Rhelous's page

Well, the outer planes are infinite is size right? Couldn't it be possible that all the LG afterlives are in the same place, just massively spread out just like the planets in the material plane?
I know this doesn't answer all your questions but it would at least mean we're still dealing with roughly the same number of afterlives, as opposed to millions of different planes.

One of the players in my game plays a rogue and asked me if the bleed from the Bleeding Attack rogue talent would multiply on a crit. We're both aware that the sneak attack dmg itself would be unaffected, but my player argues that the bleed is triggered by the sneak attack, as opposed to being part of the SA itself.
I've tried looking over the rules, but as far as I can see, there's no clear statement over whether bleed damage gets multiplied on a crit in general. While the wounding enchantment and some other bleed effects specifically say they don't multiply on a crit, I can't find anything on whether other bleed effects would.
So I put it to this forum, are there instances where bleed dmg multiplies on a crit, and if so, would bleeding attack be one of those instances?

Rhelous wrote:

Since I basically love all the dragons, it'd be hard for me to pick just one. Still, if you want raw power, the time dragon is definitely the strongest for whatever age category it's at, plus, if your DM's crazy enough to let you play a great wyrm, you can literally time travel!

I don't see a listing beyond the basic.

Try this.

Since I basically love all the dragons, it'd be hard for me to pick just one. Still, if you want raw power, the time dragon is definitely the strongest for whatever age category it's at, plus, if your DM's crazy enough to let you play a great wyrm, you can literally time travel!

The dragon herald is a pretty interesting kobold bard archetype that isn't dependent on strength or melee.

I'm a little sad nobody commented on my idea for allowing your children to inherit the world.

I was tempted to call it depraved or evil or something, but then I remembered this is all somewhat my fault in the first place for putting the spell in Jack's hands.

Now in link form!

Alas, it does not. Sorry!

Crud. Well unless this vimeo link works I'm flat out of ideas. A pox on regional restricted content!

Rhelous wrote:

Technically speaking, Undead Revisited does include a section on deliberate Graveknight creation. The srd covers it here under 'Variants'. I LINK FOR THE NOISE

Just a helpful "fix" to make it a tad easier for people to follow.

Thanks. I'm a bit new at linking to stuff, and posting in general, so apologies for any awkwardness.

Rhelous wrote:

Soilent wrote:

Well, I'll certainly be adding it to my games now.

Nooo! I intended the transfer pregnancy spell to be used for good, not evil!

LINK'N'BLINK'N

Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to watch it. :/

EDIT: to clarify:

Quote:

This video contains content from Fremantle International, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

Oh, sorry, that's unfortunate. Does this one work any better?

Paulicus wrote:

Sounds wicked. I'm liking the idea of a lich "born by fire." Very thematic.

Someone brought up a bloodrager, and that made me think of the Graveknight. It's kind of a lich-themed undead for martial characters. Not sure you can become one intentionally, but it'd still be a neat idea!

Graveknights are essentially just Deathknights, I'm assuming Deathknight must be copywritten or come into conflict with usage of the Open Gaming License.

The story/narrative information attached to the template seems to indicate that they rise at random without a set way to create them, there are no included rules such as spells or component cost but there are also in-universe references to them being purposely created by Geb so there must be a way. I assume this is something an individual GM will have to decide upon.

Technically speaking, Undead Revisited does include a section on deliberate Graveknight creation. The srd covers it here under 'Variants'. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/graveknight-cr- 2

Important question. While you've stated that a male recipient will grow a womb, will they also grow the... erm... canal necessary to birth the child?

In addition, will said male recipient, after the pregnancy ends, maintain those features, or will he revert to the original form after carrying the child to term?

Let's just say that it's fortunate my setting's advanced to the point where caesarean sections can actually be done successfully. And no, the womb would vanish when the spell was 'completed'.

Well, I'll certainly be adding it to my games now.

Nooo! I intended the transfer pregnancy spell to be used for good, not evil!

Rosc wrote:

Soilent wrote:

Rosc wrote:

Learn the spell.

Make more scrolls.
Make a wand while you're at it.
Gather your forces.

You are now prepared to face the Drakiania.

