Optimistic Cynic's page

107 posts. Alias of MDR001.


1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

One of the players in my group insists that no matter what size the beastiary says, a huge creature always takes up a 3x3x3 cube on the playmat. Thus even if I turn into a creature or elemental that is described as being, say, 32 feet tall, I actually only count as 15 and cannot reach somebody flying 35 feet up.

Is this something that is stated somewhere? Thanks for any help you can give!

The whirlwind ability says that when a creature comes into contact with the whirlwind, things happen.

Does this apply to only things that enter it's square, or does it also affect creatures that hit the whirlwind with natural attacks? Is there an actual rule regarding this? Thanks!

PossibleCabbage wrote:

+5 Tome in your mainstat.

They say you shouldn't buy these (since they don't upgrade on each other) until you can afford them. Now you can afford them. That leaves you with 60k to spend on gear, which puts you closer to "normal" range (not very close mind you, but a lot closer.)

This. If you go out and spend the money on fantastic equipment to cover every conceivable circumstance, etc. the game will quickly become stale and boring. Instead buy wishes or Tomes and buff up your stats so you are a superhuman, and then go with normal equipment progression. You will still be awesome, but there may still be challenges for you as your character grows.

Starting a guildhouse or something similar would also be a good way to go, as you will start gaining fame and respect...but watch out because running such a thing requires a lot of out-of-game work as you start going through the rulesets for such.

Ravingdork wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
The Reincarnate list has 14 options, plus a GM's choice. There are currently at least 57 races with rules for character generation in Pathfinder.

How many of those 57 playable races are humanoids though? Betcha it cuts it down by quite a bit.

And that "GM's choice?" That was likely put there to account for the extra rare races-to-be-published. The existing table works just fine if the reincarnated subject is a humanoid.

Only if they had a differing creature type would I turn elsewhere.

All of them are humanoid, if the poster is talking about the expanded list I use with my Druid. It simply contains the original races, and the races from the Advanced Race Guide. I believe if you look up reincarnate online both tables are displayed.

I see nothing about gender or race, or any language implying they are covered. Roll on the reincarnate chart for each, disallowing their original race. :)

Loci Spirits do seem to fit the bill of what I am looking for. :)

It just seemed sad that places of great horror and fear could create evil entities, whereas places of great sacrifice, beauty, or peace do not do the same.

Such places of goodness would attract certain creature types, but not many just manifest something simply by being so powerfully good.

Good discussion!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I think the point they're making is that there is no need for what you're trying to describe, because the role is filled by every living thing in existence.

Living creatures and undead are their own antithesis.

From a myth perspective, there's no need of what you describe.

That is only true if you are looking at this in a 'living vs. undead' point of view, which is not the point of this thread. Or, at least, not the point I was asking about, perhaps not very well.

To clarify my question a bit : Are there spontaneously occurring good-aligned creatures/entities, just as there are spontaneously occurring evil creatures/entities, based on history, environment, etc. I am not talking about creatures that are born or choose their alignment. But rather ones that are formed due to environment, history, etc. just as how places of incredible horror and fear can spawn evil spirits, undead, haunts, etc.

Well, unless I am mistaken about evil entities spontaneously occurring due to horrific locations, acts, history, remnants of twisted and evil people. I seem to remember many such things hitting us in campaigns, but maybe I am incorrect in my belief.

Five Guys, being the holy ground it is, would indeed be a possible location of such goodness. :) Though my personal trainer would disagree. (but I'm pretty certain he is evil anyways)

Honestly though, I think some posters further up the thread may have answered the question. There are a few, but relatively rare.

Imbicatus wrote:

This. Undead are a magical manifestation of anti-life. There isn't any "anti-undead" because undeath is anti-life. By default anything living is anti-undead.

Please do not get caught up in my mostly-joking terminology, I simply meant creatures that are the opposite from naturally occurring undead. :)

I do like the idea that in places of great sacrifice, peace, beauty, etc. naturally occurring good-aligned spirits/entities would pop up and either wander around helping people or creating places of refuge.

Clerics and such are not the same, as those are people who have chosen their path, and already have their opposites.

I'm usually a person who is not impressed with 'the same but OPPOSITE' type things, but it seems that if a place can be so horrific that it spawns evil entities, there should be places so wondrous they spawn good entities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello! While going through another thread where a discussion was being had about why undead are considered evil, I started wondering if there were any counterparts to undead that just pop up in Golarion.

