arioreo's page

187 posts. Alias of Karel Gheysens.


1 to 50 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Why are these not available as rolled versions? Folder posters don't look good when framed...

I'm with Waynemarkstubbs here. Might print these myself if they are suitable for black and white printing. Solves all issue with respect to needing multiple copies of a tile.

Any plans to bring this concept to Starfinder?
It's a system with much higher flexibility so I'd like to see this in Starfinder too.

Does anyone know how the whisperwort fits into this scenario? What is causing the whisperwort to grow?

Are the jack-o’-lantern/POSSESSED GOURDS leaving the whisperwort? Why is the whisperwort going to Bertinards house in a spiral around the city?

Dear all, not sure if anyone has done this before but in a recent game, we resolved a game of poker with simple profession checks. Honestly, it was a bit boring and I think one can do better. Hence why I though up a system for more realistic ingame poker. Let met know what you think or add you own suggestions.


  • you play Texas hold'em as normal, each player gets two cards, five card come open for everybody, small and big blinds...
  • Keep Track of each individual characters gold bets.
  • After each character has received it's two cards, each character make a profession (gambler) check. Order the character from lowest result to highest result. Each character selects a card to show to the players with a higher profession (gambler) check.
  • A character can attempt skill opposed checks to influence the game. When the opposed check succeeds, the character can perform a certain action. When the check fail, the character is required to double it's current stake without the other players meeting the increase. The other characters take a -2 penalty on their check for each additional character still in the game (so a -2 for 3 players, -4 for 4 players) as they have to divide their attention. Each skill check can only be performed once per game.


  • When it's your turn to either fold, meet, increase... you can attempt a sleight of hand check opposed by a perception check from the other players to take one card from you hand for a top card of the deck. You discard (without the other seeing it) one card from your hand.
  • When you are asked meet a certain increase, you can perform a diplomacy check opposed by a sense motive check to only add half the increase to your own stake
  • When you make an increase of your state, you can perform a bluff check opposed by a sense motive check to add the big blind fee less than the real increase.


  • Lucky Halfling (requirement Halfling luck racial trait): When you are required to stake the small or big blind, you can exchange one card when you are the small blind and two cards when you are the large blind with the top cards of the deck. You discard (without the other seeing them) the card(s) from your hand
  • Honest Abe (requirement oath to not lie): you cannot perform skill check to influence the game. However, you only take a -1 penalty per additional player instead of the normal -2.
  • Diviner (requirement Wizard Divination school): after the players have shown one card based on their order in the profession (gambler) checks, you can request to see one card from one player. You can request to see the other card than the card you saw based on the profession (gambler) checks.
  • Slick Yoe (requirement Skill focus sleight of hand): At the end of the viewing of cards based on the profession (gambler) checks, you can exchange the card you passed around (or would have passed around if you won the contest) with the card an other player passed around.

What's the allignement of this character?
If the character is Lawfull, your loyalty be with the council so just continue to do what you are doing.
If the character is chaotic, screw the council. Staying alive is more important, and having a party to help you kill the bandits is mighty usefull. If the council comeback for you, just say you were charmed by the party wizard and bluff you ass off.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was kinda hoping paizo would produce differently coloured bases (blue, red, green for instance) though your suggestions might work too.

Bellona wrote:

This looks extremely useful, and not just for the GM.

The only problem that I foresee is if there is summoning going on on both sides of a battle, and both PCs and hostile NPCs summon the same creatures. Maybe a well-prepared table needs to have two of these. :)

Having two copies will not solve the real problem. How will you keep track of which summons are from the PC and which from the NPC?


Can anyone explain to me how the attack section of the stat blocks of the crocodiles are the interpreted?

Crocodile from bestiary: Melee bite +5 (1d8+4 plus grab) and tail slap +0 (1d12+2)
Normally, multiple attacks are separated by a ',' and mutually exclusive attacks by 'or'. I have no idea how it interpret the 'and'. Does the crocodile have 2 attacks per full round or one?

Hi all,

first of all, although I have tried not to include spoilers in this post, I'm quite sure that (if this thread goes anywhere usefull), it will at some point contain spoilers.

Looking over the adventure in the box, I have to admit, I don't like it.
It's very well suited to learn the different mechanics of the game yet lacks the coherence I like in an adventure.

Hence I ask, has any written an alternative adventure using the same dungeon?
If not, does anyone have an idea that would work with the dungeon. Taking into account the geography of the dungeon, I can't seem to find a plot that would fit.

Any help much appreciated.

Note: you shouldn't set the DC for a spell cast by player. The players should.

With that said, save dc's are (almost always) calculated as 10 + spell level + casting modifier.

In the case of your cleric, this would be 10 + 1 + WIS. Probably around 14 to 16 at first level.

+11 is the attack bonus.
+1 is damage bonus.
And the 2 is the number of attacks she has.

He could play the harmonica like the one man orchestra's use (can also be used as a prop by you).

I call that classy.

To me, a great monster book would be a monster book that does not focus on monster but on encounters and setting building.

Forinstance, something that bothers me with the beastiary (the core one from paizo that is) is that I don't know how a golbin pit trap would look like. That they didn't include stats for the horse chopper. That they didn't include domains/powers/spells for the (so I assume) out-of -the-ordinary demons lords worshipped by goblins. That they don't specify what kind of horrible diseases or fungi live on the goblin waste pile.

By putting all this information in one of the player books, there is very little that can surprise players.
Hence why I think monster books should offer new stuff besides the basic stats for monsters so you can easily surprise the players with stuff they didn't read in the core rules book.

Depends on how it's all worded.

Each bonus should have a type stated somewhere near it. If the types are the same, they don't stack with the exception of dodge bonuses to AC and untype bonuses.

As both bonus type are untyped, they stack.

