Kitty Catoblepas's page

Organized Play Member. 545 posts (559 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

For what it's worth, Undead are immune to bleed now.

So, a lot of things have changed since '09

You could probably crib the Vindictive Bastard archetype from Paladin. It should apply fairly well, since AntiPaladin is basically a per-ability reversal of Paladin. If you're leaving Cruelty and Fiendish Boon intact, you'll want to skip the Vindictive Bastard's Solo Tactics, Teamwork Feat, and Gang Up abilities.

Now, I have no idea how this will balance, since I'd never tried it before (or even thought about doing this before just now), but the Vindictive Bastard's abilities seem to be a strict downgrade from Paladin abilities, so I'd be willing to chance that you won't throw too many things out of whack by trying it.

(written-out address for above link: Vindictive Bastard )

yukongil wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

I think it might be a good time to point out that we're on the rules section of a website that is devoted to a written ruleset of a game and you're accusing me of being absurd because I suggested that basing ad-hoc rulings on NO! may go over poorly to players when your values of NO! are based on whimsey.

serious question; can you read, or is english not your native language? Because the rules have been settled like in the first dozen or so posts and the topic of conversation, after having settled that this is mechanically RAW legal, has shifted into; now does this make any sense? I hope that helps to bring you up to speed.


Yeah, you're either missing the point or being willfully obtuse.

Set to 3? Good. Great, even. The point is that this is a house rule and surprising players with ad-hoc house isn't a fair thing to do. If you're GMing...

do you actually GM? Again serious question. Cause nothing you have said makes any sense as coming from someone with any GMing experience. Most of your job is adhoc ruling, because, surprise-surprise, no system can account for even a quarter of the things that players try and pull. DC to climb the Titan, how many halflings can I carry in one hand, what is the hardness and hitpoints of a wall of bodies, why don't moving bodies then have that? Can I shoot an arrow at someone in a fog cloud? Etc, etc, etc...

I'm sorry I hurt you. I would have taken more care to phrase things in a gentle fashion had I realized that it would affect you so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
I'm wondering how many people who think the wand sharing trick is okay, would feel the same if the GM used the same loophole against the players.

As a GM, the difference in giving 50 NPCs one 50-charge wand and giving 50 NPCs fifty 1-charge wands is formation, action economy, Attacks of Opportunity, initiative, and a feeling of justification.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
yukongil wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

I'm glad you could take the time to come back and completely miss the point. Or maybe miss 49 points.

But not 50 points. That would be a silly number of points to miss.

your point in itself was absurd. Of course the point between normal and absurd is not defined, but is a distinction made by the individual. I didn't think such really needed to be pointed out, but there you go.

I think it might be a good time to point out that we're on the rules section of a website that is devoted to a written ruleset of a game and you're accusing me of being absurd because I suggested that basing ad-hoc rulings on NO! may go over poorly to players when your values of NO! are based on whimsey.


If it's fine for time to stop for 48 people while one person fits 6 seconds worth of actions in, but not fine for time to stop for 49 people, then that's an arbitrary distinction. If it's absurd for time to stop for a number of people depending on how the GM feels about the situation, then that's unplayable. That makes every player's action begin with, "Can I...?"

so you want a hard number? Fine, 3. No more than three people in a single turn can perform the kind of group action we're talking about. Or, maybe we can admit that not every situation is the same and that is the exact reason the GM is there, to decide what is best for the game, the story, the narrative, etc...?

I mean if you can't see a difference between one character picking up another character's item and using it in the same turn and 50 people playing the wand shuffle game, I just don't know what to tell you. I'll just take my catchy late 70's theme song and go...

Yeah, you're either missing the point or being willfully obtuse.

Set to 3? Good. Great, even. The point is that this is a house rule and surprising players with ad-hoc house isn't a fair thing to do. If you're GMing Pathfinder and are suddenly struck by an insatiable urge for realistic dropping rules that will fly in the face of other Pathfinder rules, then good for you. Put your dropping rules out on the table before you start your dropping-based campaign.


Besides that, when attempting something that is not clearly defined in the rules in which you might have a question, it's generally a good idea to start with "Can I..." if not, I imagine that kind of player is the kind that everyone else at the table actually really hates.

That's fine. But we're not talking about players attempting something that is not clearly defined in the rules. We're talking about players attempting something that is clearly defined in the rules, being told NO! and trying to infer the actual ruleset.

yukongil wrote:

everybody has a suspension bridge of disbelief, and everybody's has a different weight limit. or to put it another way;

Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Everybody's got a special kind of story;
Everybody finds a way to shine.
It don't matter that you got not alot.
So what?
They'll have theirs, you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine!
'Cuz it takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world,
Yes it does.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.

