alexd1976's page

WORRIED ABOUT THE TIGER DYING?

Oh well, just kill him and cast a scroll of animate dead on him to turn him into a bloody skeleton Tiger. You won't ever have to worry about him dying again (can't die except by positive energy and has fast healing).

Now here is a question I don't know the answer to, but since you are the GM you would know the answer for your game.

If you awaken a Tiger, kill him, and cast animate dead on him to make him a bloody skeleton - is he an awakened bloody skeleton tiger?

No, he is a bloody skeleton tiger, made from the bones of a formerly awakened tiger.

Our houserule is to have them advance as if they were animal companions... but at half regular progression.

It makes them tough enough to survive a hit or two, but not powerful enough to make the Druid jealous. :D

"Tell me why the designers chose to make it this way, but without talking about designers"...

uh...

Drahliana's response sounds legit?

The entire concept of levels... I mean, I play with it, and I love the system (started with D+D, switched to Pathfinder and NEVER intend to go back!), but arbitrarily gaining more 'meat points' and 'spell levels' just seems weird.

I started roleplaying with a skill-based system (Interlock, by Talsorian Games, the Cyberpunk setting) and to this day still think it is the standard to which all other games should be compared.

Wait until the GM goes to the bathroom, then look at his notes.

:D

They chose to make a group with no cleric, honor their choice.

My group decided to try the same thing, just to see if we could do it...

It altered the flow of the game significantly until we found ways (in character) to compensate. Some of us multi-classed, most of us started changing our outlook on magic items (healing items become more common).

Ran the campaign until level 15ish with no dedicated healer, had a blast.

If it's only you thinking they 'need' a cleric, then there is no issue with the party.

Relax. Run the game the way you want, but try not to force choices onto your players.

Played a fighter who acted like a Paladin of Cayden Cailen (our GM allowed Paladins of any good deity)...

He would start every day with a mug of ale and a hearty drinking song, encouraging others to join in.

After that, he would read selected passages from his holy book that would shed insight on the lessons learned in the day just passed...

Due to a cooperative GM (and a fairly lucky find of a stash of healing potions that he slipped into the ale keg), it took the party several levels to realize he wasn't even a Paladin...

Good times.

Wizard-"I'm hurt, can you heal me?"
Me-"Of course, drink this and let Cayden's warmth remove your aches and pains..."

I like Zedorlands suggestion, but seriously... the GM needs to man up.

Talk to him.

You can't have a 'hands off' approach to GMing, the job he has is to moderate the damn game!

Talk to your friends, and ask them why the new people are being included in the first place.

Also, consider just bailing, it may drive your point home, but at the very least it will save you the frustration of having to game with juvenile idiots.

They are temporary HIT POINTS, not temporary points that act as if they are hitpoints but called something else.

The name says it all.

Hit points count as hit points...

Temporary is just a duration, so count them.

So are people saying that summoned creatures affect your leadership score?

A level 7 caster can have a magical Mount spell active for more than half the day, does this lower his Leadership score by 2 points?

Cause it kinda sounds like people are saying it does...

Summoners were written after Leadership was written, clarifications could have been spelled out.

They weren't, because Summoners Eidolons don't affect Leadership.

If you want to make a houserule that contradicts published rules, that is your right (if you are GM), but in this thread, discussing rules...

Eidolons don't affect Leadership.

I've just found something that might answer this... Though it's a bit of a stretch, because it assumes coherence in the target rules that's not particularly in evidence.

There are a number of spells that affect Target: living creature (Aid and Command, for example) and a number of spells (primarily the raise/resurrection line) that affect dead creatures (which implies that dead creatures are still creatures).

Enlarge person has target: one humanoid creature, and makes no distinction regarding the life/death state, which implies that it can function on a dead humanoid, and thus the effect won't end with the death of the target.

For more confusing fun, see Breath of Life. As written, this spell has no effect, because if dead creatures are objects (and not creatures) then this spell can never target the intended recipients!

After all these years I finally did some kender research. Now I understand why they have their reputation. I had a fellow player run a character with a kender-like attitude. When he left the table nobody missed him.

I played with a guy who wanted to always be Kender, regardless of setting...

I wound up banning the dude from my game entirely, it got so annoying.

You didn't mess up, your players kinda sound like a bunch of idiots.

alexd1976 wrote:

So the answer is no, the arcane bond is mandatory, not optional.

However, you can simply take the familiar and kill it off at no penalty.

