Klorox's page

1,779 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 1,779 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Best way to avoid overlap is to take different specializations, for instance the wizard is a buffer/controller while the arcanist is a pure blaster/combat mage/utility caster... of course, some overlap in practical spells might be desirable when it comes to utility spell, so one can do them while the other is similarly treating other areas or objects, or when you want to give a given buff to the whole party.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have repeatedly renounced playing my character to the hilt, in the name of table harmony... example, a drow hating dwarf ranger (favored enemy drow) not killing the newcomer's drow character out of hand.

If "playing in character" means being disruptive to game harmony, or worse, then step out of character and rationalize why your character is no following his instincts.

Java Man wrote:
I picture gold or platinum ingots with a value stamped on them by whatever entity supports them (bank, merchant guild, noble clan, whatev)

Yeah, 'trade bars' does suggest the concept of fixed value ^metal bars, especially when they are described as "Dwarven"

Nyerkh wrote:

If you do go the TWF route, there's even the Sword and Pistol feat for that combat style. If you still have feats available somehow.

There are a few archetypes geared for that, too.

The main hurdles you're gonna run into, as mentioned, are gonna be proficiencies and reloading.

wow, 4 feats to have before you can get that one? that's a lot of feat tax to pay. (without even mentioning the weapon focus required to get snap shot)... on the plus side, by the time you have all the feats, odds are you won't have to worry about the minimal BAB required anymore.

and unless you use the alchemical answer to reloading, I am even more convinced than before that a repeating weapon is necessary to make that feat chain worthwhile, unless you're ready to carry a half dozen single shot weapons and able to retrieve them all from the ground after each fight...

a good way around the reloading problem might be to use one or more repeating pistols... of course, that implies that the DM agrees that those even exist in the campaign.

my dwarf ranger Eisenarn swiftfoot wields the sword Glory of the Whitelocks, after the clan of the original owner, he obtained it after looting the clan's tombs, and (collectively) defeating the undead into which the Whitelocks had been turned.

then again, as a person, I'm currently typing this post on Suzan Mk V and behind me is the harp I call My Lady... whoever knows the reference to that one gets my respect free of charge.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Which is why Alchemists with Infusion are so good, because they CAN pass around Personal Range buffs.

Yeah, I remember how the DM was outraged that my alchemist Diocles did do so as explicitly allowed by the rules... he even forbade me to use Infusions for things other than cures and non personal range boosts (bear's endurance and the like)... I was rather PO'ed by that and so did not resent it when the campaign ended soon after.

heads in a jar? never heard of that one.

So long as asking somebody to delay a red dragon for a round or two is deemed to 'sound reasonable", and in some editions, it was, there's pretty little that can't be achieved with a little verbal sugar coating.

without torture does not mean you are forbidden to use some nasty psychological tricks, the good cop bad cop routine is not torture (even if it uses threats of the same) and can be very effective.

deviant art? I'd expect that to get to 4chan more like...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meirril wrote:
Minotaur have been made available as a player character race in some D&D settings (never in a main book, always a specific setting). At those times stats were offered for females (the usual height/weight difference).

define main bookn please? Minotaurs were made a playable race in the 3rd PHB for D&D4, which I regard as a core book as opposed to the various expansion splatbooks . Sure, they were more associated with the Dark Sun setting, or so I understand, but the PHB3 was a setting free core book, not part of the Dark Sun splatbooks.

PCScipio wrote:
This one looks female.

well, with the boob plate cuirass, I"d be most surprised if that was a male.

Meirril wrote:
Klorox wrote:
Meirril wrote:

Pathfinder Tieflings have some sort of evil-outsider blood in them. The chances of it being demon blood are good, but less than 50%. D&D Tieflings are descended from devils, not demons.

Anyway you want to slice it, just being a Tiefling isn't good enough to count for demonic possession.

Beg pardon, but a) what version of D&D, and b) do you have sources for that? ever since tieflings were introduced in 3ed, I have been under the definite impression that they are the same regardless of what kind of fiend spawned their ancestor... demons, devils, daemons/yugoloths, all the same result... I'm not oppposed to tieflings being specifically devil spawn, but I'll need sourcing, especially since the demonic cambions have not reappeared.

Well, you could look at the Wikipedia entry for Tieflings. I really don't want to dig through piles of old books trying to find the info myself.

Something else to mention is that at the time only Demons and Devils existed. Daemons, Yugoloths, and most anything else you'd consider a potential parent of a Pathfinder Tiefling didn't exist when Tieflings were first created.

