Search Posts
The Warframe crossover inspired me and I couldn't help myself. Intended to be somewhere between Rogue, Barbarian, and Kineticist (with a dash of Monk), wake up, Tenno! Currently I only have the skeleton of the class (no feats yet), but I would love feedback on if that skeleton looks solid and balanced. Feel free to leave comments on the Google doc even, if you like!
This is something I've been using in my campaigns for a while now and I like the extra flexibility it gives players to do various character concepts. It does result in slightly more powerful characters compared to just using bonus archetype feats, but it's not generally a huge difference. I should note that I use a houserule that Advanced Muse's Whispers and equivalent feats have a level limit of level-4 instead of half your level; obviously the Dedicated Multiclass option would need to be tweaked if you don't want to use that houserule (or perhaps it could just switch to level-4!)
At 2nd level, characters choose from one of three archetype styles, which defines the kind of bonus feats they gain. A character may also to forgo this choice, in which case they are a Generalist: They use the normal bonus archetype rules, gaining a bonus feat with no restrictions at each even level. Once a choice of archetype style is made, it cannot be easily retrained; only a major character development or significant undertaking should allow retraining into a different style. GMs may wish to be more flexible with allowing characters to retrain into or out of Generalist, however. Archetype Specialist: Fully embracing a couple specific archetypes to augment their playstyle, an Archetype Specialist gains two Dedication feats as bonus feats at 2nd level, with the restriction that these cannot be multiclass dedications. From then on, all of their bonus feats must come from the chosen archetypes (although there is no limitation on how they spend their regular class feats). At 12th level or higher, the Archetype Specialist may choose a third Dedication to gain; this ignores the normal required number of feats to gain a new dedication, but still costs a bonus feat slot. Dedicated Multiclass: Some individuals have two true callings in life, and the Dedicated Multiclass is one of those people. At 2nd level they gain the Dedication feat for a multiclass of their choice. From then on, all of their bonus feats must come from that multiclass. However, they treat their level in the multiclass as their level-2 instead of their level-4 for qualifying for class feats from the multiclass. A Dedicated Multiclass has no restriction on how they spend their regular class feats - they could choose to gain an archetype or even another multiclass that way. Class Paragon: Forgoing versatility to becomes the ultimate expression of themselves, Class Paragons cannot gain archetype feats at all, by any means - including through regular class feats. In exchange, they gain a powerful benefit: At each even level except 4th and 14th, they gain a bonus class feat. At those two levels they gain no bonus feat. Even with these drawbacks, eight bonus class feats is a potent benefit, and GMs running very high level campaigns may wish to limit Class Paragons to only spending their 16th level and higher bonus feats on class feats 2 levels lower than themselves, unless the expectation is a high-power game.
So Arcadia is now home to these giant - dare I say Colossal - creatures that resemble humanoids or great beasts, huh? And they either Wander about or keep to their own devices unless disturbed, hmm? And each one is totally unique and occupies a different region, eh? What an interesting bit of foreShadowing. I like it. :)
Primary Target says: "This Strike uses the same multiple attack penalty as your Area Fire or Auto-Fire action but doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty." Punishing Salvo says: This does not make a new area attack, and is treated as a Strike made using primary target." Emphasis mine. So my question: Is the Punishing Salvo attack at -5 MAP? Or is it also at -0 like the attack from Primary Target? Because if it's at -0, I have to say "area attack followed by two -0 attacks against whoever you like least" is a really crazy 3-action routine to be able to do every round.
I feel like the range on almost all of the area/automatic weapons is pretty anemic. Particularly disappointing is only a 15-foot cone on the flamethrower, with no way that I see the increase that. And in fact the longest cone weapon that I can find is the machinegun, with only 20 feet. And then you have the Stellar Cannon. Which hits a 10-foot burst at a 50-foot range with a Reload value of 1 and the cheapest ammo type in the game. I'm sorry what? That's amazing! That makes the missile launcher look like a joke, what with only having a 5-foot burst, doing less damage, and costing 30 credits per shot. I don't want the Stellar Cannon nerfed - I want the other area weapons to be equally cool. Right now the Stellar Cannon far outstrips every other area weapon, especially when you consider that by 4th level the Soldier is laughing at that "unwieldy" tag and making three attacks with it per turn regardless. In comparison the 15-foot cone on the flamethrower, which does the same damage but has reload 2 and more expensive ammo, feels like a bad joke. Just me?
I don't see a thread for this and my campaign just had its first character death so... here we go! (Warning: Obituary details contain spoilers!) Name: Finley
Details: A lover of nature and animals, Finley was very interested in the magic ring the party found that could charm any animal. Also easily distracted, the little sprite didn't bother to use the ring until months later, when giant monsters began attacking the kingdom.
After tracking down one such monster - a manticore - Finley was able to use the magic ring to charm and befriend it. The party named it Fluffy and made plans to make it an unofficial member of their kingdom... until the next day, when the ring's curse triggered, causing Fluffy to attack Finley to the exclusion of all else. Caught off guard, Finley was first pinned to the ground by spikes and then crit three times in a row, ending his existence mercifully quickly. Finley is survived by an extremely large extended family (at least, there are a lot of sprites who claim to be related to to him) and his role in the kingdom will likely fall to one of them.
