Vixeryz's page

Organized Play Member. 208 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

like... using summon monster 1 to summon a cat so that i can shave it for its "pinch of cat fur" to cast cats grace
or when using a mount spell, using the hair from the summoned horses to recast it just before the previous spell ends

or summoning demons and then slaying them for their blood, hearts, claws, etc

Scarab Sages

like... using summon monster 1 to summon a cat so that i can shave it for its "pinch of cat fur" to cast cats grace
or when using a mount spell, using the hair from the summoned horses to recast it just before the previous spell ends

or summoning demons and then slaying them for their blood, hearts, claws, etc

Scarab Sages

Deyvantius wrote:
Thanks guys. I also missed the update on the d20pfsrd. It's clearly posted in the race section for each half-human. Now I have to decide between half-orc and half-elf...

Really? Doesnt seem that clear to me- hence me searching here.

I'm still not certain if I need to take any special feat or trait or something for my half-elf to take "Fast Learner" or if there even is a way for me to do that- if I was raised by humans or something?

Scarab Sages

blahpers wrote:
An aasimar with the Scion of Humanity alternate racial trait can take human-specific feats. I don't know of a similar alternate racial trait for tieflings. Note that not all aasimar and tieflings are half-human; some are half-dwarf, half-elf, half-half-elf, half-halfling, etc., and the only differences are size.

They do actually- the tiefling version is called "Pass for Human"

Scarab Sages

Tels wrote:
HermitIX wrote:
My answer would "No." My reasoning being that half-humans are not human enough to qualify for human feats.
But humans can be dwarf enough to qualify for dwarf feats? How do you reason that?


Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Linea Lirondottir wrote:

Having a bunch of people shift one step toward hostile because you were spotted using evil magic would certainly be one potential reason to avoid Infernal Healing.

Yeah because "Raybans of Evil/Magic Detection" are a popular fashion in most major cities. /eyeroll

Scarab Sages

Knight who says Meh wrote:
My most trolliest character was probably my half-(green) dragon troll fire elementalist (I think) wizard.

can you even play a troll? or some sort of troll-blooded playable race?

Altho being a troll who plays with fire is risky business...
wait a minute- a troll who flames others? ....
..... oh.... I get it... xD
Did you actually have such a character? Or were you just making a pun?
Either way...
Well played sir!

Scarab Sages

Blake's Tiger wrote:

You're wrong about the effect of the lame curse (or were unclear): it only protects your speed.

By overly literally reading Side Step Secret, you're correct. However, Armor and Encumberance ecumberance effects are covered in the same section. They affect the same "stat." That "stat" is Maximum Dexterity Bonus. There is no distinction between "Armor Max Dex Bonus" and "Encumberance Max Dex Bonus." Therefore, it should apply (and likely was intended but the Side Step Secret writer and editors overlooked the oft-ignored encumberance effect).

I'm sorry if you were confused by what I said, maybe I worded it poorly. I was referring to 2 different things. Indeed, lame protects my speed, which is what I said. So, what (do you think) was I wrong about?

My REVELATION sidestep secret, protects the other thing. (I probably should have said "respectively")

So, what was the problem? Max dex bonus affected by armor and max dex bonus affected by encumbrance are in fact 2 different things. BUT they both apply to the same thing. They both affect the bonus cap that you apply to AC. But since the limitation to ac from encumbrance ONLY affects dexterity- and since sidestep secret has not (yet) been errata'd to take this into account- Again, by RAW (even tho you think it should apply) it currently does not apply. :P And YES there WAS a distinction just not in the CRB, the distiction was made in the description of sidestep secret when they said- "Your ARMOR’s maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma instead of your Dexterity." So in EVERY OTHER CASE where a max dex bonus would apply that does NOT involve ARMOR, you would in fact use my dexterity and sidestep secret would not apply. Therefore, I get to keep my +4 charisma max bonus because that only applies to armor and encumbrance would ignore my charisma and only apply to dexterity.
Yes, I recognize that it is a loophole but unless they patch it- a loophole it remains. Its not your fault nor my fault that Paizo writers dont doublecheck their work. Thats what happens when you publish too much content.

