Aboleth

Whale_Cancer's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Dedicated Voter. 1,383 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dorgen Stonebeard's Half-pudding dragonhide backpacks! 100% Cruelty Free!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.

Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.

Here's my issue: at one time I was a dev, thus I respect their hard work and creative process. E6 is basically telling the dev they don't know what they are doing, that some lone DM knows better how to balance a game than the pros... And they don't.

I got nothing against low magic or low powered games, in fact we had a blast playing Iron Heroes. I resect those Devs too, for their hard work and creativity.

PF is a beautifully designed square peg. I hate to see bad DM trying to hammer it into a round hole...and doing so badly.

Want a skill based game? There are dozens. A low magic? Likewise. Respect those Devs by buying and using their products. Respect the Paizo people by playing the game at least somewhat how it was designed.

Yes, PF is *THE* hot games system now and if course your players are clamoring to play it. Just be honest with them. Tell them you can't or won't and suggest a real low magic systems rather than trying to bastardize Pathfinder.

Respect. Honesty.

Even if I were to accept your basic argument - which I don't - E6 does extremely little to change the intrinsic 'balance' (lol) of the game. It just limits the action to a desirable subsection of levels.

Also, with your thinking, DMs should refrain from writing their own adventures; they should only run those published by those on high. Nonsense.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, DrDeth, you really are on a crusade.

Tell me on this character sheet where the DM hurt you.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

How about Gestalt20/20/20.

You pick 20 classes, you get 20 levels in each class, and then you get 20 random artifacts. SO FUN GUYYYZZZ...

Or, we could just not make threads that are thinly veiled attacks on ways other people like to enjoy Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't the Destined bloodline make a lot more sense thematically?


44 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question as thread title: Are mutated bloodlines considered bloodlines for the purposes of the eldritch heritage feat?

This has been debated a lot in other threads and I have no interest in repeating those arguments here (although feel free to, other denizens of the interwebs).

This thread is intended to get FAQ hits.

The wildblooded sorcerer archetype.

The eldritch heritage feat.

Hit dat FAQ, yo, yo, yo. Hit dat FAQ.

Edit: The most common use of this combination is to get the fey bloodline so you can get an animal companion. This tactic has been mostly eclipsed by the animal ally feat, although this is still an option if you want something not on animal ally's list (and it turns out this is legal).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks folks, I thought so.

I can see some uses for this item (arcane casters without Shield, bow juggling shenanigans, etc.,), but it does seem pretty underwhelming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most animals are a balance problem. This is known. Elephants are nuts.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Durinor wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
The Elusive Trout wrote:
I hate it when the player next to me hasn't bathed properly and will say so to his or her face.
You are a true hero of our hobby (no sarcasm intended).
In the real world this is called being rude.

Non-bather detected.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
The Elusive Trout wrote:
I hate it when the player next to me hasn't bathed properly and will say so to his or her face.

You are a true hero of our hobby (no sarcasm intended).


22 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like Paizo's adventure paths.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removal of all artifacts (not the items) that come about as a result of trying to maintain backward compatibility. That's it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dhampir are a half-vampire race (think Blade) that are balanced against other core races.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@skater: Look up at calagnar's post. It's from a new book.

Trogdar wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Tom S 820 wrote:


You are not taking archetype but blood line power form Sorcerer class. Which is Eldritch Heritage gives you.

This is where you are confused. Sylvan Bloodline is an Archetype, one that builds off the Fey Bloodline. It changes the Bloodline Power and Bloodline Arcana. Since you don't have both class features, you can't take the archetype.

Im sorry, a mutated bloodline is a bloodline. It says so itself. I may not be able to take sylvan specifically because of the arcana issue, but that is a grey area, any other mutated bloodline is still a bloodline.

You can't even debate it. Does the archetype have a bloodline? Yes? There you go.

I'm sorry, a mutated bloodline is a modification to a bloodline. It says so itself. This is not a grey area, mutated bloodlines are not bloodlines.

You can't even debate it. Does the archetype give you access to bloodlines? It doesn't say so; it gives you access to modifications of existing bloodlines. There you go.

