SanKeshun's page

RPG Superstar 9 Season Star Voter. 133 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another GM who always has to GM here (have played as a PC in 5 sessions over 8 years). Another GM who ignores all lore published by Pathfinder and builds his own world / campaigns / monsters / whatnot. Another GM voting for monster details.

On the "monsters as obstacles or npcs" discussion, I will vote that monsters are better obstacles when they are npcs (it's not an either/or). To this end, I like having more details because it helps me understand the monster. Monster with a climb speed and a sneak attack? Sounds like an ambush predator that leaps from cave ledges or the forest canopy. I do not need a monster description to tell me that.

However, Paizo seems to prefer fewer statistics and stating what the monster does. That's fine - I'll use the monsters where I know they fit well, and write my own monster generation rules if I ever get time. If I wanted a perfect system, I would write my own (and be disappointed and probably end up back at Pathfinder anyway).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Black Tentacles to find enemies when you know there's an ambush but cannot see the ambushers. Similarly, Weird.

Illusory Wall to prevent students from coming into your office hours. Similarly, Repulsion, Antipathy.
Conversely, using Sympathy to get students to attend lecture.

Fabricate for interior decorating.

Reverse Gravity to reach things on the top shelf.

Daw wrote:
Yes, the PLOTLINE is the most powerful magic. Breaking the fourth wall, having the writers on your side....

<Attempts to cast shatter on the fourth wall. Proceeds to use dominate person on the GM>

@Daw You're absolutely correct that anyone trying to actually pull this in a game should immediately be met with "Lol no," or possibly, "I'm curious how you solved the 'blood boiling out of your veins' problem." But it is entertaining to explore the boundaries of the (technically) not impossible.

Following your thought train, researching a custom spell is definitely a strong play. It sounds like you're considering a spell to artificially create gravity? That's definitely something that is allowed in the rules. I can think of a couple of ways to phrase it that don't sound like "let me arbitrarily bash planetary bodies together", but they all revolve around whether or not the moon can be treated as an object.

Can we treat the environment as an object? (all of it, not just individual bits; even mountains are too small).

Also, didn't the aboleths basically do this in Golarion lore? So it is canonically possible if you have access to the terrible rabbit hole of Plot Magic, at least.

Chuck Mount wrote:
... Only one way to find out for sure.

I like your attitude.

Also, thanks for the confirmation on there not being a ruling. Probably because it doesn't come up often. I had not thought of it just being connected to the Elemental/Energy Planes, though.

Also, 1st level characters who are truly dedicated can get some pretty high Knowledge skills. It just requires the bulk of your build to be dedicated to it (and is much easier with other skills).

Ring of Sustenance is superior to the ioun stone. Good cath, @Rajnish.

Cold damage definitely requires another item. Thanks for spotting that, @Fuzzy-Wuzzy. Continuing my chain of slightly-wrong suggestions, I'll mention white dragonhide armor. Immune to cold damage, right? I don't actually know a good way to get this permanently, though I'm sure a magic item somewhere will do it.

As for the immovable rods... yeah. RIP that idea. A short trip to the drawing board tells me that a permanent wall of force will eventually do it (the wall will be destroyed by the moon, but it will reform in 10 minutes, so it will eventually steal enough momentum). The only issue is casting the wall of force at long enough range that it is based on the world's environment, not the moon's. Enlarged Reach [long] Wall of Force is an 8th level spell, so from a scroll can reach 2,000 feet. Out of 1.2612E+09 feet. So making progress.

Anyone know more shenanigans to help? Or is the Majora's Mask style moon-crashing totally infeasible (short of wish/miracle, which are insufficiently creative)?

@Chemlak, if one slows an orbiting body enough to get it in a decaying orbit, won't the two bodies eventually collide, even though the "falling" one will speed up?

@Darksol - You are absolutely correct. Gate also doesn't work because it cannot connect two points on the same plane. That's surprising. I should read spell descriptions more often; I've been running Gate incorrectly for years.

@Rajnish - immovable rods are not immovable, but the fastest you can move a 'locked' immovable rod is 10ft./rd. Which cuts out almost all of the moon's momentum, allowing Earth to pull it down.

Though it suddenly occurs to me that you still need food/water for the climb... I guess that's another 4,000 for the ioun stone.

Still only 23,000 gp. Any 7th level character should be able to do it.

Exactly what it says on the tin. Explanation follows.

Some friends and I were discussing the fastest game-breaking builds we could find. Note that, unlike Pun-Pun, the goal was not to create an arbitrarily powerful character, but a character that could disrupt the plot (within the rules) in a way that permanently destroys the world or forces a retcon.

The best we found so far is a 1st-level wizard somehow getting the cash or otherwise obtaining a scroll of Gate, and connecting the world of the campaign to the Sun. If you can get the scroll in your backstory, then you can do this on the first round. (Quick! Roll initiative versus the plot!)

