Sort_vampyr's page

What i would NOT like to see:

Actually doing something over and over as the only way to get better at something. It takes time away from doing something that is actually exciting.

What i WOULD like to see:

A system that (1) allows you to know the basics of a skill without having to sacrifice too much in other areas allowing for jack-off-all-trades, but (2) on the other hand also allows one to master a skill at the expense of other skills. I think that would require a system that keeps rewarding further mastering of a skill even at higher levels of training.

I think the EVE skill system is the best I can think of right now regarding how to train a skill.

Aaaargh ! Your search-fu is weak. There were several lenghty threads on this.

Bottom line: opinions vary from "overpowered" to "so what, Sorecerers have herpes anyway".

Could i have link please?

Aaaargh ! Your search-fu is weak. There were several lenghty threads on this.

Bottom line: opinions vary from "overpowered" to "so what, Sorecerers have herpes anyway".

I had the feeling that this was already out there somewhere but for some reason I really suck at finding the threads im searching for :/

So, I was reading about the new alternative favored class options, and I noticed that certain spellcasters of some races, have the option to add one known spell of any spell level they can cast except their highest.

Now, i'm not quite ready to go all out and say that this is imbalanced but I would think that this would be a huge boost to the spontaneous casters whose main limiting factor is their amount of know spells and I really think that this bonus is better than a lot of the other options.

My GM is thinking of removing this option from his game as he is thinking that the sorcerer will become too strong (and dwarf the wizard) and because he does not think it is on par with the other choices

What do you guys think?

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Ok I know this is a lot to ask for but could someone please give me the details of sorcerer shadow bloodline?

Im making an illusion based sorcere and fluff wise i think shadow bloodline is waaay more appropriate than any of the existing bloodlines.

You would make my day :)

Further posting of details is under the Interdict until actual release date which is 8/4.

However, in the APG spoilers thread elsewhere on the boards there has been some discussion of the shadow bloodline already, somewhere in the first 50 or 100 posts I think, so if you look there you should find some bits and pieces about it.

Yeah ok fair enough, I guess that doesn't surprise me :)

Thanks for the hint though

Ok I know this is a lot to ask for but could someone please give me the details of sorcerer shadow bloodline?

Im making an illusion based sorcere and fluff wise i think shadow bloodline is waaay more appropriate than any of the existing bloodlines.

You would make my day :)

Nasty stuff indeed...

GRU (Sort_vampyr's dad)

Last session, my group went to deal with this local thug and his minions, since he had abducted the magician apprentice of my illusionist, and silent image was used to great effect during our assault on the bandit lord's house.

When we barged through the back door and had a squad of 12 Korvosan guards with us, it caused one of the minions to flee immediately and another surrendered due to "obvious disadvantage in numbers" ;).

So if i crafted a golem, animated object or any other construct for that matter and it got reduced what then, do i have to pay all the expenses all over again ( essentially building a new ) or is there some way to revive the golem without have to pay for a new body? :)

Will there be no clarification on this? I would really like this one answered! James?

Speaking of Shield other conundrums, what would happen if two or more clerics were to chain-Shield other?

If Cleric A casts shield other on cleric B and vice versa and one of them takes damage?

It should be possible since it's not actually stacking with it self just two two identical spells working in different directions.

What would you do?

Not only that, but the 5 ft step rules say you can interupt other actions with them. :)

And if you make sure to combine that with casting enlarge person on yourself just before combat, you end up being able to cover 45 ft by 40 ft area^^ Not bad at all! The character I play right now ( fighter 5/rogue 2/wizard 1 ) uses this exact tactic. Actually I played with my group this very day and had the fortune of laying absolute waste to a group of zombies getting as much as 9 attacks at full BAB the first two rounds before they started going down :) I love this feat chain!

I'd like to hear about some of the most clever things you've done with illusions and charms.

