Stauffie's page

Organized Play Member. 62 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I was wondering whether armors made from the dragonhide special material (core rulebook page 154, or http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/materials .html ) can be made from the hide of non-true dragons, like the dragon turtle, wyverns, drakes of all kinds, etc

Greetings, Stauffie

Thanks, all!

I guess neutral would be appropriate, yes... the analogy with Nethys is actually very good.

:) And I already knew that great song by Tom Lehrer, thanks Arbane!

Hi people!

Of course, I am acutely aware that alignment discussions are sort of unsolvable and don't necessarily have an objectively right or wrong answer...

But I wanted to ask: if you look at real-world historical person Wernher von Braun, what kind of alignment would you assign to him?
(Or other rules things to mimic him?)

(I ask this because I want to play an alchemist who is a bit the obsessed scientist type, not necessary a blueprint of Wernher von Braun, strong parts House MD and doctor Frankenstein as well, but a bit of Wernher as well)


Yes, I was talking about fleshwarping, not -crafting... so yes, magic goo, put captured good guy in...
I thought that like craft contruct or making undead it would need spells and/or feats... oh well...
The fleshwarp (the creature that is the result of the proces, like the oronci) is under control or at least friendly to the fleshwarper, right?

The fleshwarping-scene is planned as an add to 'beyond the doomsday door', the fleshwarper is supposted to be an ally of the main BBEG elf-cleric-of Yamasoth-guy. I wanted to make a tiefling-qlippoth-born cleric of Yamasoth (Yamasoth is much into transforming flesh, and his interest in fleshwarping is recorded), but am in doubt now because it might need an alchemist.

No one?

I washoping to find out what kind of NPC badguy I need to build that does the fleshwarping... drow probably... an alchemist? Is worshipping Haagenti obligatory? Can worshippers of Yamasoth do it?


As a GM, I wanted to let my players run into a fleshwarping lab where a friendly half-orc NPC they met earlier has met a terrible fate at the hands of a bad guy: the halforc has just been fleshwarped into an oronci (I took the liberty of treating the half-orc as an orc in this respect)
Does said bad guy need a feat (or feats) for fleshwarping?

I don't think a boss with optimized equipment will necessarily mess up wealth-by level: you can always give him/her stuff that is good for him/her, but not for the PC's, because they can't use it... a bastard sword in a group without a bastard-sword-wielder... armor that is made for a dragon and not for a human, so refitting it is possible but takes alot of gold... a monks robe while your party has no monk... etc.

Leadership feat? :p

Why would you want to play an 11 year-old char? To answer your question: yes, because having the same stats as an adult would not be logical/realistic (even in a fantasy game), although the young template might be a better fix.

A big flaw in the plan is that without monk levels unarmed damage is very low even with the IUS feat :(

I had the idea to build a cleric of Korada, whose favored weapon is a unarmed strike, which means the cleric gets the improved unarmed strike according to this faq: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gj#v5748eaic9r9j (I'll have to confirm this with the GM of the oncoming campaign, but I think/hope that will not be a problem (if it is, I can always take a level of monk or spend a feat on IUS)).

The real question is wether I can take the feat domain strike with the magic domain (which Korada has as well) and the hand of the acolyte power.

copy-paste: Domain Strike (Combat)
You unleash a domain power upon your enemy as part of your unarmed strike.
Prerequisites: Domain class feature, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit: When you gain this feat, choose one domain-granted power that you can use to affect no more than one opponent. If you make a successful unarmed strike against an opponent, in addition to dealing your unarmed strike damage, you can use a swift action to deliver the effects of the chosen granted power to that opponent. Doing so provokes no attacks of opportunity.

Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you take it, you apply it to a different qualifying domain power.

Hand of the Acolyte (Su): You can cause your melee weapon to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly returning. As a standard action, you can make a single attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except that you add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

So the question is: I'm not sure hand of the acolyte qualifies as 'you can use to affect no more than one opponent': does it affect your opponent or your weapon?

(And yes, I know that normally you'd have your weapon in your hand, which makes unarmed strike difficult, but I thought I'd hit with my on-hand and have a weapon in my off hand, or (better) have a twohanded weapon and use a free action to let one hand loose... alternatively, can hand of the acolyte let your unarmed strike fly from your grasp? :p)

You could use 'undead' that are not really undead, like incutilis-driven bodies, or yellow musk zombies, or other possibilities...

I would say the player rolls once, but the DC of the save is 2 higher, so DC 15 (not sure where it was, but I think I remember reading this is in the rules somewhere).

