Raziel Azazel's page

well... this is how I look at it, complicated builds normally stem from two schools of thought, you either come up with a really cool concept that you want to make work in the game like a guy who grapples dragons with a crank crossbow/barbed arrow combo and so you look though all of the books available to you to build this concept the best you can. the other alternative is to think of the mechanics first, you may have noticed that the martial artist monk archetype isn't required to be lawful, which means you that fatigued is no longer an issue.

nothing is wrong with either of these approaches but the drawback to both of them is that you end up with characters who start to look a little contrived in most campaign settings. I think one way to look at it is to not worry about optimisation, I think after a while the gamer mentality kicks in and people try to build the best possible version of the concept they have instead of just playing the concept. I myself am guilty of this, I had this concept of a rogue that uses shocking grasp a lot. super easy, just pick up the major magic rogue talent and pick it up. simple, but thats no way good enough for me, I want to Intensify my shocking grasp. so then try out the green sting slayer magus archtype, which has some flaws in its own that I ask to house rule/ fix with my gm. I then take it upon myself to build a class that does exactly what i want and yeah, I've ended up chasing the rabbit down the rabbit hole.

now, I think the reason why me and others try to multi class to get the combo we want etc. is because we want to create the concept we have in the game but were worried its gonna suck in game and we're just going to get outshined all the time. which happens a lot. we kind of find ourselves in this mechanical arms race with other players because we don't want to be the one contributing the least.

Magus Archtype, The Greensting Slayer.

The issue is with The Modified Arcane pool ability.

Normally magus have get this ability called arcane pool. where they can spend an arcane point as a swift action to give there weapon a +1 enchantment for 10 rounds. then at level 5 this enhances to +2 and every 4 levels it goes up by one. at level 5 magus can also give there weapon Shocking, Flaming, Keen, Vorple ect. needless to say, this is a really powerful ability.

what the green sting slayer does is replaces the enchantment with sneak attack, but the major problem is that you still have to spend an arcane point (you don’t get many and other things cost them as well) to give your next attack sneak attack. as you can see the problem. its way better to have a +1 weapon for 10 rounds than it is to get sneak attack on one attack that might not even hit.

and at level 5 when you can make your weapon flaming. so you can have a +1 flaming attack for 10 rounds, or you can get 2d6 sneak attack for one attack that might miss.

so what I’m proposing is that the Magus can spend an arcane point as a swift action to gain the sneak attack ability for 10 rounds with the same die progression. So a level 5 magus can spend one arcane point as a swift action to gain 2D6 sneak attack for the next 10 rounds.

Tiny + Gigantean Template.

Huge 7HD Lizard (27 STR)

Huge 7HD Parrot (26 STR)

Huge poisonous 7HD Platypus (26 STR)

Huge 7HD Raven (26 STR)

Huge 7HD Turtle (27 STR)

Huge {DINOSAUR!} 7HD Archaeopteryx (27 STR)

Huge 7HD Giant Botfly {EW} (26 STR)

Huge 7HD Cat (27 STR; scene from Dorkness Rising)

As may be obvious by now, I'm just going through the less than CR 1 bestiary and applying the template to tiny-sized creatures, making them huge-sized.

Making them a little more evil/problematic/monstrous/deserving of smiteousness/etc. is as "simple" see wat eye did thar as adding the fiendish, and creatures can be used even if they're originally diminutive with a "simple" see wat eye did thar?! giant template. Over-all, this makes CR 2-4 huge creatures that you can climb and and that are huge-sized and that are in need of smiting, and probably have weird-looking traits or elements.

Hope that helps!

wow, thats a massive help. saves me from applying the normal template 4 times lol.

I think in order to make the Shield Champion work, the shield in question really needs to be a Quick Draw Throwing Shield.