A friend of mine, a bard, worked together with the party's cleric to kill the skinsaw man in RotR. The cleric blinded the skinsaw man and then, when he fumbled around close by a cliff, the bard created the sound (ghost sound) of footsteps backing away from him, in the direction of the cliff. The skinsaw man leaped to a horrible death thinking he had finally found his prey :D

Sort_vampyr wrote:

YES! WE DID IT! :D Holy kraut that was one scary encounter :O Im certainly getting myself some fly + see invisibility items for Althur ( im the dex fighter ). Never have I wanted a fly scroll more :'D

Yes, you all did fine!

now get off the RotRL board:-)

GM/Dad

Dont worry, i tracked this thread through your user-name im not looking for spoilers :p I just wanted to share my joy of still being alive with you guys :D

We literally cheered and hooted when the cleric took her out^^ It was beautiful :')

YES! WE DID IT! :D Holy kraut that was one scary encounter :O Im certainly getting myself some fly + see invisibility items for Althur ( im the dex fighter ). Never have I wanted a fly scroll more :'D

Well so far i have tried Leonals suggestions, but for some reason i cannot dl the adobe acrobat free version ( for some reason the dl platform thinks that i do not have windows and declares my pc incompatible ) and i cant seem to find any way to remove any layers in the Adobe reader v. 7.1 i tried for that exact purpose... So i guess im back to square one :/

How do i remove the trap symbols and the reference numbers from my GM map in my PDF, to make a map/battle grid for my players ?

Treantmonk wrote:

Sneak attack damage is pretty flexible really. You can even sneak attack with a wand of cause light wounds for example.

I know it's silly, but the FAQs have said that if you sneak attack with a spell, the extra damage is considered whatever damage the spell lists.

Soooo, if you sneak attack with a CON damaging spell... Keep the thought going.

Dang -.-'

Are you absolutely sure about this? Cause that would be utterly EVIL!

Well I cant find anything in the RAW that suggests either way, but I would think that could compensate for big clunky shields just as well as body armor.

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Unless your GM states otherwise a ranger starts with 175 GP, more than enough to buy yourself a composite bow :)

But each point of STR bonus-damage cost an extra 100gp. What good is a composite bow that doesn't have a STR rating?

Ah true enough, didn't think of that :)

psionichamster wrote:

2: Con/Str: ALMOST equally important. Str = damage with your composite longbow (you got one of those, didn't you?)

I've looked at the composite longow and started with STR14 for future levels, but how do you get a composite bow at level 1?

Unless your GM states otherwise a ranger starts with 175 GP, more than enough to buy yourself a composite bow :)

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Well thats as clear as it gets

Buuut... I just got my Bestiary PDF today and under Incorporeal special quality it doesn't say anything about being immune to critical hits, though it does say that they cannot be hit with normal weapons and so on. I just wonder why the line about being critical immune is left out? Would this be because IF you circumvent the miss chance you can score criticals just as normal?

Read more carefully. The incorporeal subtype is different from the incorporeal special quality. In fact, the subtype grants the special quality. The rule I quoted above is from the Bestiary section of the PRD. I assure you that if you look in the Types section of the PDF, you'll find that same section.

Ah thx, found it^^ you're absolutely right :) But I still think it should have said so under incorporeal special quality...

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Yeah ok, but lets say the rogue has a ghost touch weapon then...

Where does it say that incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attacks, i cant find it?

PRD wrote:

Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality.

HERE (gotta scroll waaaaaaaay down)

If you're attacking with a ghost touch weapon, then the creature is affected by it just like a fully corporeal creature would be affected by a normal weapon. I don't see the problem.

Well thats as clear as it gets

Buuut... I just got my Bestiary PDF today and under Incorporeal special quality it doesn't say anything about being immune to critical hits, though it does say that they cannot be hit with normal weapons and so on. I just wonder why the line about being critical immune is left out? Would this be because IF you circumvent the miss chance you can score criticals just as normal?

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Well, thats how I would describe it too, but it would just seem strange that a rogue could somehow affect the undead essence of an incorporeal undead with a mundane weapon just because of some special attack technique ( i guess thats how i image the bleed from the rogue bleed attack )

They can't, for two reasons:

One, incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attacks, and Bleeding Attack requires the rogue to hit with a sneak attack.
Two, incorporeal creatures are immune to attacks from mundane weapons.