I mean, there are several undead things that pop up due to the way they were killed, the type of person they were in life, at place of extreme violence, etc. Evil emotions, fear , pain, etc. all come together to form a new shadow, ghost, poltergeist, whatever.

But are there any good-aligned anything that just pops up in places of peace, love, goodness, righteousness and just help people? I'm talking on the material plane, obviously this sort of thing happens in the good-aligned planes.

Just curious. I've come across many type of undead that have attacked on sight, but don't think I've come across any that have just shown up and started healing.

After reading half of the posts in this thread, this would be how I would play it at my table.

If the person was an elf when they chose Oracle, I would not allow it. Being immune to the curse means the curse effect could never have been applied. In MTG parlance, the elf could not be 'targeted' in the first place, because of the immunity. (And even if the character could be 'targeted', a deity simply is not going to pick *that* penalty for *that* character because it is not a penalty at all at that point)

However if the character later was changed to an elf and was allowed to take the racial trait, I would allow it, and would just say the curse was suppressed. Congratulations, you found a very awkward way around the penalties.

That being said, how often do people consent to reincarnate? In my group's games, the spell is never even considered 99.99% of the time, as the player would rather just roll up a new character than play a race they are not interested in, or that would 'ruin' their character concept. Druid's don't care, but most others would say no, at least in my experiences. So I'm not sure how valid an argument that reincarnate is an example of how a 'suppressed' curse could come into the fore at some point is.

Just my opinions of course. :)

(Flavorwise, I might have the granting deity not happy that the penalties were circumvented in such a way, and would work with the player to come up with some good roleplaying.)

avr wrote:

By that level spellcasting trumps anything except in specialised builds anyway. If you haven't particularly planned for it concentrating on that will be your default outcome.

One person went into the mammoth rider PrC to avoid changing his concept, which was more about the fighting than the spellcasting. A definite step down in power of course.

Thanks for the reply! Well, my character is kind of a front line fighter now. He does like distracting enemies with flights of summoned Stirges if that enemy is somewhere he cannot reach, but otherwise it is claw/hoof/horn/bite/slam attacking and taking hits. Nothing against casting spells, and I do cast some alpha strikes if needed. I just find it kind of sad that that is all the Druid can look forward to after 13th level when he gets Thousand Faces.

Hello! I am running my first Pathfinder Druid after many years of Pathfinder play. I have reached 12th level...and honestly am a little underwhelmed with the class progression past this point. Wild Shape, arguably the Druid core ability, has plateaued and I won't get new and interesting things to turn into. The special abilities after 12 are not that impressive in my opinion. Thousand Faces *can* be very useful in some rare situations, but I daresay that not many people play with aging rules, and there are few powers that age you unnaturally, so the Timeless Body ability is sub-par.

Pretty much all you get is spell progression and numerical progression on BABs and Saves and such. Kind of...boring. It seems to me that they should have given the Druid something to be excited about besides spells after Wild Shape stops progression.

So I am wondering how other Druid players deal with leveling past 12 to keep things interesting? Do you stick with it, and concentrate on spellcasting? Multi-class into something? Thanks!

I believe he would not fall, but should be charged with making up for his mistake. Bring the succubus back to life (if even possible), take her place in the village, do something similar, etc. But if the player *wanted* to play a Paladin, he should probably be all into that, since that is the sort of thing a Paladin would do anyways once he/she realizes such a tragic mistake. Even if it is something for after the adventure. It doesn't even have to be Abadar that gives him this penance, but maybe self-given, or given by the townsfolk or local authorities.

The only argument I can see against this is that the Paladin took an Oath against fiends. So he has a serious mad-on for fiends. But if taken as such, this can be a good roleplaying situation, where the player can have his character start to question some of his beliefs, and maybe should eventually try and get his Oath negated or changed due to him no longer believing in the black-and-white comfort he once had that all fiends should be killed on sight.

Now if the Paladin doesn't feel remorse, and is all hunky-dory about killing another Paladin in such a way...well, that is another story.

I've been flagging, and saying 'Breaks Other Guidelines'. Is that correct? Or am I doing something incorrectly?

The way I would play a CHA 1 character would be that my 'force of personality' has gone from 'average' at 10, to 'actually offensive' at 1. NPCs would find him creepy, disturbing to be around, and not somebody to interact with at all. It does not have to be physical appearance, just a feeling the character exudes. Just being in prolonged contact with the character would make NPCs want to go take a bath. It would be nothing the way the guy looks, acts, or what he says, it would be an almost tangible force of 'psychic ugliness' surrounding the guy.

