Jhavhul

Zahubo's page

Organized Play Member. 56 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Also never tried Olive Garden. But I m not even sure that they exist in Denmark.
Preferred soda is probably Faxe Kondi. it's kinda like a more intense tasting Mountin dew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A friend of mine made a cleric called Flan. Poor sod he had to go through a entire campaign as brother Pudding.


It really differs, sometimes someone found something cheap and bought a load to take to the table. If we don't have enough we just go to the nearest store.


I find it interesting that so many people put the barbarian in the tier 4 category. It is in my opinion a solid tier 3.


DonKeebals wrote:

I have the horrible feeling that I am being taken advantage of by my players -_-

Well slingers can sometimes be a bit confusing. It could just be an oversight on the players part.


DonKeebals wrote:

Have yet to see a gunslinger break a game? I've had to make ALL enemies advanced with MAX HP, just to get an encounter to last more than 1 round because of a gunslinger. Ancient white dragon? Shot and prone. No save, no CMB vs CMD, just prone. THAT IS BROKEN. Having such a high initiative he usually goes first and nothing is ever so far away that he can't hit their touch AC. And went it isn't, simply wait for them to get closer, readied action goes off, encounter over.

I will NEVER allow another gunslinger in one of my games.

The deed that can trip a target is called targeting shot, and it does not work on creatures with 4 legs or more.

"Legs: On a hit, the target is damaged normally and knocked prone. Creatures that have four or more legs or that are immune to trip attacks are immune to this effect."

So Besides some of the 3 armed freak builds. I don't see any issues with gunslingers.


Pupsocket wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
1) If, on the other hand, you are just dipping into wizard from some other class to gain access to low-level spells, universalist is probably your best option, since that allows you to exploit any spellbooks you plunder to the fullest.

But the benefits of the Divination (Foresight) or Conjuration (Teleportation) vastly outweigh the disadvantages of specialization.

Lincoln Hills wrote:


2) When specializing, be very careful about which schools you give up. Do not give up abjuration: and unless you see no other option, it's not a good idea to give up transmutation. The third-least-indispensable school is either evocation or illusion - give up one or the other if you must, but not both. (Other opinions will differ.)
That's crazy talk. Evocation is, no contest, the worst school. When you're making a wizard, you write down "Opposition Schools: Evocation, " before making any other decisions.

taking opposition school evocation is in my opinion an incredibly bad idea. There are other spells than blasts in that school, Spells such as

"resilient sphere" "telekinetic charge" and "icy prison" are great.

Forgot "emergency force sphere" that spell is awesome.


Would the 2handed fighter ability work with this feat? The earthbreaker is still a 2 handed weapon you just treat it as a one handed.


Ashiel wrote:
Zahubo wrote:
Usually i would be in the 2 category, but it really does depend on the party. We once made a 3 man group for a module and decided that we would all take the fey foundling feat. The quick channeling cleric was the healing champion of Golarion.

There are certain exceptions to every rule. Something I've seen a few players do is using trained pets or familiars to administer healing to players through the use of consumables (for example, a pet monkey who is trained to deliver potions and/or oils, or an imp of fairy-thing that uses a healing wand). Such tactics are often fairly decent since those things might not have much else to do anyway (most familiers don't want to be in the midst of combat but imps can turn invisible so they make good field medics).

In your case the entire party was specced to be very pro-healing and it worked nicely for them. That's a good strategy. :D

Yeah a Paladin with fey foundling and a channeling Cleric as backup is very hard to take down.

Btw that 4 cleric thing sounds funny as hell. I should mention that to my group. We kinda have a thing for theme parties.


EldonG wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Sorry Eldon, but quite a few previous threads have shown that archery does more DPR than melee. They get similar to hit numbers, only do slightly less damage, and get 2-3 more attacks in a full attack.

Oh, and there is a feat that does for melee what Clustered Shots does for archery.

Lovely.

See if that reproduces in an AP.

It worked perfectly well for me in Council and I was using a freaking crossbow.


Usually i would be in the 2 category, but it really does depend on the party. We once made a 3 man group for a module and decided that we would all take the fey foundling feat. The quick channeling cleric was the healing champion of Golarion.


What about favored class bonuses. Because that Tiefling favored class bonus, for Paladins looks downright tasty.


Spook205 wrote:

The stories are usually structured like...

