Droogami

Foghammer's page

1,830 posts. 8 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feed on my players' group interaction, curiosity, and speculation for variety and momentum far too much to drive my game. I have tried many times to do 1:1 games with my wife, and I just get bored... perhaps that has as much to do with her playing a druid every single time, but I'd like to pretend I'm not tied down by her decisions, stagnant as getting to know Bear-Lover #358 might be...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is hellfire a product of evil-outsiders, or a product of the good-outsiders designed for punishing evil?

If evil-outsiders are immune to [hell]fire, then why is it threatening at all?

This confuses me because of the fallen angel turned devil trope. If an angel is cast down, isn't that supposed to be a punishment?

Why are they not in eternal pain instead of running around with agendas and such?

I've looked around for other answers to this line of questions, but I'm afraid the burden falls to you, O Great Dinosaur King, as not even page two of Google holds what I seek therefore I must assume it does not exist, yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Definitely full attack while moving your full speed in the round, breaking up both movement and attacks as you see fit.

I've always wondered why this wasn't how things worked to begin with, but I never outright questioned it because "it's a game."

I'm glad I saw this thread. I may give this a whirl next time I get to DM.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm really concerned about the fact that people in the thread have pointed out VERY specific reasons why Studied Strike is flavorful but bad and yet despite these VERY specific arguments, Stephen seems to only counter with "this is how it is" or "this is how I think it should be" kind of comments. And the whole thing about just switching it back to Sneak Attack instead of trying to make Studied Combat work just came across as "I'm so close to done I don't care." Rude, in other words.

It's great that the devs are getting so involved in the forum aspect, but I will never understand the [apparent] need to guard their thought processes or insights.

Studied Combat is a fantastic idea. (Is there an echo in here?) Limiting it to once per 24 hours makes absolutely zero sense, for any reason I can think of. First of all, it's not a magical ability, so you can't fluff that away as "the investigator is out of magical studying ability." Studying a target once, damaging it, and then reassessing them after the fact to see what would be the next most preferable target is completely reasonable. Secondly, the bonus damage added by Studied Strike will never amount to anything significant if you can only use it ONCE PER ENEMY. Great, you can probably wipe out mooks faster, if you take the time to study them.

Honestly, truly, I respect the design team, but sometimes their stubbornness on leaving things a certain way in spite of overwhelming amounts of creative discussion 'just because' is really hard to swallow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there a projected price point for the PDF?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Also would like to see the whole Dervish Dance issue surrounding Swashbuckler (and seemingly every dex-based melee character that will ever exist) addressed. Gettin' real tired of the concept that only rapiers and scimitars are fit to be used without being AM MUSCLEHEAD (no offense to AM BARBARIAN and his kin).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was a long time after my group and myself moved away from home and started playing on our own that we realized this. Years; in fact, just in the past several months.

Get this: Our first DM had it so that a Nat 1 on an attack roll was a fumble and required a DC 15 Reflex save or you threw your weapon (random direction, a number of squares equal to some unknown function), which not only ended your turn, but more often than not got the attacker and his allies seriously injured...

...uphill in the snow both ways and whatnot...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm so deep in Abraham Spalding's corner I... That sounds awkward. I'll stop there.

"Blasting" casters are not popular builds and it's a niche that no class seems to be designed for. Bloodrager could be that caster, even with only 4 spell levels. Since they do not gain Spell Combat and probably won't do well with metamagic feats (getting only 4 spell levels, Quickened Spell will probably never help them), they have to choose each round between attacking or spell casting. Leave the option for buffs (you pick your own spells known, after all), but make options for stacking blast damage on spells like burning hands or lightning bolt while bloodraging.

How can anyone argue against this concept with the SITH analogy? It's PERFECT.

I really hope the devs notice the very convincing arguments Spalding has made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seeker of skybreak wrote:
Honestly though the more I think about it the Ranger is the hunter and this class feels forced. Like they wanted a "magus" for the divine nature types. This class needs a new name and direction all together to fill a theme neither the druid or ranger already does. My 2 copper

This.