I think maybe you're overthinking it. I mean, lets take batman for example. in his bat cave he has a giant penny, a robot t-rex, mr freeze's ray gun, a kryptonite ring etc. its practically a museum of villainy, and this doesn't make batman a villain. I mean in the game theres a weapon called a klar which is literally a giant lizard skull, plus all of the stuff in the game that dragon parts are used for.

so yeah, don't think of it as a demon castle, think of it as a heroes trophy room.

The Sword wrote:

A God specific feat is there to simulate a behavior that the God encourages in her worshippers - in this case guzzling potions. A DM may well extend that to worshippers of other gods. Speak to your GM. As it stands now worshipping Urgathoa is a limitation.

I would find a worshipper of an evil god distasteful if I played a good character. It would have an in game effect on that character. As a GM I would have NPCs react similarly. Worshipping Demon lords would have an in game impact in our game.

two things

I thought good characters wouldnt be so judgemental

How do you tell what god someone worships by looking at them

since when does good mean uncritical? good people can think poorly of others for who they decide to venerate.

BlackJack Weasel wrote:

and to really stretch this. say both have an alliance of convenience. working together to kill the big bad. upon there travels they come across another evil that the paladin decides must be stopped. the assassin has no dog in this fight. could the paladin hire an assassin to aid in his quest to kill a villain?

Sure. Seems fine to me.

"Under exceptional circumstances a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good."

But your assassin doesn't sound Chaotic Evil to me.

He has a code of ethics. He won't hurt his friends, puppies, beautiful women, and probably has compunctions against harming children. This is indicative of a more Lawful/Neutral mindset than Chaotic.

He kills for money but why does he kill for money? Is he greedy? Is he doing it to survive? Was he indoctrinated in his skills by his assassin order and has only recently been cut free to do as he wishes? Is killing all he knows?

Being EVIL is a hugely meaningful thing. It means that somewhere in his core, that assassin enjoys killing others or lacks compassion in other human beings seeing them as nothing but stepping stones for his own path.

The reason I ask...is because these are questions the Paladin should ask.

There is no such thing as an "Evil character but he's not really all that Evil man." Either he's EVIL and the Paladin should absolutely Smite the dude to kingdom come or he's not really evil to begin with.

You can be an Assassin without being evil...just not the prestige class. There are probably tons of Slayers who are assassins that aren't necessarily evil.

I wouldn't really call what I described to be a code of ethics. he does and doesn't do things because he doesn't want to do them. its not like batman, and how the batman actually wants to kill the joker but refuses because it breaks his code of ethics.

I'd say having a code of ethics is to do good for goods sake, not cause you want to. I know it can get really confusing and meta and you could bring up the point that person a does good for good's sake because he wants to but yeah...

personally I think we disagree on what being evil is. I don't think evil characters have to be psychopaths or sociopaths or actively enjoy hurting people, Evil people in real life don't tend to think that way. I'm sure most people would agree that if we had to put Hitler on an alignment scale he'd be in the Evil category, but it doesn't mean he's more likely to kick a dog than to pet it.

Paladins dont go around "killing anything that is evil", because that also includes minor evil people who do mundane evil things, like bullying or wife-beating.

No "I walk down the street, activate Detect Evil, and start the slaughter of anyone who pings". This behavior is the caricature of a Paladin. Nor do you have to play him Lawful Stupid.

P.S.
The Punisher is Something Evil. Captain America is how a Paladin would behave.

personally I wouldn't call wife-beating a minor evil but I digress.

the issue I have with comparing the paladin to captain america though is that, most superheroes default is to deal non-leathal damage, whist the default in pathfinder is lethal to the point that to deal non-leathal damage means taking on a penalty to hit. I mean the thing that separates The Punisher from Captain america is that Captain America, Batman, Spider-man and Superman actively try to do non-leathal damage, at there own risk. and most people wouldn't play a paladin that way.

what do you mean by 'lose control' you mean actually submitting control of the character over to you the GM? or will it just be a way for him to start doing whatever he wants at the expense of the other players.

