Angvar Thestlecrit

LordKailas's page

Organized Play Member. 2,374 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 2,374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cavall wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Retraining the favored class bonus has some potential for abuse.

We actually went exactly 1 post in before abuse was suggested, given LordKallas suggested using the cost of replacing a HP because you can use it to gain a HP (even though you didn't) and you can also use it to gain a skill point (even though you didn't) and that's more expensive, but somehow THAT cost was skipped over.

In fact under the HP section there is simply the only mention of favoured bonuses and it doesnt allow you to change it, it implies that it is simply part of your new maximum and you adjust accordingly. Its locked in.

So yeah. No mention how, and clearly open for abuse by min maxers...

Answer is no. You're not given the option, so you can't do it.

Skill rank training could be higher or lower than hp training depending on your int stat. If you have an int modifier that is 3+ you could re-assign 3 skill points in 5 days. On the other hand if you have an int mod that is 1 or lower then it takes 15 days to reassign 3 points. It's a fair point that I should have at least mentioned the skill point retraining option but it's potential variable cost didn't seem like a good match for what the OP was trying to do.

I've always taken the presented list as examples of things you can retrain, not an absolute list. If it's an absolute list it means that in addition to a handful of base classes, none of the hybrid classes can retrain class levels or class abilities, since none of them are listed anywhere in the retraining rules. I mean, I assume that slayers can retrain slayer talents and that an arcanists can retrain exploits. As both of these are in line with what's listed for other classes.

Certainly the DM should be wary of potential abuse as always and should disallow something that would be disruptive regardless if it's allowed by the rules or not.

yukongil wrote:
all options available to a character should be of some value, even if only very limited, TTRPGs probably shouldn't have a "HAHA, GOTCHA!" mechanic where in it is completely useless. Even the 1st level summons spells at least summons something and an inventive person could still do something with it (my summoned goose blocks the closing door with a beleaguered *HONK* before disappearing in a puff of smoke), this and other spells don't even have an effect that takes place when cast if we follow them as written.

I think it's up to the DM if they want to re-write spells to make them functional. The beneficial circle spells are completely broken as written (and I don't mean OP). By RAW the caster of such spells can never benefit from them.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
The thing is when characters encounter a drow for the first time. The DM will describe them as an elf with black skin and white hair. At this point the characters will get a check to see if they know what a drow is. Maybe they do maybe they don't, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still appropriate to describe it as an elf. This is because, even though they are different from elves in many ways its still a useful description. To the point that I don't have to give any further description for a player who knows what a drow is to immediately recognize it.
That is not accurate, though. Elves are never black skin with white hair. That is always a drow. So if the character somehow didn’t know what drow are, they wouldn’t think it was an elf, anymore than if elves appeared in real life, ordinary people would see them as just humans with pointed ears. That just wouldn’t happen. Hell, real world humans saw humans of different skin colors as entirely differently species in our somewhat distant past. You can not tell me that someone on Golarion who didn’t know of drow would see something that could never be just an elf, and think “oh, that’s just an elf with black skin and white hair”.

Both Dusk elves and Vourinoi (Desert Elves) have typical colorations that could cause them to be mistaken for drow in their own environment. Yet both are just elves with different alternative traits. Even other elves suspect dusk elves as having drow ancestry because of their dark vision. Not to mention that an actual half-drow can just be an elf with the blended view alternative trait.

Of course, the appearance of elves are less fixed than other races anyway.

Elven Diversity wrote:
Unlike humans, elven diversity springs not from common ethnic lineages, but is often a result of their species' adaptation to the various ecological habitats across the planet. Changes in elven physiology generally occur gradually over centuries, but even a single elf's appearance can change dramatically over the course of his or her lifetime when exposed to a new environment.

So, an elf that spends a lot of time in the darklands could easily look like a drow, even though they are just an elf.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:

I’ve been saying repeatedly that this is for creating unique races. Mechanically though, it would only be fair to have them still have the same subtype, because otherwise, things like the Bane enchantment would be less useful, and I’ve been clear that balance is an issue I’m concerned about.

Another way to look at it, is that it’s similar to the situation with drow. They have the elf subtype, but nobody refers to them as elves, because it is just wrong fluff-wise to do so.

Ok, this is in-line with my original thinking. This is my thought process. Since mechanically a half-orc shouldn't be more or less powerful than a gnome. It seems possible to make a half-orc that functionally is a gnome (basically swapping all half-orc traits and replace them with gnome traits). However, they are still a half-orc they're just a subset of half-orc same as drow being a subset of elf.

The thing is when characters encounter a drow for the first time. The DM will describe them as an elf with black skin and white hair. At this point the characters will get a check to see if they know what a drow is. Maybe they do maybe they don't, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still appropriate to describe it as an elf. This is because, even though they are different from elves in many ways its still a useful description. To the point that I don't have to give any further description for a player who knows what a drow is to immediately recognize it.

If you are some subset of a given race. It should still be useful to describe the character as it's parent race for anyone not familiar with your particular subset. The same way dwarf is a starting point for duergar and gnome is a starting point for svirfneblin.

VoodistMonk wrote:

The delivery of my last post was very abrasive and uncalled for. I apologize.

The very decision to dump stats is a messed up mindset, in my opinion. You dump your Strength to a 7, and milk an extra point (maybe 2?) towards your favored stat. And now you have to weigh down other party members with your gear because you are too weak to carry more than your armor and gold? Your selfish point buy decision is a detriment to the party.

Those few extra points for your favored stat BETTER make you so useful and awesome that people want to carry your gear for you... is all I'm saying.