Brainstorming (or Keyboard Diarrhea):
What if this class was like a hybrid of the magus/arcane archer but with druid/ranger spells, an animal companion (full or ranger advancement [/shrug]), and limited wildshape? I would call it something other than Hunter at that point...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Partly On-Topic(?): I have never understood the point of limiting finesse to what it is currently limited to. Obviously rapiers are more agile than an arming sword or a bastard sword, but I think just about any weapon can benefit as much from fine-tuned application of force over sheer brute strength if a warrior makes it a point to master such a style of fighting. I would argue that it's easier to list weapons that couldn't be used with finesse than to try and pin down 'appropriate' weapons.

Also, I like this class, but it does feel a little off. This thread has given me a lot of things to reconsider.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's already been said, but I'm going to come out of semi-retirement to say it again: Any DM of mature outlook and sound mind will not outright ban 3pp for no reason. I have always told my players that 3pp will be judged on a case-by-case basis, and if anything was off-limits, there were reasons given for it before character creation started. Also, anything by Kobold Press/Open Design is fair game, because that is the highest quality of third-party player material I have had the pleasure of spending my money on. Anyone turns their nose up at that material has a hole in his head, I reckon.

Third-party material under Paizo's reign is infinitely better than it was with WotC's. Maybe I'm completely oblivious, but it seems to me that there is little to no 4e-support from 3pp, but a glut of 3pp working with Pathfinder rules. That's not edition warring, that's a personal observation. I have no hate for 4e, I just put all of my money into one game, and Pathfinder delivers what I want.

Also note that in 3.5 you only got a new feat every 3rd level, and half of a Fighter's levels were dead levels. There is so much more to Pathfinder than there was to 3.5. I loved 3.5, and that's why I latched on to Pathfinder as support for 3.5 crumbled away beneath my feet (woo, dramatic metaphor!). It not only offered me a way to stay with the rules I loved, but it made them better (obviously debatable with some of you, and I'm not interested in that discussion), and gave my characters even MORE options.

I don't know... I cannot see anything I sympathize with in the OP. I love Paizo, I love their business model, I love the work they do, and I love the way they handle the market. They are like the royal family of tabletop RPGs; they have class, dignity, and poise, and that's the vibe I get from reading any interaction 3pp publicly discuss having with them. Oh, and they allow a lot, and I mean A LOT of their content to be posted online FOR FREE. How many other games of this size and scale can you play for free? I'm sure there are others, but how many?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oi, Mikaze. Saw this pop up on my Facebook feed and thought of you.

Irabeth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
It says in the description: "New archetypes like the mad dog barbarian or carnivalist rogue to help classes that haven’t traditionally used animals work with their bestial allies, as well as tips on how every class can employ animals.". If a gunslinger doesn't have the ability to have an animal companion as well, then this constitutes as false advertising.

Actually it doesn't. There are plenty of ways to employ animals that do not require them to be class features. A gunslinger can buy and use a horse same as anyone else. That's "employing" an animal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pegasus Boots - Gives Link the powerful charge ability and increases his speed by 10 feet while charging or running.

Magic Cape - Ring of Invisibility reslotted. (Honestly, invis on a cloak should be the norm, not a ring).

Hookshot - Can be used to pull Link to any surface within 60 feet, or to pull objects or enemies to him from 60 feet away. To pull enemies, Link must make a combat maneuver check against the creature with a +5 equipment bonus. The Longshot version has a range of 120 feet.

Fire Rod - At will, spark, 3/day scorching ray, 1/day fireball

Ice Rod - At will, ray of frost, 3/day chill touch, 1/day cone of cold

Bombos Medallion - Ring of Retribution, unslotted. Might take a bit more finagling.

Ether Medallion - ...I got nothin', sorry...

Quake Medallion - Probably a spell for this one, too, but I don't know.

Magic Hammer - +3 Dispelling Warhammer of Impact

Cane of Somaria - 3/day creates a 5x5x5 cube of force.

Cane of Byrna - Magic Circle Against Evil...?

Link wears chainmail, or at the very least a chain shirt. Sword and board fighter with moderate Str/Dex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lloyd Jackson wrote:
I can actually see everyone's perspective.

Excellent post.

It is my opinion that under these circumstance, the mental and emotional trauma of being dropped off at a church and sequestered from the world after having been subjected to whatever horrors the hags were exposing her to far outstrips the physical dangers of traveling with adventurers.

