Shoanti Tribesman

Krimson's page

Organized Play Member. 180 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:
Who said passion is only sexual or blood-lust? People argue passionately on these boards about rogues. People get passionate about food, sports, and other things. Hand feeding an eunuch a morsel of fine food could be sufficient. Or even delivering a good cup of coffee.

Because let's suppose a paladin was to passionately do his/her divine smiting business, and proceed to discharge the full content of a tanglefoot bag at said succubus, the thrower wouldn't be drained, as per RAW. And I assume unloading a sack of sticky substance all over someone else is an act of passion.

In fact, being engaged in melee without actually grappling doesn't work either. It's only fair to assume physical contact is required, which is why "acts of passion such as a kiss", while probably applicable to any mouth related grappling, cannot be expanded to non-touch passions, unless we add in a house-ruled template.

Let's say we open up an extra-planar brothel called Moores. "Well made, well priced, well dressed". There's this succubus poledancing that would only need to have foes fascinated to be able to energy drain them. A few levels of bard and she could easily drain audiences.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lathiira wrote:
Then the next question, based on Krimson's thoughts, is this: does 'act of passion' have to be considered from the view of the succubus or from the viewpoint of her partner, in order to trigger energy drain?

Upon deeper probing of the rules, and as much as my chaste self hates to say it, the Golarion succubus doesn't need approval.


Energy Drain (Su)

A succubus drains energy from a mortal she lures into an act of passion, such as a kiss. An unwilling victim must be grappled before the succubus can use this ability. [...]

The ability CAN work even with an unwilling victim. We're back to square one; the grapple debate.

The rules on that subject are quite clear, in fact... The grapple initiator has a variety of options while maintaining the grapple; such as pinning, damaging (unarmed strikes, spikes, natural weapons and light weapons), and tie up. The "victim" of the grapple does not get the full options list, BUT it does have the option to make any attack not requiring two hands. If she could bite a man in the neck, she can 100% steal a kiss.

While pinned, however, the only available drain is with a willing partner making a full attack with a club or other blunt weapon.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Takeme Onadate wrote:

For example: the Satrap of Qadira accidentally looses a succubus in Katheer, and has the palace eunuchs find her and whoop the tar out of her with saps and clubs to be brought back for a spanking, figuring their condition precludes any feelings of 'passion' for the succubus. Is the succubus up the creek regarding her ED?

Any succubus worth her salt will be inventive enough to be stoped by that.

Think you meant "not be stopped".

As to the Satrap, he was stupid. Just because the eunuch lacks certain equipment, that will not prevent acts of passion. The practice of having harem guards be eunuchs was about who would get to enjoy the harem, not about removing desire from the guards.


I think I should mention that people lacking their testosterone factories lose any and all desires of sexual nature, and even impulses of bloodlust. Even criminals (be they sexual predators or murderers) that are castrated become ''regular'' citizens, provided the source of their crimes were impulse-based rather than simply being mentally deranged.

Now, the myth from which the fantasy world succubus was born is based on impersonating beautiful females and tempting mortals into trading their eternal souls for a night of luxury. Classical Lawful Good religious myth, that.

If the very first concept of the succubus was adequately stat-blocked, the energy drain upon intimate physical contact would only work on characters subject to Enchantment (Charm) effects, or if the character was willingly giving in to his base desires (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

In that sense, I would be enclined to believe that unless the eunuch desires companionship (in a friendly sense), there's very little to no chance of being drawn to our succubus.

Hence, the eunuch template is born, removing the ability to receive morale bonuses, but becoming immune to mind affecting charm and emotion effects. And 20% immune to crits.

Dave Justus wrote:
Being 'bonded' doesn't change the base concept from Magic Jar that spells and spell-like abilities etc. are not accessible by the possessing entity.

I had missed that vital piece of info. Thanks for the thorough response!

Quite the innocent question as it doesn't seem to serve any purpose except roleplay, but I'd like to address these questions for the sake of ... science. And also because a player brought the project up :

1 - Do Intelligent items possess a soul, or rather some sort of artificial intelligence?

2 - Does a Magus' blackblade, while clearly defined as a sentient magical weapon, count as a familiar for the purpose of the Soulswitch spell?

3 - If it does, how is it represented in game terms? Does the character's mental stats change to represent the Blackblade's, for example? Would the blackblade be bonded enough to be able to use the Magus' abilities?

4 - And should such a shenanigan happen, should a DM take over the "Possessed Magus" until the true self comes back as a standard action? After all, the blackblade should be considered a NPC.