I rarely do point buy and when I have I don't remember dropping a stat to 7 (though it's possible I have). However, any time I have a character with a low strength. I always figure its on me to figure out how to not be encumbered. More often then not it means I can't buy all the things I want to and instead am forced to pare down my gear to what's essential. If after doing that I'm still overburdened then I need either a pack animal to carry things or a magical solution (sometimes both! my necromancer had a skeleton horse to carry things like camping gear). The thought of asking another character to carry my gear for me never crosses my mind.

The only time stat dumping bothers me is when a player uses it to get something for nothing. "My character has a 5 charisma but they are mute and are concealed from head to toe in robes. My high charisma familiar does all of my talking for me."

There are kingdom-building rules and then there are downtime-building rules. As AwesomenessDog points out the player shouldn't be using the kingdom rules unless they have an actual kingdom.

The downtime building rules state that a guild hall is the following

Buildings and Organizations wrote:


Create 67 Goods, 66 Labor (2,660 gp)

Rooms 1 Common Room, 1 Kitchen, 1 Lavatory, 2 Offices, 1 Secret Room, 1 Sitting Room, 2 Storages, 3 Workstations

The headquarters for a guild or similar organization.

So, the character could either purhcase a preconstructed building for 2,660 or they would need to spend 67 goods and 66 labor to have one built.

Assuming a guildhall isn't for sale they could purchase the goods and labor to have one built. Goods cost 20gp each and also labor costs 20gp each. 67x20+66x20 = 2,660.

8,000 is probably correct if the structure they want is substantially nicer than the standard guildhall.

For comparison, a Castle costs 7,390 gp, a noble villa costs 8,920 gp and a palace costs 19,640 gp.

So, their proposed guildhall is somewhere between a noble villa and a castle in terms of cost. Probably because (being a PC building) it's similarly fortified against assault or contains a number of very expensive rooms.

If you feel this is too cheap you could always charge the character for the land separately and say that this cost represents the building alone.

Chyrone wrote:


I could not find it on the retraining page, nor threads.

For classes that get 1 new ability/tricks for every 6 spent points as FCB, what are the costs of retraining? I have a PC that is halfway with one of those, but with prospect of multi-classing, that 6/6 might not be completed.

These are not specifically mentioned on the retraining page.

Thanks in advance.

It seems like a FCB would fall under the category of class features. So, it would take 5 days per point you wish to re-assign. So, if you're 3/6 on a FCB by RAW it would take 15 days to re-assign all 3 points into something else.

However, since a FCB can be used to gain an extra HP. I would ask the DM if you could treat it as HP training in which case it would only take 3 days per point so 9 days to re-assign the 3 FCB points into something else.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Also, you keep saying things like “what does it matter if I write elf down on the sheet”, well, simply put, that question is a strawman, because you aren’t an elf. You are a unique race, that may be similar to elves in some ways, but you are not an elf.
So in your example, the GM never would have called them orcs in the first place, because they aren’t orcs.

So, to make sure I understand what you're saying. If a human swaps a trait for say a dwarf trait using your proposed system they now no longer count as human? Do they count as a dwarf? or are they a completely new race all together?

I was under the impression they still counted as human.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
I don’t think you get it. It doesn’t diminish anything. Race literally never mattered anyways, except for qualifying for feats, traits, certain magic items, and archetypes, and even then, there are several workarounds. Nobody says Racial Heritage makes all the humanoid races diminished in definition.

I'm not sure that I even understand what "it is" that I'm not getting. Maybe I just make strange characters, but I know for me race is an important aspect of my character's identity and that it's not all just fluff. There are mechanical advantages my character has being their race. Humans are a bit bland as a race. The racial heritage feat allows you to play something that's not entirely human. The character stands out because they aren't human any more.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
So why would this be any different? It is literally just what you are.

it makes the term meaningless because telling you what race an individual is doesn't give any meaningful information.

You step into the tavern and can see it's an orc tavern. Everyone turns to look at you. One 3 foot tall orc with pale skin and pink pigtails yells at you in a high pitched voice.

"your kind isn't welcome here!"

The brown furred orc next to her stands up with a low growl in his throat.

"you heard her, you need to leave now before there's trouble"

You decide to go a head and leave as the orc behind the bar with black skin, pointy ears and white hair levels a crossbow at you glaring down at you along his pointed nose.

Yep, those were all clearly orcs......

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Also, you keep saying things like “what does it matter if I write elf down on the sheet”, well, simply put, that question is a strawman, because you aren’t an elf. You are a unique race, that may be similar to elves in some ways, but you are not an elf. It’s no different than writing “Fighter (Viking)” on your character sheet. You are not a Fighter, you are a Viking, but that doesn’t diminish the definition of classes, just because you have a Barbarian’s Rage while having Fighter as your class. So why are you trying to make it out to be that way for races?

I thought it was apparent that it does diminish a class. How many threads exist where someone wants to play a "rogue" and their vision is better fulfilled by making a character that is a completely different class? The classes that don't get diminished are those that have something that only that class gets. I have no reason to ever play a sorcerer because the only interesting thing they get (bloodline abilities) I can get through feats. If I wanted to be an arcane spell caster I'd rather play a wizard or arcanist. Why? because these classes can do things that other classes can't. Though even then the only choice between them is, do you want to be a prepared caster with flexible spell slots? or a prepared caster that gets new levels of spells quicker?

If you want fast progression of and full access to arcane spells then wizard is your only option.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Just for the record, everyone, this rule was inspired by Adventure Time’s ttrpg, where you make your race up as part of character creation, due to all the random species that exist in the actual show making it impossible to just make a set of fixed races like in other ttrpgs.

well, that makes sense. many of the characters come across as just humans with weird colored skin and maybe an odd physical trait or two. They don't come across as different races. The system results in exactly what I said it would. Race is no longer a discrete choice, instead you get a collection of powers that you can simply mix and match between. This is perfectly fine if you're playing a mutant where two individuals can be the same "race" but have little to nothing in common with each other physically.

