Search Posts
It's a Skill Feat called "Recognize Spell", which lets you use a Reaction to try and Identify a spell being cast with one of the relevant skills. Which is a serious problem because it takes up your reaction for the round - the one you wound need to use for your Counterspell feat.
I strongly disagree with this particular approach. First of all, this is like complaining that your 10th level party is no longer challenged by goblins. Growing more powerful isn't just a matter of having bigger numbers or fighting bigger monsters, it's about gaining more tools and abilities to handle a wide variety of challenges. Thank you for saying this! I wholeheartedly agree. Once a party has access to things like teleport and scry you, as the GM, have to start taking that into account. You have to stop planning adventures that can be circumvented by those spells and, eventually, you have to start planning adventures that require them.
Sure, I guess. All I was trying to say is that the Good/Evil axis determines what your character's morales, values, and beliefs are...and the Law/Chaos axis determines how willing you are to compromise them. That is not lawful, that is plain evil Alright... now the real debate can begin!
On a Cosmological scale, you could say the Law is fate or destiny.. while Chaos is random chance or free will. On a more personal scale, I subscribe to the idea that the Law/Chaos axis is one of consistency. Whatever your Lawful person thinks is "right", i.e. Don't steal, torture gets the job done, pineapple is delicious on pizza.. they continue to think that no matter how the circumstances change. (At least they try). A Chaotic person is a little more flexible. Circumstances and situations can change what is the 'right' thing to do. Maybe.
Has it been stated anywhere that a spell with multiple components and thus multiple actions require those actions to be continuous? As in, can a wizard spend 1 action on the verbal, then move, then spend the last action on the somatic?
Am I misinformed? My understanding was that rolling a 1 just means you can't do any better than a 'fail'. So, your example is just a 'fail' in both scenarios. Of course, if they had rolled a 1, added +15 (for high level) for a total of 16 - they'd still fail. That might not work for some people either
I really like the idea that a spellcaster ends up proficient at different levels in different schools. A specialist might just be someone who chooses an extra level of proficiency in one school at the cost of being untrained in another? Or maybe only a specialist can reach Legendary in their preferred school? I'm excited to see how it works.
You said suggest anything so, I'm gonna say... Red Dragon. Now hear me out: At around 10th lvl, the party is pretty tough. They probably have access to a lot of resources and they probably geared up for dealing with the cold, the weather, the icy lake - all of it. Bet they didn't prepare for the exact opposite. Imagine their surprise when, while crossing the frozen lake, along comes a Red Dragon whose breath weapon not only burns.. but melts the ice they are standing on. Especially if it starts to refreeze immediately after. I said Red Dragon, but really, any fire based creature would do the trick. Just a thought outside the box.
1. Cloistered Cleric
I am curious as to how opposed rolls work in this system.
My favourite exotic weapons are the ones that treat the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat as a means to 'unlock' abilities the weapon has. Like the bastard sword becoming 1 handed or the hooked axe; which can be used as a battleaxe as a martial weapon but gains the disarm, performance, and trip qualities with EWP. I'd like to see something like that for 2E. More than just "it's a *insert weapon here* but better", and certainly more than "it's a weapon from a far away place"
We make our own out of Crayola Model Magic. I've built up a huge collection of personalized PCs, NPCs, and even some pretty elaborate monsters!
It's still improvised, even though they can wield it as a normal weapon, so they could grab some Gloves of Improvised Might I like the gloves, thanks for the info, but.. is it really an improvised weapon?
Yo, Long story short; A PC has the Equipment Trick (rope) feat and proficiency with spiked chains. He is using his rope of climbing as his weapon of choice but, now that we've reached 6th lvl, he is starting to feel the lack of weapon enhancements. He would like to start enchanting his rope as if it were a spiked chain. What would you do/say? and Why? Thanks!
Hey folks, Let me be straight; I don't like the Hand of the Apprentice ability.