And the corrupting touch: All ghosts gain this incorporeal touch attack. By passing part of its incorporeal body through a foe's body as a standard action, the ghost inflicts a number of d6s equal to its CR in damage. This damage is not negative energy—it manifests in the form of physical wounds and aches from supernatural aging. Creatures immune to magical aging are immune to this damage, but otherwise the damage bypasses all forms of damage reduction. A Fortitude save halves the damage inflicted.

Hi, I wanted to ask whether the 'long limbs' bloodline power of the aberrant bloodline works when the sorcerer has become a ghost (and monster for the PC's to fight)... most specificly, can he use long limbs with the corrupting touch ability of the ghost?

(for info: Long Limbs (Ex): At 3rd level, your reach increases by 5 feet whenever you are making a melee touch attack. This ability does not otherwise increase your threatened area. At 11th level, this bonus to your reach increases to 10 feet. At 17th level, this bonus to your reach increases to 15 feet.

and from the ghost template (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/ghost ) : Melee and Ranged Attacks: A ghost loses all of the base creature's attacks. If it could wield weapons in life, it can wield ghost touch weapons as a ghost.

Special Attacks: A ghost retains all the special attacks of the base creature, but any relying on physical contact do not function. In addition, a ghost gains one ghost special attack from the list below for every 3 points of CR (minimum 1—the first ability chosen must always be corrupting touch). The save DC against a ghost's special attack is equal to 10 + 1/2 ghost's HD + ghost's Charisma modifier unless otherwise noted. Additional ghost abilities beyond these can be designed at the GM's discretion. )


I am currently GMing rise of the runelords, and last session the char of one of my players died. It was interesting roleplay etc, so even though I really liked the char, it was OK.

The player has come forward with an idea for a new char (the party has reached level 4 at the start of last session, and I have the policy to let new chars have the same level as the party... actually I don't even do individual xp and differences in level)

Anyway, his concept is a halfing archer paladin, riding a mount (now just a bought wolf/dog, the mount on level 5). His idea was to use the divine hunter archetype, which sounds logical for an archer paladin... but at level 5, the divine hunter says:
Divine Bond (Su)

At 5th level, a divine hunter forms a bond with her deity. This functions as the paladin’s divine bond ability, except the bond must always take the form of a ranged or throwing weapon (excluding ammunition). In addition to the listed abilities, a divine hunter can add the distance, returning, or seeking special abilities to her weapon, but she cannot add the defending or disruption special abilities. Special abilities added to throwing weapons function normally when the weapon is used in melee.

This ability replaces the standard paladin's divine bond.

He wanted to use the divine bond to get a mount, but it seems the divine hunter does not to allow the divine bond ability to be used for a mount, ONLY for the weapon option... I get why ranged should be chosen over melee, but I don't see why a mount should not be an option, the rest of the archetype does not seem overpowered...

So, I would like some advice: should I keep with the rules, or allow the player to get a mount on level 5, or is there perhaps a better archetype for this character concept?

Oh, and just to be sure: IF you choose an archetype, it is for all the levels, right? You can't choose the archetype for level 1 only, and then be a normal paladin after that? (I'm 99% sure that you can't).

Hmm, changed my mind, indeed, no tail = no tail slap attack. Kobolts have a tail, but racial heritage does not give you a tail... there are non-kobolt legal characters with one though: some non-kobolt races have tails (tiefling, varana)... sadly, they can not take racial heritage because not human (which makes sense for varanas, but tieflings are often humans with 1 weird far ancestor).

For bards, there is this pathfinder legal feat: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spellsong

And then there is this from the inner sea world guide: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/secret-signs-local

In 3.5, in the book 'complete scoundrel' there was a skill trick for this: http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-scoundrel--60/conceal-spellcasting--3281/
(skill tricks cost 2 skillpoints tolearn... you could drop the concentration requirement and copy the rest... probably with lower requirement in ranks of SoH because pathfinder/3.5 differences) :p

Aother cool one: http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-scoundrel--60/false-theurgy--3287/

Droskar is great indeed!

Another idea: inquisitor(s) (perhaps this community has one Stalin-like leader type cleric and some inquisitors to keep the people in line)... can inquisitors follow a philosophy instead of a god?

Hmmm, a philosophy, that's great, love it!... but I am confused: where do his/her spells come from? there's no deity granting them... still, the rules suggest it is possible...

revolution or toil subdomains are great ideas, i might also take a subdomain of community (cooperation might be nice: give him/her and cronies (naieve commoners who the PCs should trynot to kill) some teamwork feats).

