Ipslore the Red's page

1,535 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,535 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Bandw2 wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:

Exactly. No matter how many times they are wished back and then reincarnated, they should always move back and forth between the two forms. That is unless the subject repents or learns, in which case they may skip an incarnation.

If you want to be cleaver, some wisher who asks for the subject's original face might cause the subject to look like Arowen because that was their first incarnation. :)

wait if you're a 100 year old human and reincarnated as an elf, are you a decrepit elf or a 100 year old elf? or just a middle aged elf?

You're a young adult elf because the spell says so.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Allow me to try and make a post that is objectively more useful than the entirety of this thread. It might be slightly difficult, but here I go:

ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy lmao ayy

There we go. It's an absolute beauty and I feel confident when I say it outshines the rest.

Gloomwings are extremely easy to bind and spawn multiple tenebrous worms.

LazarX wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:

So, my players saved a powerful NPC (something I did not expect). Now they're storming a dungeon and have asked for his help, which he has agreed to provide.

So I'm puzzled with how I can have him participate without stealing the spotlight. On one side, they earned his aid, and it can be cool seeing someone demolish enemies for you. On the other hand...that gets old quick.

If you were a player in this situation, what would you want?

If you've DMed a circumstance like this, what have you done/how was it received by the players?

The party is level 5, their ally is a lvl 8 archer.

Break his bow. Problem solved.

Larger problem created. Congrats.

James Jacobs wrote:
Silent Saturn wrote:
4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.
I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.

Martials are anemic enough as it is without nerfing them heavily.

A bit weaker tbh

So is the basic version of the class literally worse than rogue, either design-wise or power-wise? Because it sure seems like both.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, rogue has to look good somehow, and it sure isn't going to be by actually being good.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh good, no one's said the developers yet.


Alkenstar Is the most likely place that medieval firearms originated on Golarion.

If you mean any firearms, technological weapons, including firearms, were on board the spaceship Unity when it crashed a while ago, but I don't think that's what you mean.

Atarlost wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
Loads of options for builds and it's got all that full-caster goodness. It's pretty nearly impossible to make an oracle that's actually bad, and only moderately difficult to make one good at a specific concept.
Really? They're a spontaneous caster. All you have to do is not take the right spells and you're useless. There are a number of curses that will completely wreck your character if they're enforced.

To clarify what I meant: At level 6 or higher, it's almost impossible for an average human being to take spells in such a way that all of them are useless. Low-level casters do indeed suck. As for curses, you're right about clouded and its ilk, but I also consider it nearly impossible for someone to read 'you are blind beyond thirty feet' and ever think of actually taking that option.

I agree that seems to be a reasonable way to rule their interaction, but I don't currently have anything more than gut feeling to base that on. Is there any specific source you have for this?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Another, similar issue in a separate post because the devs have indicated they prefer FAQs to be that way:

A dual-cursed oracle uses the misfortune revelation on a war-sighted battle oracle.

"You can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it’s worse than the original roll."

It seems fairly clear that I now roll 3d20, but which do I choose? Must I select the third die which this version of misfortune forced me to roll? Am I still free to pick the result of the die I didn't reroll?

Interpretation 1: I roll 11, 3, and reroll either die for a 10. I must select the 10.

Interpretation 2: I roll the same, and can either choose 11 or 10, assuming I was forced to reroll the 3.

Interpretation 3: I roll the same and can pick any of them as I wish.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So, here's a couple of hypothetical situations. A witch uses misfortune to force a battle oracle with war sight to reroll initiative.

The relevant text:

"Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result."

"Whenever you roll for initiative, you can roll twice and take either result."

What happens? Does the witch force me to reroll what I would normally roll, meaning the 2d20 I normally use? This interpretation seems to result in me rolling 2 sets of 2d20 and taking the worse result of whichever two dice I choose using war sight. Or possibly picking either one of the worse two dice, depending on what order they apply in.

Does one negate the other, since they both tell me to roll dice and choose a specific one? If so, which one wins? This doesn't seem like a specific/general issue, since they're both specific about what I do with my roll.

Interpretation 1A: I roll 2 sets of 2d20 and get 11, 9 and 3, 14. With war sight, I pick 11 and 14. Then I must pick 11, since it's worse than 14.

Interpretation 1B: I roll the same, but misfortune applies first and now I must pick between 3 and 9.

Interpretation 2A: War sight negates misfortune. I roll 2d20 and pick which I like as normal.

Interpretation 2B: Misfortune negates war sight. I roll 2d20 and pick the worse one as specified by the hex.