Going back to your original example. If I tell you a character has fey-magic as one of their racial traits it doesn't define their race, its an aspect of the individual's upbringing and background but that's all. If every trait my character has is one that could be had by multiple races my character is no longer a specific race. They are a generic race with a specific kind of upbringing. If afterwards I can write human, orc, elf or dwarf, and it has zero impact on the abilities I chose then that description is diminished, not enhanced. It means that what I put down for race matters as much as hair color does.

Even if it's not wide spread it still diminishes the definition of race. If I am a elf because I have trait X that only elves can get and the rest of my traits are ones that could be had by many races. Then i am an elf only because of that singular trait. Being an elf becomes a very small aspect of the character overall.

If you want to have a game where race doesn't matter, that's great. That is a specific design choice the same way some systems don't have classes and those systems can be great fun. But I would never say that a classless system results in more unique classes. But rather class doesn't define the characters at all, at least not mechanically. You could still call yourself Class X, but there's not any weight behind doing so. Since such a definition is meaningless. "I'm a druid because I can manipulate plants, though I also walk around in metal armor and technically I cast arcane spells. But I'm a druid darn it!"

VoodistMonk wrote:
PS. Only the off-hand has to light to reduce the penalties (I like the Broken-Back Seax, personally)... you can use a Split-Blade Sword in your main hand if you want a 2D6 one-handed weapon. Or a Morningstar for two types of damage simultaneously (all three types simultaneously if you have the Broken-Back Seax in your off-hand). It's funny, too, that the Broken-Back Seax requires a 15 Strength and the Split-Blade Sword requires a 15 Dex.

being only vaguely familiar with these weapons I looked them up and while the Broken-Back Seax is described as being the same size as a short sword, it's listed as a 1-handed weapon. Which makes sense as there aren't any d10 light weapons on the list, even under exotic.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The low CHA character has to put more effort into this and has to watch themselves more carefully or they are going to slip up and let their true feeling out.

because someone with a low charisma automatically, secretly has ill intent. Just like how all high charisma people are automatically benevolent.

It seems more realistic to me that, yes the low charisma person has to expend effort. But it's because they don't pick up on social cues and have a natural tendency to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. They aren't jerks, they're just inept.

Thankfully, its possible for even low charisma people to make friends and I mean the real deal.

"oh, bob? yeah he's rough around the edges but once you get to know him he's a great guy. He'd give you the shirt off of his own back if he thought you needed it more."

Someone like that has loyal friends in spite of their low charisma and maybe they aren't even very diplomatic, friends =/= followers. Someone can be a follower even if they've never met the person they follow.

What was this thread even about? Something to do with the weight of your armor affecting your dexterity?

It's easy enough to pass along teamwork feats, combat feats and even crafting feats to a companion without the companion having to meet the pre-reqs. But general feats I'm not sure.

A spiritualist's phantom might be able to pick up the Coven-Touched feat directly (I'm not sure if they count as the race they look like) but you'd still have the problem of being 1 member short and they specifically refuse to work with eidolons so it's not like you could multi-class with summoner to do both.

There is always the Leadership feat and similar feats that specifically grant humanoid companions. Yes, I know technically they are NPCs but for the most part you decide what they get up to and they are loyal to you.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Yeah, it's been decades since I got a campaign up to level 15, but the current homebrew I have on level 10...

Since about level 7 the PCs really haven't "adventured" around where Joe-schmoe type encounters were known to reside. I have a ripoff of the PF Society built into my homebrew and this organization was the impetus for the campaign's beginnings.

As the characters got to level 7 and I gave them Leadership as a free feat, they all chose low-level NPCs I'd intro'd from the guild as Cohorts. As such, most of the "local crime" they leave up to the guild and specifically those Cohorts.

Heh, I tried to do an intrigue type campaign where I gave the players options and they were much more interested in rumors that took them away from the city than the things that were happening in town. To the point that they were out on expedition more often than not. I tried giving them the free leadership thing and for the most part I was told "eh, I don't want to keep track of more than just my character". So, I ended up just giving them generic points of contact for them to report back to.

Different groups, different interests I suppose.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Also... how many "random encounters" are you throwing out there at upper levels? I suppose this has more to do with your players honestly, but in all 3 of my campaigns the players are fairly experienced. Even though I've presented three different sandboxes none of these players go wandering around blindly, seeking adventure.

It depends on how "dangerous" I want to make the journey feel. When traveling it could be 3 rolls per day and 3 per night to see if anything happens (each at a 33% to 50% something happens) or it could be as little as 3 rolls per week to see what they encounter. I don't tend to use random encounter tables except when players are moving from point A to point B. Once they get to an area I'll have set pieces that either get triggered or not based on the character's actions. Sandbox games can be tricky, I've found I don't like running games that are full on sandboxes. If a player's character wants to accomplish something in game I'll try to find a way to tie it in to the ongoing adventure.

The most successful/fun character I've had as a player in a sandbox game was a villain. That is I approached the character (in terms of personality, motivation, etc.) the same way I would approach the major villain of a homebrew campaign.

What terrible thing do they want to do?
What steps do they need to take to do it?

It worked great in the sandbox game because there was always something specific that my character wanted to do. The other characters had input as well but a large part of that campaign was the group of do-gooders helping my evil character accomplish evil. :)

I'm actually trying the same thing again in my current 5e game. Its been interesting so far, but MAN is 5e stingy on gold. It's making greed my character's primary motivator because he flat out can't even afford the basic stepping stone projects he wants to complete.