DnD PLAYER GOES ON A HORRIFIC KILLING SPREE

and then they explain that the guy had some serious mental problems, partook of enough drugs that his body self-embalmed after he died, had a real doll of Bea Arthur dressed up as Eva Braun, subscribed to the Al-Qaeda newsletter, thought that the comets were going to crash into Jupiter hale-bopp style, had been writing diatribes against the Government of Brazil, and owned a printed copy of every book ever released in the 70s (one of which was the DnD Players Handbook).

So /obviously/ our talking heads conclude he was driven to madness by the tables of Gygax.

I do admit the first draft of this post also made me realize something.

...the monsters in DnD always seem to have lairs filled with bizarre, nonsensical garbage (bea arthur!) just like these yobbos tend to.

I think you just described Deadpool.


How about Nergal the Mesopotanian God of the underworld ?


Hmm lets see. In Council of thieves. We had a fighter, ranger, cleric, sorcerer/fighter dragon disciple and a rogue.

In Legacy of fire. Wizard, paladin, sorcerer, fighter, cleric, gunslinger and ninja.

We are playing carrion crown atm, and we have a wizard, alcemist, inquisitor, paladin and a magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zahubo wrote:

Trying to see this issue, from the side of the pro gun faction. Is really hard for a non american.

Not trying to be offensive, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Armed citizenry was one of the cornerstones of the American Revolution and foundation of the country, so it became something of a core value for many people -- regardless of its modern repercussions. Imagine if the French government decided that the number of people with cirrhosis of the liver was far too high, and so they decided to make wine illegal.

That i guess i can understand. There would be people rioting in the streets if the Danish government decided to outlaw beer.


Trying to see this issue, from the side of the pro gun faction. Is really hard for a non american.
Not trying to be offensive, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.


25 I was introduced to D&D through something called youth school.
(which more or less, just is different activities and sports, that is free to attend)
The guy running the D&D team was a oldschool gamer but rather awesome so me and my friends were hooked instantly.

I have tried 2ed, 3.0, 3.5 and fourth. But pathfinder is my preferred d20 system. (my favourite rpg is still Shadowrun)

My literary taste, is to say the least not selective. And i read and enjoy books of extremely varied quality and genres.


I would rarely pick evocation as my opposed school. Not because of the blast spell in it, (they can still be useful on occasion) but i think spells like heatstroke, telekinetic charge, resilient sphere and emergency force sphere are rather good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is not pathinder but shadowrun. Where I once played a ultimate nice guy streetshaman orc, who lived in a sever, used urban stuff that only were important because people had emotional attachments to them, ( a first toy, favourite painting, family foto) as foci for spell and rode around on flying tricycle.
His nickname in the group was dumpster jesus or dj for short.


Horselord wrote:

It just sucks that from a mechanical standpoint, it is better just using two longswords: no exotic feat, longswords are easy to find, and if your DM uses version #1 of how double-weapons work (see my earlier post) they are inferior for damage output.

Also, just being able to pick a good exotic weapon and wielding two of them tends to be better anyway. Dual wielding two katanas beats a double-sword on damage through critical chance, and if you are a two-weapon fighter, the penalties are small.

I would probaly still prefer to wield two light weapons. Such as kukris or wakisomthings.


Darth mauls double saber isn't really my thing either.
But that dosn't mean that double weapons can't be cool i think a elf fighter whirling through enemies with a double bladed sword all dervish like could be pretty cool.


Grick wrote:

RAW: The rules don't explicitly prohibit this. However...

In general, when you use something as something else, it's treated as that something else.

For instance, if you find a longsword sized for a creature one category larger than you, you can wield it as a two-handed weapon.

So, while a longsword is a one-handed weapon, you're not wielding it that way, so you wouldn't benefit from anything that requires using a one-handed weapon.

Likewise, if you're using a smaller-sized greatsword in one hand, you're using it as a one-handed weapon, and wouldn't benefit from anything that requires using a two-handed weapon.

When using both ends of a double weapon, you're treated as fighting with two weapons (a one-handed weapon and a light weapon).

The rules don't explicitly say that a weapon does not retain it's encumbrance category when wielded differently, but there's plenty of evidence showing that is the intent. A mounted lancer using one hand, the Phalanx Soldier, the bastard sword, etc.

I think I probaly would agree with you. Using the weapon like I originally suggested, is not forbidden by RAW but is most likely not RAI.


MC Templar wrote:

I'd say not when they are using it for two-weapon fighting....

Double Weapons:... A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

I did read that, but I think it only concerns the attack penalties associated with dualwielding.


