Adivion Adrissant

Redneckdevil's page

Organized Play Member. 786 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started with beginners box and worked right into rotrl and the dragon escaped. What Ii did was replaced the red dragon with the black dragon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can drown a troll or starve them to death and fast healing is just a cheap man's version of regeneration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is not allowed with retraining because u have to still have the prerequisites BEFORE and not from the prestige class.
When retraining was first introduced, these questions popped up and the devs came in and stated that the prestige classes did not count towards having the prestige classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fonv
Morrowind (there's a mod that's a combination of several mods that's easy af to install)
Witcher 3
Pillars of eternity
Grim Dawn
Divinity original sin
ALL of the shadowruns (returns, dragonfall, Hong Kong) seriously this one, these RPGs have impressed and I thought was the most fun


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay so long time GM/DM and one of my players is taking a stab at GMing (yay!!!) and he's running rise of the runelords. I'm gonna be playing a bard (all time fav class) and I have an idea of a human bard fiddler who is more focused on Magic (support/damage) than mundane attacking.
Now this is this players first time gming so I don't wanna break his game, but any suggestions for spells and feats for me? So excited I get to play that I'm having a block in creating this character. Tyvm in advance :)

Also forgot to add that this character will most likely be the face/Magic user of the group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a long time republican, I have no idea who to vote for. While I can like Trump's bluntness and even agree to quite a few of the "problems" he brings up, his ideal solutions and the way he goes about things just either make me have my whole body cringe or have my head almost fall off from shaking back and forth wondering "wtf?", I can't vote towards Hillary either.
From the wiki links showing the polls scandles, to Bernie never having a chance,.....to how the AG has handle the case, from her husband signing the bill that okay'd homeland companies to go offshore that caused our economy to tank royally which we still haven't recovered thanks to Bush Jr. and his stupid war, to her supporting TPP until it showed it was hurting her and she flipped on it but then has a VP who is in support of it it seems....
I'm just disgusted at both sides candiadates. Both of them are equally horrendous in different ways. I'd like to vote for Gary Johnson because he's the only one who I can feel morally okay with voting but the way it is right now neck to neck, tbh I feel like I'm just throwing my vote in the trash. Sigh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually will have the feats for the first 3 or 5 levels determined and if faster the spells I would be learning. Afterwards I just go with what makes sense with what's been going on. My characters aren't very optimal but I'm able to contribute. The thing is if u have a GM who is using scenarios or enemy tactics that require specializing to advance, then u the player would need to start following suit. But u can play pathfinder very easily without having to optimize as well, just be a bit harder but for some people that's exciting.

I don't have a problem with players mapping out their progress. I do have a pet peeve of players building a concept and it requiring items to make it so and the players expecting those items in my games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

16 bit, ff6 hands down. I just started playing it again and realized how much I have missed the music and how it can still capture me at a much older age now.

8bit-I'm gonna be oddman out and say metroid. That music was so alien and gave off that vibe of being surrounded by the unknown that we the player can't understand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
This is going on my Christmas list now. Just gotta find other books that are taking place in ustaluv now. Back to searching.
You'll want to check out Prince of Wolves - that's the only one I'm aware of. Guilty Blood, the fiction from the Carrion Crown AP, is also good. ^_^

Tyvm. And I do agree, I loved that story in the AP :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is going on my Christmas list now. Just gotta find other books that are taking place in ustaluv now. Back to searching.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certain constructs and golems
Cythnigot
Zombies
Aranea
Mongrelmen
Insects
Slimes
Akata
Swarms
Attic whisperer
Bodaks
Faceless stalker


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now yal got me thinking about creating a silver surfer character now of a sorcerer with some type of bloodline to turn them a silver color floating and surfing the skies on a floating disk in the shape of a surfboard specced in shooting Rays all day.....

Tyvm my players will either love yal or hate yal lmao


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will give Malachi this, each example he/she gave that restricted what actions u could take made sure to include in the examples of u could take free actions or swifts. This condition does seem to omit that where the others made sure to spell out u could still take free actions or swifts if restricted to move or standards.

So he/she maybe on to something.

Edit-okay I just re read and looked up all the conditions and EVERY single one that restricts movement to a single action (weither standard or a movement action) strictly spells out about free actions, swift actions, verbal, no actions, and even mental actions. Every single one EXCEPT nauseated. Now weither it was accidently omitted from the 3.5 version or on purpose, Malachi does have a point that by RAW u cannot use free or swift actions while nausiated, because every single other one spells out what other actions (free, swift, verbal, mental, no actions, etc) except this condition. Weither by typo or on purpose, I'm gonna say Malachi actually is right on this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

100. Openly ponder W.W.G.P.D. in this situation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oi! Look at that deadly Chimera! Look at its strong jaws as it snaps the cattle bones and rips the flesh off as easily as taking a wrapper off a burger! Look at its huge claws and how easily it sinks into the cattles flesh like the flesh was made outta butter!.....