Fifty people doing the same action in the same turn, with the same item is too much for me. If it's not for you, great! Have fun, make fun stories with it, recite them here for our amusement.

I'm glad you could take the time to come back and completely miss the point. Or maybe miss 49 points.

But not 50 points. That would be a silly number of points to miss.

The point is that the line between Normal and Absurd is not defined. If it's fine for time to stop for 48 people while one person fits 6 seconds worth of actions in, but not fine for time to stop for 49 people, then that's an arbitrary distinction. If it's absurd for time to stop for a number of people depending on how the GM feels about the situation, then that's unplayable. That makes every player's action begin with, "Can I...?"

If my teammate disarms a wand from an enemy wizard, can I pick it up? If I can pick it up, can I use it? Can I drop it and quickdraw my rapier afterwards? Can the enemy wizard pick up the wand after I've dropped it? If the enemy wizard picks up the wand can he use it on me? If I use my AOO to disarm the wand from the wizard, can another enemy pick it up and use it? Could one of my allies instead?

Where does too much lie? It isn't codified. This just adds ambiguity without actually providing any benefit.

yukongil wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
So, if I had 50 people with 50 wands, could they all line up and shoot magic missile at a target sequentially, each waiting until the previous has finished to see if the target has fallen yet?

mechanically? Sure, and as has been discussed, it seems to work even if they were pulling the use/drop/pickup/use method with one wand. Even if I disagree with them wholeheartedly.

Realistically? No, not within the confines of as single round (6 seconds) for that many people.

I'm not sure the exact number that it becomes silly, but 50 is definitely it for me. Two people, three or four? I'd let that fly a few times for desperate situations and the like, but I'd discourage it's use as a habit (unless the characters put in some serious work in developing it as a teamwork feat or something) and you can bet that like I said above some clan of kobolds are going to play the same game with a wand of fireball at some point.
I'm perfectly aware that this is a fantasy game, but the rules of reality are still in place until some fantastical power changes that. Time still runs as normal until it doesn't, and nowhere in this scenario does time suddenly stop for 49 other people to fit in their own 6 seconds worth of actions concurrently after one another in the same 6 seconds of time.

So, what do you do for initiative? Do you make your players declare actions at the start of the round and hold them to their choices? Do you also write down your NPC actions at the start of the turn so you won't be tempted to change them?

yukongil wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:
This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray.

Do you give people killed or incapitated before they had acted during that round their turn's worth of actions? Because otherwise characters killing or incapitating people before they acted also "[use] the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray". If say a Barbarian pounces and kills an enemy at lower initiative first round of combat, that enemy never gets to attack, if everythign in a round supposedly happens simultaneously, that can't be right.

If a Barbarian can make half a dozen attacks before their target can make even a single one despite those actions allegedly happening siumltaneously, a person using and dropping a wand before another person started to act is not any more cheesy.

but can 50+ people say use, drop, pick up and say use a remote control, fire a gun, or swing the same sword in 6 seconds?

that's why this breaks down. It becomes absurd at a point and a physical impossibility to boot. I think the little loading screen message in Pathfinder: Kingmaker handles this pretty well though; "a move or a standard action each takes about 3 seconds to accomplish" which would make this nonsense a non-issue.

So, if I had 50 people with 50 wands, could they all line up and shoot magic missile at a target sequentially, each waiting until the previous has finished to see if the target has fallen yet?

When I find myself making a system to make up for bad rolls by buffing stats to acceptable levels, I ask myself, "Why don't you just use stat arrays?"

It could also work in the opposite direction, with the PCs leveraging the influence of the runaway princess to accomplish their goals.

They keep on her good side by doing things that make her happy -- sneaking her out of tiresome banquets, smuggling her boyfriend to see her when her authority figures would not approve, keeping unwanted suitors away because the PCs "didn't recognize them", writing speeches when she needs to comment on recent events, preparing letters making requests from or pledging support to nobles for her to send, and generally doing the day-to-day responsibilities of someone of her station for her.

Having a disinterested noble at your disposal is a great asset for a group of potential "advisors"

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quixote wrote:

I have to admit, all this talk of politics is confusing me. I don't understand how cultural appropriation is political at all. I'm not talking about governmental policy or legislation. I'm talking about courtesy, human rights and open, honest communication.
I mean. Is it that things like cultural appropriation tend to be divided by political party lines, like global warming in the U.S.? I guess I could sort of understand but... "global warming" is not a political topic. It's a scientific/environmental one. Gun control and gay rights are political topics, but the morality of gun ownership or homosexuality are not.