I mean, you have to think about the other characters in the party. how would they feel traveling with someone who would potentially turn on and kill them. even if he has a lot of valuable skills, they'd have to way the pro's and cons and if he isn't contributing more than anyone else and is still a threat to the party, it seems like the smarter thing to do will say. "sorry dude, you're too much of a liability. you're on your own."

Well, being Paizo's Creative Director and one of Golarion's creators, James is the source ;)

yeah, didn't realise until after I posted. Feel kinda like a dingbat now. Although I'm still struggling to understand them.

maybe a Daring Champion Cavalier? if your playing a character thats not armoured then he'd want to have high dex. and the Daring Champion combined with the Slashing Grace Feat allows you to get Dex to attack and Damage.

unfortunately slashing grace requires a free hand so you won't be able to use dex to damage if you want to wield two weapons, or a third in the mouth :p

Hi all, I have an idea for a crossbowman who's not afraid to get into melee and I'm trying to figure out how.

the Idea behind it all is to at later levels, be a greater snap shot/combat reflexes guy.

anyway, I've figured out how to not provoke with a lot of the actions.

Crossbow Mastery/Vigilant loading means I don't provoke when I reload while threatened.
is there anyway my character could fire whilst threatened without provoking.

I know at later levels because of Vigilant Shooter you can spent a grit point to fire without provoking, but that comes online very late and it costs a grit point.

I was wondering, would weaing a Cestus allow me to fire a crossbow in melee without provoking? if it does than great. mission accomplished.

so far the the obvious feat I'm aware of that allows a person to fire in melee without provoking is point blank master, but because of the weapon specialisation prerequisites the Bolt Ace can't qualify for it.

The other Feat I know of that might work is the Sword and Pistol Feat, though that would only work if I throw a punch with the cestus before I fire the crossbow, and the major issue with this is that you'd be using the cestus at a -2, and then a heavy crossbow at a -6 so you probably won't hit with the crossbow anyway, and if you planned on using rapid shot you're not at -2,-8,-8... which kinda sucks.

so yeah, how can a bolt ace fire in melee without provoking, without having to spend a grit point.

beginner box is great because it gives you a lot of the essential stuff you'll need to run a game. dice, pawns, map etc.

as for books, the ones I'd recommend are..

Core
Advanced Players Guide
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Magic

that way you'll have access for every base class.
of cause none of this is essential really. if you don't care about having all base classes in a book then I'd say don't worry.

why don't you and all of the characters in game just say to the samurai. were not gonna travel with you anymore, we don't like you. I mean what is he going to say, "no, I'm just going to follow you guys" then if he does just go to the local authorities and tell them that you have a stalker on your hands. if you do do that then the gm will probably focus on you guys, and the samurai would probably have to change his character if he actually wants to be a part of the party.

if you want you don't even have to tell him. when he's asleep everyone else just wake up and leave in the middle of the night. and leave a note saying "screw you samurai, were leaving."

You don't need a mechanic for it.

For me, it's so ridiculously unrealistic that I wouldn't allow a humanoid to do it at all (but I might allow some monsters with huge necks/mouths to pull it off, though their natural bite would probably be better anyway). But that's me. I like realism. Not everybody does.

So, ignoring realism for a moment, why not just do it?

The rules say "A light weapon is used in one hand." They go on to talk about how much STR mod you get with primary or off-hand or two-hand use.

So just ignore the part about "hand". Keep the rest about STR modifier. Now you can use a light weapon without hands (hold it in your mouth, or stick it in your ear, or find other body orifices that you might prefer) and swing it to your heart's content, but since it's not in your hand, there is no STR modifier for damage.

For a bit more realism, you might add additional houserules about weapon size. I find it unrealistic that a man could wield a short sword with his mouth, but a dagger might be plausible, and a needle is downright believable. So just require the weapon to be one size-category smaller if realism is a factor. No "medium" light weapons for a medium humanoid, but "small" light weapons might seem plausible, or even "tiny" one-handed weapons.