Not sure if this is the right forum or what would be the right forum. :) My partner and I are currently working on creating our first "we might actually sell this" module. The module is written and being edited, and the part where it needs to go from a text document to a PDF document is rapidly approaching. Problem: I've never touched InDesign before in my life, nor any similar programs (I don't even know what similar programs exist). At this point I'm looking for literally any advice, but especially: Is InDesign the best tool for this job? What are my other options? Where could I find good tutorials for using InDesign, especially tutorials relevant to this specific kind of project? TIA for any help at all, and if this is the wrong forum sorry and please let me know where to ask!
I'm running Kingmaker as an evil campaign, and one of my players wanted to get into making Soulbound Dolls. So, here is my write-up for the process I came up with. Feedback welcome! Doll Body (Item 4):
Cost: 30gp
Craft DC: 19 Description: This is a Small-size wooden body with articulated joints, suitable for turning into a Soulbound Doll. The specific features of the body, such as its shape and appearance, are left to the crafter’s choice – however, for best results it should be at least vaguely humanoid. The body has a slot – usually on the chest, neck, or forehead – in which a filled soul gem may be placed. Setting the gem requires ten minutes of work and a DC 15 Craft check; on a critical failure, the gem is damaged in such a way that the soul fragment escapes it (although the gem can be repaired for reuse with 5gp of materials and a further DC 15 Craft check). On a success, the doll comes to life as a standard Soulbound Doll with the same alignment as the soul fragment. On a critical success, if the doll body was supplied with a filled soul gem that was also created with a critical success, the resulting Soulbound Doll has the Elite adjustment. Once a Soulbound Doll has been created, the soul gem cannot be removed without destroying the doll. However, if the gem is destroyed but the doll body is relatively intact, it may be repaired and reused. In theory it is possible to create more advanced doll bodies with additional abilities, but even if researched such constructs are likely to require either more complex soul containers or a steady supply of filled soul gems as they burn out their soul energy. Fill Soul Gem (Ritual 2):
Cast: One day to prepare a ritual circle plus four hours to conduct the ritual (see text); Cost: 50gp in non-consumable materials (such as powdered silver) for the ritual circle, an amethyst worth 20gp, and 10gp worth of consumable materials (rare oils and candles); Secondary Casters: 1
Primary Check: Occultism (Expert) DC 23; Secondary Checks: Arcana DC 18 Range: 10 feet; Target: One dying creature (see text) Description: This ritual ensnares a fragment of a dying creature’s soul, using it to charge a soul gem that can later be used to create a Soulbound Doll. In preparation for the ritual, a special ritual circle 10 feet in diameter must be inscribed in a cool, dry location and etched with powdered silver and other reagents. Properly creating the circle required a DC 18 Craft check and a day’s work; on a critical failure, the materials are wasted, while on a critical success the circle provides a +2 circumstance bonus to Fill Soul Gem ritual checks. Once the ritual circle has been created, a creature that is unconscious and at 0 hit points must be placed within it and remain in that state for the duration of the ritual. Once the ritual has been started, the target is placed in a kind of stasis: Even if they were poisoned or dying before beginning the ritual, the magic keeps them on the edge of death until the ritual is either completed or interrupted. This does not prevent the target from being healed, either from outside interference or their own natural abilities (such as regeneration), which of course ruins the ritual. The strength of the target does not affect the outcome of the ritual, as only a small fragment of their soul is captured in any case; however, unwilling targets (that is to say, any target that would be unwilling if they were conscious and aware) receive a Will save against the primary caster’s Occultism DC; if the save succeeds, the target dies but no fragment is trapped. For this reason, weaker individuals are typically used if unwilling, to reduce the risk of wasted time and effort. Once completed, the ritual has the following effects:
Regardless of the outcome of the ritual, the ritual circle can be reused as long as it is not damaged. Ritualists should be warned, however, that any undead created by a botched version of this ritual are likely to attempt to destroy the circle – seeing it as being as much responsible for their wretched fate as the caster. Heightened (5th): The heightened version of this ritual allows multiple soul gems to be created in one go using a larger, more complex ritual circle that is 20 feet in diameter (200gp; Craft DC 25). Each target needs their own amethyst, but only 20gp worth of consumable materials are used regardless of the number of targets. The ritual can target up to five creatures, requiring one secondary caster per target. Each unwilling target makes a separate Will save, but the result only determines if the ritual fails for them individually. However, if three or more targets succeed their saves, the primary caster suffers a -10 penalty on the check for the ritual. Note that the write-up for Soulbound Dolls says that resisting should be Will vs Craft DC; however, I changed that to Occultism because I split the process into two parts that my PC will have to learn separately. Also this ritual is slightly "stronger" than Animate Object, since it's a 2nd rank ritual that creates a 2nd level creature, instead of 3rd for 2nd. I think that's justified that with the additional complexity and needing a sacrifice, though.
