Hakken's page

Further question on this. two rogues are standing diagonal to each other and a creature moves 20 feet passing diagonally between them. at some point the creature is EXACTLY between them. but it doesn't fit the nice examples for flanking in the book. In my home game tonight, I ruled the two rogues waited for the player to pass diagonally between them and then both attacked getting sneak attack. Your guys take?

echo his question. I also just reached 10 played and waiting for the update. also where are the nova chronicle sheets mentioned in the play guide?

Where can we find the Nova chronicle boons?

most of the mods are silly for the drone. a cargo pod. a saddle? yet the book says I can make it into whatever form I want. So I could have already made it with those two mods. hard to figure out what to let players "HAVE" for free without using mods and when to say "no-if you want that you have to take the mod"

So I agree that by rules a mechanic can use master control to control a drone that is out of his sight and hearing up to 2500 feet away. However if said mechanic does not have the camera mod, how much control can he exercise. 3 doors open up in front of the drone--how does the mechanic know that? Does he get the benefit of a camera even if he did not get that mod? Does he get to see the whole board the drone sees--even if he is not there? Could he direct a melee armed combat drone to go stand between the enemy and an open door (to block its retreat) and than attack? How would he have known it to go stand in front of a door that he could not see without a camera?

If a wizard starts summoning on initiative 10(full round action) and I double move up to him around a corner initiative 9, so could not charge; Do I get an attack of opportunity as he finishes casting the next round? Or did I have to be next to him when he started casting?

can't download either. scheduled to run a bonekeep 2 game today---guess that table is cancelled

Thank you

So if you take the summoner as a secondary class with the new unchained book, it tells you you lose half of your evolutions. Is that half of the free evolutions? half of all evolutions-to include your automatically assigned ones? If it is half of your automatic ones--how do you determine which ones?

""""Well, that assumes the summoner isn't boosting it's survival with his life link. And if he is, and there is a channel cleric in the party, the eidolon is getting healed double on each channel effectively.

And at 6th level, it is getting +4 to will from devotion against enchantments.

Also, it can be mage armored I believe.""

GMs need to reread this ability

Life Link (Su): Starting at 1st level, a summoner forms a close bond with his eidolon. Whenever the eidolon takes enough damage to send it back to its home plane, the summoner can, as a free action, sacrifice any number of hit points. Each hit point sacrificed in this way prevents 1 point of damage done to the eidolon. This can prevent the eidolon from being sent back to its home plane.

In addition, the eidolon and the summoner must remain within 100 feet of one another for the eidolon to remain at full strength. If the eidolon is beyond 100 feet but closer than 1,000 feet, its current and maximum hit point totals are reduced by 50%. If the eidolon is more than 1,000 feet away but closer than 10,000 feet, its current and maximum hit point totals are reduced by 75%. If the eidolon is more than 10,000 feet away, it is immediately returned to its home plane. Current hit points lost in this way are not restored when the eidolon gets closer to its summoner, but its maximum hit point total does return to normal

coupled with

Eidolon: A summoner begins play with the ability to summon to his side a powerful outsider called an eidolon. The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who, forever after, summons an aspect of the same creature. An eidolon has the same alignment as the summoner that calls it and can speak all of his languages. Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures, except that they are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution score. In addition, due to its tie to its summoner, an eidolon can touch and attack creatures warded by protection from evil and similar effects that prevent contact with summoned creatures.

means that an eidelon with 30 hps and a 13 con--that is hit for 40 points of damage can not use lifelink. The eidelon is at negative 10 hps and unconscious. There is NOTHING the summoner can do to stop it from going unconscious. He can only start sacrificing his hps when it would drop his eidelon to negative con and send it home.

Dasrak wrote:

I get that the Summoner is a complicated class and people are more likely to look for help with figuring it out, but in a home game you've got time to work that out between sessions. Post a forum thread, ask a friend, sleep on it, agree to play it for a session and revisit it later. Is this class really so complex that people can't cope?

It's a class that's a veritable minefield, when you have a lot of players who are running Summoners as their first characters ever especially if the GM running them is also new to the class.

It IS a complex class, perhaps the most complex class in the game.

not even close. Not with the introduction of all the new occult classes. the phantom--which can be incorporal or plasma. GMing tonight with somone playing a water kineticist or some class where he could control water. He tried to tell me he could control the water and have the characters swim in the bubbles as he had the water float down a 10 by 10 chute 30 feet down.

When I explained that "control water" the spell it uses to describe that--doesnt work that way--he than said he used the decanter of water to fill the tunnel leading down--I explained that the water just kept pouring down the tunnel. he told me he could control the water and make it do whatever he wanted--to include any form--even making dragons.

the occult classes are BY FAR the worst classes for confusion.

