Karlgamer's page

Organized Play Member. 972 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 972 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Malk_Content wrote:
I think weapon choice is important for a level 1 character, but not having the ideal weapon at level 1 shouldn't be a deal breaker. Just like how envisioning my character as a Knight in shining armour isn't diminished by waiting to get the Plate he so covers. If anything it enhances the character to see them come into that gear on screen rather than in the backstory. He starts as the hopeful, modelling himself on the ideal imagery and eventually gets the gear that represents that.

I totally like the idea of not having the ideal weapon at first level.

Let's say that your character concept is that you become really good at playing Guitar, but you start off dirt poor.

Maybe you make your first guitar out of an old shoebox, a yardstick and a rubber band. Cool concept!

You still don't want to suck at it.

OR if you do suck at it the idea is that the hardship makes you a better performer later on.

So using a chain as a whip is a cool idea, except Rogues aren't proficient in whips.(and in many respects a whip is superior)

Just using a Chain would be an improvise weapon with a -2 penalty.

My suggestion is to use the stats for a weapon that Rogues are proficient in and allow the player to call it a Spike Chain.... or Dirt Poor Spike Chain if you will.

My group is about to finish Rise of the Runelords. They have been struggling a little with pathfinder 1st edition rules.

I don't like D&D 5th edition. It's just a little too simple for me, but I was considering switching to it anyway, until I played a short session with my wife and kids. My wife expressed her dislike for how simple it was in comparison to pathfinder.

So then I though again about 2nd edition pathfinder. I was hoping that the lack of a general feet problem would have been fixed in the actual game.

Part of this post was to see if it had been fixed somehow: Apparently, It wasn't, but there are archetypes that come close.

Part of this post was to express my belief that Weapon choice is important especially at 1st level: I 'think' most people agree with me on this.

Part of this post was to explore options that would effectively allow a player to play with the weapon they want: There seems to be a few options but none of them feel ideal.

Ly'ualdre Quote wrote:
...which tends to be within the confines of the basic rules..

I am the same way. Which is why I am struggling with this so much.

Part of this post was frankly just to complain: But in the end it isn't 2nd editions fault that I don't like it, but I really wanted to. I'm currently doing a full readthrough and I keep thinking "why wasn't it always like that?"

But it isn't 1st editions fault that my players are struggling. It is after all one of the most playtest games systems of all time. I need to
buckle down and get better at running it. I just wish that all the old adventure paths hardcopies weren't so expensive on second hand sites. :D

Okay, but until you get Mauler... why not say you are using a spike chain but use the stats for a Rapier.

Nothing game breaking if you use the mechanical stats for a weapon you can already use. I guess you spend 1 more gold piece?

A first level character should be able to play with whatever weapon they want without penalty. It should cost something(like a feet), but it shouldn't be impossible!

You should have to build up to being awesome with the weapons you use, but you shouldn't have to start out using a different weapon or sucking at the weapon.

Look I totally get that you shouldn't be a complete bad@$$ at a weapon right out of the gate. I just don't think you should suck at it. Three less to hit kind of sucks in my opinion.

That is why I suggested temporally giving the Spikechain the stats of a weapon a Rogue was proficient in. That seams fair.

Now I would love to hear about an archetype or a background or something that allows it... In the end isn't that kind of a patch for an oversight of the system as a whole.

I just feel that the weapon you chose is as important as the other starting characteristics.

I think the best option is just to say the character is "using a Spike chain" but with the stats of simpler weapon until you can reach the level to use it properly.

I think the weapon you choose is almost as important as class or ancestry or background or appearance.

Like, lets say you wanted to become the Trident Master!!! Or Master of Katana, or any other character idea concerning weapons.

It might take a couple of levels and a few google searches to find all the right feet's to Achieve this concept, but you at least want to start your character off wielding a Trident.

That is you wouldn't want to start off obviously worse then your companions. Perhaps if there was a benefit to sucking for a while, but there isn't.

It's always better to use a weapon you don't suck at until you become proficient in the weapon you eventually want to use.

You might Scream "JUST PLAY A FIGHTER!" but I think that's not the point.

Dragonchess Player wrote:
Oh, and a little tangent: Some Fatboy Slim for the thread title.