But that only works if the Sun is the never-ending nuclear apocalypse that it is in our world. So... does anyone know if there is any canon on the nature of stars/suns in Pathfinder?

(In case you're curious, the next cheapest we found involved using two immovable rods and a necklace of adaptation to crash the moon into the earth)

An alchemist wants to lob a bomb over a 20-ft wall. Core Rulebook says he can't see anyone on the other side, so they all have total cover, so he can't target any of them. He's okay with that, and has the explosive bombs discovery, so he's pretty likely to hit people with splash damage anyway.

Should I just treat this as an automatic miss, or let him roll to hit a grid intersection? Also, since the trajectory of the bomb would have to exceed 40 feet (20 feet up and down, plus a little for horizontal distance), putting the bomb in the third range increment, should I magnify how far off the bomb lands accordingly? Or since this is such a vertical throw, should I treat it as though it's in the first range increment?

Thanks in advance.

Nicos wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
Unlike other combat maneuvers, grappling cannot be performed as an attack action, even though it is one.
An argument can be made that when you grapple using a weapon (like with whip master) you add the relevant modifiers like weapon enhancement, weapon focus, weapon training and the like.

This is why I referenced the combat maneuver rules - they address this. With a whip, you would add the relevant modifiers. With nothing, as Imbicatus pointed out, you do not add any modifiers (besides CMB).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:
The Morphling wrote:
This thread reminds me of the fact that there are absolutely no penalties associated with the "dead" condition.

Ugh... every time I hear this it makes me facepalm.

1) For the dead, the soul is no longer attached to the body. This is part of the death condition.

2) Without a soul, a body is a piece of meat.

The undead abominations of the world rage at your casual dismissal of their existence!


Well... that's just obnoxious. Grappling is a combat maneuver is a special attack is an attack is a standard action, but it has to specifically jump over attack in its rules? Sigh. Too much complexity for my liking.

Anyway, for anyone who has reason to consult this thread in the future (and I feel bad for you if you do): Conclusions!

  • Ranged grapples are not a thing (usually, see below).
  • Grappling follows the rules regarding standard actions for when it can be performed, subject to the restrictions of combat maneuvers.
  • All other rules for grappling are drawn from combat maneuvers (or the rules specifically on grappling).
  • Unlike other combat maneuvers, grappling cannot be performed as an attack action, even though it is one.
  • A grapple does not have to occur adjacent to a creature, if one or more of the following conditions are met: the grappler has reach, the grappler is using a suitable weapon with reach (such as Hamatula Strike with a longspear), a special ranged weapon is used (such as grappling arrows), a special ability is used (these were alluded to, but I don't have a specific example), or telekienesis or a similar spell is used. If something says it lets you perform a grapple at range, then it does.

@Paradozen, while I agree with all your points, I still maintain that the rules ought to be followed when they are given (potentially leading to dumb mishaps like my misinterpretation of the rules here). I guess I'm Lawful Stupid. Sue me (well, please don't, actually).

@Imbicatus, that seems wrong, instinctively, though I can see it in the rules, now that you point it out. Thanks for pulling it. Although... yeah, still bothers me, being able to make a type of attack without a weapon.

@Ridiculon, don't go find Twodee, it's particularly bizarre and not terribly relevant. Inform 7 is fun though as the programming language that is currently closest to natural language. Used for building interactive fiction. Check it out if you're interested. Your rules project does sound interesting, though, especially with some of the problems inherent with a system like this (no universal parent, for example, and multiple inheritance). Not sure the forum is the best place for it, but feel free to shoot me a PM!

Paradozen wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
The reason I'm targeting this is because there are rules on it, so it doesn't fall back on universal common sense.
There are rules for nuclear holocausts (Radiation rules anyway), and rules for inhaling (well, at least for what happens when you stop). While helium specifically doesn't have rules that I am aware of, rules for harmful* inhaled substances are in the poison section. None of these say that they are inherently related or unrelated, but it is firmly implied that they aren't. Then common sense says "that doesn't make sense" and the GM/PFS table GM of the day says no.

These are subtly different circumstances, I want to say. You're drawing on rules from different sections and, depending on version of the rules for each bit of that, different books. I read a paragraph and found an issue. Yes, both of these could be governed by common sense. GMs are expected to use common sense in these situations. But it's a little bit different.

I'll admit the OP used an overly dramatic example. But what about the guy 5 feet outside your reach? Actually, don't answer that. I can kind of guess I'll get a joke about taking 1d6 fire damage if you only inhale a little helium being.

Point is, all of the problem I saw came from the grappling rules, so I see these as slightly different circumstances. I usually don't equate "having rules for something" as "having rules for that thing somewhere in these tomes."