She goes to some church to be trained and the other children shun her for her heritage? The priests and clergymen regard her in the same manner as a stray dog because they do not wish to associate with her or because they simply can't figure out what she needs psychologically? That is a lifetime of torture, regardless of your religious views. A Pathfinder nunnery is not some temple to the pantheon where they sort you into your preferred religion like a cracked out version of Hogwarts. You are forcing a way of life onto that child without her consent.

Is that historically accurate? Perhaps it is; maybe in Europe they sent children off to those establishments, but this isn't the real world. Women have rights in Pathfinder that they didn't back in the middle ages. There are cities the size of Rome in a dozen places, and genetic experiments being conducted. Just because one person has the idea to do it does not make it the only logical answer.

Maybe it's because I watched Despicable Me last night, but I think the witch IS best suited for this. There is a stigma that comes with being a changeling and a witch, and who better for the job that someone who truly understands it AND is neutral good? Kudos to the Paladin and witch players, and hurray for awesome grey-areas in morality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have some plans for my current campaign but I'm not sure how to execute them properly. A couple of my players check the forums here from time to time, so I'm gonna skip a few lines.

...

...

The info dump: So my players' characters are all relatively young. Mid-late teens, early twenties and such. They've taken on their parents' jobs in a fading organization whose job was once to protect "the land" but generations of prosperity and wealth (they're all nobles) have dimmed their interest and knowledge of their purpose. The Deadfall Society protected the world from the Slenderman basically, but as far as they know right now, all they did was run him off.

In this setting, the planes are thought to exist in spheres that share borders. The spheres shift around and move but otherwise don't affect much by virtue of their positioning. Except the plane of water. The Slenderman, the PCs recently discovered has his own "plane" that exists in the infinitesimally space between all the other planes (which of course distorts space, time, and does other weird things). Because the Slenderman and those under his influence feel extreme pain when exposed to water, they flee into other nooks and crannies when the plane of water moves about.

The party wizard found a loophole into the slender-realm where he could see the planar spheres moving about; the party asked about the plane of water's proximity from someone more knowledgeable (at the time) about planar movements, and the NPC told them it would be in the system for about 3 years now that it is there. A massive rain storm signaled the plane's arrival, and that drove out the slender-creature infestation that was set up. Now, theoretically I've given the party three years to up their game before the Slenderman returns...

The problem: I want to catch them off guard by having the plane of water move out of alignment prematurely. So far, my only idea is to make up a cult dedicated to the slender-realm that parallels the Deadfall Society and have them perform some rituals or something so that some pseudo-Lovecraftian craziness happens and existence gets flopped around willy nilly.

I just want to crowdsource as many cool ideas as I can though; horror isn't my strong suit, and may have let my mouth write a check my skills can't cash on this one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure the OP just wants this to be a thought exercise, not a "this would be broken" or "I don't want this to happen at my table" discussion.

It's a common misconception on the internet: someone's trying to entertain an idea without having plans for it? LOL Nope!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In regards to the cyclops example in the OP, I feel like their clairvoyant power (I forget the name) is factored into their CR, and if the ability isn't available for reasons that have nothing to do with the encounter where the PCs find it, then there should be a slight reduction in reward. A free nat-20 once a day at a time of your choosing is significant, especially for enemies that PCs will likely only encounter once.

Wizard blows his last meaningful spell on the cyclops? Nat-20. Cyclops needs to deal with that heavily armored fighter or beef-stick barbarian? Nat-20; confirmation roll pending, that's 9d6+21 damage, barring power attack or other circumstances. Fortitude save to avoid death from massive damage because he failed to use his Nat-20 on the save vs the wizard (or maybe the rogue ganked him for massive damage!)?

The possibilities are many. I for one think that if you DON'T use the abilities in a stat block for reasons other than "the creature never had a chance to" then you're playing the creature at a lower CR. Lower CR = less experience, etc.

That said, I deliberately use higher CR creatures all the time and leave off certain abilities, just to spook my players.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ammunition is listed under weapons. It is in the same list as reach weapons and double weapons.

If those qualify as weapons, then the ammunition for any given projectile launcher qualifies as a weapon. They are lumped together in the same RAW that you are citing. There are special rules for making ammunition masterwork and for enhancing it because making a single disposable weapon cost the same as a non-disposable weapon is insane. It's going to break when it's used.