I've seen "politics" used as a shorthand way of saying, "Touchy subjects that people may feel strongly about and are likely to make others uncomfortable or argumentative if you bring them up and have a high likelihood of completely derailing the task at hand, especially if you say something that someone feels is inaccurate."


So how is the concern that I may be taking some of the authenticity and accuracy away from a people's culture political?

I was thinking about this thread and accuracy depicting a culture, and it reminded me of this article about an anthropologist studying the Tiv people (and the Tiv people studying the anthropologist's culture through her). They ask her to tell a story, and she tries to tell Hamlet to them.

The article is from the 1960's, which I feel illustrates my point that things don't age well (she seems openly condescending to her audience in a way that feels uncomfortable through 2020's lens). I also feel that it illustrates the difficulty in portraying a different culture accurately, as other cultures are always seen through the lens of your own and it's hard to understand concepts that don't exist in your own culture. That is to say, we may get the "what" accurate, but will struggle with the "why" unless we've lived in the culture (or unless we were born into the culture).

So, if we're destined to get things wrong despite our best efforts (most probably offensively so, if we have a wide enough audience), what's our solution?

I mean, really? What is our solution if we're trying to create an inclusive gaming experience that isn't jarringly offensive?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
The class lacks unique abilities. It doesn't match up to any other classes, and it's just not that interesting yet. It needs more.

I agree with this.

The class has 13 "dead levels" out of 20 and is really only marginally more powerful than the Warrior NPC class (if at all). You should have at least 13 more powers throughout the class so that players have incentive to take the next level in Adventurer.

Honestly, Trap Sense is a weak enough ability that you could add abilities on those levels, too.

If you're looking for ability suggestions, something to supplement torch use/fighting would be nice. Maybe improved Keros Oil firebreathing (improved damage, range, and/or area), improved attacks with simple and/or improvised weapons (or maybe just with the torch), more torch bonus feats, trap use as per Trapper Ranger (or maybe even access to some traps at level 1), weird (i.e. Su) detection abilities using your torch light, ability to impose Dazzle as part of an attack, inspire others with your torch-bearing moxy, etc.

In general, for any class to meaningfully contribute in the game, you're going to want to consider the following and how your class would accomplish these and react to these being imposed:

- A way to restrict the movement of enemies (wall)
- A way to inflict damage on enemies (fight)
- A way to circumvent obstacles and have mobility (move)
- A way to cover vast distances (travel)
- A way benefit your allies (buff)
- A way to disadvantage your enemies (debuff)
- A way to percieve dangers, enemies, and/or your surroundings (sense)

Remember to keep scale in mind, where high-level challenges require much different obstacles and much more damage to hamper them due to the number of resources they'll possess and where low-level challenges can be trivialized by certain abilities (like flight).

That's one of the reasons I like the rotation cipher as a solution -- It helps keep usage consistant if you're using an actual word. It also, in my opinion, makes it feel more real to me. Just preference, I guess.

Saying something like, "Hey! Flarff you, buddy!" doesn't feel as real to me as saying something like, "L'jaqa dug! There's no way I'm going to do that!" or "Tell you what, geyaya, you go first!"

Again, just my preference and it interests me seeing how others feel about it.

Plus, I'd be self-conscious that others would recognize the language I'm swearing in

This works pretty well with a language where you're not really familiar with the pronunciation scheme, too, since an intuitive English pronunciation of a significantly different language (say, Japanese) can result in words or phrases that sound like they're part of a real, indecipherable language (I got this idea from an anime where they gave Japanese dialogue to foreigners who didn't understand Japanese to accomplish just this).

Also, consider a rotation cipher and/or transliterating English into a different language.

As an example, take a word written in Japanese syllables in Romanji:

fa a ku

rotate them over 2 categories and down 1 (hiragana or katakana lists available in many places).

pi ki su

And you get pikisu (or, if you want to leave out some vowels, you can get pikis or piksu or piks).

Here's a few places with syllable lists if you want to try out the rotation cipher: nly-used-chinese-syllables

Magus Black wrote:
The ultimate insult and profanity: "Elf"

Reminds me of the Trolls in the mini series 10th Kingdom who were always exclaiming, "Suck an elf!" when anything went wrong.

