Pendagast's page

Organized Play Member. 6,019 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.

1 to 50 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless something has the scent ability, smelling s hobgoblin wouldn't necessarily be different than Smelling anyone else.
There have been numerous Orc pcs over the years
And specific Orc feats
And orcs have always been "the enemy"

Hobgoblins probably have a strange accent like any foreigner
But considering one of the APs consisted of pcs wearing dead elf skin to wander around unnoticed like they were just part of the crowd, I assume a little disguise, performance etc wouldn't be out of order.

Heck I wouldn't even tell the other pcs
I'd let them discover it.

I play a a drow in one campaign and the pcs don't know it
He's even been described as having strange mannerisms , accent and body features for an elf

How massively different is a hobgoblin from a half Orc?
Generally the hobgoblins are lawful evil
This one maybe lawful neutral

We have parties full of tiefling, and even regular goblins pretending to be gnomes on these boards

Heck id go for if you enjoy rp

Can you be a lawful neutral fell rider?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey guys, it's called a helmet and or hood.

Does a hobgoblin on heavy armor look much different t than a human in heavy armor ?
I picture thus character looking like lord soth
Armor , cloak and evil red eyes peering out

Take rich parents as a trait and have at least banded armor with full helm
Take a little bluff and disguise to cover your appearance/voice and mannerisms

How are hobgoblins that different than the mass of half orcs or Orc characters that have been played?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Axial wrote:

Suppose I roll up a Hobgoblin PC for this campaign. What would that entail?

I recall that Second Darkness strongly discourages and all but forbids players to play as Drow. This is understandable, given the Drow's origins and their secrecy in the Pathfinder campaign setting. However, while Hobgoblins are almost universally Lawful Evil, they are not bound to evil in the same way that (setting-wise) Drow are.
{. . .}

I can't get my hands on a Second Darkness Player's Guide (this and the one for Legacy of Fire were not available for free download as separate PDFs), but I understand that in part Paizo was (apparently with some real justification) afraid of a flood of Drizz't do'Urden clones. Since such a calamity has not materialized, I would like to see this prohibition removed or at least alleviated when they release Second Darkness Anniversary/Hardcover Edition.

If not for real life issues that have prevented me from playing anything (and will continue to do so at least through October), I would be up for playing a Drow in Second Darkness, or in principle a Hobgoblin in Ironfang Invasion, except that whereas I have a well-developed character concept for the first(*), I don't have one for Ironfang Invasion, and no guarantee that when I get one that it will be a Hobgoblin . . . But I can appreciate the overall concept.

(*)I haven't read any of the Drizz't do'Urden novels, but I checked on Wikipedia to make sure that I hadn't accidentally created a Drizz't do'Urden clone . . . Check.

You really can't play a drow in second darkness

It's not an issue with a certain encounter
It's literally the entire AP as written
If you have read or played the AP you wouldn't understand
And I can't explain without spoiling the whole AP
It's literally not possible to play a drow without ruining the whole campaign.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll just weigh in a little on power gaming, tired builds and min maxing

I came in on a late campaign
Party healer moved away , I was asked to make a healer.
I built a war sighted battle oracle
166 hp

In the 5th game session I was one shotted by a demon with a vorpal axe
None of my spells worked on him
SR and saves were crazy high (like 31)
And this was a printed monster in a forgotten realms book

It's not tired builds or power gamers or min maxers that are the problem
It's a game system that requires it to survive, participate and have fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
IMO, elves aren't represented well mechanically at all and likely wouldn't be a PC race if they were.

The original "elf" would come off much more like a drow (power level)

Elves have been merged to make a cool race for pcs due to popularity

In my home brew world, elves are half elves (half elves aren't a thing) and drown are the actual elves
And most elves are neutral or neutral evil
Not chaotic good

The elves as drow thing I have going on changes them around in that my home brew elf is mainly either a sorcerer , Druid or monk

Wizard magic is the magic of men
Sorcery is the magic of elves and the first world
Elves are very much against the younger races for destroying the world and nature
My elves value the life of a tree over that of man or dwarf

I frequently have elves as bbeg

If a PC is playing an elf
Those stats represent my diluted (or half) elves
Those who live apart from nature and severed themselves from elf society and culture

Kind of like Spock
They chose a diminished existence for the chance to be something greater

I have no dark lands or under dark

Elves can be any color skin or hair as they change to their environment within a century
Drow elves cannot be pcs at all
They are immortal as far as she is considered
Can be slain like any other PC race

But that's my home brew elf

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Prof X/Magneto is a really good example.

Magneto has ALWAYS been evil. maybe he wasnt as a child, but he was as adult.

