Chain Mauler

Kage_no_Oukami's page

Organized Play Member. 131 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Umm..did Dodogama just earn his wings?

I'm so looking forward to this! Hopefully console release is in the planning as well. Only downside is that Merisiel is not one of the starting characters, but always a possibility to add her in later. I was really worried this was going to be some point and click thing that I end up ignoring, but this seems like a good fit for a 3-book AP.

Am I misremembering a rule? Certainly wouldn't be the first time! I ran APs in 1e and treasure such as scrolls would specify which energy type the resistance applied to, but I haven't sampled any 2e APs yet to see how treasure is formatted to know if that should be a thing or not.

Edit: Cool. Thanks for the responses. Just wanted to be sure before I start handing out some scrolls to my players.

Maybe I'm letting my PF1 experience inform this too much, but when creating a scroll or wand of a spell that offers a choice of effects, do you have to make that choice at the time of creating the item or can the character using the item later make that choice?

For instance, if making a scroll of Resist Energy do you have to specifically make a scroll of Resist Energy (fire) when crafting the item or are you just making a scroll of Resist Energy and when a character casts it, they make the choice of what type of energy to resist?

This seems like more of a clarification on terminology. Both dedications grant Hunt Prey, so Keep Pace was probably meant to only be used with your Hunted Prey. The wording on the Bounty Hunter version could be construed as being used against any "foe" since the mention of prey is in the flavor text and trigger, but not as explicitly said in the description of the mechanics.

I could see this being more in line with a stealth errata where the text for Bounty Hunter might be altered in the future. But that's just my two cents; there are people far more dedicated to parsing such things around here that might see things differently.

Personally I would love to have an intelligent weapon companion floating at my side.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I kinda get what VampByDay is saying. I use the class roadmaps in the GMG as a basis for creating NPCs with "class levels", and while it could be used for some of the new classes pretty easily to have a basic idea of if the NPC should have low AC or medium AC, or high strike and extreme damage or medium strike and low damage etc, it might not be as clear for some newer classes. Sure for a Witch, you can easily use the Wizard, for an oracle you could use the cleric as a basis and replace Wisdom with Charisma etc, but I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of Inventor, Summoner or Magus to know what abilities should be in what range generally so a quick reference could be useful (this will probably be true when the thaumaturge is released as well). After all, not every GM is at the same level and some of us prefer a bit more guidance when tinkering around beneath the hood.

Tangentially, this was kind of an irritating point for me in 1e where monsters had "key classes", but only the classes in the CRB were ever listed and while some classes very clearly fit into "martial" or "spell-casting", there were some classes that were broad or different enough that I had no idea how to classify them.

VampByDay wrote:

I'm sure this is in the wrong thread and everyone will tell me to change it around but . . .

I'd like to put out there for Paizo that it would be cool if you maybe put out some expanded rules for making NPCs. I realize there is the free download 'Game Mastery Guide, Monster and Hazard Creation' which is fine, but there have been several books out there since and I'd love a more robust NPC creation system. Sure, from the NPC guide you can do some extrapolations for some classes. For a gunslinger, build them as a fighter with less HP and better will. An Investigator is basically a rogue but replace sneak attack with studied strike. Witch is just a Wizard only with a familiar and choice of spell list. But what about a Magus? What about a SUMMONER? How do you build villain NPC companion inventors?

This is something I've wanted as well, though I think it might be better served as a web-supplement at this point and maybe it can fit into a book later on.

This is mainly because, as interesting as new classes are, some are definitely more complex than the base classes. That's fine for a PC that is just running their character but can be a pain for the GM trying to juggle multiple things. Some simplified options for basic class mechanics would be nice (much in the same way that not every "ranger" NPC gets Hunt Prey action and just include the Edge benefit).

