Gingerbreadman's page

We need a new, general rule: traits only ever grant trait bonuses, even when their description mentions no specific type.

Or better: no bonus from a trait ever stacks, in any way, with that of another trait.

What we really need is for trait bonuses to have a secondary source. I'd say time of day could work well.

Gingerbreadman wrote:

I like that summoning an angel to kill a child is a good deed while summoning a demon to save a child is an evil action.

Trying to kill the child is a good deed. Trying to save a child is an evil deed.

Glad we agree.

No, Acid spells do not turn you into an ooze...unlike using evil spells, which will slowly change your alignment... :)

I like that summoning an angel to kill a child is a good deed while summoning a demon to save a child is an evil action. If you are worried that you did too many evil things just spend a day summoning angels and let them do silly or self sacrificial stuff and you are good to do some more raping.

These are all good points. Do goblins love their children like other civilized humanoids? What I'm saying is, if you strapped goblin children to your shields, would goblins stop attacking you? Because I'm totally trying that.

Perhaps they just think the children to be already as good as dead in the hands of a pc and try to take revenge.

If I saw you with a child strapped to a shield my goal would not to save that child but to make sure you can never do that again. By chopping off your fingers and toes, blinding you and doing other unpleasant things while making sure you survive. But in a state unable to cause much further harm.

Phasics wrote:

If you could change one thing about the Rogue what would it be.

Its existence.

Remove it from reality, replace it with the Slayer retroactively.

That way it would still be one of the weaker classes but it would fix the worst issues.

I'm thinking of "underpowered" as some build choice that's unable to keep up with the power level expected of the CR system and printed materials, in this case the AP that I'm running them through.

Wait, and with that definition you called the first world summoner underpowered?

First World Summoner.

First world summoner, like universalist wizard is only weak when compared to the other options of that class. But as the base summoner (and most other archetypes) are horribly broken the first world summoner is still way above most classes. And being way above the average is not underwhelming.

Gingerbreadman wrote:

Magical lineage and wayang spellhunter are about summoner level of OPness and should just be banned. The rest are good, true but no serious problem. And as Rhorik said, tusked not better than a feat because there is a feat that does the same. And equal is not better.

It's better because it costs half as much. Why spend a feat on Razortusk when you can spend the same feat on Tusked and something else. Tusked is strictly better because you get more.

It is only better is you invest the same amount. But it is not "you invest a trait and get more than a feat worth" as undone claimed. Because you can have the same with investing a feat.

If you say: If I invest a feat on additional traits I get more than by investing a feat for razortusk you would be right. But that is a different statement. The benefit of tusked is not bigger than the benefit of razortusk.

Magical lineage and wayang spellhunter are about summoner level of OPness and should just be banned. The rest are good, true but no serious problem. And as Rhorik said, tusked not better than a feat because there is a feat that does the same. And equal is not better.

A note on the players' side: As parents, I understand it's hard for us to imagine that other people aren't as fond of our kids as we are. But that's a reality we sometimes need to accept. Some people just don't like kids, don't want them, aren't comfortable around them, etc.

That doen't automatically make them bad people.

Thanks. Few parents (at least few I know) realize that.

If a spell eater bloodrager has not enough cha to cast a level of spells, does he get the slots so he can use them for spell eating?

Dafydd wrote:

Advanced Class Origins lists it as a spell on the BR list.

Infernal Healing lists 1 dose of Unholy Water. 1 dose of Unholy Water is 25g. Eschew material does not cover material costing more then 1g. Devil blood may be another story. Ask your GM, and like I suggested, if they rule you can not ignore it, drain the wizard's imp familiar.

Material components with a cost must list that cost in the spell description. If no cost is listed, the cost is negligible and need not be tracked.

But as a component pouch has unlimited doses of unholy water you can just fill your flasks from it.

Gruugdúrz wrote:

RumpinRufus wrote:

Some GMs may not allow both a gore and a bite on the same turn, for the same reason you can't attack with a claw when you're holding a weapon with that arm.

True; a gore and bite on the same round is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, the bite might come in handy when not bloodraging. That one would always be "on" sort of thing.