Magnetos hunt for nazis, although justified to a point, was still carried out as an evil character would do it.

Prof X, arguably NG, had the power to feel magnetos pain and anguish (the source of his evil motives) and want to help him (ie change his alignment)

X and mags worked together because they had a common goal... (training and mentoring mutants) but for different reasons/end goals (because they had different alignments.

Hunting and punishing nazis doesnt make you good.

LE demon hunters are still evil, even tho demons are evil themselves.

another GOOD example of this is Obi-wan/Vader.

Obi wan was always LG, even though his mentor Qui-gon was arguably CG or possibly Neutral.
When he begins mentoring Anakin he views skywalkers ways as something similar to Qui-gons alignment.
He mis judges his later anger and hate as "youthful exbueration" failing to recgonize the growing evil due to his closeness to anakin and the fact that they had saved each others lives on multiple occasions.

Anakin has always been chaotic, something Obi thought he could teach out of him.
He shifted from CN to CE from manipulations from palpatine over the course of the 2nd and 3rd movie.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

usually....I try a synopsis:

what this means is I have everyone roll for init.

People with the LOWEST init score declare first, those with highest declare last.

This means the higher init people (larger number) get to know what the "slower" people are going to do.

slow orcs say they are moving forward to attack XYZ.
Faster elf says I shoot orc on his way to XYZ.

Then once everyone knows who is doing what, I have the orc start moving but let the elf shoot him before he gets there, if he's still alive he gets to finish his move/action.
This helps resolve things like cover...elf couldnt shoot him before he moved etc.

once all this has finished, rolls, numbers of damage etc...
THEN I explain:

The orcs moved forward, Elf shot and got the orc in ribs
One orc hit the dwarf the and slashed his arm, another orc swung high, missing.
the third orc glanced off he dwarfs shield.
the dwarf broke the first orcs knee cap, finishing off what the elf started,

I describe near misses like hitting armor or shields, I describe bad missed like dodging or swinging high.
Some near misses I actually have hit but the magic of the armor absorbs the blow (they would have hit and done damage if there wasnt a +2 bonus_

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thrain the Heavyhanded wrote:

It depends on the situation. If the babies are in immediate danger, then I take them to safety if I can. If they are not in danger and there are guardians nearby, I leave them alone.

Even if there are no guardians nearby, I still leave them, because what is there to do? There are no goblin orphanages, and most orphanages will not take in goblins. And I will not dedicate the next few years of my life to raising goblins, so all I can do is hope they can fend for themselves.

Although a fine, well-fed dwarven upbringing would set the little imps straight.

wait so if there are "guardians" near by....arent those the things youve been amusingly killing?

IF you havent been, how did you wander up on the babies unmolested? Your armed and armored and there is nothing between the babies and you?

What fi you KILL ALL the adult goblins....you would leave the babies there to what? starve?
If they arent capable of harming or posing a threat to the party, they are also not capable of surviving on their own.
Is it a "good" thing to do, staying in your alignment to not murder the innocent, but at the same time let them perish cruelly with no food or water because you exterminated their care givers?

Just because humans and/or elves wont take care of baby goblins doesnt mean there isnt anything that would...
there ARE other creatures and even humanoids in the world...heck in in the neighborhood.
And given the commonality of goblins...how hard would it be to find MORE of the suckers?

Pack these things up... load them in a wagon and in a days ride youve found more goblins.... give them a few hundred gold and the baby goblins and make a deal with them...you dont kill my kind and I wont come hunt you down you filthy curr... now take these things that are biting my ankles and be gone!

In a few years youll be slaying these now adult goblins anyway....right?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robb Smith wrote:

Here's my opinion.

DC 32 is a considered a pretty absurd knowledge check.

The PC should have known "something" about it. Maybe an esoteric legend. Maybe the information isn't even absolutely correct. But... SOMETHING.

When you tell a PC they know "nothing about it", you make them feel like the investment they have made into their character is pointless. This, to me, feels like a squandered opportunity for a plot hook and a devaluing of where a character has chosen to focus (or maybe even just had a bit of luck)

Allow me to illustrate the point, using your own words.

DC30: "You once heard a story about a gifted Elven cleric who once, having provided someone with materials and tons of supplies to craft a magical creation when requested, encountered an object that teleported away from him."

DC35: "He has been seeking that object ever since, and no one left alive truly knows its properties. This object seems to match the Cleric's description of that very object."

DC40: "The object sounds like it was designed to fulfill the bearer's wishes, without restriction or limitation."