I'm hoping this thread can continue. I will be starting to take my group through this in a month or so, and will probably take through the third book (probably picking up the later books when my turn to GM comes up again).

Lists of things that should be toned down, avoided, banned, encouraged, empowered, etc. (and why) would be great! I may have some questions as my players ask if they can do X or take Y.

Well, that is a bummer. I mean, there is a whole archetype and a feat that makes you able to modify the glitch roll. But with only a 50% chance of a glitch happening under one of a few situations, it will not use those abilities often.

Ah well. Thanks for the help!

The rules state that there is a 50% chance of a glitch occurring with a Timeworn item if certain conditions are met. But what if you *want* a glitch to happen? I have a Numerian Scavenger with the trait where you can roll twice on a glitch. In my group we decided that meant I could roll three times on a glitch and take the result I want.

So I kind of *want* glitches to happen. My archetype and trait are based around their manipulation.

Has there any comment on forcing glitches at all? Thanks!

A bit late to this thread, but here is my two cents.

This seems like a nice setup for some great party interaction and rollplay, perhaps for a long time to come.

A CN character facing certain death with a group of strangers decides to leave the fools to their fate and takes off, doing what he/she can to make sure the threat is contained. Okay, sounds reasonable. Why would a non-good or non-lawful aligned character agree to a Heroic Last Stand with a bunch of strangers they had only just met?

The group, however, survives and everybody has to live with the repercussions of those actions. As first impressions go, you cannot get much worse, as the character essentially left them in their hour of greatest need. The Paladin is a bit out of line I think for ignoring the fact that the new character collapsed the cave so as to seal in the evil, but overall there should be distrust and concern.

But make that part of the game. Roleplay it out. Maybe not so much as go to the group and ask them "What can I do to get on your good side", but more along the lines of trying to prove yourself and pulling your own weight. Let the group come around to seeing that you (the character) is worthwhile and can be forgiven. But let it flow, don't force it. Make it an underlying storyline to the campaign, or at least your character and his/her motivations.

Actually kind of sounds like a cool setup to me.

But, yeah, on top of that, the Paladin didn't handle it well. Denying healing to a non-evil companion is not right. It actually is not that much better than what your character did in its own way. Something that can be thrown in the Paladin's face whenever an in-character argument occurs.

Inter-party fighting (i.e. actually fighting) is not really allowed at my table, but inter-party tension between a couple party members can be fun and open up good roleplaying. Not suggested for groups that like rollplaying over roleplaying however. :)

Oh, that is good to know! Thanks!

Interesting. So I will think about telling them that if they want to have their character start out as Numerians, they can look at the campaign setting. Otherwise try to stay away from such information so 'stranger in a strange land' is more realistic.

There is a Iron Gods Player's Guide out? I'll have to look for it.


Greetings! I have a question about Iron Gods, and if there has been any words on the setup for the campaign. I've asked my players to not read or lookup information about Numeria and the Iron Gods AP until I find out if the game is supposed to be a 'stranger in a strange land' scenario, or if the potential for PCs to be Numerian residents exists.

If there is the potential that the PCs can actually come from Numeria, and thus would know basic information about the area, I'll let them read the Numeria Campaign Setting book. If not, then I'll have to make a decision on how much information they would have after looking through the first book in the Path.


Nefreet wrote:
Called shots require feats. There's a sidebar all about them in Ultimate Combat.

While there are two feats that deal with Called Shots, Improved and Greater Called Shot, they are just feats that help your chances to hit. Simply making a Called Shot is an attack action I believe, and one anybody can make if the GM allows the ruleset. No feats needed. :)

link to the Called Shots optional ruleset


What was quoted by Nefreet might be something to take into consideration. If a firearm's attack is 'not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities', that sort of suggests that outside of those two cases, it is indeed a ranged touch attack (within the first range increment). And if so, Called Shots would not work (or at least they would target normal AC rather than touch).

Called Shots, the optional ruleset, is neither a feat nor an ability, and thus an attack by a firearm using it *would* be considered a touch attack?

Nefreet wrote:
Gunslingers already have a Deed for targeting. I believe they get it at 7th level.

You are talking about the Targeting Deed? That is indeed a version of a called shot, but I am wondering about the optional ruleset labeled Called Shot in Ultimate Combat.