Quixote wrote:
I also liked "yar" as a somehow profane affirmative.

Heh. Now I'm amused by the thought of "um" as a profane affirmative.

"Tell us, brave adventurer, are you with us to storm the castle?"

"Um... Yeah..."


"UM YEAH!!!!!!"

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rennaivx wrote:
Another fun formula I like for culture-specific swears is (deity name)'s (body part) - it doesn't even have to be anything particularly inappropriate to work well. Desna's thumbs!

Yeah, blasphemy works really well when you have so many gods.

Pharasma's (Un)Holy Daggers! -- And if you mix in a little bit of Gadzooks or 'zounds, you can get something like Rasdag (also spelled Razdag), an abbreviation/bastardization of Pharasma's Daggers. You would use Holy Razdag for a pleasant surprise and Unholy Razdag to refer to something that is unpleasant. "Holy Razdag, am I glad to see you guys!" or "What the unholy Rasdag are you doing here? You're supposed to be keeping watch in the tower!" Also, "Razdag it!" as a suggestion that Pharasma stab something or someone with her (presumably unholy) dagger.

Three-eyed -- A reference to Lamashtu's holy symbol, most often referring to some rundown or foreboding place (a place where you would most likely see the symbol flying) or to the type of person who would lurk in such a place. Also three-looker to describe such a person. "I'm not going in that alley alone. I'm sure some three-looker's in there just waiting to put a knife in my back."

Zon hook 'em/you/me -- A reference to the god of pain and... well... his hooks. Often shortened to Hook 'em/you/me. "I'm gonna throw a fireball into the mix next round. If the guards can't get out of the fray by then, hook 'em."

Cal-slapped -- Suffering a beatdown or some misfortune, presumably as a result of one's own actions or misdeeds (as if suffering retribution at the hands of CalIstria). "After getting Cal-slapped so hard last time you charged in here, I didn't think I'd see you come back."

Sacred Suds -- Or simply suds. Having the guts or chutzpah to do something outlandish or risky. A reference to Cayden Cailean and his mythology's propensity to portray him drunk. "I didn't think you'd have the suds to face me alone, but here you are!"

I've liked the idea of removing the penalties from the attribute spread, but I think this is also a nice step into not pigeonholing race/class combinations. These are the issues I can think of:

1. It reduces the power of Humans, but that doesn't matter, since they're the strongest

2. It reduces the attractiveness of Half-Elves and Half-Orcs. I don't know that these races were particularly powerful, barring rule abuses. It's very likely that they will be rarely played (if that's a problem).

3. It makes a Small martial a lot more attractive when they can have a bonus to AC, Hit, and also have a +2 to Str and Wis. This might lead to some frustration when NPCs have a difficult time effectively challenging your martial. But, then, you're the GM. If you can deal with the frustration, do it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:

The way we see things represented to us in media arts, including movies, tv, books, and roleplaying games, informs and shapes our views on ourselves and others, sometimes in very subconscious ways. Creative outlets like story-based, narrative games can contain all sorts of symbolism that acts as a mirror of how we see ourselves, the world around us, and all of the people who exist in it with us.

That's kind of the problem, though, even when we're trying to be "good" about potrayal of cultures that are not our own. The world has changed a lot, and consequently our fantasy RPGs are a reflection of the modern world, most often with a thin veneer of Western culture streched out over a 5000 year period, broken into pieces, and assembled into a fun, accessible mosaic. And adding other cultures seems only natural if you want to be more inclusionary and expand your RPG world.

But this turns into "defaultism" and "exoticism" where the improperly portrayed cultures in the base game come across as familiar, inviting, and fun and the faithfully portrayed cultures come across as rigid, alien, unfriendly or even wrong. Or worse, it turns cultures into designated enemies when the values of 500 or 1000 years ago clash with modern sensibilities, even when we're trying to be sensitive and avoid this very outcome.

My opinion which nobody asked for is that erring on the side of fun, accessible and modern is generally better than erring on the side of accurate-but-jarring, and that modern movies produced by the culture you're including are probably a better source to emulate than straight historical fact.

And I do agree that you should research at least enough to be able to identify a sensitive subject in a modern environment (and, indeed, your group of gamers).

HighLordNiteshade wrote:
"We are a laid back group primarily consisting of people in their 40s and 50s (eek!), many with kids. We are not rules lawyers, and individuals may have to pop off the call for a few minutes here and there to deal with family tasks. If you want to ask how long the dragon is so you can calculate her hit dice and points, or if you are going to tell me all the ways you never could have been surprised when I say, “Suddenly…”, then this isn’t the group you are looking for. If you want a fun and casual game with some occasional jokes, movie references, and bad puns thrown in then this IS the campaign you’re looking for."

