Silver Dragon

Grummik's page

Organized Play Member. 144 posts (145 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Jiggy wrote:
Grummik wrote:
It's the number crunchers that make the game boring and they're the most annoying players I have to deal with. They typically get upset when their "optimized" character is rendered useless in many situations because they are usually one-dimensional.
Hey now, let's not associate "number crunching" with the one-dimensional-PC-creating whiners; I spent WEEKS crunching numbers to settle on my 16/14/13/12/15/10 tiefling cleric with options from 5 books (and two convention boons), who happens to be anything BUT one-dimensional! ;)

Jiggy, I think you would be the exception, not the rule. ;)

I read a couple of your posts and you seem to approach the game in a manner I respect. I also GM quite a bit for PFS and your observations are spot on imo.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I must admit, I hate the spirit of this thread. After reading the OP and some of the replies, somehow the only thing I come away with is people trying to break the game and if you're not optimized you are somehow diminishing your experience of the game.

Of course, the latter is simply not true. I approach a new character with a concept first, then manipulate the numbers to fit the concept if possible. This is not optimal in most people's view but makes for fun roleplay opportunities and, to steal a quote from above, "keeps the game interesting."

It's the number crunchers that make the game boring and they're the most annoying players I have to deal with. They typically get upset when their "optimized" character is rendered useless in many situations because they are usually one-dimensional.

Here are the rules that govern Wondrous Items in the corebook.

"Special Qualities: Roll d%. An 01 result indicates the wondrous item is intelligent, 02–31 indicates that something (a design, inscription, or the like) provides a clue to its function, and 32–100 indicates no special qualities. Intelligent items have extra abilities and sometimes extraordinary powers and special purposes (see Intelligent Items).

Wondrous items with charges can never be intelligent."

Also, when reading the intelligent items section there is nothing with a ghost touch ability that I can see.

I would say no, you should not be able to add ghost touch to a wondrous item per RAW. If you were to allow that it would be house rule/homebrew specific.

My .02

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

Lets say you have a 20' movement.

You move forward, then diagonal then forward.

You've moved 15'

Does that mean you are not able to move diagonal with your last square of movement?

I'm not sure why this is being talked to death, it's an easy question and answer.

The answer to your direct question is no, you cannot move diagonal again in your example as that movement would cost you 10 ft and you only have 5 ft of movement left.

In the traditional MMO model, I enjoy PvP. I enjoy every aspect of MMOs and PvP is just one of those aspects. I really don't understand the aversion to it tbh. Just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist in the game. There are plenty of people that do like it. My MMO philosophy is simply this, the more content in the game the better it will be for ALL players. PvP is just more content.

This is a seriously age-old discussion with MMO players and it can never truly be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The FAQ has already confirmed the existence of PvP in the game. My suggestion to people who are concerned is to wait and be patient before passing judgement on it. When we can play the beta then we'll truly know how much PvP we're talking about. Until then it's pure speculation.

d10tavern wrote:
I certainly hope Paizo follows the free-to-play with an item shop model of Lord of the Rings Online.

I hope they don't. The most successful MMOs are not F2P, the F2P model is for the bottom feeders. The most subs Lotro hever had was 550k, now they're down to 350k and dropping, that model doesn't work.

You guys should read the FAQ. It says there is no leveling as you know it. It's skill based, the more you use a skill the better your character becomes at said skill.

Elth wrote:

6 - Spears, Spears and Shield, two-handed spears
The most under-rated weapon in the history of computer RPGs. Name one computer RPG game that has them... I can't. Animations would be so easy to do. The best idea would be to be able to use the same spear in one or two hands AND be able to throw it (disarming yourself in the process unless it has returning quality)

Lotro has spears with shields. Don't really agree with the whole "disarming yourself" philosophy in an MMO.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Grummik wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Will 3rd party content, like Dreamscarred Press and their Psionics Unleahsed, become a part of the game eventually?
I, for one, certainly hope not.
I, for one, certainly hope so. What makes Pathfinder special, to me, is all the awesome 3rd party support for the game that opens up so many more options and provides so much more opportunity for character diversity and customization.