StabbittyDoom wrote:

Okay, seriously, immunity to X is immunity unless something calls out specifically that they bypass immunity*. It's obvious that the intent is that even if you have Tireless Rage you're still fatigued. (Word count and the desire to avoid loopholes for tireless-rage-like abilities probably got in the way of being more clear).

Immunity is meant to be very very powerful. If it is meant to be overridden, it will be explicitly stated as such. In the context of the ability, the phrase "even if they would not normally be" is an obvious reference to tireless rage, not a reference to immunity.

This.

I also concur. Specific has always overruled general. Did a PFS scenario the other day which had a disease in it which "specifically" stated that Paladins were susceptible--regardless of their general immunity to disease.

Does Death's kiss affect a construct? The death ability it replaces requires the creature to be living. But Death's kiss just says "creature" so can it affect a construct?

So Jaunt boots are made with jesters Jaunt--which is a teleport spell. They allow you to move 15 feet when taking a five foot step. Do you move using teleport? or fast? or just using stretched legs?

Ie if there is a table or barred gate in the way--can you 15 foot step to the other side? How about 15 foot stepping THROUGH an enemy to get flank? If you can't go through a gate--I would say not an enemy either--both are solid. But if you teleport--you would. and the boots are made with a teleport spell--not a springing and striding spell.

Under the description of named bullet it lists (will save negates, harmless object) and spell resistance yes (harmless object)

I read this to be like the spell magic weapon--ie that those are applied when you are casting on the weapon or piece of ammunition--NOT that the target gets a will save. I know the specific description later states that you must overcome the targets SR when you hit, but it does not get a will save does it?

Otherwise everytime you hit something with a weapon with magic weapon on it (such as a constructed magic weapon) the target would get a will save to not have your weapon be magic.

the problem isn't his aC----it is him giving the AC boost to the entire rest of the party. THe party always moves as one big turtle. In regular pathfinder, I could throw mobs with my own abilities and spells and make them pay for bunching up. In PFS, I am stuck with what the scenario gives me.

I GM a home game also that has a AC tank----but he has learned that mobs quickly ignore him and I can add mobs that damage a party if they bunch up or target will saves or cast acid pit or hungry pit under a group of characters. I don't get to change what PFS scenarios give me.

Anyone who has GMed PFS scenarios knows what I am talking about----BBEG sorcerer or wizard in 20 by 10 room that the barbarians and monks charge, grapple and kill in the first round.

Because it is a PFS character---guess he only has +2 armor--but still hellacious ac

I have to GM for him and it makes it rediculous. THey did King of Storvall Stairs and he stood in middle with his +3 tower shield with arrow attraction on it--and their ranged butchered the mobs.

As a GM, the friggin AC power creep has gotten rediculous. I am at 95+ games GMed and ready to quit because everytime I GM anymore I need 20s to hit half the party.

SO do I always focus on the other half?--unfair to them because they didn't powerbuild AC? Or just disgustedly basically call every fight? GMed level 5-9 scenario a week ago at levels 5-6. With 5 players at the board in three of the four encounters the lowest number I could roll and still hit any one of the 5 was a 19. The most damage done to the players in the scenario was when the paladin fell off the wall and took 9 points of falling damage.

AC and power creep killed D& D and it is killing Pathfinder. When your GM can never even hit you--the GM feels it is pointless even rolling. Better to have a high dps group with a fight that only lasts 2 rounds and the GM does 2 rounds of damage than a high AC group that lasts 6 rounds and the GM never hits.

why nerf it ?

throw area effect spells, compulsions at him instead....

if a creature attacks him a few times and doesnt hit ( or cant)
its gonna move on to next person.

dont let one cheesy build throw you off.

dont forget the character will still loose dex if suprised...

maybe BBEG will sunder his fancy armor/shield...

there are spells to make charatcer loose the shield also

grease/monkey swarm ect....

and lets not forget the horrible will saves of fighters...

clear spindle ioun stone in wayfinder in PFS and mind buffering armor outside of pfs--almost totally negate the will saves

sundering a +4 tower shield takes a LOT of doing--if you can hit--he gets his dex on cmd twice as well as his shield specialization bonus--huge CMD also.

he gets bonus to aoes that allow reflex saves thanks to shield

moving on would be great--but he gives excellent ac to all around him also. at least the sacred shield paladin is limited in how often he can protect those around him

Tower shield specialist easily get 40 ac and have a 28+ touch ac to boot. then add on the ability of feats to add ac to party members and it makes parties impossible to even damage in scenarios.

take a tower shield specialist level 8 (human)

12 str
24 dex (10 pt build=16 +2 human, +2 4th and 8th levels)+4 from belt
14 con
10 int
14 wis
8 cha exact spending not important--but 24 dex easily achievable

+4 mithril plate armor
+4 tower shield
+2 ring of protection
wayfinder with clear spindle ioun stone---or use mind buffering armor

feats

shield focus
shield proficiency
greater shield focus
shield specialization
combat reflexes
weapon finesse
agile maneuvers

he gets to take -3 ac penalty and +2 dex from mithril. and -4 to ac penalty and +3 dex from armor training. so overall he can have take 7 off the ac penalty

so he can benefit from +6 dex even with full plate and tower shield.