In that ruleset you can make one of several types of called shots for some very nice effects. But the description mostly states that ranged touch and touch attacks do not work. It uses some odd language here...
Touch attacks and ranged touch attacks made as called shots must target AC rather than touch AC. This represents the care it takes to target such strikes

The question is, does the wording for firearms get past that limitation by using touch AC but not being a 'ranged touch' attack?

Honestly, I should have labeled this thread Firearms and Called Shots, rather than specifying Gunslingers....

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

A question was recently raised in our game group, the answer to which might affect the feat tree at least one of the players will start to follow.

Our current game allows for Firearms, and we are allowing Called Shots from Ultimate Combat.

The question is, can a person using a firearm use the Called Shot rules? It has been argued that firearms can indeed be used to make Called Shots due to that while firearms use touch AC, they are not actually considered Touch Attacks. The counter-arguement is that Called Shots are not intended for touch AC to be used, if RAI.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm, it would actually be interesting if they go into the rift, and come out at the rift Xykon is headed towards.

Whenever I hear somebody talk about their children near Tarquin, I assume he has plans in place to have them killed.

At least Tarquin is realizing that he is making Roy look even more badass than usual.

MrSin wrote:
Optimistic Cynic wrote:

How about

"I have half a mind...you take it"

The Target gains +2 INT and loses the 'immune to mind-effects' trait


Depends on the target. Giving a vermin, plant, construct, ooze, or undead sapience is both a blessing and a curse. Ideally curses are purely curse with no bonuses. You could also still be immune to mind affects through other means. So its kind of hit or miss, but thematic and cool at the same time.

41. Age Without Wisdom
The victims mind regresses and loses the intelligence and wisdom that's gained through age. They lose a point in wisdom, intelligence, and charisma everyday until they reach young(Make a save each morning, a success stops the regression on that day and days after, but not the curse). Not as awful for someone in their 20's as someone in their 200's.

You might be right. I can see casting this on a compaion who doesn't have immunity to mind affecting anyways, so they would get a free buff. Would simply removing the Immunity To Mind Affecting be a reasonable Curse?

"I'd like to pick your brain...here is my pick"
Target is no longer immune to Mind Affecting spells, abilities, nor effects.

How about

"I have half a mind...you take it"

The Target gains +2 INT and loses the 'immune to mind-effects' trait


I think I may be the only person in the country, but I miss Starman, the Will Payton version. Yes, his powers were a little generic, and he was never really popular, but I liked him and the writing (though I admit there were a few issues towards the end I was not liking). I also realize he was kinda-sorta brought back later and his history retconned so he wasn't actually Will Payton (Will was actually killed by the beam that supposedily gave him his powers or something like that) the whole time but was instead some sort of reincarnated alien prince, but I just pretend I never heard about that.

I've stopped collecting comics, though I did pick up a few of the new ones from the DC reboot, and I occasionally look to see what some of my other fav comic characters are doing nowaday, but everytime I do so I am glad I have my memories and don't regret not starting up collecting again.

Hmmmmmm, boy that makes me feel like an old man waving his cane and complaining about the young whippersnappers and what they are doing. :)

(the comics I check up on are Hawk&Dove, Cloak&Dagger, and Quasar...yeah, along with the X-men, Wolverine, Punisher's War Journal, etc., I liked the lesser known/popular comics :) )

Actually, now that I think about it, I miss Julia's mother Brunhilda Brigand from Gold Digger. Especially after they go into a bit more of her history and how she met Julia's father. Awesome issue.

Also, put me down for missing Excalibur, the original team.

One thing that I find odd is that the calculation to determine how much gp a room/building earns is (<modifier> + (skill check))/10, right? So if the modifier is +21, and you are using basic labor so the skill check is +10, you get 21+10=31, 31/10 = 3.1, so that room/building earns 3.1 gp per day.

But if you want to earn Capital (Goods/Influence/Magic), you consult the chart which says if the check is 10 you get 1 Point of Capital, 20 you get 2, 30 you get 3, 40 you get 4, etc. But isn't that the same as the gp calculation? You are just dividing the check by 10 to figure out how much of the Capital you have earned...are you not? I mean, taking fractions into account and assuming that if the check is 25 you would earn 2.5 Capital. So the same building as before, deciding to earn Goods, would be 21+10=31...consult the chart and that says 3 Goods are generated (or 3.1 if you are using fractions). same/same? Of course, you will be paying some amount of gold to generate that 3.1 Goods (31 gp I believe).

