TheRonin's page

Buri wrote:

If you want to be a technical, rules-miser a phylactery is only part of the process and is described as such. There is inherent fluff required to complete the process. To dismiss the fluff presented and to claim the phylactery is all you need it simply inaccurate.

I'm sorry. I see the point you're making, I do, and I disagree. To say that fluff is required is to make it crunch, and thereby, not fluff.

It's just like RAW vs RAI. Our group feels one way, yours may feel another, and any number of people can be anywhere else, or in-between. Do we really have anything else to throw at this zombie-horse?

It doesn't sound like your group feels that way, It sounds like YOU feel that way and have browbeat the GM until he just gave up and let you have your way.

Once is a lesson, Twice is a point, Three times is suspicious, four times is malicious. Five times is just trolling.

Dust Raven wrote:

Kevin Morris wrote:

Dust Raven wrote:

Play a bard. Everyone loves bards.

Except me! I can't stand them--well, actually that's not really true. I just think the flavor is far too specific, which makes it difficult for me to come up with a concept I'm excited about.

However, bard would also cover another thing the party's really been missing: a good face. We've gotten ourselves into some major trouble with our stupid mouths so far!

Being the group face is always a nice position to fill. Bards can be any flavor though. Traveling minstrel to cheerleader to master orator to warrior skald to just about anything else you think might sound inspiring. My wife played a gnome bard who functioned as an Indiana Jones style treasure hunter, using oratory and acting to "draw fire" or "bark commands" (either one actually being Inspire Courage or Inspire Competence).

Part of my problem is that I find the idea of bardic performance somewhat...difficult to swallow, I think. I actually think it fills a very great role in a party and love having a bard around, but I have a hard time zoning in on a concept that involves someone singing, orating, or dancing in combat.

But I have trouble making Fighters, too, 'cause my ideas never seem to aim that way (though the 2 skill points/level doesn't endear me toward the class either).

You aren't singing and dancing! You are manipulating reality and the hearts and minds of your allies with your very presence!

If you want to shoot stuff with magic look into the Spellslinger archetype for Wizard.

Be Gene Starwind, you know you want to...

I do recommend looking into a Fire domain cleric if you want a blasty caster cleric.

Take heighten spell and then preferred spell feat at level 5. Prepare all your normal buff, debuff, situational spells, and spend them to spontaneously cast fireballs when you need to blast s~+& into the last century.

On mine I did go ahead and take a dip into sorcerer to get the Arcanas to change my firespells into electricity when needed. As fire resist is pretty common. There are a number of ways to go with that though. Besides if you can't blast you can still do all the typical buffs and debuffs you want since you didn't actually prepare fireball.

It has been a ton of fun so far.

Burn things with fire

Bless Sarenrae!

TheRonin wrote:

Sounds like this "Paladin" is a murdering psychopath, who kills people based on not their actions but rather some supernatural ability to see into their psyche.

A greedy businessman might be Lawful Evil, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be murdered by a "Paladin" when hes done nothing wrong to anyone except put his desire to gain wealth above the needs of others.

See, I think I'm operating on a different interpretation of evil than everyone else. I would never call a greedy businessman "Lawful Evil," he's "Lawful Neutral"

Evil is evil.

They could be either, my understanding is Evil is defined by putting ones self before the needs of other. If hes willing to hurt someone's livelihood to increase his own wealth or power hes evil.

That could be as lawful as firing someone who won't be able to find work elsewhere because hes older and is slower than a young man doing the same job.

But most wouldn't say this person deserves to be murdered in cold blood for JUSTICE.

If a scythe can be a masterwork weapon than a shovel can be.

one of my GMs (And I have adopted it) use a house rule adding +10 to any natural 20 skill checks, but no auto fails on a 1. I like it as it gives the players a chance to really do amazing things they just aren't normally capable of... but only occasionally.

I mean christ, people 7,000 years ago knew how to build city walls. And heres the deal... Humans are WAY more dangerous than zombies!

This was me during all of season 2,

"Fortify the Farm... Why aren't you fortifying the farm? Hello Farm? I want you to meet my good friend, his name is fortifications, I think you'll get along well. "

But nope, lets just leave the farm completely undefended, I mean dirt and wood couldn't be found just anywhere you know.

And you know, not just when the enemy is flying, but what if the enemy is on top of a roof? A high cliff? A Chasm separates you? A magic barrier? a fire? difficult terrain? on top of a wall, or behind some sort of fortification?

