One part of a 2 headed troll

Gruuuu's page

Organized Play Member. 580 posts (958 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 580 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Male Rat Informationist 6

Speaking of which, Shan, how do you want Jivaji to exit?

I'm not opposed to someone jumping in using Jivaji, though I know most people prefer to roll in on their own characters.

I'm...pretty much out of time left to post now anyhow. I'm headed for bed tonight, and my entire Sunday is booked already, and then I start new job and hit PAX East next weekend!

Anyway, it's been a damn blast playin with you guys. This campaign has been a lot of fun. I hope I get a chance to roll with any of you in the future.


Male Rat Informationist 6

Guys, this is my formal head's up.

I'm accepting a new job, one that I don't think I can post from work at. I have a few days left, so I can keep up for a bit, but I may be out of commission starting Monday.

I don't get much time to post from home since I'm way too busy, so that's... pretty much gonna be it for me. :[


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CourtFool wrote:
You could do it with nested IF statements or create a sheet with the costs and use VLOOKUP.

Or the less well-known CHOOSE function.

=CHOOSE($SCORE,"x","x","x","x","x","x",-4,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,5,7,10,13,18)
That only works on the BASE SCORE. The "x" means scores that low are not available (and it should throw an error if selected.) You can make the base score a dropdown with data validation and only allow 7-18 as well.


This is great!


Example 1
Example 2

Just for fun


The black raven wrote:

If you are a fragile character, do whatever is needed to avoid being caught flat-footed.

Thus anything that helps you act in the surprise round is pure gold.

For a fragile build with a Mount/Animal Companion, get the Lookout feat for both you and it. This feat gets even better for Archers or mounted characters as it may allow you a full-attack in the surprise round.

Indeed, my Inquisitor/Zen Archer Monk has gotten off a few Flurry of Bows in the surprise round. It was almost convincing enough to take a dip in Rogue for the extra 1d6 per arrow. Almost.


Artimedorus wrote:

I'm the GM mentioned above and for the record I brought up fly checks only when comparing movement methods. I also didn't immediately claim broken on the spell. After reading the spell description carefully a couple things really stood out.

The spell mentions firm ground, normal ground and standing on the liquid which to me means the "solid" liquid is able to support your weight. It does not say you are levitating on the liquid and I feel only mentions "hover an inch or two above the liquid" as a way to explain why you are not injured by standing on lava, acid, etc.
You do not suffer direct contact damage.
If you did still suffer damage from lava, acid, etc. the spell would be very limited in use.
Yes you can already walk on ice but doing so is much more difficult than normal ground and with water walk you can run, charge, etc. just like normal/firm ground.
Flying allows you to glide over the liquid but requires checks if not moving at least half speed, or making certain turns, etc. and you cannot run while flying.
Finally, the part about being borne to the surface is a way the designers avoided creatures getting stuck in a "solid" liquid as some type of nasty trick.
The thing I'm pondering the most is whether the moving liquid acts as a conveyor belt or not.
Oh, and to StabDoom, the ice wouldn't break through in your example because the water below it supports the weight of the person, like ice over firm ground.
Water Walk wrote:


The transmuted creatures can tread on any liquid as if it were firm ground. Mud, oil, snow, quicksand, running water, ice, and even lava can be traversed easily, since the subjects' feet hover an inch or two above the surface. Creatures crossing molten lava still take damage from the heat because they are near it. The subjects can walk, run, charge, or otherwise move across the surface as if it were normal ground.

If the spell is cast underwater (or while the subjects are partially or wholly submerged in whatever liquid they are in), the subjects are borne toward the surface at 60 feet per round until they can stand on it.

So, Artimedorus, I think there's a couple points here.

You mention that characters simply float about the surface as a way to explain away damage from lava/acid. Actually, the spell itself says you still take residual heat damage from the proximity to lava.

