Time's Memory's page

The feat Raging Brutality from Ultimate Combat has the following requirements: Str 13, rage class feature, Power Attack, base attack bonus +12. It isn't a combat feat; it's a general feat.

I feel like I'm missing something. Is there any way a character could get this feat at 12th? Fighter bonus feats have to be spent on combat feats, and everyone else gets feats on odd levels.

I'm not seeing a way to take this before 13th (but I might be missing something obvious).

My long-time gaming group has run over 100 campaigns. I’ve noticed that they almost all center around killing something (or re-killing undead).

My favorite game ever was a Star Trek campaign where the GM had the guiding principle that whatever the problem was in the episode, it couldn’t be solved with a phaser.

I’m not looking to start a philosophical debate—just looking for some campaign/game system suggestions where combat isn't the main focus.

Cheese.

Munchkin. Min-maxer. Power gamer. Metagamer.

Every community, profession, or hobby develops its own unique derogatory terms, which all hold a particular sting for its own members. In roleplaying, we’ve come up a litany of insults to hurl at other players who aren’t “real” roleplayers.

My group’s gaming sessions are filled with making fun other players—sometimes in good nature, other times as thinly veiled attacks. After a heated exchange with another player last weekend, I thought about how quickly we are to accuse one another of trying to cheese the system.

Here is a quick list of some things in PF that will get you accused of being a cheesy min-maxer:

• Any stat over 16
• Any stat under 12
• Playing a race that gets a stat bonus in your class’s primary stat
• Playing human to get the extra feat
• Playing any non-core race
• Playing a class a race is not traditionally known for
• Picking any feat outside of CRB or APG
• Using any weapon not present in AD&D
• Using a two-handed weapon
• Using any archetype not in APG
• Having an AC over 25
• Summoning anything
• Having a pet and/or familiar
• Using any rule from UC
• Multiclassing (double offense if it’s a dip)

That is just a few. Basically, we’re now suspicious that whatever other players are doing, they’re probably trying to cheese something. Also, I think we know that the term itself stings, so we’re quick to sling it around to make a point.

Just wondering—have other groups out there run into the problem where everything comes under the cheese microscope? And, as a gaming community, are we too quick to hurl these derogatory terms at others? Even in fun, it is a good thing to casually accuse someone of being a power gamer?

In short, has everyone gotten a little to free in the use of the c-word?

A couple weeks ago, my 8th level fight in Kingmaker was dominated by a vampire. The vampire had me hack down my party's cleric, and then the other four PC's killed me. I was raised, but now I'm wondering about the wording of the spell, for future incidents.

Dominate person says "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." If my character knows that openly attacking the party is a sure-fire way to get killed, would she follow the same command again? I can see covertly trying to fulfill the instruction, but otherwise it seems clearly self-destructive (the party has already shown the outcome once).

When my group played 3.5 Conan, we had a couple near TPKs from dominate--I know the usual interpretation is you do whatever you're told, but I was wondering whether any groups handled it with more nuance than that.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Here is a question for the rules lawyers (and rules paralegals).

Under the description of potions, it says in the core book that they are about 1 oz. of liquid, or 2 tablespoons.

Is it possible for a character to put the liquid in his/her mouth and swallow it later?

For example, a group listens at a door and hears several voices speaking goblin. The group's fighter pours a potion of cure light wounds into his mouth, but doesn't swallow it. The group rushes the room. On rough 3 of the combat, the fighter takes a big hit and decides to swallow the potion he is holding in his mouth.

If this is possible, what kind of action would it be to swallow the potion? Free, swift, immediate?

I'm not trying to push my GM to the edge -- just wondering if there is any way to get some economy of action into drawing/drinking a potion.

Hi everyone, I was hoping to get some advice before tomorrow's PF session.

My group just started our first PF campaign a month ago. We decided on slow progression, so just hit second level. After reading the rules more closely, a couple players weren't happy with their archetypes -- and the GM is offering a one-time offer to let anyone switch archetypes on their level 1 class before we start playing this week.

There are 8 players -- and only two are playing melee characters (I'm one of them). I took my first level as barbarian to get rage and more hps. I took the hurler AT because I thought it would be nice way to have some ranged capability in a pinch.