That was the reference I was making

Gortle wrote:
Probably what you want to do to make it work mechanically is create a custom background which says you "can treat the spiked chain as a simple weapon for proficiency purposes". Which will mean your desired Rogue could use it with no problems. There are other 2 handed 1d8 finesse weapons so its not far away from the balance point of the weapons. But that is a highly unusual background, its more normally done as an ancestry feat.

This is a great idea. Use background to add a weapon proficiency seems like it would work. Although it would be kind of breaking the rules a little. I would allow it for a player that had a good concept, but I wish the rules made it easier.

I have been looking and it seems like the only viable way to do it is with the Mauler Archetype.

During playtesting of 2nd edition I excited to hear that Goblins were made an official Ancestry. So I immediately came up with a cool concept for a escaped slave Goblin Rogue named 4-Oh who used the chains he used to be bound in as a weapon (a spiked chain). I Fell in love with the idea and was very excited to make this character, but when I searched the Playtest rules I discovered that my concept was impossible(unless I wanted to suck until I gained the feets necessary to use the weapon effectively)

I ended up making different character.

I always assumed that this was just an oversight in the Playtest rules.

Currently I am running my Players through Rise of the Runelords in first edition, but we are about to get to the end. I have been considering running 2nd edition so I have been reading the rules, and it turns out that(unless I have missed something important) that it is still impossible (unless I wanted to suck...) to make a 1st level Goblin Rogue with proficiency in Spiked Chain.

Maybe if I did the math proficiency isn't that important or something? I don't know.

I feel that the lack of a first level General feet really hurts your ability to make the character you want.

The Weapon you choose says a lot about your character. I don't expect it to not cost me something, but the cost shouldn't be sucking at your weapon for a few levels.

I think what I will do if I choose to switch to 2nd edition, is allow my players to use whatever weapon they want, but with the stats of a similar weapon they can use.
Until, they finally get the feat for the weapon. Although I am unsure if a Rogue would ever be good with a Spike Chain.

Noy jitat!

Jeff Merola wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
I'm surprised by all the answers in the affirmative. I guess I lack common sense?

There was a FAQ recently that actually answered this.


Thanks Jeff! This is exactly what I wanted.

I'm surprised by all the answers in the affirmative. I guess I lack common sense?

One of my players is playing a Sorcerer with the Fey bloodline.

He has been using his Archmage Mythic ability Wild Arcana to cast Entangle.

Entangle is a bonus spell for the Fey bloodline.

I was going to write a macro that would parse the attack text.

So I'm looking at the different texts and I noticed that sometimes when listing natural attacks they are separated by a comma.

Bestiary 31 wrote:
2 claws +7 (1d6+5 plus grab), bite +7 (1d6+5)

And sometimes they are separated by And.

Bestiary 32 wrote:
bite +19 (2d6+9 plus rot) and 2 claws +19 (2d4+9/19–20)

Does this have any significance?

I only think these 9 use the "and":
Crocodile, Dire
Eel, Electric

Hey, my players don't read this. If you don't think you are my players then be warned that this is filled with spoilers.

My players had the idea that they would burn the bridge to Thistle top and wait until the goblins inside starve.

So I talked to some friends and read some ideas on here.

So at night it started raining and the fog rolled in. In the middle of the night(when most of them were asleep) they started hearing baying from Yeth Hounds. Since all three Yeth hounds were baying at the same time I increased the DC by +2 for each additional hound for a total DC of 16(upon further reading I sould have made my players roll three times since).

Whether or not the save is successful, an affected creature is immune to the same hound's bay for 24 hours.

Nearly all of my players ran except the witch. As they were running back they came across two Yeth Hounds. I was intending to scare them away so that the goblins could build a simple bridge and my players would give up their idea of starving the goblins.

Because I use macros(roll in front of my players) I couldn't(cheat) stop one of my players from dying from a Yeth Hound bite when she tried to stand up after being knocked prone. That player was incidentally my mother. I kill her the day before mothers day! :(

After that I had the Yeth hounds run away. They did what they were told to do and they didn't want to press they're luck. (Also more players would have died.)

My players did eventually run away, but they seem to be convinced that they have defeated the goblins because the goblins couldn't possibly make a new bridge quickly enough to stop them from starving.

They went around kill off the remaining goblin tribes. I tried to emphasis that the other tribes are mostly pregnant females and children.

