Angvar Thestlecrit

LordKailas's page

Organized Play Member. 1,574 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 1,574 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It won't help against non-living opponents. But you could do UMD with a wand of Draconic Malice, for anything that's living.

A necromancer build would allow you to have permanent "meatshields" between you and the enemy. Below are a couple such builds.

Charming Necromancer (Wizard/Arcanist/Sorcerer)


Key concepts: A natural born necromancer that can charm undead humanoids
Class: Sorcerer(1), Arcanist/Wizard(X)
Exploits: Bloodline Development(5th), Quick Study, Fiendish Proboscis
Archetype: School Savant[Undead] (Arcanist), Crossblooded (Sorcerer), Exploiter Wizard, Pact Wizard[HH](Wizard)
Optional Arch: Unlettered Arcanist (Arcanist)
Bloodlines: Undead & Ghoul
Feats: Spell Focus (Enchantment)(1st), Deceitful(3rd), Subtle Enchantments(5th), Greater Spell Focus(7th), Conceal Spell(9th), Focused Spell(11th)
Suggested Feats: Natural Charmer, Compulsion Mastery, Authoritative Spell, Varisian tattoo, Spell Specialization, Coaxing Spell, Feign Curse, Voice of the Sibyl, Intoxicating Flattery, Confabulist, Veiled Contempt, Sense Assumptions
Key Features: • Can use mind-affecting spells on corporeal undead that were once humanoids.
• Gets all the Standard and Optional Necromancer Spells.

Wizard Necromancer(Basic)


Key concepts: True Necromancer
Class: Wizard
Arcane School: Necromancy (Undead)
Suggested Archetype(s): Undead Master(best if combined with Not-necromancy school)
Feats: Arcane Discovery[Faith Magic](5th), Adept Channel(5th)
Suggested Feats: Charnel Soldiers
Key Features: • Gets all Standard and Optional Necromancer abilities/spells
• Gets 2 pools of Channel energy/Command Undead

The builds have different methods of dealing with levels prior to getting animate dead lesser. The first one would use charm spells in order to have non-undead fight on their behalf. It would amount to mercenaries that you've "promised to pay" at some point in the future.

The second build (when using the optional undead master archetype) gets a single undead companion right away. Granted it won't be as powerful as your other undead at higher levels but it should be sufficient at low levels. Especially since you can remake it for free when it dies.

There is the Book Lariat which is a "weapon cord for books" though it's substantially worse than a weapon cord, at best it lets you drag the book around with you.

If you want to be nice you could allow the player to have a variant of the Weapon Tattoo that can only be used to store a single book. When the book is out instead of showing a sheath it could show an empty bookshelf. Otherwise as Dragonchess has stated a glove of storing is probably the best option. The nice thing about the tattoo is that they have a separate set of slots. So, while the glove of storing eats up a glove slot the weapon tattoo doesn't. It only takes up a hand slot for tattoos.

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

The entry for slings say that you can fire a sling with one hand, but that reloading requires two.

Light shield hand IIRC can't use weapons but can hold items.

I can't seem to be able to find the statement that you can hold an item while using a light shield but this seems to be the general consensus. In cases where you need a free hand to do something like lay on hands or cast a spell. You can have the shield hand hold your weapon, freeing up your other hand to cast the spell, lay on hands etc. This seems to suggest that while the hand can hold things it's not "free" in the sense of being able to perform other actions. If it were then you could just use said hand to perform the lay on hands or somatic components instead of having it hold something to free up your other hand. So, it seems that you wouldn't be able to use it to perform an action that requires 2 hands.

If you're using a buckler instead of a light shield, you can absolutely reload a sling, but you lose your bonus to AC during the round you do it.

This is based on what I was able to find.

edit: on a side note, if you use quick draw shield shenanigans you could put away the shield, reload the sling and then draw the shield again. Effectively allowing you to reload the sling without losing the benefits of the shield.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
How is a level 20 group supposed to carry around 50000 gp in coins? Assuming each coin is an ounce, that would be 3125 lbs of gold! I guess you could split it up but that would still be about 750 lbs per person, a bit much for, say, a gnome wizard to carry. Maybe they could just pay people in precious stones or something?

This is why in most groups I've played in by mid to high level the group starts to use a portable hole to carry loot. It has no listed weight limit, so the only question is volume. In my current group when the portable hole became impractical, one of the characters did create demi-plane greater and the DM allowed him to connect a permanent gate between it and an instant fortress.