The lvl 7 ability of the twohanded fighter archetype, states that you get double strenght to damage on all attacks except the first when full attacking with a two handed weapon.
This dosn't say that you need to wield the weapon with both hands, just that it needs to be a twohanded weapon.
Can this be combined with a doubleweapon, such as a twohanded sword to get double strenght on all other than the first attack while twoweapon fighting?


Psion-Psycho wrote:
My experience is with 2 levels of Alchemist (Internal Alchemist archetype) for Vestigial Arm Discovery and the Two-Weapon Fighting Feats to use 2 Pistols at once. The DPR got realy up there when both pistols got the speed enchant for a nice 9 attacks a round.

Pretty sure you dont get 2 extra attacks for wielding 2 haste weapons.


When looking at the archetype on d20, I can't see anything, that would allow them to flury in armor


Summons are pretty badass, even moreso if you combine them with augment and superior summons, also the the regional feat that makes the casting time a standard action.
Also gotta second emergency force barrier. And any save or suck with persistent on it. Playing a wiz in carrion crown and persistent halt undead is really nasty.


I don't know if it can match up to a zen archer or ranger, but i was playing a archer fighter (not the archetype) with a lvl dip into urban barbarian, using a adaptive bow the dmg was pretty brutal.


i power attack most of the time. But i usally try to get my to hit up to a point where power attack almost never is a dpr decrease.


How about going gunslinger mysterious stranger archetype 1, fighter 5 and then putting the rest of your lvls into hellknight.
This should work out decently, since both the mysterious stranger and the hellknight benefits from a good cha, and it would be pretty much in style with Dreed.


I play fighter because I like the feeling og either beeing a badass master with my choesen weapon, or being an able generalist.

Oh and I also love crossbows and I feel that the fighter is the only class with enough feats to make a good crossbow build.


1) 20 point buy
2) We use medium xp or gm controlled
3) All core races Arg races can be ok but only with permission
4) We use most pathfinder official material


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Zahubo wrote:
I am very tall and rather heavy. That combined with my incredible clumsiness, turns me into a unintentional wreckingball. Somthing that i find very annoying, since i often break my own stuff, and also sometimes my friends stuff when i forget to be carefull.
Your name wouldn't happen to be Jerry, would it? Because he does the exact same thing, and is 6'4" and quite heavy, to boot.

Nah not the guy, I do wish him luck thou.

Btw how much is 6'4 in cm ?


I am very tall and rather heavy. That combined with my incredible clumsiness, turns me into a unintentional wreckingball. Somthing that i find very annoying, since i often break my own stuff, and also sometimes my friends stuff when i forget to be carefull.


What i have gathered from this thread, is that players more or less are the spawn of darkness. And that gm's are benign and angelic beings, who constantly strive to make the game and the experience perfect, but players sre simply to dumb/lazy/selfish to understand that.


Play a half orc invulnerable rager, with guarded life, and the feat ferocious tenacity. You are going to be very hard to put down.


The highest bodycount for my group, was when we were playing Council of thieves, I think our gm ended with having killed us 23 times during the campaign.
That said our ranger took most of the deaths, so he was more or less jumping in and out of the afterlife during most of the campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

watch Life of Brian and all your roman Queasine questions should be answered.


n o 417 wrote:

Time, definitely. Be Morpheus (Matrix). Don't take the Lame curse unless you plan on riding on a mount all the time.

Time definetely seems to be the coolest options, and the revalations are kinda nifty. I am probaly going with tounges for the curse, clouded vision seems both cool and flavour full but it just seems like such a harsh penalty


So i am making a Oracle with a single lvl dip, in the gunslinger mysterious stranger archetype. My stats, feats and race are

human

abilities

10
15
12
10
8
19

lvl 1 mysterious stranger ,point blank shot, precise shot
lvl 3 oracle rapid shot
lvl 5 oracle deadly aim

So i have a pretty good idea, about my feat progression for the first couple of lvls, but i have a hard time deciding on a mystery, i am considering time, heavens and wind.

Any suggestions are welcome


How about making epic abit like e6 but with 20 as the cap. So instead of actually progressing above lvl 20, players get to pick out new awesome abilities, such as being able to metamagic 9th lvl spells, fast healing or something along those lines.


Is it important for you, to play a dex focused ninja? If not a friend of mine is playing a str focused ninja with a two hander and he deals a nice amount of dmg. (not as much at the pimp hand nonletahal build but still)


I am playing the same archetype in the Council of thieves Ap, and some of the feats that have helped me most is.
Point blank master (how usefull this is might be dependant on the type of game you run)
Clustered shots since monsters with DR can be really harsh vs ranged characters.