Scarab Sages

(in b4 necrothread flamers) First off- since the question is still relevant to the original post- dont flame or hate, because that will just make everything take longer. If you answer the question without making a stink, it will be done and the thread will go back to being quiet again.

OK so now that that bit is out of the way-
Nobody actually confirmed whether or not you can treat deadly wounds without a healer's kit.

Can you make an improvised healer's kit? Assuming someone in the group has knowledge nature to identify and collect the appropriate herbs or if your supplies have things like hard liquor (rum or whiskey or something) and at least mostly clean scraps of cloth, thread or fishing line and a needle-like object. Or maybe heating metal to cauterize the wound... The -4 penalty would surely make sense in this situation.

And who says you cant get defibrillation paddles? /casts shocking grasp

Isnt there a feat that allows for non-lethal spells? :P

Scarab Sages

I had a human black blood Cursed, LIFE oracle/sanguine-bloodline sorcerer once in a Ravenloft Campaign. "Detect undead"= NOPE! "detect evil?"= Youre in Ravenloft.... umm.... Yeah, I had the party thinking I was a vampire or something LOL I also had the "Life-Dominant Soul" feat.

Scarab Sages

Bloodmage Initiate
Your introduction to the ways of the bloodmage allows you to use elaborate rituals and gruesome rites to expand your reserves of magical energy.

Prerequisite: Spell Focus (any school).

Benefit: You learn the basics of the ancient art of hemotheurgy.

Pick one school of magic in which you possess the Spell Focus feat—you cast spells from this school of magic at +1 caster level. This bonus stacks with the bonus from Spell Focus.

Unfortunately, the side effects cause you to be constantly under the effects of a medium load—your maximum bonus to AC from Dexterity is +3, you gain an armor check penalty of –3, and your speed decreases as appropriate (generally from 30 feet to 20 feet for a Medium creature).

Ok so I have a FEW problems here.... I have the LAME curse and SIDESTEP SECRET revalation. Since by RAW I would not suffer the effects of the speed penalty or the Dex bonus to AC. BECAUSE- my speed cannot be reduced due to encumbrance AND I dont have a dex bonus to AC, I have a penalty. Since it explicitly states in the feat above- "maximum bonus to AC from DEXTERITY". And I will paste the relevant bit from sidestep secret here-> "Your ARMOR’s maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma instead of your Dexterity."

The penalty for being encumbered has NOTHING to do with wearing armor so the 2 things are unrelated. As the charisma bonus thing ONLY applies to armor and not encumbrance and the dex penalty to encumbrance has nothing to do with my ARMOR's max dex bonus.
ERGO! By RAW the only penalty I would get is an additional -3 to skill checks. So unless someone can find and link some errata- I'm gonna assume that I am correct.

I understand that Paizo cant plan for every possible contingency where minmaxing is concerned but I dont imagine this was intended. Or maybe they do intend that when there are serious penalties involved that they leave a way to mitigate some of them with a little work? (like the wanderlust trait mitigating the lame curse) <shrug> either way- its what i love about this game. there is always a way out (or is there?)

Scarab Sages

Really? Because you would think that if any party succeeded, there would be record of it somewhere. As far as the dudes as FrogGod know, their dungeon is STILL UNDEFEATED.

And YES the point of ANY dungeon IS to complete it. Its a beast to be conquered. If its unwinnable then it merely becomes a training simulator.
A sharpening stone if you will, to hone the minds and skills of the players. Teach them to work together, and show them what works and what doesnt.
OR...just a toy for DMs to torture players.

And its impossible to kill a god without another god.

Scarab Sages

It cant be called the grand"Daddy" if its the 3rd iteration. It goes father->son->grandson. This is the GrandSON of all dungeons.
And the REAL granddaddy, is Tomb of Horrors.