+13 armor
+10 shield (+4+4+1+1)
+6 dex
+2 ring
10

gives him a 41 ac at 8th level. and 28 for touch ac. They are untouchable. then with the shawl they can give a party member the + 10 ac for 9 minutes and give ac bonuses to everyone around them.

Not sure exactly what feat the one person was using but could actually give +10 ac to someone adjacent

sorry at level 8--41 ac with 28 touch ac--is just broken. What tiny fraction of a percent of monsters at those levels of scenarios can hit that?

a tower shield specialist should never get to apply shield to touch. heck trying to hit a tower shield specialist with shocking grasp should be EASIER. the + 3 is way offset by the + 10 from shield and getting to add full dex.

all they should get is the minus to ac penalty and cover from burst on relex checks

all that metal should make them almost a +10 to hit with shocking grasp

My problem as a GM has never been the dps of characters. It has always been the tower shield fighters with 40+ AC who can give a lot of that ac bonus to their allies and who also get to apply that full shield bonus (can get above 10) to their touch ac also

too many people are making tanks that can't even be hit by the monsters in a scenario (not even the touch ac) you would need 24's or better on a dice to hit them and need 18 or 19s to hit anyone within 10 feet of them

How does the cleric spell nap stack work with divine spells? In the description it says you get back spells as if you had slept for eight hours. But if a cleric needs to pray the same time every day, do they get the spells if they cast nap stack 8 hours after that time?

if your whole argument is the weapon cord cant prevent the dropped wand or weapon from flying 10 feet because that too easily circumvents the curse------the same could be said for disarming.

if someone spends a whole action disarming you--it is too easy for a weapon cord to trivialize this. Instead of a standard action and AOO to pick up your weapon--just a move action to retrieve.

That is just as much of a bogus get around.

the weapon cord is only allowing one item to be corded---the curse would still apply to every other item. As well as the haunting sounds making it impossible to sneak. so no the weapon cord does NOT negate the whole curse any more than it negates disarm.

You don't need true resurrection. Even regular resurrection will work.

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be resurrected

but no--raise dead will not work.

caveat--you would need true resurrection for an aasimar or a tiefling or any other outsider.

Hakken wrote:

so I think you said you prefer the term queer Kitty? Cause the friends I have which are gay, hate that term. That is kind of what I mean. It is hard to know what term to use or what to say. That is why I don't know if this is all off topic. When talking about homosexuals in Golarion (which I do not have a problem with btw) we have to talk about what to call them. I think we all know that calling black or African-americans the N word would never be acceptable. I guess I always thought the word queer was always unacceptable also. It goes back to what SissyL said--only the offended person will ever know what will offend them. Some white males wont be offended by white jokes, some will. Same with any other group. How do we handle that situation?

When Paizo does include homosexual people and makes them like Miss Feathers it may offend some homosexual people. Others may like her. I don't know if there is any way for everyone to be happy. Best recourse is to give people the benefit of the doubt until you know for sure they meant to insult.

Speaking of Miss Feathers, for those of you who know Miss Feathers--him or her? I guess if you look above, I automatically went with her--that may offend some, but it would not have been intended.

If you are asking what in-world words we would use in our games, I think the term "queer" would probably be the less offensive terms that people on Golarion would use for describing LGBT people. There are the more archaic forms, such as calling a gay man a "Molly" and a lesbian woman a "Tommy." But I don't think I would break out the more offensive terminology unless it is being uttered by a particularly crass villain.

see that is good to know. I have always thought that homosexual was the term that was preferred. Whichever term you hear me use--know it will not be meant to offend---I just don't always know which one is preferred.

I got roped into Gming a game last minute and one of the players at my table was a male playing a female character. As it was last minute, I was having to basically read and GM the scenario as I went along and I a couple of times referred to the character as a him (since a male player was playing the character--ie comments such as "you notice him staring vacantly at the corner--character was confused)

The player got very upset at me because I was getting his characters gender wrong---even though it wasn't on purpose. I did not even ever get caught up enough to learn what classes each person was really playing--so just defaulted to looking at the players when calling out initiatives--thus the gender mistake on character. I found out 10 minutes ahead of time I would be GMing a scenario instead of playing it.

LazarX wrote:

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Hakken wrote:

KSF wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Plus Potions are typically much less expensive than wearables. Potion of Bull's Strength: 300 GP- Belt of Giant Strength +4: 16000 GP

It's not the same multiplier, but it's close (53x for your example, 44x for Wes' items). So that seems pretty standard.