Based on the sentence structure (which is admittedly somewhat poor), I think it's safe to assume that Water Walk causes the target to hover a small distance from whatever liquid surface, and acts as if the target were on solid ground.
You attributed that to the developers explaining something away.
My advice is: don't. Treat the spell as if it does exactly what it says. It's not a get out of jail free card, and it's not going to ruin a campaign. At the very least, the creative use of the spell will make the players feel clever, and it will be awesome in their minds.

You have some elbow room to set some limits, of course. Obviously there's humidity in the air, so would you let a character water walk a couple inches above each water molecule (of course not).

Conversely, let's say there's a waterfall, would you let a character just waltz down the falls without a care in the world (most likely not).

So, with those limits, then, I would ask myself "Self, was there enough ice over those traps for the spell to work?" If not, I should think that the ice is thin enough to see through, so a unfailable perception check would alert someone to its presence. In which case, the spell is still useful so that the target doesn't 'slide' into the trap.


Helaman wrote:
artofcheatery wrote:

My GM is still not happy with this answer. He says that it breaks the game if we are levitating, that line only existing for the lava part of the spell. He also claims that we would have to make fly checks.

Does anyone else want to put in their two cents?

That the GM should Grow Up and not be concerned about "winning" or "beating the players" - the players have won this round - There is always tomorrow.

facepalm

This is why you don't GM bash. The GM in question is already in the thread, and made a quite reasonable concern known. If you're only working with one side of a story, assume the other side is reasonable as well, until you hear it, too.


Perhaps a better tactic, is to ask her what thing she wants her character to do, and you can tell her what mechanics she has to do to do it. If she has options on how to accomplish it, all the better.

It will go really REALLY slow in the beginning. Eventually she'll pick up on what works the best. Or, she'll find all the details that go into such things are too cumbersome, in which case the system probably isn't for her!


oregwath wrote:
Also, I have made a grapple check to grab hold of an enemies armor, then teleported 10 feet behind our fighter. Took the armor with me and left the poor schmuck to face our melee guys in his skivvies.

Clever... but do the rules allow that?


Male Rat Informationist 6

Been meaning to post something, just don't know what to do. Plus work.
I'll post now and see how it goooooooooes!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I tried a Dancing Lights (vaguely humanoid form) to lure unknown critters from their likely hiding place.

Didn't work; they were there, but they were undead, and not fooled (life sense).

Could use Ghost Sound like a loud-speaker.


Male Rat Informationist 6
Javell DeLeon wrote:
Do any of us even have ranks in religion? I know I don't.

Not I. Mr Alchemist?


I've got a character that I was planning on taking considerable levels of both Monk and Druid. His purpose was to be the grapple-happy melee support.


Charge wrote:
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

As long as you follow that rule. If two (or more?) are tied, you choose.

Edit to add:

Charge wrote:
If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.

So if there's a tree in the way, you can't charge to the left or right of the tree.


noretoc wrote:
What do you all think about this?

Geeeeeniuuuuuusss.


Blastoguy: Obviously you have witch settled on

Some good options to round out the rest of the party:

2nd slot (Frontliner): Cavalier(or Samurai)/Paladin/Fighter/Barb

3rd slot (Support): Cleric/Oracle/Inquisitor/Alchemist/Bard/Druid

4th slot (Skill/Utility/Versatility): Wizard/Bard/Cleric/Druid/Summoner

You'll notice some overlap, of course. The classes of each is what you make of them.

You and your party should keep the following things in mind:
Survivability
Saves, HP, AC, and Contingency plans. Don't expect healing to save you in fights. If you need healing to save you, you're doing the party a disservice. Of course you won't always have control over this, but make plans as if you do. Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude exist for a reason!

Synergy
Someone above said Witches are only good for debuffing. That's horse-crap. My most-used hex was Fortune; it never failed due to a save and I can't tell you how many times it saved the day. Fortune+Enlarge Person on your frontliner makes things go oh-so smoothly.

You should be intently looking at the interoperability between party members.