That's gonna be a weird fight.

Nothing about that monster isn't weird. The reaction I got when I threw a weaker version at my Vampire group was priceless.

For added Tactical Maternity, have a summoner cranking out transfer hosts each round, dismissing them before they get Baron Geddon'd.

That'd be a neat thing to do.

See also: Impregnating an Eidolon, then threatening to dismiss it, while waiting for ransom.

My Lord, what have I done by making this spell?!

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Who said anything about changing his gender? Your GM said the spell provides a womb if one is lacking.

EDIT: also don't forget that unconscious people are always willing, so you can bypass the fortitude save by casting while he's sleeping.

The thing about sleeping is a good point actually. I'll have to remember that...

While changing his gender isn't a requirement, it's an added issue for him. I have high hopes that he'll keep his beard during the transformation.

Edit: Wait I'm pretty sure unconsciousness and sleeping are too different things aren't they?

Well, as far I can tell, sleeping is considered helpless rather than unconscious, though I haven't dug up an official ruling yet.

I would just note, even putting the inefficiency of torture aside, charm person and dominate person are both relatively easy to acquire spells in most games and would basically provide the same or better information without the need to resort to torture. So assuming the party had access to even one of those spells, there's no reason to torture the prisoner other than to be inflict suffering on him.

It's a scroll.

I think you're reading a bit too much into this.

I'm not telling you it's badwrongfun, but I have my doubts that a group of players would enjoy having a game based around transferring pregnancies all day.

Perhaps, but I could definitely see some players using it to run a 'transferring' business under the downtime rules. Never underestimate what players might do in the name of payment or amusement.

Yikes, I'm having trouble thinking of a none evil use for that scroll. For the record, does the spell require you to actually have both the pregnant woman and the victim present or can you 'store the charge' after casting on the pregnant woman?

I get your point, and I kinda knew there'd be no official ruling on that, I just didn't want to resort to fiat without at least asking around first.

Question's in the title, I know gaseous form allows the caster to fit through narrow openings, but could one fit in a jar or similar container held out for it?

Valafar The Black wrote:

One of my players plays and Ifrit necromancer and wants to become a lich. How would I do this

I'd make him look like Ghost Rider...

Oh yes.... :D

One of my players actually did something like that for an evil oneshot I ran at one point. Course the effect was slightly ruined when everyone else at the table started doing Nicolas Cage impressions.

I would say no, it couldn't, if only because that's what makes the most sense given that breathing and speaking are already out, though that's just my gut response.

Just off the top of my head here:
Isolated ruins of an ancient civilization in the jungle who created wax golems of their greatest minds who believe they're the originals
Site of a siege between elves and hobgoblins who reanimate to resume the war every night, the 600+ year old elf locked in the dungeon probably knows why
A strange-temporally distorted citadel where the players encounter alternate versions of themselves all vying for the same artifact
Aside from that, do what the others suggested and just rip off anything you think might work, and just change one or two details and make it unique. For instance, I once ran a session where I ripped off the plot of James Bond Live and Let Die and just made the villains lizardfolk

I suppose it largely comes down to how you define the coup de grace in the first place. If your table depicts the action as going deliberately for a vital point then mindless creatures are probably unable to do it. But if you imagine the action as basically just attacking a completely vulnerable enemy then there's no reason any creature couldn't do it.
One thing I might note is that it is generally assumed with skeletons at least that they can do some things outside of strict instructions to achieve their orders. Like if someone the skeleton was ordered to kill ran and slammed a door behind them, the skeleton would smash or open the door rather than just walk into it because it wasn't ordered to open the door.

Unholy hell, but that does kind of blow my antipaladin lich masquerading as a death knight out of the water...

Well, at least you've still got the magus death knight masquerading as a lich.

The only gods with Trickery that are within a step of lawful good are Erecura, Khepri, and Chaldira. And Erecura's the wife of an archdevil. None of these deities have explicit paladin codes.

To be fair, paladins aren't actually required to follow a deity, least not in the base rules. Though the code of conduct does pretty much state outright that lying's not cool (the whole 'act with honour' bit).