At lower levels if a hoard is sufficiently large enough to warrant it there is treasure stitching

I ran the math and as per the formula given, for the most part the way it works is that if the cohort is more than 3 levels behind the character then they gain 2 levels for every 1 level the character gains. Once the cohort is 3 levels behind the character or less they gain one level every time a character gains a level. This means that a cohort can get stuck being as many as 3 levels behind the character forever, if they were recruited at a sufficiently low enough level.

It should be noted that it does deviate from this trend at very low and very high character levels (at high character levels the cohort gains levels faster and at low character levels the cohort gains levels slower).

From the Cavalier end I see a the following options. Of course I've probably overlooked some.

Order of the Beast isn't a build your own companion, but you can transform your animal companion mount into any other kind of animal companion at 15th level you can even turn it into a dragon. The downside is it's very limited in terms of how many times per day you can use this ability, but it's hours per level meaning it basically lasts all day.

The following feats expand your options in terms of what you can have as a mount.

Monstrous Mount
Beast Rider
Wolf Rider
Celestial Servant

There are also the feats

Curious Companion
Evolved Companion
Companion Figurine

however, in looking at them closer I noticed that their wording is different from the previous feats. The feats in the 1st list state "animal companion or mount class feature" for the pre-reqs. Where as these only state "animal companion" which suggests that having the mount class feature doesn't actually qualify you for those feats. I only mention them since they may be allowed with DM approval.

There are also a few archetypes you could take with your mount that alter the nature of it giving you some customization. Elemental Companion for example doesn't require share spells and lets you effectively have an elemental version of your mount.

Finally, there is the Mammoth Rider prestige class, which not only expands your options for mounts but is designed around mounted combat. Unfortunately, you have to be 9th level to qualify for it, meaning it likely won't come on till pretty late in your build even if you were only planning a 1 level dip.

Darc1396 wrote:

So I'm looking for the best way (or a way) to basically have a Cavalier that rides an Eidolon. I've come to terms with being a small character but I'm also realizing feats could be a small problem. I'm attempting to get it online as quick as possible due to the game I'm in atm is a slow progression game and we're still at level one. This character is going to be a back up if mine were to perish, I went down in the 1st combat so I want to be prepared.

So I'm basically looking to be a Cavalier mounted on an Eidolon, if there was an archtype that swapped it out I'd take that in a heartbeat but I found no such thing so multiclassing is the best option I believe.

It's 3rd party but Order of the Chimera seems to do what you're looking for.

If you want to avoid 3rd party, then what is it about cavalier that you want/like? and what parts of the eidolon do you want/like?

It's possible to be a summoner that gets some of the stuff a cavalier gets or be a cavalier and have your mount get some eidolon features. It really depends on what you're after specifically.

Derklord wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
This is primarily because allowing it to change the weapon type like this has the potential to really mess with game balance.
I seriously doubt this.


Its the most common argument I've seen against allowing it. If it actually does cause balance issues or not is completely different.

You would not be able to use the blade of mercy trait to make this work, Because of the way sneak attack functions.

Sneak Attack wrote:
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or unarmed strike), a slayer can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. He cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The trait removes the afforementioned -4 penalty but doesn't otherwise make any exception for precision damage.

As for the feat weapon versatility, expect table variation. Some will argue that though the feat would allow the weapon to do bludgeoning damage, this isn't the same as making the weapon a "bludgeoning weapon" and so it wouldn't work even if you had a katana with the Merciful enchantment. This is primarily because allowing it to change the weapon type like this has the potential to really mess with game balance.

What you're trying to do IMO seems fine and probably wouldn't cause any issues if the DM allowed it.

Java Man wrote:
The last sentence I quoted says that being immune to bludgeoning does not make you immune to an attack that is both bludgeoning and piercing. That is the one point I am disagreeing with LordKallas on.

I see, I should have read closer. I thought you were disagreeing with my entire statement not just the point about mixed damage types.

Certainly this would apply to the 20th level version of the ability that does grant actual immunity to the damage type (piercing in the case of the forest dragon).

The DR rules of course only address what comes right before and after the / and therefore don't really address it. I agree that my evaluation when it comes to mixed damage was inconsistent with the rule on damage immunity. DR could be considered a type of damage immunity and so its reasonable treat it as such.

Java Man wrote:
Seems to me that the last sentence I quoted specifically addresses this circumstance, but you and I clearly read it differently.

I read it that all damage is considered all types. So, in the case of normal DR, say DR 5/slashing. A bite attack which is (P/S/B) would bypass the dr and do full damage because it is considered slashing in addition to the other types.

do you see it differently?