I'm gonna poke it with a stick!.......Ow s!@&! Its angry!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or just remove touch ac from gunslinger and make them spend a grit point to hit touch ac


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was doing some reading and researching for ideas of a campaign im gonna do and i came across some interesting things about aboleths and veiled ones etc. It got me thinking how aboleths and dragons would perceive each other.
Now when we think of aboleths we think of giant ferocious intelligent and manipulative fish and dragons we think of giant ferocious flying element breathing lizards. But they are both intelligent and both can assume human forms and both have manipulated mankind to one degree or another.
So it got me thinking, what would happen if there was both assuming human forms in a human kingdom. How would they perceive one another if they found out about one another is really the nitty gritty of my question. Woukd they even consider the other and if they did would it be on friendly, foe, or nuetral terms in general situations?
I see some good ideas here but i cant for the life of me find any material about this and was wanting to know what you think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"The only action....." part basically says it right there. Nothing else, ONLY action (swift/free/move/standard/full round/etc) is a single move action. Only that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VegasHoneyBadger wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
If dexterity can steal strength's things should the opposite be true? A feat to apply strength to AC? Strength to reflex save?
I think this person hit it on the head why they havent and may not create that. Agility already has alot of purposes and this would put the nail on using strength for many builds.
This is a fantasy game and most people want to role play out character ideas. A dex based fighter is a pretty common idea. When we start building these characters and find ourselves feat starved and ineffective it spoils the experience. I understand that there are many uses for dex and not many for strength, but that doesn't change the fact that dex based fighters are not effective. Even with this feat TWF dex fighters will find themselves outshined by the strength based two handed fighters. That is fact, and that should be remedied.

Ahh ok, i think i see the point of view now. Ill admit that im of the opposite opionion on dex fighters being ineffective because i dont base it tic for tat with the dmg output of something else.

tbh i think even with hit and dmg added by dex against strictly a str based 2handed fighter it wont compete tic for tat and that added a new feat wont help it. I think basically taking off the extra 1/2 str 2handers get to dmg will basically even out the dmg output than adding a feat to give agility to dmg would. Because then it wouldnt add agility dmg to ALL weapons, only the ones finessable which woukd mean the base dmg woukd still be lower than a str based 1hander fighter gets on all melee weapons (meaning options for dmg outputs because str based will still have a higher weapon selection).

But i will bow out as i see im a different mindset in creating characters. I dont create characters to compete against other classes, i just create characters that do what i set it up for with the knowledge that sometimes going outside the box doesnt mean that i will be on equal footing or higher than something already established and im ok with that. Not saying the other ways or reaeons for creating characters are badwrongfun, not at all. Just bowing out because i have a different view being discussed :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
If dexterity can steal strength's things should the opposite be true? A feat to apply strength to AC? Strength to reflex save?

I think this person hit it on the head why they havent and may not create that. Agility already has alot of purposes and this would put the nail on using strength for many builds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

dot


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Counter argument: is the OP dickish?

because knowing there's a paladin in the group and he can't work with Evil characters, he's going ahead and making an evil character.

He knows there's going to be problems, he's even trying to find a way to circumvent it, but his 'character concept' is everything, so when it finally happens, whose fault is it going to be?

Make your character N and forget about the LE. IF he's LE, he's probably following Asmodeus on the sly, since he's out to 'save the universe' too.

==Aelryinth

Neither, it's the GM's fault for allowing it to happen. But it's more the paladin's fault than the OP's as just because the OP has an evil aura doesn't mean the paladin can kill him. That's unlawful and would require an alignment penalty. Should they both be in the same group? Probably not, but that's up for the GM, not up for the PC's to kill each other over.
The problem isn't specifically with the paladin either. You are right that the paladin shouldn't just haul off and kill the evil character, but he should refuse to associate with him. Which means either the evil character can't be a part of the group or the paladin can't be a part of the group. In this sense, as the paladin already exists and is part of the group, it should not be expected that the evil character would be permitted to join the adventuring group, in character.

Very true, just like if there are already evil characters in the group someone shouldnt expect their paladin to be able to join either. Working both ways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say this. My fondest memory was being 13 yrs old and buying silent hill on ps and going home to play. It was night time and storming, and my parents went outta town to party with some friends....pure terror. This wasnt the terror of "omg the thing is gonna get me", it was the terror of "do i really wanna see whats around the corner because i dont think my sanity can take it".
That feeling that i havent felt since came back as i was playing the trailer. Granted i had no idea it was silent hill nor did i watch or look up anything on it.

I literally cannot wait for this game to come out. I will play it the dark with the sound up and the darkness on so that it literally feels dark. I may even let my youmg children sit in and experience the horrors with me, as my father did when i was young in the 80s and the horror movies he bring home for me and him to watch weither i wanted to or not. I miss those days and damn i still say the 80s had the best scary movies still lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Doting for great interest as well. Please be true!!!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Spell resistance is pretty sad defense. Those Explosive Runes should be sitting at Caster level 27 pretty easily and when you tack on a +6 bonus from Otherwordly Kimono you are already at +33, add on a +3 luck bonus, +4 from feats and what exactly does a roll of a 1 equal? Oh... 41 huh. Sucks to be Cthulhu.