This is, I think, a very good point. A couple of things to consider, though:

1) The Tarrasque is now ret-conned as "chaotic evil" in Golarion (this is tangential to your point, but I thought you'd like to know), due to being sentient, eating other sentient folk without bounds, and being spawn of Rovagug

2) A government - even an autocratic or monolithic one, which Andoran's is not - may have varying responses based on time, date, specific people who are involved directly or indirectly, and any ideas they can come up with to exploit either the people or the so-called deity

It could be quite interesting and significant to the government.

Ah, right, just noticed the alignment change on the srd, I'm admittedly not up to date on a lot of golarion-specific stuff.

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

So we have crowdsourced an 11th level (or higher) Ifrit Bloodrager lich who appears as a flaming skeleton and gets the rage bonus to its casting stat.

I duno about you but that sound pretty badass to me.

and give it a Nightmare as a mount

Okay, now we just have the cover of a metal album.

Perhaps one more thing to consider. Even if it's proven that the deity isn't actually evil, that doesn't necessarily mean the government will want one just exploding out of their borders. After all, the tarrasque is neutral, but if someone was trying to wake it up in my back garden I'd be upset.

If an outsider can make the phylactery they can become a lich per the rules even if that doesn't make any narrative sense

That actually raises an interesting question, could a traditional outsider benefit from becoming a lich? Granted the main 'immortality' selling point wouldn't matter much to a demon or devil, but the actual rejuvenating might be desirable for some of them, since violence is pretty much the only way to actually kill most outsiders. Would definitely be the ultimate DM dick move either way. (Oh, so you thought you killed Dagon? Yeah, funny story about that...)

So we have crowdsourced an 11th level (or higher) Ifrit Bloodrager lich who appears as a flaming skeleton and gets the rage bonus to its casting stat.

I duno about you but that sound pretty badass to me.

Badass enough that I just found my next villain to sic on my players!

Yeah, especially since Occult Adventures specifically recommends you change out magic jar for possession for any of the monsters that previously had magic jar as a spell-like ability, like shadow demons.

That's true for magic jar, though would the same apply to possession, which does allow the possessor to telepathically communicate with it's host at will?

Again, this just how I would do it, but I think bluff would make more sense, since disguise refers to actually changing your appearance. It's not like the possessor has to try to look like the person they're possessing, their concern would be acting like the person, make sense?

I'll admit I don't know is there's actual rules or not, but the way I'd play it is matching your sense motive against the possessor's bluff. That makes the most sense to me, but feel free to disregard this if you find proper rules for it.

Well, I guess they would hire someone with also great power. And if circumstances start to become dire, they would attempt dangerous alliances to stop the party. Given the struggle with Cheliax, they wouldn't summon a devil, but there are other powerful outsiders out there. For instance, a daemon would like to gather the souls of some high-level adventurers.

An alternative would be to send the army. Thousand level 1 warriors can be a threat to a level 14 party, depending on how both sides act.

Finally, religious zealots could form a taskforce to make sure their god doesn't get any further competition. Their leader being an inquisitor feels perfect here.

Don't forget, if the government truly thinks the players are resurrecting an evil god, they could very well summon celestials, who'd naturally have a very vested interest in stopping an evil god from being reborn. Heck if the players prove particularly tenacious, you could probably justify siccing some advanced zelekhuts on them.

Alexd1976 has a point that none of this should be done on baseless rumour, so the government would likely need to have solid evidence, real or fabricated before they act. Though to play devil's advocate here, even just proof that the players intend to resurrect some strange eldritch entity would probably be cause for concern, particularly if they don't know the entity's intentions.

Personally, I'd think that if the party is particularly powerful, the government will probably send an agent to investigate the party, to determine themselves if the rumors have any validity.
However you play it, I'd recommend you have things escalate slowly, the government likely won't arrest anyone on rumors alone, but they likely won't completely blow it off either if the players are known to be powerful. If strange things keep happening around the party and investigation actually turns up proof that the players are up to something, then the government would probably take action.
Now personally, assuming that your setting has adventurers in it, the government's most likely attempt to take the party could well involve hiring another similarly powered party for the job, whilst also putting the word out that the party are fugitives. Even if other adventurers aren't really a thing, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a large government to have a group of elite warriors or mages whose job is to take down high powered threats, balanced by having relatively low numbers compared to the standing army.