I would question the permancy effect also. there is a 53X difference in that example but the potion of bull strength is not permanent--makes sense for it to be less.

The elixir of sex change is actually more permanent than the belt. Maybe 60K or so for belt?

You can't factor the belt into the equation as it's not an item that's intentionally made, but a cursed item that identifies as something else until you put it on. You can commission someone to make the elixir, but not the belt.

They aren't talking about the girdle of opposite gender, they are talking about a cord of opposite gender that Wes Schneider created in his thread.

Actually, shouldn't they be "of opposite sex"?

For me, from now on it's the Girle of Opposite Aleness.

*SNRRRK*

I think queer people in general are more likely than others to be adventurers. What's the quickest way to social acceptability? A big pile of cash. And adventuring is a way - granted, a high-risk way - to quickly build a big pile of cash.

so I think you said you prefer the term queer Kitty? Cause the friends I have which are gay, hate that term. That is kind of what I mean. It is hard to know what term to use or what to say. That is why I don't know if this is all off topic. When talking about homosexuals in Golarion (which I do not have a problem with btw) we have to talk about what to call them. I think we all know that calling black or African-americans the N word would never be acceptable. I guess I always thought the word queer was always unacceptable also. It goes back to what SissyL said--only the offended person will ever know what will offend them. Some white males wont be offended by white jokes, some will. Same with any other group. How do we handle that situation?

When Paizo does include homosexual people and makes them like Miss Feathers it may offend some homosexual people. Others may like her. I don't know if there is any way for everyone to be happy. Best recourse is to give people the benefit of the doubt until you know for sure they meant to insult.

Speaking of Miss Feathers, for those of you who know Miss Feathers--him or her? I guess if you look above, I automatically went with her--that may offend some, but it would not have been intended.

did it say which item that one woman got for her spouse? cause she traded an expensive sword in or something right?

Cori Marie wrote:

Plus Potions are typically much less expensive than wearables. Potion of Bull's Strength: 300 GP- Belt of Giant Strength +4: 16000 GP

It's not the same multiplier, but it's close (53x for your example, 44x for Wes' items). So that seems pretty standard.

I would question the permancy effect also. there is a 53X difference in that example but the potion of bull strength is not permanent--makes sense for it to be less.

The elixir of sex change is actually more permanent than the belt. Maybe 60K or so for belt?

KSF

Why the huge difference in the price of the two items? You could buy almost 50 of the elixirs for the belt. The belt seems pretty expensive.

I've been gaming DnD since chainmail and am saddened to see Paizo feel the need to inject real life issues into their products. DnD was a fantasy game of Dragons and Wizards that offered an escape from the real world. Adding LGBT issues has done nothing but remove the fantasy element and create the same 'real life' conflicts we see in the world today. Why did Paizo do this? Milton Bradley didn't run out and change Candyland or Battleship to offer face time to these issues. The reason is because Paizo decided to push their personal feelings, beliefs and agenda on the subject. Unfortunately it does nothing to enhance the game because the game was never about real life issues. I've never posted before and doubt I will again but with Paizo pushing a particular social agenda I feel its time to cut ties with their products. DnD wasn't designed as a social tool, it was designed to be a game, to bad Paizo turned theirs into one.

In all fairness, I remember playing advanced D&D back in the early 80s and having a belt of a sex change, change someones sex and them having to deal with what could have been described as a transgender change.

They also have harems and such in D & D which brings up polygamy. I don't know if Paizo has done Polygamy yet, but with all the cultures represented, I would imagine that it should be being practiced somewhere.

well if rake is the extra attack you are thinking of taking in place of the energy damage than remember that although it only counts as one attack, it does the damage of two claw attacks---effectively getting you five attacks worth of damage.

The iconic cleric is gay? I was thinking it was going to be the wizard or possibly the rogue being bisexual. The comics seemed to have the rogue flirting with everyone.

Hakken wrote:

The point is---as a GM--I will react to my party.

IF your character is gay, I would like to know. I would change the interactions based upon that with the more pertinent NPCs. If I notice some of my players getting uncomfortable with too much sex talk (gay or straight), I will steer the interaction away from that. Same way as if the descripton of gore in combat gets too grizzly. We had a vegetarian in a recent group who was grossed out when a fellow party member started to eat a kobold they had killed---so I steered it away. If my party is enjoying an encounter "like ms feathers" than we will roleplay that up.

If an NPC has a reason for being mentioned being gay--then by all means put that in their description.

BUT don't list out every NPC on whether they are gay or straight if it does not come into the storyplay. That is pure ridiculous. As a gm if I choose to make them one way or another to fit my party fine. But to insist that they have to list every possible gay person in the town would be dumb. That would be like listing exactly which of the 6 gods every person in the sandpoint cathedral worships. Or what age, nationality of origin etc the merchant I just bought stuff from happened to be. I don't care---it would not change my interaction with that insignificant of an NPC.

