Fenton's page

Dracomicron wrote:

I am fairly certain that IUS doesn't make your attacks lethal, in game terms. I typically warn against "rules-izing" the fluff.

Allowing IUS to make your attacks lethal infringes on the territory of Natural Weapons.

For the cost of a feat, I am fine with it competing with natural weapons. Compared to Vesk natural attack, it still wouldn't have the improved weapon specialization damage, though it would be doing more dice-based damage. Also, there is no reason that a Vesk player couldn't have both.

It is probably a houserule, but it doesn't seem to be an overpowered one.

And even doing lethal damage it still has the archaic property, so would be nowhere near as powerful as natural weapons. I think having it only dealing additional nonlethal archaic damage makes it a weak feat.

When unsure, I tend to look at Starfinder feats as "updated" from Pathfinder ones (e.g. Toughness combines Pathfinder's Toughness and Endurance feats) and in that one, Improved Unarmed doesn't scale damage by level (but then, neither do weapons) but specifies it is lethal and allows you to threaten squares... the Starfinder version also mentions the threatening squares. I believe therefore that RAI improved unarmed does lethal but still archaic damage.

Good issue. Some nice sections such as the Kalo sports, restaurants/bars and character themes. Looking forward to seeing what #20 brings.

Torbyne wrote:

Species which suffer from bright lights

.. is the standard environmental protection on all armors enough to shield them from this? If not, would a 10 cred pair of sunglasses from a random station kiosk be enough?

Yknow, I'm old enough now where my doc wants me to get a comprehensive eye exam every 2 years or so. Doing such involves getting your eyes dilated and the eye doc doing their stuff. Takes about 45 mins+. Anyhoo, I scheduled mine for after work, figured, eh sun will be going down by the time I'm done so pop on the sunglasses and it'll be fine.

I hate to imagine what it would have been like at high noon with nothing but my sunglasses. Even at 5ish pm just having sunglasses for my still dilated eyes was super uncomfortable.

And they're decent (tho cheap) UV protect lenses.

So I figure a Drow would think my scenario at 5pm was torture :)

Late to this conversation but saw your comment and had to comment - I also have to get that test annually (as I'm diabetic) and completely agree with you. Unfortunately local hospital only does the appointments between 9am-1pm so I have to get it done during bright time... so totally agree with the Drow equivalency (and how a decent set of sunglasses makes it a lot less uncomfortable).

I knew about the round down quip, but for some reason I assumed there was a minimum of 1.

The Deadly Aim feat does actually say "attacks deal additional damage equal to half your base attack bonus (minimum 1)."

So at least in this case you're right and there is a minimum of 1. Tbh I think most things that say half level or wotnot generally have a minimum 1.

Personally, Deadly Aim is good for Soldiers, but for most others it would provide only a +1 to damage at a -2 penalty to attack until a base attack bonus of 4 is reached (at level 6) which makes it imo not a very good trade-off for character to get before level 6. As such I might house-rule a round UP in this case, making it more beneficial to non-soldiers.

Whilst I agree that RAW it says nothing (even in the Ultimate Combat book) about rapid reload reducing metal cartridge time, to me I find it unfathomable that you can get a feat that turns reloading a musket (which good, veteran musketeers could fire twice a minute... not every six seconds like they do in pathfinder with rapid shot) but not put a metal cartridge into a chamber faster.

I personally intend to allow players who get advanced firearms and then get rapid reload to be able to reload them quickly. I recall reading somewhere that IRL in the first world war british riflemen used bolt-action rifles that had to be loaded manually per shot, and were so fast at reloading and firing that when in a small group germans sometimes thought they were under attack by a machine gun.

Personally I will make Advanced Firearms very hard to get... and they're already expensive. If a player WANTs to spend the amount to buy them (which could be spend on magical enhancements instead), go find someone who can make it (likely travel to Alkenstar), and then pay the 30 gp cost per shot (20 gp for cartridge and 10gp for the powder)... then frankly they deserve to be able to fire shots with a rifle at the speed of an archer. They'll be broke in a day.