Yeah ok, but lets say the rogue has a ghost touch weapon then...

Where does it say that incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attacks, i cant find it?

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Zurai wrote:

lastknightleft wrote:

not really, because once again that leaves incorporeal undead. whom by the rules can also bleed.

Your attack has started to unravel their essence, which slowly deteriorates over time.

Exactly! I think that one could come up with a bleed "explanation" for every type. But I have to agree that in some cases, bleed just seems ehm, inappropriate?

I'm fine with the idea that anything that can take hp damage can "bleed". My old cars bleed oil, dried up plants bleed moisture, undead can bleed out the stability of remaining parts because the attack caused a progressively growing wound/fracture, etc. Fine by me.

Incorporeal- a great question..., I will easily explain their essence becomes thinner, less stable or stong. Provided they can take hp damage of course.

Well, thats how I would describe it too, but it would just seem strange that a rogue could somehow affect the undead essence of an incorporeal undead with a mundane weapon just because of some special attack technique ( i guess thats how i image the bleed from the rogue bleed attack )

lastknightleft wrote:

not really, because once again that leaves incorporeal undead. whom by the rules can also bleed.

Your attack has started to unravel their essence, which slowly deteriorates over time.

Exactly! I think that one could come up with a bleed "explanation" for every type. But I have to agree that in some cases, bleed just seems ehm, inappropriate?

I remember James saying that undead IS affected by bleed just as much as anybody else and that in the case of an undead it would represent something like a fracture in the spinal cullum that slowly grow larger, I dont remember in what thread though

EDIT: Aaah, I see that a link has been posted to that very thread, that should close this case :)

To be honest I think Dragon Disciples should get 100% claw use in any case.

Thank you!

+1

Oy, I forgot the best part. If you want to play an arcane trickster Improved feint is the best ability. Flat-footed enemies can't make AoO's. So you feint, make him flat-footed, then you sneak attack vampiric touch him.

Ouch :/ I would consider that not being very nice >.< Why cant we just solve things in a peaceful civilized way?

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Yeah you got some great points there. Got me thinking. But I would still claim that the potential damage from a pure rogue with TFW is high enough to outweigh the cons.

Another ting, even though the chance to hit is lower with TWF on a hit-to-hit basis, dont you think that the higher amounts of attacks makes the probability of hitting higher? Probably not against high AC targets, but at least against low-mid ?

The answer is again.. it really depends. If you have a high armored opponent you could just end up whiffing 4-5 times a round. If you feinted you drop his AC making him flat-footed and then swing once with a higher +hit, better chance of hitting.

If you're fighting low AC opponents TWF is awesome. You can make either one work, but you do want to take into account what you expect to come across. If you are playing a fighter-rogue or ranger-rogue and are the party's main fighter, supported by a bard, a wizard, and a cleric, you may not have a flank buddy. Now if you can convince the wizard bard or sorcerer to summon you a flanker, then TWF becomes an option again.

If your group has a fighter, a paladin, you playing a rogue, and a cleric, you can probably count on flanking with the paladin or fighter a good percentage of the time. Note that even as a pure rogue there are enemies you will not be able to flank, and improved feint will be about the only way you can reasonably expect to sneak attack them.

Armor and weapon training, and moving full speed in medium/heavy armor now makes a fighter-rogue a really good option for a skillful party tank.

Yeah that's pretty much what I would conclude. I guess one of the reasons that I'm so pro-TWF is that I always assume that the rogue will have someone else tanking the mobs. I wouldn't even choose to play rogue if there was no heavy melee class to play ball with :)

Sort_vampyr wrote:

What i dont get is choosing a heavy two-hand weapon for a rogue?

At higher levels the base damage of your weapon will be rather low compared to the damage you could potentially get from sneak attack using TWF, at least thats what I've heard from quite a few people.

I mean if you have SA of 5d6 per attack, how could any weapon, even with power attack and high strength bonus, hope to compare with an extra attack.