Intelligent Items Flavor Text

Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own. -->Magically imbued with sentience, these items think and feel the same way characters do and should be treated as NPCs.<--



Targets : -->you and your familiar<--

You may only cast this spell if you currently have a familiar. You place your soul into the body of your familiar, and your familiar's soul is placed in your body. This functions as if you possessed your familiar using magic jar; your familiar simultaneously possesses your body in the same manner. You can't freely transfer your soul between your body and your familiar's—if you choose to return to your body as a standard action, the spell ends. If either body is killed, both spirits return to their original bodies, the spell ends, and the original owner of the slain body dies.



At 3rd level, the bladebound magus’ gains a powerful sentient weapon called a black blade, whose weapon type is chosen by the magus (see sidebar). A magus with this class feature cannot take the familiar magus arcana, and cannot have a familiar of any kind, even from another class.

A black blade is bonded to a particular magus, -->much like a familiar<--, but in more of a partnership than a master-servant relationship.

Nightwish wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

However, my number one go-to class to win the poon competition is the Bard. IMHO, no other class can compete with their boy-band appeal.

Sound off gamers! Which character class would get laid most (in-game)?

If he's a boy-band bard, then he's probably looking to hook up with the bronzed martial god.

Best one yet!

Paladins are stats wise the most likely to. Bards are okay too, depending on their focuses.

But we can't really generalize. A halfling paladin still won't have that human girl in his sheets. Unless he can pull off an Enlarge Person and be done before the spell duration ends.

In UC, the wakizashi is an exotic weapon. Unless you have an archetype giving you a proficiency or such, I think Herolab is mistaken.

Atavist wrote:
But then Ultimate Combat came out and there's an undead themed antipaladin archetype.

Oh, do I want those books to arrive at the local store...

Jeremiziah wrote:
The Overgod's name is James Jacobs.

'nuff said.

I think this needs a bump.

As of UltimateMagic, there are these inquisitions; alternate domains for Inquisitors.

In a game I DM, all my players are Shoanti Tribesmen. One of them is an Inquisitor. Since he finds his powers from a vast pantheon of ancestors, I houseruled he could pick up a Core God that matches the entity he worships and choose powers accordingly. We worked it up into a NeutralGood Gorum.

That was BEFORE Ultimate Magic came out. I gave all players 3 years downtime, a couple of levels, and the ability to retrain either a feat, or change archetype and such. The said Inquisitor wanted the Anger Inquisition.

What I didn't realize is that this Lawful Good Inquisitor has Rage at level 6. I find the concept very interesting, you know, divine wrath and all... but the ability says "Rage as a barbarian."

I know by core this doesn't happen, Gorum being Chaotic, so I ask you guys : Is being lawful removing that Inquisitor the ability to rage, speaking RAW ? Or is the No-Lawful element part of the barbarian class only?

Google is your friend. There are indeed blades called "Temple Swords" which are basically one-handed khopeshes.

thomas nelson wrote:
Cleric of Shelyn

Is a massive display of corpses art, in a fantasy setting?

Woah, interesting question!

Seriously, I would settle for displaying the corpse in a way that does not involve torture, while still inspiring dread. Hangman sounds the right way.

You could also dip a couple of levels (Max 3) in Zen Archer. LN is a reachable alignment for a Pharasma Inquisitor. Using WIS to AC and CMD (1st), being able to flurry with your bow (1st), along with bonus feats (1st and 2nd), solid saves, low-level perfect strikes (1st) and WIS to attack (3rd).

That would allow you to focus on STR and WIS mainly. The Flurry replaces Rapid Shot, so you can concentrate your feat selection on damaging, such as Deadly aim and other stuff.

Irulesmost wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
Berhagen wrote:

Page 50: Musket Master

Weapon Proficiency:
A musket master only gains proficiency with two-handed firearms. She must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearm) feat to gain proficiency with two-handed firearms and firearm siege engines.

This should clearly be one-handed firearms

A Musket is a two handed firearm, so unless I am missing something Two-Handed is correct.
Emphasis above. You missed something.

Maybe you did, too.

Spes Magna Mark wrote:
Spacelard wrote:

I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "Please may I see *insert document here*....have a cake" (diplomacy)

I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "let me see *insert document here* or the town is in deep s*** lady!" (intimidate)

Which one looks most appropriate and likely to work?

Honestly, neither one. "That's a nice cake, but you can't see those documents. You don't have the proper clearance, and it's not worth my job. Oh, really? Now you're threatening me? Guards! Guards!"


Followed by : You are endangering yourself and probably others in time by refusing to help me. Should you not endulge, please get me someone with responsibilities who might break protocol. Please, understand that I am no charlatan, just a sword who fights for the good folk.