We're just repeating ourselves, now.

I've clicked the FAQ button. I suggest everyone else do the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This discussion has come down to semantics and a difference of opinion over interpretation of RAW.

Personally, I find StrangePackage's interpretation to be far too strict. In my opinion, a ranged weapon without ammunition is no longer a weapon (especially by Pathfinder standards, less so IRL), thus the ammunition is simply a part of a weapon in the way that an axe/hammerhead or a shaft is part of a weapon.

Were a player allowed to treat a longbow as a quarterstaff or a crossbow as a club in the same manner that modern military weapons are designed to be used to bash and bludgeon when ammo is depleted, then I might think differently. As it stands, A bow is defunct without arrows, and therefore not a weapon (unless you have improvised weapon).

The rules don't state that bows used as improvised weapons are damaged by such use but logic dictates that there would be serious repercussions for that. Logic also dictates that you can sharpen a bladed edge on a broadhead, even though the rules do not say that you can.

If you read RAW so strictly, you can pressure players into rules lawyering. Sometimes it pays to go with a logical ruling than a RAW reading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread has crushed everything I have ever known about this game.

When I started playing D&D, Entangle was the druid's Color Spray or Sleep. Our group always just accepted that a 5024 square foot mass of plant-like tendrils sprang from anywhere (barring solid stone/metal) and started lashing around ankles and limbs.

Seriously. We actually do that in our games. It never occurred to us that this interpretation existed.

Think what you like, but it hasn't broken our fun, so I don't think I will be changing it unless my players complain.

Holy crap. Wanders off to learn to cope with this new world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Block Knight wrote:
I'll have to see how it interacts and plays out with all the other rules but Mythic Path 9 means you wouldn't qualify for it until Class Level 18. I think I'm okay with that? At that point, you're looking at CR 27 and there are certainly creatures and Demon Lords who have similar powers at that level.

Something about being level 18 and knowing you'll auto-resurrect whenever you're slain just kind of takes the sting out of the next three levels, I think. It's kind of like playing through a video game and then entering an invincibility cheat before going in to fight the final boss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
I am sure a few months hold on my pocketbook is WISE, not crazy like you seem to think. If it turns out that I don't like the new direction I saved a few dollars. If I like it instead then I can start buying again with no loss in enjoyment.

I think the point they're trying to make is that this book is still a year or so away, so any impact it MIGHT have on future products (which I am 99.999% sure is "none") won't be until late in 2013 or early 2014, so worrying about not spending money on products between now and then is a little extreme.

Also, to date, not a single rules supplement beyond the CRB and bestiary from Pathfinder has been required to make a game function(and I would posit that it's almost entirely possible to run an entire game without the bestiary if you're creative enough). Mythic rules literally cannot rewrite what's already come before it without a new edition coming out.

It will be 100% optional. No need to worry about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like what Cook is trying to do. Regardless of whether someone disagrees with how he came to his decision, one cannot deny that if the majority of the internet were to take this idea and run with it (and succeed), the internet would be more enjoyable for all of us.

But I predict that the rainbows and kittens would draw out the trolls like blood in the water draws out sharks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forget the dragons. It's Epic Meepo!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:
Just out of interest: can a monk wear a +1 brawling t-shirt without violating the no-armor clause? Assuming that he doesn't use armor bracers or anything that would "turn off" the t-shirt.
I think you can only put armor enhancement bonuses and armor special abilities on items that are actually... armor. I guess a +1 brawling t-shirt is just as off-limits as, say a +1 light fortification chandelier.

Which is ultimately no more ridiculous that placing the enhancement on a suit of padded armor, which is nothing more than a quilt-turned-coveralls.

I don't take issue because of monks or fighters, I take issue with the logic that such rulings are derived from. If one of my players wanted to wear a +1 tunic, well, okay! That PC just paid 1000 gold for a +1 armor bonus to AC.

Making the distinction between clothing and armor in this case is splitting one hair too many.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yoda as an epic level Goblin...? He'd almost have to be epic after 900 years.

I like this.

I posit however that as a Pathfinderized character (especially a goblin) he would have to be born with a vastly superior intellect and wisdom score, or have been reincarnated into the body so as to deviate from unknown centuries of breeding and racial instincts.