I feel like this might have the effect of making the various races feel less unique and less diverse. Instead of having a dozen or more unique races each with their own variants. You now have one race that that's just highly dimorphic. Or to put it more plainly, you no longer have different races. Everyone is just some variation of human.

What makes a particular race unique is that it's the only one that gets something. If every race can have a trait that trait is no longer unique to anyone.

Your idea is probably ok from the DM side of things. You could quickly create more variants of elf for example. But if a player is allowed to do this then race just becomes another set of feats you can pick based on the type of character you want to play. You could easily end up with a gnome and a dwarf who are identical in every single way except one character sheet says gnome and the other one says dwarf. Which I think is the opposite of what you're trying to do.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

If you take a monster, say a troll, and upgrade it to CR 15. You've made it Huge sized, given it unique energy vulnerabilities to retard its Regeneration ability, and handed it an ability to Rage and deal Sonic damage or a Fear effect with a roar.

Did it just appear out of nothing, as the PCs hit level 15? If not, how do you work this into an ongoing campaign. I suppose this is probably easier with a home game instead of an AP or pre-written material, but please discuss.

For homebrew games I tend to have sort of CR zoning when it comes to the random encounter tables. Sure, a group of CR 3 bandits that attack you on the road might not be much of an encounter when you're 10th level but that's what's in the area right around the capital. That isn't going to change unless some major event happens where it makes sense to find more dangerous creatures in the area.

The further away from civilization you get the more "wild" the territory becomes and more dangerous creatures lurk in these dark places. You encountered the CR 15 troll? well yeah things are bad out here. This is why no one but the really brave and/or stupid ventures out this far.

For AP's I'm not in the habit of making custom monsters. I might tweek something that has already been placed there and the AP usually explains why the thing is where it is so it's not going to feel out of place unless that's the point of the encounter. If I'm running an AP its because I don't want to put in the time and energy required run a quality homebrew game.

I guess in most games I've run and played in, 15th level characters just aren't running around in the same physical locations that 2nd level characters are. They have more important places to be and things to do. In many homebrew games I've played in, planar adventures become a regular thing at mid to high levels. I think because it gives the DM a relatively blank canvas to work with that doesn't have to depend on what was previously established. High CR monsters can just simply be the norm.

gnoams wrote:

A lot of people seem to have really weird ideas about "dump stats."

Reading the creating npcs section of the crb, page 450- An average person has ability scores of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. If you create npcs as suggested in the rules, the average dwarven warrior has a 6 cha and the average gnomish spellcaster has a 6 str.

There's nothing wrong about having a low stat, it's not gaming the system, it's not being a munchkin. It's a completely average, normal, assumed, acceptable part of the rules.

I think it really depends on the context. Since it's a thing you can do it isn't by its self "gaming the system". Just like how some feats that game breaking builds use are not by themselves "gaming the system" it's when stat dumping is combined with other things that it becomes an issue.

I don't think stat dumping is an issue outside of using the point buy system. With point buy you can intentionally lower 1 or more stat(s) in order to increase another one. That isn't a thing if you've rolled your stats. You have whatever you rolled and it makes sense to put that 8 you rolled into a stat that has minimal impact on your character. Dumping stats is gaming the system when you intentionally lower a stat knowing that your character build will negate the existence of the low stat. Where it doesn't matter if that stat is a 5 or a 15.

Also, I get the impression that if a DM is having everyone make 20 point buy characters they are expecting characters to have only above average stats. If you show up to the table with a character that has 2 exceptional scores and everything else is effectively average or above average you've already broken the baseline that the DM was trying to achieve and it makes the DM feel like they are being taken advantage of, regardless if that's actually happening or not.

avr wrote:
The exact system used in this case was that each player rolled a set of stats (4d6 keep 3), then each could choose any one of those sets and arrange them to taste. I've promoted it elsewhere on these messageboards. It looks more natural than pure point buy and no one gets left behind.

This is similar to the approach I'd been using since second edition. Even that method though can result in one player having multiple 16+ scores to work with while another player's highest stat is a 13. It's why the rolling method had modifications made to it over the years. Like rolling multiple arrays, re-rolling 1s and treating 4 1s as an 18. Its only recently (in the past year or 2) that I started using the shared rolled array method. Which I like because it feels better than point buy while keeping everyone equal.

If the wand is just for 1 character to use a cheaper option would be to just get the Slumbering armor modification for their armor.

Otto864 wrote:

Old thread but along the same line to try to give this direction.

If you fight an orc and bring them down to low or to negative, doing non-lethal damage at that point would immediately end the Ferocity or not even allow it to happen if they had not gone below yet.

You could just allow the Orc to continue fighting at whenever they were knocked unconscious equal to their con.

If they are unconscious at 10 hit points and have a 16 con? Then once they take 16 points of damage/non-lethal they fall. Thoughts?

FYI I didn't bother reading anything of the original post so if it was already covered I apologize.

But non-lethal damage causes a creature to go unconscious independently of getting knocked to below zero hp. The ferocity ability (regardless of it's source) only keeps you from going unconscious due to real damage. By RAW any amount of non-lethal damage will cause a creature under the effects of a ferocity ability to go unconscious. They would need to also be immune to non-lethal damage or its effects in order to stay awake.

The feat Flagellant for example, would allow a creature with a feocity ability to stay awake even when taking non-lethal damage.

Claxon wrote:
but also I'm not going to allow vestigial arms to allow for attack routines you couldn't make without it.

Which IMO is a sensible way to do things. I think the discovery should be handled in a way that is consistent instead of making exceptions to allow certain things and disallow others. If you can't normally attack with a dagger and 2 claws without the discovery then you can't do it with the discovery either.

I think whoever told you that was confused.

Half-elfs and half-orcs can take Human Favored Class options because they count as human, in addition to the Favored Class options available to their specific race.