From my experience, Invulnerable Rager is far better at lower levels; DamageReduction is a big boon at low levels. The vanilla barbarian gets his share of damage reduction in time, so he becomes better overall than the invulnerable rager in the higher ups. (My call.)

On the other hand, never being considered flanked can save your hide; especially against rogues. Damage Reduction 10 (at best) doesn't make you invincible VS many attacks with 10d6 precision damage (at best, again).

Traits are optional, and should be viewed as RolePlay boosters, not additionnal bonuses.

As said above, the analogy is quite simple :

"Barbarians are fighters because they hit stuff. So they have access to Weapon Specs and fighter-only feats."

They should publish a book on ...
- Roleplaying issues frequently encountered.
- Alignment clarifications and applications.
- Tricks and tips to different classes, such as paladin codes,
- Discussing morality for a Golarion campaign.
- And much, much more.

Pravus wrote:

That leads to another question how long does it take a skilled painter to finish a painting?

I am not a painter and only draw doodles so I have no reference to draw from that tells me what is an acceptable amount of time to complete a painting.

Depends, really. You can do nice paintings under 3 hours, though you can add and add and add to the detail up to 15-20 hours if you like, maybe more. Depends on experience, the size of the painting, and the type; obviously, a landscape painting is completed way faster than one depicting two armies fighting, for example. The amount of details and different colors make all the difference.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff1964 wrote:
Unless you're that guy from the old painting show that can whip out a painting in an hour or less. (Happy little tree here!)

Bob Ross was his name. He had a squirrel familiar, and gave pretty decent tricks, actually.

Flurry of blows being simply another name for "Two weapon fighting", you can't apply 1.5x STR damage, since you're considered as using both sides of the quarterstaff for the purpose of those attacks.

That's a very interesting question. With thoughts, I guess I am drawn to characters with a degree of spirituality or religion in them.

Over the years I've played ...

(Homebrew campaigns)
- A Human Totem Barbarian.
- An Ulfen Ranger atuned to the sea spirits, (We "accidentally" transfered to Golarion via a portal when the campaign setting came out though.)

- A Paladin/Ex-Bard of Shelyn,
- A Shoanti Rage Prophet,
- And a Shoanti Inquisitor/Monk.

And many other classes just to try them out. Back in 3.5 I played a bladedancer, else I tried Sorcerer...

And DMed pretty much every kind of classes.

All of you who defend the idea of "concept cleric without a god" and "take power from their faith in something"... tell me why the clerics of Aroden lost their powers when said god disappeared?

Because divine magic usually works in a begging way; Druids and rangers ask Gozreh (Or Mielliki, or Hal-habad, whatever the setting) or the green faith, which is a concept. Oracles are "favored souls", basically being infused by a deity's power naturally. Clerics are servants who receive power through devotion. Paladins pretty much the same, only on a different level.

There is a connection to a particular source in all cases. Should that source disappear, no powers. A cleric changing alignment can retain her cleric levels by switching faith (Though obviously, after a life of devotion to a single deity, most fanatics wouldn't.) But they do not develop powers of their own.

Yeah, you can definitely play a cleric of Aroden. But be aware that you get no powers. In this setting at least.

There should be one! Something like 3rd Saturday of a given month. A holiday were the group take time to properly give thanks to their DM for the time he invests for them.

Thoughts and suggestions to bring this holiday into life? (Or is there already one?)

Paladins are not hippies; they're charismatic and honorable knights who shed blood willingly for the good of all; As such, it carries an image; they are paragons of goodness and justice.

Interrogation is fine, but they should be polite about it, especially with random citizens. Now if he has good reasons to think that a particular citizen holds vital information (Having gathered information as a prerequisite, for example.), then he probably has the right to add a little force to his behavior.

When you're graced with the divine might of a god, you try to live up to it and be even more than what the common folk expect of you. Your status elevates you to the tales of knights in shining armor in the eyes of desperate families, and eventually those of kings in search of heroes. You just can't be a brutish prick who abuses his strenght.

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Mechanically, arcane is king.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), it's also the most boring bloodline thematically. I couldn't ever bring myself to play it.


Ravingdork wrote:
It is true that the behir has legs, but cannot be tripped because it also has a serpentine form.

Oh, I see... well that comparison closes the subject, doesn't it?

Not easy to answer since I'm currently moving (And my precious books are still in boxes) but I'd say it loses the immunity as well; I'd treat the said creature the same way I'd treat a centipede; +2 to resist trip for each extra pair of legs. (Was that 3.5 rulings or is it still the same in PF?)