I would call this edition of Rappan Athuk, the mean, nasty, serial mass-murdering bastidge-child of Le Tomb.

Through all the play-testing and whatnot of the people who designed this thing and KNEW all the stuff that was in here... (the people with the maps and the cheat-codes) Is this even POSSIBLE to survive until the end? Was the original even possible to survive?

Because, if 20th level characters kitted out in +10 armor/weapons with magic crap in every slot cant make it through the last level of the dungeon... then really, I'm beginning to wonder what's the point? If its completely 100% impossible...
Tomb of Horrors may have been designed as a player-killer dungeon, but at least Gygax made sure there was a chance... it might have been a .001% chance with only one survivable route- but at least it was a chance.

Allegedly there are UNkillable monsters in this. As far as I knew, the only monsters that couldnt be permanently slain were the Tarrasque, and the 4(5) Horsemen.(Top tier daemons)

Scarab Sages

DrDeth wrote:
Vixeryz wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.
Hey Chris, if you've read enough of this thread to "moderate" someone's post... maybe, Would you mind terribly if I could perhaps impose upon you to toss your 2 cents into this little discussion? Or maybe poke the right people? Pretty please?

What good would it do? Chris knows we have been giving the right answer, and “your” DM will simple blow Chris’s answer off too.

I had a similar debate. First I posted the question to the MB’s: “I don’t care what a bunch of posters say, they don’t know the rules any better than I do.” Then a Dev chimed in “That’s not official”. Then there was a FAQ= “A FAQ isn’t errata.”…

What's not official? The fact that a bunch of posters dont know the rules better than you do? -Because that's how that reads.

But lemme get this straight... A dev posting on the MB, isnt official?
And a FAQ doesnt constitute Errata? Therefore...a FAQ isnt technically legal?

Scarab Sages

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Hey Chris, if you've read enough of this thread to "moderate" someone's post... maybe, Would you mind terribly if I could perhaps impose upon you to toss your 2 cents into this little discussion? Or maybe poke the right people? Pretty please?

Scarab Sages

Jiggy wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Personal problems are best dealt with at a personal level.


And if the GM chooses instead to drag a personal problem into a public gaming table, that's an additional (and non-personal) problem that needs to be dealt with itself, independently of how (or even if) the original personal problem is dealt with.

I dont know where all you guys came up with the idea that this might be personal problem, or even a relationship problem.

I'm not even the one who wanted a barbarian rogue, nor did I create one.
I wasn't even in the same game as the person who invented this concept.
I am merely a 3rd party observer. Defense Attorney for the powergamers if you will...

They mentioned their problem on our Facebook group and I simply looked into it. I discussed it with the GM in question and showed them that the rules disagreed with him and he is using both the "Table variance" rule in the PFS rulebook and the "vague wording" of the CRB to get away with it.
And unless the great "Paizo god" tells him otherwise- he wont change it.

Simple as that.

Scarab Sages

Anburaid wrote:
I'd just like to point out the Shadow Lodge players are advocating keeping the GMs and VCs in line :D

LOL Appropriately so, and ironic?

I would also like to mention that it wasnt me who is trying to do this combo, I just like to stand up for the players who are smart enough to come up with stuff like this. If you can break the game using ONLY the core rule book which is fairly well balanced... then I salute you and support your right to do so. Especially if its PFS legal.

Scarab Sages

Howie23 wrote:

If the story is as OP presents it and isn't the proverbial one side of the story, this situation saddens me.

The logic on this this situation is that the rogue's sneak ability says he can sneak attack any time he meets the requirements. That's the general rule re: sneak. The possible exception comes from the barbarian's rage ability that limits abilities that require patience or concentration. Unfortunately, if a GM sees sneak attack as requiring concentration or patience, there can be table variance. The GM is seeing the rage rule as an exception.