Currently having a bit of a debate on the Fantasy Grounds forum about this, and I want to double check here that I am correct: If you have a party of 6 players, a Severe encounter has a budget of 180 XP. However, upon defeating a Severe encounter, a party of 6 players is still awarded 120 XP, the same as a party of 4 players would receive for a Severe encounter. Am I correct?
Just sharing here some rules I have been using for a while to get my PCs to be more excited about treasure they find in a dungeon. I don't convert all dungeon treasure to ancient items, but individual items here and there, and it has definitely resulted in my PCs using more of what they find and selling less. Some groups might struggle with the verisimilitude of "you can find these in just about any dungeon but you can't buy them", but my players have accepted it as just part of the game. ----- Ancient items are rare variants of more common items, often found in old ruins and other places frequented by adventurers. Mostly created by old and dead civilizations, the methods for recreating them have largely been lost; ancient items cannot be crafted. They also have a reputation for being fickle and unreliable, especially if they frequently change owners. As a result, those who own an ancient item are typically reluctant to sell it, but in turn few people are willing to pay what such items are truly worth. Mechanically, ancient items have a sell value equal to that of the common equivalent, but cost at least five times as much as the common item for the average adventurer to purchase, if they are available at all. Ancient items also always need to be invested to function. In exchange for the difficulty of acquiring them, ancient items come with several potent benefits. Any save DC associated with the item uses the bearer's class or spell DC, whichever is higher, and the bearer can substitute their own attack roll or spell attack roll for such rolls the item would make. If an ancient item can cast a spell, that spell is heightened to half the level of the bearer rounded up. Ancient weapons and armor also typically (although not always) increase in power with the bearer; such items cannot be inscribed with fundamental runes, but instead receive those bonuses based on the level of the bearer, as though using the automatic bonus progression rules from the GMG. Ancient consumable items - which are almost always Talismans - are not consumed on use and instead function with a frequency of 1/day. Staves are never ancient, but wands can be. An ancient wand has a DC of 6 for the flat check the first time per day it is overcharged; this DC increases by 5 each subsequent time that day. When the flat check to overcharge an ancient wand fails, it can no longer be used that day, but is not destroyed and functions normally the next day. Unlike other ancient items, the spell contained in an ancient wand is not heightened based on the level of the wielder.
Reviving this because my players just about killed me last session. ------ Rogue: "Ah, I see the Lamp Eaters are here."
------ Barbarian: "After careful consideration, I think we should take her offer."
I'm a big fan of how Magus turned out, but both me and my players are a little unhappy with how few spells are a good fit for spellstrike. In the hopes of making the class more versatile without raising its power level too much, I'm testing out the following pair of house rules for it: --Cantrips that require a saving throw instead of a spell attack roll can be spellstriked with, using the attack roll in place of the saving throw (so a critical success on the attack roll has the effect of a critical failure on the saving throw). The feat Expansive Spellstrike allows you to also apply this rule to non-cantrip spells that require a saving throw, in addition to the other effects of the feat. --If a spell you are spellstriking with normally has multiple targets, choose targets normally. One of the targets (the primary target if the spell has a primary target) must be the target of your spellstrike. Other targets of the spell resolve the spell normally instead of as a spellstrike (each target makes a saving throw, or you make separate spell attack rolls against those targets, whatever is normal for the spell). . My goal here is to give more more options for spellstrike choices (electric arc is now on the table!), and also to make multi-target spells not strictly worse than single target spells for spellstriking. As far as possible concerns, I'm wondering if this makes Expansive Spellstrike too much of a "must pick" (although honestly it's probably already in that category), or if there are any spells that would be outright broken by this choice. I'd love to hear people's feedback!
Kineticist: "Now watch as I form this elemental energy into a blade of pure metal!" Fighter: "Um... yeah... my sword is made of metal too?" Just had that mental image come up and had to share. :) ----- More on topic, Elemental Weapon is amazing and definitely one of my favorite things about the class. Although by my read - do you need Martial proficiency if you shape your blast into a martial weapon? Or does it still count as an unarmed strike? EDIT: Missed the line that says that strikes use your proficiency with blasts. That's pretty cool.
Fire kineticists being the only ones who can actually do elemental damage with their basic elemental blast is my only real disappointment with the kineticist right now. Please please please can we switch air's blast to electricity damage and water's blast to cold damage so that the elemental damage-focused class can actually do elemental damage? If I only got one wish for this entire playtest, it would be that. Earth totally makes sense to deal bludgeoning damage, but three out of four elements (and I imagine with wood and metal it's going to be five out of six) dealing physical damage is just a huge let-down. Ideally, wood would be piercing damage and metal slashing damage. That way, we would have fire, cold, electricity, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing as options - half elemental and half physical.