Java Man wrote:
LordKailas wrote:

As I stated earlier, these would apply against any damage that includes piercing. So, while a claw attack (bludgeoning and slashing) would be unaffected by the DR a bite attack would be.

Nope, you have this backwards, quoting from the CRB, weapon table definition of "type":

Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

"Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon."

yes thats how it normally works. This is not how the sorcerer bloodline ability is worded and specfic trumps general.

Kirin Kaelthorn wrote:

Hey, this is my first ever post on this site. That’s because it’s been 8 years since Ultimate Magic came out, and there is still no clarification over the Beast-Bonded Witch’s ‘Twin Soul’ ability at level 10. The wording is extremely vague and open to interpretation. Please, I just want an official answer! There have been a countless number of FAQs and threads on multiple sites about this ability. It needs clarification. When the witch or familiar’s soul is riding in the other’s body, the options listed for the guest soul are:

1. ‘Return to its own body (if available) by touch’,
2. ‘Transfer into a suitable vessel (such as a clone), or,
3. ‘Take over another body as if using magic jar (with no receptacle).’

I will answer as per my understanding of the rules. If an FAQ contridicts what I say I'll be happy to read said FAQ and revise my answers.

ok, to start with, this ability can only trigger under specific conditions. It essentially allows the witch and the familiar to use the other as a "lifeboat" of sorts when they die or are about to die. So, lets say the witch took a major hit and dropped to -3 HP. At this point they are considered "dying" as per the rules.

Dying (Negative Hit Points) wrote:

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying.

A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.

A dying character loses 1 hit point every round. This continues until the character dies or becomes stable.

At this point the witch's soul transfers to the familiar. Since magic jar is referenced in option 3, and option 1 is also a thing you can do via magic jar. It's probably safe to assume that the abandoned body is treated the same way an abandoned body would be treated in magic jar.

Magic Jar wrote:
By casting magic jar, you place your soul in a gem or large crystal (known as the magic jar), leaving your body lifeless.... If the spell ends while you are in the magic jar, you return to your body (or die if your body is out of range or destroyed).

1. So, it seems that your body is dead for all practical purposes. Meaning it doesn't require food, water or air and would start to decay as normal. It also means that it would be treated as an object so anything that requires its target to be a living creature would fail. Its a DM's call as to whether the body continues to "bleed out" or not, I could easily see it either way. Unless you have some way of repairing the body (perhaps a make whole spell) or presevering it. It would eventually reach a state where even if you were allowed to re-enter it you would die immedately. Any effect that doesn't explicitly kill you (flesh to stone is one such spell), would not prevent you from returning to your body. As for effects that do kill you, it would depend if the effect would have a harmful effect against objects or not. If it doesn't harm objects then your body would be fine, if it does damage objects then not so much. So, it really depends on the circumstances that caused you to vacate your own body to begin with.

2. Anything that could contain your soul. Soulbound constructs and soulbound dolls come to mind. I'm sure it was left open ended because the author didn't want to restrict this option to only the clone spell. These would be things that do not already contain a soul but can explicitly have a soul occupy it. Meaning you couldn't possess a rocking chair or a random boulder unless it was actually a soulbound construct that simply looked like a chair or boulder.

3. This one is strange. Since magic jar states that destroying the receptacle ends the spell. So, essentially nothing would happen as the effect would immediately end its self. By RAW this option simply doesn't work and would require interpretation on the part of the DM. IMO I would make it just work the same way the spell possession works. This kind of scenario is why the spell was written and is even stated as such.

Possession wrote:
The old magic jar spell is unwieldy, particularly with respect to creatures like ghosts and shadow demons that don’t really use a jar at all. Consider replacing magic jar with the new possession spells for both spellcasters and monsters. Likewise, consider using spells based on possession rather than magic jar.

tearnImale wrote:

I believe I understand now, as I was thinking about this in the wrong way. Instead of DR against a kind of damage, I should be thinking of they have DR 5/ X or y, X and Y being the other damage types.

For what I'm referencing, it's here:

"For the purpose of the dragon resistance bloodline power, you gain DR equal to half the energy resistance you would normally gain against all attacks of that specific damage type. A character with the power of wyrms bloodline power gains immunity to her bloodline’s damage type."

This is from the sorcerer draconic bloodline.

So, reading over it several times. It looks like the progression would be the following. A sorcerer with the Forest dragon bloodline would get the following progression.

