The Peacock - Harrow Deck

Ultrace's page

240 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Never forget the good old iron rope. Low-level and cheap, but oh so versatile and useful. Need to bind someone extra well? Barricade a door with an instant iron bar? Create a crude hook or other implement? Bam.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OmniMage wrote:

Screaming Wand. Somehow this wand is intelligent. It doesn't know what will happen when you use up its last charge; it fears that doing so will lead to its death. Understandable, it does not help you to figure out how to activate it and will scream if used. It otherwise has no special abilities or purpose.

Ring of Dazzling Wizardry. This ring works as a of ring wizardry. Every 24 hours, it can change to function as any one ring of wizardry the wearer wishes (1 to 4). It also increases the wearer's caster level by 2. The side effect; every spell the wearer casts becomes pink with tones of yellow and purple, and is filled with glitter, sparkles, and everything in between. This renders nearly every illusion ruined by a pink sparkling aura (including invisibility). A fireball will leave behind pink paint and glitter. A remote divination sensor will glow pink.

I love the screaming wand (and will have to take something like that for my own campaign), but the Ring of Dazzling Wizardry is practically no curse at all. A ring of wizardry III or IV that adds 2 to your caster level in exchange for colors and sparkles? That fireball will still kill enemies just as well with sparkles attached. As long as you avoid subtle spells, this is a huge boost. :)


ErichAD wrote:
Small joint manipulation? Maybe an arm lock?

Not to be the killjoy, but even that wouldn't be possible unless your halfling somehow had superhuman strength. The sheer size differences mean that the most it would be able to affect is maybe a claw nail or something...

I would actually allow the attempt. And then I would let them know that their attempt was partially successful -- they are considered grappled, but the T-Rex is not. Essentially, they are hanging onto the colossal beast while it moves about its business, unhindered.


How familiar are your players with video game music? There are some good selections from popular games that might fit the bill. For instance, Final Fantasy IX and X have some more contemplative slow pieces that could work, but if your players are avid gamers, recognizing where music comes from can disrupt the immersion. Likewise, Martin O'Donnel's work on Halo 2 and 3 has some nice slower pieces that could serve well for the ambience of a library.

(I also use a lot of video game music as backdrops while playing -- often changing the sample rate in something like CoolEdit in order to slow the piece down and change its octave to make it a little less recognizable.)


The size thing is an interesting issue that is yet to be fully resolved. Would you allow this giant to catch a sling stone hurled by a halfling? Is that item a small stone because it was used as a weapon by a small creature? Or is it a diminuitive stone because that's literally the size of the object?

Is it reasonable for a giant to catch something this small? A battering blast is still big enough for him to see and notice, but at what point does it actually become cumbersome to catch? What if it were cast by a halfling, or a pixie? Imagine as a human using a rock-catching ability to try and grip and catch something the size of a BB coming your way.

I think that based on the size issue, this wouldn't be allowed. If the size of the force projectile were increased to actual small size then I think it would be back in consideration.


I am sure this has been discussed before, but I tried to do a search and turned up empty.

A new player will be joining my campaign this Friday. He will be playing a Ranger (level 4) with a Wolf animal companion. His 4th level feat is Boon Companion, which brings the wolf to 4 HD and allows it a stat increase. In order for the companion to know more tricks, understand a language, etc., the stat is going into Intelligence, which would bring it to 3.

Looking ahead, are there any sort of exemptions on the concept of Awakening for animal companions? The spell, as well as the Collar of True Awakening item, stipulate that an animal must have an intelligence less than 3, but it is extremely common for those with animal companions to give them a little bump in this area. Does that essentially exclude them forever from the potential of Awakening?

I think this is a case where the specifics of Awaken would trump the generalities of something else, but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything.


I would allow it. The purpose of this eye is literally to replace vision from his other eyes and would serve no cause otherwise.


avr wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Really the spell should just provide some rules for breaking the obsidian (glass) for a creature to free themselves. I'm thinking hardness 1 with hp equal to caster level.
Obsidian's structure makes it as tough as normal stone. Once upon a time I had a job for a couple of months preparing rock samples, I have experience of this. RAW obsidian weapons have the same hardness as stone weapons (5).

Interesting. Your average person with a dagger could never free themselves in this case. Someone armed with a short sword would have to hack at it for an average of 9 minutes (1/6 chance of rolling a 6 on damage for 1 point, 15 points needed.)


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I've been in that situation a few times myself, where just having players do their own thing endangered the party. In fact, one of those situations led to a TPK.

