HaraldKlak's page

2,269 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

Seems to me like a commoner would never reach 20th level without having branched off into an adventurer class. How would a farmer get the xp needed to even reach 6th or 10th?

Perhaps he was cursed with a long life and lived 500 years. Even then...

But it's a fun topic.

Actually he is just the common sort of farmer, who have been plagued with rats on his farm. Not enough to call adventurers to clean up, and he doesn't have a cat. But there is always enough of them, for him to kill 5 rats in solo combat each day.

Having worked his farm for 20 years, with an average of 5 rats killed every day, he has gotten enough xp for him to reach lvl 20.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer the players to include a narrative description, as in the example. However my experience with PF is that it tend to end up in mechanics-speak.

Perhaps I am just bitter (or presently enamoured in other systems), but to me PF-combat is so mechanics heavy, that you - as a player - loose interest in contributing to the narration. Especially since your narrative creativity does not affect the mechanical system. At the end of the day the fighter in the example is not going to do anything else the shave off X hit points from the monster, no matter how cool the describtion.
So when you end up at combat that is taking one or several hours, and you are only going to use the couple of actions that are viable choices, just stating your actions mechanically is a lot faster and easier.

While other systems implement the narrative control into the mechanics (for both GM and players), or incorporate the narrative development in every aspect of the game, I've yet to see flavor trumph mechanics in a PF game.
This is not to rant against PF, or to suggest that flavor doesn't have its place in the game, but while the system has a lot of strengths, this, IMO, is not one of them.

Getting an extra attack is pretty good, and Uncontrolled rage isn't too much of an issue, if you only dip 2 levels, and since it is optional, you can simply choose not to at lower levels.

I am a bit concerned with the penalties however. Especially the -4 to AC (or -6 if you choose to rage).
For a fighter that doesn't have DR (and huge hp) to tank with, lowering your AC too much could be fatal in the long run.

For a non-fighter (especially cleric, druid or oracle) I am not sure the extra attack as a trade off for other class abilities is something I'd be willing to do.

Stephen Ede wrote:

A Giant Turtle is on the surface of the water and is Paralysed.

It has water breathing so it won't start to drown, but it presumably it will start to sink (I'm pretty sure Turtles don't have positive bouyancy).

How fast does it sink, and does it start to sink straight away or at the start of it's turn?


It stays in place.

Amongst other things, turtles control their bouyancy by the amount of air in their lungs. This gives them positive bouyancy above the depth they intend to stay on, which unless it has emptied it's lungs just before being paralyzed would include being at the surface.

Some turtles have been recorded to dive to 1000 metres, which would impossible for it to return from, if it had a negative bouyancy at the surface.

It think a vivisectionist would be a great idea. It could go a long way in explaining the harvest of organs he/she did. This could fit well with the theories that Jack had medical training, and one of the actual suspects.

Focusing on Jack the Ripper as the myth, a bard might just be fitting. There was a number of letters, acclaimed to be from Jack, some obvious fakes, the rest probably fakes. But in your case, the Ripper might just be driven by trying to instill fear in the generel population, and create a legend for himself.

As for race, I think it should depend on the version of the Ripper, you are going for. If it is the gentleman-killer a la From Hell, human (or whatever race is the majority) seems the most fitting in my opinion, as someone with a respected position in society.

For a wholly different take, you could do it as either a ghost, or cursed intelligent item (razor or scalpel), that posseses/convinces unwitting people to do the deeds. This in part could help explain the differences between the murders (some with precision, others very brutally). As far as an investigative adventure goes, it changes the primary objective from finding the villain and killing him, into finding out how to stop it from happening.

As far as the price goes, I remember a statement at one time, that the developers some times round the prices off a little. So while 8,310 is only a slight improvement on 8,315, I guess everything counts.

I actually think summon monster fits okay. Since the Bane property can be applied to every type/subtype, the summon spells underlines variety in creature options.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I think it stacks, by RAW.

Another more general question related to this is: Does Beastmorph affect a) the mutagen brewed, or b) the Alchemist's own physiology?