Its admittedly more of an issue at low levels when your wizard doesn't have a seemingly unlimited supply of ranged nukes and no one can fly. But rolling a 1d20 to hit an AC of 15 is still better than doing nothing on your turn.

There is a difference between carrying a ranged weapon "just in case" and being able to use it with the skill you can use your primary weapon with.

I actually took the basic Idea I proposed and it inspired to build a campaign around that. Though its now just one act of many. So thanks for the great thread Little Skylark

For political intrigue have her months later claim to be pregnant with the king's Heir.

hmm I like this idea.

For added Evils make the commoner girl an innocent victim of a dominate person spell. Or have her a cunning assassin if you want her to be a reoccurring antagonist.

"Prince Charming" from "Fables"

TheRonin wrote:

What if, What if, What if.

Okay, I'll play your game you rogue. What if that happens?

Although I also have fun thinking of this hypothetical conversation.
** spoiler omitted **

Hey, you started that game. Don't complain about it now.

And if I'd get rid of Alkenstar (or any other country on Golarion)? What's the problem? You can't play a gunslinger without it? Sorry, but where's your flexibility?

I would play a gunslinger from a different region if allowed.

But you are missing my point. If you have a designed a world with no Alkenstar, mostly likely you have done so for no reason other then disallowing Guns. The issue is then, not that guns won't fit into your campaign world. The issue is 'you don't like guns'. And have gone out of your way to design a world were everything is the same except for that.

And if that is the case then just fess up to it. This isn't an issue of a player not being flexible, this is an issue of a player wanting to play a specific concept, and the GM going out of their way to design a world were that concept is invalid, for no story reason except they don't like that concept.

So admit it and move on.

Its no different than "Guns can't exist in my world because bat guano supplies are to low!". You just don't want guns in YOUR fantasy, and you feel your preference should override the player's because you are the mighty GM.

But my god at least admit it!

TheRonin wrote:

Shucks if this thread hasn't turned useless.

As to the poster above. I seriously doubt anyone is going to give you grap if you reject their gunslinger character in a stone aged game. But if your world and concept is that narrow and people know about it a head of time they probably won't see an issue with designing a stone aged themed character.

Isn't. That. The point. Of EVERY game?

Are you telling me you go into every campaign you play with no knowledge of the setting or the GM's style, and with the expectation that you will be able to play anything and everything?

Hate to break it to you, but in my 32 years of gaming, in every gaming group I've ever been in, we have known the setting, era, world, whatever, we were being asked to make characters for.

Or maybe what this is, is just another surprise variant stacking the deck for a one-sided argument. Not only must we all now come up with "logical" points, rather than taste or setting, but we also must take into account that our campaigns are all setting-neutral.

Congratulations. Yes, in a world where every setting was totally neutral and without any particular genre or specific theme, nobody can come up with a "logical" reason why they would utilize their own particular opinions or taste. You win.

Of course, if that's the case, then the thread was useless as soon as Wraithstrike... well, I'll let the matter of which orifice it came from lie.

Why hello, what a lovely attitude you wrote your post with. Allow me to clarify if you will.

I contrast that example with this example.

GM, "Hey everyone we are going to be hosting a Jade Regent came. Make sure you read up of the campaign setting, thats where it takes place."

Player, "Alright cool, heres my gunslinger! Hs got a smoothbore single shot pistol and a longsword as a backup weapon! Also I talked to the other players he's going to be life long friend of the bomb tossing Alchemist and the Fireball tossing wizard!"

GM, "What?!?! GUNS?!?! GET. OUT. OF. HERE CLINT EASTWOOD. MY TABLE MY RULES!"

Player, "..."

30 minutes later.

Player, "eh.. alright... well heres my new character Hito Minamoto Ninja from the far east!"

GM, "NINJA?!?! GET. THAT. ANIME. CRAP. OUT OF HERE MY TABLE MY RULES!."

Player, "..."

Player, "Do you even know what this AP is about?"

I did my degree in Astrophysics, and I can assure you the sun will not explode. It will, however, expand into a red giant and consume the Earth, but the devil is in the details.

Bah! Thats just exploding in slow motion!

TheRonin wrote:

If you just don't want guns in your campaign just say it and don't have them. Don't go nitpicking for some superficial technical reason. Unless you plan to carry that for all your classes.

The point is, you can't just add one gunslinger into a campaign world that doesn't have guns without either causing that player huge headaches, or changing the campaign world dramatically. If they can buy guns and ammo and stuff on a regular basis and find magical guns in treasure chests and all that, and that logically means that guns are now suddenly very common in your world. If you don't, then you're giving the player a huge headache in being able to play his character in any kind of practical way.