As a wizard ability.. it just seems out of place? Not many wizards out there seem like they would care about being able to 'force throw' their weapon. and I especially don't like it as the ability of the Universalist. Nothing about the ability says "Student of all schools but master of none" or even just 'general practitioner of magic'. So I came up with 2 alternatives: 1. Universalist (Metamagician) Metamagic Adept (Ex): At 1st lvl, the wizard gains a bonus metamagic feat. Upon reaching 5th level, and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th), the wizard can choose to learn a new metamagic feat in place of a metamagic feat he has already learned. In effect, the wizard loses the metamagic feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. The wizard can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new metamagic feat for the level. The 8th lvl ability, Metamagic Mastery, stays the same. 2. Universalist (Diverse Caster) Diverse Memorization (Ex): At 1st lvl, the wizard gains Flexible Wizardry as a bonus feat even if she does not have the normal prerequisites. When the wizard prepares two spells for a given slot in this manner, they must be from two different schools. Improved Diverse Memorization (Ex): At 8th lvl, the wizard gains Improved Flexible Wizardry as a bonus feat even if she does not have the normal prerequisites. The two spells must still be from two different schools. I'm not keen on the name 'Diverse Caster' so if someone can think of something better.. I am all ears! Thoughts?
I hear you.. but it makes me want to play one for fun and narrative purposes rather than as an experiment in game-breaking mechanics and meta-chess with the DM
I did this very thing one time for a Halloween one-shot. The premise was a city was overrun by zombies. The players played all the regular townsfolk just trying to survive while the heroes were off somewhere else saving the day. For me, I noticed each NPC class had an advantage: Adept: Spell access
but wait, you ask, where is the Commoner? They don't have anything like that. I saw that too and so I included the optional Hero Point system and said Commoners started with 1 extra and could have up to 5. ..because it is the common, everyman who always does the greatest/most heroic things in these stories. Anyway, just some thoughts
Hey folks, looking for some brainstorming from the collective here. Long story short: A powerful entity (fey/fiend/genie) decides to empower the wishing well of a small thorp or hamlet so that it actually grants wishes. The adventure here is that the PCs discover this and have to fix things but what I need help with is, coming up with a large variety of wishes made by the locals that have already come to pass. Or will come to pass as the PCs investigate So please, give me what you got: Who made the wish?
Thanks
1st of all: Please forgive this threadromancy but, at least it is somewhat thematically appropriate given the time of year? :) 2nd: I have some real issues with the idea that a sustained illusion only grants an initial save to disbelieve. If a party of PCs starts fighting a complex hallucination of say, a balor, there is going to be some kind of break down in play when the wizard can't target it with magic missle or the paladin can't smite it or any other kind of incongruity you can come up with. Eventually, someone will catch on that what they are experiencing does not fit and there should be a way to cover that.
A couple people have mentioned it already but a low CHA shouldn't really mean a bad personality, ie rude, obnoxious, annoying, or what have you. It should mean a weak personality like shy, or quiet, or just meek. A high CHA is a strong personality, one that everyone can notice - whether it's for good or bad. Likewise, a low CHA means you are the person everyone ignores. Especially if there is a high CHA character nearby. I assume this character will be part of a group and that they will not have the highest CHA score of the bunch. With that in mind, have all the NPCs gravitate to the others. Have them ignore what 7 CHA says, or direct their replies to the rest of the party, that sort of thing.
Well, I am the GM in this case. :) But you're right, finding a balance for illusions can be tricky. In regard to the spell making you think resources are being spent when they're not; that opens up a whole can of worms. I mean, a paladin thinking her smite evil workes when it really didn't is one thing, but what if it's a wizard who decides to cast magic missile? It just seems very messy in terms of mechanics to let them run that way.
Well, they get 1 disbelief save; the initial one when the spell is cast. so, what happens then when a victim of a phantasm is exposed to absolute proof what they see isn't real? As an example, take a paladin who fails against a complex hallucination spell and now sees a demon. Like, I dunno, a Babau. I get that no one else can see this thing but what happens when the paladin declares her smite evil against it and.. nothing happens because it's an invalid target?
