Pre-Weapon Master's Handbook, it was generally agreed that one should always pick a fighter archetype because you never lost anything useful.
Eh, Armor Training could be seen as incredibly useful and is dropped by far too many archetypes for my liking.
Although I generally agree with the sentiment that the archetypes provide lots of really neat, unique, often incredibly useful changes that could allow you to do more and feel less bland.
Damn it there should be a way to take a feat or something to get Armor Training back.
Being turned into another race and that the race itself cannot be any lawful alignment.(its a custom race that the GM put into the game)
That sounds a bit like a DM trap to me.
Is it just physically or magically impossible for someone to maintain their sense of self once they are turned into this race? Even races which tend to have a set alignment you can expect in most encounters can have individuals which fall outside of that. We need more information.
not a evil act but being forced to do something chaotic to save the group he is in.
What you have to determine next is if it violates their Code of Conduct, or if it is something that would shift their actual alignment (which is usually only done if there is a noted trend of acting against their established alignment, and should not be shifted lightly).
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
If they have clearly violated their Code of Conduct, then per the previously referenced Ex-Paladins section of the Paladin Class Description, they will become an Ex-Paladin as described, although may be able to seek atonement.
I'm fine with the Vancian Magic system. While it doesn't really work flavor wise in some cases, it's simple (this is extremely important). Sadly, where it leaves room for strategy (what spells you prepare, etc) it can also leave room for disaster (you didn't prepare the right spells).
That's my favorite aspect of the Vancian Magic system. Planning ahead and predicting what you might need could almost be an art form. And it can blow up in your face.
No. People on these forums have horribly warped ideas of game experience and optimization to the exclusion of anything else. They're the type who think every Fighter has to have a 7 CHA and a 7 INT and wonder why their character is so boring and stupid. I may be exaggerating some here, but the point stands.
The Fighter class is noticeably vanilla and focused on martial ability to the exclusion of anything else, and that is how the class is meant to work. It kicks ass, sure, and excels at certain weapons or tactics, but there is a cost for that.
Personally, I prefer to use the Fighter class as a dip of anywhere from 1-7 levels (although that might vary if an archetype is selected, and depends on the other class you mix with), and the rest to go into a different class which offers more versatility, and/or a prestige class.
You certainly can take a Fighter to 20, although I probably wouldn't.
Everyone complaining about how a Fighter needs gear to function, well, that's an assumed part of the game and an assumed accessible part of your character. You might as well complain that a Wizard is useless without his spellbook. Yes, there might be limited scenarios a DM might employ to take away your armor and sword, or rob you of your spellbook, but they are NOT the assumed standard, and they should be limited and temporary at best. In fact a Wizard is FAR more vulnerable considering the spellbook restriction (which is one of the reasons my Wizard characters are always a bit paranoid and take planned measures to protect their spellbooks). Then again, the spellbook is also assumed to be accessible as part of your character.
The biggest complaint I can see is that a Fighter has to invest a reasonable amount of wealth into their armor and weapon, and then has the rest to afford utility or other gear, while a Wizard can typically go without armor or weapons, and invest everything in utility or other gear. Of course, the flip side is that a Wizard will typically invest a lot of gold into purchasing scrolls so that they can build their spellbook, and will also probably invest in other defensive gear, and could arguably invest in wands, staves, or scrolls as "weapons". So they could very likely spend the same amount in each role, but only the Wizard can relatively simply forgo spending anything in weapons or armor.
I thought that old school was the meat grinder sort of play, where PCs dropped every session from unspeakably horrific deaths, Wizards died from a stiff breeze and had to track their bat poop on stone tablets, traps had none of this silly "take X damage" frivolity but just "save or die, b****". The sort of game where you didn't bother naming your PC for their first three levels, because it is a bad idea to form attachments to dead characters walking. The sort of play where looking into a statue's mouth puts your head into a sphere of annihilation, no save, and where getting off the cart at the tavern results in several broken bones because you need to stop the cart first, dumb***. You know, the way Gyngax intended*. None of this nonsense about "choice" or "point buys" or "Role-Playing". That gets in the way of the players learning the meaning of suffering and loss and getting crushed in hilariously unfair ways.