Pathfinder Online is not OGL according to the FAQ so 3rd party involvement is unlikely.

Personally I can't stand the 3rd party stuff, it's just to much stuff for me to worry about, so I don't. The game is complicated enough without adding in 3 times the information already included in the core system. I realize other people like it and I'm cool with that, to each their own, it's not for me and my group.

Well this is big news indeed. Good luck competing with the MMO heavyweights out there and the planned heavyweights due to release in the next year or two. I certainly like the concept and will give it a look. Sign me up for beta testing now. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Will 3rd party content, like Dreamscarred Press and their Psionics Unleahsed, become a part of the game eventually?

I, for one, certainly hope not.

20th level commoner (NPC) should have 123k, not 880k for gold per CRB.

Is it really necessary for a 2 handed fighter to do more damage? Scrap the archetype, select the appropriate fighter feats so you can do decent 2 hand damage, decent ranged damage, be heavily armored while moving 30 feet. Much more effective build for all situations.

JJJ wrote:

As of right now I hate Kingmaker. I don't hate the story arc, I hate this overwhelmed feeling our party has. Let me explain. Since we started our campaign just about every fight seems to come to a point where the GM clearly is pulling punches as to not TPK us. The latest example was this abandoned castle in the south lands (I think we are on the 2nd module). As we approach we see an opening with a raised portcullis. We approach cautiously and perceive no alarm for concern so we proceed through the gate. It was trapped and came crashing down on our clerics bloody skeleton hydra. A failed save dealt 28pts of damage. Our monk scales the wall then gets attacked by a quickling(?) the next round and he quickly scales the wall again to get away. We then proceed to make our way around to the crumbled section of wall and go in. Party member attacked again, quickling goes in the tower. We follow. Monk and Paladin make it to second floor, are both dominates in sequential rounds. Rest of part is attacked on stairs by quickling and some other thing. Long story short. GM 'forgets' to use quickling right, it dies, no more flank for other monster to sneak attack. Monster that is dominating stays in combat. We barely survive the fight. I don't mind tough fights but every fight has been like this. My GM assures me he is running it by the AP. So far we have had 5 pc deaths and should have had a lot more if the GM wasn't pulling punches. We are looking for a troll lair in the south and I have a feeling we are going to die to a player and the adventure will end. We had problems killing 2 trolls by themselves. We have been back to our town and spent a lot of time building our kingdom but we are continually urged to find these trolls. I know Kingmaker is deadly but is it this deadly that it becomes tomb of horrors? Or is our GM leading us to death? I really want to enjoy this campaign because its my first as a PC in nearly 10 years but I find myself analyzing CR of fights instead of enjoying the adventure.

Our part is...

The encounter you're describing was tough for my group too. However what you guys did was combine 2 or maybe 3 encounters into one. The quickling should be one encounter by himself. The woman on the second level was our toughest encounter by far, she dominated our healer and several others before our ranged fighter killed her off. The rest of it has been rather easy for our group so far.

Cavalier 8 (me)
Witch 8
Oracle 8
Sorcerer 8
Fighter 6/Wizard 1/Arcane archer 1

I see references to gods and lesser gods and such in this thread. Where is the complete pantheon(s)? Certainly not in the CRB. Are these references from 3rd party publishers or official Paizo stuff?

Jiggy wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not talking about anything monk related. The cestus, brass knuckles and gauntlets, alter the unarmed strike. Would one with weapon focus (unarmed strike), still gain it's benefit if using one of the mentioned items to alter unarmed strikes?

There's been some discussion on so-called "unarmed weapons" lately. Basically, weapons that you wear on your hands are supposed to be light weapons like any other and don't interact with or modify unarmed strikes at all.

So Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) would not benefit an attack with a cestus, for example.

Here's the best reference I have. It was stated in a discussion related to the monk, but I think it makes the intent and functionality clear.

Why does something so clear need to be errata'ed? Maybe I'm missing something but seems that someone is trying to use Unarmed Strike or Improved Unarmed Strike with cheese in mind and it's not supported by RAW. How about we use Unarmed Strike as intended. I don't see the need to errata something that is working as intended.