Was not quarterbacking the right thing to do in that case? I mean, technically, yes, it was the right thing to do. But biting one's tongue can also lead to wiping out the party, which impacts everyone at the table and isn't usually a good time...


Meirril wrote:
And we're wrapping up 1E without any rules for consuming monsters. I'm actually thinking about this. I know, its weird.

Sorry to hit your old post here, but this just reminded me. Didn't someone around here post something indicating they were working on a sort of monster cookbook, that you could use the parts from various beasts and such to create buffing meals? I remember being very interested in it, but maybe I hallucinated.


Yqatuba wrote:
Well, technically against their characters not the players themselves. That said, I could see being uncomfortable using it for that reason. Maybe instead have serpentfolk call humans "softskins" or "greasebags" (referring to how they sweat, which I assume snake people don't do)

True, it would be used against the characters, but in a roleplaying scenario, where two people are having a conversation where this occurs. In most cases, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but there's some where I could imagine that, even when leveled against a character of a race that doesn't exist in our world, it could evoke some unpleasant feelings. It's the same reason I wouldn't necessarily strive for a conversation about how to commit gender-oriented slurs or things like sexual assault. Sure, it's just a character in a game, but there are real people behind those pieces of paper and for some the parallels can be rather uncomfortable.

(All that having been said, as GM, know your table. Keep an eye out for how much is too much and talk to players when necessary.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I realize that these are being applied to fantasy races, do we want to have extended discussion about how to use racial slurs that could be used against players? "Ape" and "monkey" slurs are already used in real life against people of African descent.


blahpers wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "an infinite amount of demons" is only sufficient to kill a god in situations where the god has made themselves vulnerable for whatever reason.

If you actually tried to do this with your army of paintings, you would probably find your warehouse of canvases repeatedly burning down. I figure "put an end to this sort of thing" is something gods will work together on.

I mean, anything of high mythic tier can't be permanently killed without being CDG'd with an artifact, which is not something the painter wizard can create, and gods are even harder to kill.

If an arbitrarily high number of wishes isn't sufficient to glom together an artifact from the aether, it should be enough to find and procure one. And fireproofing your warehouse secreted-away demiplane of paintings should be child's play. I'd be more worried about being murdered before you began. Gods are known for being able to prophesy.

I especially like this answer. The moment the character embarks on their quest to perform this campaign-destroying endeavor, they vanish from existence. Their body, all their possessions (on or off their person) and all records of them are irrevocably erased. The other characters are informed that they have no memory of the character. In fact, what has happened is that the character has been destroyed some time ago by a force that foresaw what was to happen.

The other PCs have no memory of their lost ally; thus, they will not make any attempts to barter with deities, travel to long-lost planes, or anything else to bring them back. The handful of entities that might be aware of what has transpired are unlikely to lift a finger to reverse it.

It's a completely rational and reasonable GM fiat response.


Not sure if it's in the price range, but certainly a gem containing a live, trapped soul (especially one of a non-evil being) certainly qualifies as evil. The value of the gem itself is 1,000 GP per HD of the creature -- but what's the value of the soul within?

This is actually something I plan to auction off in my own campaign, though not as a piece of "evil" per se but just an item found in some eccentric person's collection after their death.


Yeah, RAW it's plain to see, but admittedly it doesn't make total sense. Your faerie dragon's melee reach would then be greater than the length of his breath weapon. How fearsome is it to see someone who can breathe fire -- but only up to their elbow? I suppose the dragon could try and grapple someone and drag them into range of their breath weapon...

Your GM could houserule that size change affect breath weapon attacks, but but does open up a can of worms for other creatures and attacks. Does a gaze attack have a smaller or greater range based on the size of the eyes that emit it? Does a Colossal ghoul emit stench at a larger range? How far away can a banshee wail when she's huge?

It's worth noting that your faerie dragon is just that, but should you choose to pursue this road, the entry for "true dragons" does state:

d20pfsrd wrote:
Breath weapons come in two shapes, lines and cones, whose areas vary with the dragon’s size.

Thus, it does seem that size should have some effect on breath weapon range.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Also, Simulacrum of a Hag is not necessarily a Hag, and may not be able to join a Coven at all. In fact, I'd say a Simulacrum of a Hag is not a Hag. Can you even join a Coven unwillingly? Well, Simulacrae have no free will and no ability to do anything willingly.

This does bring up an interesting point and potential shutdown. Unlike many other classes, Witches get their powers directly from a patron entity. (Arguably, Clerics would be in a similar boat.) Does a simulacrum of a Witch have the same tie to the patron entity? Would 500,000 simulacrums all get de facto contracts with a patron? Would such a patron entity have the actual ability to empower this sudden surge in their adherents? (Again, this would also apply to the concept of a Cleric should it ever come up.)