I don't want to punish players for thinking outside the box, but I'm not convinced the goblins will starve. A simple rope bridge wouldn't be too hard for the goblins and their friends to make. Especially since they have had to fix it before.


Originally, the goblins rigged the bridge so that it

would fall completely into the water below, but when they
tested it and realized that they’d stranded themselves on
the island, they rebuilt the bridge so it would leave one
rope connected, making it easier to repair.

My players are also now convinced that the monsters in Thistletop are impossibly hard to kill. I tried to emphasis that the fight with the Yeth Hounds was especially hard because they were taken by surprise(split up and without weapons).

My players seem to think letting the Goblins try to raid Sandpoint is a better plan because they will have the help of the people in Sandpoint.

I figure that should be a very very hard fight.

Are the traits listed on page 21-23 of Blood of Angles traits that I just get?

Or are they traits like those introduced in the APG.

In most media there are bells and whistles associated with the casting of most spells. Usually a whooshing sparkly colored glow.

Do you think that the casting of a spell might give away the location of the invisible spell caster?

I guessing it depends on the spell.

James Jacobs wrote:
After answering thousands of questions and seeing the answers often used as ammo/weapons/prybars by players to get their way... I've just kind of learned to expect that could happen. Not necessarily by the person asking the question either... remember, these answers are public, and anyone can use or abuse them.

Alright cool. Honestly, didn't think about that.

It's like in Forward the Foundation when Eto Demerzel(R. Daneel Olivaw) has to explain to Hari Seldon that he can't simply use his awesome Robot powers to change anyone's mind who doesn't agree with him.

Because he follows the Zeroth law(A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.) he can't make any changes which he isn't able to predict a positive outcome.

James Jacobs wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
Do you ever find yourself hoping for a ruling that is different from the one you would make if you were in your GMs shoes?
Nope, because when I'm in my GM shoes I get to decide what the ruling is, and when I'm a player I respect the GM's decision for what the ruling is.

When I said "hoping for a ruling" I didn't mean to imply not respecting the GM's decision. I'm unsure how you came to that conclusion.

James Jacobs wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
Do you have any hints on how I should interpret "as if"?
As if it were a construction in a sentence that references a secondary reference that will help you to understand the first reference.
How far does the reference extend?

That's a better question for the rules boards. And the FAQ button.

But I'd say it extends all the way, to make the scout better. Partially because I'm playing a scout in Rob's Skull & Shackles game.

Ya, I hope that you're right, but I suspect we're wrong.

I'm also playing a Scout. An archer scout.

Do you ever find yourself hoping for a ruling that is different from the one you would make if you were in your GMs shoes?

James Jacobs wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
Do you have any hints on how I should interpret "as if"?

As if it were a construction in a sentence that references a secondary reference that will help you to understand the first reference.

That's not meant to be snarky, by the way—even if it sounds like it is.

It's really nothing more than us saving wordcount. If we didn't say "as if it had total concealment" in the above example, we'd have to reprint ALL of the rules for total concealment.

So in the rogue archetype Scout it only references flat-footed, the creature doesn't actually become flat-footed.

How far does the reference extend?

Uncanny dodge:
Does it mean that Barbarians and rogues that have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability are not effected by the Scouts ability?

Does it mean that the creature can't use its Dexterity bonus to AC?

Sap Master:
Does it mean that the Sap Master feat can be used on the creature?

The phrase "as if" is often used within the rules when something acts like something for a specific purpose, but demonstratively isn't the thing it acts like.

Like how a displaced creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.

I am unsure if this is always how "as if" is used when parsing a rule.

"As if" could actually be evidence that the thing is in fact what it acts like.

Like how a person who has just seen a ghost might act as if he has seen a ghost.

Do you have any hints on how I should interpret "as if"?

Here is my human rogue rake Scout build.

It's basically a Sap Master build. I'm planning on using Sniper Goggles, blunt arrows and a Merciful composite shortbow.

I couldn't find a place for Enforcer, but if Scout really does allow me to attack Flat-footed then I might not need all of the intimidation stuff anyway.

Chemlak wrote:
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.

I'm agreeing with you, but I'm hoping we're wrong.

I would like this to get the FAQ treatment.