We are lvl 9 atm but i am looking to pick impoved precise shot up as soon as i hit lvl 11.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gurby wrote:

I'm an Ol'Fart RP'r back from a 20+ year hiatus.

From what I've noticed,(IMHO) Is there is less permission to kill characters as there used to be.
When it does happen players seem to take it worse then ever.
Think about it, Dying is part of Life. Living is part of the ROLE PLAY experience! So is Dying!
Pulling a punch or two is fine. Pulling 20 just kills the trust us players want in our GMs.(IMHO)

I find myself in complete agreement with this pulling a punch so that a player dosn't die half a hour after the game began due to some freak accident is totally fine but a game with no deaths means IMHO that the Gm isn't being hard enough or that the players are overtuned to the campaign.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Zahubo wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

OK, time to play the grognard card...

I played original D&D and every version up to and including 4e.

When I first started playing killing off characters seemed to be far more prevalent than it is today. Expecially wizards. Getting a wizard past level four to level five was back then deemed to be a REAL accomplishment. Plus now you got FIREBALL and so you were actually a real wizard....

In the campaigns I played in characters died left and right. My second ever created character died at level 3.

That makes me wonder if the game just have gotten less lethal or people who play now just have a different mindset regarding player death.

Well, consider the following from early versions of D&D:

1. Wizards had a d4 hit die and gained no con bonus if their con was less than 16. It was not uncommon to have a wizard with ONE hit point. My first character was a wizard with ONE hit point.

2. Characters did not die at -10 or -con hit points. Characters died at ZERO hit points. That meant my wizard could have literally been killed by a rat bite. To reach level 2 my wizard had to literally take ZERO DAMAGE at level 1. The entire party was dedicated to keeping the wizard as far from combat as possible.

3. There were many literal "save or die" spells. Not the figurative ones of today. A high enough enemy spellcaster could kill you with a glance.

4. Traps used to be a big, big deal. And most traps were lethal, not inconveniences. Fireball traps were a favorite back then.

5. Certain spells used to attract psionic enemies by rule. If your spellcaster used those spells and did not have psionics themselves, they could be killed without being able to defend themselves.

Just a few examples of the lethality of the old game...

My first level one hit point wizard is still "alive" today... He's a thirteenth level wizard that I've converted to the new rules each time a new version has come out. Although I converted him to Pathfinder, not 4e this...

Fireball actually being really freaking dangerous is somthing i both remember and miss from the few second edition games we played before shifting to third.

But what i gathered from your post, is that you dont think that the playing mentality have changed much, and the game just were so much more lethal in the earlier editions?


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

OK, time to play the grognard card...

I played original D&D and every version up to and including 4e.

When I first started playing killing off characters seemed to be far more prevalent than it is today. Expecially wizards. Getting a wizard past level four to level five was back then deemed to be a REAL accomplishment. Plus now you got FIREBALL and so you were actually a real wizard....

In the campaigns I played in characters died left and right. My second ever created character died at level 3.

That makes me wonder if the game just have gotten less lethal or people who play now just have a different mindset regarding player death.


pipedreamsam wrote:
Zahubo wrote:
For example we are three fourths through council of thieves, and due to a combination of unlucky dice rolls, non optimised characters and a gm that dosn't pull punches we are on i think 16 players deaths.
Wow, that seems a bit too much and as you have stated you guys are starting to lose the feel of danger not because it isn't there, but because the impact has been watered down. Its a difficult if not impossible median, to balance not enough player death, with too much.

It is a bit much but alot of them were to SOD spells. And we just suck at making those saving throws. I mean a monster hitting us with two phantasmal killers in a row is kinda nasty, but what are the odds of both players failing both of their saves against it.


As a player i feel that the risk of dying, makes for a more intresting game.
That being said to many player deaths, can also have a negative impact on the suspense of the game. For example we are three fourths through council of thieves, and due to a combination of unlucky dice rolls, non optimised characters and a gm that dosn't pull punches we are on i think 16 players deaths. Which actually is kinda detrimental to the thrill of the game. Since we aren't afraid some of us might die, we are sure that someone is going to die and we just make plans to get them back in the action as fast as possible.


Tbh if you are playing in a ap or your gm mostly uses evil foes i think the best option is the Archerdin.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>