Assuming you aren't good aligned or restricted by a druid's code or similar compunctions, of course

What does alignment have to do with this? I usually play evil anyway... Even if you have a d**k GM who forces you to take a familiar, you can just command it to go away and never come back.

Yes, you start with one.

No, you are not obligated to keep it.

Kill it, dismiss it, it doesn't matter one bit. There are ZERO repercussions for 'losing' your familiar.

What are you doing beating up on housecats anyway? You monster.

An Eidolon is not a familiar.
An Eidolon is not a special mount.
An Eidolon is not an animal companion.

dragonhunterq is assuming that it is essentially in the same category as these, which I agree with, but as written, NO an Eidolon does NOT affect Leadership.

Unless someone has knowledge of errata stating otherwise?

Yeah, I would've thought that illusions in general are primarily made of light. So the whole question of whether an illusion like Mirror Image can duplicate a light effect seems rather disingenuous.

Anyway, it looks like we've put this thread to bed, since the OP hasn't been back in a while.

Agree, but people searching for answers will still read this... considering that mirror image doesn't make images that occupy multiple squares (they are all in YOUR square)-the source of the actual light is irrelevant.

Faerie Fire doesn't negate Mirror Image. If it did, it would say so.

Stefan Hill wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Why is this thread a thing.

Because many of the other threads have as much point and they exist... At least this isn't complaining about the rules!

This wins the internet today.

Also: Succubi are hotter.

Erinyes might not kill you with kisses, but that's mostly because she'll kill you with fire arrows a lot faster. Erinyes aren't seducers—they're assassins, after all.

Well, James, we must agree to disagree.

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the (TRADEMARKED NAME).

I would say Erinyes because of the potential stability of a relationship with one. Yes, the Succubus has a better CHA score... but that Chaotic aspect to her... ugh.

I need stability. Assassin or no, I would choose the contract-abiding devil-woman.

I mean, that's what marriage vows are FOR, right? Locking them into a committed (and hopefully non-lethal) relationship. :D

If figments can't produce light, then figments do exactly NOTHING.

Everything we see is from light reflected off of real objects.

If figments aren't real, they we simply cannot see them at all.

Hmmmm.

Nonsense.

It seems there is a GM in story-telling mode where he's telling stories about heroic NPCs he has created while the much less significant PCs are just incidental characters in the GM's stories. That's not GMing, that's ego-tripping.

Then it seems there a player of one of these insiginificant NPCs who want's an in-game, rules-abiding solution that exploits a loophole to build a PC more significant than this GM's heroic NPCs.

It won't work.

Even if you show up with Punpun or some snow cone wish machine or some other uber-munchkin PC, the GM will ALWAYS win. He's the GM. It's his story, his ego, his game. He'll just kill you with "rocks fall". Or he'll build an even more superior hero NPC. Or whatever.

No player has EVER beaten a GM. Any player who thinks they have is wrong - that player's GM simply tanked the fight so the player could win. Any player who thinks he can beat the GM is wrong. It can't be done.

Long story short, talk to Mr. Ego and tell him how you feel. Get the whole group talking. Find a way to play that doesn't marginalize everybody at the table for the sake of pumping the GM's ego. That's the only way to beat this guy; you gotta help him grow into a mature person rather than a childish bore.

Yep, improving your GM is the only way to "win".

Getting him drunk helps with this approach too.

Rum has helped me in the past, but find his favorite drink...

Bring his favorite alcohol to game.

Get him drunk.

Enjoy gaming again.

My first response was to simply hang back. Unless your GM is a dick (and it sounds like he might be), anyone in the encounter gets XP regardless of if they meaningfully contributed or not.

Basically its the "The raging barbarian went first and critted the monster into goo, everybody else still gets xp for trying though" prevention.

So since you're dying all the time anyway, just hang back and give token effort to be part of the xp cut until you can catch back up (you should require less xp to level than everyone else, and you should actually be lowering the party CR meaning you'll generate more xp).

If anyone says anything about it, just point out that at that low of a level you can't do anything but die anyway. Cheesing the system until you can be a meaningful contribution again is the only way you can help, by staying out of the way.

If the GM doesn't like it, point out that he created the problem and it is within his power to fix it at any point. Until he does so, you are taking the only valid path forwards you see at the time. If he doesn't like that, then he should be offering you alternatives.

If you are patient, this response is pretty much perfect.

I would ragequit, but that's just me.

You can't ALT-F4 life. :D

I tend to play all my religious characters as zealots. It's more fun that way.

My current Cleric of Asmodeus is... strong willed... opinionated... loves preaching about literal Hellfire...