That is...
If a) is true, then he can hand one of his mutagens off to another alchemist or to his tumor familiar (or share it with the Improved Share Spells feat) and they will get the beastmorph benefits.
If b) is true, then ANY mutagen the beastmorph alchemist consumes should confer the benefits, such as the mutagens of other alchemists who are not beastmorphs.

It has to be one of those two. Which one it is...I have no idea.

Actually it doesn't have to be any of those two.

The ability writes: "At 3rd level, a beastmorph’s mutagen causes him to take on animalistic features"

The bolded part tells us it affect his own mutagen, and the italic part tells us affect him.

Personally, I would be happy to allow it to affect a Tumor Familiar as well.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

So, who out there knows natural weapons enough to help me out with this? Sell me on natural attacks RAW.

I am not sure, what you don't like about it:

Compare her to a paladin using a two-handed weapon.

Lvl 1-5:
3 attacks instead of 1.
Same attack bonus.
Lower damage on a single attack.

Lvl 6-10:
3 attacks instead of 2.
Better attack bonus (apart from first greatsword attack).
Lower damage on a single attack.

lvl 11-15:
Same amount of attacks.
Better attack bonus on secondary attack, a lot better on tertiary.
Lower damage per attack.

lvl 16-20:
3 attacks instead of 4.
Better attack bonus on secondary attack, a lot better on tertiary, the extra attack from the two-hander is very low.
Lower damage per attack.

I haven't done a DPR calculation, but as far as I can see, the two options outweigh each other pretty well. Even at the highest levels, the claws+bite have a significantly better to-hit bonus, that makes them a viable option.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

TL;DR I house rule that you may treat claws as light slashing weapons because why would anyone want two 1d4 claw attacks when they could get 5 1d4 dagger attacks?

Well it isn't entirely fair to compare a single racial feature (2 claws) with 20 class levels and several feats toward being good at something (fighter levels + TWF).

What those claws give you compared to TWF is:
Higher attack bonus, higher damage from Str and PA, no need for TWF feats, no need for the quickdraw feat, weapons that cannot be disarmed or sundered.

Natural attacks are front-loaded. At lvl 4 the druid or barbarian is amazing with 3 natural attacks, when the fighter get's a single one with his sword. IMO it is not unreasonable that the scales tip in the other direction later in the game.

You might see if you can get a custom version of Sheath of Bladestealth. Raw it only works with bladed weapons, but making a Mace variant shouldn't be unreasonable.
Basically it turns the weapon invisible when sheated.
Simply putting it into a Handy Haversack hides it better, but if you intend to use it once in a while, you'd probably want it on hand.

Nondetection would help protect you and it against detect spells.

Majuba wrote:
Like TCG said (except also shorter duration) - you have to handle an item to identify it, so working in a cone (for either spell) doesn't change anything. Takes 3 rounds to identify btw (so 1 item per caster level).

This is correct.

And to add the source of '3 rounds to determine magical properties', it is right out of the spellcraft skill.

LukeZ wrote:
I would also give -1 to Fly and -2 to Stealth (half the penalty for a Large creature).

That is just it, those who benefit from strength instead of dex, is not going to have any drawback from penalties to those skills.

BEGS wrote:
its true dragons do worship Kobolds

Sure do. Those dragons know what's good for them!

Probably less a fallacy and more of a paradox, but here is another suggestion.

The HaraldKlak-Ravingdork Fallacy wrote:
The Game Master can houserule Rule 0 out of the game


Rachel Carter wrote:

So he wants to be the god of those that have lost their way. My thoughts for him are that maybe his test does not get him to re-find his path, but realize that he has to make new one instead of wandering around as a hired gun. He lacks strong morals and ethics and instead does what he thinks needs to be done regardless of the consequences...I'll give him more thought unless anyone else has suggestions.


I was also thinking to test morals, ethics and character, maybe some tests are supposed to be failed, if failing the tests strengthens your ties to chosen domains or portfolios.

I've highlighted the point that I think is most important. The test should definately be about him.