Thanks, Paizo. This is definitely my new favorite class. The flavor and the mechanics gel so well, I'm just so excited to play it. I love the new implements so much, and the tweaks to the existing ones. I love that Mirror can make shadow clones. I love that Tome can take an overnight study break and then be Legendary in whatever Lore they want. I love that Lantern just completely shuts down invisibility but doesn't interfere with your allies using illusions. I love Chalise having a basically total panacea. "I have no idea what is in this, but it fixes everything." Haven't been this excited about a class since 1e Kineticist, honestly. Now excuse me, I'm off to make a regalia/tome/wand Thaumaturge named Gideon Ofnir... . . . Spoiler: ...the
Is it just me, or is the guillotine golem absolutely terrifying? I ended up making a couple adjustments to its abilities on the spot, but if I had run it as written 3/4ths of the party would have gotten decapitated. +36 to hit means that its first attack has a roughly 50% or higher chance to crit a 17th level character, which then triggers a DC 40(!!!) save or die. That is a "very hard" DC for a 17th level character. To not instantly die. What was other people's experiences with this creature?
Oh boy am I worried this will become a mess.
With that said: I feel like the complete removal of slavery as a concept from the setting does real damage to the character spaces for those who oppose slavery. It removes the raison d'etre for Liberators, the Bellflower Network, the Eagle Knights, etc. Several of my players have come to me about this news, concerned that characters they previously played just... Don't fit in the setting anymore, because their concept was fighting against an evil that no longer exists. It is also hard for me to personally conceptualize a world in which awful horrible evil exists but slavery doesn't. How does Hell exist, and what do we call the tormented souls there if not slaves? On a related note I feel like there are a lot of things in the setting that are effectively slavery, and will continue to exist, but just aren't going to be called that and somehow that's okay? Like for example vampire spawn. Idk. I'm still processing all of this, and very interesting in hearing other people's opinions.
How do combination weapons work with proficiency? Can you be proficient with part of a combination weapon but not the rest? For example, say you are a dwarven alchemist and you take Explosive Savant. If you pick up an axe musket, are you proficient with the axe part of it?
Oh my goodness Paizo the amount of love and adorableness that was poured into this ancestry is just too much. There's a feat for stitching yourself up! There's a feat for being hard to sneak attack because you are just fluff on the inside! There's a variant of poppet that is brought to life by a child's earnest wish and I'm not crying you're crying. <3
This archetype is everything I never knew I wanted from Guns & Gears and I love it. That's it. That's the post.
Okay, this might come across as petty, but: The psychic has a couple class features that are, word for word, mechanically the same as other class features, but the name is different. For example, they have Evasion, Resolve, and Greater Resolve, but those features are called Precognitive Reflexes, Walls of Will, and Fortress of Will. I understand that you are going for flavor, but I feel like this is a) needlessly confusing, and b) potentially needlessly limiting if for example a feat is added at some point that keys off of having Evasion. On the other hand, Weapons Specialization is called Weapon Specialization but has unique flavor text. In my humble opinion, this is a much better way to go about this. EDIT: Also I just realized this is the wrong forum, if a mod could move this to the playtest that would be lovely. <3
So if a Magus wants to combine Spellstrike with a line, area, or cone spell, they can do that with a 2nd level feat. An archer magus can full on shoot fireballs around with just a 2nd level feat (and obviously some way to cast fireballs). That's fantastic! But if a Magus wants to target three whole people with Fear, they need to be 20th level, using a melee weapon, targeting people who are adjacent to each other, and spend their whole turn to do it. I don't get it. What is the power level concern that prevents Magus from having a version of Expansive Spellstrike that reads "when you cast a spell that can target multiple creatures as part of a Spellstrike, you can target the full number of creatures but must include the target of your Spellstrike"?
Paizo. I love you guys. I'm one of your most ardent defenders. 2e is my favorite game system ever published. The quality of your adventure paths in terms of the writing and the characters and the stories is absolutely incredible. But you guys have been doing this for well over a decade. And for some reason, still cannot manage to publish maps that actually have aligned grid squares. For those of us who use a VTT to run your adventures - which is a lot more of us now for obvious reasons - the frustration of not being able to fit a map to a grid because different grid squares on the same map are different sizes is... well, extremely frustrating. Spending half an hour fighting with an image editor to try to get a useable map is extremely frustrating. For that matter, having to use a third party program to extract decent quality images from the "interactive maps" in the first place is extremely frustrating. The fact that the interactive map PDFs are password protected boggles my mind. Please, Paizo, please. Throw a bone to your VTT players. Find a way to provide maps that have an actual, consistent, aligned, ideally 50x50 grid. I'm begging you.
...and I love it. <3 Inventor looks like crazy amounts of fun, especially with feats like You Failed to Account For... This! Definitely need to build a blunderbuss spork launcher.
So my party just finished book four and got the guiding chisel. The party crafter is now insisting that making winged boots out of marble is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I don't even really blame her. Holy CRAP that is a powerful item. I've never seen anything like it. It basically by itself completely reframes the "how does Crafting compare to Earn Income?" discussion. I'm certainly not going to nerf something my player is so excited about, but I'm definitely still a bit in shock. Is it just me? Anyone else have thoughts on this item?