Hey all, So Illusion spells of the phantasm type usually allow for a Will save to disbelieve at the onset of the spell, but then, I'm a little unclear of whether a target ever gets another chance if they fail. Unlike figments, their save entry doesn't say 'if interacted with' but there are a lot of spells that raise a lot of questions otherwise. As an example, take any of the hallucination spells; a target who fails that initial save thinks what they see/hear is real.. but what if someone tells them it's not? or what if they witness proof that it's not themselves? Do they ignore that? Does the mind-affecting aspect of these spells mean their brains fill in the gaps or otherwise reject the evidence? Nothing in the spell says anything like that though. I'm inclined to think that they should follow the general rules for disbelief but I just wanted to get other people's thoughts on this. Thanks
I don't know if I want to get into a huge debate over this but, it seems to me, that the problem you're having is the same problem as: 'high level divination spells ruin my mystery plot'
which is to say, when the PCs start getting those high level abilities, the game needs to change. If you have a tricked-out, tetori 'grapple god' in your party, stop trying to figure out ways to beat them and start including challenges that expect them, or even require them. Stuff like.. say.. the bad guy is going to teleport away unless the tetori stops him with her dimensional anchor grapple. Or maybe her Form Lock ability is the best way to figure out who the shapechanged spy is or maybe the tetori is the only way to stop the raging Colossal sized creature rampaging through town...or whatever. Then, after a few encounters where the tetori does her thing, throw a curveball that challenges them: - They don't get ghost touch on their own till 17th lvl. Plenty of time to trip them up with incorporeal foes.
and that's just off the top of my head... Anyway, just some thoughts on this issue you're...wrestling with.
Humans can also just use their bonus feat to take Skill Focus.
My gut reaction is to apply them in the same order they were cast so, in your example, shield other splits the damage 50/50 between ally and BBEG then unwilling shield splits what the BBEG takes again with the PC in question. but, like I said; total gut reaction. I have no rules to back that up with. Fantastic question though!
So while wielding the weapon in question and targeted by a spell third level or lower and the wielder succeeds his save (if there is no save he is allowed a will save with the appropriate modifiers) the wielder can chose that the spell has no effect whatsoever First: love the idea. Very cool. Second: I quoted the relevant bit - what if the spell targets many people and the wielder is only one? Does the spell not work for everyone?Just something to think about when finalizing the wording. As to your question, I'd say +2 or +3 is fine.. again depending on the power level you end up with.
I have just recently been thinking on this. I have come up with this idea: In addition to being 'Finesse Compatible', an EWP with the sword also changes its damage type to P/S (instead of just S). This way, it opens up the dueling sword to being used with all the class features of swashbucklers and duelists. I dunno, it just seems like this weapon, thematically perfect for those classes, should be relatively easy to use with their abilities. ...definitely more so than the heavy pick. Just my thoughts Edit: As to Exotic Weapons, there are generally 3 types.
Disguise
May I ask for a touch more detail on what 'haunted bardic performances' entail? I have a dirge Bard character and this might be directly relevant to his interests. Thank-you.
Lots of resources out there for the look and feel. Some have already been mentioned. 1. In terms of actual gameplay and mechanics. I would advise you to think about firearms. Lots of people expect cannons and flintlocks in their pirate games. Lots of people don't want firearms in their game.
2. Lots of people want to play pirates as they were; terrible criminals who kill, lie, cheat and steal. Lots of people don't like playing with evil alignments or want to play the 'good guys'. Figure out where you and your players fall on that spectrum too. You don't want to have the game fall apart due to inter-party conflict. 3. Chances are, at some point, ship-to-ship combat will occurr. There are lots of varying systems and rule sets out there that handle this. Some are very complex and really try to do it realistically, some are very simple and are designed to simply handwave a lot of it in order to get the PCs onto the deck of a ship so regular combat can occurr. Find the one that works best for you and get semi-comfortable with the rules. Just some thoughts
Well, what comes to my mind is this: Objects have the lowest CHA. They have none. (OK.. technically, 0 is the lowest but you know what I mean). Low Charisma doesn't mean annoying/awful personality, it means no personality. Have your Warforged be slightly robot like. He doesn't speak unless spoken to, he doesn't have opinions - just facts. That kind of thing. Basically, be bland. Of course, that might not be that much fun, so maybe be 'bland' but in a way that makes the rest of the group laugh. Maybe be the straight man to all the jokes, or be obtuse about social norms.. that kind of thing. The biggest thing about low CHA is, in my opinion, is that you aren't the centre of attention, you're not in the spotlight. You are the one that everyone ignores when the high CHA person is in the room. A bad personality can still be a strong personality and that is what Charisma is; the measure of your personality's strength.
