Xalekti

aboniks's page

548 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jiggy wrote:

One, the CRB talks about unarmed attacks (which the AoMF enhances) as referring to your ability to "strike for damage with punches, kicks, head butts, etc", not your ability to generally use your body combatively.

Good point. I had forgotten that it was impossible to hit someone in the face with your elbow in the pathfinder version of combat.

Jiggy wrote:

Well, that was an interesting dialogue.

aboniks: It's ludicrous and doesn't make a lick of sense!
Mojorat: It's not ludicrous.
aboniks: HEY MAN ARGUE OPINIONS WITH SOMEONE ELSE!

Or:

aboniks: Here in the rules forum, in a discussion about the rules, I agree that Mojorat has the rules right. I have an opinion that the rule in question makes a ludicrous distinction.
Mojorat: Your opinion is wrong.
aboniks: Argue about opinions with someone else.

Or is this not the rules forum anymore?

p.s. That wasn't hostility, Mojo. Sorry it came across that way.


Rynjin wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
...You know, a legendary artifact sword that carried its own antimagic field or similar effect could be a fun toy to center a campaign plot around.
Worked for a book series.

Pretty well, too. Those were fun books. :)


Mojorat wrote:

For the purposes of a game mechanic it isnt a ludicrous distinction.

Your table, your opinion.

My table, my opinion.

PFS table, rules.

I'm not going to argue opinions with you, because changing your opinion isn't meaningful to me in even the slightest way. I don't care how you interpret this any more than you care how I interpret this. Argue opinions with someone else.


Jiggy wrote:

"The body" is not a weapon. "The body" is not enchanted by an AoMF.

What the AoMF says it enhances is unarmed strikes, not "your body".

This is really what it comes down to, I think.

It's a ludicrous distinction, (since you can make an unarmed strike with any part of your body, but not in any other way) but it's what we're working with in the rules.

If organized play requires that "the rules" be followed to the letter, then so be it, but it doesn't make a lick of sense to do it this way.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
I'm not certain why it couldn't be placed on items...

In a nutshell, the answer is that the rules (aside from rule zero) aren't designed to let you do that.

Could you change the rules, as a DM, and allow it?

Yes. Go for it.

Is there a cogent argument that will convince a DM that the rules (aside from rule zero) allow it? No.


Mydrrin,

Relax. Take a breath.

This is not important enough to get upset about.

Rule Zero.


Requiring different feats to craft different types of magical items.

Requiring specific craft skills rather than simply using profession skills.

The mundane item crafting system in its entirety.

These all strike me as unbearably irrational, but I suppose they serve a purpose in that they allow DM's a justification for arbitrarily controlling the pace of character development and their story with defined rules when they can't come up with a plot that does the job for them.


blahpers wrote:

My point is that there's no need to invoke Rule Zero to rule that grapple does--or does not--benefit from such feats. The rule is that there is no rule, so the GM decides. This isn't an alien thing. Pathfinder is full of such rules--see paladin and cavalier mounts, spell research, magic item creation, dozens of optional rules sets, and so on--things with RAW that empower (and in some cases require) the GM to decide how the rules work.

The GM deciding to go one way or another on this subject isn't a "house rule" divergent from RAW--it is RAW, because the printed text is vague and designer clarification points to the GM and says "her call".

Ah. We're on the same sheet of music then.

I was confused by your earlier response to Markthus:

blahpers wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Someone posted a link where SKR basically said you do add enhancement bonus from the amulet to grapple CMB checks.

What's the argument?

SKR said "ask your GM".

I thought you were saying that what SKR said was the reason for the argument...which puzzled me to no end.


Atarlost wrote:
aboniks wrote:
My question has to be "In what gaming situation is a rule telling the DM to make a judgement call insufficient?"
In organized play.

I see. Mark me down in the 'permanently disorganized' column, in that case. :)

Does the blog post ruling referenced early even apply at all in organized play? (and do FAQ's?)