But am I missing something? Why have that chart and not simply state that the check should be divided by 10? Have I misunderstood something?

I will in no way ever state that math is my strong suit, so maybe I am missing fundamental, and can't see the forest because the trees are in the way?

Silken Ceremonial Armor is as much of a needed item for Witches as for Wizards and the like. Yes, your Mage Armor will be better for numerical bonuses, but after getting that +1 on it, you are able to put on the other nice armor buffs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I asked this same question not too long ago. The Hex ends at the beginning of your next round. You pretty much have to cackle on the same round the Hex was applied in order to benefit from your own Hex.

So be careful using a Hex as a prepared action, as you won't get the chance to cackle. Ditto for moving and Hexing on the same round, though the Witch's Blouse helps alleviate this one.

Avianfoo wrote:

Is it possible? Yes. See creating your own magical item rules. Or move the corset to a different slot.. e.g. belt of witchcraft.

Will your GM allow it? Probably not. Life is all about difficult choices.

Our group doesn't allow crafting of abilities across slots for the most part. However, we are allowing enhancing within slot, so you can pay to have a ring of protection +2/Evasion, with the appropriate cost increases.

Before I ask my GM if I can find a Sixth level witch with the correct feats that will enhance the Robe, I was just wondering if a non-Witch could do it, with the difficulty going up by 5 (I believe it is 5 for every requirement you do not qualify for?). Or if the 'crafter must be a Witch' note in the requirements overcomes that rule and you absolutely must have a crafting witch.

Greetings everybody!
I am currently running my Witch (currently level 13) through Rise of the Runelords AE, and am currently wearing the Robe of Runes.
One of the character's companions is currently enhancing the INT bonus from 4 to 6, but my question is this...

Is it even possible to enhance the Robe of Runes to have the same abilities as a Corset of Witchcraft?
And if so, when the crafting part says the crafter must be a witch, does that mean absolutely, or does that just add a bit to the crafting difficulty as not meeting a standard?

Thanks for any help anybody can give!

I asked this same question a while back just before running a Kingmaker Campaign (my first Pathfinder Campaign).

For MiC, the general response was that the items were generally fine, but you would have to recalculate the costs on certain types of items.

SC was a bit trickier, and in the end came down to talking with your group on a spell by spell basis. For example, in my group we now allow Primatic Ray (with minor Poison changes), but not Blockade.

But then there is a freind who allows anything in his campaigns. AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder. He claims he rarely has problems. I'm not sure if I believe him. :)

Vilrandir wrote:

Excuse me? Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? I had the unforgivable error of mis-interpreting something and I guess I'm guilty for making the whole world hate paladins or something?
I came here for feedback, precisely because I talked to the player about the situation and we disagreed. I wouldn't have enforced anything without mutual consent with him.
I've been nothing if not receptive of the feedback, but there's a clear distinction between being "harsh" and just plain judgmental.

I noticed that many of the replies to your question were rather slanted/insulting to what I thought was a reasoned question. I'm surprised you have responded at all to be honest.

You stepped into a fairly touchy subject unfortunately. And many will take any opportunity to once again expound upon how much they dislike the class and its built in restrictions.

If I were you, I'd ignore any replies that insult you or using slanted wording to insult you. Tone of voice is hard to portray via text, but word choice is usually clear.

To the OP. I suppose the question I would ask is if the Paladin had a reasonable expectation to win a fight if she and her companions attacked. You mentioned that they were resource drained and going back to rest, but if they set up an ambush, all attacked at once, planned ahead even for a minute, could they have won? Going first with a well readied set of actions can end a fight very quickly.

I've seen several posts in the thread that seem to put words in your mouth regarding what a hopeless situation it was, or that it was suicidal, and such. But I would like your opinion, looking at it objectively.

Now if the fight would have been suicide, and I had been playing the Paladin, I would have tried to scout the town as best I could before leaving any survivors to their deaths. If that was impossible without being killed, than I would have retreated.

However, I agree with a poster above. I think essentially funneling the monsters to the town should have caused at least a divine warning. Not a Fall, but a black mark on her spiritual scoresheet. Indirectly the group is responsible for the town's destruction and the dead townsfolk. If I were the GM, I would not have caused a Fall for this, but would have imposed a penance of some sort. Something to roleplay out.