Concentration isn't a keyword in this situation. The language of rage comes from the 3.5 SRD, where Concentration is a skill, and which isn't limited only to spellcasting. It's a Con based skill, and is a class skill for monks, for example (but not rogues). Skills are capitalized, in the rage ability it isn't; so in 3.5, it's not talking about the skill, and in PF, concentration as a keyword only applies to spellcasting. So, concentration can't be a keyword in either case.

It's pretty straight forward to build a high level character with sneak attack who could get 9 or more attacks in a round, all of which could have sneak attack. This doesn't come off as involving either concentration nor patience.

The 3.5 ruling makes it clear what the originators of the 3.5 SRD thought with respect to rage and sneak attack, and PF didn't change it. It just comes off sounding like there is a GM with a drum to beat, and with enough respect that others are following his lead. If OP isn't slanting the presentation of what's going on, that's just sad.

Note to OP: No offense intended on the idea that we are only hearing one side of the argument.

None taken. In fact, I asked him to get on the message board and present his case in his own words so that he isnt being misquoted or misinterpreted. He refused in either case saying that the opinions of a bunch of nerds is irrelevant anyway since he wont accept anything less than the word of the Paizo team and he wont get involved in a pointless discussion.

Scarab Sages

Jiggy wrote:
Vixeryz wrote:

He even said, "If Paizo comes out and says rogue/barbarians can sneak attack while raging, I will CONSIDER it."

Lest it be thought that I was joking earlier, this attitude (regardless of how the rules in question actually work) is completely inappropriate for organized play. At the point where a GM is talking about picking and choosing which rules he will follow (as opposed to simply making mistakes) he needs to either learn to GM under a different mindset when running PFS or simply stick with home games that he can tailor to his tastes.

Inform a Venture Officer of the attitude you're witnessing (in as impartial a manner as you can). If nothing improves, you can contact the campaign coordinator, Mike Brock.

I sent Mike an email. I would also like to point out that it is MORE THAN ONE GM making this call. (Although part of me thinks it may have started with one GM deciding this and the other 2 decided it was a good idea and decided to follow suit.)

Scarab Sages

I tried to argue that the sneak attack wasnt based off of a skill check and therefore required neither patience nor concentration. The GM said that "if Paizo MEANT that things requiring patience or concentration entailed skill checks then they would have SAID something to that effect, either in the rules or an errata or something"
When I argued a rogue with an intellect of 5 vs a barbarian with an int of 10, he said there is a difference between general knowledge and being able to make a cognitive leap in the heat of battle when you are too pissed off to be capable of prescient thought.

It boils down to- "He has never liked that you COULD do that, not in 3.0 or 3.5 where they explicitly said you COULD." So, he is pretty much taking advantage of the fact that Paizo left it vague, so he could disallow it.
So, I dont think it matters what sane and logical argument I put forth...
He even said, "If Paizo comes out and says rogue/barbarians can sneak attack while raging, I will CONSIDER it."
So he will only accept the will of Paizo and then only...maybe.

He also doesnt like the way they changed facing and how sneak attack works, but that's an issue for another day.

Scarab Sages

Avianfoo wrote:
PRD wrote:

Using the argument "but it doesn't say you can!" is just being argumentative. The rules don't specify many things. It doesn't say you can breathe while flying... but no one is ruling that all fliers have to hold their breath.

Don't be giving the GMs ideas, they might actually do something like that.

Scarab Sages

I did post on the pfs forum. And yes, I did point out that it feels like theyre just mad because someone would be one-shotting the encounters otherwise, and this is their attempt to soften the blow.

(I mentioned haste+ enlarge person+ bull's strength+ kinetic reverberation on the raging half-orc barbarian with cleave and surprise follow through, becoming the cuisinart of doom and making everything into a fine red mist)

Scarab Sages

Troubleshooter wrote:

First of all, my stance is that the burden of proof is on them to show that sneak attack is prohibited during a rage rather than the other way around.