MaxAstro wrote:

Again, though, even if we accept that (I have some counterpoints but I want to avoid derailing the thread), Paladins are not the core of the issue.

Why is a SWAT team disarming traps to take down a wanted fugitive "Thievery"? Why is tying up a criminal so they can't escape "Thievery"? Why is picking a lock because you were paid to because someone locked themselves out of their own apartment "Thievery"?

In two of those three scenarios, you are doing work associated with thieves. Thieves are renowned for their ability to disarm traps, pick locks, and steal items. That you are putting those abilities to good use does not change that, socially, those talents are associated with thieves and less respected people. Tying up the criminal probably goes 50/50. Forcibly restraining someone is generally only acceptable when the person is a criminal; since criminals make up a minority of the population, this act is more likely to be used unlawfully (although PCs may be more likely to use it lawfully.)

Subterfuge might also be a decent name, although like everything else, it cannot encompass the entirety of what this skill allows.


Rysky wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

This is factually incorrect in PF2. Upholding the law is the lowest possible tenet of the Paladin Code. They cannot violate it casually or for fun, but the very second that 'saving an innocent from harm' (and freeing slaves is often precisely that) comes into conflict with 'obey the law' the Paladin is obligated by the Code's priority system to save the innocent, ignoring the law entirely.

Now, you can dislike that if you want (though I personally find the very idea of Paladins valuing Law over Good confusing and abhorrent), but please argue based on the actual rules for things like this.

^ All of this.

How does this actually work in a society of slavery? Is the Paladin obligated to free all the downtrodden slaves they come across, laws be damned? How would they have acted in the pre-Civil War American South? In ancient Egypt? Would they have been obliged to free all the Helots of Sparta? (I realize this is the right thing to do, for sure, but we're talking about breaking the law.)

I realize that this is sounds like it is shooting off on a tangent which is not directly related to the "Thievery" debate, but in truth, the scenario being described is theft of legal property. If the Paladin either directly (or through facilitation such as lockpicking) takes, removes or frees something that is legally recognized as the property of another, they are breaking the law and committing what would commonly be seen as "Thievery." Is it for the greater good? Probably, but that doesn't change the term. Though he redistributed wealth and often took things that had been unlawfully gained themselves, Robin Hood was still a thief.


The DM of wrote:

There are a lot of "mights and maybes" on this thread.

Where's the real examples?

As many of us of have played Pathfinder and previous iterations of D&D going decades back, during which these restrictions have been in place without the sky falling down, I would instead ask what are your examples of situations where it is highly detrimental that a person can wear only two rings, one pair of boots, a single necklace, and the like.

Or, please provide examples of the horror of a person not being able to utilize more than, say, 15 magical items simultaneously, regardless of position (assuming that, by the time a character's wealth could accommodate it, they could use a number of magical items limited to at least the total slots available before.) Remember, they can own more than that, just not use them at the same time.

For your own real example(s), please consider them in the framework of PF2, where the Big Six are no longer mandated. So you can wear a cloak of your choice without losing your Cloak of Resistance, one of your ring slots is no longer consumed with a Ring of Protection; your belt and head slots are likely not occupied with a stat-boosting item.

What is the disastrous consequence of limiting item usage by slots or amount in PF2, so immense and important that it needs to be enumerated within the official rules instead of just being a houserule?


Belafon wrote:

This is one of the many problems with the Bladed Brush feat. (Not that the idea is bad but that it creates all kinds of unanswered edge cases in combination with other materials.)

My answer is “no, you can’t enchant it with agile.”

There isn’t a 100% unassailable This is What the Rule Explicitly Says answer. But it seems clear that Bladed Brush (specifically the part that lets you finesse glaives) only works when you are wielding the weapon. It doesn’t change the properties of a glaive for anyone else, and it isn’t finessable if it is sitting on a table. So when the crafter walks up to it, it isn’t a finessable weapon.

The solution is simple: wield the weapon during the entirety of the crafting/enchantment. ;)


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

I think something got lost in the chat here.

Uncommon items are, by default, not something you can choose without permission, but unlike Rare items, uncommon items usually have a character choice somewhere that the players can pick that gives them access (such as a feat, class, or ancestry choice).

We could list these as rare. That is true, but there is some value in having there be a marker that says "hey, there is an easy way to get this if you make the right choices", whereas rare says "hey, its totally up to the GM if you can get this and it will usually involve a quest or other in game activity".

If that makes sense...