Edit: They may have been thinking of the adopted trait which allows any race to grab a single trait of another race. Which is completely seperate from the abilities gained for being a particular race (which confusingly are also called traits). Or they may have been thinking of the feat Racial heritage which allows a human to count as another race. But unless you're taking the mythic version, this is limited to meeting the pre-reqs of classes and other feats

willuwontu wrote:
You could also attack with an armor spike while holding a shield and long sword. You could not do the same if you were holding a greatsword. Therefore, saying that being able to attack with a greatsword and dagger isn't giving you more attacks is patently false. Vestigial arms simply does not allow you to twf while wielding a weapon in two-hands.

This is where the logic starts to break down and things begin to contradict themselves.

A creature who chooses to dual wield is allowed to make its normal compliment of armed attacks with a designated "main-hand" and a single additional attack with a designated "off-hand". So, both players and designers assumed that this allowed a creature to make an attack with a 2-handed weapon and an offhand attack with a weapon like armor spikes (see also, bladed boot, boulder helmet, seaknife and Barbazu Beard) because it could be used without hands. As this was the case in 3.5.

Then we got this FAQ which only seems to state that a free off-hand is required to use armor spikes with no explanation of what is meant by a free off hand. If we take this to mean that it requires a literal free hand to attack with armor spikes then a normal human wielding a sword and shield can not make off-hand attacks with armor spikes any more than another human wielding a greatsword can. The fact that gauntlets are also called out suggests that it's talking about physical hands and that its assumed that armor spike attacks are made by swinging your arm/fist at enemies.

It's only when the FAQ is taken to mean metaphorical hands instead of actual hands (something not talked about anywhere in the rules btw) that you end up with this weird exception where certain weapon combinations aren't allowed and other combinations are, though it doesn't make any sense to differentiate the two, even when both options are equally physically possible. I mean, you're not getting an AC bonus from just carrying a shield around like its a snow globe. You're getting an AC bonus because you're actually wielding the shield, using it to intercept attacks made against you.

Emo Duck wrote:

The one thing that gives me pause here is this sentence in the "Troop attack" paragraph: "Instead, they deal automatic damage to any creature within reach or whose space they occupy at the end of their move, with no attack roll needed."

This suggests that a troop acts like a swarm with regards to sharing spaces, but it is the only mention of it in the troop subtype rules. Since swarms are typically made of creatures that are small enough to share spaces with enemies/allies anyway, it might make more sense to turn a blind eye to the bolded part.

Well, a troop is a type of swarm, so it makes sense that they act like one.

Troop wrote:
The troop subtype represents an organized group of trained soldiers that act as a unit, rather than as individuals. A troop is something of an abstraction, in that the component creatures that make up the troop are mostly irrelevant; only the troop as a whole matters for the purposes of combat. A troop is similar to a swarm, but is normally composed of Small or Medium creatures. Large groups of Tiny or smaller creatures should use the normal swarm rules.

willuwontu wrote:

It's alive!!!

No need to necro a 10-year old thread to answer an OP that likely won't even know they've been replied to.

but maybe the OP has been patiently waiting 10 years to find out if their 3rd level druid can take the feat and now they finally have an answer.....

Opuk0 wrote:

I've GMed numerous APs, often with either 20 or 25 Point Buy as well as Elephant in the Room feat tax rules.

For some reason, this has caused numerous players to start making either incredibly single-stat focused builds (Dex) or very broad builds (Switch hitters)

Without fail, those same players end up quitting because they don't feel like they're doing any damage or are ineffective overall.

Are these builds actually viable or do I need to make encounters easier to accommodate these off the wall builds?

What kind of builds are you wanting players to make?

If there is something you would like to see more of then that's where you'll want to start making changes.

For example,

if the types of builds you want to see aren't really viable with a 25 point build then maybe you should look at a different way of doing stats. My group for example has each player roll one or two stats to create an array of 7 numbers. The lowest gets dropped and that array becomes the one that everyone uses to make their characters. It allows for the advantages of rolling stats (easier to play MAD style characters) without causing stat disparity in the group because one person rolled really well or really poorly.
My most recent character had the following array to work with prior to racial mods (18,14,14,13,12,11)

I suspect the single stat builds people are making are also one-trick ponies. Being a one trick pony is the real the problem because if your character only does one thing and has no backup plan for when they can't do it they will eventually encounter problems, unless the DM intentionally avoids situations that prevent that character from doing their thing. SAD characters are fine so long as they aren't one note.

Something else to consider, are players acting as a team or a bunch of individuals. You can have a group where each member is highly specialized and the group will be fine because they work as a team to minimize weaknesses and maximize strengths. It sounds like the players who are getting upset aren't trying to work as a team. They either expect to always be the best in every situation (in the case of the SAD characters) or they expect to be just as good as the specialized characters at everything they try to do (in the case of the switch hitters). Neither of these are realistic expectations. Switch hitters are support characters and one trick ponies should expect to be twarted from time to time.

Without knowing the specific builds I can't say for certain that they should be viable. But certainly in general I would consider SAD and switch hitter builds to be viable. But they do have limitations like any other build (If a build has no limitations its probably breaking the game and you should never have to break the game to be considered "viable").

Derklord wrote:
Paizo had to cut down on kobolds that sneak into your house and change the text in books on your shelf for budget reasons.

So that's why the binding on my early edition CRB is falling apart.....

Gilfalas wrote:

My Gm has allowed a druid in our game to put a Ring of Eloquence on his Gorilla animal companion and suddenly it can now talk.

Is this correct according to RAW and if not what rule covers it?

Seems fine, the ring states that the wearer can speak and understand the languages associated with it. Apes have ring slots and this ring doesn't require activation or attunement of any sort.