Which is basically a long rant to try and avoid saying, "Yeah, pretty much."

The ordering of the phrase gives precedence to the standard action over grappling which messes up the hierarchy. It's the exact problem I saw in the first place. Switching the order on the phrase makes it clear.

My whole schtick here is that the phrasing on grapple sets it apart from the normal rules hierarchy, which means rules that ought to apply to it don't. As Rainshe comments, context and the phrase go against each other, so it is I find it ambiguous. (Edited to avoid putting words in other people's mouths)

As for understanding hierarchies, I'll admit I'm more used to trees from CompSci, but they're synonyms, though CompSci trees usually mean binary search trees, which this isn't. Actually, better concept might be inheritance, but that's beside the point.

Are either of you familiar with Twodee? It's a weird way of writing sentences, but it might make this clearer. The problem sentence could be written with "as a standard action" in-line with the rest, or separate (So "As a standard action..." <line break> " can..."). Second one is giving a definition to what grappling is. The other is adding a specification of grappling.

Inform7 is another way to write this out differently. For example: "An action can be standard or exceptional. Understand 'grapple' as grappling. All actions have a text called time to use." Then we have two different ways of adding in the problem sentence, either "Grappling is a standard action." or "the time to use of Grappling is 'Standard.'"

Does any of that make sense?

A) I get the feeling you didn't read my post. My point isn't that grappling is different from a normal attack. It's that grappling falls outside the rules of special attacks. That's why every step of the hierarchy allows for exceptions - because grappling is an exception (please look at what I cited if you disagree with this).

B) I never said an unarmed strike was not a weapon. Again, thanks for reading what I said. The point of that bit was, "unarmed strike has no weapon properties besides nonlethal, and yet it can perform every combat maneuver." See the next point for more commentary on this.

C) There is, however, another piece of the rules that supports what you're saying, but for the issue of unarmed strike. You've already cited it - that the bonuses you apply to your CMB when attempting a combat maneuver check must be applicable to the weapon you're using to attempt it. This implies that all combat maneuvers require a weapon. However, again, unarmed strike can perform all combat maneuvers despite the fact that it shouldn't be allowed to. That might at least move the issue out of the combat maneuver rules and into needing a sentence to clarify unarmed strike as being special. But if not, we still have the issue of being able to perform combat maneuvers without a valid weapon, which throws that whole rule into question.

@Rainshe, my point isn't to mock Pathfinder for this. I do think it's there, though, and I do think it can be fixed, which I don't see as a bad thing. That's why we have errata in the first place. It could be as simple as changing "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe..." to "You can attempt to grapple a foe as a standard action..."
If you want the linguistics game (actually the semantics game, but whatever), the switch in the active noun makes it clear that grappling is not inheriting meaning from standard action, which removes the ambiguity I'm targeting because of the hierarchy that Ridiculon and I keep citing.
I posted here to see if this had already been dealt with. I don't know all of the rules, but as a community, there's a good chance someone will pull out whatever's relevant. Honestly, Ridiculon and I are far enough into technicalities I don't think anyone will care, so it won't be thrown in. But hey. Now there's a thread for when some obnoxious player pulls this on their GM.

@Paradozen, Nope! That one's all good! Without silliness, yeah, I understand this is absurd (pretty sure I said so in the OP). The reason I'm targeting this is because there are rules on it, so it doesn't fall back on universal common sense.

Firewarrior44 wrote:
What about Hamtula strike + Any ranged piercing weapon?

I wondered about this too. Best I can figure, you do grapple them, but you gain the grappled condition as well. Go figure.

Ridiculon wrote:
Actually grappling is a form of attack. Combat maneuvers are part of a subset of attacks called Special Attacks(Attacks>Special Attacks>Combat Maneuvers>Grapple), they aren't completely separate. That means that all the rules that apply to attacks apply to Special Attacks, though almost all of them are overruled by the more specific rules of the individual Special Attacks.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree, again because of the wording of the grappling rules. What follows is my argument for why:

Core Rulebook wrote:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Core Rulebook wrote:
This section [Special Attacks] discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity.
Don't forget,
Core Rulebook wrote:
Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.
And for good measure,
Core Rulebook wrote:
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe...

Now to explain why I cited all of these.

The first quote says that each combat maneuver has an action that is required to activate it. These vary by combat maneuver. The second quote clearly states that special attacks are not attacks (at least the standard attack-roll-damage-roll variety) (note the "other than normal attacks" phrase), though some work in a similar fashion. Thirdly, a footnote on the table of different types of actions implies that not all combat maneuvers are attack actions. Finally, the grapple rules state that they are their own thing. I do not know of any other way to interpret something saying it is a standard action as opposed to, say, "in place of a melee attack" or "as an attack action" or "as part of a full-attack action."