Mojorat wrote:
@aboniks, the detection spells just tell you poisons or diseases are there, they offer no help idenfitying them.

Agreed, on Detect Poison. Diagnose Disease actually does identify the disease for you. I was just looking at how they work mechanically to get an idea of which skills made sense for identifying.

In the OP's situation, diagnose disease would be a perfect solution, since it can tell you about an entire area. But...it's not a skill check, so it's not really what was asked for.


silverace99 wrote:

The scenario does not specify the identification DC. It is Demon Fever, DC18 two saves.

Demon fever:

Despite its name, demon fever is actually a deadly disease carried by night hags and not demons. It is passed on through a hag's bite and has absolutely no incubation time; effects occur immediately. Multiple strains of the disease exist, some of which can only be cured by magical means. If left untreated, it can kill an average human in under four days.

Heh. That one has all the identification problems. :)


Mojorat wrote:

Second the easiest answer for 'what skill is used to idenfity them' is Craft alchemy. Answering information about the stuff you are making falls under the Craft skill.

But your thinking shouldnt it be a knowledge skill? I would assume it would depend on the poison but knowledge dungeoneering and nature should cover any poisons i can think of depending on what they are made of.

These seem like the most applicable of the basic skills for this purpose to me, as well.

If you want a a character with a more specific skill it could be Profession: Toxicologist, or Profession: Pathologist.

I find myself wondering though, since we have a Detect Poison spell, and a Diagnose Disease spell, should we look to them to guess what the intended checks should be?

Detect Poison uses Wisdom, or Craft: Alchemy

Diagnose Disease is less straightforward, only gives you a bump on Heal.

Knowledge: Nature still seems like a good compromise solution (unless the poison or disease is crafted or magical), since it covers "identify natural hazard". If it's magic, Knowledge: Arcana. If it's crafted, Craft: Alchemy.

I've seen these checks made with a variety of skills in actual play though, most commonly it's been a Wisdom check, or a Heal check. It seems much like the RAW for "Identify a monsters abilities and weaknesses". It's tough, since pathfinder lumps a lot of things in to the categories for "poison" and "disease", and they can have widely varying sources.


Ross Byers wrote:
How about the fact that convincing people of the truth is Diplomacy, but convincing them of a lie is Bluff?

...and then convincing a liar that you believe his lie in order to improve his attitude requires both skills. :)


MattR1986 wrote:

That was the short answer. The slightly longer one was "not really".

The answer you appear to be dancing around is actually "not many".

We are here. And we are really a minority.

/notanappealtospecialsnowflakestatus


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:
The short answer to your question OP is no.

Or rather "yes", unless the people who said yes already don't exist.

I'm pretty sure I exist.


Ashtathlon wrote:

Actually he will, I am a "Normal"in a sense roleplayer, but I may prefer the term Traditional.

I theme a character and not build it, I only take classes in what is appropriate for the characters concept and not what will give it better bonuses..if that means I have a bad save , or a weakness here or there so be it.

^ This.

Yes. Some of us play the way you describe.


steve steve 983 wrote:

Hey I don't know if I was high or just cant remember what it is called!

but what is the spell name for a spell that increase the threat range of a hammer or other bludgeoning weapon?

Ashram wrote:
No. The only way to increase the threat range of a bludgeoning weapon is either through Improved Critical or the Powerstrike option of the Runeforger ability from the Forgemaster dwarven cleric archetype.

Or, alternatively, yes, there are several ways, one of which is a spell.

There's the Wrath spell, for Inquisitors.

Or the Knights Candidate achievement feat.

Or the Skirmishers hunter trick Hateful Attack.

Or the Cavalier ability Mighty Charge.

Or the Slayers Knack feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have the tomb stone specify the exact date.

Have them find a chisel next to it.

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
ಠ_ಠ

Heh. :)

Can you see how someone could come to the conclusion that the wording of the ruling in the blog post (not an opinion from an individual develper...

paizo wrote:
"...Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers..."

...is intended to cover a wide variety of circumstances that the devs simply weren't going try to address individually?