Any takers on what his initial point buy would be?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am a male 'gamer' with a g/f 'gamer' who once attempted to knit. She thought it was too time consuming and she's impatient. I've considered taking it up recently, mostly to make things for HER.

I'm also working towards a BFA in fine woodwork (still a freshman though) and plan to make all sorts of geeky stuff, an epic gaming table chief among them. I collect nerd-craft ideas via pinterest, but if any of you folks know of another good source, I'd love some links.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is great, because I was just thinking about this the other day. I texted my girlfriend with this one:

"If I were a ranger, I'd take you as my favored enemy so I'd get a +2 to hit that."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's all "special order." I don't know exactly what that means, but I would guess that they try to wait to print these shirts until they have enough to make a bulk order, hence the potentially long wait to ship.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with BPorter. This is the stuff plot hooks are made of. Money (or whatever measurement of wealth) makes the world go round. Products make goods, goods make money. This information makes up the building blocks of motivation for all characters (though mostly NPCs).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derek Vande Brake wrote:

Or the dog archetype? I want a polar bear dog! :D

And a flying bison, and a fire ferret.

+5


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shut up and take my money.

Seriously, I love having an animal companion for some odd reason, but I get tired of playing rangers and druids and I don't really like the way the summoner plays.

A rogue with an animal companion would be awesome! The street urchin with the loyal and uncanny canine, or the fighter who wrestled with and earned the respect of an enormous tiger in an arena...

Yes, I very much look forward to this book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Foghammer kind of ninja'd me on this (and had a very cool elf backstory I'm stealing at some point)...

If you like THAT, we should talk. :D I have a whole 'nother world cooking on my harddrive that comment stemmed from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sub-Creator wrote:
But good equals dull? I don't buy into that no matter how you sugar coat it. That's simply not true.

I think you misunderstand the point. I think what EntririsShadow means is that most iterations of these races are carbon copies. The fact that they are repetitively "good" is what is dull, not the actuality of them being "good" races.

For instance, if I were to create a campaign setting where dwarves were pretty much what you expect from other sources, but what if elves went around conquering other nations Roman style, or maybe with a bit more subjugation. Those who fought back eventually falling under the elvish might would be enslaved and or forced under the curse of lycanthrope to be used as twisted hounds of war.

That would be a twist on elves that would be interesting to some people simply because it's different from the fun-loving, nature-y, archer-y forest folk that so often comes up. Not that there's anything wrong it, some people just get tired of the same old trope.

Besides, this is an RPG, a story game. Without conflict there is no drama and therefore no story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
This is starting to look like someone created a balancing system rather than what they actually use at Paizo.

Not that I'm disagreeing that it's a bit busted, but I don't see how this statement fits in. The core races were designed a long, long time ago, and not using this system. Paizo had nothing to do with their relative balance to one another.

Paizo is only at fault for thinking them equal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KestlerGunner wrote:
Dude, can you tell us exactly what you mean happens when a client 'isn't respectful and thankful for the opportunity' to have sex with the Calistria worshipper? Do they not say thank you afterwards? Or, given the fact that they're having intercourse, that something else entirely is involved? Something that doesn't respect the Calistrian worshipper? Can you see how incredibly ugly this whole 'sacred prostitute' trope is?

Watch a few episodes of Firefly. Seriously. It's come up in this thread twice.

Sex for some can be a spiritual experience. Being respectful with a priestess who has agreed to those kinds of rites is extremely simple. I mean, if you understand what respect means, then you have the answer. Respect her boundaries, respect that she has selected you among other petitioners, respect that she is not an object.

It's not terribly difficult. It's like geisha who think it's okay to have sex with the client, only the Calistrian church enforces certain rules.

I mean, without getting into graphic detail about what happens inside their private chambers, what kind of answers do you want?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FiddlersGreen wrote:

As for the metagaming issue, I do agree that a GM should ask a player when he picks the expanded arcana feat (whether through this spell or gaining it as he gains levels) how the character knows about obscure spell X to begin with. However, picking, say, dimensional anchor, which is a core and thus reasonably well-known spell, would hardly be considered metagaming.