Dragonamedrake wrote:
Grummik wrote:
I don't speak gamer lingo...what's a Gish?

A gish is a character that has a High BAB and a High Caster Level...

A Fighter Caster in otherwords. A Magus is a "Gish in a box" class for instance.

As for the original poster. You do realize that a Magus - Bla will probably be as strong or stronger then a Fighter - Wizard as the two dont mesh well.

A magus however can take the arcana that lets him cast any other class through his sword.

A Magus - Wizard/Sorc would be a terrifing creation.
A Magus - Fighter would be everything a Fighter is plus be able to throw an extra attack and be as mobile as a full caster.

If I where you I would count your blessing if a PC wanted to go Fighter-Wizard. Either you have a Wizard with good BAB and HP... or you have a Fighter that can be usefull outside of combat and that can buff himself.... But he can either attack or cast a spell... cant do both.

A Magus can and does.


W E Ray wrote:

In the olden days Gish was a type of Githyanki that was equally a fighter and a wizard.

Now it's the (often) pejorative of someone playing a Ftr-Wiz.

Or, the following Classes:
Eldritch Knight (PrC)
Duskblade (3.5)
Hexblade (3.5)

Ah gotcha, thanks.

I don't speak gamer lingo...what's a Gish?

Lrdpanther wrote:
I am from the old days when each class had its own xp tables. so Fighter needed 2,000xp for 2nd level while the rogue needed 1250xp for 2nd level. Has anyone attempted to try this in pathfinder? Is there a reason I should not. will it unbalance everything if I use it? let me know if anyone out there has tried this

I am from the "old days" as well but one mechanic I actually like in the newer systems is the exp balance. It keeps the party on an even keel and prevents that one-shot kill because the BBEG just attacks the Wizard that is 3 levels below the rest of the party.

I couldn't agree more with the OP. I think the corebook is a mess at best. I can't imagine someone picking up that book and learning to play Pathfinder for the first time. People like me who have played D&D since it was AD&D, have a huge advantage as we understand the basic mechanic. Here are my gripes with the corebook and how the game has progressed.

1. The CB should have been 2 books. A players book and a GMs book. The behemoth that is the corebook destroys itself in a matter of months due to poor quality and the sheer weight of it. Mine is still in good shape only because I baby it tbh, but all of my friends books are repaired in some way. By comparison, I still have AD&D books that are in good shape and I've used them 1000 times more the the PF CB.
2. Organization. Messy at best. I should not have to reference 3 areas of the book to get the full story of a particular mechanic in the game.
3. Progression of the game thus far. I am not a fan of Paizo's model for information release. The "bestiaries" included in the monthly releases are a joke to say the least. I would rather they hold that information and release a Bestiary "X" when they get enough content. I want SOURCEBOOKS, not hundreds of splat books that contain feats, traits, new creatures, new rules mechanics, etc, etc. I do not want to reference 30 splat books just to see if Paizo has published something I'm looking for.

One major difference I'm seeing with Paizo compared with other publishers/designers is this....the Pathfinder content/rules/mechanics are driven by new content when it should be the other way around...the SOURCEBOOKS should drive the content, new content should reference a sourcebook rather than itself with new rules, etc.

I'm not sure if my point is concise, hopefully you understand my meaning. All that said, I'll say this as well...overall, I like the Pathfinder game, however I only play with the corebook and APG, nothing else. That is by choice mind you as I am not a fan of gathering pamphlets that some people consider reference material and I was largely unimpressed with UC and UM.

Thanks much for the response, I appreciate it.

As I read the RAW, they are both unlabeled damage enhancements. Wouldn't that make them the same and not able to stack?

Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

Deadly Aim (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by pinpointing a foe's weak spot, at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all ranged attack rolls to gain a +2 bonus on all ranged damage rolls. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordzack wrote:
Grummik wrote:
I thought RPGs were about the story and not the stats? I have just as much fun at 1st level as any higher level. Not only that, 1st level is very short lived to begin with. Our group focuses on RPing and not "optimization" or who can do the most damage, etc. When the game becomes more about the numbers than the RPing, something is lost imo.
Why does that mean that APs should always start at first level?