I would like to reiterate that I love your program, and ask again for some way to max the HP of monsters. So if the monster is 13d8 + 117 the hit points equal 221.

I'm very familiar with Maptool but I would like to playtest this I think it would be better for my crew and me.

James Jacobs wrote:

Correct, which is why if you have something the party HAS to find... you shouldn't put it behind a secret door or otherwise hide it behind a Perception check.

Alternately, one trick I do when I want the PCs to find something is have them all make Perception checks even if they don't ask for one and then let whoever rolls highest on that check be the one to find the clue.

You sneaky devil. Why didn't I think of that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
Here I said stuff

If you want the players to find secret stuff, you should put hints and clues in that they should look where the secret is. If you only want them to find a secret if they're observant, then let the dice fall where they may.

If you want to change things around to match your setup and play style and all that, that's the right call.

Well, I like the idea of the dice falling where they may, however unless I misunderstand how perception works it's possible that the dice might never even get rolled. I'm not sure if they would be intrigued enough by the room even to ask for a perception roll. Then again I could be totally wrong.

I have a question about a specific secret door however It's kind of a question I have in general.

spoiler(Rise of the Runelords:

In Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition page 50 there is a secret door(C24). The interactive maps don't have a wall there, and I was planning on using the map in my game. However the room is adjacent to stairs so it makes sense that the treasury might be there instead.

If I place the treasury there then my players won't have that mysterious missing space, that would've been a dead giveaway to most players.

I don't believe the treasury is alluded to so I'm unsure if my players will find it if I place it there. Especially given the location.

In general I do want my players to find secrets like that right?

This thread is for fun, but it does concern the type of strict vetting of the rules that I find under Rules Questions.

Arcane archer has some pretty tough requirements. The two that are most important here are:

BAB +6

Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells.

So for a character to enter Arcane Archer and still gain spells from the class they have to have at least on level in sorcerer, Wizard, Bard or Witch. None of these have the fast progression for BAB.

So the earliest you can enter Arcane Archer is starting at 8th level(1 level arcane, 7 levels fast progression for BAB)

It would be really cool if you could get both fast progression for BAB and Arcane Spell casting.

In one of the AP there is a creature that qualified for Mystic Theurge using her race. Here race specifically casts as a class equal to her HD.

Nyrissa from Kingmaker AP 36
Her race is Nymph.
It states:
nymph wrote:
A nymph casts spells as a 7th-level druid, but cannot swap out prepared spells to cast summon spells.

You could actually enter Arcane Archer one level(I realize that HD and level are not exactly the same thing.) earlier if you were a Fairy Dragon!

Dragons have a base attack bonus equal to their total Hit Dice, and Fairy Dragons cast spells as 3rd-level sorcerers. Three levels to gain the feats and then Arcane Archer.

You know I don't stop my players if they fail their acrobatics check. I'm not sure it matters that much.

Unless the threatener has Combat Reflexes he only gets one AOO a round.

I have seen my players provoke AOO on purpose so that other player can escape all the time.

PoorWanderingOne wrote:

I can see the 'use the listed value until the chart gives a better value' idea but how does this mesh with the added armor value from that same chart?

CRB 83 wrote:
Natural Armor Adj.: The number noted here is in addition to the familiar's existing natural armor bonus.

I also looked up Improved familiar in the 3.5 DMG.

DMG 200 wrote:
The following statistics assume a master of the minimum required level...
DMG 201 wrote:
Imp Familiar...Int 10

He has the same stats as he did in the MM.

Meanwhile the Formian worker had an Int of 9(not 6) same as he gets for being a familiar.

NobodysHome wrote:
Must be a holdover tactic from the 3.5 days

I just checked both my 3.5 and 3.0 books and in both the duration is concentration, and concentrating is a standard action.

I thought maybe it had something to do with the wand being a Spell Trigger item but looking up that

NobodysHome wrote:
so how does the warchanter shoot through the illusion? A slit in the curtain? Or does the fact that she cast the spell give her an auto-save to see through it?

Well, the book doesn't say the warchanter is getting total cover, just cover. And this makes sense, if he/she shoots an arrow through the curtain and it fails to act appropriately that would count as proof that it was just an illusion. Everyone who saw that interaction would instantly disbelieve the illusion.

NobodysHome wrote:
Or does the fact that she cast the spell give her an auto-save to see through it?