To be fair I don't think anybody is saying everyone who x sexual oriention has to be listed as that way. The arguement is more stemming from people who hate that fact any character (like the Paladin from Sandpoint...or the two NPCs from Wrath of the Righteous) are gay at all.

Both character in my opinion are well developed characters who happen to homosexual.

Also...question. Why does getting hired by a straight couple to rescue their adoptive child does not include sex overtones for your group...but a homosexual couple who hire the group to rescue their adoptive child suddenly go of into X rated territory?

You seem to imply that in your first paragraph.

hmmm went back and reread the paragraph and didn't see that. Sorry if it implied that. for me if a module said a homosexual couple hired someone to rescue a child that is what happened. Those are RELEVANT characters and fleshing them out is fine. If the neighbors on their street had nothing to do with the kidnapping than, saying 'the jones's are also gay as are the smiths, while the browns, hennisons and chaddwells are straight" makes no contribution.

I would not bat an eye at the couple being homosexual and would just keep gming the story.

The point is---as a GM--I will react to my party.

IF your character is gay, I would like to know. I would change the interactions based upon that with the more pertinent NPCs. If I notice some of my players getting uncomfortable with too much sex talk (gay or straight), I will steer the interaction away from that. Same way as if the descripton of gore in combat gets too grizzly. We had a vegetarian in a recent group who was grossed out when a fellow party member started to eat a kobold they had killed---so I steered it away. If my party is enjoying an encounter "like ms feathers" than we will roleplay that up.

If an NPC has a reason for being mentioned being gay--then by all means put that in their description.

BUT don't list out every NPC on whether they are gay or straight if it does not come into the storyplay. That is pure ridiculous. As a gm if I choose to make them one way or another to fit my party fine. But to insist that they have to list every possible gay person in the town would be dumb. That would be like listing exactly which of the 6 gods every person in the sandpoint cathedral worships. Or what age, nationality of origin etc the merchant I just bought stuff from happened to be. I don't care---it would not change my interaction with that insignificant of an NPC.

If we use that reasoning--we have to list which god every single person worships--cause what happens when you interact with someone and are a cleric---you would have more influence over someone of your own faith.

You should list how tall each person is. You should list how old every person is. You should list what nationality every person is(yes you are all in sandpoint--but as we know from real life--maybe there are ANdoran-varisians or Taldan-varisians or mwangi-varisians. Instead the nationality is only mentioned on the people where it makes a difference story wise in interacting with them. You don't find out exactly where the merchant from whom you bought your alchemist fire originally hailed.

. any one of those things can come into play. So in a "summary" of an NPC character you now have 30 things to list and it becomes a 1 page summary of every character. It is easier to leave it vague and if a GM chooses to change something they can.

In RotRL, they have a gay paladin and his mate. Those are the ones they SAY are gay. But if a GM wants they could make more gay. Once they start listing--those would be the only two gay cause the rest "may" be listed as being straight. It would more limit the GM from changing things to fit his group.

I would rather just leave NPC (who don't have a specific function) vague and let the GM for the group react to their group and fill in the specific details.

TanithT wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

I, personally, would find it gratifying to see a LG paladin, straight as an arrow type, unambiguously identified as bisexual in Golarion. It would make me smile. I would enjoy it. Some people like humongous swords or sorceresses who glue on their clothes or magical lighting trains. Me? I want to see a BISEXUAL PALADIN who, in my mind, could be played by Ben Afleck without stretching himself too much. That would be awesome and great.

F***k yah. This would be made of win and awesome. Assuming that showing his bisexuality ACTUALLY MADE SENSE in your plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons, and the character was an engaging and complex one who was significantly more than a walking stereotype or political billboard.

On the Ben Afleck part though, not so sure if want. :/

Do straight characters need to actually make in a plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons? I'm asking because, most of the time, people are going to assume, unless told otherwise, that most characters are straight. If you have to justify a character being bisexual, that seems to me like you're placing a burden on bisexuality. Like, it's not good enough to simply exist. You can have coffee in Golarion, but if you want bisexuality, it has to be justified.

I will actually say in response to that it doesn't say for example in rise of the runelords when talking about the sherrif

The sheriff who is heterosexual and has a relationship with his wife, comes up to the players and asks yadda yadda yadda

when a bartender serves a drink, or store owners sells an item or a bunch of thugs attack the party, I don't say "the person you are interacting with is straight btw"

Most characters you would not be able to tell from their description if they are gay or straight---sex doesn't come up for most NPCs in their interaction with the characters.

Your faction leader gives you a mission---not your faction leader gives you a mission while he kisses his wife in their heterosexual relationship. So you could already switch most characters around to whatever sexual orientation you wanted.