I know in some more recent adventures, there have been characters that use these new class mechanics (a cyclops oracle I think, and svartalfar basically have a spellstrike ability), but they are spread out among APs. Perhaps posting some NPCs using the newer classes in blog posts would be useful?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Since we got the Butchering Axe back, I would love to see the return of the Orcish Tree Lance... or Orc Skull Ram as it's properly known.

This would definitely be my choice! We need more ancestral weapons in general, but I was waiting for the elven branched spear and orc skull ram. Well we got one. Personally I always loved the idea of an orc warrior hefting this huge pillar as a weapon like Wan-fu from Samurai Shodown.

I have always wanted a dragon-blooded heritage similar to tieflings and aasimar because I like the story options it can open up without being tied to a class. I think it was James Jacobs that said he liked the sorcerer because the bloodlines offered a built-in story, which is true but doesn't help if you don't want to play a spell-caster (personally I would also want a fey heritage, but that's not the purpose of this thread).
I know back in the day (the Dragon mag and start of Pathfinder days), Paizo creative said they were burned out on half-dragons because they got put into so many adventures due to their power increase on a creature so they deliberately steered away from those in 1e, but I also kind of assumed that was why we never got like a dragon-touched human but I'd love to see an official dragon-blood versatile heritage

Hmm. I had assumed this was why the low level alchemical items focused cathartic and sinew shock serum were added--for low level characters that don't yet have access to Restoration yet but could get hit with a bad poison etc.

And animals are broader now, so we could even be griffin, bulette or purple worm beastkin (in theory at least)

Interesting question. Honestly, the art is what got me into even looking at TRPGs (a lot of supplements or games I won't bother reading because I don't care for the art). It's how I connect to the world and the game so it can always be a hit or miss for me, so I definitely feel you about the catfolk and ratfolk. I've never been a fan of the feline-headed catfolk introduced in the PF1 ARG. Catfolk were a fairly large part in the campaigns when I was GM and I made it a point that any catfolk NPCs were as much "folk" as "cat" (though PCs could of course decide however they wanted to look).

I was never able to really grasp the ratfolk (I guess they are the general tinkerer ancestry that is usually served by gnomes in other settings), but I am glade Paizo gave a little blurb that seemed to echo what I always thought--"why don't people assume these are wererats?" Of course now I definitely get more of a "mouse" feeling from the art that "rat".

But I'm a visual person. There are way more monsters that I've seen the image for and been like "I want to have that in the game!" than monsters I've looked at the stat block for and said the same.

Are Irorian mummies still a thing lore-wise or have they been soft-retconned over the years?

Summoner: Already established in the lore and I think a lot could be done with it (though maybe some of the options for the "former outsiders" should be streamlined so we aren't looking for new eidolon entries every time the bestiaries add a new fiend/celestial etc). Personally I like the idea of them only using Focus spells for magic, though that would probably mean they would need more options to boost up the summoner as well and not just their eidolon. And as several have mentioned, the Spiritualist could fold into the Summoner (perhaps as one of the first examples of a class archetype).

Kineticist: Thematically one of my favorite classes, though I hated the fiddly bits of blasts being magic but not spells, but treated like spell levels etc, but there is a lot of that in PF2 already. Hopefully a more streamlined martial blaster/elemental fighter can be achieved.

Occultist: I really love the idea of the item tinkerer. And I would love to see psychic magic brought into the game earlier this time around to iron out any bugs and get more support (it was mentioned in the Inner Sea World Guide in PF1 and took until Occult Adventures to actually become a thing).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does this officially start our APG teaser posts as we near July...?

Cool. Thanks so much! Forgot to check the errata

Though the answer is probably right in my face somewhere in the CRB, is there still a rule in PF2 where if an attack's damage is reduced to 0 by penalties it still does some kind of minimum damage?
For instance if you strike with a dagger but have a strength penalty (this came up with gremlins). 1d4-2 damage...but you roll a 1 or 2. Does this just do no damage now? In PF1 this did 1 nonlethal, but separate nonlethal damage is no longer a thing.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who absolutely hated making up new monsters in 1e, I really like the new monster creation rules as I can actually start with an idea and build around that rather than having an idea and hoping the numbers align just right by the time I get to the end. Personally, the tables were just the bit I needed as I really can't go flipping through every monster of the same level in the bestiary just to compare each of their stats to see where they should be (and it certainly isn't something I can commit to memory).