This is something I've used in a couple battles of my Age of Ashes campaign, and it has been very well received by my players, so I thought I'd share it here. The idea is to give certain creatures - it works especially well with giant solo monsters - a more dynamic, chaotic battle style to really sell how massive and destructive they are. Giant Monster Initiative
From then on, instead of acting on its rolled initiative, the creature takes a single action at the end of each PC's turn. It cannot ready actions or hold its initiative; however, it can take multi-action activities by spending an appropriate number of actions over the course of multiple PC turns. In that case, it is often obvious after the first action that the creature is preparing some sort of complex or powerful assault; however, it does not have to make any choices related to the activity until the final action. If circumstances change by then such that the creature is no longer able to use the activity when it would take the final action, the actions spent preparing are wasted but it can choose a new final action. If a creature with this ability becomes Stunned, it simply loses the appropriate number of actions (or rounds worth of actions if it is stunned for a duration), starting from when it becomes Stunned. If it is Slowed, then it loses actions starting from its rolled initiative each round until it has lost actions equal to its Slowed value. As usual, if it is both Slowed and Stunned, then each lost action counts towards both. If the creature becomes Quickened, it takes the extra action on its rolled initiative.
Just a random thought, as I'm building a Magus for playtest purposes. Considering spells are typically balanced around their number of targets... is there really a need to lock the Magus to one target with Striking Spell? Would it break anything if a Magus could Striking Spell someone with Chain Lightning and have it actually chain, or Striking Spell someone with Fear and include several other foes as targets at the same time (without weapon damage obviously)? Are there spells whose effects or targets would be hard to resolve in this case?
...Magus has a better version of Quicken than Wizard does. I've been a vocal proponent of Quicken Spell; I think it's badly undervalued, and it's been a literal lifesaver to the bard in my Age of Ages campaign. But I do find it hard to buy that Magus should have a stronger version than the full casting classes do.
Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Boss Monster, did you just miss me with a higher-level-than-I-can-cast Finger of Death? Yoink. Hope you are immune to negative damage, because that's coming right back at you...
Simple: If a magus spell strikes with Chain Lightning, does it still chain? I'm learning towards "no", but that seems like a somewhat unfortunate reading.
Just making sure I am reading this right: The rules on critical specialization say that they apply when you "make an attack" and "get a critical success"; they don't specify what kind of attack it has to be. Am I correct in reading that since the Trip action has the attack trait, this would mean that for example if you are using a fauchard to trip someone and get a critical success, you could move them 5 feet in addition to tripping them?
A 4th level spell that basically always wastes an action, has a decent chance of inflicting slowed 1 for the rest of combat, and against undead and outsiders is guaranteed to waste an action and has a 50% chance of completely wrecking their action economy? Plus the possibility for useful information AND no Incap trait? Yes please. More like this.
This post has spoilers up through book 4; you have been warned. :) So one of my PCs - a goblin bard by the name of Chimes - took an unexpected shine to Voz Lirayne after she survived their first encounter. As a result, I brought her back for a rematch (you can probably find my other thread somewhere in this forum, The Revenge of Voz Lirayne). Well, despite being planned to die AGAIN, she survived that also. Later, in book 3, Chimes needed someone to teach her the spell talking corpse and decided to try contacting Voz about it using the dreamstone she acquired in the Dreamgate waystation. What followed was a series of RPs spread across the rest of book three and most of book four that ended up going in a very unexpected direction. My player has recently collected all of the RPs, brushed them up a bit, and written them in short story format, which I thought I'd share in case anyone else is fascinated by incidents of minor characters unexpectedly becoming major characters. :) Link here.
After a fair bit of searching, I haven't found any form-fillable character sheets that have enough skill feat slots for a rogue or investigator. Is anyone aware of one? Ideally an actual printable sheet, rather than a Google Sheets thing.
I am getting ready to convert Dungeon of the Mad Mage to 2e. I'm pretty comfortable doing monster conversions myself, so I was going to do conversions for illithids, beholders, intellect devourers, etc, but it occurred to me to check if anyone has done the work already. Are there 2e conversions for those monsters out there somewhere? A cursory search on this forum didn't turn any up.
This spell was invented by one of my players in the very first 1e campaign I ever ran, and this is my attempt to convert it to 2e. This is a pretty rough draft, and I'd love to hear feedback. .
I've noticed a lot of PFS adventures are missing the Unique trait on creatures that really should have it, such as named NPCs. This means that in databases collecting these rules elements - such as Fantasy Grounds or pf2.easytools.es - these creatures get mixed in with the Common bestiary creatures despite being both unique and in many cases adventure spoilers.
(Not sure if this is in the right thread, please move if not) I'm writing a custom ability for a monster that triggers... well, the current wording is "when this creature is critically hit by an attack that deals fire damage or critically fails its save against a damaging effect with the fire trait...", but that is super wordy. Could I write, "when this creature takes critical fire damage..." instead? If you read that in a monster stat block, would you understand what it means? Or is there an better way to word what I am going for?
Just came across this article that I thought others might enjoy. A Look at Pathfinder 2nd Edition Roleplaying Game One Year Later For one, congrats on the #2 spot, Paizo! That's fantastic news, it's great to hear 2e is doing that well. For two... That little paragraph about four classes not being enough seems very suspicious. And exciting. I hope the author of the article has good sources. :)
I'm sure this is answered somewhere obvious, I just can't find it right now. If a magic item casts a spell, is it just the base level version or it is heightened at all? For example, the Decanter of Endless Water.