Well, most often, 1st level is where the main story starts and I'm ok with that. Moreover, I submit the story actually starts before 1st level. It starts with your character's back story or background which leads up to the current events of the campaign start.

Sorry but there's no compelling reason to start at a higher level other than personal choice. If that's what you and your group want to do then go for it. Some people are implying that the fun doesn't begin until at least 3rd level and I just don't subscribe to that philosophy. It's what you make of it.

I thought RPGs were about the story and not the stats? I have just as much fun at 1st level as any higher level. Not only that, 1st level is very short lived to begin with. Our group focuses on RPing and not "optimization" or who can do the most damage, etc. When the game becomes more about the numbers than the RPing, something is lost imo.

Abraham spalding wrote:

New GM + veteran players == bad news.

It's like action economy taken to the real world and then you all are 'experts' at what you are doing compared to his skill level at what he is doing.

AKA it's four level 20's gaining up on a single level 2.

(not saying you all are mean about it, but still it's simply not going to be fair regardless)

Agreed but not truly applicable in this case. The whole group has about the same experience in RPing games, GM included. My personal opinion is a lack of effort on his part which disappoints me.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Grummik I have to ask, what does your GM consider to be an 'appropriate challenge'?

I ask this because we see a lot of people assuming = CR or CR+1 should be a tough fight, and that's not the way the rules are written (or at least intended.)

A PC should, theoretically, have a CR = its character level. You're fielding four characters of CR X. Strength in numbers my friend.

You don't really get difficult fights until CR+3 or so (barring some specialization against the party or pre-buffing at least.) CR = Party Level is a cakewalk by design.

That's a good question. I'm not sure what he's thinking at this point. In his defense he is new at GMing and there's a bit of a learning curve there as I'm sure you're well aware. Truthfully I'm not sure he understands how party CR matches up with encounter difficulty. We've taken down CR+3 encounters quickly thus far.

The issue our GM is running into is this, according to him. If he makes us fight higher CR creatures you start to get into the one-hit kill range, in some cases, for some of the less hardy classes and he doesn't want to do that. I think he's mixing both higher CR and increasing their hit points but not to the point of one-shot kill in an attempt to alleviate some of the steamrolling. Thus far everything he's tried has failed and we continue to steamroll.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
First, now that I see my phrasing thrown back at me, I can see how confrontational it was. You have my apologies for that Grummik. I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind your opinion better.

All good with me kyrt-ryder. My opinion is simply this. As rules bloat goes higher, my interest in Pathfinder goes in the opposite direction. The endless posts about another "optimized" character build filled with calculations on how to squeeze another 2.7456 DPR out of a particular class. When you start doing that the game is less fun, for me at least. These messageboards are rife with posts like that and I just ranted a bit, I apologize for that.

My home groups feels the same way and in light of that we limit the books or reference materials a player can use, in this case limited to the core and APG only. Our GM actually regrets letting the APG in as our party is so overpowered that he is forced to double the hit points of creatures we fight. I just want to say that if our game is like that then I would hate to see some of the other campaigns out there. Our characters are far from "optimized" and we're still overpowered. I've been the "optimizer" type of player before, back in 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D. I'm a much happier player now because we keep it simple and fun.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Grummik, why are you getting into arguments over supplemental rules? If you're open to using them they are right there in the PRD or or the Archives of Nethys. If you're not, just ban them. Simple no?

I already said we disallowed the additional rules. I know where they are and how to reference them. You're missing the point. I merely expressed my opinion about them. Simple no?

I play in a home game (Kingmaker) where only the corerules and the APG are allowed, that's it. No UM, no UC and we're all happier for it. One thing I hate about Pathfinder is all of the small publications with additional rules/feats/gear/etc in them. Personally I hate the campaigns where players are the memorize-every-rule-no-matter-how-obscure type of player. The endless optimization and rules arguments are just not worth it and completely take away from the fun of the core game.

brassbaboon wrote:

It's all relative. Compared to 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 are laughably soft on characters. Compared to the original edition, 2e was somewhat soft on characters. Compared to 4e, Pathfinder is crushingly hard on characters.