Alternative way to look at it, the metagaming issue is an issue that has the potential to arise via the expanded arcana feat, an issue that carries over when the feat is selected by the paragon surge spell. The issue then would be whether players should be allowed to pick obscure spells that their players should have no knowledge of when they gain the expanded arcana feat by any means, or whether they should be forbidden on the basis of metagaming. That, however, becomes a GMing issue. Moreover, it is an intrinsic issue with the expanded arcana feat rather than the paragon surge spell.

Gaining any spell via leveling up is assumed to be study done during down time (prepared) or unlocked potential (spontaneous). I'm of the opinion that when you take expanded arcana as a feat (which AFAIK you can only do when you level up) it's just an extension of that. You either studied extra hard that level or got a surge of magical inheritance. What you gain with it should follow the same guidelines as your normal spell gain. If there's no reason for you to have learned a certain spell (though the circumstances of this are few), then the DM shouldn't allow it.

The metagaming aspect comes from the fact that you are casting a spell to gain a feat to gain a spell that you do not know. If you do not know it, then how do you know to select it in the first place? If you know of it but do not know it and are in need of it, why didn't you practice it or otherwise choose it when you gained spells before?

This allows a spontaneous caster more freedom than they should be allowed.

EDIT: Added a tag for emphasis.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rory wrote:
Foghammer wrote:
This needs to be errata'd HARD.

Count me in the camp for thinking this needs an errata.

Precluding usage with the Expanded Arcana, Extra Rage Power, Extra Rogue Talent, etc. feats would go a long ways to "fix" what I believe to be a simple hole in an otherwise nifty spell.

Just my opinion...

I second that.

A spell for a feat is fine by me. A spell for a feat that grants something the spell doesn't initially offer is not okay. On top of the cheese, it's just a silly concept.

"I cast a spell so I could learn a spell that I might otherwise have NEVER heard of just because some unexplained force beyond the 4th wall has compelled me to."

Absurdity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This needs to be errata'd HARD.

This is like meta-metagaming. Inception-style.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Half constructs can't be resurrected either.

So, if you ever get magically animated prosthetics, you have to sell your soul for them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My roommates both think that dropping everything for an additional +2 to anything is amazing. I'm like "eff that, gimmie my feat." My theory: I can buy a belt or headband to fix my ability score deficiencies, I can't buy feats.

I think the fact that there is such a split on that matter tells us that it's balanced enough though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I see a lot of the traits that people are describing in PCs (adopting the extremes of their less than reputable deities). I think it's silly. The lack of maturity on a player's part does not constitute poor design on Paizo's part.

Inara from Firefly is basically a sacred prostitute, and classy to boot. Calistrian priestesses don't have to play into the "Jersey Shore" pettiness unless they choose to. Calistria doesn't care, and probably thinks they're a little stupid, but that doesn't mean she's going to smite them for not being petty.

On the other side of that coin, an elf could completely eschew sexual relations -- maybe s/he thinks him/herself too good for that and only self-gratifies. But then in some social situation, say a noble slights one of her allies... well, jokes on him because the elf is going to humiliate that punk in public at the big banquet next week, Calistrian style.

A high Wisdom Cleric of Calistria would be a social nightmare, on the scale of Desperate Housewives. Epic backstabbing and gossip. It doesn't HAVE to be a 'high school soap opera porno with pointy ears.' That's just what you people are making of it. The descriptions of deities are blown out of proportion because they are deities.

Imagine if you watched a sitcom with characters who were all entirely believable, whose actions and reactions all made perfect sense. I have never seen one.

The next two spoilers are only somewhat related...

I have a character, female CN human rogue...:
...who worships Calistria. Kind of. She admires her talents and methods, but she isn't a terrible person. Abigail (my character) is a virgin and is saving herself for the one boy back home who was genuine, even though she flaunted her good looks and used other boys to get what she wanted. She's a tease, and a liar, and depending on how you want to look at it, a thief (though she doesn't burglarize; she's a shady merchant). She knows that she ruins some people, but she contains it to people who are already crooked.

She stole and sold a small weapons shop from a guy who tried to sell her drugs by forging his signature on some papers and then turned him in for selling drugs. She took the money for travel expenses.

She's not a prostitute, and she's not petty. She has goals and methods that suit her personal examination of her faith.