As for special abilities, I can generally look for similar abilities for inspiration (so looking at other demons to know what to expect from sin vulnerability) or try to translate the visual of an ability in my mind into mechanics (not unlike what a GM has to do when their players want to do some crazy off the wall stunt and you have to decide on what kind of check they need to make for it). And judging from what we've seen of Paizo staff creating monsters, this is not terribly different from how they do. As many have said, it's mainly a matter of creativity--there is no real "secret" behind it. They made a monster live on Twitch based just off of an image ( Monster Making ) by examining what the monster looked like and basically tossing ideas back and forth with the help of chat and seeing what worked.

Honestly I've kinda been wanting the same thing. Some of the new lore spins out of events in PFS scenarios as well it seems and I really never looked at any of those in 1e. Now I really miss those lore episodes James Jacobs did fairly often on Fridays!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know this is pretty early to ask, but is the Paizo staff considering doing a one shot with these four playtest classes on Twitch at some point (similar to how they played through parts of the 2E playtest)?

While it's unlikely I'll get the chance test them with my group personally, I would enjoy seeing them in action before the playtest is over.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
If I am reading this correctly, the witch patron lessons change depending on the lessons that are learned. So it looks like you can have various lessons and thus various spell sources?

Only the initial Lesson determines the spell list. Subsequent Lessons gives spells and hexes (focus spells) I believe.

"Worst" in this case refers to the level of the curse effect you can take at your current level. So until level 11 when you get the Major Curse class feature, the worst curse level you can suffer is the moderate curse effect. You can cast a revelation spell and gain the minor curse. If you cast another revelation spell that day, you then gain the moderate curse as well. You can then choose to refocus for 10 minutes to lower it back to the minor effect. If you do not do this, the next time you cast a revelation spell, you fall unconscious.
At level 11 (and again at 17) you basically get to cast another spell before falling unconscious in exchange for a worse penalty. But as it reads it seems you can always take the time to refocus and bring it back to the minor curse, even if you are currently affected by major curse.

I tried to approach things similarly, but with 600+ pages of rules, it is only natural that we would want to fall back on shortcuts subconsciously just to make things easier to digest.

I just ran a trial 1-shot with my group and apparently darkvision doesn't have set ranges anymore.
And I didn't notice barbarian rage doesn't have any per day limits.

Considering the length of this thread this may have been asked before but with PF2 out and using it as sort of a "reset" for some design ideas:

I always thought the Misfit Monsters Redeemed was an interesting take on some of D&Ds...more unusual monsters. And often PF1 Bestiaries barely got to use a paragraph or two for an entry due to the stat-block and artwork. So are there any PF1 creatures (original or still hold-overs from D&D history) that you'd love to give a flavor makeover?

Cool. I guess I missed/forgot about that piece of information in that post launch Twitch. Thanks!

I had been wondering this too. Can anyone cite where this was mentioned? Was it in the same video as the wizard not getting a first level feat or some place else?

I'm more curious that if dhampir/changeling/tiefling/aasimar are heritages and they get Ancestry feats to make them more like the sub-races they descend from, will we see those feats before actually seeing the creature that they come from in the bestiaries?

Some of the sidebars in the PF2 books already hint at stuff we know exists from PF1 but that haven't been officially given stats in PF2 yet, so might we see an extension of that such as feats for nosferatu, jiang-shi and vetala created dhampir with a side bar telling about those vampires before they even appear in a bestiary?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In PF1, I felt there were a lot of "unspoken rules" that a new GM might not know about if they didn't comb through message boards or see the small print in each book (such as certain magic items being expected for players for the math to work out or that player characters for APs were expected to be built with 15 point buy). With new emphasis on empowering GMs, can we expect more transparency in the base expectations of the game for the smoothest play experience? A Game Mastery Guide seems like it would be a good place for this.