Would suck if he rolled a natural 20 on his save...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He chose the keep the points that had a 3 in it. With the goblin dog, he now knows that he has to be careful. Dont shy away away if the adventure has things that will damage charisma, but dont throw anything extra in there that can target that, he will have enough to worry about protecting his charisma already.
the critical fumbles and whatnot, i love them. If u have already stated ur using them and the players didnt object, then by all means go for it. BUT heres the thing, they are to add flavor and imho i wouldnt let something that supposedto add flavor kill said character. So i would have ruled he took one point of burn damage or whatnot. I would retcon the ruling for the cha dmg and make it something else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:

We were playing Call of Cthulhu, and it was set in the city of Sarajevo. The current in-game date was June 28, 1914. To make it accurate for the location, all of the players were playing Serbs. And we were helping a guy named Gavrilo Princip hunt down a Mythos cult and had just uncovered evidence that a certain guy and his wife who liked really, really fancy clothes that we saw around a lot were behind the cult. What we didn't know was that the info was wrong.

Anyone familiar with that date, that city, or the guy we were helping can probably see where this is going.

So, rather than give the info to Gavrilo, we decided to handle it ourselves. Plus, we were kinda tired of him doing all of the important work and wanted to do it ourselves for once. Well, it turns out there was a good reason he was doing all of the important work...

Anyway, we used our credentials as being special investigators hired by the Austrian-Hungrian ruler to get access to the guy and his wife in private. Knowing how dangerous Mythos threats were and having talked our way out of trouble, we burst into the guy's bedroom and gunned down him and his wife.

The GM calmly informed us that we just assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and started World War 1.

Then the GM rolled initiative for the guards...

That is just bloody awesome!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

They need to stop using same names for abilities if they dont stack or influence the other classes in same character.

But im on pain meds so im gonna point to that faq in core about channeling. It states that even though clerics have channeling, and paladins, necromancers, and even oracles, they dont stack and only effect that class. Aka channel all those classes have it BUT because it doesnt specifically state it stacks it doesnt effect other classes.
the whole fighter is only to reference what bonuses u get so it didnt have to retype all those words. The wording is the same for abities like fast healimg and regeneration, regeneration state fast healing so u look at it and see what ur getting BUT u are not getting fast healing, ur getting regeneration.

Ok drug fueled rant over, im out.

I hope you look again at what SKR says, after your meds wear off. It says the exact opposite!

It doesn't say it stacks, it says that despite all the minor differences in controlling stat, times/day, mix of positive/negative, despite all of these differences they both count as Channel Energy! Extra Channel is one feat that applies to either.

And by the same token, Weapon Training counts as Weapon Training(!), no matter which class gives it.

This is confirmed by the comments about Gloves of Duelling. If it walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck, and the plumage don't enter into it!

It looks like a duck but it aint walking or quaking just like a duck as many people have pointed out. The only thing that is similar is the name and the bonuses u get. The group of weapons is not the same, the level is not the same, and it also has extra wording that the fighter doesnt have.

you are looking at the class ability like its a feat which it isnt. Feats tell u what the prerequisites are and u have the option to chose or not chose them. Class abilities are a bit different in that the only prerequisite it has for that class ability is the level in that class it gives the ability unless it specifically states it stacks (assassins sneak attack) or can be used with another classes ability (ninjas ki pool) and u have to chose them unless it specifically staes u can chose or ur doing an archetype.
unlike a feat u cannot gain a class ability, only until u have reached that classes level. Take the faq on bonus spells, at character creation due to ur ability scores u gain extra spells but it specifically states u are to ignore those extra spells until u gain the right level in which to use them because even though u gained the extras spells u have not met the prereq in being that classes level to cast them.

the channel energy faq about stacking and does have merit in this discussion. What that faq is saying is even though the cleric, paladin, necromancer, and oracle all have channel energy they do not influence the other classes abilities even though they have the same name. Meaning u cannot have a 3lvl cleric/4lvl paladin/3lvl oracle channeling 6d6 energy because even though they have the same ability and same ability name, it does not influence or enhance or whatever with the other classes ability of the same name because they are specifically for that class and must be used seperately unless it specifically sates it does. just like a weapon master and a sohei both have the same class ability of weapon training but because of this faq, since they dont specifically state they stack, they do not influence the other classes abilities. otherwise the 3 lvl cleric/4th level paladin/3lvl oracle having the same class ability channel energy, it would influence the other classes in what that channel energy would end up being but it doesnt meaning they can only channel 2d6 when they channel. so yes u are correct in that for FEATS their abilities would all count the same for prereqs for the feat. class abilities are not feats though.

the cleric, paladin, and oracle classes each get icecream but they cant combine their icecream together and eat at same time in one big icecream dish, it has to be eaten each one seperately. so yes weapon master is having icecream and the sohei needs to have icecream to flurry with it, but the weapon master cant share his icecream with the sohei, because the sohei has to wait til lvl 6 to get the icecream to flurry with.