Talk with your GM about the campaign
If he is a good story-teller, it's highly likely that they won't spoil the story for you. But you guys should be able to run some strategy ideas by him. If he sees you guys headed for disaster, he MIGHT inform you!

Talk about how you're planning on developing your character.
Don't just built survivability and synergy into your characters at first level. By level 5 things could easily fall apart. The campaign should be getting tougher, so should your party.

Backup characters
Sad but true. Have them planned and developed before-hand. Keep them up to level with the party.

I've probably left important things out. Hopefully this small offering of advice is useful.


Fighting Style, Str/Dex, Multi-classing, and feats will all depend on what you plan on doing in combat.

Do you plan on using spears a lot? Switching out with the blowgun when necessary?

Also you might want to consider another ranged attack for when things require a bit less finesse. Slings would work, as would bows.

If you plan on using the spear a lot, also consider if you plan on fighting from a mount a good deal of the time, or not.

If, instead, you plan on fighting from ranged a lot, you'll definitely want a better weapon than a blowgun for the meat-n-potatoes of your combat career.

So, what'll it be?


Hayato Ken wrote:

The halfling, but the dog could maybe have them too.

I just wondered myself, if you ride over the battelfield, passing several poeple in your reach, do you get attacks of oportunity on them?

Why would you get Attacks of Opportunity for your own movement?

Spoiler:
You wouldn't


I would impose a stealth or bluff check if the character was trying to hide her intent.
Situation: You feel like the world is staring daggers at you and nothing feels like it's going right. You look around because something nearby just feels off. You see one person standing still in a crowd of people giving you the old stink-eye. You are now officially creeped the hell out.


From Inner Sea Magic: Divine Scion PrC. You pick up Weapon Specialization for the weapon of your deity. Then you can qualify for PBM.


tom, John Reyst also showed this flowchart to the d20pfsrd community, and they had a few things to mention:

Vlad wrote:


Round 2:Defender may...
...attempt to cast a spell. Defender
makes a concentration check (DC 10 +
initial attackers CMB + spell level

It's not only missing a closing parenthesis, but is also inaccurate, as you may only casts spells without somatic components during a grapple.

Round 3: Attacker may...
...Tie the Defender up
Attacker makes a CMB check -10 vs.
the Defender’s CMD.

Brendan wrote:


The tie-up mechanics don't seem laid out well to me... There doesn't need to be a box for "Is the Attacker grappling the Defender?" because that is already known to be true from earlier in the flowchart. Instead, the arrow should go straight to "Attacker makes a CMB check -10 vs. the Defender’s CMD."

Other than that, it all seems mechanically correct to me. In my game, I would rule that the defender can't take control of the grapple on an Escape Artist check, but that doesn't appear to be RAW.

It would be nice to explicitly state which actions are specifically standard actions (CMB checks to start/maintain/escape/control grapple) and which are not necessarily (an action requiring only one hand could be immediate, free, swift, move, standard, full-round).

The errata we have on the combat page says that, for the defender "any action that only takes one hand to perform" should be "any action that *does not take two hands* to perform," and "make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon" should be "make an attack *or full attack* with a light or one-handed weapon." Those changes should be incorporated to the flowchart.

I wonder what the rules for multi-armed creatures are, regarding grapples... How many arms is a marilith allowed to use to perform an action while it is the defender in a grapple?

I wrote:


"Attacker may release grapple at any time."
-No, it's a free action. During controller's turn only.

"Attackers turn complete. Attacker gains a +5 bonus to CMB checks to grapple."
-ONLY to maintain grapples.

"Defender is now controlling grappler and gets +5 to successive grapple checks."
-Ditto

"Spell Fails."
-And spell is lost (probably obvious)

"Is the Attacker grappling the Defender?"
-Where is this going? Flowchart confusion


The Terrible Zodin wrote:
How does one dot a thread?

You just did!

OH MY GOD SO DID I!