As an act of defining his own way, preset encounter/dilemmas might help determine his type as well as get him a bit more fixed on his ethics and morals.
But as someone aspiring to godhood, I think it need to become more than simply choosing his own path. It need to be about him actually creating it.
So as far as a dungeon/maze goes for encounters, the actual solution shouldn't be found there. Instead he - character and player - need to create a solution that lies outside the paramatres of the apparent tests. This way he can create a path that is truly his own, and just might be worthy of ascending to a god.

IMO they are fine.

Getting it as a class skill is fine, since it let's you use it even though you play a class that ordinarily can't do it well.

I doesn't really compare to the skill feats, given you +6 or 2*+4 at level 10, which really boosts the skills you already are good at.

On top of this, traits are limited by their categories.

LukeZ wrote:

I was thinking to introduce a new trait called Hulking (for Orcs and Half-Orcs) that would give +2 to Strength and -2 to Dexterity.

Do you think it would be too unbalanced?

Yes, I think so.

It gives the option of taking something an extra boost to your primary stat for something of lesser value (given that you play a character non dependant on dex).

Why can't kobolds have nice things?! Keep quiet or the Dev nerf-bat hits the kobolds!

Do go claiming that the 'Kobold - Any other race'-discrepancy is a bad thing! This is how the game is supposed to be played.

Players are free to play other races, but those lower tier characters is just dragging us down.

ryric wrote:

So yeah, that's pretty weak.

Very well done. But we can tweak quite a bit.

Being the martial dude he is, with no knowledge of magic, he most certainly spend a whole lot of years attaining that tier of Archmage.

So that is definately venerable age on him, dropping all of the physical stats down to 1. Amongst all things it reduces his hp to a staggering 19.

And let us spend that gold a little better. As an Archmage he surely must have a Robe of the Archmagi, too bad this guy (being good) invested in the black version giving him 3 negative levels.
And an unarmed combatant extraordinaire such as him self, should have a AoMF (unholy) for an extra negative level.

These negative levels send him to an amazing total hit points of -1.

Sstrad wrote:

Sorry, but english is not my native language. What BS means ?

And well, thx for your help :)

Well, as an impolite expression, I am not sure I can write it here :)

But it is: B = male cow, and S = another word for excrement.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Nope.

Long answer: Not a chance.

As I read uncanny grapple, it is the latter option. You choose these instead of the maneuver. The wording isn't clear, but some of the maneuvers doesn't make sense in combination with others.

The great part of Uncanny Dodge, is that it is triggered on any grapple check, not just those to maintain the grapple.

First of all. The tumor familiar has the share spells quality for the alchemist extracts, so they can benefit from extracts without infusion.
However that doesn't change that extracts work like potions.

1. Yes, a Tumor familiar can deliever an infusion to anyone, BUT it takes a full-round action to administer a potion to a unconscious target (I would assume a recently dead is similar when it comes to Breath of Life). So you need to be within a 5-ft step of someone to be able to do it.

1b. Touch injection fixes the application time, so it gets a bit of mobility with this.

2. This is debateable. Touch Injection wouldn't end with the alchemist's death, but the infused extract might. They only remain active as long as the alchemist spend a daily extract slot for it, and you might argue that they can't do that while dead.
If it came up in a game, I'd probably allow anyways, as it requires a significant investment of ressources to prepare yourself for an uncommon situation.

My opinion: Sure, it should be possible. RAW is wonky on natural weapon proficiency, but RAI isn't.

The rules-lawyer bit: If we follow RAW, totemic transformation does not bestow proficiency. Neither does rage powers or sorcerer bloodlines. You are automically proficient with natural weapons gained from your race, but not with others. The druid gains proficiency through wild shape, but the rest never gets it...
Probably a can of worms that should have been left unopened.

Eptaceros wrote:

So basically, I'm playing a bladebound kensai wielding a scimitar, currently level 11 and just got 5 bonus AoOs. Just curious if there's any way I can increase my threat range or perhaps some other way I can get use of all the bonus AoOs?

I've seen combat patrol but doesn't seem very fitting, not to mention rather feat intensive

First of, a slight correction: 'Threat range' tend to refer to 'critical threat range'.