People who choose to play paladins are not 'tricked' into it. they look at the class and say "I like that", they look are the role they play and say "groovy", they look at the structured rules they have to live by, and say "sounds fun". A lot of people do not like the rules, do not like the structure, do not like the Code, and they would never choose to play Paladins. And that is fine. But we are not talking about those people here, we are talking about a Player who made a decision to play the class. Who knows, since your player chose to play a Paladin, they are fully aware of the Paladin's limitations. They might actually enjoy being given a divine penance or rebuke, as they can roleplay that out with the character.

So, in short, in my opinion anyways, the Paladin's actions did not warrent a Fall, but short-sightedly funneling the monsters to the town would cause a 'twinge' or 'warning' to be more careful in the future.

In your next session I'd return her powers and have her know that her losing them temporarily was the warning to be more careful, and she now owes a debt to the town she helped put in dangers way.

Optimistic Cynic wrote:

Like many of the people here, I was the one with the really high AC. I was playing a Swan Style Monk and the time, and the GM just could not hit me (I could not hit well either, but I could trip and throw like crazy). And with the Swan Style I was able to knock away the few hits that were able to break through my AC with the Nat 20s.

*I* am the one how told him that the baddies, if they have any intelligence higher than, say, three, would give up missing and getting tripped and would go around me to attack my companions. I expect my opponents to act to their Stats.

If I was playing an archer, I'd expect to see my enemies start to take cover. If I had some awesome spell or magic item that was granting me pimpslap abilities, I'd expect some Dispel Magics to be cast at me. If I had a powerful sentient sword that was doing awesomeness, and my enemy knows about it, I'd expect the occasional disarm attempt. If I have an insane AC, I'd expect any intelligent enemy to give up and go after easier prey.

Obviously you have to play to your group's style, but in my opinion the fact the enemy starts to ignore you in straight out slug-fests is a unfortunate but understandable consequence of what you have created. It is up to the Players to find a way to get the enemies to fight them past two/three/four rounds. The Glamour enchantment might buy you a round or two. Maybe instead of continuing the AC war the players should be looking for ways to kill the enemies fast enough that they don't have time to realize the situation.

Crane, Crane Style, not Swan. (slaps forehead)

Like many of the people here, I was the one with the really high AC. I was playing a Swan Style Monk and the time, and the GM just could not hit me (I could not hit well either, but I could trip and throw like crazy). And with the Swan Style I was able to knock away the few hits that were able to break through my AC with the Nat 20s.

*I* am the one how told him that the baddies, if they have any intelligence higher than, say, three, would give up missing and getting tripped and would go around me to attack my companions. I expect my opponents to act to their Stats.

If I was playing an archer, I'd expect to see my enemies start to take cover. If I had some awesome spell or magic item that was granting me pimpslap abilities, I'd expect some Dispel Magics to be cast at me. If I had a powerful sentient sword that was doing awesomeness, and my enemy knows about it, I'd expect the occasional disarm attempt. If I have an insane AC, I'd expect any intelligent enemy to give up and go after easier prey.

Obviously you have to play to your group's style, but in my opinion the fact the enemy starts to ignore you in straight out slug-fests is a unfortunate but understandable consequence of what you have created. It is up to the Players to find a way to get the enemies to fight them past two/three/four rounds. The Glamour enchantment might buy you a round or two. Maybe instead of continuing the AC war the players should be looking for ways to kill the enemies fast enough that they don't have time to realize the situation.

LazarX wrote:
I like the half elf bonded witch archetype mysself

I too am enjoying it. Having good fun roleplaying out my Ring, how it is important, and trying to find out who my Patron is through it. (I allowed my current GM to chose who/what my Star Patron is, and only discovered the secret at level 10). Much better than having a cat or frog or whatever odd familar you might have running around being a target.

Maybe it is underpowered, but I'm having fun with it. :)

I am currently running a level 11 Witch in RotRL, and have been running him since level 1. The Slumber Hex is very powerful, but not any more so than a few things my companions pulled out of their hats.

The thing to remember is that the Witch is great against a single opponent, but not so much against several baddies at the same time. If the Witch uses Slumber on one, either his squishy self is about to get jumped by that target's friends, or one of those said friends simply kicks the sleeping one awake. Or both at the same time.

But have the Witch face off against the boss creature, and things look up.

Well, until those boss creatures are immune to mind-effecting, at which time most of the Hexes, including Slumber, stop being effective altogether.