3rd lvl: DR 2/- against piercing
9th lvl: DR 5/- against piercing
20th lvl: Immunity against piercing

As I stated earlier, these would apply against any damage that includes piercing. So, while a claw attack (bludgeoning and slashing) would be unaffected by the DR a bite attack would be.

Thedmstrikes wrote:
There is a monstrous feat for shape breath. I believe it is in one of the bestiarys. If not, it is in a splat book by a 3PP.

yep, you can find it here as a 3pp feat. There's also the feat Arcing Breath which lets you change a line into a chain lightning like effect. Though it's also 3PP from a different publisher than the 1st feat.

I wasn't able to find anything that wasn't 3pp that affects the shape of a breath weapon.

Well, it depends on how you're using the word decision. Decision isn't necessarily the same as choice.

Decision wrote:
a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration.

In any case, it seems weird that the stats for unseen crew would change up and down based on wearing and not wearing a headband of vast intelligence. Heck a feeblemind spell against the caster could cause the unseen crew to have negative ranks in profession sailor.

edit: Though in retrospect this is kind of hilarious to think that the crew has become so incompetent as to have negative ranks in the skill and probably isn't a strong argument against it working this way.

The only sort of answer I can find that seems related to this is the following.

Magic wrote:
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

This would seem to imply that things like the spell DC becomes fixed once the spell effect starts. Changes to the caster wouldn't retroactively affect the spell.

Can you give a specific example?

offhand the only bloodline I know that has an ability like that is the undead bloodline, but it grants DR 5/- against non-lethal damage. However, obviously damage is always going to either be lethal or non-lethal. So you're not going to have the mixed issue like you're describing.

In the example you've provided. If a character had DR similar to what the undead bloodline provides but it was against bludgeoning damage instead of non-lethal. Then, they would get to apply it so long as the damage includes the bludgeoning type.

So, if an enemy did a bite attack against said character (which is bludgeoning, slashing and piercing) the character would get to apply it's DR against the attack.

If only part of it was considered bludgeoning (say a bite attack with flaming) then the DR would only apply against the bludgeoning portion of the damage.

Edit: It's worth noting this is only because the DR in question is DR 5/-. If it was something really bizarre like DR 5/silver vs bludgeoning then any bludgeoning damage that is silver or it's equivalent would be able to bypass the DR.

Unless the target of the spell is immersed in water you can not form the armor around the target. It creates a breastplate out of ice which has to be put on normally.

Ice Armor wrote:
If the intended wearer is immersed in water when you cast this spell, you may form the armor around the wearer (who may be you); otherwise the wearer must don the armor normally.

Armor bonuses do not stack. So, if you did form the armor around someone who was already wearing scale then you would only benefit from the +6 armor bonus.

Glossary-Bonuses wrote:

Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

however, penalties do stack. A breastplate has an armor check penalty of -4. Scale mail also has an armor check penalty of -4, so you would suffer a total armor check penalty of -8 which would apply to all dex and str based skill checks. The ice armor spell does give a +2 circumstance bonus to swim checks so it would only be at a -6.

Glossary-Penalties wrote:
Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.

As for damage. Normally armor only takes damage if an effect specifically damages armor you're wearing. Unless something states otherwise (such as an attempted sunder attempt) your gear generally doesn't get damaged. One such instance when gear can become damaged is when you roll a natural 1 on a saving throw against a spell.

Damaging Objects-Saving throws wrote:
Attended (Held/Wielded etc.) Items: Unless the descriptive text for a spell (or attack) specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks to determine order in which items are affected. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt. If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.

However, the spell calls out that the armor will also take damage from spells and effects that deal fire and/or heat damage.

Ice Armor wrote:
Attacks against the wearer that create heat or fire degrade the armor, reducing its armor bonus by 1 for every 5 points of fire damage the wearer takes; when the armor’s bonus to AC reaches 0, the armor is destroyed and the spell ends.

So, this is an additional set of situations in which the armor can take damage.

For all practical purposes you can just think of it as creating a breastplate out of ice that you can put on/take off, same as a normal breastplate and the only time it's going to take damage when normal armor wouldn't, is when you get hit with some sort of fire based attack.

I hope this answers your questions :)

I've tried to quote the relevant rules for clarity.

Most of the defender builds I've put together focus on Con and Cha. You could swap Con for Str, but sadly a lot of the abilities key off of Con.