P.S.:
by posting in it


carn, Grab allows someone to START a grapple, not maintain. Pin can only be done on a maintain check.


ossian666 wrote:
I'd rather clarify than type and be wrong and useless.

I like to do both.


karkon wrote:

Let us agree the SLA are not spells and they do not qualify you for things like Arcane Trickster.

Having said that...

Is my solution too far out of bounds? Does it seriously unbalance anything? What are the problems with creating a talent like:

That's What I Call Magic: Requires Minor & Major Magic tricks and two levels of wizard. You can cast a second level arcane spell once per day as a spell like ability.

And then allowing that to qualify for Arcane Trickster.

If you were DM what problems would you see for this? Short of disallowing it how would you fix it?

Actually, just realized. The character is STILL not going to qualify for Arcane Trickster by 5 with this.

Extra Rogue Talent requires the Rogue Talent Class Ability. Unless he has a way to get two feats to burn on Extra Rogue Talent when he hits Rogue 2, he's still not gonna get there.


AvalonXQ wrote:

It's really not.

We've gone over this before, but never come to an actual conclusion.

To me the RAW is perfectly clear.

The class prerequisite says: "ability to cast... at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher"

The rogue talent says: "A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 1st-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list two times a day as a spell-like ability."

By RAW, the rogue gains the ability to cast a 1st-level spell. Analyze it all you want; that's what the words say, and no FAQ or developer has contradicted it.

If your interpretation is correct, it would be the only instance where this Rogue Trick counted as casting a spell for ANYTHING AT ALL requiring the ability to cast a spell.

So, while it hasn't been called out specifically, I think precedent is set.


karkon wrote:

Bah, I say to your official FAQ. Mostly because I can never find the damn thing. Is there a link I am missing or something?

He is spending three rogue talents on this and two wizard levels. If there is a big rules lawyer in the group get him involved before you talk to the DM. That should prevent trouble.

But seriously where is the damn FAQ, I can't even google it up. And I am usually pretty good at it.

Oh it's easy. Just click on Roleplaying Game under Pathfinder in the small, gray Links section on the left. Then, in the paragraph text, find the link for the Core Rulebook. Then, scroll down a bunch until you find the blue tabs, the right-most one of which says FAQs and Rulings.

How could it be simpler?!

Sarcasm aside, the devs are keeping the FAQ hard to get to on purpose.
They don't want to draw attention to it until it has a lot more support.
This is a decision I disagree with, but it is fortunately not my decision.
I don't know if you have to find separate source books to see the FAQs in those.
Monkeys.


alientude wrote:
If he's asking his DM to create a new feat allowing him to get an SLA tailored to his build for the purpose of qualifying for a PrC, does it really matter whether or not the consensus is that SLAs don't qualify?

Maybe not, but it does keep the rules marvins at the table from getting butthurt.

And also keeps the GM from regretting the decision when people start trying to Metamagic SLAs.


karkon wrote:
Quote:


Spells: Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher.
Please note the use of "cast" throughout.

Requirement is to cast a spell. While being able to cast Mage Hand as a SLA would fly, casting anything as a SLA is not the same as casting it as a spell.

relevant SKR FAQ
FAQ wrote:

Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as having that spell on its spell list for the purpose of activating spell completion or spell trigger items?

No. A spell-like ability is not a spell, having a spell-like ability is not part of a class's spell list, and therefore doesn't give the creature the ability to activate spell completion or spell trigger items.

This calls out Spell Trigger and Spell Completion, but,

FAQ wrote:
No. A spell-like ability is not a spell,

is clear enough.


karkon wrote:

See if you can convince your DM to let you make a new rogue talent.

That's What I Call Magic: Requires Minor & Major Magic tricks and two levels of wizard. You can cast a second level arcane spell once per day as a spell like ability.

Let him know what you are planning to do though.

"As a Spell-Like Ability" wouldn't qualify him though. It needs to be casted as a spell.


