Gaekub's page

Organized Play Member. 216 posts (222 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 4 aliases.


1 to 50 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

cfalcon wrote:

Gaekub, the "willing" text is in the rules, and not replicated per spell. Your fix would work to keep the current logic. ...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the willing text is both in spells and in the rules (to explain what "willing" means"). The target line of teleport is "you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures". Spells that require a willing target specify that, and I'm suggesting moving the unconscious caveat to the spells instead of saying in the rules "unconscious counts as willing".

I am intending to stick to the current logic for the "willing target" mechanic. That's the function I prefer.

cfalcon wrote:

If the goal is to prevent the bad guy from teleporting you without first shoving your body into an extradimensional kidnapping sack, then have rules to that effect. Spell out specifically what happens when. If the player has to actively say "willing for this, not for that", then you end up with goofy situations like "communicating with an unconscious person via prearranged code" and "intimidating unconscious person with scary spell names" and other nonsense.

I do not want to prevent a bad guy from teleporting away with an unconscious person. I agree that making decisions about whether or not you are willing or whether or not you would like to make a save while unconscious would lead to weird situations (and is just weird in general in my opinion). That's why I suggested using the harmless keyword to differentiate between spells an unconscious person will save against and those they will not.

I'm fine with the current rules, with unconscious creatures counting as willing for the purposes of spells and other effects. I feel like people should be able to teleport with an unconscious body without issue. I want the rules to support that. The specific wording about unconcious creatures always being considered willing is unfortunate and should be changed, even just to specify that it means for the purposes of spells and effects that require a willing target.

As for the save issue, I'd say just give usually positive spells the "harmless" tag and say unconscious characters automatically fail their save against harmless spells and attempt a save against non-harmless ones. Any other option will I think have too many odd edge cases (unconscious allies saving against healing or unconscious enemies automatically failing saves against poison based spells, for example).

EDIT: Actually, my preference would be to just change "willing" to "willing or unconscious" in the relevant spells if it's not too much of a burden on word count. Avoids the issue of "x works like y for the purposes of z" which plagued Pathfinder 1e.

Arssanguinus wrote:
It does mean that, presuming aps go the whole way, many of them will become unusable.

Ah good point! Hadn't considered that. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the same argument makes it impossible to accommodate both styles of play at high level, at least for the APs. Challenges meant to be trivial for one playstyle might be insurmountable to the other, and vice versa.

It's not a new suggestion by any means, but if you don't want to play superheroes couldn't you just end the campaign at level 10, same as someone who doesn't want to play "realistic" people could start at level 11? (Or whatever level gets too gonzo/not gonzo enough)

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Really like the unlock nature of the proficiency levels for skills, but I'm hoping feats like Skill Focus still exist. A check range of 5 between legendary and untrained seems too small for me. I understand that the legendary character will be able to do things the untrained character couldn't, but they should have a larger advantage when attempting basic uses of the skills. Maybe a feat that gives bonuses to uses of the skill unlocked below your current proficiency rating?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My wizard with the Craft Construct feat once convinced the party to pool their gold to buy a merchant ship, and then animated it as a Colossal Animated Object with the Fly special ability (purchased with CP). Did the same thing with a carriage and treated it like a drop ship.

Worked pretty well, but again, once we got teleportation it became a little redundant. Managed to teleport the whole ship once or twice using Magic Jar shenanigans, but it didn't provide us with much benefit.

The Thorn Body spell does pretty much what you're looking for, but only for 1 round/level.

Texas Snyper wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the way diagonals work by raw is dumb just make each square 5 feet and be done with it
That would work if the game was in hexes but it's not so the diagonal 5-10-5-10 is needed otherwise diagonal movement would be stupid strong.

I disagree. I prefer 5-10-5-10 but I've played with all diagonals being 5 and the game still works. Maybe there are ways to abuse it and my groups just haven't.

Atalius wrote:
Whats the highest damage dealing form you can build with a Human vanilla druid in wild shape form. This is for a home brew game, multiattack feat is allowed. You get 4 feats.

Standard wealth by level? Are crafting feats allowed?