One thought is to pick an option that will give you a familiar (eg. Eldritch Guardian) and then have the familiar take the Ambassador archetype. In this way you can offload needing charisma yourself and just let your familiar handle all the talking.

I'm assuming you'll want In harm's way and it's pre-requisites. Unfortunately, this means you'll also want Dex.

Do you need to make a literal bodyguard? or would just being "the muscle" be enough? The second option opens things up.

Based on the description of house hunters. I always imagined that they are a sort of hermit crab. They find an object to "live inside of" until they out grow it, then they have to find something new to subsume and occupy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Narrowascent wrote:

So I am going into a campaign that is Undead heavy. However I don't want to jump into the typical few (cleric, paladin, necro). I want to look for something that is a little different and fun to play however I am also new enough to know what is out there. So I guess I am asking for suggestions on some other fun kinds of ideas:

The could be an interesting archetype of the above
I would like to figure out if a sorcerer, barbarian, or someone called it the VMC calvelier which I don't know what that means,
Or something completely new.

Any suggestions?

What do you want to do to said undead? You you want to be able to claim and/or control them as your own? Or do you want to be really good at dispatching them? Also, what sort of class appeals to you? most classes can be geared to take advantage of an undead heavy campaign.

A Dirge Bard for example, is able to manipulate undead and depending on your choice of spells could easily be pro-undead, anti-undead or something between.

Alter Self wrote:
Components V, S, M (a piece of the creature whose form you plan to assume)

This is one of the major limitations of this ability. Even if you have some way of casting this spell without material components, most DMs will likely require your character to have first hand knowledge of the race you're trying to emulate (IOW have actually met a member of said race).

Diego Rossi wrote:

You use unrelated examples that have specific rules to support something that hasn't the same or similar specific rules. It is like using oranges to explain the nutritional values of meat.

Fire storm wrote:
Area two 10-ft. cubes per level (S)

It never says that it can be divided into several smaller areas.

Without a specific rule saying otherwise, you default to the generic rule. And the generic rule says that you get an area. Not multiples.
Meteor Swarm wrote:
Area four 40-ft.-radius spreads, see text

both state you get x AxA areas of a particular shape. Since neither spell makes any statement regarding if these areas are required to be connected or not then i expect them to be treated the same.

i dont understand why you insist these spells would be different.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Four separate saves and a specific rule (again) that says "If a creature is within the area of more than one sphere, it must save separately against each. Despite stemming from separate spheres, all of the fire damage is added together after the saves have been made, and fire resistance is applied only once."

What do you want more?

You seem to have problems with the idea that speci

I have no issues with it. I'm of the assertion that areas don't need to connect. Because it specifics x number of AxA areas. Same as firestorm and that this is independent of the shapable tag

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Roughly 50% of my characters are male and 50% are female across all rpgs I play. I haven't encountered many other players that do this. It seems generally a player will mostly play characters of a specific gender (which is often the same as their own) and will only play something different if a magical effect swaps them and/or their character concept only "feels right" as the opposite of what they normally play.

As I said this is across all rpgs I play. Regardless if I'm playing tabletop, a single player videogame or an MMO.

I did a cursory search and found the following

Sangoi {A sangoi can hear the beating hearts of living creatures nearby, granting it blindsense 30 feet and blindsight 5 feet.}

All hive creatures {blindsense 60 ft., blindsight 10 ft.}

Wild Hunt Hound {blindsense 60 ft., blindsight 30 ft.}

I'm sure there's others.

Diego Rossi wrote:
In practice, you fire four fireballs to four different spots. Again, what it do is fully described in the text of the spell. As written you can fire one North, one SoutEast, one West and one straight above or all four against the same spot (or whatever combination of directions and targets you want).

That isn't how the spell is written though. Instead of giving an Area it would define it the same way ball lightening does as 4 separate effects. Additionally, if you actually fired four fireballs at four points, overlapping areas would allow a save against each fireball independently and any fire resistance the creature has would apply against each fireball it got hit by. Instead, its defined as an area, that you are allowed to place such that it overlaps with its self (as per the spell text). When the overlap happens you get to stack the damage, but the enemy only gets 1 save and its fire resistance only applies once.

Diego Rossi wrote:
CRB wrote:
Area: Some spells affect an area.

One area, not Several areas.

CRB wrote:

(S) Shapeable: If an area or effect entry ends with “(S),”

you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet.

Again, it speaks of one area, not multiples.


Meteor Swarm wrote:
Area four 40-ft.-radius spreads, see text

A specific case that explicitly says "see text".