What I had in mind was dropping the weapons once bloodraged and using the claw attacks instead, since they're both pretty decent, and allow you to throw in the strength bonus more often per round.

But there's still a lot of options everyone is suggesting (thanks, Everyone!) I never would've thought of myself.

I don't see why adding a gore attack with a bite is a problem. Gargoyles have a bite and gore attack with a single head, so why can't you? I've been planning out a demonborn tiefling abyssal bloodrager for PFS, and was planning on getting him a Helm of the Mammoth Lord at higher levels to accomplish this, seeing how the primalist is banned in PFS.

There once was a thread about bite and gore that said monsters can have both as an exception but the head counts as a single limb for both.

The summoner is the most complex class there is. A new player should stay away from it.

Apart from that it is horribly broken even when build correct (and it is hard to build correct. At least the eidolon.) Be prepared that he spoils the other players fun.

Gingerbreadman wrote:

2nd level is just too early for haste. It was bad for the summoner and it is still bad for this one.

The phantom seems less overpowered than the eidolon at first glance and the broken SLA is gone. That "version" of the summoner might really be allowable.

The eidolon is not overpowered. It's over complicated. The most overpowered summoner archetype has a half power eidolon.

While I agree that the master summoner is even more overpowered than the normal one, the eidolon IS too strong in many legal builds. And not all of them are combat focused.

2nd level is just too early for haste. It was bad for the summoner and it is still bad for this one.
The phantom seems less overpowered than the eidolon at first glance and the broken SLA is gone. That "version" of the summoner might really be allowable.

It would not be stolen if he played his eidolon. While perhaps not as strong a s a full fighter an eidolon, especially a hasted one, is a force on its own and could well get something done.
And if the party waits for him to buff the eidolon is the first to act (if like in most groups they act on the summoner's ini) after the buff.
Forfeiting all but a single standard action and complaining that you waste a whole turn buffing is .. unproductive.

TL;DR He has 2 move actions, 2 standard actions, 2 swift actions and all but one standard action benefits from haste, if he so chooses.

Truth be told, I don't see it as a 'problem.' I see problems with it.

Having my summoner spend an entire turn on casting it (big party, so his turn comes up infrequently), or being bugged by his teammates if he didn't isn't a fault of the spell so much as the spell being 'too good.'

Admittedly, Dimension Door was in a similar area until he flipped out on them for treating him like their 'taxi service.'

Really? "only" having your move action, your swift action and a whole round of eidolon actions in addition to buffing the party is not enough for poor Mr. Summoner?

Gingerbreadman wrote:

Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

For an easy fix, you could have it fatigue the target when the spell wears off.

Thematic, not a ton of math, and makes you wonder if it's the best move on round one.

For an easy fix you could have any spell fatigue the caster for one round per spell level.

Feel free to remove the magus from your list of allowable classes, and all character based on self buffing with spells.

If that applies to SLA reduce the CR of every monster with SLA by 1-2 points.

You want to apply that to supernatural abilities too? Or youa re making the comparatively stronger?

Essentially. You need to rebuild the game to work with that idea.

It was more or less a silly remark for a preposterous suggestion by visitor.

But in the end nerfing all spellcasting would be better than just nerfing THE spell good for martials.

For an easy fix, you could have it fatigue the target when the spell wears off.

Thematic, not a ton of math, and makes you wonder if it's the best move on round one.

For an easy fix you could have any spell fatigue the caster for one round per spell level.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:

But nobody seems to be complaining about haste, despite how much it distorts the game.

Haste benefits the segment of the population most likely to complain about magic.

Yes, because it makes martials feel useful.

As I see it what you do on your turn is irrelevant as long as you change your grip so that the cestus is ready to use.
@FAQ: I do not FAQ things anymore. Out of experience generally FAQs from Paizo make the game worse.

Gingerbreadman wrote:

Because casters need nice things.

Nice things = ability to cast 1st level spells?

I'm not one of these guys that will give casters the world on a platter but they do need to be able to be able to defend themselves. What you are suggesting is tantamount to having a strong wind blow all the arrows out of the archers quiver so now he's arrow-less...that's just a dick move for a GM just like taking away simple spell components despite the rules being quite clear that they should not be bothered with.

