's item to make a musical tone lasting 30 seconds.

Just like the Paladin's Smite Evil, it depends on how many enemies you fight a day.

True. I'm playing a ranger, and having FE bonuses is awesome for mowing down hordes of minions. I wouldn't want to give that up. Especially since it's not like a paladin's smite evil.

I guess someone should do the DPR calculations but I don't see how it's equivelant

It may add to the chances to hit, but it does less damage and does not bypass DR.

OK, you're not banned. But Batman's gonna put you in Arkam Asylum!

Voted, and good luck!

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

Yes, the elven curved blade is a sword for those curvy bastards, the elves.

You sir, may have a cookie.

One made by the Keebler elves?

Well, what ELSE are we going to discuss around here then?

LOL!! Too true!

But to the OP's point, yeah, I agree. When you see posts saying the (insert rule here) is too powerful and the next saying the same rule is totally nerfed you have to think they got it right.

Anyway, my friends and I have been playing Pathfinder for a couple years and we like it just fine. I think that's good enough for us.

If a PC outside the duel can shout advice, then a Ranger can use his Hunter's Bond to give half his favored enemy bonuses!

I think if you are trying to set up a dueling society, then you have to restrict the duels to certain weapons and tactics deemed "fair" by those that officiate the duels. That would limit the duels to certain classes that would do well with those restrictions.

If you want to set up solo combats between the characters irrespective of class, than anything the character normally "gets" or controls in combat should count. I'd hope that the terrain is more than just a 30' circle though.

I've never been in a campaign where anyone has used Psionics. I am grateful for that.

The whole idea has a "sci fi" feel to it that I don't care for. Other than that, I have no objection.

Jason spent quite a bit of time wrestling with the concept of a paladin that lived between LG and CE, and in the end came to the correct decision that there's really no such thing.

FWIW +1

This would be a really good question to flag for the FAQ file.

Don't know if this is the right thread or if it's been brought up elsewhere, but...

Prices for cursed items would be very nice. You might really want a cursed magic to use in conjunction with the spell Beguiling Gift.

Also, the Monk variant class Ki Mystic allows rerolls for himself and allies with various powers. The typical boiler plate of whether the reroll can be called for before or after the result of the first roll is revealed is missing.

With Terrain Dominance you can apply the favored terrain bonus as a favored enemy bonus. If you are in a campaign with only a couple terrains (like Urban/Underground) you could stack all of the terrain bonuses into those two categories and come out with massive bonuses that apply to all enemies within those terrains. Deadly on an archer or two-weapon fighter.

You would not be that strong outside of your dominated terrains but within you'd be almost unstoppable.

Well, you would apply those bonuses to all enemies NATIVE to that terrain. Creatures that have been summoned or that have travelled into the terrain, but are not native to it, would not be subject to the bonuses. So there are more drawbacks there too. :-(

I was just thinking today that he has a lot of work to do.

I think his guides are useful, in that he ranks the usefulness of class abilities. If something is rated Blue, and you are thinking of giving it up for an alternate ability... think twice and then think again. You don't always have to maximize your character. If you really want to build a concept, or you really like the alternate feature even though it is not as powerful than taking it is not "wrong". But his guide should give you an idea of what you are giving up.

Btw of all his guides, the ranger is the one I disagree with most. I suppose because his "Aragorn" build is not a maxxed out build. I and another player are playing rangers in a large party. I am playing a TWF ranger with sword and board feats. I'm regularly frustrating the heck out of the Treantmonk build. In a sense, it's not a fair comparison. We are regularly fighting creatures on my FE list and I am a specialist. So we are right in my wheelhouse. The other character is a very capable archer and a very capable melee fighter. Not stellar, but capable. That's pretty amazing to pull off, 'cause usually a build is great at one and horrible at the other. So consider using it, but realize you will never be AWESOME at either... but you will be capable at both.

I could be missing something, but I've never seen a "sticky fire" spell. I'm thinking of the spell Gandalf used against the wargs in The Hobbit.

I also don't know what spell Gandalf used on the bridge when he was facing down the balrog. It looked like he made the bridge fail under the balrog's feet, which is supported by the description in the book as well.

One that I really liked is when Dracula transforms himself into a swarm of rats. That's really cool, but I think the ability to transform into a swarm would be pretty high level.

yarb wrote:

Anybody let improved initiative stack? I was thinking of allowing it. Seems to me like for the cost of a feat it wouldn’t get unbalanced or to crazy, but I still worry about balance issues.

Anyone allowed it? What happened? Ect……..

Personally, I always find the magnitude of the d20 initiative roll is inversely proportional to the bonus of my initiative modifier.

That being said, a 1st level rogue I have with a 20 dex, Improved Initiative and the Reactionary trait ends up with a +11 Initiative modifier. He does usually go near the beginning of each round.

How about a Ranger with a decent dex score and improved initiative in his favored terrains? When you start doubling up on FT's the initiative bonuses can get really crazy.

My own ponderings on this power were that the AT could pick a lock at a range of 30'. Could be handy for avoiding traps or for working out an escape.

You could use it to create "cursed" magic items. Perhaps to sell to your enemies?

Hi,

I'm getting back into gaming after a long hiatus.

For me, I think the magic comes when I try to see the game from the character's perspective. For instance, in a recent session, we encountered a monster than any one member of the party could have trashed in a round or two. We'd never encountered one before, and no one rolled a success on their knowledge skills to identify it. So we skirted it and avoided going anywhere near where we saw it. IMHO, that is as much a part of role playing as developing a big backstory for your character because here you are actually living your story. We put a lot of points into things like linguistics so that we can speak with and get information from allies and enemies. Sense motive is HUGE in our campaign, because you have to find things out not just read a guidebook or other materials.

Playing the game from the inside is a whole new experience.

I don't think that's incompatible with min-maxing or playing a concept.
It does change things though. An Int 7 fighter is unlikely to be calling tactics for the party that includes an int 18 wizard and a 16 Wis cleric. Either of those would have much better ideas for general adventuring and specialized knowledge that would help against specific foes.

Themetricsystem wrote:

It is more of a continuity thing than a specific case deal. The argument being that if you can craft gold into potions without having to spend it then you SHOULD be able to do the same thing for using it to craft OTHER magic items.

Raw Gold = Crafting materials for potions
Then
Raw Gold = Crafting materials for any other crafting

You follow?

Aah! Thin edge of the wedge argument. I see your point. That still begs the question - what should the ingredients be then? The feat/hex could effectively be worthless if specific ingredients are difficult to source.

Aah! The unreasonable GM arguement! I see your point. That still begs the question - if your GM makes you fight an Ancient Red Dragon to create a potion of Cure Moderate Wounds, why are you playing in his game?

Seriously, these are low level spells. Even when you are a low level character, you probably can't afford to craft more than a few of them between adventures, so this ability is hardly game breaking.

It might be cool to allow the characters to quest for their materials, rather than pay for them. Forcing them to is unreasonable. At low levels it could be realistic. At mid and high levels, it would just be a game killer. Even a sadistic GM would tire of that in short order.

Shoot! Anyone know how to clean ink off a PC screen?

Hello,

I'm not sure which forum to post this question.

Are there any fey races appropriate to build a PC character on? That's to say, fairly human or elf life, and wouldn't be outrageously powerful? I just like the flavor of playing a fey creature, but I still want to play a normal class.

Here's a challenge.

An optimization guide for a party. As in, what classes you should choose, and what tactics you should employ and equipment you should get if you want a stealth, tactical or magic-weilding party (etc).

That should take a while!