Kullen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I believe what happened is that the more progressive people said "no cheering because of disabilities" meaning social anxiety, sensory processing disorder etc.
I would think that just sitting among a huge crowd would already present a barrier for those people -- wouldn't they be more likely to watch it televised, rather than live, and text or tweet in comments/approvals? I, personally, have a very hard time being around that many people (my father has the same problem), but those people not cheering doesn't in any way lessen the issue.

Obviously anecdotal, but I'm fine in sitting crowds until they get loud. Clapping is okay for short periods, but if a lot of people are yelling around me it makes me very anxious.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Gaekub wrote:
I've seen a couple say earlier in the thread that as long as only one race exhibits strong sexual dimorphism they don't see the issue, but I kind of feel the opposite way. As long as you only have one it's always going to be seen as a statement on human sexuality. If there were multiple races each with their own form of sexual dimorphism, I think people would feel a lot more comfortable with it (at least I would).
That's basically what I'd been suggesting earlier, yes. Have a race with "pretty" females and "rugged" males. Have a race with "rugged" females and "handsome" males, too. Have a three-gender race. Have a race that transitions gender whenever it wants. Have a race that simply doesn't have gender in the first place. Apparently we're going to have quite a few racial options, so why not support a bunch of different ideas and concepts?

Ah, sorry, I thought I'd read something like that but then couldn't find it when I scanned back through the thread. Apologies!

I've seen a couple say earlier in the thread that as long as only one race exhibits strong sexual dimorphism they don't see the issue, but I kind of feel the opposite way. As long as you only have one it's always going to be seen as a statement on human sexuality. If there were multiple races each with their own form of sexual dimorphism, I think people would feel a lot more comfortable with it (at least I would).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
feytharn wrote:
Unbelievable...a Satire magazine could not make that up. *Facepalm*

"Black Man lies down on ground, raises hands, shot by police" does sound like an Onion article.


Deadlands Classic - Make a Quickness (a base stat) roll, and draw 1-5 cards from a standard deck of playing cards (with jokers). The number of cards you get is based on your roll. Initiative goes from Ace to 2. It's not too hard to keep track of since everyone has their cards in front of them, but it does make those quickness rolls so important. Getting 1 action in a round while your buddy gets 5 isn't a great feeling.

Star Wars: Edge of the Empire - Basically the same as PF, roll a stat, count down from high roll to low roll. Unlike Pathfinder, those slots are bound to teams, not players. So your quick smuggler can give the first slot to your slow heavy weapons expert so she can blast some stormtroopers and get on the ship, and then your smuggler can take the last turn and take off. It's a nice bit of extra flexibility that doesn't devalue the initiative stats.

The first system I find really fun and flavorful, but a little clunky and unbalanced in practice. The second I like quite a bit, but it can be a bit immersion breaking. It also runs into some weird issues where having an extra person on your team is great even if they're just hiding behind boxes, because that's another chance at a great initiative.

bigrig107 wrote:

I believe you're looking for this?

Feral Combat Training.

My understanding is that that does not allow you to flurry and use natural attacks, it allows you to flurry with your natural weapons. I want to be able to use unarmed strikes and claw attacks in the same round.

I have an idea for a character who mostly fights with kicks (unarmed strikes) but when stuff gets real can pull out a pair of claws and get two extra attacks per round. I've got that part handled (1 level of bloodrager with a bloodline that gives claws when bloodraging) but I'm struggling with the baseline unarmed build.

Monk or Brawler are the obvious choices, but neither flurries work with natural weapons. Is there a viable unarmed build that doesn't use either?

I'd prefer to stay unarmored, but I'm not married to that. I like to have some spells, but again, not necessary. Game is relatively low-op, and if you want to do stats assume a 20 pt buy.

Why can't druids turn into polar bears? As far as I'm aware they should be able to wild shape into a polar bear at the same time they can wild shape into any large form.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but it doesn't bother me. Harassing a villain where he lives day after day seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's basically guerrilla warfare.

fearcypher wrote:

If you argue that the evil descriptor makes you evil then you have to argue that the good descriptor makes you good.


I see this said a lot, but I'm not sure anyone has ever laid out exactly why. Just because Evil and Good are opposites doesn't mean they're equivalent. Maybe casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act, but casting a [Good] spell is only a Good act if you use it for good. Although apparently Ultimate Intrigue officially clarifies that, so I suppose it's moot.