I mean they could have gone into detail about every possible combination of weapon, circumstance, and maneuver. It would require a gigantic sourcebook of its own, but it could be done. But then we (and they) would be in an even worse spot, with a whole slew of new what-if questions that people felt they needed/deserved a ruling on, and the problem would grow exponentially every time a new book came out with material they hadn't addressed previously.

"...the GM is free to rule that..."

It's how they avoid having to deal with all that. They hand it to the DM and say "do what makes sense". I don't blame them for it.

My question has to be "In what gaming situation is a rule telling the DM to make a judgement call insufficient?"

I'm not saying that such a situation doesn't exist, or bagging on people for wanting a grapple-specific ruling, I just don't understand where/how/why people are playing with this degree of zealous adherence to RAW, and are yet unwilling to use the "GM is free to rule" portion of RAW to deal with maneuvers that were not specifically addressed.

I'm also willing to bet that if the blog post had said "Enhancements on the AoMF are to be applied to grapple checks" we'd still have people (perhaps different people) clamoring for clarification of what-if scenarios. I'm not in the least surprised that they haven't addressed this with a specific answer.

As a thought exercise, (for the folks who want a black and white clear-cut ruling on this) try writing a ruling that allows AoMF enhancements while using the grappling mechanics, without requiring any discretion or judgement whatsoever on the part of the GM. Make sure there are no obvious issues that break your ruling. Ensure that you've answered every basic question that might reasonably be expected to occur as a result of your ruling. Make sure it doesn't break anything else in the combat system. Then condense it down into three paragraphs. Then remember that there are other weapons that can be used to grapple and can have enhancement bonuses, and re-write the whole thing.

If that seems like more trouble than it's worth...well, the DM is always free to rule that...

EDIT: And when you've finished all that, figure out how much time it would have taken out of real paid employees days, and decide whether it makes any kind of financial sense at all to spend hours rationalizing mechanics that can be handled with rule zero, when you could instead be developing new content that will actually keep your business profitable.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Sorry guys, got home from work and need to bow out from this fight, my friend just got breast cancer :( We can debate the ultimate morality of the universe later.
I'm so sorry. Good luck to your friend.

Seconded. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daethor wrote:
This sorcerer/wizard sub-debate is interesting and all but not really what I'm looking for when I read this thread. Move it to a new thread, maybe?

I find this absurd and unnecessary.

And...now we're back on topic.


Tels wrote:
aboniks wrote:
Tels wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


Funny how a super high INT and years of study still leave the wizard casting in super slow motion compared to the sorcerer, who does all that in six seconds flat.
Wizards cast their magic using purely their own faculties. So excuse us if we have don't have to rely on someone else doing something, to unlock our power.

*cough* spellbooks and years of tutelage *cough cough*

Anyway, the truth is out. :P

*cough* Now where the hell is Bupu with my dead-lizard-cough-suppressant amulet?

What's that? Oh, you mean the spellbook that the Wizard crafted himself using his own mind to manipulate and shape the arcane energies at his command into written form?

Hard work trumps natural talent, but you know what trumps hard work? Someone with natural talent that also puts in the hard work.

A sorcerer is just some guy living off the coat tails of his parents' sexual adventures. The Wizard is the guy who decides to take control of his own destiny, puts in the hard work, and with his own exemplary natural mental faculties, re-shapes the world to do his bidding.

The Sorcerer is like little Draco Malfoy, "When my father hears about this..." While the Wizard is Hermione Granger slapping his spoiled little ass and out-performing Draco in every magical field under the sun.

bahaha! :D

#wizardangst


counterspelling wrote:
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell's energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

So they are the same spell. Spell Specialization should be fine. It requires Spell Focus, however.

spell focus wrote:

Choose a school of magic. Any spells you cast of that school are more difficult to resist...

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic.