I never liked the XP cost to anything. I never could reconcile that against the verisimilitude of the system. It seemed to me to be exactly what it was, a means to control the magic economy through punishing the player through their character. It made no actual sense in any mechanical way. I say this as a player who had his main PC for several years be a wizard wholly devoted to creating magic items, since his major goal in life was to create artifacts.

Whether 3.5 is too easy on characters or not, the XP cost mechanic is one thing I am glad to see finally out of the game.


Berselius wrote:
Shoot. Hopefully Paizo will give us some type of ability or feat that allows penetration of resistance/immunity to types of energy and soon too. One of my PC's wants to be a rogue White Witch of Irrisen/Emma Frost/Hellfire Club White Queen type of PC and she's asked if there's a way to make her ice spells damage monsters immune to cold. Help me out Paizo! Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with a flaming goblin on top?

We might was well just abolish resistances from the game entirely then. C'mon guys we have to draw the line somewhere.

Personally I hope Paizo keeps it as is and doesn't change a thing. If a players wants to specialize in cold damage based spells then that player will have to live with the drawbacks as well imo.

I'm inclined to say no, they do not have caster levels with regards to feats. The only reference to caster levels is directly connected to the spell-like ability and that is all. Having a spell-like ability does not make you a caster. Having class levels in the appropriate class makes you a caster and the progression through those levels is what gives you those feats. That's my interpretation.

vagrant-poet wrote:

NPCs Levels:

1-5 nearly all NPCs are in this level range, most have NPC classes.
5-10 these NPCs are rarer and the movers and shakers of the world.
10-15 these NPCS are very rare, their might only be a few in any given region, they are often rulers or the biggest players in their locality.
15+ these are rarer still and only included when the GM needs them, each should have large and sweeping backstory.

@Cranewings. Please re-read the quoted section above. There are precious few 20th level PCs, let alone NPCs, running around. Even the "movers and shakers" of the world are generally level 5 to 10.

DM Aron Marczylo wrote:
GroovyTaxi wrote:

I just give out bounties depending on the situation. Some things to think about when setting bounties are :

- The importance of the crimes committed
- The funds that the one placing the bounty has in its posession
- Does the person placing the bounty really want this person dead or arrested, or is that person just a nuisance?

Taking the target's CR in account isn't really realistic, but it's logical to assume that a target with a higher CR might be able to commit greater crimes, crimes she probably already committed.

okey then how about the following:


And whatever else might be applicable?

I would say the source of the bounty and their motivation are the key factors. If the source is a municipal source I would say they have standard monetary bounties they offer for crimes. A personal bounty offerd by the father of his murdered daughter would be something different entirely.

divby0 wrote:
Do I tell the players that the animated object has hardness 10 as it is an animated object? Or do I tell them the weakness (haunted?).

I would have the party do a Knowledge (Religion) check to get that information. I would set the DC at 10 + CR of haunt.

Quoted from corebook under Knowledge skill:
"You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table 4–6."

Emphasis mine. I realize this applies to monsters but I would consider this to be something that any character with Knowledge (religion) should be able to identify and have previously studied (which is what a knowledge check represents imo).

Dotted for reference purposes.

I don't see why armor spikes give you an AoO in this case.

Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked
armor” on Table 6–4) on a successful grapple attack. The
spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient
with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when
you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee
attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count
as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an
attack with armor spikes if you have already made an
attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)
enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve
the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into
magic weapons in their own right.

Emphasis mine. My interpretation of the use of armor spikes is they would not grant an AoO while wielding a 2 handed weapon as the off-hand is already busy with the bow.

Without a channeler, yes it could be rough with RAW in the AP. However, I've read alot of posts where GMs were houseruling in holy water being able to damage haunts. You definitely may want to consider that or come up with another method of damaging them.