...and supports several local orphanages. :D

Please folks, just do what the spells say.

Faerie Fire counters CONCEALMENT, Mirror Image doesn't use concealment.

Assigning additional effects to Faerie Fire changes the rules of the game.

House rule territory.

Ridiculon wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Upon revisiting this thread, I would say that you can't drag someone underground and abandon them there.

Granting them the use of an ability isn't the same as forcing them to be unable to keep themselves aboveground.

An unwilling target could likely just 'turn off' this power and be grappled/rendered prone but not dragged underground to die.

How do they turn it off (assuming it was turned on, meaning they failed the will save)? If it's possible it would definitely be the smartest move for the target, is there any rule that supports it?

Assuming for the sake of argument that you can use pull someone who is unwilling with you (and so far there's been no argument showing you can). Why would they get a Will save? There is nothing in any Earth Glide ability about a will save. It isn't a spell you are casting on them.

That said there is also nothing about granting the ability to someone else. When you bring along a passenger you are not granting them this power independently. You can't give them Earth Glide and then use it to go one direction while they go another. So the passenger has no control over it to "turn it off"

A passenger is willing.

Someone being grappled and dragged underground isn't a passenger, they are a victim, or a target, a captive. No longer being a passenger, no longer qualify for earthglide in this situation.

Don't need a save, they just don't go underground.

If you fooled someone into thinking you were their friend, and then abandoned them underground, that would work...

But grappling and dragging down, nope.

Like Switzerland. :D

I have a question:

What is the difference between this and a water monster dragging you into water?

This ability is a magical effect that may or may not work on unwilling targets.

Being granted the use of this doesn't force the target to go underground, it ALLOWS them the option.

Water has no such rule, if you fall off a boat, you better know how to swim.

As a (literally) card carrying male witch, I can tell you that the term "Warlock" is indeed extremely insulting and offensive to us.

However, I personally see no issues with it being used as a label in a game. Most people are ignorant of the difference between the terms witch and warlock, and do not mean to be insulting by their use of it. The phrase "witches and warlocks" has been used so often by literature and media that when used as a reference, I consider it mere confusion or ignorance and no harm done. So, call your male witch a warlock in game if you feel a need to differentiate genders, just don't call a real Wiccan one.

See, I learned something today.

I'm one of those people who actually attempts to be "PC" whenever I can, so I'm just gonna try to drop Warlock from my vocabulary (I mean, for general use, I may dust it off if it actually applies to someone!).

Learning is fun!

alexd1976 wrote:

I find it odd that you would get so wound up over an existing (and accepted) definition of something.

Does anyone else find this commonly used word offensive?

I'm talking about "Warlock".

Well, my wife practices Wicca and I can tell you from personal experience that most people in her community have at least some issue with the word. For many, it's merely annoying; for some, they react like you dropped the "N-bomb". I don't use the term anymore because: a.) it's not a term that comes up very often and b.) it annoyed my wife and her friends. Does that mean you should stop using it? That's really up to you to decide.

Huh.

I didn't realize some people found it offensive. To those who do, I sincerely apologize, and will try to be more aware of this in the future.

In the context of the game, I will likely continue to use it as I have, with no offence intended (my group is ignorant of the insulting connotations mentioned here-I will mention it to them though).

Happy gaming!

@ Fernn...

tee hee, you said 'Skycream'

:D

alexd1976 wrote:

Nohwear wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

The origins of warlock are from the middle engligh word for oathbreaker. The modern usage is a male witch, but that term is offensive to Wiccans. We aren't discussing real world religion here, but the witch class in the game. Let's drop the historical argument that has no bearing on witches and gender on Golarion.

I'm just pointing out that calling a male witch a Warlock isn't a mistake, at least according to multiple reputable sources, as shown in my earlier posts.

If someone is OFFENDED by this, take it up with the English language, as I'm just citing sources, not making it up.

Sorry, but to me that is as much of a cop out as blaming Latin for the N word.

You can't be serious... are you serious?

Look up the Latin word for black.

I find the common modern understanding of the word warlock to be highly offensive and that it needs to go away.

Not only is it not spelled the same way as the modern usage, you are actually referencing a dead language as part of your argument. Try again.

alexd1976 wrote:

'Sani wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

JakeCWolf wrote:

To quote Ben Ravencroft from Scooby Doo and the Witch's Ghost;

"And since Sarah's witch blood runs in my veins, I guess that makes me a warlock!"