This thread really makes me want to run an alien invasion campaign based on invasion of the body snatchers or war of the worlds, just with elves for aliens.
Only questions is whether elves work better as pod people, so they infiltrate and otherwise force nature to accept them, or if they have to hide in suits and giant golems since the biosphere of the planet naturally rejects them.

Though honestly, who wouldn't want to see some less stereotypical liches out there?

Also, would consider looking at Way of The Wicked, which goes a bit more into how to make a lich as a player, though not much, sadly. Each lich's path to lichdom is unique.

I know I'd love to see more types of lich than the stereotypical skeleton wizard, and an ifrit lich sounds like a great way to look into other options.

Honestly, this question just really comes down to how undead are treated in any one setting. For instance, one group's setting might have sentient undead being frozen in whatever mindset they had when they turned, making any change in attitude near to impossible.
Either way, assuming you're following the idea that creating a phylactery requires committing heinous acts, good liches should probably be incredibly rare, partly cause of the acts themselves, and partly due to the whole immortality plus isolation package most liches get likely making them very stuck in their ways at best.

Rhelous wrote:

Hey, Ravingdork, sorry to bother you but did you take down Heathcliff? I was planning on siccing him on my players but couldn't find him on the list anymore.

Yes, it had been removed, though it was not altogether deliberate. I was having trouble making updates to the file as it had become corrupted or some such thing. It got so bad I couldn't even open it reliably anymore, crashing the program every time I tried. This also occurred with two other character files. One was Bumiahma Britoris Orpheus. I don't recall the third.

Luckily, I got Heathcliff's file to open briefly while in safe mode, and I managed to copy the text to the clipboard before it crashed again. I then deleted all traces of the corrupted file from OneDrive and my computer hard drive, hoping to eliminate any conflicts.

I then pasted the unformatted text into a whole new Word document, formatted it to match my other character sheets, and attempted to reupload it (all they while hoping that this fresh start would eliminate any of the things that were causing the errors). Unfortunately, I was having connection issues at the time, and I was forced to save it to my machine rather than upload it.

Then I simply forgot about it. Sorry about that. Now that things are working again, and you've brought it to my attention, I have uploaded the new version of the file. I'm not certain if previous direct links to Heathcliff will still work, as this is a new file for the same character, but you should be able to access him from the main gallery again.

EDIT: Yep, just tested the direct link I posted earlier in this thread. It's dead as a doornail. You will have to check him out through the main gallery.

No, problem, thanks for fixing it though! Wanted to find a real challenge for my player's swashbuckler and figured Heathcliff would be the perfect dueling opponent, especially when he drops the shield!

Hey, Ravingdork, sorry to bother you but did you take down Heathcliff? I was planning on siccing him on my players but couldn't find him on the list anymore.

Not sure how easy it is to find now, but if you can track down d20 cyberscape it had a whole section on necrotic implants. Obviously it would need some fiddling to fit the pathfinder system for cybernetics, but it had some cool stuff, like implanting a vampire's frontal lobe to gain it's gaseous form!

master_marshmallow wrote:

Dragons can be very different if you play them differently.

They can be.

But I'd be worried that when you pull the big reveal that "the bard is REALLY a dragon," they'll be like.... "Again? Been there, done that, thought it was an overused trope THEN...."

At what point are they going to start talking about the "campaign where all the important NPCs are dragons"?

To be fair, that's not a bad idea for a campaign in of itself, provided that's what you're going for. I imagine there'd be a market for 'dragon illuminati' games where the players uncover some kind of grand dragon conspiracy behind humanoid culture. It would just require good execution and clear distinction between the dragons, including expanding upon their basic personalities (Brass are chatty, Reds are vicious, etc).

I agree with ElterAgo.

First with the mercenary unit, that you guys can be sort of a Guild of people that receives contracts and this sort of things from all the country. The 5 men team can be a protocol of your organization. If you guys already started the game, you 5can be recruited by this organization instead.