We can all be obnoxious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
Elzedar of Kyonin wrote:
So, as a neutral wizard, my understanding is that I can get the Azata, because that is one step toward chaotic, and one step toward good and I am allowed one step of each types.
That's not how the "one step" rule works. "One step" means in either alignment direction, not both. So a NG or a CN character would be one step away from CG; a TN character is one step away from NG, LN, CN, and NE.

The text quoted in OP says "one step away on each alignment axis"; the plain English understanding of this is that - barring other restrictions - a N caster can get any familiar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like it thematically, as you don't really build the items you 'craft' you just imbue them with magic.

I don't see how being a really good jeweler, for instance, would translate into being able to magically imbue the item with energy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't know that you didn't know that I didn't know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Espy Kismet, and others, have hit the nail on the head. Using initiative for social interactions has a lot of unintended consequences (amongst other problems).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Characters often invest a lot in initiative. If you have a high initiative, you should act in combat before those who do not have a high initiative. If initiative order is entered into, and then NPCs begin attacking, the dude or dudette who got a 28 initiative roll is going to be rightfully annoyed when baddie with 7 initiative goes first. System mastery does alleviate this somewhat ("I hold my action... I hold my action..."), but this is messy and far from an ideal way of running things (and alienating for those without system mastery).

If you are invested in initiative, you still have your initiative.

You may have used it for a non-combat action such as diplomacy. If you succeeded there may never be a combat. Congratulations, you defeated the encounter without killing anybody.

If you choose not to participate socially, You have the options to either ready an action or delay. If multiple combatants have readied actions triggering off the same event, the character with the higher initiative modifier goes first.

Of course, your guy with the 28 initiative also has the option to attack and kill the guy with a 7 initiative before he says or does anything. Nothing is preventing you.

There may be consequences though.

The meta-game action of rolling initiative is never an in-game excuse to kill everybody in the characters general vicinity. The characters, and the players running them, should try applying brain cells to problems instead of resolving everything with steel.

Having your initiative to use diplomacy is garbage. Trying to influence somebody with diplomacy takes an entire minute.

The problem is PC with 28 initiative goes. He begins his 1 minute of diplomacy-ing. NPC with 7 initiative goes. NPC stabs PC in the face.

Edit: Assuming the NPC is not hostile at the beginning of the round and becomes hostile during the first round. This, as my previous post said, makes the surprise round useless. A number of mechanics interact with the surprise round so using initiative outside of combat obviates or corrupts those mechanics.

PCs good initiative is useless.

Initiative is for combat or similar situations where turn order is important (haunts, complex traps). Forcing social encounters into the initiative system leads to both absurdity and a slow down of play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Any takers for this or has really nobody even played a Summoner at high level? ^^

Only masochists play at high level; everyone else just theorycrafts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love to do this, but have always thought it would lead to hurt feelings. Feelings don't have DR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, an important thing that many people miss is that a casting of Bull's Strength will not stack with a bonus to strength provided by an item (such as a belt of giant strength).

Just another tid-bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is an optional system in Ultimate Combat called "Called Shots"; that is what you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperUberGeek wrote:
Oh, and the only work of fiction that I can think of off the top of my head that uses slings is The Wheel of Time. And there, it is mainly used for killing rabbits, not trollocs.

David and Goliath, Greek history, some Greek myths.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
You're using a jockstrap to throw rocks. I'm not sure how much support that needs.

Slings are more sword and sandal (classical) than sword and sorcery (fantasy), but there is plenty of interesting design space for sling feats; they just don't fit into most people's fantasy worldviews.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3d combat in pathfinder? Where did I leave that letter and my handgun...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

BAB is an essential limit that controls when a character can get access to certain feats or certain prestige classes.

I would say you couldn't allow the feat to increase BAB over the HD of the creature or character. Even then, it would outshine things like weapon focus for the majority of characters.

I'm uncomfortable with it in a normal game, totally fine with it in an E6 or E12 game if you allow it only as a Level 6 or Level 12 feat respectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's funny about this is...

Quote:
The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the ranger on his adventures as appropriate for its kind. A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses.