Which made it all the more rewarding when your fun and interesting and flavorful character was able to survive. Also, I'm not sure I'd say PCs dropped EVERY session. But our GM back then wasn't afraid of killing us, and didn't hesitate to give an impossible scenario in front of us with hints at that, so that we had to find some other way around, or just avoid it entirely until another time, or become extremely clever and think of something, which the GM never anticipated, which actually surprisingly works.
Also, looking into a statue's mouth only puts your head into a sphere of annihilation if you STICK IT IN THERE to do it. There was at least some measure of fairness.
It was times like that when it mattered HOW you phrased you did something. One of my best memories was when another PC raced to get to the loot, not waiting for me, the Mage, to properly identify it. Well, the loot was a book. The PC said they were going to look through the book. The GM asked them to describe how they were doing that looking. The PC said they were just going to flip through all of the pages quickly. The book was a Book of Infinite Spells. It promptly vanished. My PC wept for the foolishness of the other. Anyone in the group could have taken advantage of it!
Fortunately the PC didn't take damage because they weren't attempting to read it, at least. The would have died if they did.
Kids these days want their numbers as big as possible and don't care what they have to sacrifice to get it, and seem to get bored of anything other than combat.
I see the numbers as secondary to pretty much everything else about the character, but still recognize the importance of those numbers, and enjoy all aspects of the game, not just combat.
Our policy is to remove posts that quote or refer to posts that also got removed. If you have a question about a moderator decision, please email community@paizo.com.
So all of my fair commentary is just removed, and there was no chance to redact the quoted sections as compliance so that my post could remain? Maybe I should just never quote a post ever again, and damned be the lack of context!
Also, your posts here are referring to the posts which got removed. As does this one. We should ALL have our commentary obliterated, including you!
The lattermost form of threads are fun to wind people up in. But I'm definitely not advocating trolling. Never! Except....how many hands is a bastard sword?
Bastard swords for bastard people! Besides, swords don't HAVE hands, silly.
When I saw the name of this thread, I actually thought that Bickerspam was a class feature or a spell that someone took a shine to and wanted to make a thread hating on it.
Well, clearly that's not the case. However, let's actually come up with a spell or class feature of the same name! It could even be a universal class archetype designed to be compatible with most class archetypes. You know, for double dipping in specialization. Though it would probably be easier if it were just a spell.
So, have at it! Enjoy! Maybe someone will actually publish it.
Bluff and Stealth, when rolled, set the DC for those trying to Sense Motive or Perceive them, respectively. Both Bluff and Stealth are not skills that have to meet a DC. They establish the level of difficulty for those attempting to overcome their ability.
At least for the uses you are describing.
Bluff has other uses which are explicitly listed in its description which DO have a DC which you have to meet. For example, feinting, or conveying a secret message (which also has an opposed against Sense Motive if someone wishes to detect it).
In short, for Sense Motive or Perception to work against an opposed Bluff or Stealth, respectively, it is meet or exceed.
The idea is cool, but I think it needs to be balanced a bit. For only 5k GP you are essentially letting someone use any metamagic rod they want without having to draw one or worry about where it is stored. That is a REALLY powerful bonus, all on its own. Add to the fact that you can cast from wands or even a staff without having to draw one or worry about where it is stored and it is even more ridiculous.
However, I love the idea, so let me make some suggestions for the sake of balance.
Make it a magical staff, with charges and all, and its extradimensional storage and access plays into using charges.
Special Abilities
In addition to allowing spells to be cast using charges like other magical staves, this staff also has a unique property which allows it to take advantage of the extradimensional powers bestowed to give it further use as a storage device. The staff can hold up to 4 staves, and can hold up to 2 metamagic rods or wands instead of 1 staff (you can use your flavorful description of this here instead).
