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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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?
No use, the DOMT is an artifact, it will take a lot more than that to destroy
From a strictly raw reading, if someone puts on a Ring of Regeneration and never takes it off, they should become immortal.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.