Its a class ability (aka prereq is being a certain level in THAT class, not a feat. they are seperate and not the same. If this was a feat a class gained, yes u could use this combination to gain the feat earlier, but it isnt a feat and its a class ability and the only way to gain class abilitys is to be a certain level in that class.

yes im gonna be on meds for awhile though lol until i get this damn broken infected wisdom tooth yanked out later this week.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I had a GM once who thought Critical Fumbles were a great idea. I took the tables, ran some descriptive stats on them, and it showed typical PCs would be permanently maimed, at a minimum, by the time they reached 3rd level.

Oh, you and your silly "statistics" and "common sense"... :D

Best test for fumble rules I've heard yet: "Run a combat of 10 level 1 Warriors against 10 straw dummies (Medium inanimate object, AC 5). For 2 minutes (20 rounds) each Warrior makes 1 attack per round against the dummies; the dummies do not attack back.
If (at the end of 20 rounds) any of the Warriors are dead or dying then the DM must butter his fumble rules and eat them." - hewhosaysfish, GitP forums

challenge accepted.

using 5 warriors and 5 wizards casting acid splash. to make it even warriors have 0 str mod and using a sickle to crit on natural 20. using the crit and fumble deck from paizo

warrior1- 9, 17, 14, 6, 10, 17, 10, 13, 13, 14, 10, 10, 2, 15, 19, 5, 3, 5, 2, 12
warrior2- 6,9,14,12,2,6,9,3,20(5)norm dmg+permanent blind (ref saves), 10,14,5,14,17,14,9,5,7,14
warrior3-12,1(15),18,16,15,3,1(5),14,10,11, 14,1(15),14,7,9,17,10,8,2,9
warrior4-8,14,3,8,5,12,4,18,6,3,18,14,10,10,7,5,18,11,16,12
warrior5-2,5,6,4,12,10,8,6,16,9,11,10,9,11,11,16,4,15,17,6

wizard1-5,6,6,5,19,15,4,10,10,12,15,10,13,15,7,13,16,14,2,2
wizard2-10,17,6,13,16,2,5,12,1(7),7,8,20(13)x2dmg+daze1rnd, 2,12,10,14,16,14,6,8
wizard3-17,1(12),18,4,10,9,4,10,20(9)x2dmg+2d6 random energy dmg,13,12,10,18,18,17,19,15,6,1(3)take2d6electricity dmg (3dmg),18
wizard4-18,16,9,16,16,18,19,11,12,8,18,17,6,6,13,13,12,18,13,18
wizard5-5,8,4,18,1(16),17,6,3,15,17,15,17,8,5,6,10,12,2,16,6

mmmmm no one died at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im curious, since the faq spefifically states we cannot look ahead, where in the fighters version does it say we can flurry with said weapons? It doesnt. The only place it does say we can is if we look AHEAD which the faq specifically states we cannot.
you look at what you have before you and u go off that. You do not look ahead whatsoever.
reason why you are wrong malekai is bcause you are looking ahead. If u had specifically ONLY what you have at those levels, NOTHING states u can flurry with said weapons. NOTHING. The fighters version makes no mention of it and no currwnt levels BEFORE level 6 state u can flurry with said weapons.
Per the faq, u look at what u have and what the abities say they do. Future abilities and whatnot DO NOT EXIST or are not relevant UNTIL u have gained them. Otherwise the knowledge does not exist. Yes the exist in a book or pdf etc etc, but to the character, ONLY what they have and what they state is what u go off.
so following the faq and not looking ahead, where does it state in ur sohei 1/weaponmaster 3 in strictly ONLY those abilities u have thus far does it state u can flurry with said weapons? It doesnt. It states it in a level 6 ability and since u are looking ahead and not at ur current levelsis WHY u cannot flurry per the faq.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is the profession or crafting skill for turning diamond dust back into a diamond? What isthe crafting dc of this?
I was of the understanding that fabricate would let you succeed at a crafting check and i thought the whole reason why this wasnt possible was because turning diamond dust back into a diamond...there didnt seem to be a reliable agreement on which craft to use or even what the crafting woukd be without the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dotting and i hope its ok i steal these ideas and letters for my future campaign


1 person marked this as a favorite.

from pathfinder chronicles monsters revisted pg 60-

Because of this, trolls rarely grow to what
scholars would consider old age—generally, trolls live to
be about 40 years old. Trolls are still subject to some of the
risks that humans are: they can be killed by viruses that
inhibit their regenerative abilities, and drowning, fire,
and acid put an end to trolls in quick order. Starvation can
also end a troll’s life. A full-grown adult troll needs up to
half its body weight in food every day. After only a few days
without sufficient food, a troll’s regenerative abilities cease
to function. Once it loses its regeneration, a troll quickly
succumbs to starvation or other natural hazards. Troll
family groups sometimes bind weak trolls, dump them
into pits, and leave them to starve to death. More often, a
weak or ill troll is simply drowned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
seebs wrote:

You're allowed to cast a spell at a reduced caster level, but not below the lowest level at which you could cast it.