SpyDarling wrote:
Quite possible. In his defense, I'm sure it's a lot easier to guide veterans over newbies. Some players need reminding of this and that. I make sure I understand a move before I make it, which means I haven't even attempted most tactics.

I disagree. It's not necessarily easier to deal with experienced players as, all to often, they are typically rules lawyers and actually more difficult to deal with because they try to "get over" on the system. I find new players to be more enjoyable, YMMV.

SpyDarling wrote:
To have skill in the group is very attractive, as seeing things play out alerts you to ideas that I didn't consider. Then, they'll superfluously execute an aerial somersault to attack something from overhead, because it's not like they'll miss. In case they do, they are wearing crazy spiky bone armor.

Unfortunately what you're witnessing is overpowered players just going through the motions because they know they're not in any real danger. If they had a normal point-buy characters with normal gear they would not be acting that way imo. This sounds like a very screwy situation to me.

craig_uk wrote:

Tonight im running my first proper game of pathfinder after doing a tester game with just a couple of people just over a month ago.

My friend finished his call of cthulhu game last week so this week its my turn, im looking forward to it but yet bloody nervous as i now have a group of 6 where as before it was 3, i must have made some sort of an impression with my improved seeion to get other people interested.

So now i have some cool little handouts sorted which me and the gf made (tea stained paper to look like parchment and the like) and a good idea of what i think the party is most likely going to be doing tonight as they have elected to carry on from where the tester game left off.

But i just wanted to ask if anyone has any hints and tips for gm'ing a session, any quick solutions to unexpected problems that kinda thing.
the pathfinder book does have some helpfull hints to for this kinda thing but i wanted to ask you experienced gm's out there if theres anything you personally have in your arsenal to keep the game running smoothly.

I will of course give an update as to how the game went later on tonight if i get chance.

Wish me luck

Good luck!

Try not to get bogged down in rules debates, they just drag the game down to a crawl and it gets boring. If that situation crops up in my game I usually rule in favor of the PC and then resolve it later with research.

Remember that you're a storyteller and they're seeing the world through your descriptions.

Keep it light and fun, make the characters feel powerful and heroic and then you'll be the hero GM :)

Well this situation sounds like a drag man, sorry you have to go through that. It's obvious from your account that the GM clearly favors these newcomers and that's just plain wrong imo. The GM should be impartial and should control those know-it-alls. As a GM myself I cannot fathom why a GM would allow that type of behavior and the different ability score generation techniques. Just doesn't make any sense, there must be something else behind it. I would have a chat with your GM and let him know that he needs to rein those guys in. If not then he's not worth sticking with and you should find a new game. Make no mistake, the fault lies with your GM for allowing this to cause party strife.

You can have their power come from the positive or negative energy planes. Where a wizard can draw out arcane power from uttering a few words of power and a few hand gestures, why can't a cleric do the same thing, but instead of calling on their deity, they are calling their power directly from the positive or negative energy plane and shaping it to their will. I could see a world where clerics have spellbooks too.

You can also fold some healing into arcane. Make more spells available to arcane casting classes and fold in some healing spells to compensate for the lack of divine magic.

Ultimately you're controlling the game, make it how it works for you while maintaining balance.

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:
Lord oKOyA wrote:

To flank a target, you need two allies on opposite sides of a target who both threaten the target.

This is not actually an explicitly stated rule - which is the issue that causes all of this consternation.

Moreover, consider a [R]ogue in classical flanking position on a [M]onster with his [F]ighter buddy.


The [R]ogue is wielding a short bow and spiked armor. On the monster's turn, if it were to, say, drink a potion, the [R]ogue would get an AoO - and if he hit, he'd do sneak attack damage. So, by all lights, he's flanking the [M]onster, right?

So what happens if the [R]ogue attacks the monster with his shortbow during the [R]ogue's turn? Does he do sneak attack damage? What if he full attacks, takes TWF penalties, and attacks with both the spiked armor and his bow?

I don't believe the rogue can attack with the armor spikes if he already used both hands for another attack.

Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked
armor” on Table 6–4) on a successful grapple attack. The
spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient
with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when
you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee
attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count
as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an
attack with armor spikes if you have already made an
attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)
enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve
the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into
magic weapons in their own right.

Emphasis mine. I would say the rogue can't attack with the armor spikes because he's using a 2-handed weapon, his off-hand is being used already.

Dragonsong wrote:
Grummik wrote:
I have a few questions. How are these two types of hit points allocated? Let's use Bob with 19 hit points from above me. Does he have 19 stamina AND 19 deadly points, effectively doubling his hit points?
IF I understand correctly Bob still only has 19 HP, any critical hit or failed save against an effect that does HP damage would take an amount of "lethal damage" out of that total. This damage heals very slowly over time. Any non crit hit or on a sucessful save would do "stamina damage" out of the same 19 but recovers much much faster. If an attack drops you below zero it is considered a lethal hit as you are near death.

Ok that makes sense somewhat. I think an easier way to go would be to split the hit point total into 2 columns, favoring the stam column in the event of odd numbers. So Bob with 19 hit points would have 10 stam points and 9 deadly points. Then assign the damage accordingly during combat. I think it's easier to assign damage type to a column rather than trying keep track of the entire total and what damage is what and when, especially at higher levels.

I really like the premise here and like where Evil Lincoln is going with this. I think the basic mechanic is pretty good.

If you think about a heroic figure from movies/tv, did they ever have someone trailing behind them healing their wounds? Not often. This system relies less on healing than the current hit point mechanic and that definitely ramps up the "heroic" aspect of PF and that is something I can get behind.

I have a few questions. How are these two types of hit points allocated? Let's use Bob with 19 hit points from above me. Does he have 19 stamina AND 19 deadly points, effectively doubling his hit points? If that's the case then I think that might be broken somewhat. Also, would all creatures have this system or just PCs? I would think this would apply to all creatures to keep everything balanced and keep from breaking the game.

I have not read all of this post but I remember reading about types of damage. Here's my thoughts on it.

Stamina damage: non-crit physical damage from any physical source (normal combat, traps, falling, etc)

Deadly damage: critical hit damage, bleed damage, energy damage and precision based damage (like sneak attack).

I don't think this damage split is complicated at all and is definitely a decent representation of how I "visualize" damage.

Good idea. However I would like to see a numerical representation of how this works.

Let's use a fighter with 50 hit points for example. If you could provide a mock combat example with this guy taking damage that would be appreciated.

buddahcjcc wrote:

Ah I missed the part where you cant gain flanking advantage with a ranged weapon. Damn. the sniper looks far less cool now, especially with the loss of trapfinding

You can sneak attack with a ranged weapon but the target would have to be flatfooted or denied dex bonus to AC, and I believe you would have to be within 30 feet.

Ultimately you want to make race/class choices that complement one another. A halfling fighter, while they do indeed exsist, is not an optimal race/class combination. If you're going for flavor and your GM is not a sadist then by all means, go for it. But if your GM doesn't know how to adjust encounters and balance encounters for the power level of the party, then you could be in trouble there.

Same basic principle goes for multiclassing. You want to choose classes that complement each other. A barbarian/cleric never crossed my mind to tell you the truth but certainly a suboptimal combination. If you're going to play as a cleric mostly then I would recommend a level or two of fighter, just to boost your combat effectiveness and/or survivability. Fighter is a better choice just from a feat selection standpoint imo. With the right feat you can stand back and snipe with a ranged weapon, run in for a direct heal when necessary or channel when necessary but at least you won't be standing around waiting for someone to get hit so you can heal.

Green-Mage wrote:
Umm yeah you can take Heavy Armor Optimization and Greater Heavy Armor Optimization as is I think. After all Pathfinder is supposed to compatible with 3.5 material. I'd just check with the person running the game but I don't see a problem with it.

Where is that written? I haven't seen anything that allows anyone to select feats from D&D 3.5 edition. It's certainly not Pathfinder Society legal.

EDIT: I'm talking strictly RAW btw.

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>