Is there any reason to think that divine necromancy and arcane necromancy are different schools?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


Funny how a super high INT and years of study still leave the wizard casting in super slow motion compared to the sorcerer, who does all that in six seconds flat.
Wizards cast their magic using purely their own faculties. So excuse us if we have don't have to rely on someone else doing something, to unlock our power.

*cough* spellbooks and years of tutelage *cough cough*

Anyway, the truth is out. :P

*cough* Now where the hell is Bupu with my dead-lizard-cough-suppressant amulet?


BigDTBone wrote:
That would have been difficult seeing as the Robes were first printed in the APG and the feat was first published in UM.

Indeed, my mistake. I was looking at most recent copyright rather than original. I stand corrected on that point, thank you much. :)


Diego Rossi wrote:
In this situation adding the unconscious condition, that will affect anything, as no creature is immune to it, will generate problems.

Yes, I understand that you have come to this conclusion, but what problems? In what situations?

Diego Rossi wrote:
Currently if someone were to write a spell/feat/ability that apply the unconscious condition it would affect anything...

There's precedent for effects that arbitrarily render the target unconscious. Should these things all be changed to prevent problems? If so, which problems?

Blue whinnis
Drow poison
Oil of taggit
Sleep Venom
Spell Sap
petrification
mummification
stat drain
forced march
blaze of glory
song of discord
Qlippoth, Chernobue
psychic crush


True enough, but this is a new force acting on the group. The chimps clearly haven't chosen the state of affairs, despite their apparent willingness to embrace it and propagate it.

"What happens to the group if we remove the bad actors?"

What does that most accurately emulate if not humanities moral judgements and our practice of segregating those who act in ways that the culture has deemed unacceptable?


I hope you get an answer from the developers that makes you happy, Scott.


But these are directly contrary to primate group dynamics. I'd say this is actually excellent evidence that without a shift towards morality you can't get to where we are from where we were:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:


1. Share with the group, things should be done for the betterment of the group if it doesn't hurt individual survival chance.

Alpha gets the most food, most opportunities to breed, regardless of the survival chances of group members with lower status.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
2. Don't create infighting.

Regular infighting over resources and status.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

3. Do not harm or stand aside and watch fellow beings in your group being harmed.

4. Do not kill or stand aside and watch fellow beings in your group being killed.

Regular infanticide by alphas to destroy progeny of anyone other than themselves.

Fitness for survival isn't about the group, it's about individual pairs and which one can produce the most non-congentially defective offspring.

The ability to feel guilt, and to have others transmit their judgement of our guilt, is the a factor that can begin to account for all of these behaviors being reduced. I'm honestly hard pressed to think of what other single factor could account for it. (and not just because finding another factor might be devastating to my carefully constructed argument. lol)


So we're high fifteen now. Excellent.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm not clear on whether that's actually true. Even without guilt, having principles and a code of behavior is possible, as is caring about people, with those capacities I think a cultural framework can be orchestrated. It might be seriously different than our current culture, but it seems possible.

Except for the bit about principles (I do this thing because it is morally correctly), I agree.

But...a wolf pack demonstrably has a transmitted set of accepted behaviors, and its members are capable of displaying affection. I don't think that's equivalent to a culture.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

aboniks wrote:
Take a step back then. Imagine yourself in a world where there is no pre-existing framework created by others to define what morality is or to give you an example (even a negative one) of who you 'should' be. Would you still choose to be a 'moral person' in a cultural and philosophical vacuum?
I...don't know, actually...

Okay, follow me down the rabbit hole a little further then:

If no human being had ever felt guilt, all of our culture (which is essentially just morality transmitted through time via language) would be reduced to set of binary fair/unfair primate-style interactions. It wouldn't be a culture at all, it would just be group dynamics and dominance assertion.

We would be, in essence, amoral, as fairness isn't about right and wrong at all, it's about resource acquisition. No guilt, no morality, no culture.

This is why I say that guilt is the basis of sentience. It's possible to exist (as an individual, and as an exception to the norm) inside a pre-existing cultural framework without experiencing guilt yourself, but it's not possible to generate a culture (as a species) without morality. It's not only not possible, it's entirely unnecessary. Abstract thought will only get a species so far without a something beyond resource acquisition to apply it to.