I am not sure that saves us from the wiz19/clr1 casting cure critical wounds, though, because obviously when substituting wizard slots they use their wizard caster level, right?

Actually, here's a puzzler for you: Imagine for the sake of argument we think you can swap them out.

What casting stat determines the save DC?

The lvl 19 wizard isnt able to substitute his spell slot out for the cure light wounds, its the lvl 1 cleric ability thats able to do so. The cleric ability and not the wizards ability is the one taking a spell from the wizards slot and the cleric ability is using the wizards spell slot to cast the cure spells. The caster is not actually casting a wizard spell, it is sacrificing a wizards spell slot for the cleric to cast a spell.

The DC would still fall under the clerics stats because its not the SPELL thats being modified, but the ability to cast it so the spell cure lights wounds would still fall under the cleric class DC and stats.

Basically in a nut shell, with it being the clerics ability thatthe cleric can swap any prepared spell for a cure spell, it doesnt matter where he got it from (aka gave up a 8th lvl spell slot, druid 4th level spell slot) because u are giving up (not casting that spell but simply throwing it away) for the cleric to cast a cure spell due to his level etc etc.

This isn't the case. When a wizard/sorcerer adds the bloodline damage to his prepared fireball he doesn't use charisma as the save stat or casting stat. He isn't limited to only adding +1 per dice that he would get if it was using a sorcerer slot to cast. He isn't limited to adding the extra damage to spells of a level he could cast as a sorcerer.

Plainly, the class feature doesn't "carry over" to the second casting ability. The class feature applies to the second casting ability fully and independently.

The reason why the save stat and casting stat arent changed is because the class was eligible to cast the spell in the first place and since they are able to cast the spell and follow the rules, the bloodline modified the spell. In each of those cases of it adding damage, prolonging the spell, etc etc it was still following the rules that the class who had the spell was eligible to cast the spell.

the cleric ability is a whole different beast because it differs in all the examples in that if we sacrifise a wizard slot, the wizard LOSES and does not cast the spell. The cleric makes the wizard lose his slot and cast a spell the cleric is eligible to cast.
its modifying spellcasting AND following the rules on what a class can cast of their own spells.
that scenario both rules are in agreeance whereas the cleric uses the wizard spellslot and cast a spell the cleric does not met the requirements for does not follow both rules.

In all the bloodline examples they give, it modifys spells the caster is eligble in casting correct? The spellcasting is modified and the spell is modified and the rules of meeting the requirements are all met. The cleric wizard using wizard levels to determine the cleric spell does not follow all the rules.

It is not an exception to the rules because we are using the sorcerer faq as guidelines and in all those examples the bloodline modifys other classes spells, they met the requirement for casting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:

You're allowed to cast a spell at a reduced caster level, but not below the lowest level at which you could cast it.

I am not sure that saves us from the wiz19/clr1 casting cure critical wounds, though, because obviously when substituting wizard slots they use their wizard caster level, right?

Actually, here's a puzzler for you: Imagine for the sake of argument we think you can swap them out.

What casting stat determines the save DC?

The lvl 19 wizard isnt able to substitute his spell slot out for the cure light wounds, its the lvl 1 cleric ability thats able to do so. The cleric ability and not the wizards ability is the one taking a spell from the wizards slot and the cleric ability is using the wizards spell slot to cast the cure spells. The caster is not actually casting a wizard spell, it is sacrificing a wizards spell slot for the cleric to cast a spell.

The DC would still fall under the clerics stats because its not the SPELL thats being modified, but the ability to cast it so the spell cure lights wounds would still fall under the cleric class DC and stats.

Basically in a nut shell, with it being the clerics ability thatthe cleric can swap any prepared spell for a cure spell, it doesnt matter where he got it from (aka gave up a 8th lvl spell slot, druid 4th level spell slot) because u are giving up (not casting that spell but simply throwing it away) for the cleric to cast a cure spell due to his level etc etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mmm i dont think its much more reading but they are very similiar fast healing and regeneration and it even seems to be calling out the not dying to hp damage is in contrast to fast healing while everything is the same besides the regrowth of limbs.

Also lets not just focus on one part of the sentence though.
"Creatures with regeneration heal DAMAGE at a fixed rate, as with FAST HEALING, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures would still fall unconscious when hits points are below zero).
Just by reading it, u can either focus on "cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" and come yo the conclusion that "cannot die at all whatsoever from anything" or u can take in the WHOLE sentence and the ONLY damage it states in the sentence is hp damage and conclude the "cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is because "creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing," meaning that regeneration saves u from hp damage and nothing else. Or else they woukd have simy stated in a sentence all of its own that creature cannot die as long as regeneration is still functioning.
both sides have very good points to their sides.

To add this this is the sentence from fast healing that i believe the sentence is trying to state where regeneration and fast healing differ.
"Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediantly."

"Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing (fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediantly), but cannot die (from loss of hit points scenario stating in fast healing) as long as regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0 (since at time written Fast Healing-except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing which would also fall unconscious when below 0))


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mmmm ok.
the sorcerers faq basically means whatever spell u cast it will modify all spells the sorcerer can cast even from different classes.
going over all the modifications, i dont see any situation where it actually changes the spell u cast into another spell.
u cast a fireball but instead of fire u want ice? Ok can do, BUT its still the fireball spell.
want to cast a balemorph spell and make it last longer? Ok can do, but its still the same spell.

Now with the cleric and sorcerer using said faq.
u want to sacrifice a burning hands spell for a cure light wounds....whole different scenario.
here u are doing something the faq doesnt say because everytime with said faq, u were casting a spell and changing it, but itbwas always THAT spell u cast. That fireball spell u fhanged to ice damage didnt bcome a new spell called iceball, no it was still fireball that did ice and not fire. Here u are not casting a fireball spell and modifying it to cure someone but still be a fireball spell, no u are giving up a fireball spell and casting a cure light wounds.

Doesnt fit or follow the modifications the faq states.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick F wrote:

When I read the paragraph, it specifically spells out the *mechanics of an encounter*, which includes the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter and the information written in the stat blocks for these opponents. Additionally, if an encounter already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather or hazards, they are also considered *mechanics of the encounter*. However, terrain and environmental conditions are also defined as *flavor of a scenario* by the opening paragraph.

Environmental and terrain conditions are effects that are written into the flavor of a scenario that GMs *may* use if the mechanics are not specifically included to run in the scenario. However, please note this sentence also indicates that environmental and terrain conditions are defined and designated as "flavor of a scenario". There may be mechanics involved with environmental and terrain conditions, but still nonetheless they are also considered flavor of a scenario.

The text also states that the GMs may use *other* Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of the encounters as outlined above. Weather and terrain are NOT included on the list unless the scenario specifically includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather or hazards. Therefore, the GM cannot alter the mechanical effect of terrain, weather or hazards if written specifically in the scenario. However, nothing expressly prohibits adding environmental and terrain conditions as "flavor of a scenario".

The argument that environmental and terrain effects can be added to the scenario by the GM is validated by the fact that environmental conditions and terrain are considered flavor of a scenario and the "GM may use *other* Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change mechanics of the encounters." The text specifically defines what "mechanics of an encounters" means. You can add flavor to a scenario by adding environmental and terrain conditions, but you can't...

I havent played society before but from what i read is this about weather.

if the module states there is a storm going on but doesnt list any mechanical effects, u have the choice to add if u chose such as the -8 perception, making range weapon attacks impossible, and it extinguishing torches and candles and such. You can chose to or chose not to because it was stated. The storming being the flavor that u have the right to add mechanics or not.
if the module says its sunny and perfect weather, u do not have the right to change or add a weather and its mechanics to it. So if they are on a narrow ledge traveling and the modules says its sunny or doesnt add a weather to it, u cannot add a storm to make it slippery and add mechanics to it.
So in a nutshell what i read was if there is already a stated weather but no mechanics listed, u can add the mechanics if u choose. If there is no weather stated or already an establish one, u cannot add a weather or a change the weather bcause u are changing the flavor and changingthe module.

Does that sound correct?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If u feel the wizard is basically spamming the spell and u are in a homebrew game, remember what every player should know. "Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander". Have said wizard encounter a lil bit higher level wizard who flys and just spams pit on the wizard. Hell u could set it up by having a "pet" or something the wizard loved and if the wizard does the pit, have the wizard fly intoa rage and just spam pit onto said wizard for retaliation. Of cohrse do not kill the wizard, just basically have the wizard cast pit eerytime the wizard got out of one and fly off and or go invisible or whatnot.

Of course that is a very bad idea but when players take advantage of a certain ability and spam it constantly sucking out your fun and trivolizing ur work and effort, sometimes its nice and fun to think of ways we problemly never should act on to show and let said person experience how it feels to be on the receiving end.

Thankfully there are many ways to counter as posters have stated and even make the spell last the full duration even when combat is over.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A caharacter with very low cha scores but high diplomancy skill....im reminded of a shakespearian play with a fellow with an enormous nose but could sweet talk the pants off ladies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pandamonium1987 wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Pandamonium1987 wrote:

Maybe it's unfair, but it's just.

Sorry mate but I think you need to recheck the definition for just.

"based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
"a just and democratic society"
synonyms: fair"

I think a more accurate statement would be "It's not fair, but it makes the game more fun for the other players." or "It's not fair, but it enhances game balance for the players who put in less effort in character creation."

But most certainly it is neither just nor fair. It is in fact punishing a player for putting effort into the game/knowing the rules.

Of course your interpretation it's what I meant, but I don't side with your conclusions. I'm not punishing a player for knowing the rules, I'm punishing a player because he contributes to the game just quoting the rules. I would never punish a player who has a strong character but who roleplays a lot as well, I was talking about power-gamers
Power gamers can and often do have strong roleplaying. They invest vastly more time into their characters than most other players, sometimes weeks or months of preparation into a single character. They want him to feel lifelike and fun.

