I'm wanting to have a massive zombie dragon opponent for my PCs to face, but I'm trying to figure out how to get a dragon that still has a breath weapon and other abilities. Obviously, the basic Zombie template doesn't do much of anything with a dragon, but I'm trying to figure out if the Zombie Lord (Bestiary 4) template creates a zombie dragon capable of using its breath weapons or not. The template doesn't directly address Special Attacks or Special Qualities for the templated creature, beyond that it *doesn't* gain the Staggered quality, which leads me to assume that it should.
If the Zombie Lord is unable to obtain the desired attributes, are there any viable templates that would create a zombified undead dragon?
I would love to get my hands on (ideally) a pewter version of this guy, though I'd settle for a Bones or something if I had to. I have loved this art since it came out, even built a character inspired by it who was a hoot and a half to play for the brief time the campaign went on, but I haven't seen Paizo put out a mini of this amazing goblin. It blows my mind, really.
Am I missing something, or is this something that Paizo just really hasn't done yet? Who's with me that we need a mini of this little guy in all his resplendent glory?
I believe it uses that concept as a possible explanation for a character being Mythic, but that's really about all I remember about it.
Bill Dunn wrote:
The principal reason I wouldn't allow a rogue to sneak attack a roper's tentacles without attacking the roper directly is due to the nature of threating attacks. You can't attack a creature if you don't threaten its space, no matter if it's hitting you with its reach attack. So the rogue can't Sneak Attack a roper's tentacles unless he can also make a melee attack into the roper's space.
Edit: the same holds true for anyone. A wizard couldn't use shocking grasp on a roper's tentacles, either...
For myself, the DM who didn't appreciate that 120' was well within range of a heavy crossbow was met at a local gaming shop advertising for players. I was home from college for the summer, so I wasn't going to be playing for long. The first session, I actually had another player suggest that I build a human fighter and take all three of my first level feats as Toughness so I'd have a bunch of extra HP. That group was messed up for a lot of reasons.
The thing with the greatsword was at the Shadowland site for a PBP game one of my friends introduced me to.
Needless to say, both of those DMs and the one game I participated in taught me a lot about how NOT to DM. They were at least educational.
When kingdom building, Everburning torches are a relatively inexpensive upgrade to a building square. So much so that I imagine most cities are lit like crazy after a certain period of time.
Casters are the 1%.
If you bust out the ol' Spell Compendium from 3.5 and let casters use Amanuensis, you don't need a printing press. 6 seconds to copy a page from a book perfectly, and all you need is a 10 Charisma/Int and a single level in Sorcerer/Wizard. Gainful employment at a printing agency, photocopying books all day.
Thanks. My wife helped me come up with the name. I was eventually going to get it up to large or larger and start having it look like the Cloverfield monster, so I loved the dichotomy of its ridiculous name. The summoner had manifested it when she was, like 14 for the first time.
Vital strike was designed to help make up for the fact that a fighter can't always full attack. The extra damage from the feat matches the dice of damage your weapon would have dealt in the full attack, so it's a way to somewhat keep apace with a full attacking character of equal level.
That said, the problem with the feat is that it rewards larger weapons, and makes monsters nastier for the same level of investment. Sure, it feels nice when your greatsword deals 4d6+1.5xSTR, but it's much worse when the dragon bites you for 8d6+STR and then flyby attacks away...
Enchantment magic, in general, yields all sorts of terrible ramifications related to concepts of free will and consent. Something that should honestly get a bit of upfront discussion regarding relationships. But the description is hilarious, nonetheless. Though I think, rather than Valeros, it should be one of the resident shirtless iconics... Seltyiel and Amiri, maybe. That'd be a funny role reversal.
Save or die spells are awful, because they escalate things rapidly. PCs sometimes love them, because who doesn't love it when they drop the Big Bad in the first round? But they hate being on the receiving end, and that's inevitably going to happen at some point. PC death is more long lasting and damaging to a narrative than the death of a villain, as well.
It's what makes high level combat so very lopsided. In general, I try to work with a gentleman's agreement to avoid them if the players do.
First 3.0 campaign I played, I was a fighter with weapon focus: Heavy Crossbow for thematic reasons. I fired at a creature climbing up towards our location along an almost sheer cliff. I asked how far away it was, the DM replied "120 feet" and I fired at it. Rolled pretty high, DM responded that there was "no way" I could hit it because it was "120 feet away. That's too far to hit it." Needless to say, I quit that game after that session.
My first 3.0 experience, I built a gish sorcerer and gave her Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword at first level. The DM refused to allow it, because she didn't know how to wield a longsword, and there was no way someone could learn to use a greatsword without knowing how to use a longsword first.
That said, I wouldn't mind having a little sexual information. Like alchemical contraceptives. I mean, come on, this setting has tons of sexual gods. There's a little room for more information in that area.
Contraceptives, both magical and alchemical, make perfect sense to be covered. We typically hand waive it, assuming that there's cantrips and holistic methods of managing contraception whenever it comes up in our games. It was marginally important in the backstory of one of my wife's characters, as she had been a prostitute before becoming an adventurer.
I ripped off the 3.5 Knowledge Devotion feat and just shoved the benefits it gives into knowledge checks in my campaign. If you identify the creature, you get a +1 to attack & damage rolls, and an extra +1 for each 5 your roll exceeds the DC. That sort of encourages ranks in knowledges, and helps reward identification with in-game benefits.
Running concurrently to your idea, Kolokotroni, one could add that option for all the combat maneuvers, so you don't have to have a dirty fighting rogue, you could have a disarming rogue or whatever.
One thing I've also thought of is that the rogue should have options to mimic other class options, similar to the 3.5 Factotum and/or Chameleon. I've been toying with the idea for rogue talents to be used to modify the class, with tricks like "appending" spells per day to the class build, allowing them to cast a small number of spells from a spellbook like a wizard, for example. Letting the rogue be a dilettante. I'm not sure, but I was contemplating something like that.
still feel like Paizo dropped the ball when it revised 3.5 and failed to codify "precision damage" as a set type of damage, like a keyword. Rather than having to constantly spell out the text with things like this, we could have a "x is precision damage" comment and everything would be much more consistant and clear.
I believe that the initial intention was to raise the issue that costuming in Golarion seems to have shifted from the initial releases to have more, I guess, "codified" elements, and that several of the Iconics have costuming that doesn't fit into the established elements of the world anymore. So, if everyone from Cheliax wears, say, big feathered boas, then an Iconic supposedly from Cheliax without a feathered boa isn't correctly attired and may need a redesign.
It's obviously evolved from that into a discussion of appropriate attire and provocative imagery, but the original concept was whether, say, Seoni's attire is appropriate to the cultural norms of her established society.
This argument does, unfortunately, fall apart when one notices that not everyone dresses the same in our societies, especially when traveling abroad, something adventurers often do.
The thing is, I don't usually run modules. And I run in my own world, where most of the APs are very hard to smoosh in. Something's gotta be pretty exciting to get me interested in running it, especially since it'll either require heavy amounts of modification to fit, or me ignoring a world that's 14 years old to run it. At the rate my campaigns take to finish up, I don't even foresee doing this for another year or so. It just sounds really cool.
Tony Stark is a great example of a character with a high INT and low WIS. "I can build this armored power suit! I'll test it out in my garage! Looks like some of the prelimiaries are working fine. Let's fly into the upper stratosphere!"
The man knows theory, but application and patience are not his strong suit.