You deal sneak attack damage anytime your opponent is denied their Dex bonus to AC (as long as they don't have concealment). Barbarians cannot use Int-, Wis-, or Dex-based skills while raging, nor can they use abilities that require patience; but sneak attack does not state, nor does it imply that it requires patience. There's the answer based on text alone.

This interpretation is trying to treat Sneak Attack like Death Attack, then forbid it. Death Attack requires patience and concentration to study the target for several rounds, and would indeed not be possible during a rage. However, sneak attack requires no warm-up time, no attack penalties, no forsaken attacks, no patience. Having sneak attack is a lot like bring trained to consistently deal critical hits.

Their logic behind this-(aside from the B.S. "nuh-uh/yeah-huh" circular logic crap of "It doesn't say its allowed either") -comes from their trying to inject reality and its more of a "fluff" reason than anything relating to the actual rules. They say that, "You are too delirious with rage that your only thought is to keep hitting it til its dead." He thinks that you dont have the presence of mind to be able to "aim for the sweet spot". Does this mean you can't fire a bow either?

So, my main thought is... You can't just disallow crap because YOU think it "doesn't make sense". But... they won't take my word for it, or the words of other random folks who happen to agree with me.

Scarab Sages

Doomed Hero wrote:

In that case, your chapter GMs and VC are making things up. There is nothing anywhere in the rules to suggest that Rage disallows Sneak Attack.

If this comes up, ask them to cite the rule. They won't be able to because it isn't there.

Link to currently active thread on same subject, so we don't get too much overlap.

Well, 3 out of 5 GMs said, "There is also nothing anywhere saying, you can do this EITHER." I tried to remind them of the stand that gaming companies generally had regarding ambiguity (The "can vs can't" rule) and that CAN generally supersedes CAN'T. That didn't go over too well unfortunately.

Their argument basically boils down to: "Its vague; therefore open to interpretation; therefore I'm the GM and my ruling stands, and I said No."

It seems that PFS GMs (in my region) seem to be rather conservative when it comes to things like this. "If a rule or ability doesn't specifically say "you CAN" do or have a specific thing- they deny it outright, even if the rules don't forbid whatever it was you wanted or tried to do.

Scarab Sages

I live in NM, do we even have one? Officially?

Scarab Sages

Pretty much, the only word the local GMs/VC will accept is a Paizo employ. Like Mike, Mark, Sean, Logan, etc....the Paizo dev team.

Scarab Sages

Are you a Paizo employ? Because that is the only word that our chapter GMs and "VC" will accept as "Law".

Scarab Sages

The "VC" is one of the GMs who said "No raging sneak-attacks". We dont have a "judge" per se` except for the GMs themselves.

Scarab Sages

which is why im asking on here

Scarab Sages

In our chapter of PFS, it has been. Someone made a rogue/barbarian and the GMs wont let him sneak attack while raging

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a barbarian rogue in PFS who has questioned several GMs in Society and has gotten mixed answers about this. The rules don't say he can't. Some GMs say yes, others say No. The argument against is that it requires clarity of thought to perform precision damage.
The argument for, is that performing a sneak attack is not a full round action and how many rogues put points in things like "knowledge anatomy". Really, any idiot could find "where it hurts most". If the barbarian doesnt have an intelligence penalty... He should be able to stab you in the face.

The following is copied from the "Rage" section on the Barbarian page on Paizo's PRD:
"Rage (Ex): A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.

While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death."


The following is copied from the "Sneak Attack" section on the Rogue page on Paizo's PRD:
Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.


When you die in pfs, you cant just roll up a new character (same level or one below) and rejoin the party. Getting rezzed is way harder, and getting another character levelled up to where you were becomes exponentially more difficult. Because you can only replay a handful of level 1 scenarios and once you are level cant replay anything for credit. Good luck finding a group to help you out with this...

Character death should only happen if the player acts like a complete moron or if the dice really hate you that day. Or RARELY, If a player heroically sacrifices themselves for the good of all.