As to the actual topic of the thread, when I've rebelled against it it's because I dislike Good and Evil being tied to cultural stuff. To me, undead being Evil always felt like it was because they're 'icky', and that bothers me.

swoosh wrote:

An archetype all about shotguns and siege weapons.

Except it can't full attack with a shotgun unless it takes another archetype that loses proficiency with siege weapons (and won't let you start with a blunderbuss).

That seems like a janky design choice.

I guess you're good if you don't mind starting with a blunderbuss and then immediately dumping it for a dragon pistol before 6 and never using an advanced firearm (or any other firearm period really).

STILL seems like a janky design decision though.

It's a shame too. Pretty cool archetype, even if it does lose two bonus feats and a nice feature for some niche stuff.

Good news! A recent FAQ lets you full attack with shotgun! Just pick up rapid reload and you're reloading as a free action.

Blunderbuss still sucks though. I'd just stick with a dragon pistol for the early game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming their goal was to survive the attack, that is correct.

archmagi1 wrote:

Divinity Original Sin, as feytharn said, has a lot of battlefield control spells. Rain soaks the battlefield, making puddles of water, extinguishing burning characters or fiery ground. Electric a puddle and get a shocking result. Fireball the puddle and steam clouds obscure. Fireball an acid pile you created and watch as noxious gas emerges.

Nothing comes near creating a pit in a choke point with a wind wall behind it as you fire wands at your enemies though.

I'll have to try it out! I played a couple hours close to when it came out, but I was playing with a friend and we never managed to schedule another session. Sounds like it would be worth another shot.

I'm currently playing my first Pathfinder character with 3rd level spells and above, and I'm loving the flexibility it gives me. Throwing down walls to block off escape routes or separate enemies, creating choke points with area denial effects, or summoning a fog to force everyone into melee.

However, since I've started playing this character I've noticed that most of the PC tactics games I play don't have nearly that many options. Most characters can only move and do damage, or occasionally a status effect.

Does anyone know of any tactics games with more options for actually controlling the flow of a battle rather than just damaging enemies?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are people looking forward to XCOM 2? There's a gameplay series or two on youtube, but I've been avoiding them so I can experience the game for myself.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
KujakuDM wrote:

The fact that there are people here saying that cannibalizim isn't an evil act baffles and astounds me.

So make an argument for why it is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cmastah wrote:


@Orthos, Sci-fi is a whole other universe (pun intended), humans are NOT dominant in Starcraft OR W40K.

Orthos wrote:


So... just like almost every other fictional universe that isn't grim-and-gritty-grimdark?

I would call Starcraft pretty grimdark, and 40k coined the term as far as I know.

claudekennilol wrote:
Gaekub wrote:
I would be happy to help test as well! I'm starting up a game that will require me to make quite a few fairly high level characters.
Then you're out of luck, as this tool currently only makes level 1 characters.

Whoops, don't know how I missed that. Thanks!

I would be happy to help test as well! I'm starting up a game that will require me to make quite a few fairly high level characters.

Give it an item that makes it resist acid damage?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Molten Dragon wrote:
Speaking of Star wars. Has anyone tried the rpg from FFG.

Yes, I love it. Probably my favorite core mechanic I've ever used.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Athaleon wrote:

To be fair Athaleon not everyone came across as out and out hating the rogue class but, it seemed to me that there was enough of 'anyone who plays a rogue is stupid' that those just making suggestions that, in their opinion, is better choice then the rogue were over shadowed.

But that could just be me.

I didn't get that feeling. Most people just seemed to be saying 'The rogue sucks, and that sucks'.

But that could just be me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Terry Pratchett uses Vancian. Larry Niven does use mana, but in his work, you drain mama from the surroundings.
The Unseen University has discovered the Thaum, the basic unit of magic (enough to conjure *one* pigeon). I don't see much evidence for Vancian, certainly not in the D&D sense (though arguably it's more like Vance's magic that way).

The Wizards do use a form of Vancian magic, at least in the earlier books. At the end of Reaper Man, when the wizards are discussing blowing up the 'hive', they talk about what spells they have prepared.

However, later on, magic seems to be more of a "transfer of energy via wizardly grey matter" (there's a scene where a wizard causes a rock to fall a long distance in order to provide him with energy to lift himself up), so who knows where the balance lies.