As for Cayden.:
Same deal as Calistria. If your players want to role play so that the atmosphere surrounding their body is intoxicating because they sweat beer, then maybe you should step in and point out that Cayden doesn't support that. Just saying.

EDIT: Added a tag.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Foghammer wrote:

pg. 232 - Offense Racial Traits, Standard: Breath Weapon

"All creatures within the affected area must make a Ref lex saving throw to avoid taking damage. The save DC against this breath weapon is 10 + 1/2 the user’s character level + the user’s Constitution modifier. Those who succeed at the save take no damage from the attack."

"Powerful Breath: The breath weapon deals half damage on a failed saving throw."

Emphasis mine. The ability is already 'all-or-nothing.'

From what I read, it looks like that you can augment your breath weapon to do half damage on a save instead of nothing.

I'm sure that was the intent, but that is not what the book says.

If your targets made saving throws and failed, you would deal full damage. If they succeeded they would take none (which, btw, I find incredibly...well I don't like it).

If you added powerful breath on, then when they succeed they still take no damage, but if they fail, they only take half. So it goes from all or nothing to half or nothing.

It should read "The breath weapon deals half damage on a successful saving throw."


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

pg. 232 - Offense Racial Traits, Standard: Breath Weapon

"All creatures within the affected area must make a Ref lex saving throw to avoid taking damage. The save DC against this breath weapon is 10 + 1/2 the user’s character level + the user’s Constitution modifier. Those who succeed at the save take no damage from the attack."

"Powerful Breath: The breath weapon deals half damage on a failed saving throw."

Emphasis mine. The ability is already 'all-or-nothing.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brox RedGloves wrote:

Brox wit Laz on dis one. Little cat-monkey-ting trying teh get edge on DM. Cat-monkey-ting need head punches. C'mere you! I gotz katnip flavered bannannannanna snax...

:D

The only thing remotely funny about the fact that responses like this continue to be posted is that I have been the primary DM for our group (mine and Vendis's) for 2 years. It's just barely amusing, and only in an ironic way.

After this post, I'm going to start flagging antagonistic posts that imply that Vendis is being a pushover for considering a perfectly valid use of Core Rulebook material, regardless of personal opinions as to whether or not one thinks the rules function at ANY level.

Just beneath the "submit post" button is a line of text that says... and I quote:

Text beneath the submit post button. wrote:
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place.

Our group is a far cry from some gaggle of snot-nosed whiners and munchkins, and throwing crap like that around is getting tiresome. Grow up, have an adult conversation, stay on topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strife2002 wrote:

So the first level ability of the Animal domain allows a cleric to use speak with animals as a spell-like ability a number of rounds equal to 3 + her cleric level.

...wait, rounds??

I'm hoping there's somebody out there that can reassure me this wasn't an error or something. The spell version of this has a duration of a minute per level, which means that a cleric with the Animal domain would need to be level 7 to be able to use this ability for the same length as a 1st level druid can.

I guess I wouldn't have thought twice about it were it not for the fact that it seems speak with animals is more of a utility spell, one of those spells you need OUT of combat, a spell that is usually used to have conversations with another creature. For a 1st-level cleric with the Animal domain, I guess that conversation had better not exceed 24 seconds :p

I can understand why clerics would have a worse version of this than druids.

What I CAN'T understand is why wizards have a version better than either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
I don't think dr should be a major factor in cr. I've never made a character without silver weapons myself. I thought a silver dagger was standard eq.

That's a rubbish response. That YOU have never made a character without silver weapons has no bearing on anything. Damage reduction is a HUGE deal. FYI, I started the game favoring cold iron weapons because the players guide to the AP mentioned fey.

Quote:
Your players just need to try harder.

Insulting us doesn't make you look more intelligent, nor does it add anything to this discussion. In fact, it only served to make your opinions irrelevant to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The REAL question is: Did DWARVES get adequate treatment?

I'm quite sure the gnomes did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I put a belt of +2 Con on a hobgoblin that was cursed with the gender swap thing. It was a female hobgoblin bandit leader who wore it to hide her identity from the males in her raiding party. The PCs had no idea anything was amiss until the rogue tried it on and failed his save.

He really did freak out. :/ Like, almost ground the game to a halt. Once he had it removed, he ran around trying to "sneak attack" it around everyone else's waist.

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>