If the GM wants to kill a player every week or every month or prides himself on party wipes... Then DONT PLAY WITH THAT GM!
Its not a competition to see how many players you can kill each week, its to have fun telling a story while your friends get to be heroes.
Besides, you GMS are getting to level YOUR characters with 0% risk and 100% reward, so it really is a jerk move to try to kill other people's characters while you are the only one to benefit.

Scarab Sages

YES IT HAS. People who write scenarios for Paizo try to come up with the deadliest crap possible because they see it as a contest to see who can kill the most players the fastest and they constantly try to "out-do" all the other scenarios that came before. Then the players try to come up with the "most broken" character concept they can get away with in an effort to merely SURVIVE the scenario. And then the writers have to come up with something MORE deadly to try to kill these min-maxxed broken characters.
It just becomes a vicious cycle.

Its become such that you can't design a character based on flavor or RP, because that type of character will get obliterated before they see level 2. If you want to make it to max level, you HAVE TO be an uber-munchkin or else you wont make it.

Scarab Sages

The thread may be old, but the question was never answered by anyone our Pathfinder Society GMs consider "relevant" and, I dont want to make a new thread for it, when a perfectly good one already exists.

Scarab Sages

Hey can we get a dev or mod or somebody of authority to rule on this? Mike? Mark? Umm...(who else....?)

Anyway, This has come up SEVERAL TIMES, MANY TIMES in Pathfinder Society and GMs have been rather fickle on this topic. Some GMs say its fine, other GMs say "No." because they dont think it makes sense that you would be able to slice a throat or shiv a kidney while you are "frothing at the mouth" enraged. According to RAW, you can. But... the GM is arguing that it doesnt explicitly say you can or cant, so he is ruling in favor of "nerf" the barbarian.

So, for the sake of PFS (and some home games...)
Can you sneak attack while under the effect of barbarian rage?

Yes or No?

Scarab Sages

Somewhere I remember (at least in 3.x) that there were rules for making alignment "checks" when a character performed either a majorly evil act or enough small infractions to sufficiently annoy the GM. I think it was a will save or something? Or in some cases- the character's deity visiting them in a dream and "testing them". And each time you were asked to roll for alignment check, you were given and ever increasing penalty until you failed.

Can anyone tell me where I can find the rules for "alignment checks"? I've googled around for about an hour and all I can find is the stupid trivia quiz.

Scarab Sages

Try again please. The only thing that needed changing was the Hit Die and the requirement of the constitution skill ranks. OP didn't need to rewrite the whole fricken thing.
"Great Fortitude" is still a legitimate feat. Now, if you wanted to ADD "Die Hard" as a required feat in lieu of the Concentration skill- that could work.
The only thing I might modify for the special requirement is the following:
The prospective blood magus must have gained a negative level, either through death or energy drain. (This negative level may be later restored through magical means such as restoration or wish. Temporary negative levels bestowed by aligned magical items do not qualify to meet the requirement for this class)
Alternately- the blood magus could be tweaked and expanded to be either a Magus archetype or an Alchemist archetype. (I would remove the scarification ability from the Alchemist, however.) I would also change the infusion ability so that its temporary instead of permanent and allow the use to be weekly instead of once ever. More distinctly put, it would read as follows: Once a week the magus may distill his blood into an elixir that may augment one of his physical attributes. He must choose STR, DEX, or CON and he receives +2 to that attribute for 1 day/3 levels. He may only have one blood elixir at any one time and may only benefit from this ability once per week.

Scarab Sages

Purplefixer wrote:

Have people tackled the Master Specialist and Blood Magus prestige classes?

I think that as a straight conversion, Master Specialist should continue to increase the values of your Specialist Wizard Abilities, and then the standard skill/HD update.

What about Blood Magus? Should that class get a BaB/HD increase to 1/2 & D8?

Opinions? Onions?

The BaB/HD should be in line with the Magus class from UC.