I agree that most combat maneuvers do fall into the attack -> Special Attack -> Maneuver hierarchy, but because grapple is specifically separating itself, I can't include it there. Otherwise I would have passed this whole issue off as "have to do it with a weapon; weapon has to reach them".

To preemptively address needing a weapon with the right properties as well, unarmed strike has no weapon properties besides nonlethal, and yet it can perform every combat maneuver. By default, you perform all combat maneuvers without a weapon. You need the special property only if you're trying to use a weapon, which is the more specific rule.

I'll take it. Still a little sketchy, imo, since grapple specifically is not a form of attack, but a separate standard action. In addition, a creature with natural weapons doesn't have to specify which natural weapon it's using to grapple (even though some have different reach, which would matter).

But still. Thanks, Ridiculon. That's close enough.

I'll still appreciate it if anyone else can pull out a completely unambiguous ruling - this is probably the best, but the grapple phrasing is still problematic.

Weables wrote:
You can't ranged grapple.

Thanks for telling me what I wanted to hear. ;)

(Silliness aside, a citation would be excellent)

I hadn't considered harpooning as a reason though. Still, would've thought the rules about needing an appropriate weapon or something would have been more clear.

And why does Hamatula Strike with a longbow give you the grappled condition?

Rub-Eta wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
Can someone please tell me where it says this so I can't teleport random people to my location, no matter where they are (even across planar boundaries), simply by grappling them?
What do you mean? Has there ever been ANYTHING suggesting I can't? No? Didn't think so! Now, get over here!

Yes, boss.

Ridiculon wrote:
Dude, calm down. Its talking about creatures with 10'+ reach.

Where? I'm asking for the citation. I know that's what it should be, but where is that stated?

Ridiculon wrote:
The 'specific actions' are referring to special attacks/spells/abilities that start a grapple, like black tentacles.

I'm inclined to think they would have phrased this a little better if that's what they meant, instead of using it as a way to ensure you couldn't grapple during a full attack. Along the lines of "A combat maneuver can also be triggered by a spells, special abilities, or special attacks." Right now, they're ensuring that grappling takes up your standard action, but the phrasing ends up with the aforementioned unintended consequence.

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

The FAQ does not address this. (At least that I saw)

Core Rulebook wrote:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).

I'm almost certain you're supposed to have the target of the grapple within your reach, but the Core Rulebook doesn't say. I don't know where it does say.

Can someone please tell me where it says this so I can't teleport random people to my location, no matter where they are (even across planar boundaries), simply by grappling them?

I thought it might say so in the general rules describing combat maneuvers, but it doesn't. It just says that a combat maneuver check is like an "attack roll" not a "melee attack roll". While most maneuvers are stated to take the place of a melee attack in an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity, let's not forget that the grappling rules say (emphases added)...

Core Rulebook wrote:
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.

Which I think fairly clearly invokes the second half of...

Core Rulebook wrote:
While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

Which means that grappling bypasses the melee requirement.

And before everyone complains about me using RAW to break the game, that's not the point. Please read my post and see that I'm trying to figure out where this is not possible because I really don't think it should be.

Though bull rush is ambiguous, it also has phrasing issues of this kind. Feinting has the exact same issue, though it's kind of moot since you have to be in melee to get the bonus.

Step 6: Spells in the Monster chapter of Pathfinder Unchained (link) has a misplaced linebreak - at the very bottom of the page, there is a \n.

In the HTML, it's right before the div for the footer. Same line, but not indented.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote:
Don't Panic

It's been mentioned, but I think this particular quote cannot be quoted enough.

In terms of making balanced choices for all types of players, you could throw together a large list of powers, each with a level attached. Then the players select appropriate powers, a number of levels worth equal to the level of goodness or evilness they've achieved.

So the stabilizing checks, Heal skill bonus, some other skill bonuses, smite evil use, and maybe a lay on hands use are all 1st level powers. A paladin might take the extra smite evil, while the old healer might take a use of lay on hands.

As for dynamic perks, you need to find things that can shift around a lot. Skills are easy to add scaling bonuses too, as are ability scores, saves, hp, weapon attack and damage rolls, and CMB. Beyond that, things start getting less reliably used, and therefore less ideal.

For casters, add concentration to that list. And checks to beat SR.

Those are all statistics you can add an easy +1 per good or evil level to.

Theliah said wrote:
Well, a GM wouldn't give this to his players unless he was really mean.

Theliah, these aren't to be mean. They're to be funny/ironic. It's like Monty Python's Flying Circus, where 20-ton weights are actually waiting to be dropped, and there's a lever right there behind you which unleashes a tiger on your foes. Absurdity makes for hilarity.