I see where you're coming from, but both Uncommon and Rare items are subject to GM declaration, which is what makes them confusing. Admittedly, Rare is indeed more rare (you will only get it if the GM actively decides to give it to you), but it really seems like Uncommon should be available to all characters if they meet prerequisites such as class, feat, ancestry, country of origin, and the like.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that how you get the item doesn't feel like an appropriate determinant of its rarity.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

So we've tested basically an extension to something we did in PF1, which is based on Ryan Stoughton's "Death Flag" from "Raising the Stakes".

<snip>

- Hero points are not normally given out otherwise- if you aren't willing to risk your life to do something, it's not especially heroic.

I like this idea a lot, but I'm not sure I follow the implementation. Are you saying characters earn Hero Points normally when their flag is up? There must be some way for them to regain points other than raising the flag. Otherwise, if they raised the flag, gained six points and then spent below six, they would never be able to lower the flag again.


I haven't really dug into the math of this all that much, but I do like the idea of Int being tied more closely to skills.

Perhaps, as a matter of balance, there could be a feat which allows characters to use Int as the attribute for any of their skills instead of their normal ability scores.

This has two advantages that make it (hopefully) slightly less overpowering:

- It costs a feat to the user, which means resources drawn from elsewhere to use this conversion

- Intelligence is used instead of the normal ability, not in addition to it.


sherlock1701 wrote:
I rarely played characters with those abilities either (except for a monk with Leadership once), and I've never had an issue with other players using them. If we can get an extra meat shield and maybe some useful senses, I'm 100% down as a player. As a DM, I've never had anyone get upset over someone having a companion or eidolon, or summon monster. I think this is a problem more rarely than it's made out to be.

It may be more rare than it's portrayed here, but when it's a problem, it's really a problem. You may not have encountered this exact scenario, but no doubt as an experienced GM you have come across the scenarios where a PC was killed or completely incapacitated and had to sit out combat; or where an encounter favored the skills and setup of one character to the detriment of others. It can be very easy for player disinterest to mount in the face of lopsided involvement, and when this situation rears its ugly head, that's what you're faced with. And summons and undead creations aren't just pets or companions that disappear forever once killed. If you somehow manage to remove or nullify them via creative means, they'll just be back the next day or sooner.


graystone wrote:

See for me it makes it more 'mathy', not more magical: it's numbers thrown at the character to keep up with the systems expectations of what a PC needs to do in combat.

To illustrate how 'unmagical' it seems, an npc can have a sword with all the same traits that is 100% non-magical/mundane... Somehow NPC deal damage based on their 'level' while it's an impossible task for PC that have to find a magic item to do it for them. It's a crutch, not a wondrous item legends are made of... :P

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't think magical weapons in PF2 should be adding damage dice. But I was replying theoretically to how one could narrate such a weapon still being magical and yet requiring true expertise to maximize that power.


Paradozen wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:

So now that commoner picks up Graymere, a longsword +4... and gains +4 accuracy and no bonus damage because said commoner is wielding it like a pitchfork.

But Gonzo the Great, level 20 fighter with Legendary expertise in longswords, picks up said weapon... and not only gains +4 accuracy but also gains +4d8 damage.

Meanwhile, Gonzo's younger cousin, Gimpy the Good, level 10 fighter, with only Master expertise, borrows said sword and... gains +4 accuracy but only gains +3d8 damage.

Etc..
<snip>

Now the sword is more swordy, but I can only unlock its swordiest potential by being the best with swords. Still doesn't really add much to the magic half of the magic sword.

Disagree entirely. The sword is magic for whoever possesses it, but in order to unlock the full potential, you have to be worthy of the weapon. It's better than a plain old sword for anyone who picks it up. That's magic. But the weapon's amazing balance, magically-sharp edge, and the slight way it guides your stroke as you swing it... It takes the best of swordsmen to realize that and implement it to the full potential. The combination of a master warrior and master weapon should always yield a better result from each than if they were paired with other less powerful counterparts.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Swarms IRL are scary for the same reason swarms are in PF: the inability to target individual members. That's not a concern of power level.

But swarms in Pathfinder are the virtual embodiment of the concept. Numerous enemies that individually are nothing more than a nuisance becoming a threat due to their numbers. Why can't that be extrapolated to a macro level to say that large numbers of creatures typically much bigger than an ant, wasp, bee or bat *also* pose a genuine threat? PF1 has the Zombie Horde which is essentially a swarm of zombies, but I don't think a group needs to reach colossal size before it becomes a threat even to characters levels higher than individual members of the group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
I am strongly of the opinion that high level characters should be able to wade through armies of low-level mooks untouched, and villains who are that tactically lazy/dumb deserve to go out the window (and down fifty metres into the lava moat). Cutting a swathe through an army of low-level mooks is what gives high-level that legendary, Hercules or Cuchulainn feel.