Obviously the skill requirement goes away (since there is no concentration skill)

The only thing I might change is the "Special requirement", I would modify it to say the following:
The prospective blood magus must have gained a negative level, either through death or energy drain. (This negative level may be later restored through magical means such as restoration or wish. Temporary negative levels bestowed by aligned magical items do not qualify to meet the requirement for this class)
On the other hand... you could make it a Magus archetype instead of a prestige class.

I'm not gonna waste a bunch of time explaining to you guys how you could spread abilities out and swap out core abilities to make it a balanced 20 level class. But believe me when I say its doable. In fact, I have some ideas and I plan to work on it later later.

I also want to mention that it would be just as easy to create an alchemist archetype that does what a Blood Magus does. Altho I would remove the scarification ability (for alchemist) because it doesnt make sense for the Alchemist concept.

Scarab Sages

1) The part where it says your victim must be helpless or unaware of you is wrong and just plain dumb. Because, how many films have we seen where person A is seducing person B and then SURPRISE! garrote happens.
Or like that scene in lethal weapon 4 where the ninja guy with the fake prayer beads was talking to some other dude and then just attacks/garrote them with his garrote/"prayer beads". In both examples the person was fully aware of their attacker before they were attacked. In the second scenario, the victim knew the person was dangerous.
Its just a matter of overpowering your opponent and winning a grapple check. So- you dont need to catch your opponent unawares, just win a grapple check and then attempt to pin your opponent. Once you have them pinned- garrote.

2) If you have a wire garrote, it should deal 1 point of damage (+strength) every round you maintain the garrote. Heck...there should be something like a wire garrote specifically for that reason.
Normal garrote is a cord and doesnt deal damage; Wire garrote deals 1+(STR mod) damage each round. There- problem solved.

3) WTF happened to the locking garrote? If anyone has ever seen the Dr. Phibes movies, they would have seen one and know what it is. There was a locking garrote in WotC Song& Silence book, and I would LOVE to see it brought back.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Dear OP, There is way more discussion about this than there should be.
The answer is NO. Flat out, plain and simple, absolutely not.
When an elf reaches 100- he would be in the care of the humans' grandchildren at that point. This would be infeasible.

Elves reach physical maturity at around 20-30 but- in the care of elves they take longer to reach mental maturity because they are not presented with as much hardship as humans. Since elves are nearly immortal- Elven parents can take much longer to shelter their young. Elven communities are very safe (compared to humans) and they spend far more time exploring the wonders of life. (picking berries, making kites, etc...)

Elves raised by humans have much harsher lives and its sort of like a child who grows up in poverty and has an abusive childhood...The kids that have to raise their younger siblings at age 10(because their parents cant or dont) will mature at an accelerated rate out of necessity.
Therefore, an elf raised by humans will know how to take care of himself as much as any teenager does. He/she will be able to feed and clothe themselves, they will have whatever skill set they were trained with such as farming or hunting or whatever commoners do. The elf would take care of their parents when they are old and have a job of some kind when the parents are unable to work. When the parents die, the elf will likely be 40 or 50, at which point they join the town guard or the kings army where they learn to fight. Then the level 1 PC pick up their story when the elf reaches 80 or 90 and leaves the kingdom to find their homeland and learn about his kin.


Scarab Sages

well- that blows. So your spell DC will never increase with level yet you will run into NPCs that have a spell DC of 25 for their 1st level spells.
How do they do it? In a game of every increasing base saves- How does a player compete?

Scarab Sages

Marthian wrote:
it is considered Arcane.

Is that an official ruling? Or just your opinion? (albeit shared by many)

Because you are technically channeling positive energy- as in holy, as in divine. If its considered arcane then there should be a mention of it in the description either under bard or under the cure wounds spell(s).
Like, maybe a bard uses time magic or something to reverse the body to an unwounded state or speed up the metabolism to make you heal faster. Or the bard uses arcane powers to gather the inherent divine energy from the land or the living forces all around us and concentrates it into healing power? Unlike the other healers who get it directly from the source.

