Gold Dragon

Níðhöggr's page

37 posts. Alias of Barathos.


avr wrote:
And what does that ability do?

Awakened Mind

Starting at 1st level, your alien knowledge gives you the ability to touch the minds of other creatures. You can communicate telepathically with any creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances, but the creature must be able to understand at least one language.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My plausibly incorrect interpretation is that it's instead of normal damage.

CRB, 6th printing, p200, Grapple: Damage wrote:
Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

I view this as several different options:

  • Deal damage equal to your unarmed strike's damage die.
  • Deal damage equal to a natural attack's damage die.
  • Make an attack with your armor spikes, deal its damage die plus modifiers if you hit.
  • Make an attack with a light weapon, deal its damage die plus modifiers if you hit.
  • Make an attack with a one-handed weapon, deal its damage die plus modifiers if you hit.

The benefit of armor spikes is that they don't take up a hand, so you don't take a -4 penalty to grapple checks, and they deal more damage than most character's unarmed strikes.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Found a contradiction in the rules:

{. . .} Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. {. . .}

{. . .} If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices). {. . .} Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. {. . .}

The first says you can't move and the second says you can, both in the Core Rulebook. Okay, which is it?

If the first is correct except when overridden by a successful Grapple check, that would imply that the only way you can move is if you first reverse the Grapple so that you are the one grappling and thus able to make such a check to maintain the Grapple that you took control of.

The former is general rules for everyone with the grappled condition, the latter is specific rules for the controller of a grapple. Specific > General.

Daw wrote:

Oh wait, this is rules forum.

My arguing a sensible approach is not appropriate here.

The sensible approach would've been the devs writing better cold/hot weather rules and giving certain creatures bonuses/penalties in certain environments.

srd link to drake companion

They're not very good, and I think only certain archetypes can have one.

Grom Kranock wrote:
Sorry I must not understand something, how does the wolf get iterative bite attacks?

Multiattack at level 9 in Table 3-8: Animal Companion Base Statistics gives an iterative if you don't have at least 3 natural attacks.

Well I'll be damned. Thanks for the correction, man.

MrCharisma wrote:
Tiomat wrote:
ckdragons wrote:
Is it possible, as per RAW, to add fiery and acid enchantments on the same +1 weapon, making it an effective +3 enchanted weapon?

You can add both, but not use them at the same time.

The enchants that add elemental damage to weapons need to be activated, and only one can be activated at a time.
See Flaming.
Where does it say that you can't use both at the same time?

"The effect remains until another command is given."

You need to make a command to activate any of the 1d6 energy damage enhancements. If you activate another energy enhancement, the quote above happens.

It doesn't specify a command to turn it off, it just says another command. Any command as per command word item use would turn it off. It's stupid and I wouldn't bother with being that raw at my table, but that's how it is unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

dragonhunterq wrote:
Jader7777 wrote:

People in this thread realize that the numbers in the game are abstract right.

Like, when you actually roll a 13 for a total of 18 it doesn't mean that your character moves exactly 18 feet- it's a game and we're imagining everything.

Forget jumping DC for a moment. What is the AC to hit a goblin dog? Does this comment also spawn a huge thread? No? Why not?

Mostly because we can pretty much all agree on the AC of a goblin dog and what it means.

AC 13? Clearly that means I need to roll at least a 4 with my THAC0 17 to hit it. /s

KahnyaGnorc wrote:
If your game allows for Path of War, there is a feat that allows you to one-hand a spear or polearm, as long as the other hand is holding a shield.

There's a feat in Armor Master's Handbook that has a similar effect; Shield Brace.

Bullseye Shot feat.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

:) those typos

My girlfriend, she's much dirty.

Generally, anyone can use any armour. Non-proficiency just adds the armor check penalty to your attack rolls and "all skill checks that involve moving", instead of just strength/dexterity-based skills.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The haramaki and armored kilt have 0% arcane spell failure.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I had a DM decide that heat and fire damage where different. Had cast fire shield. Dm said I still took the damage because of the heat. since the spell said it only protected you from fire damage. I was just so taken aback by that I couldn't think of a response.

(I think it relates to 1st edition wording on fire shield which said fire and heat damage)

What spell does heat damage? The only source of heat """damage""" I know of is environmental.

Lakesidefantasy wrote:
Shhhh...sneak away from Christmas Eve dinner to smurf this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm not sure you can even really make a distinction between players and GMs, since (beyond a certain allowance for people who are still learning the ropes) don't most people alternate between the two roles?

Like when you GM for a group of people, it's generally understood that because you are enabling a game to happen for them to play in, you will eventually be allowed to play with those people while someone else GMs, right?

Like, sure, I GM more than I play, but I don't know if I would keep GMing if I never got to play.

Huh, I'm the exact opposite. I'm bored as a player and have a great time as a GM. The main reason I'm ever a player is to find other GMing techniques and styles I didn't think up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:

People say that options are optional...but if I can't play the latest AP without those options, they're not optional. I can obviously write my own stuff, and I can look up the 'options' on the PRD, but frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Paizo is/was supposedly a setting company that needed to do the Pathfinder RPG to support the Pathfinder setting (Golarion) so that it could continue to sell adventures. But if people can't use those adventures because they don't have (or don't want to spend all their time online looking up) the new splatbooks, Paizo jeopardises their core business, as surely as they would with a v1.5 or 2.0 or whatever.