Planting a bean and having something utterly bizarre happen can be a tragic end to a character, but it's not meant to be an insta-suicide magic item. That's just something that can happen. The idea is to do it in an amusing way.

While I don't want to say you're doing it wrong (because no strong guidelines were given), dealing 200 damage, no save, plus falling damage to everyone within 300 feet is a bit extreme. A barbarian with a high Con would still need to be about 15th level to survive that. A wizard never will. That is a TPK, with no meaningful warning (plenty of things hum ominously in these games), which strikes me as rather rude. As a GM, I would reroll.

Also check out this: from Pathfinder Unchained.

I would scale it a little, making each level of goodness harder to achieve. So you can hit the first level (call it Good I) by making a single Good decision. But to hit Good II, you'd have to make two more, making it harder to achieve than Good I.

As for rewards, the first one that pops to mind is to make alignment "more visible." So a character who delves into the depths of Evil is less likely to be targeted by evil opponents, and is more likely to get in with the local crime syndicate, etc. If role-playing makes for a good motivation for your group, that'll be fine.

Otherwise, I'd explore a series of bonuses similar to feats in power level. When you hit Good I, for example, maybe you gain a +4 bonus to stabilizing when below 0 hit points, and a +2 bonus on Heal checks? Evil I lets you use bleed as a supernatural ability three times per day (CL = character level). They get more impressive the more strongly aligned you get.

Good X, for example, might let you use a paladin's smite evil 1/day as a 1st-level paladin, or let a paladin smite evil one additional time per day. It's not a huge enough change to break the game, but it's enough to be motivating.

Sigh... these are yet more examples of why, as a programmer, Pathfinder can be tedious. Too many exceptions to rules stated generally elewhere. Thanks for pulling out the specific examples, Sundakan.

That's also part of why I prefer the above and don't see it as reinventing the wheel; the above feat is designed to be more applicable as the system grows. Pathfinder, however, has never seemed particularly cognizant of its future. Ah, well. If I really cared I'd just write my own system.

Thanks for the advice. Probably will go the Martial Versatility route.

Hmmm... where is Ascetic Style? The PRD doesn't know about it. Is this another one of those annoying feats that only exists in the Inner Sea World Guide? I wish they would just release that already.
Also, Sundakan, the full Str to damage, monks already get that. The 1.5 Str from Unchained I don't know about, unless you're getting that from wielding two-handed? If so, Core also gets it.

Artifix, I already checked Weapon Adept Monk, and it still has the monk weapon requirement. Ascetic Style might take care of that, but it's been kept secret and safe.

BadBird, I also can't find Fencing Grace. Do you know where that is?

And seeing as there are apparently a number of feats that aren't available on the PRD, is there a better resource I should be poking around with?

Thanks for the responses, by the way.

EDIT: Okay, just found Ascetic Style on some other website, and it still has the monk weapon requirement as well, which is the main thing I'm trying to get around. Crusader's Flurry does do that but Ascetic Style does not.

There is an excellent movie called Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, wherein there is a monk who fights with a sword. He is definitely a monk (right down to flurry of blows and some of the quinggong powers), and he definitely uses a sword (it's the main macguffin, named the Green Destiny).

But monks can't use swords in Pathfinder. Well, not effectively. However! This is the homebrew forum, and I pretty much only play homebrewed games anyway. So do you see any problems with the following feat?

Disciple of the Blade
Unlike ordinary monks, you have practiced with unusual weapons, learning to see the grace and beauty in their lethal potential.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus with selected weapon, flurry of blows class feature, see special.
Benefit: Select a single weapon with which you have Weapon Focus. You treat this weapon as though it had the monk special quality, allowing it to be used with flurry of blows.
Normal: Flurry of blows can only be performed with a weapon with the monk special quality.
Special: A monk can select Disciple of the Blade as a bonus feat at 10th level or higher. If a monk selects a longspear, longsword, katana, or meteor hammer, they need not have Weapon Focus with the selected weapon to take this feat.

(Brief comment: those last four weapons are listed since they are fairly common among weapon-using monks, and it removes the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat tax, otherwise left in to explain the atypical flavor)

So I recently found this thread, and was sufficiently amused to begin building such a character.

The important point from the thread is that, with the right combination of feats, anyone attacking you while you're prone will provoke an attack of opportunity from you (it's a little sketchy on the rules front, but if you're playing for RAW amusement, then it works).

Now, the Core Rulebook says: An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

This seems slightly ambiguous, and I wanted a second opinion. If I make an Attack of Opportunity when someone else has attacked me while prone, does their attack finish afterwards? Or have I also negated their attack? I'm inclined to say the first, but am also hopeful it would be the second, so I thought I would ask.

The FAQ does not address the question.