You are looking for reach, or increasing the 'threatened area'.

Some of the teamwork feats can help you get more AoOs, but they require you to have an ally with them as well.

Being enlarged will give you greater reach, so you might get AOOs against medium enemies as they move close.

Although it isn't exactly making AOOs, the Bodyguard feat allows you to spend them to Aid Another to boost the AC of your adjacent allies.

Arcanemuses wrote:
Imagine a low BAB arcane caster that gains spell-like abilities as they level instead of spells. Instead of slots you get times per day. Granted, spell-like abilies are pretty potent with their advantages. But I think it could be a simpler caster for some players to use.

This pretty much sound like a sorcerer to me. Knowing a limited selection of spells, but doesn't need to pick and prepare them each day.

Making it per day spell like abilities requires more paperwork (registring which SLAs has been used how many times, instead of a single pool of each level), and the scaling DC implications could be problematic.

Grizzly the Archer wrote:

Trick shot from Zen Archer:

At 11th level, a zen archer may hit targets that he might otherwise miss. By spending 1 point from his ki pool as a swift action, the zen archer can ignore concealment. By spending 2 points, he can ignore total concealment or cover. By spending 3 points, he can ignore total cover, even firing arrows around corners. The arrow must still be able to reach the target; a target inside a closed building with no open doors or windows cannot be attacked. These effects last for 1 round.

I see no reason why the zen archer couldn't shoot around the fickle winds or wind wall.

The 'wall' is invisible, and he has no way of knowing where to shoot around it...

For all he know, it is around the wizard, but it could be around himself.

On top of this (given it is ruled either way), it is easily fixed by the wizard with another wall spell, or simply being invisible, which the archer cannot do anything about.

Liam Warner wrote:

Of course they get to take racial feats and archetypes at least I assume so bear in mind that the existing spell has a permanent duration change already at 9+ I'm just adding an instantaneous i.e. true change that needs to be reversed rather than dispelled if you can get 11+ on the table.

Actually, they do not, as it is. PAO is an polymorph spell, and they specifically does not change your type or subtype.

None the less, I don't feel too strongly about allowing or disallowing your suggestion. To me, if I were the GM, it would be a consideration of intended use. Unless the was some crazy powerful use in it, I would be inclined to allow it.

I was about to say, that flavorwise I don't see a polymorph spell as instantaneous, but then I found Half-Blood Extraction, which specifically changes a race.

Remy Balster wrote:

The target is "You"... and 'you' receive the healing.

Safe Curing should work fine.

Edit: I'm not sure why this even matters though, on second glance fractions of Heal and Harm is a swift action, it doesn't provoke whether you have Safe Curing or not.

He is asking if he can cast Flame Strike without provoking through Safe Curing, since fraction of heal and harm would cause him to heal.

And as others stated the answer is no, since the flame strike spell (or a targeted damaging spell) does not cause the target to heal.

Part of me would say no simply to avoid a discussion, whether or not, they get to take racial feats and archetypes now...

Idleknight wrote:


I have run 3 adventures with the beginners box and my eldest daughter (7) is loving it, however my youngest is not as keen yet..

However I have been speaking to her,getting some feedback and as she is studying dinosaurs at school, she would like some dinosaurs included.

So I know there are 3 beastiary books for the full rules, which one has the most dinosaurs in?

I plan to get them on to full pathfinder eventually, but its a staged process of me getting new books and pawn's each month or so.

I think most of the 'standard' dinos are in Bestiary 1.

You can take a look at the different dinosaur at the list here.

kyrt-ryder wrote:


This runs so far contradictory to my own experiences I'm starting to wonder if we're playing the same game.

Optimization (at least in my experience) is done before the game, while interacting with the creative agenda and making those difficult choices in character is done during the game.

The efficiency of an optimized character doesn't mean jack. A character can be optimized- or not- but they still go through the same story.