Ball lighting wrote:
Effect two or more 5-ft.-diameter spheres

No area at all, an effect.

So exactly what is your argument?

Ball Lighting I will concede. I only mentioned it because it had been brought up earlier in the thread. It is not a shapeable spell nor does it even have an area entry.

Do the areas given by meteor swarm have to connect or can they be separate? The spell text only talks about what happens when they overlap (granting an extra effect when this happens). It doesn't say anything about them not having to be continuous. Meaning that if continuity is a normal requirement of areas it would still apply to this spell as well.

I agree that it's not called out explicitly in the rules. However, I've always been under the impression that fire storm allowed discontinuous areas.

I would like to point out that neither Ball Lightning nor Meteor Swarm have the shapable tag and so by the logic given by some in this thread both of these spells would absolutely be limited to continuous areas. Even though it's pretty obvious that Ball Lightning is supposed to act like a multi-flaming sphere and meteor swarm is supposed to act like a multi-fireball. Both, allowing targeting independent of each other's areas and locations. Even the spell Fire Snake doesn't have the shapable tag even though it feels like the very definition of being a shapable spell. I also feel like its the spell that gives players the idea that areas must be continuous. Even though Fire Snakes area is literally "see text", making it an explicit exception to the normal rules.

I would also like to point out the spell earthquake. It does have the shapable tag even though it's area of effect is given as simply an "80ft radius spread". I can only conclude that shapable allows the caster to negate squares within the specified area. I don't see any indication that shaping it differently would allow it to affect something more then 80 feet away from its center.

For this reason, I don't think the shapable tag has any bearing on if a spell's area is required to be continuous. Rather, it matters how the area is defined. As Azothath mentioned wall spells tend to specify a single wall covering a certain area. Within the defined area you can remove and/or rearrange squares so long as the resulting shape isn't less then 10 feet in any one dimension (as per the definition of shapable) unless the spell specifies otherwise (see wall of stone and thickness). If a spell defines that you get X AxA blocks then each AxA block can be placed however you wish within the given range of the spell. You could put them next to each other but you don't have to (as per Ball Lightning and Meteor Swarm). If a spell is shapable then you can adjust any combined area to be whatever shape you like so long as no one dimension is less than 10x10.

I would suggest checking out this extremely useful tool Spellcaster Design Spaces

As it should give you a pretty complete list of what's possible.

Seducer is the only prepared arcane caster that uses charisma and gets 9th level spells.

As others have said, it's probably easier to be a divine caster and find a way to gain whatever arcane spells you're after. My favorite prestige class Pathfinder Savant, lets you cherry pick up to 9 spells from any class list. I've gotten the most mileage taking this prestige class with a cleric.

By the RAW I would say option A. Since the magic item just states that you gain a vine attack with 10 foot reach, completely independent of the size of the creature.

That being said, I'm sure the author was only considering medium sized creatures and it should probably just be considered a reach weapon (instead of stating it has a reach of 10 feet). In which case it would provide an appropriate reach based on your size. IOW option 2.

as per the description of the item. You gain ranks based on your HD after wearing it for 24 hours. If your HD changes for some reason, the headband will reflect that change 24 hrs later. Neither the caster level nor character level of the creator factors into it.

Headband of Vast Intelligence wrote:
After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer’s total Hit Dice. These ranks do not stack with the ranks a creature already possesses. These skills are chosen when the headband is created.

For example:

Wizo the 8th level wizard makes a +2 headband of vast intelligence and picks animal handling as the skill. Wizo wears the headband and after 24 hrs gains 8 ranks in animal handling. Later that night Remmy the 2nd level rogue steals the headband and wears it. After 24 hours Remmy gains 2 ranks in animal handling. Deciding that it isn't a useful item Remmy pawns the headband to Fifi the 10th level adventuring Fighter. After 24 hrs Fifi gains 10 ranks in animal handling. Fifi likes the headband and keeps wearing it. After a few adventures Fifi levels becoming an 11th level fighter. 24 hours after gaining that new level Fifi's ranks in animal handling become 11.

Firebug wrote:

What you are looking for is Exotic Heritage instead of Skill Focus.

An alternative would be to pick up something with a bloodline already, like a level dip into Bloodrager, and trade away the 1st level power for a Familiar. Then pick the Mauler Archetype for your familiar and pick something suitably bear-like. Something like a Red Panda, Racoon, Koala or Weasel.

The downside to doing the Eldritch Heritage route is that you end up with a companion equal to your character level -5, meaning even with boon companion the companion is a level behind.