Dave Leach wrote:

I wonder, is there any way to swing a 2nd level spell at level 2? Is there a class/feat/archetype combo that can manage it? Just curious. I'm looking to build a Rouge/Trickster that needs a 2nd level spell in order to qualify for the PrC, but I *need* (... really want!) my other 18 levels. That leaves me with only 2 levels to dip into SOMETHING to qualify for the prestige, but I can't find any way to finesse a 2nd level spell with only two levels.

Granted, I've only been perusing the Pathfinder material for a few days. I'm hoping someone with more knowledge of the text can put me on the right path.

Thanks in advance! ;)

What are you doing with the other 18 levels? Maybe we can talk you into something else.


Gruuuu wrote:


Now, I THOUGHT that flurry didn't work with other attacks but I don't see anything in the rules. Maybe there's a developer ruling...

Hm, Flurry only calls out natural attacks.

Regardless, the creature would NOT get extra flurry attacks for having more arms.

To get the more attacks for extra arms, Grick has the right idea. BUT you also need to give him natural attacks on those arms. Slams or Claws will do. If you want to maximize the attacks, he will then need TWF, ITWF, and GTWF plus a weapon (not necessarily hand-held, but if using a hand-held weapon, remember you lose the natural attack for that arm.)


Bobson wrote:


The general rule is you get full iterative attacks with a single weapon, and then one additional attack at full BAB for each additional weapon (multi-weapon penalties not included). I don't think I have a rules source for that, though - just observation and forum reading.

Mostly correct, iterative attacks can be with any weapon.

I also don't have rules, but I've looked them up before.

Now, I THOUGHT that flurry didn't work with other attacks but I don't see anything in the rules. Maybe there's a developer ruling...


ciretose wrote:

I may actually try play by post now.

Well done.

1d20 + 2

?

This has been around for 2 years. Nasserath necro'd the thread


okeefe wrote:

Ah! Ok, so "Flurry BAB" doesn't makes sense of a concept, but "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus" (like the top of Table 3-10) does. In guess in that sense, the FAQ led me wrong.

So, the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus is +18, the +20 as mentioned with the -2 as per Two-Weapon Fighting.

Seems like you're just trying to boil it down to the attack bonus.

This will cause you problems, you need to work through the whole process.
the attack bonus is BAB + STR + Weapon Enhancements + Situational Bonuses (like Charge, flank, buffs, etc) - Situational Penalties (like TWF, being prone, debuffs, etc)

BAB is VERY IMPORTANT to call out for the monk flurry of blows, because that's what determines the number of attacks he has. Recall that Monk uses his Monk Level for his BAB while Flurrying.
The character in the FAQ example has a 20 BAB while flurrying, which means he gets 4 attacks plus one bonus attack at his highest BAB.
(+20/+20/+15/+10/+5) Then you add the STR mod, any bonuses, and subtract any penalties. While flurrying, there's always the -2, as you are aware. So his PRE-STRENGTH attack array is
(+18/+18/+13/+8/+3).

I'm sure you probably figured that out, but keep in mind it is VERY IMPORTANT to not skip a step when you're figuring out how the attacks go together.


...Huh. Yep, looks like that's the case.


Trinam wrote:

The thing to take away from this is probably 'never give an oracle a full round action within 15 feet of you'

Also, I question if you can heighten a spell 8 levels without changing the level. Heighten only powers based on levels raised.

Does the Guardian property not work for AM?


From the PFS Field Guide:
The Guardian magical quality can up them saves a bit more (if you've got the cash to stick it on Observed State.

Guardian wrote:


A guardian weapon infuses its wielder with protective wards and great resistance to danger, allowing the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon’s enhancement bonus to his saving throws as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus on all saving throws lasts until his next turn. The weapon must be wielded in order for this bonus to apply—it does not function while the weapon is sheathed or otherwise stowed.

....My God. I just realized how broken this is.