Well the geniekin should definitely be high on the list of things to port over soon.
I'd also love fetchlings, nagaji and especially vishkanya. I loved the idea of the vishkanya but never really felt they were fleshed out much in 1e.
As an off the wall idea, a thriae player race.

Also with the way heritages are now, I'd actually really be into a book that's basically a larger and updated Bastards of Golarion that is just heritages, since now they can theoretically be applied to any race. There were several themed books in 1e that gave alternate racial abilities for the core races, but that made using them difficult for the non-core races, if possible at all (like Blood of Shadow and Legacy of Dragons). Now, if you wanted a dragon-blooded dwarf or a part-fey human there should be design space for that.

I'm interested in seeing what they do with hobgoblins going forth. I'm all for more playable character races that get more limelight in the products and aren't just treated as outliers. I never got a change to run Ironfang Invasion, though it was on my list of APs to try if I had kept GMing. I had flavored hobgoblins to be very much like the Qunari from Dragon Age when they did appear in my campaigns (maybe with a bit of Klingon thrown in)--while their society as a whole may be considered evil due to some of their harsher beliefs, it was more about them being extremely lawful and organized (while goblins on the other hand were completely chaotic and had impulse control issues, whether they were evil or otherwise).
Still I wish they weren't as lanky in the new art, but maybe we'll see some other body types as the edition ages.

Most of my table either keeps their character sheet on their laptop or tablet (though one or two players use pencil and paper). I've only found pencil and paper to work for me for the first three levels or so before I start running out of room to write all the things my character can do, and just printing out those sheets just got to be a tedious waste of ink when I had to do it anytime my character got a new ability or useful magic item. Personally just keeping it on my laptop/tablet has been far more convenient.

Admittedly, it was this (and not the finicky rules for mounted combat) that made me avoid mounts in PF1. If you're a medium creature, you were basically stuck with a horse or camel unless you delved into numerous companion books which came out later, and it still felt fairly limited compared to the various types of familiars and animal companions out there. Sometimes humans/elves/dwarves/etc want a giant spider/dinosaur/great bear mount! Hopefully more options for this will arise at least by the time of the APG/bestiary2.

It's likely to be in the Lost Omens World Guide I would imagine (back when it was scheduled to launch with the other books). But since it was delayed we just have to wait and see.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

During the 2E Advanced Player's Guide announcements, it seemed that it would be positioned as a "core" book (pretty much a baseline book expected at every table along with the CRB and Bestiary). However, in the 2E APG, we will be getting "new" Ancestries in the planar scions, tengu, catfolk etc (the 1E APG included ideas that became core to Pathfinder including traits, archetypes and new classes but did not have new Races).

Does this mean we might expect broader representation of these "new" Ancestries in future materials (NPCs in adventure paths, number of feats and story development on part with those in CRB, possibly even an iconic from those races)?

And now that 2E has launched, is there any chance we will continue with exploring the iconics on Twitch?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pleased that aasimar and tiefling (as I assume the other plane-touched races will be) are just humanoid instead of outsiders based on the bestiary.

Disappointed that there doesn't seem to be an option for urban terrain for ranger anymore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isabelle Lee wrote:

I took a stab at doing that with the devil binder summoner from Adventurer's Guide (though it doesn't really change the summoner, only the eidolon). While it's devil- and Hellknight-specific in the book, it's modular enough that variants for other outsider types should be easy enough to manage.

Hopefully, if and when summoner hits PF2, that sort of option will be baked in and made more versatile. ^_^

Hmm...I will have to look into that. Admittedly I kinda glossed over that entry myself as I was deep into a campaign and tended to only look at new magic items or spells to reward my group with. Good to know!