EDIT: Shortened the quote pyramid.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnomersy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
System mastery should give you a significant power boost - pouring over books etc should be a benefit.
I'm of the opinion that a supposedly fun hobby shouldn't have mandatory tedious homework.
Some of enjoy what you refer to as mandatory tedious homework.

If they enjoy it (as I do) why do they need a reward for it?

HWalsh wrote:

There is no "if" in this case. Even the organized play ends normally at level 12. There are a handful of special modules past that point.


Sorry, I should have been more clear. My point wasn't to dispute that the game only works properly at levels 5-15, my point was that if that's intentional the other levels shouldn't be included in the core book. They should at least be marked as "optional levels" or something.

For what it's worth, I agree that Pathfinder has a set of levels that is the sweet spot (5-15 seems pretty good), I just don't think it's MEANT to. I think it's a flaw in the system.

HWalsh wrote:


So you can play the game as not intended all you like, and it isn't doing it wrong by any means, but you also can't complain that the game breaks down at some point under its own weight.

The Pathfinder sweet spot is between level 5 and level 15.

If this is true and the way it should be/is intended to be, why doesn't it say that anywhere in the core rulebook? Heck, why are the other levels even there? If those are the levels where the game really works, why isn't it a ten level game?

Archaeik wrote:
Gaekub wrote:
Gaekub wrote:
This is marked as answered in the FAQ, but I couldn't find it. Does anyone know where it is?
Sorry to bump this, but I have a character idea that depends on the answer, and I'd really appreciate any help.

Many of these threads have been marked similarly before they revised the FAQ system.

We were pseudo-promised errata, but it never arrived when UC was reprinted. Sorry, there is no official answer to any of the Furious Finish questions.

Ah, I see. Well, thanks for letting me know.

Gaekub wrote:
This is marked as answered in the FAQ, but I couldn't find it. Does anyone know where it is?

Sorry to bump this, but I have a character idea that depends on the answer, and I'd really appreciate any help.

Huh... I think that must be what's meant. The way it's written to me sounds like you can choose to have a spell not effect you if it would not effect BOTH humanoid AND animal (an object only spell for example).

However, that's nonsense, because that wouldn't effect you anyway, so...

EDIT: Whoops, yeah, I see it. Ignore me.

This is marked as answered in the FAQ, but I couldn't find it. Does anyone know where it is?

Tormsskull wrote:

I've noticed a more recent trend in where a lot of groups don't want to start at 1st level. I wonder if this could be traced back to some of the different standards people have for role playing games?

It seems like the farm boy turned hero was a well-known trope, not sure if it is as common today. If more recently the standard has the main characters start off as already quite skilled/competent, then it could explain this to some degree.

I don't like starting at first level because (as my group's usual GM) I'm walking a razors edge where any (un)lucky crit can turn a PC into ground beef.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Actually, on that note, does anyone understand the logic behind the scaling in that rule? x4, x2, x2, x1.25... It just seems kind of arbitrary.

The rules for siege weapons say...

prd wrote:
The number of members in a crew assumes Medium creatures. A ram can be crewed by Small creatures, but it takes double the crew to do the same job. If Large or larger creatures serve as crew members, each Large creature counts as four crew members, a Huge creature counts as eight Medium creatures, a colossal creature counts as 16 Medium creatures, and a gargantuan creature counts as 20 Medium creatures.

What if a small creature is part of a (non-ram) siege crew? Do they count as a Medium creature? 1/2 a Medium creature? 1/4 of a Medium creature? Can they not help at all?

Can you make small siege engines that do less base damage but are crewed by medium creatures? Or is it just impossible for a group of kobolds to use a cannon?

I would love a copy when you have a moment.


Rylar wrote:

You could always just change teleport spells to have interference when they cross water. Same with things like flight. After that just tell your players your expectations and that you will adjust any workarounds they come up with.

Are you going to let them swim between islands? If not may want to take a look at shape changing abilities.

That's not a bad idea. I hadn't even considered fly.

My main goal is to make the oceans still feel like an obstacle, even at higher levels. I like the idea of large bodies of water interfering with certain types of magic, so I may think about that.

If they want to swim, I'm fine with that, even if they all somehow manage to turn into megaladons or something. They're still interacting with the sea and what lives within it.