My library is woefully understaffed, but I have a feeling you're not quite right... the first true half fiends, the alu demon and cambion were introduced, IIRC, in AD&D1 MOnster Manual 2... at the same time as daemons, though at the time, cambions were deemed to be exclusively demonic in nature, the concept of other fiends breeding with mortals had not yet percolated down... as for tieflings, they seem to have their origins in the plansecape D&D2 setting, to which I don't have access.

Lathiira wrote:
Klorox, also note cambions are statted in Bestiary 5 just in case :)

thanks, if I ever buy bestiaries 4,5,6 that will be an interesting comparative read...

Meirril wrote:

Pathfinder Tieflings have some sort of evil-outsider blood in them. The chances of it being demon blood are good, but less than 50%. D&D Tieflings are descended from devils, not demons.

Anyway you want to slice it, just being a Tiefling isn't good enough to count for demonic possession.

Beg pardon, but a) what version of D&D, and b) do you have sources for that? ever since tieflings were introduced in 3ed, I have been under the definite impression that they are the same regardless of what kind of fiend spawned their ancestor... demons, devils, daemons/yugoloths, all the same result... I'm not oppposed to tieflings being specifically devil spawn, but I'll need sourcing, especially since the demonic cambions have not reappeared.

OmniMage wrote:

In regards to quantity of spells, I prefer to have more spells than I need than not having enough.

can't disagree with that... I recently renounced making a sorcerer for a 5 ed game because the bumber of spells known by that class is just too few... the metamagic and whatnot just don't compensate for sheer lack of versatility...if I want a guy with no versatility, I'll make a warlock and use eldritch blast every opportunity I get... oh, and choose hellish rebuke to use the first two times I get damaged and voilà, one dimensional character achieved.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

I'm strongly in disagreement here. The way to address CMD is to make martials more awesome, not to nerf casters. (People who object to martials being too unrealistic/anime can always play E6 in a system that makes martials awesome at higher levels.)

While I'm not in total disagreement here, HOW do you achieve that? 4e did a great job but people didn't like that approach.

Really not, no.

aWhat do you mean, that 4ed failed in making martials as awesome as spellcasters? If that's that, I must state disagreement, 4e is one of the few versions of D&D where I'll gladly play a martial whereas in other versions I'm strongly spellcaster oriented.

If I misunderstood you, could you please be more clear?

are there spells that do that?

axolotl is pronounces "ah sho lot'l"

and yeah, the "tl" is hard to get because it's prounonced indeed as in (atlantis', only without any vowels behind.... no heroism in being a good linguist.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Put a curse on someone so they can only speak backwards (making spellcasting impossible for one)? and maybe make it so someone who speaks the same language can make a linguistics check to decypher what they are saying? Yes I know you could just make them mute but this would be more funny.

Speaking backwards makes spell casting impossible? Ever heard of a DC character called Zatanna?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, Health, Wealth, sentimental fulfillment and Happiness to all.

myself, I'd just try to see what happens when I throw it into a Sphere of Annhihilation...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

Only two people? The deck usually kills entire campaigns off.

Seriously the only thing you should draw when a deck of many things is introduced is a bubble bath. Then throw the deck on and cast lightning bolt if no toasters are around

No use, the DOMT is an artifact, it will take a lot more than that to destroy

Felicitation to Silke; having adapted the G series modules to D&D 3.5 in my time, I know how much work that entails.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Merry and happy season and new year to all

well, this has the makings of a joint punitive expedition by both.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I must admit that the last time I met a beholder (in Out of the Abyss, D&D5) we managed to beat it with no deaths, and we only lvl 10 or 12... I was surprised, given the disintegrate and petrifaction rays.

While it was in D&D4, not PF, I've seen a TPK end a campaign: the same DM and gaming group remained, but the DM insisted on abandoning the scenario that had been going on (the TPK was his responsibility, he had overdone an adjustment in monsters due to the party being 5 or 6 strong rather than the 4 the scenario as writtne was designed for), and so we started afresh on a Dark Sun campaign.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Happy featmas season to all, read you soon

depends on my relation to the players, in some cases, TPK can be the actual desired result... granted, you have to be playing with a bunch of unbearables who want an adversarial relationship for that, but I've known some morons of that kind, and I played the good old Ravenloft for them... with that scenario, unless you play it wrong, TPK is guaranteed... I guess there are similar scenarios in the Golarionsphere

Most cases, with a party of nice players, you want to avoid character death if at all possible (I've known exceptions, like when the player has to leave the group and you kill off his character heroically as a goodbye)...