The wielder of this staff can select, as a Move action, any one of the slotted staves, rods, or wands to be considered wielded for the purpose of casting spells from that item or for activating a rod's metamagic powers as long as they continue to wield the Staff of Dimensions. This change is permanent until that staff, rod, or wand is removed (at which point no item is selected), or another staff, rod, or wand is selected as the active slotted item.
The wielder can choose to consume 2 charges from the Staff of Dimensions to make this a Swift action instead.
The wielder can choose to consume 4 charges from the Staff of Dimensions to, as a free action, allow the use of one additional slotted item for one round only (this does not change the currently selected active item).
It is a Standard action to insert or remove an item from the Staff of Dimensions' slots.
---
At any rate, this staff would obviously have to be more expensive due to its staff abilities, and an extra bit of cost added for its special power which you seek to have.
Additionally, you can drop its spell selection, but still have it require 2 charges to use it as a swift action, and have it recharge using somewhere between level 3 to level 5 spells.
This would also let you drop the cost, but I still recommend a higher cost than what you currently have listed. At least 10k GP. Probably at least 15k GP honestly.
Still, I like the idea, and there are many ways to tweak the concept. Just be careful of the power level of new toys you give out. Wouldn't want to give away a doomsday device valued at only 100 GP.
Scud422 wrote:
As a move action, the wielder can make the entire staff function as if it was one of the staves slotted into it, but doing so negates any weapon enhancements that the Staff of Holding has and makes the other staves, wands or rods temporarily unusable. This ability can be ended as a swift action.
Also, I don't even get the point of this part. The only reason to do this would be to use a Staff of Power or Staff of the Archmagi (or other kinds of the rare staves that actually provide some kind of bonus for the wielder and not just the ability to cast spells through it with charges), or just a regular magical quarterstaff as a weapon. Or... I suppose... to recharge a staff without removing it. Either way, that just seems to be a very weird and largely completely useless function.
The "reasonable limit" clause is there for a DM to step in when absurdity has entered the fray of free action abuse.
Take, for example, a character with Quick Draw and an Efficient Quiver (fully loaded with 60 arrows, 18 javelins, and 6 spears).
In the first round of combat, they choose to pull out 6 spears, one at a time, and drop them in succession. They then pull out 18 javelins, one at a time, and drop them in succession. Finally they pull out 60 arrows, one at a time, dropping them in succession.
In far under six seconds, this character has managed to draw and drop 84 items. They can still take a full round's worth of actions because every action used was free. Those are some mighty fast hands.
Then they start using their Ring of Telekinesis...
My point is that free actions can get ridiculous if left unchecked. That's what the clause for DM limitation is meant to hold back. If the person in question had 80 arms/tentacles/whatever then I could see them getting away with it. A standard character, though? Not a chance.
The "reasonable limit" varies depending on the kind of free actions and the creature using those free actions.
You are right, Mort. I would say though, that in this instance counting yourself as an ally to get the critical would make no sense. Although I could see a case made for choosing to count as that ally if you wanted. For example if you dual wield a high crit range weapon with a large crit multiplier weapon. That, then, would make sense (especially if no other ally of yours possesses this feat, or will be able to take advantage of this feat).
So I would see it as your next ally other than yourself, unless you choose to steal it from them instead. This would make sense, I think. It would also have a use for it without requiring another to take the feat, or a use for it for yourself. A very specific build type, but certainly feasible (and very cool).
I'm imagining a fighter wielding a keen scimitar and heavy pick.
Or, even better, a fighter wielding a keen rapier and a heavy pick.
You see, the rapier is just a foil.
Spoiler:
+10 internets to anyone who gets that joke.
+20 internets to anyone who laughs at that joke.
Well they didn't have to do the evil guy's work for him. Let him be the evil jerk who kills children. You know, instead of the party being evil jerks who kill children.