As for undead... hmmm... usually they are enslaved, which they could see as bad, but I wonder how welcome they would be, with their inclination to nomnom on innocent villagers... still, the comunity might have strong ideas about how race etc doesn't matter, pulling lots of shunned characters (half-orcs, etcetc).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is quite simple: the tail terror feat does NOT require you to have a tail.. it is not in the prerequisites... so all 'humans don't have a tail' tail is irrelevant. You qualify, so go!

Darkwarriorkarg, Abadar seems to me like the opposite: the god of capitalism... this character/cult probably hates Abadar (or is this interpretation flawed?)

Grundinnar might be good as well, thanks Claxon

Patheon? what do you mean Cheapy?

Perhaps a village with some personality-cult (statues of former leaders etc), lots of bureaucracy etc would be a nice background... I would like to make it over the top (but not necessary evil... not necessary good either...)

For the Pol Pot-like focus on agriculture Erastil might be good (still, the goodness bugs me a bit).

Hey there!

I wanted to make a joke character for a one-shot adventure, and I thought an over the top parady-communistic character dual wielding a hammer and sickle would be nice. Al sorts of classes might be ok for it, but I thought the community subdomain would be nice, So I'll probably be a cleric, and probably a dwarf (auto-proficient with warhammers).

The question is: what would be the best god for this?

(disclaimer: I rather dislike real world communism, and the goal of the thread is not to discuss real world communism).

A deflected attack is not a hit and not a miss? really?

A ring of protection gives an AC bonus with the deflection type... so an attack could be deflected by your ring of protection, not hit you, but not count as a miss?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is b**+*+$*. An attack that is not a hit is a miss. Period.
This is JUST invented to stop the two styles from working together. If they shold not work together, fine, nerf them by saying they are not to work togther, but don't invent stuff like this.

Its hybrid form seems to be missing the natural armor bonus boars have.

Under the lychantrope it says: AC: In hybrid or animal form the lycanthrope has the natural armor bonus of the base animal increased by +2.

The base creature (boar) has +4 natural armor bonus, so the total natural armor bonus should be +6.

But the entry in the bestiary 2 only has +2 natural armor bonus.

I was reading about mithral, which makes armor one catagory lighter, but sadly has no such effect on weapons. Is there a special material that does this? (making or example a longsword or scimitar a light weapon (for two-weapon fighting purposes))

Hi there!

I am preparing to be a GM for the fist time in my life, and am going to run te RotRL adventure path with a rater large (6 or 7) but inexperienced party.

I would like advice on adding lovecraftian elements.

I will probably not deviate too much from the basic RotRL, but i wanted to add some stuff about cultists, the outer gods, etc. Late in the adventure, there is the Mhar-creature, which is basicly a sleeping great old one, and the whole Leng thing. So I wanted to add some old cult influences a bit earlier in the campaign. Erin Habe's sanatorium looks like the perfect spot for this: there might be a patient who is an insane cultist, or (perhaps better :p) Erin Habe might have done some studying in that direction, and some while after he escapes, might come back to haunt the PC's with nasty summoned creatures... there might even be a magic tome dealing with Azatoth or Shub-Niggurath, allowing the PC's to prepare improved summoning spells (but a cost, of course...)
The alienist PrC from 3.5 Complete Arcane seems nice too (for NPC... Erin Habe?)

So far, I have a lot of inarticulated ideas... has anyone done something like this before? Does anyone have good ideas how best to develop/implement these ideas?

(the hidden beast has a lovecraftian feel as well... the mages who summoned him probably dabbled in dark tapestry stuff)

I've also wanted to craft these :p The problem i had: how do you calculate the craft DC?

:) I found that one, indeed...

I kind of dislike the urban flavor, because i would like my character to have spent most of his time on isolated hilltops in deep philosophical thought (a bit monk-like, indeed :p). Of course 'urban' in mostly flavor, but still... And i really like wildshaping, so i had hoped on no penalty on that. And the skillbonusses etc don't really fit my concept.

I might get my DM to reflavor the eagle shaman as an owl shaman, having knowledge as a domain... but that would still mean a penalty on wildshaping...

Oh well, perhaps you can't always get what you want.

I guess the strenght domain is an option via an archetype, and chimes well with 'survival of the fittest'... knowledge would probably be even better, but don't see an option to get it via an archetype (but haven't checked them all outy yet).

Thanks for input :)

I would actually like him to be a bit of a philosopher and focus on the laws of nature. Pondering about atoms/elements, plato's theory of forms, evolution, reincarnation, etc... Law domain badly represents this, I fear, it is more based on juridical law.


The title basically says it... a druid can get a domain with nature bond... he/she needs to be neutral on one axis, but can be NG, NE, CN or LN... could he/she get one of the alignment domains?