Maybe we play different games, but I guess that reinforces my point ;)

That said, it doesn't seem that different. It is important to restate, that I do not claim optimization as anathema to roleplaying, or submerging one self in a character.
Of course optimized characters can face dilemmas, hard choices, or exist in a character driven story. But optimization in itself is not about this aspect of the game, it is about overcoming mechanical challenges.
Ordinarily this pushes for a GM to adjust encounters to challenge the players, just as a GM making a mechanically difficult create the need for players to optimize. This is at its core the gamist aspect of the game, where balancing characters to be efficient enought to overcome the challenges is important.

I disagree, that the characters go through the same story whether or not they are optimized. As far as the mechanical challenges go (which there is a fair share of in Pathfinder), an optimized party will blaze through a game that a non-optimized will struggle at or face a TPK. Thus it is two wholly different stories told, despite them going through the same.

My point is that you can succesfully combine different creative agendas (or elements thereof) in a single game, but if you have forces moving in different directions, you'll end up with friction.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Furthermore, in the campaigns I run, the story DOES happen at the table without being pre-planned or having a written plot of any kind.

If you can run a free-form Pathfinder game, without pre-planned encounters, statted out enemies, or a written plot, then I am impressed.

Pathfinder is too mechanics-heavy, especially at higher levels, for me to be able to make up somewhat balanced encounters on the spot.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Others have said it already, put my main problem with the Stormwind Fallacy, isn't that it is untrue, but basically that it is too simplistic to be of much use. As a generel statement "Role-playing and optimization isn't mutually exclusive" is correct, and furthermore "Role-playing and optimization is not different ends on the same scale" is important as well.

That said, it is commonly misused in defense of optimization as a statement of: "Optimization does not affect role-playing". This is less true, as our approach to the game, most certainly affects the type of game we are going to play.

The whole discussion becomes rather moot without having a consideration of "What is RP?", or more specifically what play style or creative agenda do we strive for. When we do delve into this, it becomes quite clear that mechanical optimization has an effect on the game we play.
Ron Edward's GNS Theory is a pretty great point of reference, despite disagreement on his Big Model as a basis for game design.

Mechanical optimization strongly promotes a Gamist creative agenda, as it focused on being efficient at overcoming challenges. On these boards we fairly often heard the comment "If the GM can't challenge optimized characters, he is doing something wrong". This statement pretty directly defines the game as Step On Up, where the primary task of the GM is to create a game that can challenge the mechanics of the character (often with combat encounters as a significant component).

On the other hand, optimization tend to clash with the other creative agendas, whether it is the game created by the GM, and/or wanted by the other players.
As the main focus in a Narrativist creative agenda, is the conflict itself and difficult choices made by the characters, rather than moving toward an end goal, the efficiency of the optimized character is counter-productive as it focus on an entirely different aspect of the game. Going further down this line to a Story Now game, where the story happens at the table without being pre-planned or even having a plot, optimization has no place (Although, this is not a kind of game that PFRPG is good at, or supposed to be).

With a simulationist creative agenda, there is a more aesthetic focus on the genre, character, and world we currently play. Players focus on making credible characters, and how these characters react to the world around them. Here optimization can be seen as problematic, because it might not 'theme' (as seen by one or more) or fit aesthetics of the game world. Playing an optimized character who covers all his weaknesses, might not work well in a game that is about "heroes struggling to survive". Sure, the GM can up the challenge to create a struggle, but then we moves the focus of the game to the gamist agenda.

And here we have arrived at the cause of friction, which underlines the whole "role-playing vs. roll-playing"-debacle. And now is a good time for disclaimer that the creative agendas can be used to different degrees, and combined to some point, but I'll deal with extremes as example.
The simulationist player and the gamist player focus on different aspects of the game in the creation of their characters, and in adressing the game. And both of them calls out to the other "You are going it wrong" (As we see so often on these boards).
Ultimately none of them are wrong, but they are trying to pull the game in different directions, that might not be able to co-exist.
As for myself, I can enjoy all the types of game (as well as board games or card games), but it starts to ruin the fun, when this conflict arises.
For example, in our current Call of Cthulhu game, I want to play "how does an FBI agent respond to seeing supernatural phenomena and getting psychic powers herself", while another player wants to play "How do I enhance my new-found magical abilities, so we more efficiently can deal with the unknown threats around us".