...Rangers don't even have access to the allosaurus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the best approach is to combine the two concepts into something like 'variety'; that is to say, allow a small number of races (I go with 7, as that is the number of races available in core), but switch them up whenever you start a new campaign.

For instance, I am working on polishing a campaign I wrote a while ago, and the races I've allowed are: Human, Changeling, Duergar, Locathah, Hobgoblin, Gillmen, and Ratfolk. It gives a fair bit of diversity (hopefully at least one race will appeal to each person), and it is limited enough so that each race can have certain storyline implications to it (i.e. race matters).

If I were to run that campaign (again), then the next one I run would have a different 7 races. That way, I could maintain both an interesting quantity AND quality, just over the course of several campaigns rather than a single one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel sorry for the people who live in small towns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Stuff.
Could you be specific or are we only going to get the nebulous, vague angry version that leaves nothing to learn from?

This.

Also, what is meant precisely by punishing? Is not allowing a character concept because it would be campaign-inappropriate punishing? Can I have examples?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Target their CMD. This is what I always do. "Oh, we can't hit this ultra high AC dwarf? Let's just grab him and rip him apart, then." Anyone can do this, no special anti-Kevin or anti-Jim encounters need to be designed (which are never fun).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
(Pro tip: how do you recognize a rhetorical question? The asker answers it or otherwise uses it as a segue into other related discussions.)

A rhetorical question is one which is used for the purpose of rhetorical effect (humor, thought provoking, pathos, etc.) and no answer is actually expected.

You actually want to know when metagaming is good.

Knowing the Jeorge the Bard is being played by your friend Jeff so you more readily accept him into the adventuring party is both metagaming and good: i.e. good metagaming.

Standard scenarios...
1. Not splitting the party because it means too much time where one or more players are doing nothing
2. Party composition in relation to the campaign the DM is presenting as well as in relation to other party members

Controversial scenarios...
1. Discussing HP so that you don't want have awkward "my healing powers can heal the typical villager after he has been wounded by an ankheg; does that describe the severity of your current injuries?"
2. Bending a bit on behavior when it clashes too much with another character... I can see some level of this being acceptable, but I have seen too many posts about people with undead-commanding necromancers and paladins in the same party or people who conveniently look away when their fellows are performing atrocities their characters shouldn't stand for


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:

Every single charm spell that can target intelligent creatures and most non-buff compulsions.

How can societies go more than a year without some bard or enchanter using magic to start a revolution or rebellion to try to carve out his own fief or take someone else's?

From a worldbuilding perspective, I always see the charm school to be as "holy-s@%+-lets-make-this-illegal" as (much of) necromancy is. Bards getting lynched for casting charm spells and other wizards on the look out for enchanters would be the only way enchanters would not be in control of nearly everything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think very few, if any, spells are really broken by themselves. Something like color spray is really good, but it is only broken when used in conjunction with the Heavens Oracle's Awesome Display revelation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't it universally accepted by now that part of 3.5's problem was splatbook bloat?

More options equals more complexity; the writer of a new feat, class, race, etc., may not take into account its interaction with feat a, class b, spell c, or race d.

I think paragon surge is a perfect example of this. Whatever you think of its actual power level, I don't think all the ways it is currently used (picking up new spells or extra talens, discoveries, etc.,) was how it was intended to be used.

That is the main problem with more options. It starts to strain the game. The internet goes to work on it and fine tunes a few 'duh' builds for specific concepts. Less character concepts become viable under such conditions (sure, you can play x character, but everyone else is playing optimized z, y, and r and they will be outshining you consistently).

Another element of complexity is, well, complexity. As a DM, I should know all the feats, classes, archetypes, and spells my players have. That's a lot of work. Players, as in those who only play, often make a fair number of mistakes; such mistakes only bloom in the conditions of complexity.

Another other issue is a certain form of player entitlement. Yes, DMs can houserule anything they don't like or think is unbalanced from their games... this does not stop a certain breed of player from complaining like the dickens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:

To compare to the shocking grasp baseline: Snowball has a save, Shocking Grasp has SR, neither has both. SR comes up relatively rarely but everyone can make a fort save (some quite well). The SR completely negates while the save only mostly negates (no condition, half damage) barring possession of Stalwart. That said, when SR comes up the mage usually has much better tricks up his sleeve than blasting, so I think the fact that it has a save makes up for its slightly higher peak effectiveness. While snowball might have the "range" advantage, range itself has several disadvantages (provokes, soft cover issues, shooting into melee issues, etc), so I'll call that a wash.