Thats an interesting conclusion because my point was the exact opposite. You can add one gunslinger and a few guns with out changing everything drastically. Assuming they make their own ammo and guns. Which as stated they can do easily so long as your world also has things like alchemists and fireball, and metal.

This is what we call cheating.

Just to be clear I don't consider, Barbarians, Monks, Alchemists, Ninja and Bards as cheating.

Another question...Why the need to push players to what you want them to play?

I love this quote.

Yes, but banning a class because you prefer a different display medium for its rules beats most of them out by far in my eyes.

Sarenrae would not turn you down! Join her church, they get to smite evil with out being all in your face about it.

....

Admitting it is the first step!

Then Shuriken I suggest you start a thread in the advice forum "Help! My group is 'special'!" and stop referring to them in this one.

fire elementals can still implode. and i am one of the few out of 10 players whom is actually smart enough to pick up a bow.

I think we are just getting back into the "Your group being... 'special' should not dictate what feats and features are good or bad." thing again.

TheRonin wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

TheRonin wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

Roberta Yang wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?

Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.

just because you have a personality doesn't mean you are immune to insults. a character sufficiently trained in the art of instigation should have the possibility of rousing hostility from pacifists. even a pacifist has a berserk button. in the case of said pacifist, it would likely involve whatever circumstances lead them to disliking violence.

Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?

i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.

I am far more sure that she wouldn't even hear them.

DM;ruling

the bard is too distracted by the circumstance of her Dying lover to hear the insult.

I propose the feat is broken as it requires constant overruling by the DM not to break immersion.

every ability requires the application of DM interpretation

or else other silly stuff happens like fire elementals dying from heatstroke, snakes being tripped, or flight being an i win button.

Actually I am pretty certain both Fire creatures and heat damage and Snakes being tripped are addressed in the rules.

TheRonin wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Another good aggro feat would be, they must attack or they waste the round in anger and not focusing their efforts. They would not be helpless of course, just too angry to move properly.

I'm more a fan of the ones that impose penalties for not dealing with the guy shouting out nasty insults. Hell even ones that might increase the concentration check for spell casting. Makes sense that particularly violent talk might make it hard to concentrate.

I am for these kind of mechanics existing, but theres many questions after that fact. Does it need to be a feat? Can it just be a mechanic? How do you prevent it from being to powerful? how to do take character differences and player agency into account?

Indeed. Does it need a feat tax, to do something cool?

I mean with out the feat what would you do? Tell the GM you are going to shout out some insults, do your best to role play it, maybe back an intimidate or bluff check and if its high enough the GM could decide it works. That kind of mechanic or suggestions for it should probably exist. But a feat for using insults? come on.

Dabbler wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

TheRonin wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

Roberta Yang wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?

Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.

just because you have a personality doesn't mean you are immune to insults. a character sufficiently trained in the art of instigation should have the possibility of rousing hostility from pacifists. even a pacifist has a berserk button. in the case of said pacifist, it would likely involve whatever circumstances lead them to disliking violence.

Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?

i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.

I am far more sure that she wouldn't even hear them.

DM;ruling

the bard is too distracted by the circumstance of her Dying lover to hear the insult.

I propose the feat is broken as it requires constant overruling by the DM not to break immersion.

Roberta Yang wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?

Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.

just because you have a personality doesn't mean you are immune to insults. a character sufficiently trained in the art of instigation should have the possibility of rousing hostility from pacifists. even a pacifist has a berserk button. in the case of said pacifist, it would likely involve whatever circumstances lead them to disliking violence.

Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?

If you have an issue with the spell "Charm Person" it might be best settled in its own thread.

Hitdice wrote:

It's not that I forgot, Ronin, it's just that I think the unrealistic part is the 6 second combat round; given how much goes on, it's way too short an amount of time for everything that happens in one round to occur.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I don't think Antagonize is game-breaking. I have also said before, and will again, that no one's required to use it in their games if they don't like it. As a DM, I don't bother to give my npcs Antagonize, and my players don't take it when they have the option.

It isn't worth the feat slot it uses, but that doesn't mean it's broken and should never have been put in the game.

Just to be clear once again broken does not always mean overpowered. It often also means a feat/spell/etc is badly written, such as this one. The fact that it is so unrealistic is the issue. The pacifist idea is just used to demonstrate that. You don't even need to be someone with that level of dedication to nonviolence to be able to reasonably avoid being goaded into an illogical attack in 6 seconds.