On the other hand, imagine the amazing battle in the Mines of Moria if, upon hearing of the multitudes of approaching goblins, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf had just shrugged, stood their ground and cut down the approaching forces.

True, the sheer number of goblins involved would have meant plenty of natural 20s to cause the occasional hit, but the point stands--the concept of retreating before superior numbers of unskilled enemies is a storytelling (and fantasy) trope. There's valid precedence for either method, and certainly I wouldn't call the occasional villain (or GM) who utilizes a mook swarm to be lazy or dumb given the occurrences of such scenarios in the past.

(See also: Star Wars people running from inferior Stormtroopers, Neo fleeing from a hundred inferior Agent Smiths, most zombie films and literature, real life insect or animal swarms, and so on.)


Zaister wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
It'd also be nice to see the Plot Twist cards updated, though those are easily adapted to 2E as-is.
I guess you should at least reduce the bonuses the cards grant by at least 50%, though.

We never use those bonuses at my table anyway, they were way too powerful, even for the only occasional use that was allowed. This forced players to use the cards for their bizarre effects instead, which has been much more entertaining.


Igor Horvat wrote:

one solution I have is to remove Assurance feat and tie it directly to proficiency level, but little bit different.

Tied to d20 roll only.

If trained then minimum roll on d20 is 5. Anything rolled below is treated as 5.

expert minimum is 8

Master minimum is 10

Legendary minimum is 12

You're on to something with this, but the numbers need a little tweaking IMO. Being trained in something shouldn't really mitigate you from screwing it up pretty badly. You're just adequate. How about this instead?

Untrained: Maximum die roll is 15 (or lower -- 12?)
Trained: Minimum 1, Maximum 20
Expert: Minimum 5
Master: Minimum 8
Legendary: Minimum 11 (automatic Take 11 or better)

This way you're penalized mildly for having no training at all, you get a definite benefit from having some training (you can actually make a good roll in the skill), and then you start seeing improvements in your minimum performance beyond that point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I'm okay with the 20th level fighter fighting off an army of low levels Orcs and truly being a master of combat in comparison to them that is only hampered by the luckiest of blows from his enemy. Until the high level leader (if one exists) of the army finally comes and faces the fighter.

To me, that's exactly how it should work.

Ah, the Boromir effect. And he was most assuredly no higher than level five or six.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Mergy wrote:

I'm going to either need these rules to be simplified, or have some sort of flowchart while GMing.

It's also interesting from a magic item shop perspective. If I go into a shop and clear them out of healing it's going to take them anywhere from 2 to 17 days to restock. I'm assuming they want to craft at the lowest cost possible to maximize profits, but 17 days for a few potions seems rather harsh.

Don't apply PC crafting rules to NPCs. Let NPCs be more specialized, they can create stuff you want them to faster and cheaper and at a higher proficiency level that doesn't coincide with their combat ability. PCs can (eventually, and at low efficiency) do everything, including craft everything. NPCs don't have to work the same way, let them do a few things, but those things better than the PCs if it supports your story and world building.

Also, NPCs running a magic shop don't necessarily need to make all their potions themselves. There could be crafters--perhaps hundreds of them throughout the world--creating items merely to resell to stores. They don't have the acumen or desire to run a shop themselves, but they love crafting. A good shopkeep will have contact with probably half a dozen such individuals. They could restock their potions within a few days, or replace other, more significant items in a week.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:


Nitpick: +n weapons aren't actually magical in PF2, just better.
Huh. That particular nitpick changes everything... though still not true of handwraps of mighty fists, it does kind of allow the conan type.

It doesn't allow the Conan type unless they always have their signature weapon on hand. Was there never a story where Conan was captured and disarmed, or had to grab a plain standard sword or axe from a fallen enemy? I think the story would have become far less compelling if he suddenly had to hit everyone 4-5 times as much just because he didn't have his super special sword.

This rule makes the weapon far more important important than the warrior. As Thulsa Doom asked, "What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?" In PF2, the answer is, "everything."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
.Georg. wrote:

I think this rule is a good one. For the first time the Bag of Holding feels like a real magic item. Something people think about if they need to open it or not. Something that makes people think about where to put a latern, where a crowbar, where does they store the rope, what is this thing called backpack... They look for alternatives, they improvise and maybe they treat the Bag of Holding more conscious.

I do understand, that if something was for free and suddenly it isn't anymore, people will feel betrayed.