Though it will still be limited by it's intelligence. It would probably be like a child that has a hard time retaining a lot of information.

TxSam88 wrote:
Can you use a greatsword and light weapon with only two hand = no, you cannot. Therefore you cannot do it with three hands via vestigial hand either.

Can you use a dagger and two claw attacks with only 2 hands = no, you cannot. Yet this is explicitly stated as something you can do with a vestigial hand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is also the post by SKR that elaborates on the FAQ.

Consider the following situations.

A. A human has two weapon fighting. They normally wield two long swords. They get 2 attacks per round each at a -4. Now they take the vestigal arms discovery and upgrade those longswords to greatswords. They still get 2 attacks per round each at a -4. Now, because they can't normally make 2 attacks with 2 greatswords this is "more attacks".

B. A tengu has two weapon fighting, improved unarmed strike a bite attack and 2 claws. They normally get 5 attacks per round with the unarmed strikes taking a -2 each and the 3 natural attacks taking a -5 each. Now they take the vestigal arms discovery twice and use a pair of daggers instead of unarmed strikes. They still get 5 attacks with the daggers taking a -2 and the natural weapons taking a -5 each. Now, because they can't normally make 2 attacks with 2 daggers as well as their claw and bite attacks this is "more attacks".

Scenario B is explicitly given as an example of something that is allowed with the vestigal arms discovery in the linked post. It makes no sense to me that A would not be allowed when B is allowed.

CBDunkerson wrote:
A (normal / two-armed) character without the vestigial arm could not attack with both a two-handed weapon and an off-hand weapon... ergo, that is an extra attack and cannot be done with a vestigial arm. It doesn't matter which hand(s) hold which weapons. You can't end up with more attacks because of the vestigial arm.

yes.... upgrading an attack from a 1-handed weapon to a 2-handed weapon is somehow "more attacks", whilst upgrading an unarmed strike to a light weapon isn't.....

There isn't consensus on this. No official ruling has stated one way or the other and we have a self conflicting statement from a member of the design team.

IMO it should be fine. The thing to keep in mind is that because the offhand isn't a light weapon both the main hand and offhand would suffer a -4 penalty to hit. The other thing you'll have to make a ruling on. The rules state that offhand weapons get 0.5 strength mod on damage rolls and that weapons wielded in two hands get 1.5 strength mod. Since the situation in question is an offhand being wielded by 2 hands as the GM you'll need to decide if one rule overwrites the other or if they just cancel each other out (resulting in a 1.0 strength mod).

I have my opinions but they are only that, opinions.

Diego Rossi wrote:

True, as all Crafts use Intelligence and all Professions use Wisdom, the mental stats are what is relevant for them.

So, RAW, a strength 7 wisdom 17 longshoreman "works" better than a strength 17 wisdom 7 longshoreman.

The reality of this situation is that the one who makes more money is probably the "boss" of the one who makes less money. But the stat difference becomes less (percentage wise) the higher level the two npcs become. If someone is truly dedicated to their work (takes max ranks in the profession) they will eventually be better at it then someone who is an extremely talented dabbler (high stat, low ranks).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:
Closing your eyes and pretending the big scary thing isn't there is not a realistic defence.

But that's the whole design philosophy behind the "Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses". If you can't see what might stress you then it won't bother you.

But as to the OP. I don't think you can close or avert your eyes in response to something being scary. Since you would of had to of already seen and/or heard enough to realize that what's going on over there is going to be potentially disturbing to you. If anything it would probably make it worse because you'll end up imagining something instead that truly frightens you.

The only way I can see this helping is if you preemptively close your eyes. Like if you knew the room you were about to enter had a bunch of scary illusions in it so your closed your eyes before entering.

Chell Raighn wrote:

In a similar situation, a Hunter//Druid who chooses an animal companion as their Nature Bond would not count 2x their level for determinging their EDL for their animal companion, they would however be able to advance 2 seperate animal companions using their EDL from each individual class for each. This works this way only because of the rules for how animal companions function when multiclassed, a multiclass druid/hunter can normally choose to stack their levels or may select a 2nd animal companion when they take their first level of the second class that grants an animal companion in a non-gestalt setting.

Put in simple terms, if two classes share a feature that would normally stack in benefit when taken in a normal multiclass scenario, you only get the benefit of the better version, not both.

Sneak Attack is another good example of a class feature that the "same fature" rule applies too. A gestalt Rogue//Slayer would get the full Sneak Attack Progression of a Rogue, but gets no benefit from the reduced rate progression of Sneak Attack from slayer.

I don't follow the logic here. The animal companion a hunter gets an an enhanced version of the one that a druid gets. If you only take the best advancement of the two then a gestalt Druid/Hunter would get the hunter animal companion only. The same way your rogue/slayer is only getting the rogue sneak attack. In both cases you have two classes that grant an certain class ability where one is slightly better than the other and the abilities would stack under normal multiclass rules. Instead of getting double the benefit you get the better of the two. Regardless if you're talking sneak attack, wildshape or animal companions.

As for the OP. For purposes of gestalt the rogue talents gained by a shadow dancer are the same as ninja tricks. So the shadow dancer wouldn't gain any rogue talents. Similarly, uncanny dodge and evasion wouldn't stack with those abilities gained by the ninja.

as for Bloodrager Bloodline and Sorcerer Bloodline abilities I don't believe these normally stack. So they would remain separate and you would gain both. This is different than arcanist and sorcerer who's bloodline abilities do stack.

You can find the actual weapon details here

Kasoh wrote:

Its far too much effort for the reward. So the players have to make a knowledge check or trial and error their way through the monster. Then whatever benefit you've gained is lost because now they know how to fight the monster.