As long as the conditions are met, the rogue can indeed full-attack and apply sneak attack to each attacks. Flanking is the most common tactics.

Don't know about the prey thing though, but the above should help.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Toilet paper. I'd never leave for an adventure without it.

Real heroes shoot fireballs from their eyes and lightning from their arse. Don't need no toilet paper.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

That disproves the idea that they like the monk
I think it proves more that difference people have different ideas of what the monk should be. I fully admit that my vision of the monk is informed more by playing Final Fantasy Tactics and loving the monk class in that game than anything else.

Wait, you want monks to be able to shoot an area of effect wave of Chi that dealt good damage for it action?

That would be cool.

Damn right! FFTactics Monks ROCK! Accumulate enough times and they do 999 damage with each fist!

Then again, they needed to be multiclassed ninja to hit twice. I reoriente this long enough thread with another giant can of worms ; for multiclass purposes, WIS for ninja powers, not CHA.

Kidding, please don't go that way! xD

Andy Ferguson wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
The monk is weakly imbalanced. Other options are clearly superior.

Can you support that statement?

I'd be interested in a high mobility, high save/evasion, maneuver specialist. And then another, cause options suggest at least two.

And how come running over and tripping or disarming stopped being a valueless action?

Ravingdork makes a valid point; other classes such as fighter and barbarian can end up having more bonuses than monks on combat maneuvers due to more focused ability scores and abilities. And that is true.

My point though, is that monks can flurry maneuvers. No one else can do that. They have a higher degree of adaptability at the cost of lowered damage potential. Is that enough to call them useless? Depends of the playstyle, I guess.

It's just that being the best at killing stuff fast and violently is the easiest, most efficient way to shine in this game, for most gamers. I know for I've long played barbarian-type characters. It's easy to shine when you kick arse.

But in the end, I repeat; it's all a matter of playstyle. The fact that people are arguing over said monk class proves that; some consider it fine to their playstyles, as others don't find it strong enough for theirs. And I think it's okay like that.

Ravingdork wrote:
Disarm the guy. He picks up his weapon or draws out another.

Being unarmed, the monk ends up with the said weapon in hand. Weapons probably magical that can't be replaced with weapons just as efficient. It's a kind of debuffing.

Ravingdork wrote:
Trip the guy. He stands up.

Then is not capable of full attacks or full round actions, and provokes an attack from the monk.

Ravingdork wrote:
Dirty Trick the guy. He laughs and ends the condition.

Same as Tripping.

Ravingdork wrote:
Even in ideal situations such as tripping a lone enemy and having him provoke from your allies or disarming him of his sole effective weapon, you are unlikely to get more damage than you would have if you had just stood there and full attacked. Also, this has less to do with the monk being awesome and more to do with the GM being an idiot.

Some games are not about damage or killing stuff without regard to what it is. There are games when you prefer not to kill certain enemies on the spot.

Ravingdork wrote:

Lone bad guys don't last whether or not there is a monk in the party.

Enemies with one powerful item that is the focus of their power/strategy can have that item taken away by most anyone. Don't need to be a monk to disarm or sunder.

In short, monks DON'T REALLY MATTER.

Well, PFRPG wasn't balanced for big single bosses, save when they are several levels ahead of the party or when the party is made weary before the fight.

I'll give you that; monks aren't powerhouses, but they can hold their own, and in different areas, as opposed to one-trick ponies.

I've never played a full-monk, but dipped many times one or two levels for WIS-to-AC, flurry of blows for many maneuvers per turn, evasion, deflect arrows, Combat Reflexes or other relevant feats. They have awesome features and depending on setting and playstyles, they can outshine a lot of people.

I run a Shoanti campaign these days, and you bet the monk in the group is feared in duels; duels with bare hands. No Fighter or unspecialized barbarian can keep up with that; and the monk/ranger of the party is always far-ahead of the party acting as a very fast moving stealthy scout.

I like new monsters, sure, but I'm particularly interested in templates to change existing monsters into different things from different places. Templates with particular themes (rather than generic ones like "Advanced" or "Giant") tend to do very well in my games. Especially Half-outsiders and half-dragons, for example. I'd like more of those in the upcoming Bestiary.

Personnaly, I use the crit decks, so basically, a x3 weapon only has more critical options than a x2 one, thus making the falcata a good weapon, but not a game-breaking one.

In theory, yes, exotic weapons are better at something than martial weapons are, have special options and such, but most consider that feats are better spent elsewhere; which, from a technical standpoint I would agree.

From a flavor standpoint however, it's not the same.