One of my players wanted to play a rabbit-person, so I homebrewed some up! I haven't designed higher level ancestry feats yet, since the character is for a level 1 one-shot, but I thought I'd share what I have done.
Had my first experience with this today... Ran an encounter against three carnivorous crystals. And by "three" I mean by the end of the fight the party had killed nearly 15. Whoever decided to give an 11th level creature the hit points of a 17th level creature and the AC of a 4th level creature, you are a mad genius and I salute your monster design chops. I've always been disappointed by the "split" ability in previous editions, it seemed like it rarely came up and when it did it barely mattered. Having a creature that is practically immune to damage except damage that is highly likely to split it is, again, brilliant design. On the other hand, I'm glad I use a VTT because tracking the hit points of over a dozen oozes was a pain even then. Anyone else have any fun ooze-related stories?
I love this book so much. It has so many iconic monsters I was missing. Of course ironically it comes out AFTER I finish converting one of my homebrew adventures that could have used those monsters. :P It's also really cool to see how well the monster creation rules work. I did a homebrew conversion of the cave fisher and the result looks almost exactly like the official version in the Bestiary. On another note, is it just me or is it really obvious that Paizo was thinking about Kingmaker while working on this book? :P Without spoiling who or what, there is definitely a strong representation of monsters that feature prominently in that adventure.
I was designing an adventure just now and I needed a monster. And as often happens I was flipping through the Bestiary getting annoyed because nothing was exactly what I wanted. And then I thought, "I'll just build it." And then I did. It took me about twenty minutes. When I was finished, I sat there for an extra five thinking "surely there is some step I have missed... what am I forgetting?" But there was nothing. I was done. Paizo, what is this madness you have created? PS I love the monster building rules.
I find myself in need of one of these delightful little monsters... has anyone done a 2e conversion of them yet? If not, does anyone have advice on how to handle the "immunity to metal" ability in the context of 2e?
I have a player who is somewhat upset that she can't get armor runes for her animal companion's barding, and I'm trying to decide how much of a balance issue it would be to allow it or if any changes should be made. I'm not super familiar yet with the new animal companion math/balance so I'm hoping to get some advice here.
One of my PCs has in her backstory that her now-deceased family owed a not-insignificant amount of money to the Whispering Way. Currently the party is just starting book 3. At some point in the book 3-5 range I'd like to tug on this plot thread by having some Whispering Way agents come looking to collect from her. Does anyone have a good idea on a place where some necromancers would logically fit into the story well without being too disruptive? I'm not really seeing anywhere in book 3 that would be super logical (Kintargo isn't super friendly to the Whispering Way, obviously, and I don't see why the Scarlet Triad would be either).
Thread title. Posting this to request for FAQ/errata, since I am well familiar with the arguments on both sides and some official clarification (or an official "flavor text" policy) is I think needed.
Thread title, basically. For a spell I'd never heard of until my Bard player picked it out at 9th level, wow. So far in both of the fights it's been used in, it turned a rough fight into a complete slaughter. It has the Incap trait, sure, but that doesn't slow it down as much as most spells - "save vs lose an action" is still really good against bosses, and you are probably only casting this if there are also mooks around to hit. This spell might be my new gold standard of what control casters in 2e should be doing.
Being able to transfer multiple pokemon at the same time is quite handy. Thank you for saying this. I never would have looked for it. 167 pokemon sent to the candy factory.
I recently watched Aldermin of the sky. It was amazing and I want more.
They aren't white supremacists, any more than 90% of Japanese are Japanese supremacists or most Israelis are Jewish supremacists. (Or maybe they all are!) If anything, Bannon, like most of these guys, is an Asian supremacist. (I'm referring here to his CEO comments.)This article by a sort of liberal-ish libertarian, extremely pro-LGBT, decidedly anti-Trump psychiatrist who has patients expressing Trump-related suicidal ideations, is a very long but very, very good antidote to a lot of Trump fear, for those of you who might benefit from it.The man chose white supremacists for top positions in his government. No, people are not crying wolf. When Glenn Beck calls someone racist I'm pretty confident in calling them one.
So your proposal for solutions is to put in power the party that did everything they could to fight all the things you want?
It's as much hyperbole as the doomsday cries about Obama the last 2 cycles and Bush the 2 before that. No. There is a difference. Republicans were complaining about things Obama never said.Democrats are complaining about things Trump has promised.
Two years. A third of the Senate and all of the House are up for election in 2018. Republicans will likely retake the Senate in 2018. House wont change until districts are redrawn.
Started the new season of RWBY and, wow, they really stepped up their game with the quality this time around. I haven't decided if I like it more yet. I find it drifts closer to uncanny valley for me, where the things that are off seem more pronounced. I heard it takes them something like 40 minutes per frame to render.