...allowing the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon’s enhancement bonus to his saving throws as a bonus that stacks with all others...

Ok, so. Find as many ways to get weapon slots. Amulet of Mighty Fists? Brass Knuckles? Armor Spikes?


DeathSpot wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Maddigan wrote:
Stuff

Your argument boils down to 'whoever goes first wins'.

The part about AM is that he can lose initiative and still kill a caster reliably, and there's next to nothing they can do about it.
===Aelryinth

I'll disagree with your statements. All of the cool abilities (and yeah, they ARE cool) AM uses to kill the caster are rage powers. If the caster wins initiative, AM isn't going to be raging.

How, specifically?


rkraus2 wrote:
I wouldn't gestalt two casting classes at that high a level.

Apparently I would!

I may have misunderstood as well. Are you STARTING at level 20?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hoping for a bit of redundancy here,

Elf Alchemist (Clone Master/Mindchemist)/Witch (Beast-Bonded)

Make clones of both yourself and your familiar.
Twin Soul kicks in before the clone transfer (and can indeed still decide to still use the clone transfer while twin-souled.)

Or, if you both eat it, you both transfer to your clones.
This can be done at level 10.
Put two scrolls of restoration on your clone for quick recovery.

Aside from the death-cheatery, starting first level you can Cognatogen for +4 int, and start hexing things with great impunity.

Elves can take an alternate racial trait that adds 2 to the DC of sleep spells and effects.

Assuming you start with a 18 or 20 int, your Slumber DC at first level will be either 19 or 20.

That's a starting point, at least.


Can you gestalt PrCs?


Tark, I'm going to need to see a stat block on C-M D God if this is to continue.

I mean, how can we really know his true power until we see a build?


Can we knock off all this nonsense and actually post some builds? So what if it isn't "Perfect" yet. JUST START PUTTING IT TOGETHER.

Won't figure out anything by theory-crafting.

I'm callin. Show yer hands boyos.


I think there was a FAQ entry for the Tetori bonus feats.

Ah: yep.


LazarX wrote:

Maybe there are some who like their game overcomplicated.

For me it's simple... if you use Two Weapons one in each hand, you're now in the Two Weapon Fighting rules area. Plain and simple.

Someone has brought this up before, but it bears repeating.

Everyone is proficient in Unarmed Strike. They MAY choose to attack with the second WEAPON.

Does that mean everyone suffers TWF penalties, every time they attack?


sgtrocknroll wrote:
DeusNocturne wrote:

also after looking at it I can manage to alter my stat array as many people suggested to look something more like this:

Str 14
Dex 16
Con 12
Int 13
Wis 16
Cha 10

If you're doing it this way, either find a way to raise your INT to 14 or lower it to 12, 13 does nothing for you and if you raise it later you don't get additional skill points retroactively.

I suggest lower to 12 and raise your Dex one, that way at level 4 you can raise it again and get +1 dex mod.

That point of int at 13 doesn't translate to 1 point at 17.

Put it in CON though. Raising that later WILL raise your HP retroactively.


Check out the Scabbard of Vigor.

If that increases with level... how crazy might it be?


zagnabbit wrote:
Nickademus42 wrote:
Master_Crafter wrote:
IMO, you're better off using a monk with flurry of blows.
Flurry is good for getting some (pseudo) off-hand attacks earlier than the feats, but monk doesn't achieve the highest attacks/round and there are restrictions to the flurry.

It's dumb and really cuts into attack bonus but, you CAN add the entire TWF tree to a monk using flurry. I've never actually seen anyone do it as it returns the monk to the 3.5 Flurry of Misses handicap. Flurry states the Monk attacks as if using TWF, it does not preclude stacking. There are far better ways for monks to spend their feats.

This is all hypothetical I could be killed by a FAQ I've never looked up.

Flurry is a full-round action, it's not performed "as part of" a full-round action.

Meaning you can't stack full-round actions together, just do one or the other.

1 to 50 of 580 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>