It no more spells out a NPC is hetero than it does homo

to specifically call out an NPC as gay or straight should have some reason in the plot---ie their loved one is kidnapped.

. With the inclusiveness commandment of August, there will be no anti-homosexuality groups/factions or independents, or burnings of LGBT, because that could offend someone, even if it creates suitable villains for the pcs to fight against. PC is here to stay in that regard.

Think how they think, grasp their politics and you can get a good idea as to what will not be coming. Some things they won't touch with a ten foot pole.

I would be horribly disappointed if the best enemy trait they can throw against me is LGBT. If I am going to fight someone they better be a criminal doing horrible acts. I have zero interest in seeing a villain who is defined by being LGBT as their main trait.

I fear just the opposite. IE that they WILL portray religion as being a witch burning, inquisition type thing full of corruption.

They are more likely to portray religion as a corrupt villain than anything. It will be a corrupt religious leader we wind up fighting and I will have to deal with a bunch of anti-religious comments.

Hopefully they don't give ANY side ammunition to use in their ANTI campaign.

Hakken wrote:

I will say the one rule which should not be crossed for people playing homosexual characters is the same one that exists for people playing heterosexual ones.

If your hitting on another character and they ask you to stop--you stop. If a female is playing a female character at a table and a male playing a male character keeps hitting on her--it can make her uncomfortable.

The same would go if a male playing a male character was hitting on another male playing a male character. If it bothers them--stop.

You don't have a right to roleplay your character (taking actions to include another character) that crosses over onto rude. A male character who was bothered by your male character hitting on him is no more homophobic than a female character who was bothered by the male character would be heterophobic. It is basic courtesy in both cases.

The person making the unwanted advances is the one being rude and intolerant.

so long as you don't cross that line (either homosexually or heterosexually), then have fun and play your character.

Yeah for sure. Taking a game that is meant to be about adventure, and then playing a character that bothers others with attempted seduction, trying to "convert" them to a different sexuality is a specific type of annoyance and disruption of play.

I was chatting to another dm yesterday, and he was saying that the only time he has seen someone play a trans character, they were being a disruptive nuisance. Yes, yes, your flipping gender and orientation are very interesting, now can we get back to the game--was how it went, unfortunately.

Turning the game into a showcase for identities that didn't help the game in the slightest. Urgh.

it isn't just about homosexuals and converting. I have seen male characters of male players hit on female characters of female players even when it was obvious the female did not want that kind of attention for her character. It is about respect in general.

I will say the one rule which should not be crossed for people playing homosexual characters is the same one that exists for people playing heterosexual ones.

If your hitting on another character and they ask you to stop--you stop. If a female is playing a female character at a table and a male playing a male character keeps hitting on her--it can make her uncomfortable.

The same would go if a male playing a male character was hitting on another male playing a male character. If it bothers them--stop.

You don't have a right to roleplay your character (taking actions to include another character) that crosses over onto rude. A male character who was bothered by your male character hitting on him is no more homophobic than a female character who was bothered by the male character would be heterophobic. It is basic courtesy in both cases.

The person making the unwanted advances is the one being rude and intolerant.

so long as you don't cross that line (either homosexually or heterosexually), then have fun and play your character.

ahhh on that issue I have no care. Let people do what they want.

Mine was in a response to Slaad--who first derailed it complaining about how women were untreated fairly in the beginning. I pointed out that now it is male characters getting treated unfairly. I want to make a cavalier--but almost feel like I have to make a female one just to save those 35 or so lbs since they do make a difference.

as I said in my thread right before yours---so long as there is no stat advantage, I could care less how a person sees their character, gay, purple, 7 feet tall, elephant ears, hillbilly whatever. Want to model your character on pee wee herman, willie nelson or anyone else go ahead. Want to play a character convinced that armadillos talk to youi--go ahead.

It should only matter if it makes an impact on gameplay.

Hakken wrote:

I agree. Hate having to random roll when i have a concept in mind. I have actually had a gm make you roll the stats in order----got rolls totally unplayable for the character I had in mind.

I would rather they do something like other games. Gender neutral.

humans weight would equal (strength + constitution)X6

so 10 str and 10 con would be 120 lbs
20 str and 20 con would be 240

your low str/low con wizards would weight less and your high str/high con fighters/barbarians would weigh more.

as for the encumbrance----almost every gm I play with uses that.

how many of you on the rope---how much do you weight--I need to check to see if it breaks

how much gear do you have? is your horse encumbered enough to slow it in the charge

ok-they are trying to haul you up on the rope-how much do you weigh...

This is like the most irrelevant point ever mind you and has approx. 0 to do with homosexuality in Golarion, so... spoilered.

** spoiler omitted **

umm my post was 100% relevant in response to Slaads post about where women used to have a lower strength. Now women have an equal strength but lower weight meaning lesser encumbrance for mounts they are on or for things supporting their weight. THEREFORE women characters actually have an ADVANTAGE. If they want to equalize things then they need to equalize them--ie same strength means same weight.