The Stormwind Fallacy falls short, because it fails to address that optimization supports one kind of roleplaying, conflicts with another, and is largely incompatible with a third. Even more so, as it simply become a defensive position for one side in (mostly) unnuanced discussion.

A bit more text here than intended, but I guess I couldn't keep it down to two cents.

elgabalawi wrote:

i think that last question from harald was directed at the op and not me.

so, back to the video diaries. do people each do their own and then share them via email in between sessions? are they in character descriptions of what went on or just the basic details of what happened? i'm not really worried about my group as a whole, they all seem pretty content, but i would like a way that might get me to remember more of the backstory stuff and therefore enjoy it more, although the process i use to remember it needs to be enjoyable as well (at least on some level).
i'm kind of liking the idea of an in character one that gets shared. finding the time before i forget it all would be the issue. hmm, maybe thinking about it that way would help me take notes while it's happening though.
really my friends and i just need to all move in together and stop caring about our wives and children so much ;-)

Each do his own, and then share it through a facebook group. Emails works fine otherwise, but I like ability to easily go through older stuff as well as comment/discuss certain matters.

So far it has only been player-commentaries. Each player spends the 5-10 minutes to sum up what happended, describing the highlights of the session, and discussing events and developments that he thought was interesting, fun, or perhaps problematic. On top of this, there might be some comments on, a development he would like to see, for his own or one of the other characters. Mostly they tend to focus on a few important events, and share their thoughts on those.

I think an in-character video diary would be great as well. It might also be good to verbalize some of those inner thoughts and motivations of the character, that sometimes is difficult to put in play at the table.
It sounds like you should try it out the next time you play. It might simply be a fun way to remember what happened, but it might also be a boost of inspiration for the rest of the group :)
Finding 5 or 10 minutes should be doable, if you put your mind to trying it out once.

I'd love to hear how it goes.

elgabalawi wrote:
Harald - what do you mean by a video diary? something like videoing yourself on your phone recapping the session as soon as it ends?

Yeah, actually just that. Taking 5-10 minutes to state on your phone or laptop, whatever was important to you in the session.

In this campaign we play a whole weekend, so that does leave time for it sunday, during cleaning up afterwards. Some of the players prefer to wait a day or two, to collect their thoughts.
It is a new initiative in the group, but so far it has been quite great. Especially because we have players who spend a lot of time on the game between session, and some that don't. This way, we've gotten some of the more quiet players to give their inputs.

As far as loosing interest in the backstory, it is tough situation, and I don't have a single great solution to it. I've tried (and still do) playing and running campaigns/stories that I honestly don't care about, and wouldn't play if it wasn't a chance to get together with my friends. Especially in pre-written scenarios, if I get the feeling I can't change the flow of the story.
Writing this, I realize that I often simply accept this, all stiff upper lip like, without trying to change it, so my suggestions might not hold too much credit...

That said, I think you might benefit from a talk about what you want from the game. Maybe all of you, maybe just a couple of you over a beer (or of course return to the video-diary we started at:) ).
I don't expect it can give a heureka moment, but it might help you focus more on the elements of the game that you all enjoy, and weed out some of those you don't.

Before all this text, I meant to ask if you and the other guy is GMing the game? I didn't quite get that, and it might make a difference as far as motivation goes.

1) As far as recapping the game goes, I'd suggest trying to get the player to make a video diary of what they remember. I'm in a campaign we only play 2-4 times a year, but have been running for 12 years now. As a new initiative, having people record what they think about the game, has been a boon in planning it.

2) Talk to them about the problem. It is not your job to keep them involved, as much as it is their reasponsibility. Life tend to get in the way of things, but there is probably small thing they can do, like taking notes when they play.

3) I am not sure I would like to play that way with a pre-written campaign. My experience as a player and GM of those, is that they hit a point where they are less interesting than they used to.
If you as the GM take more charge of the campaign, it becomes easier to adapt it to the players and their characters. Of course you can include modules or parts of adventure paths anyway, but my experience is that running an AP is as time-consuming as running a homebrew game.