I would and have always assumed this. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to properly effect the other side of their illusions.

Okay this seems like a pretty good question, but no one has asked it yet and that worries me.


She may also use her wand of silent images to create an illusion of a curtain dropping down between her and the rest of the room, providing herself cover she can use to shoot arrows at anyone who fails to see through the illusion

Doesn't silent image immediately end when they use their bow?

Possibly before they use their bow if they have to draw their bow.

Tangent101 wrote:
No problem. Even the most expert of GMs will forget things, miss paragraphs, and so forth.

I once forgot about the Split ability of Black Pudding until the fight was almost over.

Well, that escalated quickly.

Alright guys, I found it. For some strange reason my eyes jumped over this part.

424 wrote:

A minor runewell can also be commanded to disgorge a

sinspawn. To manifest a sinspawn, a creature need only allow
a few drops of its blood to fall into the pool. One round later,
a sinspawn emerges from the well and immediately attacks the
closest creature in which it cannot scent wrath. Each use of a
minor runewell in this manner costs 6 wrath points.

A little embarrassed here.

I'm sure I read this part. I guess I was just up late and my brain wasn't working right.

The last paragraph under Runewell, Minor is all I needed. Sorry if I wasn't being clear enough.

Misroi wrote:

How intricate do you need, Karlgamer?

Step 1: Put blood in runewell.
Step 2: Sinspawn pops out.
Step 3: Get eaten by sinspawn, since you don't actually control it.

How am I suppose to know any of this?

Where do I find the rules for the minor runewells(making sinspawn) in the Anniversary Edition?

The rules on page 425 do not explain the intricacies of how this process works.

I really really wish it did.

I believe that the original books to explain this. I did not by the original books.

Rikkan wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:

There is no saving throw to disbelieve mirror Image.

You don't get a saving throw for every illusion spell.

Sure you do.

I don't know how long you've been playing Pathfinder/D&D, but collectively we've been playing for a very long time.

If you want to do some research on how illusions work please read Skip Williams' Rules of the Game.

All About Illusions (Part One)
All About Illusions (Part Two)
All About Illusions (Part Three)
All About Illusions (Part Four)

I think its better if you just trust us. We are not lying to you and we don't have an agenda.

If a spell doesn't list a saving throw you don't get a saving throw.

You will notice that some illusion spells have a saving throw and others don't.

Don't argue about it. Trust us.

If you want to do some research on how illusions work please read Skip Williams' Rules of the Game.

Rikkan wrote:
Well mirror Image is an illusion spell, so wouldn't studying it and disbelieving be more effective, if you have a decent will save?

There is no saving throw to disbelieve mirror Image.

You don't get a saving throw for every illusion spell.

I would rule that you have to both close your eyes(which I consider a free action) and shove something in your ears(which is probably a full round action)

In making this ruling I would be removing:

"or the attacker is blind"

Or I would rule that you can close your eyes(a free action).

In making this ruling I would be removing:


Because I don't feel that those two parts of the spell are compatible.

I'm probably going to let the caster choose between the two interpretations.

Alternatively I would allow my players to simply use the 3.5 version of the spell.

I think my spell casting NPCs will probably use that version because as a GM I feel it's adds to the flavor to say that 6 additional creatures appear.

List of names I don't know how to pronounce:

Ezakien Tobyn
Delek Viskanta
Larz Rovanky
Cyrdak Drokkus
Alma Avertin

Sissyl wrote:

row( row row your boat) + N

Coup( de grâce)


I'm supposing that some of the names are suppose to be pronounced as if they are Japanese.

a as in fAther
i as in meatY
u as in fOOd
e as in Egg
o as in Old

Tsu sounds kind of like TSUnami


Yan Grorson wrote:
what other names are you wondering about?

Well, I just discovered that the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting has a pronunciation guide.

So a big chunk of my work is done.

But the names

Oh, the peoples names. I wonder about all of them.

Golarion: go-LAIR-ee-un

Karzoug: kar-ZOOG

Tangent101 wrote:
It's however YOU want to pronounce them.

Exactly! I WANT to pronounce them as close as I can to how they were intended to be pronounced!

I don't need to be 100% perfect, but I WANT to be very close. That's the point of this thread.

1 to 50 of 972 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>