Tripping, you say? Get something that can't be tripped. Magic, you say? Get something immune to it. I don't know how much handwaving you're willing to accept, but here are two variations:

Method 1 (smaller):
Mundane Stake
Slot None; Aura strong abjuration; CL 20th; Weight 15 lbs.
A Mundane Stake is a 4-foot-long adamantine stake, not unlike a prospector's stake. Originally created by a race of planar nomads, these stakes were indeed used by prospectors to navigate and tame alien and hostile Planes. When driven into the ground (a standard action requiring a DC 20 Strength check, or DC 25 for particularly dense surfaces) the stake activates a 60-foot aura. Magic ceases to function in this aura. Planar connections close - permanent ones reopen when the stake is removed. Spells cast within the aura fail, while spells cast from without cannot penetrate the aura. All magic items become nonmagical while they are within the aura. Minor artifacts have a 10% chance of ceasing to function, though major artifacts are unaffected.
In addition, a Mundane Stake protects against physical harm. All offensive combat actions - combat maneuvers, attack rolls, damage rolls, and some skill checks as designated by your GM - take a -4 penalty. Defensive actions, such as a swashbuckler's parry ability or a creature's saves are unaffected.
A Mundane Stake can be destroyed by a creature willingly driving it through their own heart.

Method 2 (longer):
Earthquake Soldier
The gods have paladins. The crime lords have fighters. Who comes when the natural world comes? Yes, all the spirits of the flood and the storm and the earthquake. But, sometimes, you just need a champion. When the mountains call for one, they find an Earthquake Soldier.
Alignment: One component must be neutral (NG, LN, N, CN, or NE); Hit Die: d10;
BAB: Full; Good saves: Fort, Will; Bad saves: Reflex;
Skill Ranks per Level: 2 + Int modifier; Class skills: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering, nature) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Wis).

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Earthquake Soldiers are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (except tower shields).
Mighty Blow (Ex): At first level, an Earthquake Soldier learns to strike with unparalleled power. Once per day, he may double his Strength bonus to one attack and damage roll. This is an immediate action, but must be used before the attack roll is revealed. If the attack roll misses, the attempt is wasted.
Every other level thereafter (3rd, 5th, etc.) the Earthquake Soldier may use Mighty Blow an additional time per day, to a maximum of 10 times per day at 19th level.
Rock Solid (Ex): At 2nd level, an Earthquake Solider's training grants him increased resilience. He gains a +4 bonus to CMD, and gains Endurance as a bonus feat.
Natural Step (Ex): At 4th level, nature recognizes the Earthquake Soldier. He may move through any sort of undergrowth at his normal speed without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. Thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion, however, still affect him. Finally, he leaves no trail in natural surroundings and cannot be tracked, though he may leave a trail if he so chooses.
Unbreakable (Ex): By 6th level, the strength of the rock and stone in the earth infuses the Earthquake Warrior. He gains a +1 natural armor bonus to AC that stacks with any existing natural armor bonuses. This bonus also applies to saves made against spells and spell-like abilities. At 9th level, and every three levels thereafter, these bonuses increase by 1, to a maximum of +5 at 18th level.
Shattering Blow (Ex): At 8th level, the first tremors begin to surround the Earthquake Soldier. When using Mighty Blow, if the attack hits, the foe must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 the Earthquake Soldier's level + the Earthquake Soldier's Constitution modifier) or be knocked prone, as by a trip, and pushed back, as by a bull rush. The Earthquake Soldier cannot move with his foe as part of this bull rush. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Mundane (Ex): When an Earthquake Soldier reaches 10th level, the natural forces of the world begin to protect him even against the arcane. He gains spell resistance equal to 11 + his Earthquake Soldier level.
Stone Master (Sp): At 12th level, an Earthquake Solider may use stone shape, stone tell, and wall of stone as spell-like abilities. He may use these abilities a number of times per day equal to his Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). This functions similar to spontaneous spellcasting: he has a number of slots that can be used on any one of these three spell-like abilities.
Call Earthquake (Sp): When he reaches 14th level, the earthquakes finally come. The Earthquake Soldier may now use earthquake three times per day as a spell-like ability. In addition, when he successfully deals damage with Mighty Blow, he can choose to use one of these three uses as a swift action, as though casting quickened earthquake.
Mountain Man (Ex): By 16th level, an Earthquake Soldier is immune to altitude sickness, in addition to disease of all kind.
Deep Rock Warrior (Su): At 20th level, an Earthquake Soldier is the chosen gladiator of the natural world. He no longer takes ability score penalties for aging and cannot be magically aged. Any penalties he may have already incurred, however, remain in place. Bonuses still accrue, and the Earthquake Soldier still dies of old age when his time is up. If he is killed before he dies of old age, an earthquake and a storm of vengeance immediately trigger, centered on his corpse.