Just because your GMs to include your PFS GMs don't follow the rules and use RAW, most of ours do. We have had monks not be able to pick up healing potions because it takes them over the limit--they have others carry them for them.

as for the homosexuality part of it? I could care less if someone plays their characters as homosexual than I do if they describe their hair as purple. As long as there are no stat bonuss for it.

Hakken wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Hakken wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,

yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.

Come again?

a horse has a strength of 16. as a large quadruped it can carry 228 lbs before hitting a medium load.

average male human 120 + 2d10X5 average of 5.5 on roll is 11--so 175 lbs
average female human 85 + 2d10X5 average of 5.6 on roll is 11 so 140 lbs

unfortunately if you have a gm who has you roll--there is a difference of the man only carrying 53 lbs before his horse slows down vs 88 for the female. that is a lot more gear--or armor.

encumbrance rules favor a female

... This is quite possibly the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen and I have no idea how to respond to it.

There are GMs out there that make you roll for height and weight? That is awful.

I agree. Hate having to random roll when i have a concept in mind. I have actually had a gm make you roll the stats in order----got rolls totally unplayable for the character I had in mind.

I would rather they do something like other games. Gender neutral.

humans weight would equal (strength + constitution)X6

so 10 str and 10 con would be 120 lbs
20 str and 20 con would be 240

your low str/low con wizards would weight less and your high str/high con fighters/barbarians would weigh more.

as for the encumbrance----almost every gm I play with uses that.

how many of you on the rope---how much do you weight--I need to check to see if it breaks

how much gear do you have? is your horse encumbered enough to slow it in the charge

ok-they are trying to haul you up on the rope-how much do you weigh for strength checks (instead of just letting characters automatically lift their max)

how much can the flying creature carry and stay aloft---how much do you weigh with all your gear. The same with featherfall if you try to grab someone falling. We JUST had this happen about 3 days ago. the 13 strength magus could not support the barbarians weight to featherfall them both.

weight and encumbrance come up with most gms. That is why most people take lightweight gnomes and halflings for charging on dogs. It is a delicate balance to not encumber the mount. I have seen characters have to take an action to take their backpack off once combat starts because its weight takes them up to the medium encumbrance. I have also seen them throw it off because its weight tipped the mount they were on to medium encumbrance.

Hakken wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,

yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.

Come again?

a horse has a strength of 16. as a large quadruped it can carry 228 lbs before hitting a medium load.

average male human 120 + 2d10X5 average of 5.5 on roll is 11--so 175 lbs
average female human 85 + 2d10X5 average of 5.6 on roll is 11 so 140 lbs

unfortunately if you have a gm who has you roll--there is a difference of the man only carrying 53 lbs before his horse slows down vs 88 for the female. that is a lot more gear--or armor.

encumbrance rules favor a female

2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,

yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.

I actually did see the benefit of having different strengths for different genders---what they should have added was an ability for a woman to increase her weight to the equal of a mans to get equal strength IE become a body builder.

otherwise the woman has a clear advantage as she has less weight to lift herself up or for her mount to have to carry--all for the same strength.

Hakken wrote:

so do druids get mage armor, shield, mirror image, blink, blur and false life in return?

sorcs and wizards already have tons of armor adds or get out of free spells. This is just an attempt to free up a neck slot for some other item.

a wizard could have mage armor, shield, and this spell for a +10 to their armor with no armor on---save everything up for ring of protection.

then have false life, mirror image, blur and blink on top of it. Maybe if this spell prevented false life and mirror image from being on at the same time? because a druid does not have the mirror image and false life option.

So a cleric/druid/ranger/paladin with a high Use Magic Device hasn't occurred to you.

yep---but it means you have to raise your UMD. Otherwise why not give every caster every spell? There is an amulet of natural armor for a reason. simple enough to buy. The only reason for the spell would be to free up the neck slot. If that is ok, as a cleric I want a charisma boosting spell that lasts for hours per level so I can free up my headband slot.

My magus wants false life and mage armor added to its list.

my summoner wants fireball on his spell list

etc

I don't think you are going to find many who think wizards are short on power or spell choices. A wizards with false life, stone skin, cushioning bands, mirror image, blink, mage armor, shield etc on is already hard to touch.

so do druids get mage armor, shield, mirror image, blink, blur and false life in return?

sorcs and wizards already have tons of armor adds or get out of free spells. This is just an attempt to free up a neck slot for some other item.

a wizard could have mage armor, shield, and this spell for a +10 to their armor with no armor on---save everything up for ring of protection.

then have false life, mirror image, blur and blink on top of it. Maybe if this spell prevented false life and mirror image from being on at the same time? because a druid does not have the mirror image and false life option.

hmmm I am thinking the buttocks channeling one ala braveheart type thing.