To me it would seem that basically the idea with a melee combat rogue is to get in as many SA as possible.

Based on that I would throw away any idea of not going for TWF and not getting weapons suitable for TWF. And I would strongly advise against planning on relying on Feint, since that would limit the amount of SA you can put on your enemy. But I do recognize the usefulness of Imp. feint for situations where you cannot flank, but in that case i dont know what would be most beneficial, feint attack or just TWF'ing the f out whomever :) ( maybe someone with experience could shed some light on that situation in particular? )

TWF Pros: more attacks, more potential SA dice, more chances to crit, lose benefits if you move and attack, more benefits from multiple enchanted weapons, typically more MAD

TWF Con's: lower chance to hit, can't get multiple SA dice without a flank buddy(persistant dagger is not going to be allowed in a lot of games, however UMD and scrolls of summon monster will), less damage per hit(real problem with some DR), more expensive to enchant 2 weapons

Two-handed Pro's: Less MAD, cheaper to enchant one weapon, more damage on a single hit, less feats required, more benefit from move-attack tactics, better chance to hit

two-handed Con's: Less SA dice, less attacks(fewer chances to crit)

6 attacks with 9d6 sneak attack dice does you no good if you can't set up a sneak attack. If you can set it up via flankers or some other way, TWF is incredible for a rogue, but when you're on your own, one good attack can be just what you need.

Yeah you got some great points there. Got me thinking. But I would still claim that the potential damage from a pure rogue with TFW is high enough to outweigh the cons.

Another ting, even though the chance to hit is lower with TWF on a hit-to-hit basis, dont you think that the higher amounts of attacks makes the probability of hitting higher? Probably not against high AC targets, but at least against low-mid ?

What i dont get is choosing a heavy two-hand weapon for a rogue?

At higher levels the base damage of your weapon will be rather low compared to the damage you could potentially get from sneak attack using TWF, at least thats what I've heard from quite a few people.

I mean if you have SA of 5d6 per attack, how could any weapon, even with power attack and high strength bonus, hope to compare with an extra attack.

To me it would seem that basically the idea with a melee combat rogue is to get in as many SA as possible.

Based on that I would throw away any idea of not going for TWF and not getting weapons suitable for TWF. And I would strongly advise against planning on relying on Feint, since that would limit the amount of SA you can put on your enemy. But I do recognize the usefulness of Imp. feint for situations where you cannot flank, but in that case i dont know what would be most beneficial, feint attack or just TWF'ing the f out whomever :) ( maybe someone with experience could shed some light on that situation in particular? )

Looks awesome :D I hope you'll get to post the rest^^

That's pretty much my question. Would unlimited draconic claws, for the sorcerer that would trade a feat for it, be balanced or not? Some of you guys out there are a lot more into the rules and numbers than me and i would like your opinion :)

If yes/no then why?

An Alternative/more balanced way to give a sorcerer unlimited rounds draconic claws if you could make one up yourself?

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Lewy wrote:

There's nothing wrong with making death hurt. I go for the permanent loss being permanent, until they level up again. Though they only lose 1 level.

Gold, who cares. That doesn't hurt enough.

So ... basically leveling up just to get rid of the negative levels first?

I.E. - you are sticking with permanent level drain of TWO levels.

I -THINK- the idea was that one would no longer have those negative lvls AND THEN get your new lvl?

Sorry... removed my post as it was not really conveying what I was thinking.

Well im pretty sure it goes like this

Bob the 7 lvl fighter comes along and some stoned golem sits down on him by accident.

He then gets revived costing him a fortune :/ ! But otherwise "only" looses ...

QUOTE:

"cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls,
combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense,
saving throws, and skill checks (per negative level) . In addition, the creature
reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative
level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level
lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as
spellcasting)"

But not two REAL levels.

When Bob goes up a lvl he gets whats coming to him and gets rid of those nasty penalties :)

Would that be about right azhrei_fje/Lewy ? :)

Lewy wrote:

There's nothing wrong with making death hurt. I go for the permanent loss being permanent, until they level up again. Though they only lose 1 level.