Animal ally normally has a very limited selection of possible animal companions. As the DM you could easily allow them to have a bear through the feat without any additional investment. This is probably the most straight forward method of having them gain an animal companion without multiclassing.

thejeff wrote:

Even the Chaotic Good elves might have limits for those cults worship leads pretty directly to threats.

Lamashtu maybe?

meh, it's just a phase that every elf goes through. They'll grow out of it in a few centuries and its better if they learn first hand. I mean obviously we'll step in if things start to get out of hand....

Drogan Tome wrote:
What are your thoughts about religious freedom laws? Would central governments make worship of dark gods illegal?

It really depends on the alignment of the society in question. Banning the worship of certain religions is a very Lawful idea. Not so much good or evil. You might have a CG tribe of elves who would never tell you who you can or can't worship because that would impede your personal growth. But if you threaten the tribe they will cut you down. The actions you take carry far more weight than your beliefs do.

On the flip side LG and especially LE societies probably have lots of rules about who you can and can't worship. In a LG city you might get fined or even imprisoned for walking around openly wearing the symbol of Cayden Cailean. After all he promotes dangerous ideas like drinking and acting impulsively. Things that "lead to evil". A LE society might let you worship whoever you want, but such worship must be registered and taxed accordingly.

The idea of dark gods existing in polite society doesn't really seem strange at all to me. It all depends on who is in charge and has power. Who the king worships doesn't matter so much if no one who has a problem with it has the power and/or authority to do anything about it. Especially when you consider that like minded individuals are more likely to be promoted by said king to positions of authority. It holds true regardless if the king is LG or CE.

Derklord wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
I haven't read BoG so I don't know what's talked about in there.
I have quoted the entire section upthread.

I see, I apologize. When I see questions like this and have an answer in mind I try to skim over what's already been said to make sure I'm not just repeating something that someone else has stated. I'll also take care to read anything that's been quoted from a source in case it has an effect on my answer. I missed your quote purely due to the way it was formatted.

Based on what it says. I can agree with the idea that magic is required. However, given things like the feat I mentioned, classes like sorcerer and even races like ifrit. It's obvious that while magic might be required it needn't be very powerful or even deliberate. X fooled around with Y and ended up getting pregnant even though that's not normal. I mean, it could even be the work of a deity or one of their servants deciding to "mess with" some mortals. That's how we end up with oracles after all. Could be something as simple as getting on the radar of a fertility deity, regardless if it was for good or bad reasons.

I'll revise my answer to the OP. Yes, absolutely! It just might require some aid from the local priest and/or wizard, then again it might not depending on whom you've pleased or displeased in terms of deities and/or supernatural entities (eg. fey).

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
LordKailas wrote:

So long as you could of moved without provoking an AoO from the cleric or any of the cleric's allies then the DM is correct about you not getting the +5 to save.

This is wrong. If that is the case any time you are within 5 feet of an ally of a person casting charm person they get a +5 save. So if out of combat an enemy is standing next to a party member (say talking to them about the weather) and I cast charm person from a safe distance away they get a +5 save?

IMO I get the impression the DM is using the game term of threaten not the colloquial use of it. So, strictly looking at it from that perspective. Does the ally chatting about the weather have their weapon drawn? If not then they don't threaten any squares around them, including the one occupied by the person they are talking to the weather about.

I agree with others that if I were the DM I would treat the term "threaten" as it is used in charm person in the general sense. My comments are only in terms of the narrow definition that the OP's DM seems to be using.

So long as you could of moved without provoking an AoO from the cleric or any of the cleric's allies then the DM is correct about you not getting the +5 to save.

That being said, Charm Person is not the same as Dominate.

Charm Person wrote:
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell.

So, any attempt to grab, restrain or even lead your character away in that situation would most likely result in the charm spell just being broken.

The spell would of stopped your character from attacking the cleric but there's nothing in the spell to prevent you from just walking out and if anyone tried to physically stop you from leaving the charm would be broken.

Derklord wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
Given that the trait racial heritage exists as something humans can take. It seems that humans at least, are able to breed with anything that's humanoid.

No. The feat makes no mention that it is the result of an unaided biological hybridisation. Thus, we have to fall back on the existing information, the part in Bastards of Golarion. That "blood of a non-human ancestor [that] flows in your veins" has to be presumed to come from exactly the magical methods the text in BoG talks about.

In Golarion, that is - obviously, this need not apply to your home setting, even if it is very close to Golarion.