I'm not saying they should not be able to defend themselves. I say if casters get unlimited butter the group's fighter should be able to eat some of the infinite butter. If this infinite butter turns into something else THAT is a dick move because in reality it's just: Casters get to ignore their drawback of needing components while archers for example still need to track their arrows.

If bat guano and live crickets and butter and and and are infinite (for casters) they should be infinite for everyone and every other minor ressource should be infinite, too.

Gingerbreadman wrote:

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

This thread is largely meant to be a joke. I don't think anyone here actually believes anything here would actually work. It's just a fun thought exercise to see if RAW can be abused to it's limit. Nothing more.

Or you could see that the real joke is the fact that casters of all classes get infinite stuff while all others have to track all their resources.

If a gm told my party we were starving but allowed the wizard to keep on casting grease I'd be pissed.

Were I GM'ing in that instance I would rule that the butter used as a spell component is rancid or otherwise unfit for consumption. The negligible spell components are used for material components of spells and nothing more.

Because casters need nice things.

This thread is largely meant to be a joke. I don't think anyone here actually believes anything here would actually work. It's just a fun thought exercise to see if RAW can be abused to it's limit. Nothing more.

Or you could see that the real joke is the fact that casters of all classes get infinite stuff while all others have to track all their resources.

If a gm told my party we were starving but allowed the wizard to keep on casting grease I'd be pissed.

This seems like a good time to jump in with ...

Please be sure to click FAQ if you haven't already:)

Maybe we can get this answered once and for all!

I start asking myself if it is really a good idea to ask for FAQs. Most of them aren't really good, you know.

I don't mind this working, but I don't think it'll last. Then again, you could get lucky; maybe the backload of FAQ requests for actual problems will delay nerfing this away :P

Sensible FAQ requests don't get priority over nerfing stuff that's working well.

The point is that the monk's attacks that deal +1-1/2 str to damage should count as primary natural attacks because they clearly are NOT secondary. At least something good out of the whole collateral.
And if some think that makes no sense...face it. Others think the whole stacking FAQ makes no sense and we have to face it, too.

Does not make sense to me.

FAQs often result in stuff that doesn't make sense.

Karuth wrote:

I'd love some more feats that give bonuses to Slings and thrown weapons. To make them a more interesting option.

What's next? You want throwing water balloons to be a viable option or something?

That answer was already one of the dumbest I've ever read when it came from a Paizo guy. It doesn't get better when repeated.

In case this was meant sarcastic: The original statement is still dumb as hell.

Removed some back and forth posts. Guys, there is no reason to get this heated in an advice thread. Understand that we're all people here, and some people just won't agree, and that's fine. Nobody has to accept the advice they receive on our messageboards. If you don't have further advice to offer, it's probably better to just move on rather than derailing the conversation with personal insults. Also, if you see a problematic post, flag it and move on, don't respond to it.

Thanks a lot.

What great improvements will this bring?

It makes the game less fun because it degrades more feats and abilities to trap options.

Or a little less acidic: I don't see any improvement but several problems.

All in all this is, for me, another proof that paizo is good at designing a game but bad at making FAQs.
Sure, there are easy ones like the pummeling style FAQ, that are ok. But the only more complex FAQs that where good have been the ones correcting earlier, bad, FAQs.

There's another FAQ/errata that I'm going to ignore.

I'll handle it on a case by case basis. But I think there are some abilities that are just not worth it with this ruling.

For a small party light on melee, I'd go with a Synthesist summoner.

A synth is never a good suggestion. In fact a summoner never is. Two games with summoners, both broke the game.

The cleric could use aid or defending bone before a battle starts. If they know it is coming, that is. Dame you do not take is damage you do not need to heal in combat.

And +1 to not rolling hp. I will not play another game of D&D/PF with rolled hp and will be very wary of other RPG games with rolled hp.

