Kiern's page

10 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:

In a recent Pathfinder playtest (part 3), one of our clerics used a total of 2 spell slots. Neither of which was for healing. Nobody died. It boggles my mind how healing is such a problem.

That's not to say that it can't be. Our part 1 group has no dedicated healer (we've got an Alchemist and a Bard) but they did OK in Part 1. I'm very interested to see how that works for part 4. Maybe I'll change my mind then.

Perhaps that is dependant on group, character build, and circumstances. In part 1, my character went unconscious all the time and we consumed basically all of BOTH our healers spell slots, entirely on healing spells. And I don't think we were playing inherently badly, we just were taking a crazy amount of damage.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Logged in specifically to say that this is needed! My group has lagged behind in the playtest, but I can already see that 2e has a worse problem with the 15min adventuring day than 1e. I’m not the biggest fan of CLW wands, but given the choice between that and the 15 min adventuring day, I’ll take my CLW wand thank you. I almost kinda like the concept of resonance in that it at least prevents charisma from being a dump stat. But it restricts healing too much in its current form. This simple addition is a solution to multiple problems (clw wands, 15 min adventuring day, healing without a Cleric in the party, improving rituals, allowing the gm the option to catch the party unhealed as story requires, etc.), it is extremely flavorful and appropriate, and, as noted, has thematic precedent in many fantasy stories and even real world cultures/religions.

Heck, you hear about people in real life performing rituals with herbs, musical instruments, crystals, smoke, cupping, etc. all to heal a subject. This is not just a viable option, it actually now appears as a gaping whole. Why haven’t we been able to do this all along when such rituals are a huge aspect of actual living cultures?

Java Man wrote:
Ancient Dragon Master wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Sadly the construct modifying rules in Ult Magic killed this idea off by capping increased HD.

That already argued this point, and said specific trumps general.

"A homunculus with more than 2 Hit Dice can be created, but each additional Hit Die adds +2,000 gp to the cost to create."

General rule: you may not increase by more than 50%

Specific rule: increase costs 2K gp. (No mention of limit).

I do not see that the specific rule has anything to override the general.

This overruling is implied by the nature of the homunculus itself. It is normally a 2 HD creature. With this rule, you’d be able to only add 1 HD. Note the rule specifies the price goes up for “each” HD, so it specifically calls out the ability to add more than one HD. meaning that this specific rule does indeed supersede the general.

Sorry for the necro, but wanted to put this here for those who read this in the future.

Sorry for the necro, but this is an interesting topic. This is assuming Cevah's stance is the one the GM rules, what would this mean for the animal companion? They are now sentient, but by bypassing the Awaken rules, still technically eligible for being a companion. Does that mean that, though the animal is now smart, it still must follow the animal companion rules? Could it take class levels now, making the AC a psuedo cohort?

These kind of questions are the reasons why I feel most GMs would rule like dragonhunterq and just say it equals a casting of Awaken, but I'm curious how GMs would handle an AC that has 6-20 Int.

If your GM allows some 3.5 throwback material, I've got some favorites that I used on my master summoner.

Beckon the Frozen:

With summon minor natural ally, that's a bunch of weasels that attach for 1d6 cold damage per round. Nice!

Cloudy Conjuration is also situationally fun, and good for getting concealment.

TheNine wrote:
I do believe being mounted on a medium to large sized mounts counts for elevation but that could be back from 3.5
GarnathFrostmantle wrote:
As a GM i would not say a Mount, is "higher" ground. I would argue that you are mounted, not at a higher elevation. I could be mounted on a dire wolf, I'm still not taller than a troll. This raises the argument that humans have higher "elevation" on halflings. Does your bonus apply then?

Per the pfsrd: "When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground."

Though your comment about humans getting elevation bonus on halflings does bring up an interesting point. I think the point here is the mount must a size category or more smaller than your mount, and you're sitting on top of *that* in order to get the bonus.

GarnathFrostmantle wrote:
Can i ask the source of the favored class?

The player just found it on the pfsrd.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Are you committed to staying in this group? Because even if you convince him to ban this ridiculousity, it doesn't sound like you're ever going to have a reasonable game with this fellow running the show.

I didn't mean this to sound like I'm criticizing the GM, as this cheese benefits my own inner munchkin. After all, no other GM would let me build the chicken cursed warpriest I've been dreaming of. Yes, he allows crazy things, but he balances it *reasonably* well with things just as crazy and, above all, it ends up being highly entertaining. That being said, I do also enjoy more traditionally balanced games, and I was wondering if this would even be an option in one of those.

So in a group that I'm playing where the GM tends to rule RAW and RAI in favor of the player and lets his players let out their inner power gamer (we're all gestalt), I saw a player with an interesting build. I wanted to ask the community, specifically GMs, whether or not this is broken and/or bannable in a more traditional setting. It involves 3rd party material, so obviously is not an option in PFS.

So here's the main concept of the build. Catfolk ninja/slayer gestalt (but for our purposes we can ignore the slayer aspect, and, yes, I know you usually can't gestalt two rogue-based classes, but as I said, GM rules to player favor).

The key to this build is the catfolk ninja favored class benefit, which is 3rd party: Add a +1 bonus to attack rolls when attacking on or charging from higher ground.

So if you pick this every level, you've taken a 3/4 BAB character and effectively made them a 1 3/4 BAB as long as they attack from elevation. Plus, said lenient GM has ruled that, since wording doesn't specify melee attacks, it can be used when attacking from range. At level 7, our catfolk ninja/slayer, whose favorite tactic is to climb/levitate to a good shooting position, is shooting off 4-6 arrows a round with a +20 attack mod. Now our GM ups the difficulty accordingly and everyone else is just as cheesy so it works. But would any sane GM allow that 3rd party favored class benefit?

So my question comes in multiple levels:
1) would you ban it outright?
2) would you allow it if it applied only to melee combat?
3) how would you challenge a character with this in their build, other than always throwing them in a low-ceiling cavern all the time?
4) If GMs allow this, I'm curious if there are other repercussions or builds that may become interesting with this. For example, if melee only is stipulated, I'd be tempted to take a 1 level dip into samurai (keeping that nice eastern flavor). Mount elevation would make it much easier to get that bonus consistently.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For maximum cheese, you should go through the bard's versatile performance ability and "summon Bollywood." 2/summon_bollywood/