Sheyln (Symbol)

Kakitamike's page

132 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

First off, the player in my game who brought these questions up said he already searched around and couldn't find any answers, so I'm taking him at his word as I post this. So if the answer already exists, I apologize.

Two questions.
1. Can a shaman take improved familiar to augment his spirit animal?

2.How does an animal spirit change when the shaman gains the true spirit ability.

animal spirit reads


By communing with the incredible powers of her spirit, the shaman forges a cherished bond with one specific servant of that spirit—known as a spirit animal. A spirit animal is a creature chosen by a shaman to serve as a conduit, allowing her to more fully access the magic of her spirit on a daily basis. The shaman’s spirit animal also grants her special powers. This ability uses the same rules as the wizard’s arcane bond class feature and is treated as a familiar, except as noted below.

A shaman uses her level as her effective wizard level when determining the abilities of her spirit animal. A shaman can select any familiar available to wizards to serve as her spirit animal, although her spirit animal is augmented by the power of her chosen spirit. Once selected, the spirit animal cannot be changed. Although a shaman’s spirit animal uses the statistics of a specific animal, it is treated as an outsider with the native subtype for the purposes of spells and abilities that affect it.

The bold part would make me think improved familiar has no interaction with this ability. Or does this mean the appearance of the animal spirit remains unchanged, but it can still gains the abilities of the improved familiar.

true spirit ability reads

Companion Animal (Su): The shaman’s spirit animal takes the form of an animal companion of her choice, using her shaman level as her effective druid level. The animal retains all the special abilities and the Intelligence score of the spirit animal, but also has the statistics and abilities of an animal companion. If the animal is dismissed, is lost, or dies, it can be replaced in the same way as a normal spirit animal.

How the above reads to me, the spirit animal retains it's int score, and still gains any benefit listed in the special ability column of familiar, but everything else is based off the animal companion table, including hit points, saves, atks, etc. It would lose the familiar armor class adjustment, for example.

Someone mentioned a familiar always has half the hit points of its master, but the wording above felt like it would supersede that rule.

Thinking about it, my problem is more with perception and less with combat facing.

I don't like how perception gives everyone 360 degrees of total awareness. If someone is on a rooftop (out of combat) and no one mentions they look up, I don't want to hand out a perception check to notice them. Same thing with being followed.

My other issues are when people "search a room" and expect it covers going over everything with a fine tooth comb.

Recently the party had a fight in a church, and there was an enemy in the rafters. The enemy came down eventually, things occurred, the fight was over. Afterwards comes "we search the room" I describe the doors, windows, altars, pews, contents of the pews, whats beyond the doors. I don't feel this includes climbing up the ceiling to search the rafters. But I also don't feel I need to ask the pc's if they're searching the rafters, because the pc's always place extra emphasis on anything you mention.

PC's: we enter the corridor.

DM: any particular order?

PC: um, we enter in this order, and we have our weapons out

DM ; (sigh)

So I guess I'm more interested in house rules for perception checks.

Does anyone have any links or resources for facing rules for pathfinder? Googling around I found:

But I was curious if anyone else had come up with some options for it.

I really don't 'aim' for any certain amount of PC death. I've had two character deaths in my current game, one at 8, the other at 13. Previous game I didn't have any. Might have been 1 in the game before that, but it gets a little fuzzy on memory.

Most times the PCs get themselves killed, it's not me doing them in with damage or spells.

okay, we, took that last part to mean that the dominated person would do whatever possible to carry out the instructions, but that they could do other things as long as they no way impeded carrying out the instructions.

And all the other posts I could find on the topic seemed to imply the dominated target is fully aware they aren't in control of their actions.

A search turned up many dominate person questions and answers, but none to my particular query.

My players were escorting a dignitary through a king's treasury, and while there, the dignitary stole some money from the treasury. THey tried to question the dignitary about it, but when that failed, one of the pc's cast dominate person and made the dignitary empty his pockets, then they proceeded to have a little fun by making the dignitary slap himself.

When they returned from the treasury, the only order given the dignitary was to go to his room and stay there, at which point they left his presence.

On his walk back to his room, I had the dignitary tell passing guards and servants that he was being mind controlled and he needed help, which eventually led to the spell being removed and the pc's getting in trouble.

My question is, how specific do you have to be when instructing someone who is dominated? If you tell them to speak to no one, can they write people messages? It seems like there'd be a tedious default list someone casting the spell would need to rattle off after each casting to make sure they didn't get caught during the spell's duration.

It doesn't seem like there's any rules for pre-empting someone who has been dominated so the caster can stop them from doing something to tip off they aren't under their own control.