3b) The playstyle is of course a matter of preference. Personally I prefer narratives that are character-driven, rather than an adventure, where the characters interact with a series of preplanned events.
In my opinion (biased at that), it is better at engageing the players, and taking responsibility.
And it makes it easier for you, simply to ask them at the end of a session: What do you remember? What was fun? Was something left out this session, that you we're hoping for?
Based on this, you now which parts worked and which didn't, and can focus on the parts that did, as well as building on the plot hooks that the players actually noticed.

Obsidian wrote:
Is there another class/build that could beat One?

Well, I don't have One's build in mind, but I think both of them could be beaten by a Diviner Wizard:

- Always acting in a surprise round, check.
- Likely to have the highest initiative bonus, check.

So the combat becomes:
- Ready action to cast time stop when noticing an attack (whether a charging barbarian or incoming arrows).
- Spend first round of time stop to avoid the incoming threat (Wind Wall or moving out of charging path).
- Spend additional rounds (if any) to try to take out One/AM.
- Time stop ends, and the opponent spends his turn with a futile attack.
- Wizard takes the next turn, and cast time stop again. Repeat until the battle is won, or if the resources is expended, the wizard teleport out of there.

graystone wrote:
I'll point to the same thing I did before the FAQ. "If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites." ARG, page 217. With the FAQ AND this, I can't see an argument against it working for Scion of Humanity.

Well to be fair, this is only included in the rules for creating custom races, not in the rules relating to existing races or race option.

In the case of custom races it is necessary, since they naturally does not have racial options availiable.

Specific rules like this, normally can not be used to determined the generel rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
OgreBattle wrote:

Barbarians are able to be built in a way where they can resist level appropriate magic as well as wreck stuff in melee, notably being able to pounce at level 10.

How can other 'martial' melee classes be brought up to the level of this iconic Barbarian?

I am not sure, I think they should.

Baselining a game aroung a few mechanical optimal choices is a very bad idea, since it enhances the notion that 'the best choice is the only choice'. Furthermore adding more options that are just as strong, simply add power creep, as a single combination of choices will always be slightly better than another. At the end of the day, it suggests a game of 3 or 4 choices, in which we don't really need all the options we got today.

I might be stretching you question a bit above, but I do think that a Superstition Beast Totem Invulnerable Rager is a bit too specific - and too top tier - to be the basis for balancing other martial options.

IMO the main problem with martials, is the lack of options besides full attacking. Pounce wouldn't be that great, if we had better uses of a standard action.
Playing a martial (and combat in generel) would be more fun (subjectively) if it had more to it than simply rolling the same dice each and every round.
As it is, the alternatives to full attacking and dealing a lot of damage, is not simply subpar, but so vastly below in effectivity that they stop being a part of the game. And if we want to do something else, it require a degree of specialization that makes us into a one-trick pony, simply repeating that action over and over again.

Hmm... The ability is quite unclear as written.

Is it:
A) a touch attack no matter how it is used?
B) a touch attack against living, and a Sunder CMB check against objects?

In my opinion B doesn't really make sense, since it would make it harder to touch an object than a person. That is a bit absurd since a touch attack ignores armor bonus to AC, meaning you just touch that part of the target.

As for combining it with Greater Sunder, I don't really think it makes sense to deal excess damage to the target, since you are simply touching the object.
That aside, I would be inclined to allow it, since it is unproblematic to do so. On average it is 3½ damage per lvl, up to 52.5 at lvl 15. The damage that spill over to the target is minor. If a character makes the feat expenditure, he should get to do this a few per day.

First off, some question: What/who is the god in question? Does he/she/it still live? Did he/she/it leave the eye there, or was it stolen/moved?

These questions might help a lot in making a dungeon that makes sense.

As for a generel air themed dungeon, I think the having different gravitational effects would be great. Take a look at the rules for different gravitation for planes. A lot of flying (through magic, and/or through subjective gravitation) should be necessary.

To make an air theme with a capital A, you should consider the air as the major component and limiting boundary, rather than the walls of the dungeon. Of course this depends on who build the place, but I think wind tunnels and the like should have an important place.