{. . .}

What, aren't the latest APs perfectly playable with just the Core Rulebook and going online on the PRD in the event of having to run an NPC that is of a non-Core class or a monster that isn't in Bestiary 1 and not in the AP text? (Same with non-Core feats, spells, etc.)

Don't even need the CRB or B1.

ckdragons wrote:
Calth wrote:
No, with the base system special abilities use up your attunement. If you want to have the flaming property for example you must spend +1 of your attunement to activate it. Its actually a pretty bad setup for martials which is why the alternate chart system is much better.
Alternate chart system?

Bumping for this


I always thought the attunement's enhancement bonus was in addition to whatever special qualities (flaming, bane, etc) the weapon already had. So your 9th level fighter using a flaming longsword would have a +2 flaming longsword.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could have the dryad's tree be a bonsai (or similar small tree in a pot). Just have them move it around as they will.

A Fighter may take a feat as one of his Bonus Feats if he meets all the prerequisites for that feat and it is a Combat feat. The latter condition is indicated by a "(Combat)" in the feat name.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't delayed fireball go by "real" rounds, not timestop rounds?

10 people marked this as a favorite.

+1 to the "never heard of marshmallow fallacy" pile. A google search only turns up gibberish or some anecdote about a german thinking americans eat plain marshmallows in front of their tv.

Nothing about what Derklord said to you was personal or an attack, master_marshmallow.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While not true undead, dhampir are something you could be from the get-go.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not a too much roleplaying problem, that's a too much railroading problem.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yorien wrote:



A troll who doesn't get enough to eat over the course of a few days loses its regeneration and becomes vulnerable, though a single adequate meal will bring it back into fighting trim, and starvation itself is a common cause of death for trolls. Drowning a troll is also effective.

What's the source of that quote?

Johnnycat93 wrote:
A targets Flat-Footed AC is their normal AC minus any Dexterity modifiers. Targets in armor will have a FF AC above 10. A flat-footed gunslinger does not benefit from nimble.

Minor correction: it's without their Dexterity bonus, a penalty still applies.

Melkiador wrote:

And is there a specific kind of animal the player wants? Because if they want a fox, they need to go one way, but if they want a lion, they need to go the other.

Is there a feat I missed after Animal Ally that grants a big cat?

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

3. The Full Attack system- replace with something that works.
Reasoning: Stand still or suck syndrome is awful and Full Attacks limiting a melee class to a five-foot shuffle or they won't be able to use most of their offensive abilities is versmilitude-breaking. Nobody likes being the class that has to ask "Is the enemy in reach of a 5-foot-step?" while their buddy is running around throwing lightning bolts without a care in the world. Fighting classes need to be able to MOVE AROUND while still using their techniques. This is particularly egregious with two-weapon types, who are generally supposed to be agile skirmishers but might as well not have their other weapon if their target isn't standing RIGHT NEXT TO THEM.

I have to say I preferred 5e's system, where martial classes get two attacks at level 5, but both are at full BAB and you can move freely while using them. (Fighters and Monks can get up to four attacks, although the Monk needs to spend actions or resources to get past the normal double-attack.) I know combat math would need to be reworked, but the current system tends to mean players lose interest in full-attacks after the novelty of rolling a big bucket of dice wears off.

Something I've considered doing is allowing full-attacks with movement, but at a -1 attack penalty per 5' moved previously on your turn.

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

3. Make offers to buy the rights to certain classes from different 3PP publishers. There's some darn good work out there.

Such as? I've never used 3pp classes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weables wrote:

I think you're overreacting. would you stab someone in a jewelry store if they grabbed the ring you were eyeing there? No? Then you're a reasonable human being, and would just buy something else, and maybe be grumpy for a day.

Why would your character be any different?

My character kills people/creatures for a living and lives in a dog-eat-dog world, I don't.

Not stab, but...

A PC was in-character suicidal, tried to kill himself, stopped him, he lashed out, "don't do that"-me, lashes out again, "you done fuqed up now", barb rage -> throw him into acid pit -> he is kill.

Augur preferably, usually with an animal sacrifice to our blood god of choice.

'4d6 drop the lowest, two sets of six, pick your favourite set' works fine though.

At my table, everyone has it. My only problem with it is many of the Combat Tricks are crap.

My homebrew setting was almost got destroyed by a bbeg trying to use an artifact that acts as a Mass Animate Dead (no material component required) with a range of 100 miles, which would have been used in a ruined city with millions of dead.

I've considered doing something like this at my table. My thing was that you add a -1 penalty to each attack in a fullattack for every 5' you moved, along with being able to "aim" (+2 attack, that crossbow feat that gives +4 for aiming now gives +5 instead) as a move action. Making move->attackmorethanonce and standstill->attackonce possible and maybe viable.