You probably should tack on the non-proficiency penalty because nobody trains to fight like this, so anyone doing it is automatically non-proficient with this kind of weapon-use. Then maybe add a feat (Handless Weaponry) that removes that non-proficiency penalty for anyone who actually does want to train this way.

Finally, don't let anyone get extra attacks from this. Using a longsword in your hand and a shortsword in your mouth should use the same rules as any other Two Weapon Fighting. And if you use three weapons (one in each hand and one in your mouth) then treat it like two weapon fighting but allow the guy to pick either non-Primary weapon to make his off-hand attacks (but he still doesn't get extra attacks).

None of it is RAW, but I...

first of all, thank you for ideas about how you would implement such a thing. but in all fairness, a game where you have wizards firing lightning bolts at dragons. I don't think its such a stretch to have a humanoid character be able to wield a sword within his teeth. I understand that one is magical, but if you have magic in a world I don't think its much of a stretch to believe that humans in said would be able to achieve extrodinary physical feats.

Hi all.

I have a character concept, somebody who keeps blinking around the battle field. teleporting behind someone to attack them. then quickly teleporting to the next, Ideally a kind of roguish character as teleporting behind someone to attack them seems pretty sneaky. it only makes sense to me to pair it with a character with a sneak attack class ability.

now to the nitty gritty. To pull of this kind of build I was looking at the Dimensional Dervish feat line. but the only way to get there is to have either dimension door or abundant step. which'll mean you can't even begin to start this build until roughly 10th level.

is there anyway to build this kind of character earlier in the game?

Just some idea's I'd throw out there.

the Fighter is the only one out of three core classes that starts out proficient in heavy armour without having to follow a strict code of conduct. you can use that to your advantage, perhaps your character was expected to walk a certain path in life, expected to become a paladin or a cavalier or for some reason rejected it or maybe was rejected by it. Maybe the character is fuelled by resentment of some kind or just doesn't want to be bound by any particular edict and values freedom.

the second idea I have is to focus on one weapon. maybe as a child she grew up in the circus with her bow, and perfected the art of marksmanship for her performance. Or maybe the character woke up in the middle of a forrest with no memory of who they were, the only thing to give them any clue as to who they are were clothes on their back and the sword planted into the earth next to them.

thats what I got anyway :p

lately I've been thinking that it would be cool to play a character who is essentially a talking, fighting Otter. He was a human/halfling. hadn't decided who has been cursed into being an anthropomorphic Otter. then I realised that the most recent popular character with the closest feel to what I'm after is Gardians Rocket Raccoon.

so yeah, I was wondering. are there any mechanics in the game for a rocket raccoon like character.

i'm actually pretty sure they I don't know how to make a non-optimized character, i'm just drawn to making good descisions, so it's be more like how many of my feats do i put in sub-optimally 50% 25%? do i only use 60% of my point buy on useful stats?

i wouldn't know where to begin or end my optimization. I also, don't particularly have feats or point buy affect my character's personality or story, so this wouldn't affect the kind of person i was playing, i'd simply be doing this make sure other people were having fun with their stuff.

of course i mean, my favorite race is kobolds, so take this was a grain of salt, it's just i still often push disadvantages into advantages.

its not about purposefully denying yourself things. and its not even about being good at a wide variety of things like John Lynch was saying. its more like...

