Elrik Winterwolf's page

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Verdyn wrote:

To frame this in a context that anybody can understand, do you feel 'more human' now than you did a few years back? Have you ever suddenly gained an ability that we're supposed to have but you just lacked for reasons that can't be explained?

You mean you don’t?

More seriously, of course they could have balanced them with ancestries stronger at level 1. Simplest method would be to allow multiple heritages on the same character, but there’s other ways. They simply chose a different balance point than you would have, but any balance choice would have been mostly arbitrary.

My point about balance is that ancestry feats shouldn't be a thing. Unless you're playing an ancestry as a class, such as could be done with 3.x Savage Species content, an adult character should have all the abilities they'll ever get from their ancestry already. Beyond that, the choices the player makes should shape that character.

PF1 and 3.x, while still having a small and often niche selection of ancestry-locked feats, both dealt with variation between members of a given ancestry better than PF2 does and didn't do that by selling you back bits of it at higher levels.

With all the optional racial variance in PF1e where exactly was the fully fledged racial paragon for every race? Seems that a little bit of choice gave way to greater amounts of choice.

A 1-level dip as an aberrant aegis would do the trick, if you're allowed to use 3PP material.

Someone's been spending too much time in Suramar.

Alistern wrote:

Dustin If You Learn Darkness Or Deeper Darkness it will solve your problem but you need to be a spellcaster.

Just a smidge late on the draw there.

Your reply was timely, however.

I'd suggest using fusion (dsp version, 3.5 version) as a template for how to handle this.

Psionics are 3pp nowadays, but memorization always reminds me of Autohypnosis.

VMC :)

Hi All,

I want to make blade wielding gehost/demon/monster hunter who van shape into a tiger at will... Any suggestions?

I was thinking multi class Druid/ranger with shaping focus and shifting hunter feats.. But flavour wise I prefere an inquisitor... But he can't tiger shape... So maybe I could create a new race... A tiger-kitsune like race? I prefere to use paizo products and official rules.. Great 3rd party is also doable but less preferred. The focus of the pc are: blade fighting 1-2 handed...,with shifting in a tiger form:.?

I'm curious to read your suggestions!

Why not Druid/ranger with VMC inquisitor?

I have been in a similar situation (where I was bored with my existing character and found a way to retire him - not having been a two-fer human), and I opted to switch to the new character with a build I was excited about. It was a disappointing experience.

My new build was fun, but (comparatively) my new character was pretty far removed from the story and from the other PCs. All the quirks and mannerisms that had been built up in the group were appropriate for the former PC but weren't for the new PC because he'd been freshly introduced. I learned my lesson well.

Now, when I get bored with a PC's build, I work with my DM to find a way to rebuild or retrain to a build I'm more satisfied with while keeping the character and staying closely tied to the story. If you can see this as an option, it's definitely the best one.

Conan the Roleplaying (d20) game has some very gritty spellcasting mechanics, and would fall into the "mostly-compatible" side of things.

Here's a snippet from one of the reviews (this is very accurate) "...the magic system is modeled after HP Lovecraft and Howard's works at the time. Magic is evil, dangerous, diabolical, and there's not really many good reasons for good PC's to use it."

Edit:
Here's a link describing some of the mechanics, from its SRD.

RJGrady wrote:

You are adjacent to your own foe, and you are adjacent to yourself, but this effect only attacks away from your direction, and even if you could, it's not an effect that heals undead.

Citation for that please. Nothing in the description says it has to be away from you. If, for example, a Tiny-sized creature was in your square, your argument would state that I would have to 5-foot into another square in order to attack that creature. Not only is that nonsense, there's no rules basis behind that, or for this ability.

*EDIT* The actual wording from the FAQ is "The spirits always strike from your direction." This means that the spirits will be attacking from the square you inhabit, not that it has to be away from you.

Secondly, if this ability was used to attack an Undead creature, it would heal it, because creatures of the Undead type are healed from Negative Energy, which this attack deals. The FAQ says the intent behind Negative Energy Affinity allows creatures to be healed by Negative Energy and damaged by Positive Energy, as an Undead, so it makes sense per RAI that this ability would actually heal other Undead, even though RAW still conveys it poorly.

That being said, there is one thing that will cause this to not work: It requires a living foe as a target for the spirits. Dhampirs are considered alive, technically, so no argument there. But you aren't your own foe, especially when there is a FAQ that says you consider yourself as your own ally except for instances where it's impossible or makes no sense to do so. Here, it makes sense that you are your own ally, so from that right there, the grounds for counting yourself a living foe are broken.