I don't see why not. Lord knows escape artist could use something to do when they aren't getting owned by tied rope.

Maybe something like DC 15+ ac bonus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of skill uses will depend on how much your GM implements them into the game. Also, how strictly they run module rules. I remember the first time I played in a PFS game, I was trying to become friends with some of the npcs that were shipwrecked with us. I talked with them, invited them to explore, gave them supplies, asked about their worries, but nothing I did made any difference. Then one of the other players just said, i want to befriend so and so, my diplomacy roll is 18. GM said, okay, he's friendly to you now.

The GM explained that no matter how well you explain or plan something, it means nothing without the roll, because then naturally charismatic or smart people could just avoid putting any points into social skills and still do those roles.

IN any event, based on the games I've been involved in, my skill list would look something like;

5 - Acrobatics
5 - Knowledge (Local)
5 - Perception

4 - Diplomacy
4 - Disable Device
4 - Linguistics
4 - Spellcraft
4 - Survival
4 - Stealth

3 - Bluff
3 - Knowledge (Arcana)
3 - Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
3 - Knowledge (History)
3 - Knowledge (Nature)
3 - Knowledge (Planes)
3 - Knowledge (Religion)
3 - Sense Motive
3 - Swim

2 - Climb
2 - Escape Artist
2 - Fly
2 - Handle Animal
2 - Heal
2 - Intimidate
2 - Use Magic Device

1 - Appraise
1 - Craft
1 - Disguise
1 - Knowledge (Engineering)
1 - Knowledge (Geography)
1 - Knowledge (Nobility)
1 - Perform
1 - Profession
1 - Ride
1 - Sleight of Hand

Okay, no, I thought it was weird, but having only played with one or two other gms, that have been players in my games, I figured I might just not be up with what a large pool of other people do.

There just seemed to be a lot of stuff that the GM didn't think would be that big of a deal and just told the players this is how it's going to be, but it was definitely a big deal to some of the players.

It takes a certain type of player to want to be a slave at all, let alone to another player. It seems like the kind of thing you'd talk about beforehand and make sure players are comfortable in the role.

I've been playing with the same 8 or so players for the last 15 years, so we're pretty used to what to expect out of a game.

Another friend of mine recently started playing in a campaign with 3 other friends. They were told they would be in a somewhat urban area, acting as spies. They were also told they could come up with background stories if they wanted.

The group decided to all play rogues. Apparently only one of the players gave themselves and background information, so the GM changed where the came started based on that one characters background. The campaign changed to essentially start in a frozen desolate region, but they still had to play the characters they had created based on what they had previously been told.

My friend then wrote up a fairly generic backstory for himself, and the GM told him, well, your character can believe that, maybe that's what he tells people, but what actually happened is 'blah', the gm then telling him what his background story is.

They start the first session, to find out 2 of the players are slaves owned by two of the other players. The players that were the slaves had a little issue with that, and by the end of the first session, one of the slave pcs was out on his own because there had been no real reason given why he'd want to continue to travel with his owners.

Now, none of the above sounds remotely close to anything I'd ever do as a GM, but I haven't played with many new people over the years. Does this sound par for the course with player experience and how GMs handle things, or should my friend be a little skeptical on the GMs methods of running a game.

I agree, but I tell my PCs up front that they won't be able to create any magic items outside of potions and scrolls. So they don't build characters that would want to. Magic item creation stays within the realm of special npcs in my games.

Cinderfist wrote:

We call it role playing yourself out of the group. You the player have come up with this elaborate back story that really in no way makes sense for your PC to become an adventurer or associate with the other adventurers. He would be more content raising sheep. And somehow it's the DM's fault for not accommodating you.

Or a player asking why his character would want to continue adventuring with the group.

As a DM this is fustrating. You (the player) have come up with this logical reason why your character shouldn't stick around. Rather then expending that energy coming up with a reason why you should.

I feel like this is the biggest problem I have seen of late. Players who create characters with no connection to the campaign goals, or even at odds with the goals, and then constantly complain how the group is doing things their character wouldn't be doing. It's like, what did you expect to happen?

I definitely feel like I've run into a problem where the players no longer act like adventurers. Players creating characters that have no interest in the storyline of the campaign, or even creating characters that work against it.

People expecting a reward for everything. Not going on an adventure, not because they don't like the sound of the adventure, but because the payoff isn't enticing enough.

A high amount of meta. Carrying grudges over from campaign to campaign. Needing everything explained and detailed out. I feel like it's very hard to create any mystery anymore.

I feel like it's just been a slow change over the past decade or so, between the amount of knowledge people have access to at their fingertips, to the mmo explosion.