Be careful about the good old 'captured and must escape' trope... it can become overused and tiring real fast, especially since it's also used as a starting point for any number of published modules. (starting with AD&D A4 In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, and 5e Out of the Abyss).

Gold and Silver dragons don't have a hoard, they have a larder.

I haven't read Dragons Revisited... and I'm more of a traditional D&D man than a specialist in Golarion lore... but to me, Chromatic and Metallic collaborating is a very rare instance, in most case this would be because they worship a dragon god other than Bahamut or Tiamat... mostly Io or some lesser dragon deity that is likely neutral in regard to good and evil.

I have several possibilities for that: 2 mates sharing the same lair complex (but likely keeping 2 separate hoards, sharing one's hoard with anybody is not something I seen any dragon, even the most tolerant and generous, do easily... or a young mother with wyrmling offspring... but the young get expelled as soon as they can fend off for themselves.

well, Carrion crawlers and grell were the posterbook monsters of why you NEED to have ranged attacks, too dangerous to deal with at sword point.

VixieMoondew wrote:

Brain growing squishy

Five-seven-five is my life
Too many haikus

This is a poem

The only I can produce
Haiku are so sweet

can White dragons also survive on consuming snow, ice, and other frozen stuff?

Green dragons eat snakes, poisonous mushrooms and other toxic aliments?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ghouls & Ghasts... low level monsters that can stealthily creep u^to you and deliever the touch of paralysis, if you ever miss the save, you are defenseless until they decide whether to faise you as one of their own, or just are gonna eat you so completely it might become dangerous to take your bones together for either a raising, or an undead creation.

except the FSM is supposed to be more benevolent/manipulative, while Azathoth is mindlessly destructive, Isph-Aun-Vuln being a meatball rather than nooly excludes it from it being the same being.

Killing Rasputin in Reign of Winter was a big bonus to what was overall a dissatisfying campaign, I would have killed Baba Yaga too, but couldn't.

Seriously? he just goes and gets another herald to do his dirty, faraway work, just look at Galactus, how many herald has he been through?

That rule is great, I remember a mage of mine, back in AD&D who had a special belt and double bandoleer to support and make accessible all his wands and scrolls ... he even carried several rings held by chains to his wrists in case his usual arrangement proved less than optimal (like having that ring of wishes readily available for major emergencies, or the one of water elemental control, which he did not usually wear since regeneration and protection +3 were generally preferable)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Use the original printing for Scarred Witch Doctor, Crane Wing, and Crane Riposte.

Indeed, the scarred witch doctor was built all around being CON based, the faq/erretum making it INT based just was wrong.

ckdragons wrote:

15. Coins have no weight.

15 bis encumb rance rules get ditched so long as it"s convenient

Then again when there are hundreds and hundreds of coins (50 coins to a pound), I might ask the characters to take account of how much they carry and how much of the loot they can easily carry and what they want to leave behind

3 people marked this as a favorite.
VixieMoondew wrote:
Who else out here being gay and cute on this beautiful Monday morning?

Not me, since I'm neither, but please ignore this straight guy and pursue being cute and gay, that's how you're at your best.

Well said Blahper

Jeven wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
"Cold iron" is historically believed to repel, contain, or harm ghosts, fairies, witches, and other malevolent supernatural creatures.

I wonder if the difference is between "natural" iron and refined iron ore.

Usually iron has to be refined because it is mixed with other substances and the slag has to be sifted out.

But pure iron can be worked immediately without refinement.

And as fairies are creatures of nature they are probably more susceptible to the pure form of iron than the diluted stuff refined from mixed ores and rocks.

Unlike gold or sulphur, Iron does not exist natively in nature, it is always combined with other elements , this combination can permit refinement of iron , in which case it's called ore.

Iron must be hot extractd from ore, but it can then be cold worked to harden it.

But this is not relevant, since, in D&D and PF lore "cold iron" is a special material close to, but not identical to normal iron... normal iron is unsuitable for making weapons, being too soft, cold iron is.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

After looting the BBEG's mansion and fleeing to another country to avoid immediate retribution, we sell the stuff off to a local thieves' guild

Thief "I don't know for that other stuff you have, I'm unoloading all that from you because we have a buyer"

Player "Maybe it's [BBEG's nickname]"

the -2 malus to attack you incur for fighting defensively when using crane style, in exchange for the (I presume cumulative with that from the doge feat) +1 bonus to AC crane style allows... because if the crane style bonus is not cumulative with that from dodge feat (a prereq for it) that style is just plain useless, or an undefensible feat tax for the two other feats it's a prereq for.

1 to 50 of 1,779 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>