All 2cp, of course. I've got Apsergers, so I'm on the outside looking in to a certain degree as well.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
aboniks wrote:
Humans are animals, like sheep and wolves. Sentience does not make us better, or more important, but it makes us behave differently. The difference is that we are capable of assigning, communicating, and internalizing guilt. Guilt is the cornerstone of morality. Guilt is what gives us the illusion of being fundamentally different from sheep and wolves. It's a function of language and memory; in a nutshell, the capacity for guilt is the beginning of sentience.
I disagree with this profoundly. I'm gonna talk a little bit here about something I don't talk about a lot: I'm a borderline sociopath, or at least I think so, it's hard to diagnose that sort of thing absent antisocial behavior. In any case, I've never felt guilt about anything in my life, the closest I come is cognitive dissonance (the feeling that what I just did is inconsistent with who I think I am). I don't think I can feel guilt. I remain a moral person, because I choose to be. I have a philosophical belief in certain principles, and an aesthetic appreciation for the concept of justice, and that seems to work for me without the necessity of guilt.

Fair enough. Let's start from the baseline assumption that your psychological makeup is at significant variance to the prevailing biological human norm. Take a step back then. Imagine yourself in a world where there is no pre-existing framework created by others to define what morality is or to give you an example (even a negative one) of who you 'should' be. Would you still choose to be a 'moral person' in a cultural and philosophical vacuum?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see more BBEG villains winning.

Treat them like a PC. Have them "leveling up", gaining powers, moving around, defeating other parties, recruiting allies. Let the PC's hear about them throughout the plot, becoming more powerful. Give the PC's some motivation to get to them and defeat them. Create a sense of urgency.

Knowing that the BBEG is a static level X type Y Class Z cardboard cutout that's just sitting in a lair, watching the clock for "Boss Fight Time" to come around so he can get his teeth kicked in is...boring. And very common.


Morality is inapplicable to non-sentient beings. It is also arguably not equally applicable to all sentient beings, given the fact that the definition of morality is variable among humans themselves. It 's a construct we define culturally and individually and then hang upon each others actions.

A wolf that kills a sheep is amoral, not good or evil. (because "nature")

A wolf that kills an orphan a human is amoral, not good or evil.

A human that kills a wolf? Moral; good or evil, depending upon who judges. (because "nature", except for humans who assert that we are special and no longer "natural")

A human that kills a sheep? Moral; good or evil, depending upon who judges. (because "nature", except for humans who assert that we are special and no longer "natural")

Humans are animals, like sheep and wolves. Sentience does not make us better, or more important, but it makes us behave differently. The difference is that we are capable of assigning, communicating, and internalizing guilt. Guilt is the cornerstone of morality. Guilt is what gives us the illusion of being fundamentally different from sheep and wolves. It's a function of language and memory; in a nutshell, the capacity for guilt is the beginning of sentience.

Wolves can reason, or cooperative hunting wouldn't work; But until there's a way to demonstrate that a wolf (or any other predator aside from us) can feel guilt, we humans get to preserve our illusion of exceptionalism.

If killing is always an act that must be viewed though the lens of human-defined morality, then Jack the ripper and a venus flytrap are equivalent, and evil.


Marthkus wrote:
...or threads devoted to people trying to figure out how they can justify abilities not doing what they say they do.

Or trying to figure out how they can justify making abilities do things they don't say they can do.

I hope that doesn't start an argument; they'd have to move the thread.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
aboniks, your first link isn't really to the point: The amulet of mighty fists is not a weapon. It enhances natural and unarmed attacks.
Strike, Unarmed wrote:

Strike, Unarmed

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

Pedantic jerkery aside (which I've been known to engage in myself, on occasion), Unarmed strikes are weapons. They are enhanced by the AoMF.

blog wrote:
For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver...Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers, such as when using a sap in a dirty trick maneuver to hit an opponent in a sensitive spot.