This is something that I've found that it's difficult for a player to judge -- whether the GM has simply forgotten that the player's character has a supernatural sense which prevents her from ever being surprised or whether the GM is just ignoring the rules to highlight the abilities of a new super-cool sneaky NPC.

The other problems seem to spawn from a misunderstanding whether the group is playing The Adventures of Robin Hood, Robin and Marian, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, or Robin Hood: Men in Tights (and picking a concept for the wrong tone).

We all love lists.

I didn't number these, but there's not quite 100 anyway....

  • Axolotl
  • Fire-bellied Toad
  • Horned Frog
  • Leopard Frog
  • Mudpuppy
  • Fire Belly Newt


  • Dog, Pomeranean
  • Dog, Terrier
  • Fox, Fennec


  • Dwarf Hamster
  • Hairless Rat
  • Kangaroo Rat
  • Vole


  • Long-nosed Bandicoot
  • Pygmy Possum
  • Rat Kangaroo
  • Sugar Glider


  • Anole
  • Horned Lizard
  • Legless Lizard
  • Leopard Gecko


  • Rough Green Snake
  • Garter Snake
  • Hognose Snake

    --Hedgehogs, Shrews, and Moles

  • Star-Nosed Mole
  • Piebald Shrew
  • Hedgehog


  • Aye-aye
  • Dwarf Lemur
  • Mouse Lemur
  • Slow Loris
  • Tarsier

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to be clear: We've decided it's okay that Paizo uses printers based in China despite their human rights record because the guy with the bag icon shops at Wal-Mart?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Woodford wrote:
Speaking of necromancied threads, over in Website Feedback there's one that's over fourteen years old.

That's a product review. Does that count?

Players should find that they're able to milk the thing. It gives off a sweet, delicious substance (similar to horchata) that provides some benefits (consuming a dose counts as a Goodberry, gives an alchemical bonus to something-or-another, provide a bonus to Perform and other creative skills, etc.). The point is that the players should want to protect it because they think it's a wonderful thing to have around (without being too over-the-top wonderful, thus appearing to be an obvious trap). It does this as a natural response to protect itself from predation. Hopefully, this would also make them want to adopt and protect any more of these things that they find in the wild.

For nurishment, it should consume negative emotions. When a creature around it succumbs to a negative emotional effect (fear effects, despair effects, etc), it should "consume" it by casting a limited/targeted form of Calm Emotions (it should remove penalties, although it shouldn't negate combat). Players should note that if they have enough of these around, they have a difficult time feeling sad or angry. Alternately, you could have it consume parts of dead monsters, disolving them like acid (although this may cause players to get squeamish about how it makes its "milk").

It has no "endgame." It's just trying to grow, eat, and survive. It's not malicious. It has no ulterior motive, though it may seem a little scary at times.

Kunstformen der Natur has some interesting shapes, if you're looking for pictures to show your players. It's available on the WikiMedia site and is in the public domain.

Reminds me of The Dudley Brothers from Pro Wrestling fame. I'd take their approach to explaining the differences in the siblings, too: Handwave it and don't talk about it; just let it hang there unanswered.

avr wrote:

The false focus feat... and spells like bless water...

I swear this is how the Church of Abadar sells (Un)Holy Water "at cost"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What are you working with? Is the problem that you have a lack of magic that cures HP or is the problem a complete lack of a way to cope with statuses like Blindness, Petrification, Poison, Death, Fatigue, Intestinal Hedgehogs, etc? Are you mostly running from published adventures, or homebrewing the encounters? What classes do you have now, and what levels?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The proper choice is to postpone adventuring and devote your lives to rearing the goblin children. You will need to establish a homestead away from Sandpoint and other settlements in case the goblins aren't able to overcome their early learnings and resort again to violence. You must raise them as your own, hoping that that they take any and all of your teachings to heart, bucking the norms of their society and becoming their own people. Perhaps learning individuality will help them understand that what their forefathers did was wrong and allow them to become members of civilized society. Once they're adults, you can perform summary execution on the lot of them; they reach adulthood at 13.

But seriously, you should ask the GM what the tone of the game is. Any GM who uses morality traps is just asking the campaign to get derailed, especially if the campaign expects the players to partake in genocide without batting an eye.

This build will actually make you weaker, but it may accomplish what you want. It's a little complicated and will take your Swift Action every round you want to cast a spell.