Loads of options for builds and it's got all that full-caster goodness. It's pretty nearly impossible to make an oracle that's actually bad, and only moderately difficult to make one good at a specific concept.

Secret Wizard wrote:

This is the feat you are looking for:

F%%% Balance
Prerequisites: Who cares
Benefit: Do all a Fighter can do but better because f@&# balance.

If you want something that makes more sense, you should look into getting Eldritch Heritage for the Accursed Bloodline. This will give you always-on Hag-like powers.

Trying to balance things around a fighter is nonsensical. I do agree that getting always-on hag powers via bloodlines or using Monstrous Physique is a better alternative, however.

Since this is the Rules Questions forum: It doesn't. MWT specifies a kind of weapon, and FCT tells you to choose one specific natural weapon.

That said, that's fairly pedantic and allowing it wouldn't really be broken. Especially since Crusader's Flurry exists and none of the style feats actually break the game when used with manufactured weapons. Crusader's Flurry costs one feat, your combo costs a mythic path ability and a feat. It'd be reasonable to allow it.

Puna'chong wrote:
It's my opinion

And there's the important bit.

Rynjin wrote:

Nothing you do to raise your touch AC will matter against a dedicated Gunslinger.

Of course, you can use stuff like Displacement, so that's not the hugest deal.

Displacement is irrelevant to a gunslinger.

I think we can get a more realistic comparison of economies through the average person's wage, using the Profession skill. An average person can get a 14 on a Profession check by taking 10 with just one rank in Profession and a class skill, making an annual salary for the normal person around 352 gold pieces. In real life, the average income is $50,500 per year. This means that each gold piece is worth 143 dollars and 47 cents. Therefore, a 25,000 gold diamond is worth 3.58 million dollars.

This video shows 3.5 million worth of jewels.

You don't get wall of fire at level 4. The indicated levels mean you get them as a Xth level spell, so wall of fire is a 4th level spell, meaning you get it at level 8. Otherwise, yes, you're on the money.

Magus isn't so great with armor, unfortunately. I suggest something like a suli with a shock weapon. You can pick the Energy Strike alternate racial trait and take electricity. Ask your DM if you can refluff Firehand's ranged touch attack into electricity damage. That gets you electricty-charged weapons, a ranged electricity attack, and whatever martial class you like for competence and armor. I suggest inquisitor, since it's good at fighting and very fun to play.

Although incremental elemental assault and extra elemental assault may be a somewhat painful feat tax.

While we have a thread about this, can someone explain why I would ever, ever want to use the mount's breath weapons instead of a bomb, given that they each cost discoveries I could use one something decent?

Dragonhunterq is correct, and it's worth noting Eschew Materials was printed before alchemical reagents were.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Grey_Mage wrote:


It is the player who needs flexibility and should build for it. The player still has spell access, it's just the bloodline power will be of limited value.

Maybe it's not optimal, and that's okay.

But to your question, nothing comes to mind.

I think what Gark's concerned about is that this is a very un-optimized party to begin with, and I was planning to make the paralysis my signature ability (seriously, my whole build plan is based around "lots of hits, low damage, high DC"). I figured since the AP didn't sound like it'd too many undead it'd be alright. The paralysis isn't a great ability, and basing a build around it is actually pretty weak (mainly because of how limited use my claws are), but in an AP like Giantslayer it could at least have some effect.

If claws aren't going to do anything, I'd like to have the chance to revise my plans before I get I or another PC killed. :P

With the low damage, how would you deal with DR reducing it to 0 and ignoring any riders?

Nope. It is specifically impossible to create a skeletal champion on purpose.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

Has Gorbacz posted to this thread yet? He's on my ignore script.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I don't think he's posted here in years.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Never heard of you, mate.

Check out Ultimate Equipment, especially the appendices.

Nothing. Waste of a hex.

Other than making him a deity, no. Or giving him mythic wish as an at-will SLA, but that's more or less equivalent in how badly it meshes with a setting.

You cannot craft spell trigger or completion items with metamagic feats.

ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
Being locked into a forced reincarnation loop. The idea of being alive, killed, brought back and killed again, and so on and so on, for all time.

Resurrection requires the soul to be willing. Only a grand hex can forcibly reincarnate someone, and that's, what, a capstone for one class?

graystone wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:
graystone wrote:

You're only comparing flurry vs single weapons Shisumo. A "fighter, barbarian, ranger, etc" can use two weapons for +23, +23, +18 and +13. So one attack more for the monk at worse numbers. And the monk having free Ki to throw around for an extra attack is iffy as (almost) everything needs Ki now. Drop those numbers by another 2 and you can disarm/trip at 15' (whips).