**EDIT** And Rynjin decided to dip some levels in Ninja...

This answer makes a lot of sense, but the FAQ muddies things for me.

Elrik Winterwolf wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

You are misunderstanding how positive/negative energy work. The "polarity" doesn't automatically change between healing and harming unless the effect explicitly says so. So, just because the spirits deal negative energy damage doesn't automatically cause it to heal undead (and dhampir). You'd still suffer damage from the attacks despite them being negative energy.

I don't profess to have a broad system mastery, but I thought I had understood how this mechanic works reasonably well. This wasn't my interpretation - how do you figure this?

Most positive/negative energy damage effects specifically outline in which cases they heal and in which cases they harm. But, for a rare few, they deal damage regardless of the living/undead status of the target. Blood Crow Strike is one such example. Stricken Heart would be another. Another tangential case would be Chill Touch which deals negative energy damage to both HP as well as Str, but specifies that it causes Undead to flee in panic rather than suffer damage (if negative automatically healed undead, it would have said they flee rather than benefit from healing). In summary, negative energy doesn't automatically heal undead just for being negative energy; the rules element must explicitly call out that it heals undead for Dhampir's NEA to be applicable.

Oh. Weird. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't have a counter example or link to further an argument. Maybe I'm just looking at it from a 3.5 mindset and assumed that calling out (pos/neg)itive energy for healing or harming was the specific rule (such as in the case for a cleric's channel energy) rather than the general rule.

You cannot use Spirit Totem to attack yourself, because you are not adjacent to yourself.

Quote:

Spirit Totem, Lesser (Su): While raging, the barbarian is surrounded by spirit wisps that harass her foes. These spirits make one slam attack each round against a living foe that is adjacent to the barbarian. This slam attack is made using the barbarian's full base attack bonus, plus the barbarian's Charisma modifier. The slam deals 1d4 points of negative energy damage, plus the barbarian's Charisma modifier.

Spirit Totem, Greater (Su): While raging, the spirits that surround the barbarian become dangerous to any enemy adjacent to the barbarian. Living enemies adjacent to the barbarian at the start of her turn take 1d8 points of negative energy damage. In addition, the spirit wisps can now attack foes that are up to 15 feet away from the barbarian and the slam attack deals 1d6 points of negative energy damage. A barbarian must have the spirit totem rage power and be at least 10th level to select this rage power.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but the definition of melee attacks reads as follows:

With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

This indicates that being adjacent to X is synonymous with "X within 5 feet is considered adjacent", thus you can be adjacent to yourself because you're always within 5 feet of yourself. Though admittedly, this could be a stretch.

Thanks for pointing this out.

The editor's note links to the FAQ actually.

Oh wow, I had completely missed that. Thanks!

You are misunderstanding how positive/negative energy work. The "polarity" doesn't automatically change between healing and harming unless the effect explicitly says so. So, just because the spirits deal negative energy damage doesn't automatically cause it to heal undead (and dhampir). You'd still suffer damage from the attacks despite them being negative energy.

I don't profess to have a broad system mastery, but I thought I had understood how this mechanic works reasonably well. This wasn't my interpretation - how do you figure this?

The Spirits aer under your control somewhat, as they dont attack your allies.

I dont see it as a too-far pull that you get them to understand to also whack you, too.

Generally rules and abilties are worded with a"normal" character imind, not some weird cornercases like "living undead, but not really" Dhampires. And writing 150 small rules adjustments into the Dhampire race statblock seems excessive.

I tend to agree, but wanted to fish for opinions (and possibly RAW text). Thanks for weighing in.

You mean would your own rage power attack you against your will? No.

Allow me to clarify - I'm asking if I can choose to have them attack myself. Since my character is a dhampir, the negative energy they deal would heal him.

Reading the note on the side there in the page you posted to, it says you choose who they hit

Yeah, I saw that, but it's just an editor's note and not a FAQ, so I assumed that it's not RAW. I wasn't sure if there was official RAW wording clarifying the definition of 'foe' (as I believe there is wording which allows you to count as your own ally for usage of the term 'ally').

I'm currently playing a dhampir spelleating bloodrager in a non-pfs game.

I'm considering what rage powers to take, should I want to swap out my next bloodline power via the Primalist archetype. The Lesser Spirit Totem rage power seems like it could be interesting, but would I count as my own foe for the purposes of the power? I assume no, but I wanted to confirm.

Here is a thread that I sometimes reference when evaluating "how much guts" (which to be honest, is almost always a factor) I want when building a character. Note that it's 3.5, not PF.