I feel less like I run a game for adventurers, than say, venture capitalists.

Sorry, this has little to do with min/maxing, but when the OP talks about a player creating a character concept that has little to no adventuring angle for the campaign, I felt it was tangentally related.

Usually some fixed number. I used to do averages, or let the players roll, but more and more, I find doing a point based system just ends up being fairer for everyone involved. It's the same reason I do point buy for attributes instead of dice rolling.

For example in the current game I'm running the hp and skill points per level, before modifiers are;

class hp skill points
Alchemist 6 6
Barbarian 12 4
Bard 7 7
Cavalier 10 4
Cleric 7 3
Druid 6 6
Fighter 9 3
Inquisitor 8 6
Magus 7 3
Monk 7 5
Oracle 5 7
Paladin 8 4
Ranger 7 9
Rogue 6 10
Sorcerer 6 2
Summoner 4 6
Witch 5 3
Wizard 5 3

1. Usually 17 or 19 points.

2. Medium, but technically, when I give out exp at the end of the night, it's just a percentage of the average difference in level, so it doesn't really matter what track i use. For example, the amount it takes to get to 6th from 5th is 8000, so if it was a slow night, i might give them 1000, whereas if they accomplished a lot, it would be closer to 2500, but those numbers are all based on what is needed to level, so it wouldn't matter what track we use.

3. I allow all the official hardback books, except the upcoming prestige book, as the current campaign i'm running will be the last one that allows prestige classes. For the other books, players have to run things by me that they want beforehand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I house rule a ton of things as GM, but the players always know in advance. As has been mentioned above, I also run my own campaign worlds, so not everything works how it does in PFS.

As for rules problems that come up in the middle of campaigns, I generally get player input on resolving them, but always keep them aware that whatever the ruling is works teh same for npc's as players.

Other times, if we can't quickly find an answer to a rule, I will rule on it and say 'that's the way it's going to work until someone can provide a ruling that says otherwise.' That's the closest I really come to ruling one way with no argument, generally to get back to moving a session along.

Well, i'm the gm for a game, and I don't allow fly until level 7, and one of the players found this spell and asked if it was okay. I'm just trying to work through the logistics of what it actually affects.

Was told about this spell. It has the following description.
This spell grants the target the ability to swim through the air. Creatures with a swim speed can move through the air at that speed. Those without a swim speed must make Swim checks to move as normal. Still air is treated as calm water, light or moderate wind is treated as rough water, strong or severe wind is treated as stormy water, and stronger winds cannot be swum through. This spell does not grant the ability to breathe air to creatures that normally can’t.

As worded, would the target begin falling the moment they stop swimming in the air, or would they sink? If they sink, would they take the standard underwater penalties for melee attacks? I could see -2 ranged penalty for the initial square as well.

If they would just fall, I don't see the attack penalties, as it's probably a gamble to begin with, getting one attack at most.

The same would go if they fail the swim check by 5 or more. I guess it really comes down to whether the air around them is only treated like water when they're actively swimming, and it's treated like air the rest of the time, or if they essentially move through the air like water.

Right now they're all listed under a heading of NPCs/Monsters. I was trying to find a term that was shorter that would cover both.

Thanks for the input.

For instance, if i were listing all the residents of a dungeon i was making

old elven hermit
wounded human adventurer

minotaur zombie
gelatinous cube
ochre jelly

lost cat

Would 'NPC List' be an intuitive heading? Are monsters and animals or monsters with 0 int considered to be npc's? Or, as a GM, would you be thrown off by the monsters in an encounter showing up under the NPC list and not a separate bestiary section?

Can never have too many archetypes. I hated prestige classes about halfway through 3.0, and don't even allow them anymore.

I've only played elves, humans and half-elves.




Usually my players get a level every 4~6 sessions. But gaining experience in my games is less by the book. I look at what the average level in the party is, find out how much experience the difference is between that level and the next, and divide by 4, using that as a base. If they get a lot done, i give slightly more, and if they don't do much, i give a little less. Also, if you're above or below the party average you get -10% or +10%exp per level difference, respectively, whenever you gain exp.

It seems like most games i have one person +1 level, because they never miss a session, one person -1 level because they either miss a lot or die, and everyone else at the average.

My average campaign runs 12-18 months.

I house rule it to where you need the specific type to overcome DR. I was not a fan of the +X catchall that came with pathfinder.

As mentioned earlier, I agree with the 'right tool for the job' approach. In my experience, the party usually needs a few types of weapons, not one for each type, as I've never thrown every DR type under the sun at them.

I'm not sure how varied the DR types are in pathfinder modules, if they'd require the golfbag otherwise.