DC45: "You know that such magic is rarely fulfilled as desired, and most likely would come with an unexpected or terrible cost."

here's the cookies and cream of it.

Why did the PC MAKE a knowledge check?

the PC is not the actor, they are they REactor.

The PC can do as they please until the DM puts an obstacle infront of them.

"I go to the bathroom" is not met with a "Make a reflex save to make sure you dont shat yourself"
They just simply do that.... if the DM wants to have a barfight break out while the Pc is in the outhouse, great, the DM knows the location of the PC at that point in time.

If the PC says "I never EVER go to the bathroom" The DM might require the PC to make regular fortitude saves to see when he finally loses control and craps his pants.....

BUT PCs dont go around just making rolls when there ARE no hurtles, JUST like Paladins dont go around detecting evil at every vase and stool.... there needs to be a reason.

So if the PC doesnt know the item exists, WHY where they making the roll about it in the first Place?
You cant overcome a nonexisting obstacle.

Was the PC trying to make an arbitrary knowledge roll to bring out of game knowledge in game? If so that's meta gaming and an automatic fail no matter what dice result they get.

the DM has to ASK the Pc FOR a result.
"Give me a knowledge check" would be the answer to the PCs question
"what do I know about this artifact"
But if the DM and non of the NPCs have let the PCs know there IS an artifact....how can the player ask the question?

do fighters walk around town taking random swings at nonexiting foes, and if they beat a really good armor class you give them something because of an arbitrarily high roll?

"horvath the mighty" got to 10th level by shadow boxing behind the inn, defeating dragons in his mind?

so...the question begs the answer, what prompted the PC to roll the dice in the first place?
What question was he trying to get answered that required a roll in the first place?
because that's how it works.

Not "I think really hard" tell me everything I know.

If he asked the right question, because something came up in game that was a clue to the character...then a 32 result should have netted some kind of knowledge about the subject in question.

But you dont ask "what is the soup of the day" and roll a 32 and get "the artifact is located in the 3rd level of the dungeon underneath the golden keep."

MAN thats some good soup!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

skill should be dumbed down, not powered up.

In 1e, if you needed to ride a horse, you said "I ride the horse".

Everyman skills have been turned into a skill point sink.

suddenly, conan needs higher intelligence to get more skill points to jump, climb and swim better.

If conan is wearing brestplate with his massive strength the wizard who cant lift a spear can be "smart enough" to swim climb and jump better than he can....

I dont think INT points should could and skill points to physical abilities.

I dont think "action" skills (ride, swim, jump etc) should be base on a point system.

they should be class based, pojnts from the levels in the class.

Fighter may only get 2 general skill points but 5 points for action skills (like climb, swim, ride)

Wizard might get 4 general skill points but only 1 for action skills.
Something like that.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

for a male, "the goblin king" (David Bowie) from labyrinth seems like an "elven witch" to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Thought experiment for those discussing the "ineffective weapons" thing:

Okay, so let's suppose that an adamantine dagger is an "ineffective weapon" against a stone dungeon wall, because daggers aren't designed to destroy walls. Thus, the adamantine dagger can't damage the stone wall.

Now, suppose I cast stone shape, replacing a segment of wall with a 3ft-high stone box. It's open on top, with inch-thick sides. The box's sides are still stone walls, but they're thinner than the length of the blade and I can cut down from the top instead of chiseling in from the side. Can the adamantine dagger damage these stone walls, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed for destroying stone walls?

Suppose I cast stone shape again. The box now turns into humanoid figure; basically, a stone scarecrow/training dummy. It's not a wall now, but it's still an object, and made of the same material. Can the adamantine dagger damage it, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed to destroy stone statues?

Now suppose I animate this statue I just made, turning it into some kind of stone golem. It's still made of the same stuff as the stone wall my dagger couldn't scratch, but now it's a creature who happens to have hardness. Can the dagger harm it now, since daggers are designed to hurt creatures?

swords are designed to cut steel walls of space ships.

Laser bounce off walls of space ships
But laser swords (light sabers) melt right through them.

The light saber is special.
The adamantine weapon is special.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:

It seems a lot of people have missed the OP's point. An illustration of it goes something like this:

DM: "You come to a 10' chasm across the tunnel."
Player: "Okay, I get a running start and get a 22."
DM: "I don't care what your skills are, what did you roll on the d20?"
Player: "Huh? Well I rolled a 12, but I have a +10 modifier."
DM: You fall into the chasm, you needed to roll a 15 or better on the die."
Player: "But the DC is only 10 for a 10'."
DM: "The DC is whatever I say it is because DRAMA dammit!"

how do you know that is what happened?

how does the PC know what the DC is? Meta gaming?