Each permanency he casts could strip the effect from some more-powerful planar being (so in essence the wish's permanency spell doesn't generate new magic but steals it from something else).

That might be a fun way to screw with him.

Several years ago (this was a 3.5 game), I ran a game in which the players had the chance to affect an outcome on a large-scale siege - the attacking army was a ton of undead and the PCs had a fortifiable position with access to various defenses and some soldiers on their side.

However, rather than slog through a long combat, the outcome of the battle was determined by 'battle points' which was metagame currency I was tracking behind the scenes in order to keep track of their preparations for battle, their actions during the battle, etc. It was sort of an ad hoc system where I had a few ideas for things they could do at the outset and then they came up with ideas of their own, for which I awarded points. The siege/battle itself was largely a cinematic piece as their preparations and actions were taken into account and I determined the outcome.

I recall it working pretty well, and allowed us to skip actual combat encounters - though it wasn't very tactical and you might have players with different preferences (ie, those who want to get into the tactical details of the battles).

...well?

If you're not having fun, address the problem or suggest alternatives (perhaps by only DMing once every other week, with a game you get to play in on the off weeks).

[Edit:]
And/or TPK them while you laugh maliciously.

That information is in the magic item creation rules.

I think we have varying definitions of the word "Flee". When frightened, I believe the creatures single goal is to get away from the source of it's fear. It can't do that if it casts AMF, the Pit Fiend knows this. Arguements saying "It's the smart thing to do" is moot, the fiend is trying to get away, far away. Not just 30-40 feet. The Frightened condition makes no reference of the creature doing -anything- offensively unless it had absolutely no other choice, therefore thoughts of "use AMF to make it so the Magus can't chase you" is also moot. Thats like saying "I'm frightened, so I just plane shift offensively to get the source of my fear away from me!".

But, I guess thats a difference of opinion. I'm honestly going to stay with my decision on that though, it seems perfectly reasonable, and more adapted to the state of mind that the Pit Fiend is in.

This is enough to satisfy me, so I won't push this point further.

___

As to using Wish, though, I thought I remembered reading discussions regarding whether or not its 'Transport travelers' bullet gets around the dimensional anchor.

Transport travelers. A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.

If this aspect of Wish can bypass it, you're in trouble. If it can't, then it seems like you've probably got this fight in the bag (assuming the rest of Beastmass doesn't overly drain your resources).

Did you demonstrate your ability to non-magically fly? I don't claim to have a 26 int, but without an opponent demonstrating that, I personally would presume safety flying around in an AMZ near the ceiling.

Hmm, I disagree that frightened means he's forced to use his abilities in a suboptimal or permanent way. Maybe I'm in the minority here (or not cleaving to RAW - this is always a possibility), but I would consider preparation for a flight-escape, plus a 5-ft step "fleeing" in as much as dispelling+teleporting is.

Unless you've got wings (or an obvious bow), flying around in an AMZ well above your head would (or should) count as escape for the purposes of being frightened.

Given that the kensai is magic'ed up the wazoo, I'm not convinced that the pit fiend wouldn't AMZ after that first round.

For the sake of argument (and interest), how do you see the fight going if he AMZ'ed on his only turn (and 5-ft stepped away if either he beats the Str check or the entangle effect doesn't persist in the AMZ), and then begins flying away from you in the subsequent round? I think this gives him a much better chance of surviving, and I would think that he's smart enough to understand that he needs to disable your magic-y bits to survive.

Also, of those debuffs, how many go away in the AMZ?

After your first attack - what if the pit fiend walls himself off with a wall of iron or a wall of force, placed between you and himself via Wish?

Will you be able to hack through it (or somehow breach it) before he can escape?

I have had this sort of situation before, but not over a long period of time. I have a player who likes to go do her own thing, and I allow it, but I typically don't focus too much time and attention on her character while she's off doing that stuff.

For example, my players found these ancient ruins with the help of a wizened old scholar. Three of them decided to go exploring inside, while my snowflake player decided that she would stay outside to keep an eye on the scholar (since he was busy cataloging things and furiously taking notes about statues and such).

At that point, I spoke with her OOC and said something to the effect of: "You can certainly stay out here and watch this guy, but most of the action is going to happen inside the ruins. If you're ok with a minimal role over the next session or two, that's fine - but I want to make you aware of the consequence of these choices."

She was fine with this, and so the session progressed where I focused 80% of my attention on the players following the plot and 20% of the time on the player outside doing essentially nothing.