I was always disappointed when a new player race (0 HD race) got introduced in a bestiary as there were not much information about these races and how they fit into the world in general. Some of the earlier ones eventually got some attention in companion books over the years, but those that came out later--I have little to no idea what to make of them (such as the vishkanya, astomoi or rougarou). In PF2, I kinda hope they reserve introducing new playable ancestries to books that can afford the space to really let us know more about them, especially if their basic idea is fairly far out from anything we might commonly experience in the game or other fantasy media.

Also I always wanted an unchained summoner with an eidolon that was more magic-based instead of physical and the summoner being tailored to being more of the combatant. Something like the eidolon with limited spells like abilities per day and replacing their STR boost with a CHA boost. Basically to create a healing/buffing angel eidolon or a hellfire hurling demon and so forth.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get into the whole debate about paladin alignment because everyone has their vision of how they see them and that's fine. But I'd like to ask the designers is there actually anything in the paladin toolbox mechanically that backs up the lawful alignment (aside from tenants)? I was easily able to house rule PF1 paladins as being any good alignment because mechanically there was little the core paladin got that even hinted at the lawful/chaotic axis.
They got Detect Evil (not Detect Chaos, like a Hellknight), Smite Evil, treat their weapons as good and gained DR/evil. The only ability that I remember that makes use of the lawful aspect of the class is being able to make your weapon axiomatic, which is in addition to a lot of other properties it could have. Do correct me if I am wrong.

Is this changing in PF2 with just as many lawful class feats as good? And if not, then it would seem the main "complications" of non-lawful good paladins is from a lore/legacy perspective (which again, many people have different visions of) and not necessarily a mechanical one. If that is the case, giving the option for it in the final game (not the playtest) wouldn't seem to be a huge step.

Obviously I don't know about all the moving pieces that are at play here as there might be some other mechanical reasons this isn't immediately viable since we don't know the full rules. And if there are no changes towards the law spectrum, it's easy enough for me to house rule in the future just as I did for PF1, but I would be interested in the thoughts behind the decision.

I basically started with Fate and Savage Worlds in my old group before doing True 20 and finally just running my own Pathfinder game. I wouldn't consider your opinion as "wrong". What might be fun for a lot of other people may simply not be your cup of tea. It doesn't make either side wrong, but some people have more fun playing in one style than another. So I'll try to hit up the points that attracted me to Pathfinder while I was playing Fate. However, it might best be summed up by saying that most of the reasons are mechanical. You mentioned being able to see the character's story in Traveller as you made him. In Pathfinder, it's definitely more about building the mechanics of how the character plays, not so much who the character is. Having an idea and finding the class/archetype that gives abilities to support that idea and the selection of feats to back that up and seeing it all come together can be a journey unto itself, but ultimately it doesn't tell you a lot about who the character is, just how the character plays.

Mechanical Progression: This is certainly nothing new to most RP systems (D20 in particular), but when advancing a character in the Fate game I was part of, there were no "levels" to speak of so when you progressed it really meant you got better at a skill or two or you had to really talk it over with the GM if you wanted a new perk or the like. In Pathfinder, clearly seeing what abilities I would get at what level and knowing how things would progress allowed me to look forward to leveling up a lot more.

Numerous Races: I honestly have never really cared for the "core" races--the ones that are in almost every Western fantasy setting. Elves, dwarves, some version of hobbits etc. Pathfinder has released a lot of different races suitable for player characters over the years, some with much more in-world definition than others admittedly, and without added rules like level adjustment. As someone who loves the idea of the plane-touched races this was a welcome opportunity.

Class Customization: While most classes did offer a fair bit of movable parts in the Core Rules, it was when archetypes were implemented that I really wanted to play Pathfinder! Before, if I wanted to play a class, but there were just some elements of it that I didn't see as part of my character or didn't want to bother with I was still stuck with those abilities. The archetypes allowed me to refine my idea, find something that better fit what I wanted to do. And now with so many other classes introduced over the years, it's hard to find a concept that you can't at least get close to mechanically.