Big Stupid Fighter wrote:
Sounds like an endorsement of its power rather than a dismissal. The Barbarian is making the enemies focus upon him. Good. The readied action tactic will certainly take him by surprise. Once. Thereafter it becomes a guessing game between the player and DM. Another spellcaster readied an action again? Well this time I won't come out of rage... or maybe I will, who knows, care to waste a turn on it? Either way, the spellcaster is focussing his attention on the high saves, high hp, armour wearing, DR having barbarian and not his deadly but squishy allies. He is doing his job even better.

That's full of wisdom for a big stupid fighter!

I've been thinking for about 2 minutes.

They should do a book called Ultimate Crafters.

Or create errata on the subject. Especially about how it affects WBL. I mean, 1-3 feats for the equivalent of twice the magic items? I'm not sure that balances out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a very careful DM. I put so much emphasis on character development that killing one is basically an awful mistake. But I like to put on a mask of killer DM at times, trying to bluff my way into saying I'm in a killer mood and that the players must watch their characters' back.

It's just for the immersion and the excitement. Escaping doom is an awesome part of being a player and a team, and when your DM exhudes goodness, sometimes you lose this feeling.

To everyone his ways, I guess. We all learn soon enough that being a bully DM is bad.

PS : Pssst. Don't tell them I told you that.

meabolex wrote:
One thing I would generally not recommend (although I know groups commonly do this) is beer. I generally solve this by playing as early as possible in the day.

Very true; beer is bad for concentration and serious roleplay, slows up the game also. Create atmosphere with music, and prepare nifty texts to read should you need it.

But if you're running a minute game with a one-shot scenario not focused on Roleplaying, beer can be cool; I remember actually (unwillingly) stealing a game from the DM with a Ulfen character wanting to celebrate an important day to his people, and the game ended up being reoriented as a tavern story, where our half-orc monk friend became a local celebrity because he won each and every tavern brawls. And beer was fresh and good, though consumed reasonably, thus serving the game more than it actually broke it.

Even then, the DM didn't play out half his scenario but saved it for later. He had fun nonetheless! Cheers!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There once was this story of the awesome drow character that had no wealth limit. Jarlaxle was his name.

Nordlander wrote:
Fighter feats can be used to provide additional Rage Powers.12 level Barb is chosen as being a "break point" for many rage powers and DR of Inv Barbs.

Let me remind you, Extra Rage Power is not a combat feat, and thus cannot be selected as a Fighter Bonus feat.

Continuing to augment the Barbarian class prevents flanking by higher level rogues, because if he multiclasses elsewhere, someone will get more than 4 levels higher for the purpose of beating Improved Uncanny Dodge and sneak attacking.

Certain rage powers and archetype abilities scale up as a character gains barbarian levels.

Nordlander wrote:

I guess the thesis is that the high level Barb abilities are achieved by multiclassing and this seems to be outside the design intent of Pathfinder rewarding single-classing.Maybe Ultimate Combat will bring some fixes, but Barbs still have a low feat count, so these would likely have to be in the form of Magic or?

ps A prediction...UC will have a new Barb feat "Raging ?????" granting plus 1 or 2 to strength while enraged!

This much is true; too many other classes have taken over barbarian abilities or its equivalent; Oracle for one, Inquisitor with its rage domain for two, and probably some other I don't recall on the spot.

Maybe he could get more love with exclusive powers to make up for what the other classes stole from him.

Glutton wrote:
note that you will have trouble being a monk and a barbarian due to alignment issues, lawful barbarians can't rage and chaotic monks lose all their class features.

Unless some errata I didn't see changed that, Monks do NOT lose class abilities due to becoming non-lawful. They just can't progress as monks anymore.

Aren't shield meant to be sundered, in the first place?

Yup. I played D&D longer than I played PFRPG, so I guess my subconscious says that Pathfinder is an enriched, better set of rules and options for the base 3.5 game.

So yeah, I talk about D&D, and mention Pathfinder as some sort of 3.75 Edition.

As for me, I consider this is a conjuration spell; conjuring black tentacles is basically the same as conjuring wolves or other minions.

And if you summon 2 wolves, they're both gonna act, whatever their position on the grid.

So, 2 black tentacles maneuvers per round. That's a little too much "japanese perversion" for me, but that's not the subject.

Mok wrote:
It doesn't scale to level like Power Attack. If it did then it'd be a great feat, but it doesn't so instead you have to pass it by or hold your nose as you take it.

Technically speaking, the moment you get additionnal iterative or off-hand attacks, the power of the feat augments, affecting more attacks.

1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>