Second with the WbL problems. But these can be easily fixed, just say that the hole guild has a common treasure chest, where it's members can take their part of the loot and arm themselves. The thing is, if a player start giving all of his loot to one single character, you can have the Guild Leader or even the other characters confront him for taking more than he is entitled.

** spoiler omitted **

Have to admit, I'm tempted to do just for the opportunity for a player to be chewed out by one of their own characters! Sounds like a good notion in either case. The adventure idea itself sounds cool, even if it would be a logistical nightmare to track all at once.

Actually pretty simple. The were part of X mercenary unit. Leadership got wiped out in some debacle. The 15 of them is all that got out with just the gear on their backs. They fled to {where ever they are now} and are trying to get started again.

Need special permit to form non-affiliated units larger than 5. (Which is only given to local nobles.)
OR
Due to the reputation hit from being on the losing side, they can only get hired for odd, individual, low pay jobs.
etc...

A problem you may have is wealth distribution...

To answer the xp question, I was planning to play it mostly by ear, leveling up the players characters arbitrarily at the same time rather than count exact xp.

to make it easier on yourself i to keep Cr's in check and wbl and everything is that if the players want to do this they can only make changes at logical points so no switching mid dungeon even if it goes between sessions.

whenever you give out wealth as its distributed every character that player has gets that wealth so you arent trying to figure out how much to give during an encounter and people who only have 1 character get more loot than everyone else

for example Player 1 gets a +1 Greatsword he has a fighter a rogue and a wizard the rogue gets a +1 shortsword and the Wizard gets either a +1 weapon if he wants or sells for half and gets an item at that value from what would have been available.

and you can do xp the same way all chars even ones not being used in that immediate session/arc gain the same xp so its seamless for players to move in and out

the other thing i would recommend is at the end of each session tell everyone ok this is a point where anyone who wants can switch out their character to one of their others so everyone can be prepared going into the next week and no time is wasted making decisions right as you are about to start

Sounds good, luckily I was already planning for largely letting them switch only at the end of a adventure rather than a session like Gwen Smith suggested (Exceptions for things like character death notwithstanding), so that shouldn't be too hard. Personally, I might try and justify the characters 'off screen' gaining wealth as them adventuring on their own, just so there's a semi-logical reason why they're gaining wealth at the same time as the characters being played. But yeah, that sounds like the best method.

I suggest:

- some logical rationale for sharing loot between a player's several characters (they're brothers, blood brothers, father & son, married, etc)
- use an xp system where you arbitrarily say "everyone advances to X level for the next session", or else be ready to manage level disparity in the party, as some obtain xp while others don't.

Having a standby character can be extremely helpful in case of a sudden death, or having a character captured or similar.

Instead of having a pool of characters for each player, why not simply allow those characters who want to try something to new to put existing characters into a sort of semi-retirement, where they become a shopkeeper, innkeeper, captain of the guard, librarian or whatever, and try out a new character for a few sessions?

Another option would be to have all PCs be members of a transnational organization, like Agents of Shield or Hydra, with different teams sent on different missions in different parts of the world. Allow for occasional transfers between teams.

Thanks for the advice. The only issue with the organisation thing is that the players are starting as freelance mercs with the intention of getting involved with a lot of political factions in setting, but the rest of this looks helpful. I was already using an arbitrary xp system anyway, so that should be easy enough. Should I keep wealth rewards the same as if they were one character or increase it?

So, I've just started a new campaign after a real long runner, pretty fun, but some of the players started to get tired of playing the same character for months on end. Relating to this, one of my players approached me recently with an idea where each player has more than one character. Basically, each player would have a roster of two-three characters they can choose between for adventures, with wealth and loot being shared out between a player's characters (I.E. This wand is useless to my monk, but my wizard could use this!). The idea would be to keep things fresh for some of the players while also allowing more experimentation with party composition.
The player himself has offered to do any book keeping for some of the less organised players and nothing about this strikes me as particularly outrageous, aside from having to take wealth distribution and experience per adventure into consideration, but has anyone done anything like this before?
If so, any advice on what to else watch out or account for aside from that?

Me too.