I just recently stopped playing a rogue with the counterfeit mage archetype. He was a gnome, for the SLA's. He took feats like Arcane Talent and Bookish Rogue. Had lots of UMD and spent all his money on wands, potions, and putting spells into his own spellbook. He was ok at low levels, but as the campaign progressed to the mid-level range.. he really started to suffer. After all, there is only so much you can do with cantrips and 1st level spells. But he was one of the most fun characters I've ever played. He kept up the ruse of being an 'archmage' for the entire campaign. Didn't even tell the other PCs until the last session.
Consider that the standard rules for doing what you want require the use of a 4th level spell, and double the bardic cost for the second performance, for a total of 3 performance rounds per round. My bard has spent skill points on instruments for roleplaying reasons,not combat. I'll admit, my initial thoughts are strong, but the spell you're talking about allows a Bard to run two performance effects with the same performance, meaning if they were using a hands free one they could run both and still attack if they wanted. Maybe we can tone my idea down by saying that it requires a move, or even standard, action to maintain the 2nd performance. Like I said, I'm spit balling at the moment. You are correct that simply buying and using a two handed instrument should not equal a 4th lvl spell. It doesn't matter if a Bard spends their skill points on instruments for roleplaying or combat (though the two aren't mutually exclusive), what matters is that your choice isn't penalized.
Hey folks, So today, as I was developing a Bard character for an upcoming game, I fell down the rabbit hole regarding maintaining a bardic performance vs. instruments that require 1 or 2 hands to use. Basically, if your Bard uses an instrument that requires the use of their hands (flute, violin, etc) then: 1. By RAW they can still cast spells or attack because by RAW, maintaining a performance only requires a free action - no other requirements are mentioned. 2. But logically, this makes no sense because if your hands are occupied, how are you holding a weapon? Now, I like the logical consistency of option 2 but I realize that it creates a disparity; no Bard would choose such an instrument over something like singing or oratory since those require no hands. So, I'd like to come up with a benefit that makes those instruments worthwhile. Here is what I thought of: If a Bard uses an instrument that requires both hands to start and maintain a bardic performance, they can also start and maintain a different bardic performance using a performance that requires no hands (probably the aforementioned singing or oratory). Is it strong? Yeah maybe.. but we are talking about giving up your attacks here, so it should be good. The only issue is of course, running two performances eats up a bard's rounds per day of performance pretty quickly. Anyway, it's a rough brainstorm I had and would very much like some input on. Thanks
This might help:
Ever watch Gremlins? or Gremlins II? In my opinion, those are Paizo's goblins. Right down to a similar appearance. If you watch them, you'll see that they think violence is funny, even if it happens to one of their own. Hell, even if it happens to themselves - they still laugh (before dying). They also have no real concept of self-preservation. They don't ever think twice about doing dangerous things, no matter how lethal the consequences. So, during your festival, have them do dangerously stupid things.
and if your worried about the 'rating' of their antics - just keep them focused on property damage and mayhem rather than vicious attacks on people/animals. Hope this helps
A major difference between bows and Crossbows is that, for a bow, loading and shooting are the same action while for crossbows, they are separate. Have Crossbows no longer provoke an Attack of Opportunity when fired; you are just pulling a trigger after all. Edit: I do like the idea of emulating early firearms within the 1st range incrementioned though.
It doesn't even have to be 'boss fights' either! The Moyster Manual 5 back in 3.5 had a few monsters who changed their role/attacks once they were reduced to 1/2 hp. The one I can remember was a magma golem of some kind. Basically, molten rock inside a suit of armour. It started as a tough but slow baddie that did some fire damage but after enough hits it changed to become faster, with a fire aura. The idea being as it got hurt, the armour cracked and more magma was exposed. ....something like that. I haven't looked in a long time. Still, the concept is one of my favourites and would love to see a few more such creatures in Pathfinder.
Ha.. nope. Just two random people having the same thoughts! My only issue with using Bluff is, although it makes sense from a "trying to convince someone of something" perspective, it creates some issues: If the PC makes a high Bluff check, it makes it harder for the NPC to beat with Sense Motive. Is that right? What does it mean if the NPC fails? Passes? Which means she believes the PC and which means the PC was not convincing enough?