I've always liked warlock for male counterpart to a witch. The name really pegs we men's nature to use any skill more offensively, while it would change nothing about the class in play, I can see a Witch over a kettle making a hex to curse a village, while a Warlock might be doing the same thing to a army of soldiers during a battle.

Just my opinion. :)

Until Pathfinder, Warlock was a class... now, in our group at least, Warlocks are male Witches.

Historically though, the word witch isn't gender specific. Men and women alike were accused of, and executed for, being a witch.

The idea that male witches would use the abilities of a witch differently from a woman, or more offensively, and thus needs it's own special distinction from female witches, is completely ridiculous. And doesn't say anything good about the thought processes of those making the statements.

Wikipedia doesn't agree with you

I'm sorry, I was referring to historical real world uses of the word witch, such as witch trials. Not all the fictional references on wikipedia.

dictionary.com doesn't agree with you either...

If attacking makes your hand 'not free' somehow, then simply declare all of your unarmed attacks to be kicks and headbutts. Problem solved.

Also, slap your GM, cause that would be stupid.

alexd1976 wrote:

Variant versions of Weapon Training are no longer counted as Weapon Training.

The bonus would no longer apply.

Advanced Weapon Training and Weapon Training are two different things. The gloves modify one but not the other.

If your GM wants to houserule otherwise, ask him/her, but as written, the gloves ONLY work on the basic Weapon Training.

I don't think that's the point. The fighter has weapon training at level 4. At level 9, the fighter can pick up advanced weapon training. Some of the advanced weapon training abilities reference your weapon training bonus, which you still have from level 4.

So, does the bonus from the gloves apply to your "weapon training" bonus before or after that bonus is doubled by the advanced weapon training bonus?

When in doubt, the least favorable result is usually the correct one.

Once Awakened, an animal companion ceases being an animal, as well as a companion.

If you can convince it to stick around (Leadership?) then you still have the issue that it is a Magical Beast, so Enlarge won't work... neither will Animal Growth, so even the Dire Collar is out.

Sorry.

As someone who has actually trained with magic such as fireball, I can unequivocally state that the way it works in real life is very different from the way it works in the game.

For balance purposes, rules were written regarding range, damage and such.

Do not try to apply real world logic to a game that has dragons and magic.

Brain in a Jar wrote:

A Faerie Dragon can certainly use a Handy Haversack.

They are treated as Biped (Hands) in Animal Archive meaning they can use All Item Slots and can manipulate with their hands to carry objects.

It also has the carrying capacity needed to hold it.

Also consider;

"These wondrous items do not adhere to a specific slot, and are often carried by a character in a way similar to a potion or wand, worn on some part of the body that doesn't correspond to an item slot, or are otherwise utilized in a particular way detailed in the item's description. Slotless wondrous items range through the gamut of appearances and functions, and, generally, if a magic item doesn't fit into any other category it appears here.

Anyone can use slotless wondrous items unless specified otherwise by its description. These wondrous items are usually use-activated or triggered by a command word, but details vary from item to item."

To claim otherwise would need some rules quotes to back it up.

And the Rules are written in the assumption that the CHARACTER is the one using or being referred to. Not the familiar or animal companion, the CHARACTER. You even quoted it. That they made rules specifically for the familiar and animal companions to limit which slots they had shows they obviously don't follow all the rules for the CHARACTER in the book.

My book bag, which is smaller than a haversack, is still twice the size of my rather large 20lb cat. You would 1) have to modify it to be able to carry it (oops custom magical item now) and 2) it would significantly impact the movement of the cat while it was on them. It could carry the weight sure, but there would be problems moving like it does normally, which equates to what "encumbrance" does.

If you want to argue that familiars are in all ways the same as characters despite having particular rules about what they can and are... Fine. That doesn't make it a good or valid argument. You ARE leaving the...

The rules tell you that familiars have limited slots to use items. So they can use items.

The bag is a bag, with a weight... it doesn't require a slot.

The weight is within the limit of the familiar.

The rules therefor show that it can carry it.

Trying to argue against this goes against the established rules.

Familiars CAN carry stuff, they exist in a corporeal form and can even wear magic items.

They are not JUST class abilities, they are living, breathing physical companions GRANTED to you by your class, just like animal companions, or eidolons.

They can carry and use stuff. Saying otherwise is ludicrous.

General

Don't see the game as a competition, you are all on the same side. The goal is fun, if the players have fun, you have WON THE GAME.

As GM, you have unlimited resources, killing a PC isn't a success, it's a punishment.