I would like a LN druid that has Irori as his god.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

my 2 cents about the lance debate:
The rules on 3-to-1 power attack mentions two-handed weapons (a category) without mentioning the amount of hands this two-handed weapon should be wielded with. It also mentions one handed weapons (different catagory), but only if these one handed weapons (category) are wielded with two hands. This qualifier (must be wielded with two hands)is not added when talking of two handed weapons, so any two handed weapon gives 3-vs-1 on power attack

A lance is a two handed weapon, even when wielded with one hand, so it gives 3-vs-1 power attack. That's RAW.

However, this isn't the subject of the topic.

One more time: realism should not be a big consideration.
It does not really disrupt the game in ways unmanagable in terms of damage (we have lance for that...), he does not suddenly outclass the other party members. It takes investment (ride skill point) to really make it work, so there is some balance, and unless he has a special class-feature pet his mount is easily killed.
You also don't have the rules to back you up, the mounted combat rules allow it.
I think you don't have a legitimate reason for disallowing it. If you decide to anyway, I would call it picking on people.

Hmmm, I did not read well... I would say that a celestial template makes the dire tiger a good creature, so it cannot attack a target that is protected from good...
But I checked and it really says what you are quoting under 'summon monster', it gains your alignemt instead of its usual alignment... a true neutral celestial creature... weird.

So I guess you're right, no prtection spell would help.

Summoned monsters (not nature's ally) ussually get a template: celestial (good) or fiendish (evil) or resolute (lawful) or entropic (chaotic), giving elemental resistences, smite against the diagonal aligment and above 5 HD also DR. There is no true neutral template.

Aslo, don't forget that elf characters don't exist in real life, so your players can't play one. And no half-elves or dwarves or halflings or (half-)orcs or gnomes either... and I'm not even going to begin about the enemies they can no longer fight.
That will be one interesting game...

WHY should it be realistic? Are you going to ban all spellcasting classes as well? Because a wizard casting a magic missile isn't very realistic either, and neither is magical healing or wildshaping. If you don't ban that but ban using a greatsword while mounted it's just arbitrary picking on certain players.
The rules allow it. Simple as that.


For an NPC and mostly bad guy, I had some inspiration from Heroe of might and magic 4: the hero of the death magic campaign is Gauldoth half-dead, who has a weird condition: in a big fire in a library in which he nearly died, he desperately did a spell from a scroll way beyond his level, which left him with his left side a living human and his right side undead.

Now, in pathfinder, Nethys has a sort of split personality down the middle as well, so i decides to make an interesting NPC which is half-undead, and has links to the church of Nethys. I will probably use the lich template for this.

This gives a lot of headaches, first of which is the reaction to positive/negative energy. This could be solved by making the NPC a cleric with the death domain, which has the 8th level power that you heal from negative energy as well as positive. (Death domain isn't one of Nethys domains, but since the NPC will be a powerful necromancer, Nethys could grant it to him as an exception)

But there are many problems with DR, natural armor, and undead traits like no constitution, immunity for mind-effecting stuff, etc.
Does anyone have ideas or this?

Pathfinder has no system for attacks hitting the right or left side. I could use a 50/50 chance to decide which side an attack hits, but that seems rather unfulfilling, so i need help there too.

AnnoyingOrange wrote:

I don't think you get it.. DR 15/bludgeoning and magic means that a weapon has to be bludgeoning AND magic to penetrate the DR. Otherwise this would read DR 15/bludgeoning OR magic, an artifact super magical sword would still have to deal with the lich's DR because it is not bludgeoning.

In short the lich is not more or less vulnerable to magic, it just isn't a requirement to penetrate his DR, removing the 'magic' part of the DR makes it slightly worse in that any mundane bludgeoning device can now hurt him.

I did not know that! Is that really true? Wow, that makes liches hard to kill indeed.

So, his DR is even better than thought.
That kind of lowers the use of the AMF, and I might want to make sure the players actually have some magic bludgeoning weapons.

Last question, what about the liches natural armor bonus? It might be in some sourcebook, but i can't find wether it's supernatural or extraordinary.

Anyway, the idea that sparked the post was that DR on this baddie is nice in theory, but in practise useless because the players will have magical weapons... cast AMF, and suddely the barbarian with the magical axe and the paladin with the magical sword have a very hard time damaging him... and the wizards and clerics spells don't work either... of course the lich will have a hard time too... his paralysing touch doesn't work anymore (would people allready paralysed suddenly wake up again? Yes they would... strange), etcetc... but he can pummel them with his mace, they do not have (much) DR.

I think undead minions (a vampire for example) that the lich controls via his channeling/undead master feat break free as well, since they are considered to be under effect of the spell control undead... hmmm, headaches.