Take the first 5 levels in Wizard.

You will need the following feats:

Light Armor Proficiency
Medium Armor Proficiency
Arcane Armor Training

At 6th level, take the Hellknight Signifier prestige class (work with your GM on satisfying the requirements ahead of time). This class has features that let you cast better in armor.

This will hurt you in the following ways:

Take your swift action every round you want to cast a spell
Take 3 of your feats
Reduce your speed (if you use Hellknight Plate)

This will help you in the following ways:

d8 hit die
better base attack bonus
ability to cast in armor
proficiency in order's weapon

*** another option ***

Take level 1 as Cleric
Take levels 2-6 as Wizard
Take the Hellknight Signifier class starting at level 7

you will need the following feats:

Arcane Armor Training
Warrior Priest
Boon Companion

...and the following trait:

Magical Knack

If you take the Chivalry inquisition (and your Game Master agrees that it should work like a Domain for the Hellknight Signifier's Catechesis ability), you should have a horse Mount that scales with your level.

This option will hurt you in the following ways:

Take your swift action every round you want to cast a spell
Take 3 of your feats
1 level behind in getting spells
Take 1 of your talents

This will help you in the following ways:

d8 hit die
better base attack bonus
ability to cast in armor
proficiency in order's weapon
Animal Companion/Mount ability

A horse is suitable for riding, so your corporeal undead horse should likewise be suitable for riding (and actually seems to be a pretty common mount among players with looser morals).

It has no Int score, so it cannot be taught tricks with Handle Animal (also, it is not an animal). It loses the Docile special quality since it is not an "...extraordinary special (quality) that improve(s) its melee or ranged attacks." It is not subject to fatigue, and can be the target of Spur Mount until it falls apart.

If you want to be technical, it cannot be guided with your knees, since it only obeys verbal commands. Consequently, though, you do not need hands to guide it.

If you want to be absolutely "WO-HO-HO-HO! GOTCHA!" technical, it cannot be combat trained. Mind you, it doesn't make sense for undead to be spooked in battle and war- or combat-trained only is mentioned in respect to Animals.

David knott 242 wrote:

Undine might be a better choice...

An Undine Gunslinger (Bolt Ace) with an Underwater Crossbow is another suggestion. Not exactly underwater themed, but underwater friendly.

OmniMage wrote:
I have question. Are any creatures out there that have the ability to regrow limbs and organs, but don't have the unkillable aspect of regeneration? Being unkillable, while nice, is not always what I'm looking for when I want to regrow limbs and organs.

Palidans can at level 12 by taking the Amputated mercy from the Healer's Handbook.


Vodooist Monk wrote:

Some Rage Powers allow you to punch out organs, you can rip out a heart with an 8/9th level spell (Deathclutch), but really it doesn't come up very often.

My favorite part of that is that your organs grow back in a few days from the Barbarian ability and you're perfectly fine without them.

glass wrote:

We have different definitions of the word "easy". Apart from being a bunch of extra effort for the GM, that has two issues that I can see:

1. What the hell does it look like in-universe? "Sorry, you're money's no good here. Oh wait, you got some of the other money; why didn't you say so?"

2. It creates the opposite problem. If you lug a dragons hoard back to town, but you cannot spend all that gold on magic items, what do you spend it all on? There are only so many operas to buy tickets for....

1. The Goods, Labor, Magic, Influence system works if you require that magic items be bought with a certain amount of magic, that influence buys political favors, etc. Fluff-wise, this means that the materials you need to make the items you want aren't just laying around available for purchase, but that you supply them. Rules-wise, this adds a layer of complexity and bookkeeping that may not be worth it.

2. That's a good question. If the response to "I buy a house" is "Okay, now you own a house" and that's the end of it, I'm a lot less likely to buy a house.

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I like how all the "PF1 is perfectly fine, it just needs a couple of small tweaks" threads inevitably end up with people proposing wildly different and mutually exclusive ideas for these "small tweaks", ranging from changing Improved Initiative to be +2 instead of +4 and calling it a day to removing Vancian and getting wordcasting instead.
Some people do it because they think those are small tweaks, some don't believe small changes are meaningful, and some just want to participate in something.

In a game where every mechanic is interconnected, there are no small changes; only simple write-ups.

Melkiador wrote:
The investigator comes online at level 1 as a skill monkey. It’s the secondary role of damage that waits till level 4. It’s like complaining that bloodrager doesn’t come online as a spell caster until level 4. That’s not really what it’s meant for.