It works both ways actually. Ive had several powergamers who know the system very well that they can come up with a concept and have the character started and already ahve the first 10 levels in their head planned out the same amount of time if not quicker than someone who just casuallys rolls up a character.

i have spents weeks and months fine tuning characters that were not OP at all where most of the time they were in the middle ground, just to get the idea in my head down on paper right. Hell i spend alot of time on my creations to make a balanced character whos good in spot, average in several, and have a weakness. I hate powerful characters who autosucceed at most things, playing those i mean and ill admit gming for those types as well, but me and the powergamers can roleplay our socks off.
So time works both ways, can work for powergamers, min/maxers, etc so doesnt hold well for an excuse why the character is soo important to be that way and gives an escuse for everyone at the table to sit back and let them shine simply because they put more time in it than they did. Time doesnt make one character more important than another.

To the OP, talk with ur group and see what they want. If they are having fun and u are having fun letting them steamroll, then dont change anything. If they having fun and ur not, talk with them to come to angreement so that u are having fun again. If its just one person ur having problems with, then talk with group and see how they feel about it. Are they shaking their heads when said person rolls the dice at the high numbers being called out or are they in positions where they naturally hang back to let said pwrson take care of it or do they try to swarm to get some kind of spotlight in on something only to have that drive go away when said person steps up to said situation....those are some good signs that they arent having as much fun and could be having more.

Group makeups is a slippery slope trying to form that perfect group and i wish u the best of luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are a different race with different cultures and outlooks. I guess the best way to look at it and how i have looked at elves was compare elves to loial in WoT series. He was 90 years old in the series and to the humans, he was very knowledgeable and wise BUT in his culture and society he was basically treated as someone who isnt quite an adult. Maybe and taking this from the same character, maybe since they live so long they arent as hasty as humans in getting the bug to go out adventuring and shorting their lives. Maybe 120 is just what their society woukd reconize as an adult but at a younger age than that woukd still be considered an adult to humans. They may just take their time living so many years before they based on their society view of age finally decide to go off when they are looked upon as adults whereas their actual mentality and maturity woukd have wayy been over due if a human was to see and talk with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stealing is stealing hence why its called grave robbing and he is a good ghost and view it as stealing as wrong hence the curse.
he may have cursed the items because they held greqt importance to him in life so much hes at rest having it with him. He is a ghost so he is somewhat aware of his body and pocessions.

You could do like i did and have the party ask if they could have or use his stuff and have the items scale to the players level until it caps out like it is when he was wearing it in real life or at the very least if they asked just have the ghost say he cannot because they were so important to him in life that he is somewhat bound to them and/or simply warn the players he cannot because the items are cursed and since dead cannot uncurse the items.

But honestly i think the whole reason why was bcause the moduke was written with the players being from that village and the ghost being an important person in their history and it was the writers way of basically teaching new players that just because stuff is shiney doesnt always mean u get to snatch it especially in a roleplaying game where taking this guys stuff woukd be the same as taking a foundy fathers items....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
Blackfingers wrote:
Someday,I would love to see Bastardhall published in some form or another. That would be a long ways off, of course, but I still would love to see it.
I don't think anyone else would be interested in that. ;)

U do realize ur sitting on a gold mine with that right? :-)

i second or thirdbor fourth or whatever publishing it in segments. Shoot each building and bridge could have its own book and the masses would line up to buy :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PhelanArcetus wrote:

I've been more concerned with how to make my low-Int character not be stupid, because I felt I needed to play intelligently to, well, survive the campaign. While the character died to a fight the GM did a bad job of telegraphing that we should run away from (we saw no way to run without sacrificing all our gear and quite possibly not surviving anyway)...

My solution was twofold. First, make him take a while to come up with the good ideas. Intelligence 8, he'll figure it out, but it will take him ten minutes where a smarter character would get it instantly. Number two was essentially his backstory and goals - he came to the right conclusions the wrong way, through flawed logic and bad assumptions, and then made a bad call. Basically he determined that the Church must be corrupt and in league with demons because it treated him badly... so he's going to pledge himself to other demons. Then a hydra ate his face at level 2 and the replacement character was quite a bit smarter.

Yeah wasnt to smart meeting up with a hydra at level 2 lmao


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being a father of 4 who still enjoys the cartoons my younger ones watch, there is nothing wrong with low int but being very knowledgeable in a certain area. I could come up with some cartoon charecters off my head like sheen from jimmy nuetron (knowledge-ultraman) or timmy from fairy godparents (knowledge-crimson chin) just off the top of my head. Hell if u live in the south or ever seen the stereotypes (unfortuantly there are alot who fit it like a tee) just think of the car mechanic who never graduated 5th grade but can tell u whats wrong witb ur car and be able to fix it without the help of a computer but needs calculater to do simple math and can barely speak proper english.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im in the camp of spells and spell like abilities. Reason for spell like abilities is because if they can count for spells for obtaining a feat or prc, then they count as spells in tbsi situation as well. Cant have it counting as spells only when u get a benefit but should also countbas spells when its not a benefit.
channel spells i would say yes because there is a save and if they pass the save they get half healing whereas if they failed they would receive full healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Anthony DiDomenico wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
ZanThrax wrote:
So, replacing the word "level" with various synonyms somehow makes it less meta?