There's a difference between shortsightedly allowing or provoking someone else into killing children and killing them yourself. That difference is what makes a DM shift your alignment one step closer to if not already evil.
The Paladin shortsightedly allowed someone else to kill the children. That has repercussions for him only because he's a Paladin, and because that someone else was part of the Paladin's group.
The person who killed the children has no excuse.
The person who retconned the scenario should be ashamed. Let the children die. Enjoy being able to wreak vengeance upon the dastardly villains known as the party. It could have been an epic turnaround and failure of the party with far-reaching consequences that take them through hell and back, possibly in an effort to reclaim their honor.
Changing reality (okay, fantasy reality) so that the party was weirdly right to attack what they thought were real children is only going to cause more trouble down the line. They weren't right. Shame on you.
I may have missed it in the forums, but I've searched for a few days and didn't see it in the threads I saw. My question is somewhat particular, and I would like to know the answer.
I noticed that it doesn't insist the sneak attack would have to come from the threatening weapon that provides the flank.
Let's say the rogue wields two daggers and is flanking. Could the rogue choose to throw one of the daggers as a ranged attack and still benefit from SA for flanking, since they still have a melee weapon that threatens and was threatening with a melee weapon before the attack was made?
It's not optimal, probably, but can it be done? Let's say he's a thrown weapon specialist and wants to SA in combat regularly without having to feint every other turn he attacks (if feint succeeds). Or doesn't want to feat tax to improved feint. Or wants to have this option for a Full Attack with thrown weapons, in melee.
Let's say the throwing specialist rogue is Large, and so threatens in ten feet with their daggers. They are flanking, and have the enemy at reach, so not adjacent to them. Would they get the sneak attack for the ranged dagger throw since they are flanking in melee even if the sneaked attack is ranged?
Additionally, if the rogue is wielding one dagger, and so threatens and flanks the creature, can the rogue use a ray of frost or other ranged touch spell to get a sneak attack? Of course provoking or defensive casting applies, but they are still flanking and threatening with a melee weapon. What if they are Large and cast at ten foot reach (much safer)?
In essence, my question is does the sneak attack have to come from the threatening weapon, or is it good enough that they are threatening?
If there's a specific rule or errata that clarifies this, I'd appreciate being pointed there. I tried to cover all the corner cases about this particular rule.
Thanks in advance.
You are missing the crux of my argument, which is the last line.
The previous lines are just my personal interpretations of how things appear to be, and I even suggest that my personal interpretation would have each ray get the bonus damage.
My last line is the important part, where I quote an ability that appears to be exactly the same kind of bonus to damage. I would appreciate if you would read and comment on that, instead of misinterpreting my personal opinions (which as I said say that I think the spell should get the damage to each ray).
The Intense Spells ability only insists that multiple missiles or rays do not get the extra damage. Again, please read it and you will see. Thus fire shield and wall of fire are perfectly fine to always get the bonus damage. There is no conflict whatsoever.
It may be similar to Hold Person, but there are important differences (aside from Hold Person paralyzing and this just denying actions).
Hold Person is a level three Wizard, level two everything else (including Bard) spell. Oppressive Boredom is a level two Wizard, level two Bard spell. That gives you some measure of the power difference right away.
But there's also something else very important. Hold Person only targets humanoid creatures. Oppressive Boredom targets creatures. That is a big jump. That is the difference between Hold Person and Hold Monster jump.
I can see the extra chance to fail being a cost for this only being a level two spell. That just means you have to use it wisely, against the right targets. Use it on a creature that should have a poor Will save. Use it against humanoids that should have a poor Will save. Use a Persistent Metamagic (possibly through a rod) on it.
Heh. I seem to have difficulty finding music for my planned chase scene.
It happens underground. Any musical suggestions are welcome. Lyrics or not, but lyrics are not preferred unless they refer to running, chasing, being chased, etc.