In our first session, my group "withdrew" back to town after about 3 minutes in the dungeon to rest and get spells back. The GM said he was going to have the monsters set traps, ambushes, and recruit reinforcements every time we left like that (he didn't want us resting a day between every fight). We started pushing (and dropping), and I was running out of rage rapidly.

Originally, I'd looked at the wild rager for a two level dip (with the plan of using the reckless fighting for an extra attack and never raging, since that would endanger the group). I was scared off by the -4 AC -- but nothing seems to have trouble hitting me with my current AC. I plan on taking most of my levels as a two-handed AT fighter.

My question, since running out of rage seems like it will be a real issue the way we're running this campaign, especially if barbarian is just a dip for me, would wild rager be a viable AT? Is it survivable, or just asking to get cut down? We have an alchemist in the group, and, if nothing else, I was thinking of switching out with drunken brute to get the potion drinking ability (even though, it has absolutely nothing to do with my backstory).

For anyone who cares, my character was dropped off as an infant at a nunnery/church by her prostitute mother. She was rebellious and had little aptitude for being a cleric. When she was an early teen, mother superior kicked her out for beating up a bully. After that, she grew up on the streets of Taldor. She goes by the name Whorespawn, because that's what mother superior always called her. I took the traits jaded and suspicious. I wanted the first level class to show she's completely untrained and capable of fits of violence. My GM made us roll height and age, so I'm a 4'11" 16 year-old human.

My group is taking a somewhat MMO approach to this campaign -- everybody is expected to optimize and be effective. I'm trying to fulfill my role of damage-dealing meat shield.

Thanks for any advice.

Hi everyone. I wanted to get some quick community feedback on a fighter archetype that incorporates sorcerer bloodlines without any casting ability (like the Eldritch Heritage feats). Would this be utterly unbalanced? I'm a long-time D&D player, but relatively new to PF. Thanks for any feedback or suggestions to make it workable. Below is a rough outline/start of the archetype.

Eldritch-Touched

A very faint hint of sorcerous power from some distant eldritch heritage flows through your veins. While not enough to manifest as full-blown spell casting, you can still, on occasion, tap into your arcane ancestry.

At 1st level the eldritch-touched fighter selects a sorcerer bloodline. She gains the Skill Focus feat in that bloodline’s class skill. That skill is also counted as a class skill for her, if not already a class skill. She gains no other powers associated with the bloodline. Once selected, she may not change bloodlines—Replaces bonus feat (1st)

Starting at 2nd, the eldritch-touched fighter may use any fighter bonus feats to select combat feats or bonus feats associated with her sorcerer bloodline.

Arcane Strike feat (fighter level –1 counts as caster level)—replaces bravery (2nd)

Starting at 3rd, the eldritch-touched fighter begins gaining bloodline powers from her selected bloodline (fighter level –2 counts as sorcerer level).
Bloodline power (1st)—Replaces armor training 1
Bloodline power (3rd)—Replaces armor training 2
Bloodline power (9th)—Replaces armor training 3
Bloodline power (15th)—Replaces armor training 4
Bloodline power (20th)—Replaces armor mastery

My group of veteran players is about to begin our first PF campaign. We're at the character building phase. We've had a question already regarding wild ragers. If a wild rager using Uncontrolled Rage uses the Furious Finish feat, does he have to make the Will save versus confusion if the attack drops the opponent to 0 or fewer hp, or does the rage immediately end?

Here is the RAW text for uncontrolled rage and the feat:

Uncontrolled Rage (Ex): A wild rager's rage functions as normal, except that when she reduces a creature to 0 or fewer hit points, she must attempt a Will save (DC 10 + the barbarian's level + the barbarian's Charisma modifier) or become confused. For the remainder of her current turn, she attacks the nearest creature other than herself. On the following round, refer to the confusion spell to determine her actions. At the end of this round, and each round thereafter, she can attempt a new saving throw to end the confusion effect. The rounds during which she is confused do not count against the rounds she has spent raging that day, but she cannot end her rage voluntarily, nor can she use rage powers while confused.

Furious Finish
You channel all of your rage into one massive blow to crush your enemy.
Prerequisites: Rage class feature, Vital Strike, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While raging, when you use the Vital Strike feat, you can choose not to roll your damage dice and instead deal damage equal to the maximum roll possible on those damage dice. If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).

Thanks for any clarification on this rule.