In your situation, you might do something similar. Warn your snowflake player that he can "go explore that empty alley" or whatever, but then spend the next large chunk of time focusing on the players sticking to the adventure.

Elrik Winterwolf wrote:

This has piqued my interest; I quite enjoy going by email and in-depth roleplaying rather than simply leaving it to the dice. However, I'm curious how much back-and-forth there there between the players and DM and between the players themselves prior to the turn recap. Is this where the majority of the pbem comes in, with the recap as a solidifying capstone to move things along?

Correct. The 'playing' part goes on through the emails. Most of what you see in the turn recaps, is a summary of previous email exchanges with the exception of the last part. This part is where I set up your next 'situation'.

Search Google Groups 'Skull & Shackles PBEM ala Fabian'. There you can read emails (I believe they are public) and see for yourself.

Elrik Winterwolf wrote:

If we decide to move things forward, I think I could take over Jakiro with a few minor (mainly aesthetic) tweaks.

Taking over Jakiro is the easiest/quickest way to start playing so this is fine. If that's what we decide, I can send you his 'crunch' and you can adjust it as well (within limits) to suit your tastes.

Let me know if you have other questions.

Game on!

Alright, I found the google group, and that makes much more sense to me. I don't mind adding predictive logic, but the amount of goings on in the recap would be more all-at-once-predictions than I could feasibly keep up with on a regular basis.

The group discussions, though, look manageable and look like what I had anticipated when I posted interest. So just to be explicit, I'm definitely still interested.

This has piqued my interest; I quite enjoy going by email and in-depth roleplaying rather than simply leaving it to the dice. However, I'm curious how much back-and-forth there there between the players and DM and between the players themselves prior to the turn recap. Is this where the majority of the pbem comes in, with the recap as a solidifying capstone to move things along?

If we decide to move things forward, I think I could take over Jakiro with a few minor (mainly aesthetic) tweaks.

All of my characters are swordsmen of some sort.

Hello Jason,

I am interested in setting up a chat with you, as this sounds like the style of game which is up my alley.

If you specified when play would occur already, I've missed it, but time-wise, I would prefer to play Sunday or Monday evenings.

Haven't splattered yet, son.

Says the fighter.

Why not continue with the plotline about the evil outsider incursion, but rather than make it an all-of-a-sudden thing, drop the players some overt hints about it.

If they were good-aligned, allowing them to discover the plotted incursion may be enough to get them to want to stop it. Since they're evil though, make it personal. Maybe they cross paths with someone who wants to hire them to help make the incursion possible. Perhaps one of the PCs has something special about them which makes them a target for this plot (something like an ancient infernal bloodline, which makes them a kidnapping/sacrificial target, or one of the PCs might hail from a noble family and agents of the incursion-plot seek to kidnap that PC to force a ransom from his/her family and in so doing attack the party). You could have the PCs attacked by some sorcerer/wizard summoned demons or devils (who happen to be scouting an area for something important) - maybe they'd drop hints of the incursion, shouting that their deaths on this plane mean nothing and that during the upcoming incursion the dying demon/devil will seek revenge.

As an alternative to asking your newer players to scrap a complicated character, since the characters are part of a guild, why not ask that player to swap characters to a different guild-member?

This way, the character with the more-complex class could be shelved for a while without being tossed away. Maybe that character has a different agenda or a special assignment which precludes him/her from joining the group on the current mission. You could allow the player to dictate (in broad-strokes) what their character is doing off-stage while still allowing him or her to learn and participate in the game with a less-complicated character.

And when/if it becomes appropriate to swap back to the complicated character later, that door has been left open.

An interesting idea, but I'd prefer something a little more conventional. Thank you for the suggestion, though!

Just model him after a stereotypical hair-band front man or lead guitarist: make him a narcissistic boozehound who isn't terribly concerned with what his fans have to say to him. He'll sign an autograph, then tell them to shove off.

3.5 spells are allowed? Just go to town with wraithstrike. His touch AC isn't anything special.

I would imagine such a character a lot like Charlie Kelly.

It takes less than 10 ft for people to turn 45 degrees. Note that people are capable of doing standing front/back flips on level ground. As for reduced damage, none the game doesn't really support that functionality.

In reality it reduces your...

After falling for approximately 60', hitting the surface of water is about the same as hitting the surface of concrete (sorry, no source to cite here). Approaching the water from a different angle, after that length of a fall, shouldn't make much difference.

Check out Gary Gygax's Extraordinary Book of Names. There's lots of great advice in there about picking names for organizations.