Combat is a large part of the game that takes up a significant amount of gameplay time when it occurs. If your character can't meaningfully contribute for the first 10 sessions or so, you're both being deadweight in a situation where you should be helping and boring yourself.

* * * * * * * *

To switch gears...

To address the Useless Feats problem, I saw someone with a houserule to have useful feats on odd levels and "flavor" feats on even levels. That would probably warrant a list of "Useful" and "Flavor" feats, though, but I liked the idea.

* * *

At the end of this, are we wanting to start a list of proposed and/or existing solutions?

Here are some of the complaints I'd been kicking around (I'd made a more comprehensive list somewhere, but I don't have it on me):

* Self-sufficient classes/builds - Some classes or builds don't depend heavily on feats in order to function correctly. Others must use every feat available in order to make the build workable (often, these aren't the most powerful builds). If the class is supposed to do something (Cleave, Power Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, Dex to Damage), that should be included in the class, and not rely on an external package.

* Meaningful feats - Why should anyone spend a feat on getting a +2 bonus against being mind-controlled by aberrations? Why should necessary mechanics (like Power Attack) be locked away in a feat? I want feats to be meaningful and powerful customization options that are distinct and separate from my class. I'd even be willing to sacrifice multiclassing if spending feats would allow me meaningful but limited access to other class' abilities.

* Build target - How strong should my character be? How powerful is too much? Monsters don't have a power-target per CR (well, they do, but it's ignored). Consequently, players don't have a target to build to. If we had some idea of what is supposed to be normal, we could try to achieve it. This is related to...

* Useless/Godly Dichotomy - This takes two forms. The first is when a class is completely useless in most situations and completely trivializes other encounters (like a mid-level Gunslinger in combat/non-combat). The second form is where you can either build your character to be overpowered or build him to be weak (like low levels with a Fighter when a player has designed his build so he will be survivable at higher levels). This is related to...

* The Come Online Problem - This is when a class or a build doesn't accomplish what it's intended to accomplish or can't contribute meaningfully for a few levels. Gunslinger and Investigator are two examples that come to mind. I've also seen some builds or archetypes take until mid-levels to get to their flavor abilities.

I'm sure I had a few more complaints written down, but these are the ones that come to mind.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the rules of fiction, he's done for. The protagonists have defeated him. His threat is over. Now, if he's back as the henchman for a greater evil, that's another story...

If you want him to come back, he should be part of a bigger evil. Maybe he's stitched together, vomiting blood and warnings about his master (Juju Zombie template). Maybe he's been reanimated by fungus invading his corpse to benefit the colony (Fungal template). Maybe he made a deathbed deal with a greater power (Devilbound template).

The point is, if you want your old villain to server some sort of role in your new story, he's going to need to put over the new villain.

I like that FAQ link, especially the part that said...

FAQ wrote:
For most miss chances, such as blur, there’s no need to roll them if an attack would hit a mirror image because a hit and a miss by 5 or less would both pop the image.

That implies that there's some sort of secret rule hidden somewhere that states that a miss due to concealment counts as missing by 5 or less.

Roco wrote:

Simple idea:

What are fun ways to re-flavors the Witch cackle instead of just creepy laughter?

Doesn't have to be just vocal either! Love to hear some ideas.

Gingerbread Witch. Santa Claus. Ho ho ho.

Pointing and threatening. "You! YOOOOUUUUU!"

Scatting. Skibby dobba dibby hexxy uppi duppi.

Gingerbread Witch. Martha Stewart explaining her hexes to the 4th wall.

Talking Trash. "Hey guy. You're doin' all right. You missed that last time, but you'll do fine next time. Just swing. Swing hard, guy. You can do it. Aw you missed again. Maybe you are garbage."

The ol' soft shoe.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have a target

If a fighter needs to survive past level 15, he needs to plan his feats a lot more carefully than he does if the campaign only goes to 8. Let your players know how far they need to go. If the fighter or rogue doesn't have to be competitive with high-level summons, they might not feel like they have to go full-tilt from the beginning to keep up with the curve.

Have a goal

Feats, skills, traits, and class features are all limited resources. If your players know which direction they need to focus, they will be able to move away from the "safe" choice of being better in combat.

Be skeptical
Some builds have an embarrassment of options. The Human wizard loves the finer things in life and keeps his Craft(Jewelry) and Appraise maxed out with a supporting trait, feat, and backstory? He can afford to do that much more than the Elven Archer can and may leverage those investments into breaking the game later on.