Always ran it like two-weapon fighting, but will change it to whatever the clarification is once it happens.

All the damage that isn't stopped by DR and ER?

I find this thread fairly interesting. In the 20+ years of playing and DMing, i've yet to hear this come up at a table.

So from that, I would say it's viable if someone at your table isn't telling you otherwise.

As much as this topic probably doesn't need another thread, i feel like this should be it's own topic, as to not get buried in here.

It sounds like the dev team said the clarification doesn't work with zen archer and sohei, but the way the archetypes read, it seems like sohei is the only one where there's a conflict.

Zen archer says that it acts like flurry of blows except in these special circumstances, which includes the use of the range weapon. That would sound to me like consecutive attacks with the same ranged weapon is the exception they are talking about.

I can see the problem with sohei, as it doesn't make any exceptions to how flurry interacts with it.

LazarX wrote:
Anyone can die in a Salvatore book. As a certain barbarian mainline hero found out the hard way.

So I guess the question is, can she stay dead?

I think they're pretty balanced as a race, but the evil stigma should be mentioned to the pc that wants to play one, unless the campaign has unusual circumstances.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
loaba wrote:

And Drow are a CE race! Who knew! lol

Seriously, count me in with the camp that says "curse you R.A. Salvatore, and your Dritzz abomination too!"

The Icewind Dale trilogy weren't bad, it was the countless imitators and the books thereafter that were the real problem.

I really enjoyed the first six books. Then I listened to Salvatore in an interview in which he said he could write about those characters for the rest of his life, and they weren't going anywhere, and I stopped reading.

When you know the characters are invincible, it kinda takes out the fun.

A lot of this has made me ponder the pseudo-magical behind the scenes powers of wild shape.

Over the years, the handful of times i've played a druid, and shape-changed into a bird, or fish, or snake, i've never had a GM tell me I had to take some time learning to move in my new form, and unless druids from previous years had taken time to write down how it felt to move with new appendages, I wonder what kind of learning would be involved in that. The ability doesn't reference this, so I guess it could go either way. Suddenly you are a master of your new body, in all of it's utility, or it could almost be a new learning experience from the start.

And I guess I am also curious along that line, if someone wildshapes into a creature they've only seen a picture of and read about, would you let someone observing them that has actually seen the creature move make a check of some sort to know that there is something wrong with the creature?

I don't make pc's learn to move in shapes, or let others get tipped off by them moving awkwardly, but that's also while i feel fine in making them observe the creature visually.

When he says thinking up, it sounds like he means something you looked up in the bestiary and decided you want it, not something you physically saw.

I'd agree once you've seen it and had a little time to study it, you could change into it.

nicklas Læssøe wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:

It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.

Yah, god i feel dumb for reading the rules as if Zen archers can actually fire 6 arrows at level 20 with their bows and not have to fire 4 arrows, and attack twice with their feet or whatever. Especially if we also throw in that they cant use manyshot or rapidshot, then it seems really obvious that such a limitation is not to prevent them from having upwards of 9 attacks per round, but instead because anything more than 4 attacks at level 16 is cheese. Oh wait that doesn't make sense...

The only thing this "faq" did, was to explain how monks are not supposed to be using any type of weapons, though i must say that i dont understand why they did it. Even letting the monk flurry with one +4 weapon (worth 32 k) compared with the fighter/ranger/barbarian using two +3 weapons (36k) he is still inferior.

I never said the clarification made sense. I was simply stating that taking offense to a clarification does not somehow change it from being a clarification into a nerf.

It's like people who complain that throws are cheap in fighting games, instead of just adapting.

People would rather throw in passive aggression with a nerf statement every time then admit there was a misunderstanding, and then move towards getting it clarified where it now doesn't seem to make sense based on the intended wording.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:
It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.b]

Keep your misinterpretations to yourself. You can state your justifications if you'd like, but don't misquote me because you can't stand behind your assumptions.

RAW, it sounds like you'd have to enchant each given appendage, as it states one of your attacks, not all of your attacks.

I should clarify, I don't work on the paizo rules team, so you should probably direct rules questions to them.

It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.

I generally treat it the same way. I'll tell a pc what animals are common to the starting region, but anything else, they have to hunt down to interact with in person.

Though I don't let PC's craft magic items other than scrolls or potions, that don't revolve around quests to find rare components either.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like the difference between optimize and min/max. If I want to make a fighter that uses a lance and tower shield on foot, I'm going to pour over archetypes and feats that allow me to do it with some amount of competence. I think that's normal optimization.

But if while going through the feats, I find I would be doing way more damage if i changed to a one handed weapon and light shield, or kept the lance but picked up a mount, then i'm min/maxing at the expense of my character concept.