I hereby categorize this spell as having insignificant, but possibly extant, power creep.

Now, all that said, I hate that conjuration gets to have all the goodies. This isn't new power creep, just an existing weirdness.

The fortitude save only negates Snowball's rider. If it halved damage then your conclusion would be valid, IMHO. If you ignore the rider, then this is shocking grasp at range without the bonus against metal clad opponents. It would still be a better spell for (almost) everyone but the magus.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, the obvious comparison is to shocking grasp. This is a ranged version with an awesome rider.

This seems like power creep.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I read OP correctly, not all of these NPCs are villains. There is an unfortunate tendency amongst less experienced DMs to create DMPCs or DMNPCs (NPCs the DM identifies with and gets a kick out of seeing them do awesome things). While I generally differ to each group as to what is a desirable play stye, this sort of thing is (IMHO) universally bad.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Two options, as far as I can see:

1) Talk to the DM about how it is boring for PCs to lose the spotlight to NPCs. I think this point will be echoed by many, in which case you can direct your DM to this thread.

2) Find another DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Murder Hobos Incorporated
Team Maximum Force
The Commission


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:

Not only do I not enforce tracking of no-cost material components, I'd allow for use of different components that are more thematically fitting for the character, culture, and tradition of magic involved.

Because not every wizard that wants to cast fireball wants to touch bat poop.

It's gross. Because you're touching poop.

Ew.

+1; this thread inspired me to write up a paragraph on this for my house rules document.

A pinch of sulfur, blood of a hell hound, pebble from the plane of fire, etc., etc., would all be suitable for fireball. None of them need to be tracked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Free (lower-end and highly situational) traits? Hero points, as Liquidsabre suggested, are nice as well. A single favored class bonus 'bonus' on top of normal favored class bonuses (not to exceed character level).

I would be wary about 'per entry' and do it more ad-hoc based on length and quality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

As a GM I generally tell players when their SC-pouch is running low (usually after a long adventure, or a couple of shorter quests), and they go get a new one at ye olde magice shoppe.

But I actually think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to assign a number of uses to the pouch, just like ammunition, or the uses in a healer's kit. If the uses are spent, all component using spells have 25% failure chance, and once they failed, the player can't cast them unless he can either retrieve the component elsewhere or refills his pouch.
That way you would have a fairly realistic but still intuitive way to track your minor material components that doesn't require the player to track every single material component in the game.

A lot of people have made mention of asking their players to buy new spell component pouches...

The thing costs 5 gp. This expenditure is irrelevant by level 3 if not level 2.

So is refilling your quiver of arrows, unless you only use magical ones.

It's a roleplaying matter, not balance.

The same logic can be applied to taking a crap, as others have mentioned.

Actually you are supposed to track arrows and any other ammunition. An archer can blow through a quiver of arrows in a heartbeat.

Do you charge Gunslingers for their bullets?

I never said you shouldn't track bullets, arrows, bolts, darts, or sling bullets. These end up including lots of magical ammunition at mid level and are a significant expenditure (especially bullets/cartridges).

I just don't see how charging a wizard 5 gp (less than half the cost of scribing a 1st level spell) once in a while enhances roleplaying in any way. If you run the whole thing as a shopping trip, then that is just a waste of game time. There are much better things to RP for flavor.

Edit: Especially, since, you know, by RAW you don't need to refill

...

You aren't playing by RAW. So... how am I supposed to talk to you? Demon eyeballs are not rare, they are contained in a 5 gp pouch you can buy in a thorp.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Shouldn't you be asking your DM?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:

As a GM I generally tell players when their SC-pouch is running low (usually after a long adventure, or a couple of shorter quests), and they go get a new one at ye olde magice shoppe.