Gold, who cares. That doesn't hurt enough.

So ... basically leveling up just to get rid of the negative levels first?

I.E. - you are sticking with permanent level drain of TWO levels.

I -THINK- the idea was that one would no longer have those negative lvls AND THEN get your new lvl?

If your DM is open to hand-crafted solutions,

you might try looking over the Dragon Disciple PrC and tweaking it to match Abyssal Bloodline Abilities instead. You could combine Eldritch Knight and an "Abyssal Acolyte"(?) for something like Ftr1/Sor1/AbyssAcolyte8/EldKnight10 with 16 levels of Caster Progression (and Bloodline Bonus Spells up to Sorc9) and 19 BAB along with Eldritch Knight's Spell Critical Capstone.

EDIT: Whoops, guess that doesn't help. But yeah, Transformation BL Spell could make that work...

Yeah i would def consider taking 1 lvl sorc, then Dragon Disciple PrC and then Eldritch knight afterwards. You can just "make-believe" that it is demon blood in your veins and not dragon. Mechanics wise it would still be the same old dragon look-a-like but roleplaying wise it would be badass demon spellslinger/mauler :D

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Ok, so this question came up during the last session we had in my group.

"Would you get a reflex save against something you couldn't possibly avoid?"

We couldn't find anything in RAW that would ever deny you of taking a reflex save, but none of us thought that it would make sense if this guy who was shackled got a reflex save against the fireball that was thrown at him when both his hands and feet were shackled to a wall.

My DM decided that he should not get a save, would this be correct?

What would you judge?

You still get a reflex even if you cant move. You just take -5 since you cant use your dex. This was answered for me on the WoTC boards a while back. Your saves are as much abstraction as your HP, and your save represent that fact that you are heroes to an extent. It did not make sense to me either, but as an abstraction it makes sense, kind of like the fort save against coup de grace. Realistically how hard is it to kill someone that is helpless, especially if you are a trained warrior.

Yeah ok I think I can live with that, I mean the game was not supposed to be a real world simulation, so it doesnt need to be 100% realistic. And a -5 dex mod to reflex save IS a pretty big penalty, so that goes a long way :)

Ok, so this question came up during the last session we had in my group.

"Would you get a reflex save against something you couldn't possibly avoid?"

We couldn't find anything in RAW that would ever deny you of taking a reflex save, but none of us thought that it would make sense if this guy who was shackled got a reflex save against the fireball that was thrown at him when both his hands and feet were shackled to a wall.

My DM decided that he should not get a save, would this be correct?

What would you judge?

Yuanti :D Just about awesome!

I suppose it depends on if you have a Wizard in your party or not. Remember it is very important to leave your wizard on even levels for the extra BAB if you are primarily a fighter. Level 3 is not wise even if you get your 2nd levels spells on it. You dont dont lose much going to level 4 wizard since you will get that BAB just the same with Fighter.

Well I could see how the +1 to BAB would justify taking another lvl from 3->4 wiz, without it hurting too much, but i dont see what it would get me that a fighter lvl wouldn't? More spells? In that case I would rather get my +1 BAB from fighter and get more HP/feat/whatever. As soon as you have those 2nd lvl spells I think you have all that a fighter would want from wizard lvls without sacrificing too many fighter lvls :)

Personally i think that fighter with 3 lvl's wizard is just about awesome :D

IMO...

Shield
Enlarge person
Expeditious retreat
Mirror image
Bear's endurance
Bull's strenght

... Makes for awesome boosts for a fighter and gives you some neat utility spells too^^

Munchkin-wise i dont know if it's a good build, i mean you could probably have someone cast those spells for you (some of them), but it gives flavor to the fighter :D

I would go for bard :) The bard archer is really neat, we have one in my group, and even though we would all like to strangle him for all the trouble he's causing, his worth in battle cannot be denied^^

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Wolf Munroe wrote:

Actually, the table reads -40, but I think it should be +40.

So if someone were invisible, and within 30 feet, and standing still, the DC to detect would be 60.