But I think the rule makes it way more interesting where to store your stuff, then just the universal answer: "I just put it in my Bag of Holding."

For the exact same reasons you list, I think this is a bad rule, so bad that I feel it must be a mistake. The Bag of Holding has rarely, if ever, been anything more than a lesser convenience. It doesn't help you win battles, protect you from harmful effects, heal your wounds, solve diplomatic issues, improve your stealth checks, identify dangerous monsters or arcana, and so on. All it does is carry stuff around for you.

This rule makes the Bag of Holding feel like a magic item, since it's being treated like other magic items, but it balances the minor (at best) benefits of the item with a significant drawback in your character performance. 1 resonance to add 1 die to your weapon damage, or improve a skill check roll by +3? Maybe. But to open a bag and put something into it? Come on.


magnuskn wrote:
Secondly, this has potential to screw over players who have GM's who are not malignant, but either inexperienced or have some fetish for making things difficult for their players, because they feel it enhances roleplaying that way. Same goes with access to spells suddenly being restricted by being uncommon for many hitherto commonly known utility spells.

This is not "playing fairly." It comes right back to the thing being said, which is if you don't trust your GM to play fairly, find a new one. If players don't want things made extra difficult in spite of the rolls, and the GM does that, it isn't fair. (If the players want that, on the other hand, full speed ahead.)


MidsouthGuy wrote:
Ever tried playing with a Chaotic Evil PC? Unless you're in it for laughs or running an evil campaign, it's like pulling teeth trying to work with them. Someone who isn't sure if they want to eat ice cream or orphan meat is not the best person to have following you around.

Chaotic Evil doesn't necessarily mean they roll dice in their heads to determine their next actions. Their behavior don't have to be inexplicable like the Joker or something. It just means that in addition to being cruel, ruthless, sadistic and the like, they're also untrustworthy--and potentially unpredictable, but especially since you can't take them at their word. The LOLRandomEvil mindset of CE is more an issue of players and interpretations than inherent to the alignment itself, I would say.

I agree, having such a being following you around is a trying experience. That's why anyone who works with them needs to know how to properly manipulate and control them--or best leverage their behavior...


Dave Justus wrote:
That said, it is still going to be very powerful and if the wizard can't get it done with 1 simulacrum, he can always make a few more, so this issue isn't going to go away with a 'rules' answer. You need to express your concern with your group and explain that while you are glad that the wizard is able to be cool, it is making the game not fun for you and see if you can't as a group figure out a way so everyone can have a good time.

Slightly tangential, but I'm thinking of a worst case scenario where the party had to kill the wizard (perhaps in his sleep) -- what happens to the simulacrum? The spell indicates that it is at all times under the control of the spellcaster. Following the death of the spellcaster, does it become a free-willed entity, lose all sense of self-direction like a Nomu, or just go up in smoke?


LordKailas wrote:
Java Man wrote:
LordKailas wrote:

What if we look at this from the other direction. Since grease (as per what's created by the grease spell) isn't flammable, can it be used to put out fires?

No, the spell description does not list fire extinguishing among the effects of the spell.

Strictly speaking, neither does create water......

This is an interesting question, actually. On the surface (no pun intended), there doesn't seem to be any way the Grease spell could put out a fire; the volume of material generated by the spell is very small (if the grease was 1/8" deep, the spell would create just over a gallon of the grease. Pouring that over a flame would be rather ineffectual.

But this grease is spread out over the 10x10 area (presumably evenly), coating the surface of the material being greased. That introduces a barrier between the fire and its fuel. The grease isn't flammable, but the question becomes: is it vaporable? How long would it take for the flame to vaporize the grease and remove it as an impediment? (This assumes that the grease even can be removed while the spell persists.) It would take longer, I think, than the flame will survive unless it's a magical flame such as a Wall of Fire. Just like sprinkling dirt over a burning object (slowly enough as to not smother the flame outright, but simply to bury the object) will put out a fire, so would covering it with this grease.

So, if we accept that the grease cannot catch fire, then the logical ruling is that, if used on an object which is on fire but not continuously exposed to an external source of flame, that fire would be extinguished within one round due to a lack of oxygen. (Note that Grease only covers one side/surface. A burning wall or roof extinguished on one side by the grease spell could still be burning on the other side!)