MORE often than not, its usually a player who has managed to memorize stuff in the rule books. "I got a 17, so I hit the goblin because goblins only have a 12 ac"

the character doesnt KNOW that stuff.... its out of game knowledge.

its also interesting to me the same people who insist its only a DC 10 to jump a chasm also completely ignore encumbrance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

really? NO SKALDS?

Inciting a rebellion? how can there BE a rebellion withOUT a skald?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
What I don't get is why the GM has to "win" by making the players "lose."

youve never run into goblins with levels in fighter before, have you?

I once got my azz handed to me by a NPCs mount...I didnt realize the horse was a animal companion of a high level NPC... I was trying to steal a horse to escape a castle and I was cracking guard skulls like a pro, but the horse captured me :/?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a big bad appear early in the game
5th level Black Guard (in the days before anti paladin in this edition)

he was there only for drama and foreshadowing purposes.
PCs were 1st level and this was the first combat.... goblins and skeletons conjured by the blackguard.

PC paladin walked around the skeletons and two handed a longsword into the blackguard on a confirmed crit with a smite evil.
Pc finished the blackguard off on her next turn.
Two attacks, Big bad for the entire chapter was dead.

We're talking about a 1st level PC with padded armor and a mundane longsword.

they were supposed to go onto the castle to investigate why the "lord" was allowing this stuff to go on unabated in his hamlet.
the lord WAS the blackguard.

I had to invent a vampire and rewrite to make the blackguard a lieutenant.
Everything after that was much harder for the PCs because the power level was adjusted to reflect there were things more powerful than the first encounter....

Especially considering the PC took the Blackguards +2 Flail and MAsterwork full plate from him.

You SURE its a bad idea to fudge difficulty for the proper effect and just just let dice rolling tule everything?
what about saving PCs from utter destruction?
Oh well you all failed your saving throw...the dragon spend the next few weeks eating all your charred bodies... dont worry it will only take a littel over a year to get your new characters back up to 13th level...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Plot armor?

You can't really call adventuring a common profession or most plot hooks for pre gen adventures would fail.

"Hey are there any dungeons to explore or mystique occurances to thwart?"

Well there were, but three parties came through last week and prettier solved all those problems.

Ever wonder why there is a retired 5 th level ranger that lives in town
But the outlying areas have a goblin problem ONLY the pcs are able to handle
When that single ranger and his mangy pet could have killed them all single handedly?
(I'm looking at you hamlet)

Adventuring is as rare in fantasy as it is for us in modern real world

Lewis and Clark didn't have competition

Heck even early century Egyptologists who had much competition were still pretty rare and scarcely funded

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To me the players aren't special. Their characters may become special in regards to what they achieve and how powerful they become, but they're still people who are no more favored/blessed by fate in general [though it's possible to have a god in your court depending on things] than your average adventurer.

Pcs are intended to be special

They have greater wealth and potential (better stats) than npcs
There are not 12 1st level wizards in the hamlet your character grew up in
Npcs do not typically have pc classes

Fighters are rare

Not every member of the tribe is a barbarian
And so on

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:

Do you tailor encounters to your PCs or do you roleplay the world around them?

I tend to catch myself throwing CR appropriate monsters at the party when I expect them to fight the monster, and when I do throw something too dangerous at the party I always leave an out. Now if the party is weaker than they should be, then I let them die.

I also tend to keep shoving the plot into the players face rather than letting them get completely lost by roleplaying the world honestly. If a was being honest, they could miss every clue and wander around aimlessly for sessions at a time. I tend to avoid that, but should I? I feel that when I determine that the plot must move forward that I am taking away agency.

How do you balance having an authentic world and tailoring a campaign to a leveling party?

Typically I create / adjust the world based on the pcs

Then play around them

No healers? There's a way to get pots and they are cheaper

If the pcs don't have full casters
Enemy full casters are rarer too

I also don't do cr appropriate encounters
Dragons exist
If you're foolish enough to attack them when magic missle is your best spell
You die

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots of posts
Didnt read them all.

Here's MY 2 coppers:

From a GM stand point, I prefer SOME back story,
If youre a Min max goblin eating machine optimized to the teeth, WHY?

IF you have some character flaws and lots of story, cool bro.

If you are the LARP type of person who never rolls for anything dont sit at my table and make a character, WAY too laborious.

AS a GM I tend to "story" my way through menial encounters.

If a 5th level party meets a random group of orcs in the alley way, there's a REASON why the orcs are there... I want to get to the searching of the bodies, the finding of the clue and the advancing of the plot.