Just beg your GM to allow a Paladin of Cayden Cailean, he's perfect...

alexd1976 wrote:

A taser would be a touch attack.

The tip of the taser is what produces the effect.

You wouldn't parry a taser by jamming your hand into the contacts on the tip of the taser.

Right?

You can parry 'touch' attacks.

We've long since gotten past that, we are now on the "my shield should help vs touch attacks, it makes no sense it doesn't help" argument.

Hrm. I sort of agree that shields could help with it... I don't think it would break anything.

Minor tweak, just state that shield bonus adds to touch AC. I like it!

A laser would be a touch attack too, and it still seems to me that getting hit with a laser should hurt more than blocking a laser with your shield (assuming your shield was made of something which might be able to block a laser - say adamantine)

@Arachnofiend - It seems like it would be a simple matter to distinguish between items worn and those merely held. I'd also find it kind of odd if somebody touching your weapon (staff, katana, musket) should hurt you though based on previous posts it sounds like that's the case "by the rules".

Good point about the laser... chalk it up to "maaaaaagic"... and move on. :D

A taser would be a touch attack.

The tip of the taser is what produces the effect.

You wouldn't parry a taser by jamming your hand into the contacts on the tip of the taser.

Right?

You can parry 'touch' attacks.

It is treated as a scimitar. 18-20 threat.

The fact that the Mythic version explicitly states this range is irrelevant, if it was intended to serve as errata for the non-mythic version, it would SAY SO.

It is simply re-iterating what has already been said using different words.

Scimitars threaten on 18-20, any other number would be a house rule.

...and Fools make time for the mall.

Spring Attack?

alexd1976 wrote:

Ashram wrote:

Not disagreeing with you, but lightsabers do exist in Pathfinder now. Look up the plasma blade from AP #100. >.>

Laser swords (lightsabers) and plasma blades may look similar, but utilize different types of energy. :P

I am _so_ glad you know the details of lightsaber construction and operation, because I don't think Lucas himself does....

To be fair though, I can more easily imagine a plasma sword (magnetic field containing superheated stuff) far more easily than a 'laser sword'... I mean, why doesn't that laser just... keep going? Midi-Chlorians? :D

alexd1976 wrote:

Luckily for GMs, it isn't up to players to declare what is and is not an 'appropriate tool' for digging through walls.

You have every right to say a weapon won't work for digging. They can either accept this, or not.

Lightsabers don't exist in Pathfinder, and shouldn't be used as a basis for comparision.

If Adamantine weapons granted a burrow speed, the rules would say so.

Not disagreeing with you, but lightsabers do exist in Pathfinder now. Look up the plasma blade from AP #100. >.>

Laser swords (lightsabers) and plasma blades may look similar, but utilize different types of energy. :P

Luckily for GMs, it isn't up to players to declare what is and is not an 'appropriate tool' for digging through walls.

You have every right to say a weapon won't work for digging. They can either accept this, or not.

Lightsabers don't exist in Pathfinder, and shouldn't be used as a basis for comparision.

If Adamantine weapons granted a burrow speed, the rules would say so.

The slow demise of random encounters as PCs become more powerful is the most realistic outcome. Even goblins aren't going to risk attacking the massive destructive force of high level PCs, let alone bandits and other smarter potential enemies.

Any enemies that might present a challenge are not like to take such a group lightly. They may surprise attack them with a good reason, but even an ancient dragon wants to go on being ancient and knows it's not invincible; and will only attack if the PCs are standing in the way of their plans.

If the ambushing party KNOWS the PC party is deadly, sure... they won't attack.

How would they know this though?

Well dressed people travelling in a small group, fine robes and expensive weapons...

Tempting target. Sure, the warrior looking types have fancy armor and swords, but maybe the risk is worth the reward.

My NPCs don't automatically know what level/CR the PC party is (and vice-versa, maybe that random bandit is actually a 14th level sorcerer!)

:D

Saldiven wrote:

I think random encounters are far more realistic than never running into anything anywhere except for designated adventure zones.

But you know what's really nice for that? When you don't have to choose between bogging the game down with pointless encounters or having the players walk through anomalously empty lands because they of their own accord choose to use teleport when traveling through low level areas.

Random encounters in relatively safe areas are a thing you have to use, not something you should want to keep using when provided with an excuse to stop.

I always decide whether or not a random encounter happens. The random part is WHAT it is, not WHETHER it happens. :D

I also make an effort to tie it into the story.

Goblins on the highway? Sure. But why are they there? If it doesn't make sense, I skip it.

Story first.