I have a gunslinger npc, and whilst players are spending their gp treasure on enhancing weapons and armour, she uses a large chunk to replenish her stocks (even at base cost with the gunsmithing feat it's still about 11gp per shot). I even have her strategically decide "do I need to use my rifle" since it's so expensive to use "just on a goblin..."

My thinking is that any creature living in Varisia is Varisian. Why should a single ethnicity of a single race claim that distinction? My gnome was born and raised in the Sanos forest at the heart of Varisia, therefore he's Varisian. He sports both Varisian tattoos and is a Harrower and thinks nothing odd of it.

I agree overall, but I'm more fussy about letting players take it, because the book says about the VT feat:

these tattoos mark you as a worker of the ancient traditions of Varisian magic.

Thus Varisians aren't going to inscribe the tattoo lightly on outsiders who don't practice their magic. Players could help them out or learn their ways and be rewarded with it.

Alternatively, I may allow the feat name to be changed, but kept to the same thing. I often allow similar subtle changes in feats and traits - as long as it's game-balanced and fair, I'm willing to allow it. It often annoys me when you get dwarf-only or half-orc feats that only they can take, which fits perfectly for a specific concept you have for a character/npc - so I sometimes rule that it'd be allowed by members of that region. As long as it's justifiable.

I'm one of those GMs that makes players have to justify what skills they raise and what feats they get. And the justification coin goes both ways... it's about being fair and balanced, but keeping to the spirit and concept of things imo.

The default for feats is that you can only take them once. If they can be taken more than that, there's a note that says so

That's my dilemma... the only thing I find in the core rulebook is (p113, Feat benefit):

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description

But this wouldn't be stacking... The intent would be to have a spellcaster with two different tattoos, for two different schools. Just like when you take Weapon Focus or Skill Focus you can take it with another weapon or skill, so would taking the Varisian Tattoo feat... a different school of magic.

But I agree that others specifically state when you can take them but they apply to others - this says nowt one way or another. Hence why I wanted opinions.

Thanx.

Can the Varisian Tattoo feat in the Inner Sea World Guide book be taken more than once (for different schools, and assuming prerequisites are met)... I see nothing saying you either can or can't but maybe you lot know something I don't.

Apologies for the thread necromancy... I'm not able to start a new thread (possibly cos I'm still new) and this was the closest I could find.

This has been a thing with me and D&D that's always struck me as odd. If fae are immortal, what use would they have for gods?

None whatsoever. And this is a two-way mutual abandonment.

According to the adventure "Sound of a Thousand Screams" it says:

Creatures of the First World have no souls, and thus

have little to offer the gods. Accordingly, most First World
residents have little time for religion, and those few who
still agitate for the gods’ return find their prayers falling
upon deaf ears.

Since Fey are immortal, they generally don't bother with gods. They are ruled however by the "Eldest" - 9 fey of such great power that they command the respect and obedience of both the fey and the land (they set how fast time travels in their own realms). It mentions that fey of a worshipful bent tend to place faith in one of the eldest.

The Eldest themselves actually listed in the Inner Sea World Guide as gods, along with their alignment, portfolio, domains and favored weapons. Material-world clerics who go to the first world feel a disconnection from their deities, but their powers still work, which the fey use to argue that means that either the gods haven't totally abandoned them (although the fey abandoned the gods) or (more likely) that it just proves that clerics own faith/will gives them power, not the gods.

ISWG also mentions that Gnomes, when they left the first world to move to the material realm, also left behind their connections and have adopted faiths from the realm they're in.

In my game I'm going to be heavily involving the fey in Darkmoon Vale, and I've generally put them as non-committal when it comes to deities. However Deities like Shelyn, Desna, Calistria or Gozreh are likely ones for fey (or half-fey or similar) who would either be worshipped, or would keep an eye out on the fey because of their portfolios.

By the rules, spellcasting doesn't increase when you add racial HD.

When I use my house rules, I increase innate spellcaster level by 1 for each point of CR added via racial HD.