In any case, I'm gonna need a link to where the official ruling is (if there is one) because after going over the CRB with a fine-tooth comb and magnifying glass- I cant find a single thing about bard cure spells being arcane. In fact, by RAW bards cast both arcane and divine without multiclassing or any fancy tweaking.

Scarab Sages

What about succeeding at one skill check to give a temporary boost to another? Like, a successful knowledge tactics roll would give you a +1 to hit. Or- a successful perform check might give a +2 to diplomacy or bluff? Or a successful bluff check might give a boost to sleight of hand?
And so on...etc, etc... Isnt there some way to do that? Like maybe theres a feat or something?

Scarab Sages

Or I can make a homebrew magic item using the "handy haversack" and "homunculus" as guidelines, adding "secret page" and "levitate" to the list of spells required.

Whichever ends up being cheaper...

Scarab Sages


Scarab Sages

But- What I wanna know, is how a heal check stacks with either of those spells. During a normal 8hours, you get double your hp with a successful heal check- so... I guess, you treat an 8hour sleep+heal check like full bedrest +healcheck. but if you do full bedrest with restful sleep and heal much hp is that?

Should we just assume that a heal check + full bedrest while under restful sleep will heal you from 1hp to full no matter what? (for simplicity's sake) Unless youre level 20 and a barbarian with 22 con and have over 1k hp then maybe we would do napstack with full bedrest and a heal check...

Scarab Sages

Note the following: "In addition, if creatures continue to sleep or rest beyond the initial 2 hours, every additional 2 hours counts as a day of rest for the purpose of recovering hit points, ability damage, as well as for enduring diseases, poisons, or other afflictions. This means 8 total hours of sleep counts as 4 days for natural healing and for saving throws as diseases or similar afflictions run their course."

I would say that they would stack for the duration of the sleep. For reference-you would not gain twice your hp from sleeping for 2 hours in other words. They would work in tandem. After 8 hours, you get twice your hp + whatever hp you would gain from 4 days of sleep. (4x level)

Realistically tho- you would be better off casting those spells on different people. You can only be affected by napstack once a week- so one person would get a napstack and keep watch all night while everyone else got a full night's rest (with heal checks all around) then the next night, its someone else's turn.

Scarab Sages

Wrath wrote:

What you want is the Monstrous Book of Monsters, Harry Potter style.

More helpfully, just take the Witch Familar concept and make it into a book instead. The Witch famliliar mechanics are already balanced for the game, and you can progress them as you level to the point where it eventually talks to you.

Consider it like a mini version of a Mimic, though with less teeth and far lower tendency to rip your head off when you try to read it.

For something really creepy, it could fly like a bird familiar, or maybe run and climb like a giant spider or some such thing. Just choose the famliar type from the book that most matches the style you're after (I'd suggest Raven so it already talks common when you start at level 1, and the book can fly along behind you if necessary).


I was just thinking more like- it levitates, no higher than 10ft and can teleport to its master once per day at higher levels. (like the magus's black blade) And can hold an indefinite number of spells since it would be a magical item- it might have an extra-dimensional space to hold unlimited pages. I'd still have to pay the normal amount of gold to scribe them of course... and perhaps that could be part of the items personality? It hungers for knowledge so you have to feed it a new spell once a week or something? or anytime it discovers that you found a spell- it harasses you until you learn it.

I'd pay 2k for something like this and the improved familiar feat.

Scarab Sages

Erik Day wrote:

The book "Anger of Angels" by Sean K reynolds published by Malhavoc press had a demon in it called an's a living demonic book, maybe you could adapt that to your purposes.

this Agrippa- is it in the bestiary? is it a demon? or an object (intelligent item)?

Scarab Sages

So unless there is something published that does this- My thought is- Take Improved Familiar feat, purchase or craft a homunculus in the shape of a binder/bookcover thing...insert blank pages and voila! Stats-wise it would speak common and one language of the caster's choosing, and give you +2 to Knowledge Arcana (or Spellcraft at DM discretion)

1 to 50 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>