If telling the GM that unarmed strikes are weapons, the AoMF enhances them, and that those enhancements can be applied to grapple (as an "other maneuver'), is not a clear answer to the question, I'm at a loss as to what more one might need to clarify it.

OP wrote:
When a character or creature is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists and attempts a grapple maneuver, does the enhancement bonus of the AoMF (if any) add to the character's roll to perform the grapple?

The blog post answers the OP's question. The fact that it doesn't spell it out in one nice tidy sentence is the price of doing business in a hideously complex system like this. "X and Y, if Z Please Apply Rule Zero" is the best answer one could hope for, because it doesn't create a new stack of corner-case nitpicky rules for the Devs to have to create.

2cp, as always. I clicked FAQ too, even though the question has been answered unambiguously, in my opinion.


jlighter wrote:
The Ectoplasmic template is contradictory in some ways. In the section on creating them, it says they are usually CE. The sample stat-block is N. Somebody didn't check themselves, I'm thinking.

I usually have cereal for breakfast. Sometimes I have waffles.

That doesn't mean the waffles were a mistake. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Still Spell, Silent Spell, Eschew Materials...

Magic spells didn't look like anything until practitioners started up all the 'component' shenanigans to make themselves look mysterious and powerful; All this ridiculous handwaving, mumbling, and fiddling about with bits of old rubbish is pure charlatanry. That nonsense is just training wheels on a submarine.

Who is to blame for this state of affairs? Look first to the long-suffering Archmagus, sending his apprentice out to collect the black fringe from each mushroom growing on a tree with two wren nests and a broken branch no more than 15 feet from the ground. That guy just needs a few hours of peace and quiet. He's the guy that would ask you to bring him a bucket of propwash.

Look second to his failed apprentices, who eventually tired of ridiculous quests to collect the tears from the right eye of an albino bat weighing no more than one-half ounce but not more than three, (with one toe broken while in flight), and gave up on becoming wizards. Because those guys can see the idiot out on his mushroom hunt coming from a mile off, and will be more than happy to sell him "mushroom fringe" by the ounce for good gold coin. The fact that he gets it from the slops pile behind the tavern shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

Who started this 'verbal component' chicanery? Again, our poor beset Archmagus should be the first culprit to examine. Should we expect him to sit and watch his inept apprentice practice and miserably fail to do so much as light a tiny spark, over and over, for months, when instead he can send the apprentice into another room and simply have to listen for a prolonged silence to inform him that his imbecilic student has, yet again, fallen asleep when he should have been working?

Why do spells take so long to cast? You didn't think that there was really such a thing as a 'quickened spell', did you? What wizard in his right mind would teach a future rival in his quest for ultimate power how to create balls of fire from thin air without keeping back just a little of his knowledge, ensuring that he would always be faster? There are no quickened spells, only slowed wizardlings.

You want the dirty, devious, underhanded truth about why casting a spell looks like anything at all? Here it is, but keep it under your hat:

There are no spell-like abilities...there are only ability-like spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

See this, second and third paragraphs.

And this, a relevant opinion on grapple from a developer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you go with the deity-made pre-fab grave stone, then the death date for your PC's could simply be left blank, or be a constantly shifting blur. Or it could be readable, but change while they are interacting with it, making decisions near it, each time they strike it, etc. (butterfly effect)

If it includes how they met their death, that could be similarly changing.

"Trampled while saddling the Tarrasque"
"Choked on a mulberry"
"Eaten by rats"
"Perished in the act of destroying Ovinrbaane".

So on and so forth. Even their name on the stone could change while they watch, reflecting titles or nicknames.

Might make finding the right stone something of an adventure in itself. If you really want to mess with their heads, maybe the third strike shatters the grave stone as well as the sword. (*cue spooky music*)

Personally as a DM I'd not be too keen on giving players an exact date/method for their death unless there was a really good storyline reason for doing so. Too many variables.