(Base DC 20 + 40.)

Yeah ok, the modifier for standing still should be +40. (for a total of DC 60)

Another thing to consider:

Under stealth it says that you can stealth up to half your speed without penalty. So the -5 perception DC modifier for detecting invisible creatures moving at half speed should not apply if the creature is stealthing..

Agree?

Good question. I have no idea.

I would tend to say that -5 for moving half speed invisible would still apply because it's applying to the invisibility modifier, not the base stealth modifier, but that's just an interpretation.

If I should stick to my interpretation of the RAW I WOULD apply the -5, but the stealth skill description goes a long way to say that, as long as you're stealthing you're just as easy to notice when standing still as if you were moving up to half speed. I think this should count wether you're invisible or not.

Actually, the table reads -40, but I think it should be +40.

So if someone were invisible, and within 30 feet, and standing still, the DC to detect would be 60.

(Base DC 20 + 40.)

Yeah ok, the modifier for standing still should be +40. (for a total of DC 60)

Another thing to consider:

Under stealth it says that you can stealth up to half your speed without penalty. So the -5 perception DC modifier for detecting invisible creatures moving at half speed should not apply if the creature is stealthing..

Agree?

Maybe it should read as:

The DC to notice an invisible creature which is active but not moving any distance or talking is DC 20. To pinpoint the exact location of the invisible creature add +20 to the DC. Apply any relevant modifiers

Invisible creature is... Perception DC modifiers

In combat or speaking -20
Moving at half speed -5
Moving at full speed -10
Running or charging -20
Not moving +20
Using stealth +stealth check
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle(door) +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall) +15

I'm not sure where you're getting that 40 in your post unless it's to pinpoint the exact location. In which case, the numbers still scale the same. The sneaking character gets all the bonuses that would otherwise apply, they just get to add their stealth check on top of it.

Based on what you said:

The invisible creature is in combat or speaking? The person making a perception check has to beat a DC 20 points lower than they would if the person is not in combat.

Well, if the person is not in combat he would be standing still (DC 40 to notice), so -20 would make it DC 20. Thats what i thought you meant :)

I thought that you implied that the base DC for noticing someone Invisible was 40 and that the other modifiers like -5(for moving at half speed) was applied to this figure.

So this is what I have come to understand: The base DC for noticing someone invisible is 20 and it is to this figure that the other modifiers are applied. And when you're standig totally still the DC would be 40? Is that about correct?

In that case consider this. Someone is invisible and has a stealth skill of +0

If he moves at half speed the DC for detecting him would be 40(for invisibility) -5 (for moving at half speed) TOTAL DC 35

But the DC for detecting the same person while stealthing would be stealth+20, a DC of 30 on an average roll.

How would that make sense?

Am I the only one who thinks that the "Invisible creature is..." table on page 563 in PFRPG Core book dosn't make any sense?

Invisible creature is... Perception

In combat or speaking -20
Moving at half speed -5
moving at full speed -10
Running or charging -20
Not moving -40
Using stealth stealth check+20
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle(door) +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall) +15

Ok first of all, how do you do read this table? It would seem that some of the figures ( the first five figures in the perception collum ) are penalties to the one searching for the invisible creature. I say this because i cant believe that the DC for noticing a still invisible would get a -40 modifier, so this has to be the penalty to the perceiver right? But then the last four figures doesnt make sence since it should be harder to notice something behind a wall or door? So these are modifiers to the DC as opposed to modifiers to the perception check?

And even then it doesnt make any sense. Why would it be harder to detect someone who is running or charging than someone moving at half speed?

The modifiers get progressevly larger the more noise the invisible creature is making until the "not moving line" where the biggest modifier is given to the least noisy action!

Have i completely missed something?

Under "Making an attack of Opportunity" it says that:

"An attack of Opportunity is a single melee attack"

Under "Disarm" and "Trip" it says:

"You can attempt to Disarm/Trip your opponent in place of a melee attack"

Does this mean that i can Trip or Disarm an opponent who provokes an AoO ?