I tell everyone what they see and ask them what they intend to do. If they choose fight, then I story board my way through an easy fight, asking casters if they use spells or conserve.

If it's a party of 1st level characters vs. a band of orcs, Roll for init.

I prefer roleplaying but dont expect people to only speak in character or use "voices"

When in a PLAYER, I tend to make a character that is flawed, because I find them interesting.
Im playing for a reason and it's not to dominate the game.

So Im likely to play a middle aged fighter, or an elf barbarian,
OR when coming into a group, I frequently ask "what do you need?"

Most groups are frequently missing a healer.

as I GM I dont care much if the group is missing a healer, I just adjust to make potions or NPCs available.

But as a player I typically assume the role of party support.

I like the skald for this because he does almost everything a party might be missing.

But buyer beware "wee need a healer" will often get you something off the wall like a half orc rage prophet who is chaotic neutral and expects payment for his precious spells.

I dont typically play a cardboard healing battery.

My skald made scrolls for everyone, everyone had two on their body.
Everyone in the party learned UMD semi well.
I you were down, almost anyone (but the rogue and I especially) could pull out your scroll and use it to heal you.

Was a pretty spiffy way to do it too,

Im a big fan of E6 and E8 style campaigns too.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Globetrotter wrote:

Well, I know I would be asking my players how the hell is he getting Terran mastery over the astral plane if he has never been there and has no way to travel there.

Fun for theory but I couldn't see many of the people I play with as well letting that fly.

How does your sorcerer player just "get" spells at a new level he has never seen or read?

How does the ninja player become invisible if he's never seen it done or been taught by anyone?

How does the 1st level ranger pick Giants or dragons as a favored enemy when he could never have survived a fight against one long enough to learn those kinds of things about them?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

13 STR - 150lbs

Trade Goods -
500 disposable lighters (20 lbs)
160 crappy LED flashlights (10 lbs)
1000 crappy ink pens (10 lbs)
80 crappy digital watches (10 lbs)
80 solar scientific calculators (20 lbs)
Cocaine (20 lbs)
Twinkies (10 lbs)

Personal Gear -
100 treble fish hooks
50 lb test fish line
Fishing pole
Good Boots
Good Jacket w/ removable liner
Harness Leather Belt
A Frakking Hat
Wool Scarf
Extra Socks
550 Paracord
Iodine Tablets
50 Clif Bars
50 GU Energy Gels
Aluminum Water Bottle
Camel Pak
Bug Spray
Extra Contacts
iPod with music
iPad with books
handcrank charger
Extra headphones
Backpack, Cargo pants, pocket vest.

Big D, you would be better off with Meth over cocaine… more addictive, more immediate response from use… hitler preferred it for spiking his combat shock troops…. Meth should also (even in Golarion) be easier to replicate.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
While most modern humans might have more physical potential our affluent society made a lot of us overweight and weak. In other words unfit for survival situations and a harsh medieval world.

That's a misnomer.

1) that completely depends on where you are actually from/live. You're kinda implying that coach potato city dwellers of the USA are "everyone" in the modern world.
2) overweight actually adds to survivability (maybe not ground speed) over thinner people.
3) large doesn't necessary equal weak.
4) disease and famine were #1 killers, If heart disease/diabetes end up killing you in your early 50s you are still outliving most people in feudal times by a decade or more. humans weren't busying themselves trying to run away from velociraptors.
5) fat people would lose weight pretty fast, you actually have to work to eat, there is no fast food, or convenience stores, complex sugars and carbs are pretty rare in food of the era.
6) The american military soldier/sailor has been listed in many written works as being the most powerful, deadly, and professional soldier the world has ever seen…. Most of those soldiers are being put through a 13 week ringer and begin their lives as fat lazy American teenagers.

Still way ahead of their feudal/medieval ancestors…

Most kids of the era grew up sick with something, drinking bad water, or malnourished, things that effected them their entire lives (and made it much shorter)… fat people can, for the most part, become un-fat… hunger is a great motivator… If you start out larger, stronger and smarter with 4-5 inches of "stored" calories, you will out last your thin sick competition handily.

Shows like survivor showed that pretty graphically.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

too much text wall.

Id simply make my saving throw and throttle the wizard.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing that channel heals AND harms ever since beta.

I just saw the OR in the writing in CRB very recently.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything that everyone complains about in references to rogues/fighters (and martials in general) is actually a result of the devs answer complaints about casters from earlier (pre 3.0 editions)

Casters used to have to plant their feet and take multiple actions (rounds) to get off a single cool spell.
Magic users were often reduced to throwing a dart for the first 3-4 levels of progression.