If the object coated with Grease is exposed to an external source of flame such as a Wall of Fire, Remorhaz, etc., you must decide whether you believe the Grease can be vaporized by the heat, or whether it will persist for the duration of the spell. If the former, then the Grease will be burned away by the heat after a period of time, and then the object can again catch fire. If the Grease is sustained by the spell, then the object cannot signficantly burn so long as the spell persists due to a lack of oxygen. However, the Grease may still become boiling hot, so dousing yourself in Grease to avoid immolation may not provide quite the protection you're looking for, and it may still permit heat to pass through, melting metal, glass and similar objects (just not setting them on fire.)

Grease should not be able to douse any magical fire effect which is not dependent on oxygen--Continual Flame, flaming weapons, etc.


cuatroespada wrote:


i believe the stretch is implying that "medieval" people had knowledge of fluorinated greases. i don't know enough about medieval history or claim that pathfinder is particularly historically accurate though so i have no horse in this race. just seemed like i could clarify something so i did.

Can confirm, fluoroethers and fluorinated greases are 20th century inventions; research into them might have been in effect at the late part of the 19th century. In essence, unless your campaign allows for (primitive) combustion engines, it probably wouldn't be advanced enough for these.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We will not be moving over to PF2 for some time. While the new system certainly has some good ideas that I might enmesh as house rules into my PF1, there are just too many hard stops for me as GM (resonance, the reportedly-simple-but-getting-more-complicated-all-the-time action economy, the limited skill system) and my players (no Gunslingers or firearms, watering down of magic, the CS/S/F/CF system) for us to adopt it at this time. And that's okay, because it means that my seven or eight hardback books remain valid.

If there's an easy manner of converting over and books are released that have interesting new material, then I may pick up some PF2 stuff to broaden the horizons of (our already quite vast) PF1 stuff. But from everything I've read, the system just isn't for my table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:

My dad kept an abacus, a slide-rule, and 3-4 generations of calculators just to pull out when some other engineer resisted change for the sake of resisting change. Each can be used to make calculations and were used in the past to perform great accomplishments. We put a man in orbit with a slide-rule.

However, just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it's not out of date or in need of an update.

Yes, but in the case of the items you mentioned, you can objectively state that we have superior options now, just as modern computers can trounce my old Commodore 128 (which I still have), or modern cars are faster and more convenient than the horse and buggy.

The delicate balancing act of gameplay mechanics, flavor, realism, class balance and so much else that goes into a game like Pathfinder is going to prevent you from being able to say if something is objectively an improvement or just something that people like better. When you cannot demonstrably show that something is an improvement over something else, it is change for the sake of change. That can be necessary to avoid stagnation, but let's not conflate it with definitive improvement.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Well, the opponent has to be within range.

Interesting. Does this mean that you could counterspell the opponent's spell by being within touch range of him/her while being outside of touch range of the intended target?

You -> Opponent -> Opponent's Target

From a physical or direction standpoint, your magic wouldn't be "getting in the way" of the opponent's magic (a ranged counterspell could be seen as "intercepting" the opposing spell, but not here.) I guess in this case you're just nullifying the spell at its source before it has a chance to emanate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:
That being said, anything in the below CR 1 range with high AC is annoying and possibly deadly.
An ambush by sixteen young squirrels would be a bizarrely terrifying CR 3 encounter. They've each got +22 Stealth, +6 initiative, +8 Reflex, +14 to hit, and 24 AC. So the question just becomes "can you grapple them to death before you fall unconscious from the bite damage?"

Although I love the image this paints, wouldn't such a large number of tiny- or fine-sized inconsequential enemies be considered a swarm? Not that a squirrel swarm couldn't be potentially lethal, mind you, as they have a surprisingly powerful bite--ten times stronger per square inch than the strongest dog.


thflame wrote:
I have rationalized it by assuming that Potions and Scrolls require their user to impart a bit of magical energy in order to activate the effects.

So, can those without any knowledge of how to imbue this magical energy still drink a potion and gain the effects? What about someone who is unconscious? If it's not a willing, conscious effect, can you drain someone's innate essence by forcing potions on them? Does this also mean that a potion with negative effects (such as Cause Serious Wounds) would be negated if its would-be victim had already used up all of their Resonance for the day? There are so many aspects of Resonance that just don't make any sense if you think further along than just. "this is the ideal way in which this mechanic will be utilized."


Dave Justus wrote:

Technically, neither an anchoring weapon or an immovable rod contain any text that supports that they can become 'moveable' again.

I don't know of anyone who has ever ruled this way, basically I've always seen it as the button that makes an immovable rod immovable, can be turned on or off with a move action.

Actually, Immovable Rod does have flavor text which indirectly states this.

d20PFSRD wrote:
Several immovable rods can even make a ladder when used together (although only two are needed).