The thing with Hillary is setting precedent I guess so hopefully they are both punished for their actions.No, Colin Powell set the precedent when he was Secretary of State. She did not do anything that her predecessors hadn't already done. We have no idea if Powell had classified emails because they were never combed in excruciating detail by a 3rd party. It took experts ridiculous man hours to search through Hillary's emails, and in the end all they found a handful of things inappropriately classified before getting to her and some things that were later classified after the fact. In fact, in the FBI director's testimony, he admits that, because of the way things sent to her were labeled, an expert on the classification system would have no reason to believe any of the emails were classified without additional knowledge of the specific programs being discussed. Combine that with a formal disagreement between the State Department and FBI about what level of detail constitutes classified information (Drone program FBI says all emails are classified and State Department says general plan emails are not, IIRC), which accounts for many of the after the fact reclassifications, and there would be no case. Not only can you not make the case that she knowingly intended to remove classified information, you can't even make the case that she knew she had removed classified information in the first place. That's not even including the perfectly valid arguments she can make about not understanding the technology well enough.
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp. I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.
I think he was referring to people in swing states, but he wasn't particularly clear
Because all the bridges were burned by Republicans, so any overture by Democrats to build new bridges is giving in to the Republican tantrum.
Fukishima survived the earthquake and had its failsafes activating properly. It did not survive the Tsunami, which took out backup power. Most of the world doesn't have to deal with those.
It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well. I think if early Tea Party met OWS they would have gotten along decently well. There was definitely a point before the crazy dominated the tea party that they could have at least realized they could be friends. A lot of people I know who supported the Tea Party early and fled also supported OWS.
Plus the obvious power source on the back made me wonder why Cage didn't crush it.A lot of what I find wrong with this show seems to stem from the way they wrote Luke Cage as a very low INT character. Either low INT or clinically depressed or pathologically mellow (did I miss a show where they show him suck back five joints in a row? because that's how he seems to act the entire season...) I think you were watching a different show than me
It is important to register all possible domain names
Moonlight doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy to ground that sunlight does... and that's assuming a full moon which is generally only three nights of the month. And there's the half of the month when there is no moonlight at all at night. So right off the bat, you're not going to get a usable amount of energy from lunar light alone. Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.
I'm having issues viewing the page in proper format, like I'm getting a cached version, but my god is there detailed, bulleted lists of dozens of policy proposals....Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out. The detailed documents were mostly ignored by media, becauseI didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.
I didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton. Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out. The detailed documents were mostly ignored by media, because Trump was causing a new scandal.
I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton. Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.
Carry Fisher, when asked if it was coke
Only winners get reprieve from hurricanes. Pretty sure Trump will say its your fault for living there. God I hope it hits his golf course hard.
I don't see any reason to think the Republicans would suddenly grow a spine AFTER Trump got elected. The vast majority of them have been all to happy to roll over for him since he's got the nod.Trump won the nomination, what do you expect would happen. It wouldn't even take a majority of (R) senators to remove him. Just enough to hit 2/3 with the democrat voting bloc. You are dreaming if you think they would ever admit their party made that huge a mistake.
I too like the realistic villains we have gotten so far. They are scarier than anything I have seen in a comic so far.Killgrave and the Kingpin in particular. Kingpin being somewhat sympathetic and Killgrave being an almost complete sociopath. Didnt really care for Diamondback's motivation and really kinda liked both Cottonmouth and Shades. Black Mariah was a nice evolution though and I'd venture to say that the women in the show are waaaaay more fleshed out than the men. I found my self understanding and associating more with Misty Knight than Luke Cage. I love the slow build of Black Mariah and Shades almost parasitic relationship. I agree with this quite a bit. I particularly loved Shades, and am still wondering if he got anything lasting out of the experimentation.
Bill Clinton's infidelities have zero to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president. I really couldn't care less. I'm sorry, but choosing to stay with a husband who has cheated on you is not a power grab. That accusation is heinous.
Interesting, because I felt the opposite. I felt that we saw way more of what and who these characters are than pretty much any other fantasy series I can think of. They had minor hobbies that were shown on screen. They had things they did for fun. They didn't dwell on them and make them the sole focus of the character, which I found very refreshing. I didn't really care what was going to happen next from a plot perspective. Then again, I think plot is overrated. This story isn't about its plot, which is a toned down version of tons of similar stories, and I think by dropping the plot focus they were able to tell a very different story than we usually see. This story is about focusing on the characters, their interactions, and watching them grow, which I think it handles very well. From describing why characters level up the way they do to actually changing their models throughout the show, to the very subtle movements they make in combat, not all of which they point out, we get to see way more depth of the character than almost any other show I can think of. And the fact that we aren't beaten over the head with it just adds icing for me.The fact that I describe this show as a slice of life fantasy anime both boggles my mind and makes me want more.
Gotta say, I love Trump's campaign surrogates saying the media needs to focus on the issues and things people care instead of what is being talked about, when they are talking about what Trump said the night before.
Sadly, in our society is less acceptable for a woman to be cheated on than for a man to cheat on his wife.
Other countries have different voting systems allowing 3rd parties to be viable. We have a strict runnoff, which means that it is always in your interest to have as few ideologically similar candidates as possible.
I didn't think that the characters were uninteresting. I just think that their presentation was far too limited, and so made the narrative uninteresting. There was clearly more to those characters, and we were continually denied anything more than the occasional glimpse, which I found frustrating. Interesting, because I felt the opposite. I felt that we saw way more of what and who these characters are than pretty much any other fantasy series I can think of. They had minor hobbies that were shown on screen. They had things they did for fun. They didn't dwell on them and make them the sole focus of the character, which I found very refreshing.