Gotcha. That was partially why I assumed the dragon was intended to have class levels in sorcerer in order to qualify for EK and gain the "+1 to existing level" benefit.


Ah. Fair enough. :)


I'm assuming this is an npc. If so, I don't think that's supposed to work without the dragon actually having sorcerer levels.

NPC Codex - Prestige Classes - Eldritch Knight wrote:

This class requires proficiency in all martial weapons and 3rd-level arcane spellcasting, so the character must have levels in barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger (the only way to gain proficiency in all martial weapons from the Core Rulebook), and levels in bard, sorcerer, or wizard.

Though the theme of this class is mostly taken over by the magus base class, using the prestige class lets you do things that you can't do as a single-classed magus, such as using higher-level spells or arcane spells that aren't on the magus spell list, mixing arcane and divine magic (as the champion of magic eldritch knight does), and using barbarian rage.

In most cases, you can swap out the character's spellcasting class for another (such as replacing conjurer levels with summoner levels or sorcerer levels with bard levels) or swap her martial class levels for another martial class (ranger for barbarian, cavalier for fighter, and so on).

Following that strictly, the dragon cannot have any levels in Eldritch Knight at all without taking at least one class level in sorcerer. She may cast as if she were one of level X, but she isn't actually one for the purpose of meeting the EK perquisites. On the other hand, given the fee reign you get from the third paragraph to basically throw the EK perquisites to the wind...go for it. :)


fel_horfrost wrote:

I'm playing a fighter with the orc blood line with the mythic eldrich heritage.

Would wearing it affect him at all sence he is not a sorcerer at all?

A) He's not a sorcerer (no class levels)

B) Eldritch Heritage - He will gain the first-level bloodline power of a selected bloodline.

C) Eldritch Heritage (mythic) - He will gain all the bloodline powers of the previously selected bloodline.

D) He's still not a sorcerer (no class levels).

E) He puts on a Robe of Arcane Heritage - As written, It works for sorcerers, with no mention of non-sorcerers who have access to bloodline powers. It was published after the Eldricth Heritage feat.

F) He's still not a sorcerer (no class levels).

G) As a DM, I would allow the item to function, (by Rule Zero, not by RAW) but I would not allow a character who only had access to bloodline powers through the Eldritch Heritage feat chain to craft this item. Because...

H) He's still not a sorcerer (no class levels).


fictionfan wrote:
Still does not answer the question of how an army of wyverns got together.

Kingmaker Spoiler:
...agents worked to contact the various wyverns of the Glenebon Uplands and southern Pitax, promising them an entire town of cattle and humans if they would band together to form a pair of flights...

See spoiler above (or not, as you choose). The situation is not what you think it is, however.


Ah. Well, easy answer then. Kill the Aboleth. They wyverns will bugger off on their own.

Also:

Kingmaker Spolier:
The wyverns involved in kingmaker are not an "army" of individual wyverns. It's a single statblock "Flight of Wyverns" for use in the mass combat rules, it's only a CR6. You wouldn't be fighting it with just a handful of PC's, you'd have an actual army.


The more I think about the situation as presented, the less sense it makes.

Wyverns are supposed to be territorial. Like fight-to-the-death territorial. An army of them is bizarre.

Who/what is leading this army?

I wouldn't back yourselves into a cave, I think. Unless the wyverns in question are suffering from some sort of brain damage or a compulsion, a 12 Wisdom is more than sufficient to let them realize that lining up to be murdered one by one is a poor survival strategy. Plus, after you kill the first one and the cave is blocked by the corpse, the other 99 can go attack the kingdom.


Aeris Fallstar wrote:
...By the way, if you had any interest in Lankhmar, I can't recommend reading the Fahrfrd and Grey Mouser tales enough.

I concur!

(he said, looking up from page 333 of the first book of the omnibus editions)


Cast Greater Teleport, then go somewhere pleasant and have a nice quiet drink.

Unless my math is wrong (possible) this is the equivalent of a CR 42 encounter.

1 to 50 of 548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>