I think one of the strengths of the pathfinder system is it's kinda hard to build unplayable characters. It might not be the best, but they can all generally contribute. Again, so much of this comes down to the group you play in.

I really hope they keep prestige classes to a minimum. Archetypes seem like a much better fit, and I like the focus they put on base classes, as opposed to people looking at them as a stepping stone to their OP prestige class.

I also feel prestige classes trivialize the base classes, as it just becomes looking at what class gets you to your prestige class fastest. WHereas archetypes compliment the base classes by giving them alternate abilities that only that class can do.

The one thing I would like to see focused on for archetypes is more overlay. Archetype rules permit you to take multiple archetypes as long as they give up different base class abilities, but not many classes have archetypes to allow them to do that.

I wouldn't mind an ultimate archetype book.

They're really making an ultimate prestige book? ugh, was so happy when i thought they gave up on prestige classes. There's one book i won't be adding to the campaign.

I did this in a game once, but my DM also let me construct a custom shoulder mounted rocket launcher that could also be modified into a mortar launcher. I like the idea of a team hauling around a siege weapon, but it's not something that would of flown in the games i've played in.

Ultimately I think it comes down to your GM working with your concept. RAW, it sounds easy, but expensive.

I'm actually doing this for a campaign i'm starting in June. I'll have the party make their level 1 characters, then i'll take some abilities away and make theme essentially level 0.

It'll basically all be custom changes, as I told the players that some characters might have ability scores higher or lower than what they have at level 1, as the adventure at 0 level will have some dramatic effects. Other class abilities and starting scores will be changed as needed for the 0 level.

Five years pass between the level 0 prologue adventure and the start of the campaign.

I guess technically the campaign won't start at 0 level, as after they complete the adventure, time will pass and they will be level 1. Experience gain will be irrelevant for the 0 level part of the campaign.

Yeah, i might allow a gnome with a rooster as an animal companion or familiar to have maybe the equivalent of a 4 chicken dogsled pull him around, but that's about it.

I usually get too annoyed by magic around level 12~15. I've run one campaign to 20~21 and it went fairly well, but high levels are usually too ridiculous.

I did run a no-spells campaign to level 10 about a year ago to great enjoyment though, so maybe I'll try revisiting that to level 20 some day.

Dabbler wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

And I am pointing out that where you have used the word 'most' you actually seem to mean a small minority. It's not snark, it's underlining that whatever you may think, the monk is considered very difficult if not impossible to make effective and functional in it's stated role. Clearly if there are that many threads, posts etc. out there, there is a serious problem.

You do realize that the small minority of people that post on this forum, that complain about the monk, are not the majority of people that play pathfinder?
Oh yes, I am aware of that, but the question is, is it a representative sample? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, but I for one have no reason to assume it isn't. At the same time, if we can demonstrate mechanically our stances, that combines with the sample of opinions should be fairly strong reinforcement.

I guess it's just hard to quantify if something is or isn't broken or needs fixed, because we don't even really have an agreeable baseline to judge by. Even if everyone played the same core rules and the same access to magic gear, that doesn't even take into account what people see in their given campaign.

When other ultimate books came out, gunslinger and summoner eventually made it onto my list of classes i don't allow more of one of in a game, because i find them too powerful. Previously that class list was monk and cleric.

I'm sure there are a number of people that would just scratch their head at that statement, but again, I scratch my head at anyone who factors magic items into any theoretical class build.

Dabbler wrote:

And I am pointing out that where you have used the word 'most' you actually seem to mean a small minority. It's not snark, it's underlining that whatever you may think, the monk is considered very difficult if not impossible to make effective and functional in it's stated role. Clearly if there are that many threads, posts etc. out there, there is a serious problem.

You do realize that the small minority of people that post on this forum, that complain about the monk, are not the majority of people that play pathfinder?

Usually 5 2hour watches, accommodating for casters as needed. Usually some time during the first session we just write down various watch orders based on who's there, and then only look at it again when relevant.

Yeah, I guess I never realized PF modules were built around assuming players had magic gear at a certain level.

I've always treated magic items as something that makes you more powerful, not something mandatory to keep you at power level.

Though, having just finished the 2nd book of the first PF module I've ever played in, I have seen far more magic DR and level drain than I've ever seen in a home campaign pre level 5, so I guess it makes sense.

Aside from encounters where you need magical weapons to damage an enemy, do that many people need magic gear to be 'having fun' in a pathfinder campaign?

That should work. We somehow missed the free action for un/equipping a shield if you have a +1 bab. And 3 free actions is what we usually limit a round.


1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>