I'd prefer it to be high tempo and indicating great danger.
The soundtracks for both games are really great, and while I could probably reference some really good music that comes from some earlier games, I don't know if that would break the immersion style of your group.
This is why I'm pretty sure it's just the cost of copying the spell from another Wizard's spellbook.
But that is just the cost of inscribing. The question is: what is the cost of purchasing?
No, it is NOT just the cost if inscribing. The cost of purchasing is specifically outlined in what I linked. It is half the cost of inscribing.
A level 1 spell would cost 5 gold to purchase, but would cost 10 more gold for you to inscribe it into your spellbook. Total cost would be 15 (or only 5 if you are using a Blessed Book).
A level 2 spell would cost 20 gold to purchase, but would cost 40 more gold for you to inscribe it into your spellbook. Total cost would be 60 (or only 20 if you are using a Blessed Book).
i would like to retract that last statement and instead say "You can only fit so many other witches in a 30 foot radius"
There are creative ways to get around that limit.
Namely, remember that combat is 3D. You are not limited to just the flat board (and neither are your opponents).
Any Witch who is 5th level should have the Flight hex. Now they can fly for 5 minutes a day (split up into 1 minute increments). That should last for most combats you'd run into in a day. Also, any Witch who is 3rd level with the Flight hex can levitate once per day. All of your Leadership Witches should have the Coven hex at 1st level. After that, they should have the Flight, Fortune, or Healing hex as you see fit. If you're worried about space, give them Flight. At least one of them should have the Healing hex, and probably at least one should have the Fortune hex.
If all or most of your Witches can fly, they can now occupy 30' much easier. Stack them into cubes of 3x3x3. You can have up to 27 Witches in that way in one cube. You can fit at least two cubes immediately behind you and have every Witch be within 30' in this way. Expand around you and outward as you get more Witches. Even though a cube is nice, remember that there's still extra ground behind you they can fit in. A cube only goes 15' behind you. You can fit approximately a half cube in that extra space behind that cube, and completely cover the ground between you and 30' back. All Witches in this way are within 30'. I really don't think you're going to run out of room until your Leadership gives you hundreds of 1st level Followers. At that point, though, I'd want to invest in a boatload of Sorcerers, or some Fighter archers.
You aren't going to have enough Witches to overfill your 30' range any time soon.
Here's what it would all look like as a set of items. I split up the abilities into ones that felt like they would fit together. I put Endure Elements with Sustenance and Feather Falling since it fits those themes (I really didn't feel like separating Sustenance and Endure Elements would make sense at all). Alternatively one might change the Necklace base to a Necklace of Adaptation (because it fits the theme) and make the Spellcraft +5 bonus be a 1.5x cost extra ability on the necklace. That would make it much more expensive, though. Over twice as expensive. It would be worth it, in my opinion.
--- SET ---
------ Ring of the Wandering Wizard
4000 - Ring of Counterspells OR Detect Secret Doors
3750 - Ring of Sustenance
3300 - Ring of Feather Falling
1500 - Ring of Endure Elements (Continuous)
------ Necklace of the Wandering Wizard
2500 - Necklace of Spellcraft +5 (Competence)
1500 - Necklace of Mage Hand (Use-Activated)
2250 - Necklace of Message (Use-Activated)
------ Spectacles of the Wandering Wizard
2500 - Spectacles of Perception +5 (Competence)
3000 - Spectacles of Detect Magic (Continuous)
2250 - Spectacles of Read Magic (Continuous)
Ring: 12550
Necklace: 6250
Spectacles: 7750
Total: 26550
All listed prices are the purchase price.
Here's the list for the Adaptation Necklace instead.
------ Necklace of the Wandering Wizard
9000 - Necklace of Adaptation
3750 - Necklace of Spellcraft +5 (Competence)
1500 - Necklace of Mage Hand (Use-Activated)
2250 - Necklace of Message (Use-Activated)