Racial heritage comes from the APG. Certainly it's up to the DM to determine how that blood ended up in your ancestry, but there's nothing in the text surrounding the feat stating that magic was required. I haven't read BoG so I don't know what's talked about in there.

Yqatuba wrote:
Quixote wrote:

Because it's a level 2 spell?

Because it seems more about making you suffer?

...because it's a level 2 spell?

Scorching ray is a level 2 spell and it can kill you (and doesn't take days to it.)

cure light wounds (1st level spell) can heal the damage caused by a scorching ray. It can not heal the damage caused by feast of ashes.

Starvation wrote:
Characters who have taken nonlethal damage from lack of food or water are fatigued. Nonlethal damage from thirst or starvation cannot be recovered until the character gets food or water, as needed—not even magic that restores hit points heals this damage.

Given that the trait racial heritage exists as something humans can take. It seems that humans at least, are able to breed with anything that's humanoid.

So, if your character is human then yes. Since it's possible to create such an offspring using the RAW. If you're not human, it probably requires magic and/or DM fiat.

If your mount is taking the charge action (as opposed to simply double moving or taking a move action and attacking) as per this FAQ your character is also considered to be taking the charge action (which is typically a full round action). If you have the ability to make a full attack with ranged weapons while charging then you would still be able to make use of said ability. Otherwise, you're character is now charging same as the mount.

For example, abilities like Hurling Charge could still be used normally when performing a mounted charge.

edit: Just found this additional statement which seems to state that you can in fact have your mount charge independent of your actions. Just that you don't benefit from the charge if you do.

blahpers wrote:
Quixote wrote:
...but the vehemence on one side of the fence and the level-headedness of the other has swayed me.
This probably sounds ruder than I intend it to, but that's a terrible pair of reasons to be convinced of something.

Yeah, it's basically the Fallacy Fallacy.

IMO dual path is only worth it if there are abilities from another path that you want. My necromancer took dual path because I wanted to grab the control the mindless path ability which only shows up under trickster. As far as feats go, most of the mythic feats are just improved versions of normal feats and actually have said normal feat as a pre-req. So, I would look at whatever feats you've already taken and see if there are mythic versions of those feats.

Their usefulness varies. Improved Counterspell (Mythic) is barely an upgrade, It lets you counter with spells of equal level. Where as Eldritch Heritage (Mythic) is substantial, as it gives you the rest of the bloodline powers (which normally you have to grab piecemeal, 1 feat per power, via improved and greater eldrtich heritage).

As a spellcaster of any sort you will probably want Mythic Spell Lore

If there aren't any mythic feats that appeal to you, there's always Extra Path Ability, Extra Mythic Power, and Mythic Paragon to augment your path abilities.

magical knack is usually a poor choice outside of trying to make up caster levels from multi-classing. Since usually the goal of taking these kinds of feats is so that you can cast spells at a caster level higher then your actual level. Even then it's not great since +caster level doesn't increase your spell progression.

As others have said, Varisan Tattoo and Bloatmage Initiate do stack. Since they are untyped and come from different feats. The same way power attack stacks with weapon specialization.

Common Terms wrote:

Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

The reason you don't see these feats together in builds very often is because Bloatmage initiate carries a lot of extra baggage (in every sense).

As for gifted adept, I'd recommend picking it up via the extra traits feat. This is because by the RAW traits can't be re-trained but feats can be, meaning that if you take it as a normal trait you're locked in to the spell you've chosen, making the trait worthless after a certain level for any spell that caps out. However, retraining the extra traits feat would let you repick what spell it applies to, letting you get more mileage out of it as it becomes useful both at low and high levels.

I would suggest checking out the 3.5 book ghostwalk. The whole point of it is running a campaign where the whole party is undead. It should help give direction on how to run a game like what you're thinking of.

In that situation, if I want to get the PCs a chance to jump in I would do everything except rolling the dice, even stating how much damage is dealt if I wanted to emphasize how dangerous and/or pathetic one of the two combatants is.

IMO it gives the players more agency, as it helps drive home that things will play out a certain way if they sit back and do nothing. As soon as the PCs jump in I would of course start rolling and follow normal combat procedures.

Also, I don't feel like it's cheating since for all they know you pre-rolled the fight and are just giving a summary of what happens. Though to save time, if after a few rounds of combat, its apparent that the PCs are content to simply watch, then I would wrap it up with something like

"after several more rounds like this, Combatant A is victorious after decapitating their opponent"

1 to 50 of 1,574 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>