I'm with Chengar Qordath in thinking monks aren't "especially good at maneuvers compared to other classes".

Any fighter/barbarian that goes this route (TWF) ends up giving up quite a bit of Strength to pay the Dexterity tax, which means less damage overall. The monk stays as good at fighting as before.

The monk might not be especially good; but he isn't particularly bad either.

Let's look at an example, a CMD 33 opponent with the numbers above

Non-monk: +25/+20/+15
Chance to land disarm: 1 - (0.4 * 0.65 * 0.9) = 76.6%

Monk: +25/+20/+15
Chance to land disarm: 1 - (0.65 * 0.65 * 0.65 * 0.9 * 0.95) = 76.5%
Chance to land disarm with ki: 1 - (0.65 * 0.65 * 0.65 * 0.65 * 0.9 * 0.95) = 84.7%

I'd say it is fairly comparable between monk and non-monk.

I recall ranger being in that list ("fighter, barbarian, ranger, etc"). How much dex did he spend on that TWF again?

If we want to look at a tax, how much wisdom tax did the monk have to pay and how did THAT lower it's strength... At BEST it's a wash and with the ranger it's a lose to the monk...

The ranger spent nothing on Dexterity. Combat style feats ignore the prerequisites.

It's less broken than the old rules, if you can believe that.

Some guy I can't remember wrote:

Earning capital is easy in any campaign with significant downtime, especially ones like Kingmaker. Consider that, for ~7,000 gp I can purchase a large home containing:

A furnished alchemy lab, bath, 4 bedrooms, kitchen, lavatory, furnished magical repository, furnished observation dome, office, furnished scriptorium, sewer access, sitting room, storage, and vault, and then hire a pair of Apprentices.
With that, I have a very nice home suitable for any wizard, and which grants a +55 on checks to generate magical capital. Even if I'm rarely home and need to hire a Headmaster to oversee the place at 3 gp/day, that only costs me 1,095 gp/year, whereas even in my absence, the place is able to produce 6 units of magical capital per day, converting 50 gp of coins into 100 gp of 'stuff' suitable for crafting magical items with. I don't actually have to spend any of my character's own time to get that benefit, and that's 219,000 gp worth of 'stuff' per year. Most characters won't even have enough money to actually keep things running all year long, but with just a single month of downtime during that year, you could craft 30,000 gp worth of magical items, sell them for 15,000 gp, and have a profit of 6,405 gp for the year after all expenses.
Indeed, with this setup, as long as you spend at least 5 days crafting items to sell each year, you're making at least some profit, and you can produce over 400,000 gp worth of items at a cost of only 250 gp/1,000 gp of base cost, rather than the normal 500 gp. And all you've invested is a mere 7,000 gp. Imagine how much more productive you could be if you built up an entire mage's academy.

And then there's RavingDork's method of making magical capital even cheaper through things like Focused Overseer. The new rules are still terribly broken, but I thought some perspective might be useful.

Specific overrides general, so by an extremely strict RAW description if the statblock says scenario #2 happens, it happens. Now that I've been RAW enough to satisfy the purpose of the Rules Question forum: Ravingdork is almost certainly correct and the formatting/phrasing is misleading. Scenario #1 is the more reasonable one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I knew better than this. I know I did.

Given your post history, you really don't and never have. It stopped being funny or cute ages ago.

The peasant railgun does not actually work due to similar purposeful misunderstandings of the rules, so I doubt it.

Pun-Pun is not legal and does not actually work as proposed. So at best he's a cripple.

Mythic Weapon Finesse.

ElMustacho wrote:

Goldie presumably buffs with mage armor, shield, shield of faith, prayer, dispel evil or haste, then moves 250(or 280) foot to Pain.

No. Dragons do not go in melee. They snipe with breath weapons and flyby attack.

Do it secretly, yes.

Search the forums. This has come up way too many times before.

Not really, no. It's mildly convenient, but such things almost never come up in play, in my experience at least. For the amount of space it took up in the book and the time needed to format it, it'd have a fairly minimal payoff.

Wings = Ex.
No wings = Su.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would you not multiply the cost for special materials? You're using more of it, after all.


The ruling is that you can only ever cast one spell a round, with quickened spells specifying an exception, iirc. And yeah, people only complained about partial casters' reliance on swift actions screwing them over with the new options.

All targets.

1 to 50 of 1,535 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>