Linsolv wrote:

I've read a little of Rise of the Runelords and liked what they were trying to do, but at the same time, my experience with written adventures is only the first adventure or so of Horde of the Dragon Queen, and my players HATED it. Too many leaps of logic where the writer just wanted the players to be herded like sheep, when any game master will tell you they're not sheep, they're cats.

I can't speak to the total of APs (I've only run one and am in the middle of another thus far and I make heavy changes to them) but my opinion is that a lot of pre-written adventures (APs in particular due to their length) require a certain degree of buy-in and suspension of disbelief to be run as is. If you don't have time to sit down and homebrew an adventure but want something long term, that is what APs are there for. But by the same token, they can't be everything to every character and obviously a character can at any time just decide to go do something else instead of what's presented no matter how many flashing neon signs are pointing to plot thread. Thus the players have to be willing to accept that it is likely to be somewhat railroady--otherwise there wouldn't be much of a way to write an overall arc. If the players aren't up to that social contract, then perhaps APs just aren't what they're looking for and making up the adventure as you go is needed instead.

Hmm...tough question.

Sandman (Bard)--I love the spellthief concept, and while I think thematically it fits better for a rogue, making it a bard with some rogue additions allows for less explaining of rules as bards already have spellcasting.

Skirmisher (Ranger)--Honestly, as a GM almost every ranger I make is a skirmisher or trapper. I don't really care for ranger magic and the skirmisher really gives some interesting options for combat whether its using an animal companion or not and regardless of fighting style.

Flowing Monk (monk)--I would say Qinggong, but that is pretty much handled with the Unchained monk, but monk had a lot of good archetypes that did not port over easily to unchained. The defensive counter attack options of Flowing monk is one of them. I think it worked well for creating a different style of fighting for the character.

Tinkerer (alchemist)--I kinda feel this is the closest to an actual machinist or artificer we got. Would love a version of this that is expanded on a bit more.

Serpent fire Adept (monk)--I really wish the chakra points system worked better. The saves were just too high for their payoff, especially compared to what could already be gained by Qinggong powers or the Unchained monk. But I would love to play a monk that is a master of chakra points--not just his own but his enemy's as well (way back in the day there was a Dragon magazine article that gave the monk pressure point attacks)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the camp with restricting Raise Dead but making PC dying more difficult. I didn't like that in my previous campaign death was just a speedbump and had no gravity to any situation. It just broke my immersion when party members had no problem picking a fight with a huge dragon but everyone in the party would abandon an area just at the signs that there were rust monsters nearby (because Raise Dead and two Restorations is cheaper than that +3 weapon I bought!)
So for the next campaign I made changes to how long it would take them to fall permanently but made it clear that coming from the back from the dead was fairly rare and risky. Divine casters straight up won't entertain the idea if person in question is of an opposed alignment or ideology to their faith or risk losing their own divine abilities (and even if they are of a similar or same faith, they may ask for something besides monetary compensation such as vowing to spread the word of their faith, doing some work on their behalf etc).

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Technically I use Artistry and Lore in my games, but they are mostly for NPCs as my players rarely put anything into them (but to be fair, my players don't use Craft, Profession or Perform in the first place either). I'm on board with what Benjamin posted, using Artistry for creating those works that aren't tangibles (like composing music, poetry, or being a playwright).
For Lore, to me it helps fine tune ideas when I think the Knowledge skills are too broad for me. If want a character to know about black dragons (my lore options tend to be a bit broader than the examples the book gives), but there's no reason for him to know about magic in general then Lore (black dragons) fits better than Knowledge (arcana). When there's an xenophobic elven character that is only concerned about the history of his people and doesn't' care about the broader history of other races, Lore (Elven history) works better for me than making something where I give an arbitrary penalty to his Knowledge (History) regarding other races--that sort of thing. Then as a house rule I lower the DC of Lore checks compared to their Knowledge equivalent--if you're more specialized in your study (and if you've spent the points to be more specialized) then I feel you should come across information much easier than when you're casting a broad net.

quibblemuch wrote:

It’s two different thoughts, combined into one sentence.