In a word? yes.

Oddly enough that is often all a GM requires to let it slide.

lets say you are a ranger...
Which is more immersive In character?
I ask "what level are you?"
I ask "how much experience as a tracker/woodsman do you have?"

and which is more immersive?
you answer "8th level"
You answer "As good as/better than/trained by (insert well known NPC name here)"

This idea baffles me, considering I've been a member of real-world organizations that actually use the word "level" and a number to describe your degree of certified experience.

If I can be a Level 3 judge for M:tG in real life, why is it immersion-breaking for my PC to be a level 3 ranger?

I think the best real-world analogy would be martial arts. They use a color-coded belt system to determine how skilled/trained you are in that art. How is that any different than a number system?

BTW, I'm on your side jiggy. Just throwing this out there.

Exactly.

My employer has pay "grades".
I'm a member of the M:tG judging system, which gives me a "level".
My education is referenced with a "degree".
The military has "ranks".
State jobs (at least in some states) are numbered (i.e., "Data Entry 1", "Data Entry 2", etc).
GMing in PFS has "stars".

These are all terms that rank someone's capabilities/experience into standardized units; why are some terms more or less "immersive" than others?

The thing is everything u listed were dealt with organizations. In pfs i dont see a problem hell even in homebrew games i dont either but how does one say they are whatever lvl and not be part of an organization? Its almost like the civilians levels. How do u tell someones a lvl 1 and someones a level 7 when they have the same job and age?

Me i personally told my group it was ok because in the game world class levels were known like birthdays are known. We the person know what age we are by the amount of birthdays whereas the classes know what level they are due to their experience. Its something ingrain in the population just like how age is determined by birthdays is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

That's actually a really good point about the Bow. It's a Ranged weapon, which specifically cannot be used in melee.

According to the reading of "can't bash with a Reach weapon" a character could also never "bash with a bow"

Likewise with a Crossbow, which have heavy stocks that make fantastic clubs.

It seems to me that if a Bow or Crossbow would be allowable as an improvised weapon, then so would a Reach weapon.

you know whats funny? U can bash with the butt of a gun BUUUT the rules says u have to be a 3rd lvl gunslinger and because its a deed u use grit on at lvl 3.

There rules states many ways to use a weapon many way different ways BUT the rules says for u to use it differently u have to met the prereqs to do it AND to only yo do what it lists.
Whats the point of having slashing, Piercing, or bludgeoning DR if basically most sharp weapons can bypass it? Why even have the rules state that a dagger can slash or pierce but a longsword can only slash?
Remember not all the rules are there to follow real life or common sense, they are there so that the game u are playing works and fits in with their rules. Dont like the rules? Then houserule then, nothing stopping that. BuT when we are discussing the rules of the games, we go by the rules and not by houserules because seriously we all know RAW doesnt follow real life rules OR common sense at times. Reason is is because its a game and so they have rules to how each weapon or thing or magic does so that ayers knkws exactly what works and what doesnt. The player picking a dagger knows he can slash with it or he can pierce with it and the gm knows how his weapon will respond against an object or npc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

There is also the possibility that they DON'T implicitly forbid it. Saying its implicitly forbidden requires adding a bunch of rules not in evidence about what is defined as an object, about objects being considered only whole and indivisible for rules purposes. And it's also a reading that makes it so you can't pick up a rock to use as an improvised weapon and makes it so that slapping someone is effectively the same as body slamming them.

That interpretation depends on all parts of a weapon being indivisible.

THe haft of a spear was not intended to cause damage in any means other than in conjunction with the spear point.

Again you are rejecting anything that is not explicitly stated. The rules implicitly tell us what an object is. The rules don't have to define every single English word as if we don't speak the language.

If I were to go to NY city with my Glock 17 and got arrested for carrying a handgun illegally I could not argue with the police that "I am not carrying a handgun. I'm just carrying a slide, barrel, recoil spring, firing pin, trigger components, magazine, etc... and all the parts for a gun and the law doesn't stop me from carrying gun parts just a gun."

Likewise, when you are attempting to use an actual weapon with the improvised weapons rules it is assinine to say "No I am not using a long spear I am using a long spear shaft and a long spear head and the rules don't keep me from using either of those as an improvised weapon"

And if someone 'hit you with a gun' it would make no difference to you if they clubbed you in the head with the grip, or pointed it at your head and pulled the trigger?

Actually so nice for u to bring that up. The rules do in fact say that with a gunslinger can use the butt of the gun as a melee weapon. Have to be 3rd level gunslinger deed.

mmmm very interesting u think that the game DOES allow weapons to be used as something other than they are aquired for BUT its in the actual rules and their are aquirements for doing so.
Nowhere does improvised weapons does it say u can use a weapon differently than what the weapon descriptor say BUT the rules DO say certain classes or certain feats that if u meet the requirements for lets u use a weapon a different way BUT it still says how u use it differently.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>