I think it would be really cool to play a one armed fighter. think about what kind of character that would make, a warrior who lost his arm but is still unafraid to fight. hell, maybe he wants to slay the dragon that ate his arm.

then you think about it mechanically, that means no two handed weapons, no power attack, no shield. maybe give yourself a +1 to dodge cause theres less of you to hit or something but then your stuck asking yourself. is the benefit of getting to play this cool character outweighed by how much he will suck in the game mechanically, and unfortunately the answer is yes. but what if all of the other players felt the same way, the all created a character they wanted from a character stand point and not a mechanical standpoint. what if you want to play a 10 year old barbarian whose weapon of choice was a sling? or a cursed character who, turned into a rabbit at in the dark, meaning at night, in dungeons and caves. if he drifted to far from the torch or the light spell he turned into a rabbit.

these ideas could make awesome fun characters, but the moment somebody in the group decides to play a super awesome their one build that can deal 50 damage with every swing and not a single weakness whilst everyone else is averaging 10...

I'm kinda just rambling now but do you see my points.

I know a few feminists who would say "Absolutley!" followed by "And those things should be outlawed and removed at birth!!!".

Nobody really listens to them. I hope.

Oh, wait, that's not a euphemism?

In that case:

Pathfinder SRD, Magic Items, Rods wrote:

Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs because of their hardy construction.)

So check the description of the rod; if it's noted that it can be used as a weapon then it certainly can be, and if not, well, they're still "sturdy items made of iron or other metals that have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27" which still sounds like a weapon to me, but that's for you and your GM to decide if it's a mace, a club, an improvised weapon, or something else entirely.

do you mind not using my thread about pathfinder rulings to rag on feminists.

I was just wondering how you would create marvel heroes in pathfinder, this is some of the stuff I had in mind, a lot of it clearly breaks rules, like giving characters monster abilities but what do you think? do you agree or disagree and If you have ideas how to make other heroes feel free to post.

Ironman - Bard/Alchemist - Construct Armour Iron Golem - Skill Focus; Craft
Captain America - Shield Champion - Adamantine Shield - Leadership - Skill Focus; Diplomacy
Hawkeye - Arcane Archer
Daredevil - Ninja - Monster ability; 100 ft Blindsight, 200 ft Blindsense - Rod of Balance. Skill Focus; Sense Motive, Intimidate, Acrobat
Wolverine - Beast Totem Barbarian - Monster Ability; Heal
Ghost Rider - Dullahan - Eldrich Heritage; Infernal
Spiderman - Brawler - Monster Ability; Special Attack: Web - Skill Focus; Acrobat, Climb

I'm with DominusMegadeus. I don't understand, if one of the characters flew up to the monsters eye, make them role a dirty trick combat manoeuvre and attempt to blind it. if it failed the check, it doesn't blind the monster and does no damage, as for striking the monster through the eye to get to the brain. if a creature was helpless you can't even do that,

"Helpless

A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets his sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.

Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace."

just start enforcing the mechanics of the game. there is no mechanic in the game for stabbing out someones eye, then stabbing the brain through the eye socket. but there are mechanics for blinding, and attacking a helpless opponent.

this may seem like a weird question. but its got me wondering, the ruling states that the fire does not harm the wielder. does that mean the wielder doesn't have a choice? a person with a sword could stab themselves if they wanted to, but within the mechanics of the game. is it impossible to inflict burning damage to yourself if you stab yourself with a flaming weapon?

the reason I ask was because I was thinking about a sword and board character. the board was a flaming wyrmsbreath weapon. and the sword was flaming. could the user stab himself with the flaming weapon to charge up the wyrmsbreath shield?

you can always just turn around and say "our characters don't want to travel with your character" you can in-game kick him out the party. if a character does stupid things, a character will suffer the consequences. you won't work with the party then you work against the party. and the party will punish you for it.

rolling and point buy are both flawed. rolling is completely random which makes the party unbalanced and thus unfair. point buys problem is that most of the time. people min max to get the most optimal character they can, which results in the same old characters. you hardly ever see a charismatic or intelligent barbarian. which is a shame.

I would love to play in a game in which everyone agrees not to play the most optimal of characters, but if one person does it everyone has to do it otherwise there character seems ridiculously op by comparison.

so yeah. both are flawed and I don't have a decent alternative.