But I actually think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to assign a number of uses to the pouch, just like ammunition, or the uses in a healer's kit. If the uses are spent, all component using spells have 25% failure chance, and once they failed, the player can't cast them unless he can either retrieve the component elsewhere or refills his pouch.
That way you would have a fairly realistic but still intuitive way to track your minor material components that doesn't require the player to track every single material component in the game.

A lot of people have made mention of asking their players to buy new spell component pouches...

The thing costs 5 gp. This expenditure is irrelevant by level 3 if not level 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup. Writing a simple (as in quick-as-possible-to-play) rules for my next 'sacred 4' game (only the 4 basic classes, easier access to prestige classes [also expanded selection]).

As for OP's rules, here is how I think...

Quote:
1. Magic items requiring exotic materials to build a'la 2nd ed. Eliminating wands of CLW. Wealth by level is also going out the window.

Try 'power components' from dragon magazine. They provide rules for exotic materials for specific items. They only cover the most common ones, but it gives guidelines for others.

If you throw out WBL, what are you replacing it with? Ad-hoc?

Quote:
2. Power attack and Rapid shot being changed. These feats have been being abused by power gamers since at least 2001. I was on the WoTC boards when the early builds were being put together. Charge builds, archer builds, cleric build etc. Not much has really changed.

Changed how? I'm adding an improved version of piranha strike to my house rules (usable with any finesse weapon rather than just light weapons) to bring finesse builds up to par. I'm not sure how amazing power attack and rapid shot are in relation to full casters?

Quote:
3. Limiting ability score. We are using a hard cap of 25, considering going down to 20.

I'm considering a hard cap of 18 + racial modifier. This causes issue with balance. Are you changing how you factor APL? Or are you throwing out CR as you do WBL (those go hand in hand for some people)?

Quote:
4. Saving throws increasing or a fixed cap of DC 20. Currently going with the 1st option, in effect everyone has monk saving throws almost. A level 20 fighter for example has 12/10/10 base saves while a wizard has 10/10/12. Saves no longer stack from multi classing.

I can't agree with saves not stacking from multiclassing. Not allowing that +2 bonus for good saves that is part of good save stacking makes sense (and is something I do in my game as well as the other DM in my circle does as well; we also do fractional accounting for BAB and saves, though), but not stacking at all is too punitive IMHO.

Quote:
5. Critical hits being toned down. Crits now deal maximum damage, X3/X4. weapons do an extra dice of damage on a crit in addition to max damage.

This depends on how you change power attack... High crit builds don't necessarily come out ahead of high damage builds.

Quote:
6. Most classes get 4-8 skills per level. Background and not class determines skills.

Skill ranks per level is a part of the games inherent balance. You are weakening rogues and bards and stepping on their toes. Wizards get more power. If you want background to come into skills, why not just use traits which already do so?

Quote:
7. Races are home brewed but have a choice of floating stats. Elves for example get +2 dex, and +2 int or wis and -2 con.

Floating stats are nice. I like that they did that in 4E and have considered the same for my games. Floating stats get rid of the 'duh' options for certain classes.

Quote:
8. Weapon finesse is now a property of light weapons. Weapon finesse is now precision based dex to damage.

Not sure how I feel about this, it is hard to judge adjusting feat taxes without going into lots of theoretical builds or years of testing... finesses damage as precision damage makes sense from a stimulationist perspective, not sure about from a balance perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Gaekub wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

...Mnemonic Enhancer will cost you a 50gp Focus and you have to find some black dragon blood which may not be easy and may be expensive...

...I track spell components and I ask the spell casters where they got some of the more exotic components because if there is no way they could have gotten it then they won't be casting that spell until they actually find some...

Core Rulebook wrote:

Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell

component pouch is assumed to have all the material
components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except
for those components that have a specific cost, divine
focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t f it in a pouch.

Not asking where they got spell components with unlisted prices isn't called "handwaving" it's called "following the rules".

What you're doing is a houserule. A completely logical houserule that I kind of like, but a houserule.

But it doesn't say the pouch lasts forever. You can use a focus over and over again unless it is consumed but not with the other components.

It doesn't say it runs out and, therefore, it does not. The wizard is assumed to refill them "off-screen", I suppose.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>