If the challenge of an encounter relies on the PCs being ignorant of how the monster functions, its not a good encounter.

When players encounter a demon and know to use cold iron, that doesn't bother me because it means I don't have bother reciting that knowledge when they make a check and the players feel smart for remembering how monsters work.

Knowing that you need to stake a vampire, cut off its head, and anoint it with holy water to kill it is very different from actually being able to accomplish that with whatever garbage the players actually spent their money on.

Honestly, if this is the kind of thing you want for an encounter and you're afraid your players will metagame their way through it. All you have to do is change what the creature looks like and give it a new name.

"A large lumbering creature with purple scales and glowing red eyes comes over the hill. Instead of hands it has a set of razor sharp talons at the ends of its arms. It opens a toothed maw that drips with green slime before screaming and charging at the group."

Behind the screen that thing is just a unaltered vanilla troll. But nobody is going to be immediately grabbing for acid flasks and fire unless that's their go to tactic for all monsters. They also aren't going to realize that it regenerates without actually fighting the thing or making an appropriate knowledge check.

"oh, you got a DC 15? You recognize that this is a dreaded Llort monster. It can rend with it's talons and heals quickly from wounds. You've heard that acid works well against them and that fire frightens them. "

Now, if the group keeps on running into different monster's that have regeneration that is stopped by applying acid and fire. They're probably just going to start doing that with all monsters. Encounters against the unknown can be interesting. But it has to be a "new" unknown each time or else it just becomes stale for everyone.

Claxon wrote:

Isn't radiation a poison effect?

So couldn't they just run around with delay poison. It's not a wizard spell, but we're also talking about a 20th level mythic rank 10 wizard here right?

So they probably have some means.

I think you're thinking of this thread

The OP was just asking purely how life bubble would interact with radiation and nothing more.

delay poison is an excellent way to make yourself effectively immune to all poison effects. I had a high level cleric that included delay poison (w/ a metamagic rod of extend) and hero's feast as part of their daily buffs. In this way even if my character got hit with a poison effect I would never suffer the effects of it before it was removed by the feast. Even if it took multiple feasts to remove it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it really depends on how it's being handled. Are all trolls vulnerable to cold and sonic or just this particular variety?

If you make changes to monsters that are commonly known in the world then players should be given a heads up to this fact prior to encountering the thing.

"hey, just so you know in my world orcs spit acid."

Also, monsters should be changed in a deliberate manner rather then just having abilities randomly swapped on them. If you're fighting trolls on the side of an active volcano it shouldn't be surprising to the players that fire doesn't work on them.

I don't think it breaks the game world so long as the changes you're making are handled with thoughtfulness. It's when you change things in a way that doesn't make sense to the current environment or spring something on players that their characters would reasonably know about (from growing up in that region/world). That it breaks things and makes players frustrated.

IMO new monsters as a player are always interesting even if behind the screen they're just existing monsters that have been tweeked a bit and given a face lift.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, rejuvenation is an ability that appears to be common to all blights not just the forest blight. d20pfsrd incorrectly links to ghost rejuvenation which is not what they have.

From Archives of Nethys

Blight wrote:
Rejuvenation (Su): If a blight is slain within its cursed terrain, a new blight of the same type spontaneously forms in 1d10 days at the epicenter of the blight’s cursed domain unless the blight’s corpse is targeted with a remove curse spell (DC = 10 + the blight’s Hit Dice).

as for killing a blight

Blight wrote:
Favored Terrain (Ex): A blight favors a specific type of terrain. Within its favored terrain, a blight gains a +2 bonus on initiative checks and on Knowledge (geography), Perception, Stealth, and Survival checks. A blight in its favored terrain leaves no trail and cannot be tracked (although it can choose to leave a trail). Outside of its favored terrain, a blight loses access to its domain of evil, rejuvenation, spell-like abilities, and telepathy; it also gains the staggered condition.

So, all you have to do to permanently kill any blight is to do as scott suggested. Lure/force it outside of it's favored terrain at which point it loses it's rejuvenation ability among other things. Or you just need to cast remove curse on it after you kill it, as per it's rejuvenation ability.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valandil Ancalime wrote:
I'm wondering what stats compound bows would have? Does Starfinder have them?

D20 modern has compound bows. Sadly, in that game all they did was take the composite bow and call it a compound bow. In my experience the primary advantage of a compound bow is that it's substantially easier to draw. This means you get a lot more power for less effort. The only way I can think to translate this in game is for the bow to treat you as having a higher strength for purposes of damage, the same way a masterwork backpack works for carrying capacity. It would probably be something like a +4 to strength.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

yes I would absolutely disallow compound bows. Composite bows however are perfectly fine as evidence suggests they've been around since 2500 bc.

I would prefer not to derail this thread any more than it already has been so I will answer your questions. My answers are not a statement of what your intent was. Only how it came across to me.

Derklord wrote:
Why? Neither the section nor the full paragraph or even the full sentence is relevant, as the part that I quoted does not require context. It's simply a general rule, it doesn't matter where in the book it is. I did gave the source so that people can see that my quote is from the CRB, not some possibly less relevant rule source (a splat book, or worse a certain website that's known to be unreliable).

It is true that seeing that it was quoted from the CRB had some meaning to me, the low number tells me it's not from a spell or a monster entry, it was otherwise unhelpful to me for purposes of confirming the statement. I rarely have luck using nethy's search to search for anything beyond a single term. I don't have easy access to my physical copy of the book and I do not have a PDF of the CRB. I knew that such a statement probably didn't come from a feat unless it was the Improved Unarmed strike feat its self. So, I looked there first. Then I figured it might have come from the weapon's section since it doesn't appear to be a class specific statement. If that hadn't yielded anything I would of next checked the simple weapon proficiency feat. If that didn't turn up anything then the only other reasonable place to look would of been the combat section or the glossary. If those had failed to yield anything then I would have to make sure you were actually quoting and not just paraphrasing. So I would of done a general search for your statement on google to see if I could figure out where it came from. For all I knew it does say that in the original CRB but that statement was then altered or changed due to some later errata.