By the time you can cast the Hex on two targets via Split Hex, SLumber is usually the third or fourth Hex down the list you are using.

In my experience of course. :)

So in the end I guess I do not see a real reason to nerf the Hex. Let the player have fun with the boss creatures. That is his job, and what he is built for. That just puts the Witch within 30 feet of the most dangerous enemy. And Slumber goes by the wayside after level 10 or 11.

Hey, thanks for the replies!

You are correct about the readied action changing the initiative order of course. Totally missed that. :) But that also means that a Witch should never Evil Eye (or Misfortune/Fortune/etc before level 8) as a readied action. The Witch will not be able to reap the rewards from doing so.

DM Blake : That may indeed be the thread, thanks!

In the end it sounds like a Witch has to effectively spend a full round action (Hex/Cackle) if he wants to enjoy his own Hex on his turn. So it is not likely a Witch will be Hexing on his first turn, unless the enemy just shows up within 30 feet by chance.

That just seems...wrong to me. No it really hasn't hit me in the game per se, usually my Witch is activating the Flight Hex or something similar on the first round if the enemy is far away, but conceptually it feels wrong.

Oh well. :)

Interesting, so what you are saying is that the Hex essentially ends at the beginning of my turn, and in the case of the prepared action the Hex would end at the beginning of the enemy's next turn?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

A very simple, perhaps silly, question.

A situation came up during my last game session, and I have not been able to find the answer spelled out exactly.

The question is, when do Witch Hexes end, at the beginning of the Witch's next round, or at the end of the Witch's next round?

When I was reading up on Witches before I start running one through Runelords, I found a thread that mentioned that the Hexes ended at the end of the next round in passing (the thread was not about this topic, it was just mentioned as part of another explanation). When somebody asked about that, the poster stated that it only made sense since otherwise the Witch would *have* to take Cackle, and would *have* to essentially take a full round action to Hex/Cackle so that he/she could actually benefit from the Hex. Nobody else protested or said anything, so I just went along with it.

But now I cannot find the thread, nor anything about it. Naturally.

So a situation came up a couple of days ago when I had a prepared action to hex somebody when they came into view. They came into view, I hexed them, and the GM told me that the Hex wore off at the beginning of my turn and thus I could not target them again with that Hex and Cackling would have no effect.

So that is my question. Would the Hex wear off at the beginning of my turn, or the end? If it wears off at the beginning of the turn, than does that mean in order for your Witch to enjoy the fruits of that hex he/she has to spend a full round to Hex and Cackle each time he/she tries a new Hex (and they have to take Cackle...though why would anybody run a Witch without it anyways is beyond me)?

I had been link-hopping when I came across that original thread, so maybe I ended up in somebody's homerule thread or something. But it made sense to me. I realize most magic effects of this sort end at the beginning of the turn, I just thought the Hex was different and didn't question it.

Luckily, this hasn't really affected us in the game except for this time with the prepared action. I pretty much always Hex and cackle, so it has been a non-issue. But it would be good to know in clear terms. :)

Thanks for your opinion fretgod99!

It is a fairly rare situation. A person has to have cast Spectral Hand,attempted to deliver a touch spell with it and failed, become paralyzed, and still be able to see the enemy.

I'm not sure if it will ever come up again, but both sides want people's opinions on the matter in case it does. :)

Thanks Heymitch!

You essentially have agreed with the GM in this case. He said that the description essentially says you are merely increasing the range of your melee touch attack.

The Player disagreed, stating that it is obviously a mental action to command the hand, albiet one that requires a standard action, and requires no physical movement on the part of the spellcaster.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

A situation came up in last night's game session. The Witch had been paralyzed due to a ghast's touch, and was thus unable to move. But the Witch had a Spectral Hand spell running, with a Bestow Curse spell infused within it.

The question is : is attacking with the Spectral Hand a mental action that requires a Standard Action, and thus the Witch can continue to attack with the hand while paralyzed and the target can be seen (at least as long as the Bestow Curse in on it)? Or is attacking with the Hand regarded as a normal Standard Acton that requires the Witch to be able to attack as normal, as if the Hand wasn't an option (meaning that the Witch cannot attack with the Hand while paralyzed)?

Thanks for any help you can give!

Thanks everybody, it sounds like we played it right for the most part (we missed that he loses tremorsence, but it didn't matter, the creatures were all flying anyways)!

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>