Sounds a bit daft to me that they don't improve as a creature of that type gets more powerful... and I think your house rule makes sense.

Don't like the idea of "one of the 11 eternal monarchs" being 'just' a Nymph stats-wise. I want to have my players clash with a nymph (problems with Lumber Consortium encroaching on their territory), ao that when eventually my players meet the Nymph Queen she'll tell them that the nymph they faced was but a youngling, and she's a queen. Doesn't make sense to me that the queen of the forest would be magically equal to a normal nymph, but just more hp, attacks, et al. So guess I'll prolly have to give her druid levels instead of racial ones then...

Thanx!

How about if you were to add racial HD levels to a creature with spellcasting ability?

For example a Nymph is 8 HD (fey) and casts spells like a L7 druid

Advancing druid levels would raise the druid caster level, oki I get that. But what if I wanted to create say a "Nymph Queen" that ruled a forest (thinking of Syntira from Darkmoon Vale here) and wanted to simply advance her to say 15 HD. Would her druid casting level stay at L7, or would her caster level (and thus max spell level, and spells per day) rise too? If so at what rate, HD-1 or +1 per level?

Thanx

Professional Strippers need Thongs of Enhancement.

Professional Pole Dancers could make Ten Foot Poles of Slipperiness.

LOL you just inspired me to make a Thong of Enchantment for my Sacred Prostitute of Calistrae. Hehe.

As for mastercrafting, I'm willing in my game to have (NPC smiths, none of the PCs are good enough to be master crafters, or likely to want to be) master crafters use the "+5 DC for requisites not met" to produce magical effects - essentially if a player wants a +1 flaming sword, the smith would buy a fireball scroll and "apply" it in the crafting process. The smith doesn't know HOW to cast the spell, he just knows the way of "transferring" the spell (maybe the scroll is put into the hilt or the metal during the forging process).

However players would by far be best looking for a wizard/cleric smith than a master crafter expert because the end price will be cheaper, and faster. As a rule, my master crafters will normally only make simple/common things which they know they can sell easily, such as +1 armour. I do have one shop though run by an ex-adventurer couple, one of whom is a fighter and the other a wizard, and effectively he makes the armour/weapon and then she enchants it accordingly.

By my interpretation the RAW states that Paladins have to be LG (agree totally) but specifically states that paladins do NOT have to follow a deity, and many choose to follow a philosophy or code instead.

The choice of a deity, to me, thus means that the Paladin chooses to dedicate himself to the ideals of that deity.

In the Forgotten Realms setting you have Tymora (Goddess of Luck) and Sune (Goddess of Beauty) both of who are Chaotic Good goddesses, and both have orders of Paladins. Tymora supports brave adventurers, and Sune saw how successful Tymora's support of Paladins was and followed suit. Kelemvor, LN god of death, likewise has Paladins. The "focus" of each orders' paladins changes - e.g. Paladins of Kelemvor spend most of their time seeking out and fighting undead (as I'd imagine a Paladin of Pharasma would) whilst Paladins of Sune spend time rescuing damsels in distress, finding lost art and fighting undead (because they're ugly!).

Of course a Paladin of either of those deities would find that there are times that their personal codes clash/chafe with the deity's religious code and/or the acts of their clerics... but this can just make for interesting roleplay.

Hence I'd happily allow a paladin of Pharasma (or any non-evil god) as long as the paladin is LG and understands that his personal belief clashes with that of his deity. In this case I'd probably force my playes to take the Undead Scourge alternate (APG) or take a leaf out of the Ravenloft setting and change Detect Evil to Detect Undead or Detect Chaos (which is what Paladins get in Ravenloft instead of DE, as the powers that be protect and hide evil from paladins). This would reflect that the deity doesn't really care about good or evil, but wants her paladin to seek out and destroy the undead.

In the case of a "Paladin of Asmodeus" - the Advanced Player's Guide gives rules for the "antipaladin" base class (alternate class option for paladins) which is perfect imo. Otherwise a LG Paladin of Asmodius is just daft imo. lol.