Rogues (thieves) used to have a faster experience/level progression than other (most classes)

the "complaints" of yesteryear resulted in the complaints of today.

Put casters back in 1e/2e shoes, bring the monsters back down to those levels and the Rogue would be OP…

It's all about power creep.

Rogue/fighter are just behind the power creep curve, ATM.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Terrible Zodin wrote:

uhh guys, that stat array corresponds to a 44 point buy. It's a fantastic set of stats.

For the record. APs are designed with 15 pt buy.

The problem is he wants to melee and feels that he can't.

Allow him to swap two of his stats and maybe change class.

Try a summoner?

Yes it is a good set of stats.

In Ye Olden days 3d6, set stats were kinda the rule of the day.

Want to play a paladin? you can't you didn't roll a 17.

If he HAD allowed to rearrange stats this would be WAY better than point buy and the guy would still make the same exact character he usually plays.

the fun comes in when you are forced to play outside of the box with the stats you ended up with.

this often results in the guy who is normally a barb playing a wizard and the rogue is a cleric… etc.

newer players have gotten so used to choices, it creates a very vanilla feeling when you just have Yohan the 14th and his same EXACT point buy stats he ALWAYS has in yet another rendition of the same character with the SAME skill points and feat selection.

So that's the rationale for doing the roll and use what you ended up with… to just have something literally new, BECAUSE you didn't have a choice.

Im curious… how does this roll method have anything to do with the characters animal companion tho?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

i really don't see what ll the hype is about.

Aww poo have to play the cleric? Sweet. Ill take cleric ANY day. ESPECIALLY back in AD&D the cleric was darn near as good as a fighter in combat…worst thing about them is they couldn't use "cool weapons" they were stuck with things like hammer…mace…. but there was FLAIL… I dunno I like flails.

Back in AD&D spells were reversible too… I could have a slot for raise dead, but it could also be slay living.
I could cure light wounds as a neutral or evil cleric, I didn't have choose positive or negative energy.

So my clerics were ALWAYS mercs…. more Lord Verminaard, less Happy the heal bot Slappy.

and boy did I love using those awesome undead raising spells…"Do my bidding, my minions!"

The issue with "having to play the cleric" was/is always playing your character for whatever someone else wanted.

why when you hold al the cards?

HEAL me HEAL me?

Of course, my son…. but Ill need to collect that tithing, the church requires the first pick of the treasure hoard…agreed?

IF they ever renege…. when they need that heal…it became a harm,…oppsie daisy! never forget to pay your healing insurance policy!

Same thing goes for rogues… I really don't see why everyone always dislikes this class.
too may alpha personalities trying to be a their chest about the highest DPS.

You do that. will I'm picking pockets and filling mine, yay I opened the chest and just palmed the ioun stone inside.

what? you're stealing from the party?
No, you're playing a character.

THEIR characters have their bonuses and uses, YOURS has yours.

IF all the other character roles adequately filled, Id be HAPPY to play a rogue.

Just understand that a rogue might not do something every single round, because he might be stealthing/setting up for a good shot or he might not do anything the whole combat because something is immune to his sneak attack?

Aww heck just extra time to check out the treasure chest.

We have a gnome archeologist in my current group…. he spends most of his time in total defense.

In fact, I gave him the wand of cure light wounds because he's the least likely character to GET hit… he's hardly ever IN combat if he can help it.

IS his character worthless?

In the Red Redoubt he disabled a trap DURING combat.

There are other things to do with your characters actions during combat rather than competing with the other players for "top dog spot"

the only thing that makes the rogue worthless is the opinions of armchair experts on these boards.

Get out an actually play one, they are plenty fun.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

Seriously, again, sans having a will of their own, common mindless undead are as mentally functional as human beings. *headdesk*

That's why they are good sentries, tomb guardians, laborers, and a general *****-minion to badguys who just need some dudes. They are functionally similar to highly advanced AI robots. They have no will of their own but are capable of solving basic problems.

For example, a skeleton armed with a sword and shield can both perceive its surroundings, and even deduce if an Illusion spell is real or fake. If someone makes an illusion that there is a hole in the floor, the skeleton will be able to see the hole and will adjust its movement routines. If the skeleton is subjected to the hole (such as is bull-rushed onto the illusory hole) it gets a Will save to disbelieve it just like any other creature. If it deduces that it is false, the skeleton would no longer need to alter its movement patterns.

Skeletons, Zombies, and Golems are not these useless moronic husks that are incapable of functioning. In fact, they are highly functioning automatons. They are effectively as capable of reasoning and performing tasks as human beings (again, +0 in all mental stats) except they have no will of their own.