You wouldn't be able to substitute two immovable rods for "several" if they couldn't be moved again after being activated. Thus, the logical conclusion is that the ability can be turned on and off, even though you're right that it doesn't explicitly state that the button pressing can make the rod movable again.


JRutterbush wrote:

Yeah, this has pretty much caused me to do a complete 180 on Resonance. I loved the idea as a replacement for charges, but in addition to them? Looks like I finally have my "thing I'm immediately going to house rule" for the new edition.

I'm still looking forward to the playtest, but this is definitely putting a damper on things.

We're 50/50 at this point on whether we'll be migrating over to 2.0 (and definitely not until firearms make it in), but we won't be taking Resonance and wand charges. We won't take Resonance and single-use potions and scrolls. Constantly-on items, or those that can be activated a certain number of times a day by your command? I can buy that. But no matter what game-balance or mechanical reason they provide, I can't buy into the logic of someone being able to only read a certain number of scrolls in a day when the magic for those scrolls is already within the scroll itself--especially when the target of those magics is not even the user of the scroll. It doesn't even matter if the Resonance limit is generous enough that it rarely comes up. The fact that it exists feels nonsensical. And you're paying a premium for portable (and potable) magic, only to find out that you might not be able to use them when you need them most because you're juiced out for the day? No sir.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Just saying per the rules, a small town (population range 201-2000 people) has a base gold limit of 1000gp and per the rules there is a 75% chance of the players being able to trivially find any magic item at or below that limit (like a CLW wand).

I guess you are playing a different game than the rest of us.

This is just another one of those cases where the economy (of PF1, at least) just doesn't make sense if you sit down to think of it. Among the incomprehensible comparison of artifact and major magic item gold prices versus the cost to construct entire cities, you have the rampant availability of magic items in areas where the demographics provided by the game's source materials say they wouldn't exist. The populace to create the items doesn't exist and the cost of the items versus how many must be out there doesn't gel; if you have a 75% chance to find items under 1,000 GP, then on average, 75% of every possible magic item (including scrolls and wands) in that range is in the area--potentially with more total monetary value than all the mundane goods and real estate of the area.


I used to be dedicated to the concept of XP-based leveling. It was something bred into the game at its most base level. Seeing numbers gave you that feeling of progression, a building sense of anticipation as you got that much closer to another level of power!

But over the years, and especially with the group I'm currently GM'ing for, I've become more and more enamored of milestone or periodic [because levels don't always follow a major event] leveling, and it's what I've adopted for our current campaign. After a certain number of adventures and challenges, characters gain a level. I say characters (and not "the party") because I stagger the levels. Rather than the entire group gaining a level at once, I have half the group gain a level at a certain point and after the next session, the other half gain their level. Thus, there's never more than a one-level difference among party members, and not for more than one session. This doubles the number of "jackpot" sessions and reduces the load on trying to help everyone to level (if your groups of players is one of those that needs hands-on help with leveling) in the space between one session.

The best part about this method is of course not having to worry about totalling up the xp. Whatever route the party takes to victory, whether it's combat, diplomatic, duplicity or whatever, if they achieve the means, they get that much closer to leveling. I know that's essentially what it says in the books anyway, but it always felt somehow wrong when dealing with actual xp that if one member of the party managed to outwit a ferocious enemy and avoid a battle that should have put the whole group on the edge of their seat, that the reward should be the same.

In any event, unless I come across players who somehow feel cheated if they're not provided with their arbitrary post-session xp numbers, I will likely stick with milestone leveling.


groveborn wrote:

Old forum, but one thing not mentioned: what happens when you have more than one potion in a vial? Strictly speaking it's supposed to be a standard action per potion, but when combined...I mean, really, how hard is it to swallow 4 ounces of liquid in a few seconds?

Bad for balance, but realistically possible. THIS is why earlier editions had potion consequences.

You can't put more than one potion in a vial. If you do so as a normal course of things, the magical properties of both potions would be destroyed and the thing would just become plain old liquid.

There currently exists no magical item or ability to combine two potions. A Hybridization Funnel works like this for alchemical splash weapons, and it's possible your GM would allow you to create such an item for potions, but it would likely be expensive and should come with the same drawbacks as the funnel--requiring a Craft check to perform successfully and if the combined potions were not consumed in a certain period of time, they would become inert liquid.


Slim Jim wrote:

martial character, 50pt

str+ 20 (17)
dex: 18 (17)
con: 18 (17)
int: 13 (3) *
wis: 16 (10)
cha: 7 (-4)

Just wanted to point out that you listed a 60-point character, not a 50-point character. The three 17's on their own are 51 points.

1 to 50 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>