1. You can’t use it if you’re immune to confusion.
2. If you’re NOT immune to confusion and you use the ability (which makes you confused), you can try to remove the confusion (if you get the “act normally” option).

If that's the case, what would be the benefit of it? The confusion only lasts 1 round. If you use the ability and are confused and roll "act normally", then you can just go about doing what you normally would. There's no need to remove it because it'll be gone on your next turn.

Maybe someone can help me parse this. I'm making a villain with the Voice of the Void archetype for the Medium (Villain's Codex). However, the Surge of the Void ability has a bit of text that I find confusing.


Surge of the Void (Su): The voice of the void can use spirit surge additional times per day without incurring influence, but each time he does, he is confused for 1 round. If this confusion would cause him to babble, he can instead act normally, but his emissary gains 1 point of influence over him. The voice of the void can’t use this ability if he is immune to confusion, but he can remove the confused condition when he is affected by it. This temporary confusion clearly indicates the voice of the void isn’t fully in control, so if he uses this power on a Diplomacy check in a negotiation, for example, it might prejudice the other party against him regardless of his check result.

Emphasis mine. I can understand that a creature immune to confusion would be unable to use this ability, but why the part about removing confusion? If the character is immune to confusion, when would he ever be affected by it? Does anyone else have any insight into how this bit of the ability is supposed to work if a character is immune to confusion?

Meraki said wrote:

How I do it:

Anything that has the same stats (and thus the same initiative modifier) goes on the same initiative count. Things with different stats get different initiative counts (even if by coincidence they do happen to have the same initiative modifier).

So if I have 6 orc warriors, 2 orc casters, and one orc commander, they'll have three spots on the initiative count total, with the warriors going at the same time, the casters going at the same time, and the commander going on their own.

This is how I do it as well. I've never had the issues with the enemies swarming and flanking the PCs as mentioned (it happens, but I wouldn't call it a problem) as this also has the drawback of the enemies not being able to adequately respond to what the PCs do because their turns are clumped up. Say the orc mages act before the commander (using Meraki's example). The orc mages take their turn, then the witch PC puts the commander to sleep. Now they all have to wait until their next turn for one of them to go over and wake him up, whereas with individual initiatives there's a chance at least one of them still has a turn after this happens. Similar could be said for if the enemy commander needs healing from his minions needs but his clerics have all taken their turn already etc. So kinda six of one, half a dozen of the other for me.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Off the top of my head, this is the background of an important NPC in Paizo's

That's interesting. Thanks! That is actually the kind of information I was looking for so I know I'm not completely imagining things (this is for an NPC I'm creating that is a tiefling without actually having fiendish ancestry).

I guess APs should be another place I look. Maybe I ran across it in one of them or a Player's Guide.

Maybe someone can help me out here, or at least tell me I'm not remembering things correctly.

At one point I recalled reading that not all tieflings are the result of breeding with fiendish entities. Sometimes they are born simply by parents/ancestors making a pact with such fiends, or they are born in an environment tainted by evil etc. However, I can't find this premise anymore. I thought it might be in Inner Sea Races or Blood of Fiends but didn't find mention of it in those. Does anyone else recall this being a thing, and if so can you direct me to where it was stated? Or is my memory just faltering?

Wow...just wow. Sounds like the word of Ogreclease needs to spread through the Mindspin Mountains.

I grouped the Improved feats together basically so they serve as a gateway to doing combat maneuvers without such a steep cost. Sunder, drag, over run and bull rush are one feat and reposition, disarm, trip, and dirty trick are another (Improved grapple stays by itself as the odd man out for needing a different prerequisite with Improved Unarmed Strike).

1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>