The level of extreme ineptitude that is described here would make them entirely unusable in any capacity as villains save for ONLY Romero zombie wander-bite-wander, whereas skeletons, zombies, and golems have never been so utterly worthless in D&D.

before you get so high and mighty about how awesome you are:

Look up the definitions of both mindless and automaton.

and also think for a moment why you can't leave low wage workers (live human beings with brains) alone, unsupervised for extended periods of time, or children/teenagers for that matter, unsupervised.
Same goes for automated assembly lines (RL Automatons)

Truth is you can't just leave assembly lines OR low wage thinking human beings alone for long without coming back to see just exactly the above mentioned dysfunctionality.

You are trying to assert that low level undead have a higher level of functionality than real life humans.

Yet there is no existing fantasy trope to back up that assertion…..other than, and i quote you "it's something you just fabricated"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

undead are like robots….early robots of the "does not compute kind"…not jarvis or ultron.

if you can program a basic robot to mow a lawn or vacuum a rug, a zombie could plow a field..and you could walk away and do something else and it would continue to do that work, until there was no other work for it to do.

so if you left it "unattended" past the period of time for the task you gave it, one of two things would happen.
a) it would continue plowing the same field over and over again, or possibly plow the neighbors field or the road nearby.
or b) wander about in search of brains…possibly attacking anything living nearby.

what happens when you leave anything non intelligent alone for a specified task?
does it stop that task the minute you leave the room?

How does it know you left?

Does the oven immediately stop cooking the turkey and instead start a fire using the towels in the kitchen?

Or does it continue to cook the turkey, even 10 hours later, because you haven't come back and made it stop cooking the turkey?
the fire started because you never came back to stop the over from cooking the turkey.
NOT because you left the oven alone and it decided to do something else.

to do that, the oven would need to be intelligent, with decision making capability.

Zombies are like ovens… it ill keep doing the last thing it was set to do.
if you touch it…however you might get burned.

zombies have two settings….follow orders…. eat brains.
its going to default to one of those if not given any new orders.

Zombies can be given "if then statements"

"Dance with each other, IF people enter the room, Then eat brains"

If people never enter the room, they will dance for eternity.

if people enter the room, and they eat their brains, it is unclear what happens next… do they at that time mill about? or return to dancing?

question: wasn't the skeleton neutral in a past edition of the game?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Do we really think the game developers intended to give level 4 magus a pounce ability? Sorry guys this is common sense.

If the spell text trumps full attack you get a single attack as per the spell. There are no similar spells of similar level and strength. RAI seems clear here. It was intended to provide magus a charge ability with a bonus attack. Not pounce.

pigs can't fly.

unless you cast a spell that lets them fly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
Captain Zoom wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
I also Think the Bow need to be ready to threaten. So if you are Holding a thing in your other hand the bow is not ready and therefore you dont "wield" for the purpose go the feat.
I agree with you! If the PC is holding lanterns in both hands, he cannot draw the Shuriken as a free action and thus cannot us Snap Shot. However, per the FAQ, if he has a free hand, and can draw his thrown weapon as a free action, then he can use it with Snap Shot.
But doesn't he need Quick Draw to be able to pull shuriken as a free action?

It's treated as ammunition.

I would rule that subsequent ammo is a free action but to trigger the feat, one has to be in hand in the first place.

it can be a weapon OR ammo… not simultaneously a weapon AND ammo.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fraust wrote:
Klague was my original idea too...but tlague might work too.

I kinda thought they would sound like a cross between the joker, and the sloth from ice age.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

yea…i dunno about dumping str and dex, especially in PFS… you never know what other characters you will have around to rely on.

This seems like a character that will get grappled a lot and fail a lot of checks like climb, and swim.

I see this character drowning, falling or getting grappled to death.

(edit this character would make an excellent target for barbarians to body bludgeon with!)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

use a familiar to deliver them for you?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:

My one experience with low point buy was awful, because it applied only to the PCs. The NPCs were "rolled" randomly, and always had better stats than we did. We just got clobbered all the time, and then were told about all the loot that we had missed out on...

I am not concerned with low point buy if everything in the world matches it. If the whole adventure is balanced towards low point buy, the point buy does not matter. What really concerns me here is that the GM has stated he does not like Pathfinder.

GMs should not GM for game systems they don't like, because then they are endlessly "fixing" them. If you're playing under a GM who doesn't like the game, pretty soon no one will.

Either play a system that the GM likes, or step up and GM the kind of game you want to play.


the MAIN purpose for low point buy is to make the monsters more monstrous.

Ex. an ogre has an 19 str…. big deal when even half orc barbarian thats ever been in your party has that or better at 1st level.