If you do use the second method, decide how long you can wait to introduce him. The longer you wait, the tougher he'll be to defeat. I tried not to make him too centered around taking out this monk, but it should do that quite nicely.

Mortuum, you're neglecting that effects stack. Make someone shaken twice and they become frightened, a higher-tier effect. That was how I imagined the durability problem being equalized (though I admit I still have no good response to the first, still working on that).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mortuum, you make some excellent points, and I'm going to try to counter them each in turn.

Firstly, the problem that Orfamay also pointed out - by equalizing damage, greataxes become equal to sharp rocks. My suggestion here is different tiers of effects. A sharp rock might inflict (for want of a better name) Slashing Damage 1, while a greataxe might inflict Slashing Damage 3.
Then, monsters also have a bottommost effective tier - a red dragon would still suffer the effects of Slashing Damage 1, but since that's only a tier 1 effect, Slashing Damage 1 doesn't contribute to taking the dragon out of the fight.
Problem with this system: bookkeeping. It's relatively straightforward once you have little boxes and lines to keep your notes on this organized, but you're doing that for every fight, which is too much. I don't have a solution for this yet.

Secondly, the durability problem. This ties into my tier suggestion: a creature can have more "maneuver points," but it also can have a higher bottommost effective tier. The BET corresponds loosely to damage reduction, so oozes probably have a low BET but a high MP. Thus, a Black Pudding (CR 7) might have 7 MP and 0 BET, while a Dracolisk (also CR 7) might have 4 MP but 1 BET.

Another thing that tiers solves: the value of attack spells. Fireball might inflict Ignite 1 (again, I'm numbering things for simplicity. Better names are needed). But Burning Hands would also inflict Ignite 1. So what if a Fireball inflicted Ignite 1, or on targets already suffering Ignite 1, inflicts Ignite 2? Now casting multiple spells has more value, and being able to cast higher level spells is important, since it lets you overcome an opponent's BET.

137. Shadows turned into a player-friendly race.
138. Shambling mounds turned into a player-friendly race.
139. Froghemoths turned into a player-friendly race.
The pattern is so subtle.

140. A race that makes tentacles seem sensible.
141. Myrmidons (antmen) as literal antmen - with six limbs.
142. A race that can occupy multiple non-adjacent squares.
143. A race that generates plasma.

(Sorry for any repeats; I'll be honest when I say I didn't read quite everything up above)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How did this thread fall of the front page!? Dinosaur Ben is sad.

177: An ethereal, 6th-level bard follows the planter around for the next 1d6 minutes, playing obnoxious music that functions as inspire courage (+2).
178: The planter's skin (or other main body covering) turns irrevocably neon pink.
179: All areas of dim light or darkness are treated as supernatural darkness for 1d6 minutes. All areas of normal light or bright light are treated as bright light (natural sunlight) for the same duration.
180: The bean casts create water at CL 20th every round, on the surface directly above it.
181: Mirage Arcana is cast, centered on the bean, making the surrounding terrain look like the planter's childhood (CL 20th).
182: The next time the planter misses on an attack roll, he is healed an amount equal to the damage he would have dealt.
183: Coconuts rain from the sky within a 40-ft spread, dealing 2d6 bludgeoning damage, and providing food.
184: A mystical being appears and offers the planter any one artifact they desire. If the planter asks for anything, they immediately take 100 damage (as harm, CL 10th). If they ask for nothing, they are given a random bean.
185: The bean becomes a dragon egg. It hatches in 2d4 weeks.
186: The bean burrows at 500 ft. per round to the nearest settlement, where the side of every building is papered with a wanted poster for the planter, offering 200 gp for his or her (or its) capture.
187: An antimagic field is centered on the planter for one day per HD of the planter.

I think it has some level of promise.

Think of it this way: a monster has a number of hit points equal to its CR. Whenever you succeed on a combat maneuver, attack, or successfully affect it with a damaging spell, it loses one hit point. To keep the idea of the OP, a debuff can count towards this.

Basically, it's not "how long until the thing's dead," but rather, "how long until the thing can't kill me back."

At high levels, with iterative attacks and a whole slew of feats, you can start doing multiple points per round (spellcasters can't, but make up for it with more powerful debuffs). If you split up the points dealt from damage and combat maneuvers, then feats like Awesome Blow or Improved Shield Bash also become more useful, but without having to rewrite them at all.

I think it could be quite interesting.

My first piece of advice is sarcastic and aimed at the GM, but if you think it might make them laugh, please share it: "Hahaha! Now when the party least suspects it is the perfect time to rain down Pleroma Aeons and Zelekhut Inevitables as the gods smite these evil beings for their villainy! And hey, why not throw in some Bearded Devils under an Ice Devil to max out the carnage and the chance to TPK in an entirely-justifiable manner?"

Right. Sorry. Being serious now.