Guard: "Halt! No one enters while the nobles are in session" PC: "See this ring? It is the crest of my father's family - by right, I should be in there!" Guard: "You? You're the most dishevelled warrior I've ever seen. You're telling me you're a noble? I don't think so" ..but of course, in this case the PC is telling the truth, she really is the daughter of a Lord. There has been some back and forth on how to adjudicate how you convince someone of the truth - especially when that truth is unlikely. The base DC to determine trustworthiness with Sense Motive is 20. Says so right in the skill description. The problem is, that's kind of high for NPCs. Especially low level ones. So this is my take: Start with the base DC of 20. Modify it using the table found under the Bluff skill - only inverse. So a 'far-fetched' truth adds 10 while 'the target wants to believe you' reduces it by 5. Then, the convincer can make a Diplomacy check to help convince/implore their case. Half their check result is then subtracted from the DC and the final result is what they have to beat with Sense Motive. Thoughts?
Not all cursed items have to be traps. Some can just be items with drawbacks or quirks. Then it becomes a choice for the characters; is the benefit worth the cost? As an example: a ring of elemental resistance that provides a high resistance bonus (or at least higher than normal for the PCs level). The draw back is that, while worn, the wearer can only speak and understand the corresponding elemental language (Ignan for fire, Auran for air, etc). Also! don't forget to put some actual, real, no strings attached treasure in there. If everything is rigged to kill/curse/hurt the PCs, they will quickly learn to not trust or touch anything.
Well, raise dead has a time limit of days, while the resurrection spells work in decades. Any line of succession would have to have some kind of time limit. Imagine if someone raised a king or queen from over a century ago.. would the current ruler be expected to step aside? I have seen, and agree with, the idea that once a person in a hereditary position dies, their place in the line of succession is over. Even if they come back, they don't get to jump back in. Of course, it could totally depend on the political landscape of a given nation. A fascist dictator might very well adopt a policy that they are always the ruler and in case of death - it is mandated that they be raised. As for criminals, you could make a case that a person sentenced to death and is then executed has paid their debt to society. If they have some manner of coming back after then they are considered to have a clean slate in regards to that crime. Again, given nations or kingdoms could all have very different ideas. EDIT: Whoops! Somehow I got onto the idea that this was about lines of succession and the passing of crowns. The idea is still sound though, even when talking about inheritances of money, land, or belongings.
Shameless bump.
The main issue with the historically correct "fire & forget" method is, depending on the availability level of firearms in the campaign, it can be very costly. Perhaps prohibitively so as even early firearms can cost hundreds of gp each. I would suggest investing/saving for a double-barreled pistol. That's at least 2 shots available before reloading is required.
Nope. Never seen it used either. It's definitely something that needs tweaking in order to be a more attractive option.
Ok, here is the hypothetical: a 7th lvl rogue has both the major magic talent and the Bookish Rogue feat. They also have a spellbook with a few 1st lvl spells in it. If they took the Empower Spell-like Ability feat, does it apply to any spell in the major magic slot or just one particular spell and if they switch to something else, they can't use the feat until they switch back? Obviously, we are talking only about spells that could be empowered like shocking grasp or magic missle and for the sake of this discussion, we can assume the character in question can take Empower Spell-like ability even though it is a 'Monster' feat. Thoughts? Edit: For what it's worth, I am inclined to think that it's the latter.
How many languages does the average person know? Well, I'm sold. Back to 1 for 1 for me then!
That's what I thought. Luckily, I am the GM. So it is of to houserules we go. Also, did not know about the archetype - I'll have to track that down. Thanks very much.
While I agree with you, my solution was different. I simply houseruled that a character gets a new language for every 5 ranks in Linguistics. I did this to help cover the idea of learning over time but I mostly did it because I was tired of having characters pick up almost every bloody language. How many languages does the average person know? It totally varies depending on where you live, obviously, but what do you consider the upper limit? Where do you start to say "wow that is an impressive amount of languages of which you are completely fluent, including reading, writing, slang, and other nuances." It also helps make having obscure languages useful again. Finding clues in other languages becomes interesting again. I guess, what I am trying to say, is that I personally, got tired of having all my players be constant universal translators. So I tweaked the rules to make it a little more unique. YMMV
|