Be realistic

Not all classes are made equal. Some classes trivialize an encounter if they have the right spell prepared. Some classes are damn near useless in most situations until level 5. Wanting the Paladin to spend this level's skill point on Profession(Haberdasher) is a lot to ask for. Wanting your demihumans to buy their 8s into 10s will get you a lot of humans. Weak point buy creates more pets and fewer Magi or Monks. Etc.

* * *

In short, consider doing something to help the feat-hungry, skill-starved classes who inherently have fewer options. Maybe something like the Background Skills option from the Unchained book.

Edit: At the risk of making an on-topic post...
You could be a Cleric of Besmara and give up a domain to get a familiar. This is under "Other Rules" near the bottom.


If you're not married to the idea of a Bad Touch, you could play a Varisian Pilgrim, and deliver your domains at range. This helps if you're thinking about taking the Magic(Arcane) domain by being able to center the effect on the Wizard and extend the range to 30'. This would, however, reduce your melee capabilities to shouting, "Not in the face!"

Applicable (Golarian) deities are:

Barbatos (Arcane, Travel/Exploration/Trade) -- You may want to have an Intelligence of 6 to explain away why you'd follow the Archdevil of Animals, Corruption, and Gateways. Decent domains, though. If your DM is a fan of rough terrain, Travel is nice. Otherwise, the others are solid boosts to your party.

Isis, Alseta (Community, Arcane) -- If you have a Barbarian in your party, you'll be the team player of the century, boosting the Wizard's CL or save and removing the Barbie's fatigue. Go you.

Abraxas, Shiggarreb, Tsathoggua (Chaos, Arcane) -- Like Barbatos, but worse. You probably won't want to get into range to deliver Touch of Chaos.

Alternately, you could pick Shelyn (Love, Luck) for good general buffs. With the love domain, they'll take you seriously when you shout, "Not in the face!"

Also, Calistria (Luck, Trickery) is good for throwing a 50% miss chance on someone with your move action while also buffing them with your standard.


Feats I like to complement this (assuming you're a human) are War Blessing and Channeled Blessing. This should give you two minor Warpriest blessings and let you deliver them at range. Check with your DM to make sure these work together before committing.

blahpers wrote:

Both 2 squares are twenty feet away, so both are valid endpoints for the charge--or they would be if there weren't allies in the way.

Nope, you're right. Those are the same distance away due to diagonal measuring rules.

I take back my statement, and support the Valid Charge point of view.

What you're saying does make sense, but...

1. The save is part of the description of the Energy Drain universal monster ability

2. The save to remove the Temporary Negative Level is based on the Spectre's HD and Charisma

This supports that the save is from an "effect[s] created by evil creature[s]", which the spell specifically helps against.

Note that the bonus given by Protection from Evil is a resistance bonus, which is a very common bonus which does not stack with resistance bonuses from other sources, such as a Cloak of Resistance (but does stack with the bonus from the Guidance spell, which is a competence bonus).

1. Technically yes (and it should be allowed in my opinion because permanent negative levels aren't fun). If you want to find some sort of "gotcha" to keep them from doing so, you could point out that it would be hard to time the casting of a 1 min/lvl spell to exactly 24 hours after the level drain occurred.

2. Yes. It also gives the character a +2 Deflection bonus to his/her AC against the Nagaji's touch attack to hit with his venom.

It's a strong spell.

1=PC starting position
2=Position PC is charging

Technically, you have to charge to "the closest space from which you can attack the opponent", which would be the 2 above. This would draw a line between 1 and 2 that passes through the A on the left, preventing the charge.

As a DM, you would not be unreasonable to allow the charge from the OP, but a player with a "high level of rules mastery" would be at a disadvantage due to rules uncertainty.

See the Dreamed Secrets feat. Secrets

If your ranger doesn't mind losing his mind to Outer Gods, then, Iä!, fireball is his at level 13.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Note that using the Cook People hex is an evil act, but using the Swallow Whole ability of the Gingerbread Witch is not.

Maybe evil lies in the chewing. Or maybe the seasoning.

If you're going for puns, you could always use:


Various translations of "Henhouse"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Maybe just make a ranged weapon version of throat slicer? That said, what should it be called?

Head Banger

Warped Savant wrote:

The Hat of Disguise won't help much as it doesn't allow you to change your creature type. (Wyvarans are "Dragon".)

So you're saying that it will allow him to appear to be a Gold Dragon, powerful ally and wise council to noble So-and-So?

1 to 50 of 545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>