Skylancer4 wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

AMF is an emanation from the caster, even if DR was somehow disabled in the area of the effect, the caster isn't going to be under its effect.

In the example from the OP the Lich would keep its DR.

.... not sure where you got that from. The focal point of an emanation is still under its area of effect. JJ implies as such specifically for AMF in this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kl37?Emanations-and-the-Big-Guys. More importantly, a lot of spells don't function as intended without this interpretation (circle of protection, circle of clarity, silence, zone of truth).

Stauffie: DR is not always supernatural. The bestiary entry has (Su or Ex), and some DR such as a barbarian's DR are explicitly labelled as Ex. Best to use the 3.5 FAQ in this case as I wrote above, but as always it is 'DM's call'.

Not quite sure how that post says the creature is being affected by the effects of the spell/ability. His post quite literally states the spell doesn't extend out from the edges of the grid space of the creature so it doesn't cover a larger area for creatures who take up multiple grid squares. That is all he says.

There are numerous headaches that occur if the defensive ability AMF provides strips you of all magical effects, the least of which is DR. As an emanation AMF blocks LoE which is generally required for just about every other magical effect you would cast on someone else (or them to cast on you). If it stops all effects you currently have on going you end up losing spells (that great +6 stat item stops working and takes 24 hours to get back), having a lower AC (bracers of armor - gone, ring of protection - gone, amulet of natural armor - gone), your contigency spell won't work and so on and so on.

What part of any of that makes AMF a good idea? How is that even a 'good' defensive ability?

Arg, I had not even thought of that... the lich I had in mind is a slighlty altered version of http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-12/phaegia-human-lich-c leric-of-orcus-11

not of orcus but Urgathoa, with the magic domain instead of evil domain. But casting AMF would probably also lower his AC due to magic breastplate, and mess with his spell storing +1 mace... Well, i guess AMF has it's downsides, but these minor things are not that bad, still might be worth taking it.

As for DR... i think it would be weird if DR/bludgeoning and magic became just DR/bludgeoning... is he suddenly less vulnerable to magic? If a powerfull artifact or god (those are not affected by AMF's mortal magic) attack the lich... an artifact super magical sword of a god would still damage it, i guess... so I think I am just going to keep the DR as it is. The lich won't completely lose it, because he's still a skeleton.

And apart from damage reduction, I also forgot about the liches natural armor bonus... is that a supernatural/magical thing? what about the elemental immunities? (not that it will come up, nonmagical elemental damage is easily avoidable... but i guess that since he's still a skeleton cold and electricity still don't matter)

This: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Damage-Reductio n says:
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

If the DR is supernatural, isn't it cancelled by the antimagic field? So in that case a lich within an antimagic field would loose all DR?

Spells normally ignore DR, so surrounding himself with an antimagic field might be a good defense if the DR stays up (of course, he can't cast spells anymore, so it's not perfect)

Undead don't wink out of existence or fall unconscious in an antimagic field, even though they are inherently magical. And the lich is still a sort of skeleton, which explains the DR/bludgeoning for me (but that might be flavor...), even within an antimagic field... it still has no flesh.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I was building/designing a cleric lich with the magic domain, which grants the spell antimagic field as a lvl 6 domain spell (wich is quite good in itself). I wondered what happened to the liches damage reduction in an antimagic field... it is DR/magic and bludgeoning... an antimagic field would supress magic weapons, so a warrior with a magic sword would have a hard time damaging the lich... unless the DR itself is supressed too. Is DR a magical/supernatural ability?

Thanks, all... I'll send a message to the makers of PCGenerator.

Racial traits are not race traits? Wow, that is... confusing

I was using PCGenerator6000, a free characterbuilder, and was trying to build a halfling adopted by humans. So i gave him the adopted trait. As options for the human trait the program gave the racial traits humans get: i selected the bonus feat.

Is this right? A trait that grants a feat? The programs lets me do it, but i doubt it is right

I am certainly considering mantis style (stunning fist adept seems weak in comparison).

Thanks for the input... but do any of you have an idea why? would it be too strong otherwise? Should I ask my DM to allow charging or doing it as a standard action?

Most other variants of stunning fist seem to be less good than the original. Confused does not give penalties on AC like stunned.
For a usual monk with not very high wisdom, crushing blow would be far less useful than stunning fist... it is just that my weird character might really benefit from it (i wanted to play a sacred fist, a 3.5 prestige class... my DM said he allows that, but at the moment i am in doubt, since pathfinder levels (base class or prestige classes) are on average better than 3.5 levels...perhaps paizo will publish a sacred fist...)

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>