The difficulty with alignment is it's arbitrated by the GM. A few sharp words from your GM could make it clear that sabotaging other player's role-playing is not acceptable. More subtly, more alignment-based creatures could show up in non-combat situation (or heck, in combat situations. An angel is unlikely to attack a LG person). Other such subtler approaches are also out there.
However, you're going to have to talk to your GM. Ideally in private. And I'd start with exactly what you told us: you have a problem, and you'd like advice on finding a solution.

Boglor seems like a ranger to me, picking up new favored enemies and favored terrains as the job requires, and trying to pick subsequent jobs to match. The skill with animals wouldn't hurt for disposing bodies or managing other nasties. I'd probably go with either Two-Handed Weapon combat style or Natural Weapon (both in APG).

Zagim screams non-standard druid (at least to me). Drop the animal companion and take the Fire domain, and then enjoy wandering around, oddly adept at setting the forest on fire and then sprinting away with your mysterious mushrooms. If I were playing him, I would also put no ranks into Handle Animal. Ever.

Ooh... Lincol seems like a monk with a few levels of rogue. If you're going Unchained (which, if you can, you probably should) you should look into the mobility-type ki powers: things that let you get around a ship (or over to an enemy ship) with more ease.

Little Xemestra seems like an alchemist. Infusion should be one of your earlier discoveries. I wouldn't focus on bombs for damage (purely from a flavor standpoint), but smoke bombs or other tactical uses could be interesting.

Right. Thank you! Sorry I didn't find that earlier.

A wizard can select a bonded object for their arcane bond at 1st level. I quote the Core Rulebook when I say that "Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost." It also has to be an amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. Has to masterwork.

The ability doesn't say anything about magic or otherwise.

Are you allowed to take a magic item as your bonded object for free at 1st level? I would think no, or that there would be a gp limit, but don't see anything in the FAQ, and my Google Fu has failed me here.

Thoughts? Opinions? Better scores on Knowledge checks made to gather information?

Looks good.

Only comment I have is that damage is a little atypical. Since two of the casters are divine, I would do this with d8s, and I would have the burning last a number of rounds equal to your 1/2 your level (max 5). Also throw in usual Reflex saves to put it out after the first round. This slightly reduces the spell's power at first level, but helps it scale for a little while afterwards.

Also, it would be hilarious to watch this actually happen.

This sounds like it's straight out of King Lear (the Gloucester subplot). If you're looking for literary advice, I'd consider that.

As for sticking this into Golarion, I unfortunately have to second Arcane Addict - not much I can help you with there.

I ran a party with an illusionist in it for a while, and he used it as a general tool. Fake walls to dodge encounters, major image to distract and even flank opponents (you can flank with a summoned creature, so if an enemy fails their save to disbelieve, you can flank them, right?), along with other shenanigans. He threw in a little conjuration and necromancy and a decent Bluff skill and got to be a pretty formidable force, although he had a hard time taking out foes on his own.

Basically, in a game without a healer, buffer, or blaster, that illusionist saved the party many times. It's what I consider the third line of magical support. If you can't blast the opponent, and you can't outlast them, you might as well just not fight them. Enter the master of misdirection: the illusionist.

Dang... my ridiculously overpowered 1st-level cleric is now slightly less awesome. Ah, well. Thanks anyway!

I would like somebody to check my logic, please.

Guidance "imbues the subject with a touch of divine guidance. The creature gets a +1 competence bonus on a single attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. It must choose to use the bonus before making the roll to which it applies." Also note that you can wait up to a minute before activating the guidance.

So could you spend several rounds just casting guidance on yourself multiple times, and then use the guidances over the next few rounds? I know you shouldn't be able to use multiple guidances on one action, but is there any restriction to having multiple guidances hanging around for use on different actions?

I second what Imbicatus has concluded. From the Core Rulebook, the quote saying that, regardless of a net's damage, you do not roll a damage roll:

Core Rulebook wrote:
If you hit, the target is entangled.


I am not familiar with Warpriest, so I cannot speak to 1, 2, or 3.

4) Yes. A net is a weapon, so it can be enchanted as normal for a weapon. This includes both enhancement bonuses and special abilities. You could make a +1 flaming net, which would deal 1d6 fire damage. You would not add the +1 to this damage, however, since the enhancement bonus is applied to damage rolls, and you do not make a damage roll with a net. Since flaming does 1d6 fire damage on a successful hit, it's bonus damage would still apply. You would also add your enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

5) No. Sneak attack deals extra damage, so it could add 1d6 damage to an attack that normally deals 0 damage. However, a net does not deal damage at all (rather than dealing 0 damage), so you cannot add extra damage to it. If Warpriest's sacred weapon ability can grant a net a damage roll, then sneak attack would apply normally.

1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>