Unfortunately, I think that the rake ability can not be used as written except if you are grappled by somebody else and choose to make a full attack on your turn rather than escape the grapple. The groups I've played with have always allowed two free "rake" attacks (basically 2 extra claw attacks) on a pounce. These extra attacks don't require establishing a grapple (though maybe they should...this is just how we've always played it). We've also played that you get two free rake attacks when you maintain a grapple.

The rakes on a pounce seem to contradict the rules since the Rake ability says you can only rake a grappled foe. The rakes in a grapple seem to contradict the rules since you usually have to make a full attack to get any extra attacks you're entitled to, but you can't make a full attack when you maintain a grapple. This makes my views on rake kind of tough to defend except with the reasoning that if you don't allow Rake to work in these situation it becomes an almost useless ability.

Since Rake grants free attacks I've always felt that they still require attack rolls. This certainly seems to be how the Rake evolution for a Summoner's eidolon works.

Rake (Ex): An eidolon grows dangerous claws on its feet, allowing it to make 2 rake attacks on foes it is grappling. These attacks are primary attacks. The eidolon receives these additional attacks each time it succeeds on a grapple check against the target.

Actually, that ability has some issues too. Does the eidolon really get two free attacks every time it succeeds on a grapple check? Does that include the first grapple check on a Grab to establish a grapple? Could an eidolon with Greater Grapple get 4 free attacks by grappling you twice? Could an eidolon with 4 claws and a bite use Grab to grapple you 5 times and get 10 free attacks by letting you go as a free action between each attack?

For what it's worth, the eidolon rules mention nothing about getting Rake on a Pounce, but since the Rake goes off automatically when it...

the save on the eidelon is it has a limited number of attacks it can make. levels 1-3=3, 4-8=4 9-13=5 14-18=6 and 19-20=7

each rake the eidelon gets requires it to roll to hit twice for the two attacks but only counts as one attack

so at 3rd level--an eidelon could not bite, claw, claw and rake--that would be four attacks

it could do that at 4-8th level

Artanthos wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

No it cannot. Why can't it? Because it doesn't say it can. The black blade isn't just an item, it is a class ability.

Path abilities can modify class abilities. Take, for example, any of the path abilities that modify animal companions, familiars and eidolons.

Indeed, but only when they say they do. Does this one?

It says you can modify a magic item.

A Black Blade is an item that is magical.

It places no other restrictions.

NORMAL magical item, that's what is says in the Mythic ability. Black Blades do not fit this description. In fact, they're just shy of being artifacts in their own right.

NORMAL could cause problems for other armor also. According to the core rules you can not upgrade elven chain mail or celestial shield or other things either (unless ultimate campaign will let you when they add it)

so any of the SPECIFIC armors or weapons would not be NORMAL either.

But those specific armors and weapons and black blades are the ones most likely to become talked about and legendary.

take one level of wizard for admixture wizard

So, the bodywrap of might strikes is pretty clearly a compromise between the poor monks out there who get the shaft because an amulet of mighty fists costs buckets of money and people who are worried about the power level of something that adds to every natural attack a creature has by making it applicable for each iterative attack you make. It still costs more than a weapon does, which I sort of protest given how the restrictions make it arguably less powerful than a magic weapon already, but it's more acceptably only 3000 x bonus^2 instead of 5000 x bonus^2. I'll take it what I can get.

My question is, how does this interact with an amulet of mighty fists? That might explain why this is still more expensive than a magic weapon. If one were to have an amulet of mighty fists with something like flaming or agile on it, something that didn't grant an enhancement bonus, would it still work if you applied the bonuses and abilities from a +1 bodywrap of mighty strikes?

From a cost standpoint, it makes sense that it would. A +1 flaming longsword would be 8000 gp; a flaming amulet of mighty fists and a +1 bodywrap of mighty strikes would cost 8000 gp, and the latter bonus would (for a character with a bab lower than 6) only apply to one attack, plus you'd be spreading the bonuses across two items which takes up a lot of your equipment economy.

Additionally, and I'm guessing I already know the answer to this because it would be just too easy to be true that an item that's good for monks be good for monks, since your BAB is your monk level when you flurry, would this allow you to treat your BAB as your monk level (while flurrying) when it comes to determining how many times you can apply the bonuses from the bodywrap of mighty strikes? I could see that going either way.

As an aside, if you are wondering what on EARTH I'm talking about, check out "Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes" in the body slot wondrous item section of Ultimate Equipment! Thanks for any light anyone can shed on this. :)

aomf does NOT really cost more than weapons. it is 4K, 16K, 36K, 64K and 100K. For a rogue or fighter using two weapon fighting--getting their two weapons to the same is 4k, 16K, 36K, 64K, and 100K