You find a belt of giant str…no matter to just sell that, it's worthless, the barbarian can rage 18 rounds and day and is 1 point stronger…

The fantastic are more so with a 10 point buy.

IF you DO meet an 18 str PC, chances are he's raided points from his other stats and meets the stereo type, the balanced heroes will be more Bruce Wayne and Less BANE.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Thing is, in a point buy this low, the martial to caster power gap, is exacerbated.

Suddenly, you hit a point, where anyone who is not a caster, is so overshadowed, that they are pushed down to uselessness.

everyone argues this anyway.

at high levels, fighters still hit just about anything that they want to, and a few more damage points aren't going to catch them up to casters…BUT casters with lower casting stats have easier to make DCs for saves, so characters with good saves are more likely to actually make those saves.

for those who want to make wizards with 21 int and 7 in every other stat, they need fighter support even more, lest the wind blow and knock them over and they can't get up.

the superiority of god-wizards has always been supremely overstated on these boards and I have never seen this disparity in 10 pt campaigns.

Sure, wizards make a big bang above 12th level, but Ive seen players on their 3rd PC by that point because the other robbed iterations died.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just have a hard time dealing with being less powerful than the Elite Array Warrior, or Aristocrat.

I mean, even the Gamemastery Street Beggar is more powerful.

This means you are the heroes, but some random Hobo is better than you.

who says those stat arrays or npcs even exist in the 10 pt world?

in a 10 pt campaign you're very unlikely to meet an enemy fighter and much more likely to meet a warrior.

PCs are already special by virtue of having PC classes,and regular commoners are 0 pt builds. Everything remains relative.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I wouldn't describe them as shenanigans.

I never liked the whole spiked armor threaten everywhere loophole.

It can't be disarmed, it's every hard to sunder, it's always ready/available, it's very cheap and it doesn't require feat investment to work, with the expressed purpose of circumventing a designed in 'weakness' of using a reach weapon….

Yea I'd call that shenanigans.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Why would you judge people for their choices?

Jerk/Dick move on the DM's Part IS Judging.

WAY too much rage over a single campaign choice such as a ten point buy.
The ONLY people who get mad about something like that are people who see the game as "unplayable" without max primary stats.

IT's silly to be upset about it, and it's sillier to go out of one's way to create character with a maxed stat

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Meh, I agree with Kane, it sucks. 15 is hard enough to play any MAD class, 10 is just cruel.

You want advice? Check Meetup.com, it's where I find new groups.

15 point is the standard AP point buy,.

20 is the PFS point buy.

IF you are experienced, and play with optimizing min-maxers to begin with, this will make very little impact , with the exception of a few classes and choices.

Maybe the DM doesn't want to see 20 int, dex or str at 1st level. It gets a little ho hum when its all that every shows up at the table.

Are really good players going to be totally canceled out by missing a +1 here or there to one thing or another??

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anthony Kane wrote:

I'm going to say what everyone else here is thinking: Why bother?

Your DM is gimping you from the start, which in turn is forcing you to focus more on a "build" than a character, just so you can mechanically play the game.

Yeah sure you can mitigate it by focusing on SAD classes and builds that work around this limitation, but once again I ask, why bother?

I can understand low magic games where treasure is rare and players are forced to rely mostly on PC ability rather than what Item they can pull out of their bag of holding.

I can understand games where certain classes are restricted or banned for the sake of campaign flavor.

But a 10 point buy. That just sucks, plain and simple.

10 pt buy exists as part of the core rules, specifically listed as low fantasy… which puts it squarely in game of thrones/conan territory.

How many "Build" threads are on here focusing on needing at least 20 (and in some cases 25 pt) buys…. are they focusing on characters instead of the builds?

If you removed "build" theory crafting this place would be full of thespians…. and crickets.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

although a knight can be a landed noble, he is not always such.

When a lord or sovereign dubbed a knight he could also grant him land and titles. But not always.

A landed knight had additional responsibilities, like supplying soldiers, and agricultural tares from the land he was granted lordship over.

a landless knight (errant) had no such additional responsibilities and technically was not beholden to any such lord.

It was common for powerful such men that the lord was knighting (especially those the lord was wary of) to be actually granted lands nd titles, because the lord would have greater power over the knight and the knight would have something to lose if he angered the lord.

Thus is basically the difference between a Samurai and Ronn as well.
No one WANTED there to be Ronins running about, skilled knights with no responsibility or checks and balances? hell no!

It's far more likely PCs would get lands and titles, if only so the politicians can keep their thumb on them.

1 to 50 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>