I might be a bit off my rockers right now, and it might not fit with what is already in place in your game world: But what about having the air/weather inside the dungeon be the actual orb, or in other words the dungeon itself?
Instead of finding a way to manipulate a physical orb, they will need to adjust different parts of the dungeon (openening/closing air vents - connecting lightning sources - calming air elementals (diplomatically, or by killing earth elementals enraging them).

stuart haffenden wrote:
So if you take a vermin type AC with no INT score it doesn't get any Feats. If you then spend your ability score points increasing its INT does it gain the feats retrospective?

They sure do.

Ability scores and HP are normally gained retrospective due to increases in ability scores, no reason that the feats shouldn't be.

Jadeite wrote:
HaraldKlak wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
The feat is pretty good without Power Components. It works on any spell, not just arcane ones. All you need is an 'arcane' spell-like ability and you can take it as a divine caster. And casting Restoration without spending 100 gp is nice.

Actually a part of the feat specifies arcane spells:

False Focus wrote:


For example, if you use a silver holy symbol worth 25 gp, you do not have to provide material components for an arcane spell if its components are worth 25 gp or less.
That's an example. Do you also argue that the feat can only be used with a silver holy symbol?

Well, when you choose to include non-core rules elements, I don't think it is a bit unreasonable to expect a bit of common sense.

Let us take a look a the full feat text.

False Focus wrote:

False Focus

You can use a divine focus to cast arcane spells.

Prerequisite: Knowledge (religion) 1 rank, ability to cast arcane spells.

Benefit: By using a divine focus as part of casting, you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component. For example, if you use a silver holy symbol worth 25 gp, you do not have to provide material components for an arcane spell if its components are worth 25 gp or less. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than the value of the divine focus, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

Normal: A divine focus has no effect when used as a component in arcane spells.

So that is four times in the text that it mentions arcane spells. That heavily suggest that it is supposed to affect arcane spells only.

Does it specify that it is limited to arcane spell explicitly? No.
Was that necessary at the time the feat was written? No, because the spell like ability FAQ hadn't been ruled at that point.

Overall they character looks very nice to me, so I don't have much in the way of comments.

If I were you, I would take Improved Counterspell instead of the Dispel Synergy feat.

graystone wrote:
So what's to stop you from adding free materials to convert? Change a pile of leaves into your item using the feat to cover the GP requirement.

Nothing, except that you get an item made from leaves, and that the quality of the item you create is commensurate with the quality of the material you use.

Jadeite wrote:
The feat is pretty good without Power Components. It works on any spell, not just arcane ones. All you need is an 'arcane' spell-like ability and you can take it as a divine caster. And casting Restoration without spending 100 gp is nice.

Actually a part of the feat specifies arcane spells:

False Focus wrote:


For example, if you use a silver holy symbol worth 25 gp, you do not have to provide material components for an arcane spell if its components are worth 25 gp or less.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
Fabricate alone makes it a nice feat: any 300 GP or less mundane item whenever you want it instantly and forever, you can just use it to make money from nothing (make 300 GP of stuff and sell it. Way less than just selling a casting of a 5th level spell, but much easier to find buyers), stockpile the stuff (make 300 GP of iron ingots out of non-existant 100 GP of iron ore), have any meal you want (not just the taste of one!) with a wave of your hand (you can feed 1000 men common meals, make 600 non-perishables, or have 300 people pig out). The sky is the limit.

Actually Fabricate doesn't work.

The spell "convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material".
While False focus could remove the need for a material component, it doesn't change the fact that the spell effect is changing something into something else. It is a transmutation spell, not a conjuration (creation) spell.

graystone wrote:
The holy symbol tattoo is the way to go with this feat. It's 100gp and makes it quite hard to get it stolen...

But do notice that the tattoo need to be visible to be used as a Holy Symbol. So you forgo the option of wearing gloves, if you isn't hardcore enough to have the symbol of a random religion (that allows holy symbol tattoos) in your forehead.

You still need to change the permission. As it is now, we need to request access.

1 to 50 of 2,269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>