I have an idea for a campaign that takes place in an island world with highly dangerous seas. However, I want ships to remain the only (or at least primary) way to travel between islands more than a couple miles apart even if PCs and NPCs have access to higher level magic.

Obviously things like Teleport need to be removed, but what else should I change? I could just remove 9th level classes and trust that by the time 6th level casters get access to similar effects they have better things to do, but I don't know if I want to remove that many classes.

Any help would be appreciated.

Rerednaw wrote:
Interaction of double barrel (or double crossbow) and Vital Strike does not have an official FAQ. Expect table variation.

That's a good point. I misread the double barreled shot as a single attack roll, but it's not.

It would probably just be easier to go either gunslinger or trophy hunter (or anything else that gets Dead Shot as a deed) and use that instead. It has the same flavor, useable with Rapid Shot, and doesn't require the feats. Only real downside is the loss of Furious Finish, but that's not a big deal.

I recently started playing in a game with advanced firearms. I have a character already, and I'm perfectly happy with him, but I like to have a backup idea in place.

I was looking down the list of Advanced Firearms and noticed the Double Barreled Shotgun, a weapon that does 4d8 damage if you fire both barrels. This immediately made me think of Vital Strike. So here's the questions I have;

Is it possible? It seems to me that you could Vital Strike a shot from this for 8d8 damage, but its possible I missed a line somewhere that forbids it.

Is it viable? I don't expect to be doing more damage than a dual-wielding Gunslinger, but will I be able to contribute at least as much as say a sword and board fighter?

Finally, what class do you think would work well for this? Full BAB seems like a good plan, since that gives the earliest access to the Vital Strike line. However, I'd also like at least some access to options beyond "Shoot it in half"

Here are the options I was thinking -

Gunslinger: This is the obvious choice, and it's quite likely to at least show up as a dip for proficiency and quick clear. However, I'm not going to able to do much else, and I'm thinking that firing one shot a round makes dex to damage less important.

Fighter: Tons of feats, but it's just not very interesting or have all that much synergy.

Ranger(Trophy Hunter): First off, it doesn't seem to actually get gun proficiency, but that seems like a mistake and I think my GM will see it the same way. You don't need a dip into Gunslinger for Quick Clear, and at higher levels you get access to Named Bullet (the spell). Not a bad choice as far as I can tell.

Bloodrager: This is a weird one. My main idea was access to Furious Finish, but getting a free enlarge when you rage isn't so shabby. Since I'll be a full BAB class making one attack vs touch ac, I'm not so worried about the loss in accuracy. The rage bonuses don't count for much, except maybe the occasional melee attack.

Other possibilities: Warpriest(3/4 BAB but can get the vital strike feats through bonus feats), Inquisitor, Urban Barbarian.

Any ideas are welcome, either on the classes listed, other classes you think would work, feats, etc.

EDIT: Actually, Warpriest is looking pretty good. The main reason for the full BAB is access to the vital strike line, an issue the Warpriest bypasses handily.

haremlord wrote:

Depending on your levels, you can do this with 3 levels of Weapon Master, and 6 levels of Sohei Monk. If you are going Gestalt, that's easy, but if you are doing normal advancement, it could take a while.

Fun thing about this build you can still benefit from Rapid Reload and you can use advanced firearms since it won't rely on being a deity's favorite weapon.

Oh hey! New discovery: Check out the Weapon Expert Rogue. Gets "weapon training as the fighter class feature" at level 1. You lose sneak attack for it, and you're losing a BAB, but I think it's worth it.

EDIT: Wait, it's third party. Still a good find if your GM allows third party archetypes, but disappointing. Well, at least that explains why I'd never seen it before.

cnetarian wrote:
The normal 'dip' is five levels of gunslinger for DEX to damage, which even a warpriest would find useful. If not using advanced firearms (revolver is advanced) then amateur gunslinger is pretty essential for non-gunslingers, need the quick clear deed. If using 2H firearms then there is no sure way around 3 levels of Musket Master and using a musket to get free action reloading, a GM ruling could permit free action reloading of an advanced 2H firearms either through rapid reload or metal alchemical cartridges (the rules for reloading advanced firearms are incomplete and the rapid reload feat actually slows down the reload speed of advanced firearms).

Actually, there was a recent FAQ that changed that. Rapid Reload now reduces reloading advanced firearms to a free action.

1 to 50 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>