- Buy manacles
- weld them shut with the slave attached so they can not be opened again. Ever.
- Chain the manacles to your military saddle

During travel the slave has to follow your mount. If he stumbles, he dies. During the night the slave will be too weak to run off with the heavy saddle. A normal military saddle weighs 30lbs, an exotic one 40lbs. Combined with the manacles and chain it's a lot to carry during an escape attempt.

If you have more than one slave have them stand in a row and tell them: If one of you misbehaves I'll punish the one who is now standing to your right. So if you want to keep your fingers, tongue and such keep the one to your left from misbehaving.

Or what wraithstrike said.

My players assisted Nazis because they were in a war with the dragons and a cult. They technically have a common enemy but I'm not sure what to make of this...

It is even worse than an alignment shift. Nazis are contagious, so helping one turns you into one. Killing them is the only option.

The difference is that the hunter is a good class without the sacred huntmaster. The swashbuckler is not a good class without the daring champion. (imo)

A deaf pc can cause trouble for other players. In some groups I've heared of it is assumed that every other pc has to take a point in linguistics to learn a sign language. That can be very hard for classes with 2+int skill points. Curses should be drawbacks for the player taking them, not for other players.

You seem right, the problem is being not able to choose the weapon.

Having different pc levels in one party is bad. How you prevent that is up to you. Ditching xp is not the only way.

Subtle Spellcasting

You can cast spells without drawing attention to them.
Prerequisites: ability to cast spells
Benefit: when casting a spell you can attempt to keep it subtle. Make a Bluff check, with a -4 penalty for each spell component (V, S, M, F, DF). Anyone who does not win an opposed Sense Motive check against you doesn't notice your spellcasting. The Sense Motive check suffers penalties for distance, distraction etcetera as if trying to use Perception.
When you cast subtly, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from people who fail their Sense Motive checks against you.
Normal: casting spells is obvious. Even if they have no spell components, it is noticeable.

Yeah, this feats benefits sorcerers more than wizards; Cha-based casting, Bluff as a class skill, and Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. That's working as intended.

What this feat also does: settle the question of how noticeable spells are, and providing workable options to Enchanters/Illusionists.

This should be a metamagic feat because it does what silent spell does and much more. +2 or +3 seems appropriate.

Finally there is a way for humans to ride donkeys, mules and ponys. Seems like a very common feat IRL.

Gingerbreadman wrote:

Instead of giving out reduced point buy I would either go E6 (as suggested) or do the following:

** spoiler omitted **

Less problems with multiclassing. You either buy the feats or not. And less free feats means significantly less power for casters, too.

Not really, you've only made the feats mandatory.

That was the whole point. To take away feats instead of point buy. It might not be the BEST solution but still, by far better than reduced point buy.

Instead of giving out reduced point buy I would either go E6 (as suggested) or do the following:

Less problems with multiclassing. You either buy the feats or not. And less free feats means significantly less power for casters, too.

While wielding any shield (a buckler) a 3rd level phalanx soldier can use any polearm as a one-handed weapon. So swashbuckler's finesse should work on it. But would slashing grace, too?

The idea is to start out with buckler + shortspear (one-handed and piercing)and later replace it with a polearm (one that deals slashing damage). If I choose the nodachi (p and s and in the polearm weapon group) I could use it once I have the Phalanx soldier ability, in case I do not yet have slashing grace.

Haven't yet had a chance to read the whole thread, but the search engine said that "redeem", "redeeming", and "redemption" were currently not in this thread -- any chance of redeeming any notable opponents (including but not limited to giants)? Trying to put together a character concept for a character seeking redemption, who could become a redeemer (but not the Redeemer Paladin Archetype).

I hope not. Wrath of the righteous was the AP about redemption. Now it's bud-kicking for goodness time.

First, we think the Witch class should be either male of female. Just light wizards can be. The way its depicted - the class needs to be female.

That's sexism!

I have wicca friends, too. But they are open minded and do not freak out about RPG stuff because they know it is not about them. And they do not have a magic book (however called) because they follow a tradition older than the written word, taught from one to the other by narration.

Biggest problem will be that they will have about half a character each in terms of power and mechanical possibilities.

Only if you compare it to the summoner. When compared to other classes they are good.