This is was was looming in my mind when I saw your quote and reference. Having a full quote would at the very least would help me quickly narrow down where the statement came from. It would also help confirm that you're not just cherry picking part of a sentence that supports your view point (clearly you weren't but I had no way of knowing that without seeing the full quote).

So, it was mildy annoying and simply added to the agitation of being told I was "completely wrong" about something. I'm ok being wrong about things, but it doesn't help that blanket statements also bother me (I might be wrong but "completely" wrong? really?). I like to know when I am wrong about things. But before I accept anything as fact I need to check against the original source first. Then at least if I encounter someone later on who is wrong about it the same way I was, I can correct them with a supported statement.

Derklord wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
Unarmed strikes are considered to be a simple weapon. Meaning that any class that isn't proficient with simple weapons is not proficient with unarmed strikes.
Completely wrong. "All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes" CRB pg. 141

It'd be nice if you had indicated what section this quote was from as well as quoting the full sentence. But yes, from the weapons section.

Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons wrote:
Most character classes are proficient with all simple weapons. Combat-oriented classes such as barbarians, cavaliers, and fighters are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon.

My statement isn't completely wrong. Unarmed strikes are considered to be a simple weapon. However, there is an additional rule in the weapons section that states that everyone has proficiency with it. Without that rule my statement would be completely accurate.

Your response (though informationally correct), was abrupt, obtuse and without context. In addition to immediately putting me on the defensive, without a physical copy of the book or a through understanding of how the rules are laid out, I would have no way to confirm or deny your statement. While simultaneously making me suspicious of the information you've presented.

Unarmed strikes are considered to be a simple weapon. Meaning that any class that isn't proficient with simple weapons is not proficient with unarmed strikes. So those classes would suffer a -4 to hit in addition to their attack only doing non-lethal damage and provoking an AoO. Wizard is an example of a class like this.

Edit: from Derklord's post, it's been pointed out that from the weapon's section is it called out that all characters are automatically considered to be proficient with unarmed strikes.

This means that clerics didn't seem to get anything if their deity's favored weapon was an unarmed strike. This FAQ however clarified that clerics (and later by extension inquisitors and warpriests) get the improved unarmed strike feat if they worship a deity who's favored weapon is unarmed strike.

Characters do not automatically gain proficiency with their deity's favored weapon any more than they do any other weapon.

Warpriest wrote:
Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: A warpriest is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as the favored weapon of his deity, and with all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (except tower shields).

That being said, some classes do gain additional benefits from worshiping a specific deity. Monks for example can use their quivering palm ability to incapacitate enemies if they worship Irori.

Though generally, unless you are a divine spell caster or you've taken a feat like Deific Obedience or Divine Fighting Technique, the deity that your character worships has little to no effect on your character.

FrankJameso wrote:
Thanks LordKailas. That was actually the part that was giving me pause. That clears it up for me.

you're welcome. It did make me want to make another attempt at something I've looked at before but couldn't find a way to make work. Shooting allies with healing arrows. A vigilante with the aforementioned talent can do it but they have to take the talent twice (taking the healing bombs discovery). This wouldn't be so bad except the only archetypes that give a vigilante the ability to cast healing spells also eat up the vigilante's 4th, 8th, and 10th level talents. Meaning I wouldn't get healing arrows and channel energy to come online until 12th level. I try to build to 10th so this is mildly disappointing :(

Even dropping the channel energy ability means it wouldn't work till 6th level.

It's easy to miss but it does give the vigilante their own bombs ability.

Volatile Arrows wrote:
If the attack hits, it deals an additional amount of damage equal to that of an alchemist bomb, using the vigilante’s level as his alchemist level to determine the bomb’s damage. He can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Intelligence modifier.

The way it's worded, it sounds like if the character has bombs from another source they would not be able to attach them without a separate ability that allows them to do so.

timeh wrote:
williamoak wrote:

So, here is the first draft of my guide. I still havent added favored weapons & such, but I should have time soon.

The path of righteousness

I hope to add some artwork (maybe) later, but for now it's pretty much procedural.

Sorry for necroing, but your guide is gone now any back ups?

I'm not aware of any backup copies of the guide. The most I can offer you is the searchable index I put together. If there's a certain spell or ability you're looking for this will at least point you in the right direction. Though you'll still have to go some place like Archives of Nethys to look up the specific details. I created it May of last year so it should be fairly comprehensive.

Some one was kind enough to put together an underwater combat flow chart.

Based on the chart (re-linked here)

It depends if your bouncy is netural or not (basically, are you being dragged in a direction you don't want to go?). The chart indicates that it takes a move action to make the swim check to maintain your position / not be off balance. If you just let yourself float/sink/ whatever then you can forego the check and just take the penalties for being off-balance instead.

Derek Dalton wrote:
I'm more concerned about keeping my Chaotic Neutral alignment. I'm the group's healer and channel positive and don't want to lose that option. If I wasn't the healer I'd swan dive into evil. I am aware of the consequences I'm just hoping to balance the books if you will. My combat skills suck as a result of low physical stats due to age. Having some undead friends so I don't get hit is one of the ways I plan on doing this. Summoning monsters and deception is another.

The last necromancer I played was also the party's healer. I made liberal use of the death's kiss domain ability and it worked fine. Just everyone was aware that outside of memorizing breath of life they wouldn't be getting any in-combat healing from my character.

1 to 50 of 2,374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>