Which several random scenarios already given have shown. Some of which included no Paladins or Pacifists!

My characters are going to stick with "A feat made me do it!"

Jack Chick can never die! Only the actors who portray him.

Guys, maybe this is the test of the starstone! It uses Antognize on you and you have to find a way to resist! Also it has 38 ranks in intimidate and skill focus(Intimidate).

Cayden Caliean was to drunk to respond, so thats how he got in. Unknown about the rest.

Spinning out of an unrelated thread, someone mentioned that wearing an Armored Kilt on light armor reduces the maximum movement speed to 20 foot. Is this true? (If so I have been playing it wrong!)

I had assumed being counted as medium armor (or heavy) only effected proficiency, or spell-failure in the case of a bard for example who can cast in light armor.

The Maximum movement speed of an Armored Kilt by itself is listed as 30 feet. I can understand where the idea that it reduces speed comes from, Virtually every set of medium armor has a movement speed of 20 feet. But Im not sure if that means by virtue of wearing an armored kilt you are suddenly slowed down that much. It seems like it would make the kilt much less useful.

Anyways I could be way wrong, Does anyone know the official rule here? Does anyone play it one way or the other?

"Why do people always say I have an 'elfy' look? I'll have you know Mom and Dad were both as Human as they could be! And I know Elfy looks, because I know Elf, 'Uncle' Rodarick Stargazer was an elf, and a close friend of the family too. Actually him and mom were 'real' close."

Epic Meepo wrote:

That still leaves us with non-magical mind control in six seconds or less.

And keep in mind that it only lasts for six seconds as well. That significantly limits the practical effects of the seduction as well.

Speak for yourself =)

I want to see how this goes down in game in character.

Fighter: "Dude... What the hell... You could of saved him, our rogue, you could of saved our rogue. you had spells left, he just needed a cure light wounds. But... but... you let him bleed out... you let him die. You just abandoned him and let him die to go fight the Orc, You loved the rogue! You are carrying his child!."

Bard: "I had no choice! You heard the orc! You heard what the orc said about my lousy drunken father! I had to just charge him and make him pay, I had no choice!."

Fighter: "That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, you weren't even armed! And he died begging you to help him! Besides you insult your father all the time."

Bard: "Yes I do, but hes an orc, so I had to attack. Not my fault though, I had no choice."

Fighter: "It's totally your Fault! You don't even have any issues with Orcs normally."

Bard: "No way man, you heard those insults. I HAD to do it. That green bastard was going down."

T-Rex two weapon fighting with a pair of cannons would be crazyawesome/regularcrazy. Do it.

I would cry, manly manly tears.

Uhg I came into this thread completely unbiased too and just, man, Who thought this was good? at least with magic its not my characters fault.

TheRonin wrote:

Okay but why does it need to be a feat? Can a character not insult an opponent with out a feat and a rule?

If it weren't rude, I would repost this in bold and bigger.

I really wasn't trying to be rude. Honest!

BltzKrg242 wrote:

Antagonize Feat

It works against 1 foe and only provokes aggro or hampers them a little. A ton of spells do much better job of this?

Please review the feat as it is CURRENTLY written before posting. It seems to have been reworked not so long ago?

3) It's basically just the rules equivalent of the cliche from movies/books where a hero/heroine says, "Hey you big ugly son of a b++#~! Come and get me..." Thus distracting the ravenous beast/monster/evil-doer from the otherwise delicious mage/maiden/group of small children as the case may be.

Okay but why does it need to be a feat? Can a character not insult an opponent with out a feat and a rule?

I got to use this one upon a higher level bad guy injuring my character's love interest.

"I said DON'T TOUCH MY MAN!"

Then I rolled a natural 20.

And Max damage, then 1 less than max damage..

It was glorious.

The rapier stacks all the disadvantages of a light weapon on all the disadvantaged of a one handed weapon for a measly +1 average damage. The only reason for it to exist is to get into the duelist PrC because all other dueling weapons (longsword, scimitar, the oriental swords, the Aldori DUELING sword) are slashing: something that says more about the stupidity of the duelist requirements than about the validity of the rapier. If the rapier didn't exist and the duelist didn't have that stupid piercing requirement you would use a kukri or scimitar and never miss the rapier.

Yeah except you are missing the Rapier's greatest advantage.

Style.

I love it and use it on my bard constantly. Maths works out real nice in favor of using it to.

Keep it in a glove full of lotion..... For the ladies.