Funny, I thought she was most stereotypical, but liked the way they slowly developed her. I didn't get the vibe you are describing at all, mostly because she fit so neatly into the typical can't talk to men trope, which I have seen used very frequently and almost never because of some dark and tragic backstory.
I finished it last night, and I just have to say, Sundakan and Alzrius, that your criticisms about the series are the reasons I fell in love with it. I disagree that the characters aren't interesting. I find them much more so than most series, because they actually seem like real people.
We are one of the only industrialized countries with rising infant mortality last I checked.Indeed, because we are willing to code riskier and riskier cases as live-birth every year. No. If that were true, the maternal death rate wouldn't also be increasing, like it is in Texas.
One of the major problems is a law that prevents the US government from negotiating drug prices. This allows companies to inflate the price drastically and the Medicare system has no way of pushing back. Regular insurance companies then get to negotiate lower prices, but since that is privately negotiated there is no transparency on how much taxpayers are getting ripped off.
Hillary has proposed a financial transaction tax. It's less aggressive than the one Bernie proposed, but still significant.
In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.Near as I can tell, that's a myth. Due you have a source. Snopes mentions duck eggs in France being a common variation of a debunked cabbage memo word count that apparently dates back to the 40s.
If only our police force were held to the same standards as our soldiers in war zones. There would be so many court martials.
Giving/flipping someone "the bird" is slang for sticking your middle finger up at them, a derogetory gesture for f**k you/off.
As for the price reductions in solar - the price has dropped so precipitously, somewhat from failing to include the installation costs (as whew said), but more so from failing to include the various government subsidies. Government subsidies is real money spent too and needs to be accounted for. In addition there is the maintenance and replacement costs to solar that I don't see factored in either. You realize US government subsidized coal and natural gas more than solar and wind, right?
Virginia Tech happened 5 years before Newtown, Fort Hood was 3 years before, and the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson was the year before, each of which put a pretty heavy spotlight on fun ownership in news broadcasts and in public discourse. I didn't say that Obama focused on it, but rather that the people who ended up causing the spike in gun sales (meaning the people doing the panic-buying) were afraid that he would. Whether or not the fear was well founded is irrelevant and an entirely separate issue (it clearly wasn't).You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse. I would just like to point out, Trump has now said the only reason he gave up the birther conspiracy was because he was tired of the questions interrupting his campaign message source
I have enjoyed a lot slower series than this. I mean, I love Hanbei Renmei and I think the most action that series has is a bike falling over.
Well the new deal betweeen Crunchyroll and Funimation has given CRunchy access to Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash. If you have not seen this wonderful series you should. It is a great portrayal of starting adventurers in a fantasy world. I've started it and thoroughly enjoy it
Which "news sources" were those exactly? If every single "news...Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men. I saw it on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post... As for diverse states, Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington are 3 of the top 10 most diverse states in the country. The night he won 2 of them by huge margins was filled with how he only does well among whites. CCN called Hawaii "one of the whitest states of the country" while at the same time espousing the diversity of Wisconsin, one of the actual whitest states.
I think with Clinton we get someone who has fought harder for "Bernie Sanders type of politics" and with more success than Bernie Sanders.Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton.To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels. I've got a bridge to sell you
That's no reason to hope someone will win an election.My point is that it's no reason to vote for Clinton. Trump is a disaster but Clinton has to win people's votes, you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket. There are two other people on that ticket and one, Jill Stein, is better on the environment. This is actually a really good point people keep forgetting. Kerry ran on an anyone but Bush platform and lost against a hugely disliked candidate. He only had reasons to vote against Bush, but didn't actually advertise the reasons to vote for him. I see Clinton followers making a lot of the same mistakes.
Personally, I recommend Asian black teas, as I find them much milder and balanced, but they are much harder to find unless you get a place that sells good loose leaf.
I like this article tearing apart the AP
The State Department is a big operation. So is the Clinton Foundation. The AP put a lot of work into this project. And it couldn’t come up with anything that looks worse than helping a Nobel Prize winner, raising money to finance AIDS education, and doing an introduction for the chair of the Kennedy Center. It’s kind of surprising.
Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading. Except none of this is actually new information. The FBI said during their investigation that they recreated thousands of emails that she had deleted, either through reconstruction on old servers or because the people she corresponded with still had them. The only change here is that the FBI has turned over all the emails they collected to the State Department, and the State Department is going slowly in complying with a freedom of information request about them because they have to verify the content. These aren't new emails into an investigation, they are just previously unreleased to the public. Not to mention many of them may have already been released because the 2 collections of emails, the FBI's and the State Departments, haven't been integrated with each other. This is a non-story trying to be made into a story.\ edit: and that is why it is a bad article. Its implying that these are new and sensational, when they have already been looked at by the FBI (otherwise they wouldn't be turning them over to the state department), and they have been found to be not incriminating. All that is news is that the State Department is being slow to comply with a witch hunt.
Yeah, that was probably my favorite twist of the ending.
|