The character can move the speed of the mount he currently rides.

But what about int increases for instance from an ioun stone or headband of intelligence? (they have a language associated with them as per the FAQ).

Following this logic, you only gain a bonus language if the language happen to be on your racial list.
Kinda sucks if you ask me.

Bill Kirsch wrote:
I like Use Rope for climbing and securing enemies and cargo to mounts and so on,

If you really want to have people make a skill check, how about these.

Climbing: climb check (the DC's for some of these are already in the core rule book).
Securing enemies: DC is 20+CMB (see grapple rules in the core rule book)
tying cargo to mounts: ride check.

Papa Chango wrote:
Are they unbalancing?

I think they balance themselves out if you give you BBEG's and other major characters hero points too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the DC is 28 and they have a +2 modifier, they can't open the door using strength.

It's that simple and no different form skill checks in that respect.

Note however that other party members can use aid an other (I think it applies to ability checks, if not, it should...) to grant an additional +2 and that there are often other ways to get around an ability check.

forinstance, picking the lock of that door (either to open it or reduce the strength required), breaking it down using damage etc.

Saint Caleth wrote:
I don't know if there needs to be a whole archetype for that, since a duelist can already have an offhand weapon and only use it to parry, since duelist abilities only turn off when you attack with an off-hand weapon. So a duelist could, for example, attack with their main hand and rserve all their offhand attacks for parry attempts while still precise striking and getting INT to AC. If you are talking about something besides just parrying with the off-hand tell me though since I am not that familiar with actual dueling styles.

I'm quite sure that's not how the rules are to be interpreted (although the debat has been made often and we are just waiting for a faq).

anyway, I think there is more to be done with a two weapon fighting duelist.

What benefith could a character gain from using the offhand weapon for attacks of opportunity?
What advantage could a character have when using both weapons for a disarm or sunder attempt? What disadvantages does this render?
Is there a greater parry class ability that allows the character to sacrifice an attack with both weapons to gain a bonus on the attack roll made to parry?

P.S. If you are not into two weapon duelling? How about an archetype for a gun based duelist?

An archetype for the duellist prestige class based around the ancient duelling style of using a dagger in the offhand.

While you are at it, perhaps you can add some more offhand daggers (only the swordbreaker dagger is now part of the game) such as the Trident daggers or similar.

Just a thought but I think the point is made that it's a bad idea.

However, it's not because it's a bad idea, you can't work with it. Lets not forget that (assuming he's playing the game fair) the monster should be doing this aswell. Meaning that the BBEG might have rolled a one aswell.

I say, see this as a challenge and create a character designed around these rules.
Think about what character is the least HP depending and how you can play your character with that in mind. A ranged character with good mobility has an easier time to avoid damage than a melee character. Think about getting an animal companion as see this as a meat shield.
Start the campaign with high constitution, toughness and put your favoured class bonus in hit points. Look at other ways to get higher hitpoints as soon as possible. Virtue should always he active if you have access to it.
Play the smart and use all rules. Fighting defensively, total defense withdraw, increased speed (fleet), stealth may be a smart tactic choice.

If the rule is to roll for your first hit die, play the game with that in mind. Step out of your comfort zone and play a different style.
Who knows, this limitation may turn out interesting if you manage to find creative ways to work with this limitation.

And if it's not interesting, you always run your own adventure....

ShadowSketch wrote:
1. How many players make up an "ideal" party? The box comes with 4 pre-gen characters but the standard for D&D is/was (I believe) 5?

There such a thing as an ideal party (or may the ideal party is that party you have the most fun with). So don't let the numbers or advice stop your.

That said, most adventures (including the one the beginner box) are written for 4 character combine of a number of classes that offer access to the 5 core mechanics (this a balanced party).
The 5 core mechanics are devine magic (and healing), arcane magic, melee combat, ranged combat and skills.

Note that some classes can be combine multiple mechanics or fill in some aspects partially. (mainly, all character should contribute to the skill mechanic - possibly through spells or other abilities - so you don't need a skill monkey that may lack in combat ability)

ShadowSketch wrote:
2. I noticed in a video preview that the "Hero's Handbook" has a walk-through solo adventure, used to teach the rules. Will I need to get all my players to run through that? If so, should I do that individually or take them all through at once (since I believe it's a linear adventure, as opposed to D&D's choose-your-own)?

The solo adventure is designed to run if you don't have a DM. Let them run through it if they desire though when are involved, aim for full fleshed adventures with all people present.

Social interaction is half the fun of an rpg and you lose that when you deliberately play solo campaigns when you have a full party to play with.

ShadowSketch wrote:
3. How long does character creation take? Is it recommended to play with the pre-gen characters first, due to them having the character sheets with explanations?

Character creation with the advice and the rule from the beginner box shouldn't take longer than 1 hour assuming the players want to make fast choice. If they insist on investigating each and every detail of each and every feat and spell, thing can take a very long time.

If you start with character creation, encourage them to take the hints in the runthough and restart a different adventure when you feel they wish to customise more.

rkraus2 wrote:
While it's by the rules, it's also entirely based on movement speed. Faster group wins, every time. And if both groups move the same speed, it goes on for infinity. Not super fun.

If both groups have the same speed, you can opposed dexterity checks to see who catches who and who gets away.

If the chaser loses this dexterity check though wishes to continue the pursuit, they make opposed constitution checks to see who wins.

I see little reason to make it long and boring when 2 simple opposed ability checks can solve it all.

prd wrote:

When the speeds of the two concerned characters are equal, there's a simple way to resolve a chase: If one creature is pursuing another, both are moving at the same speed, and the chase continues for at least a few rounds, have them make opposed Dexterity checks to see who is the faster over those rounds. If the creature being chased wins, it escapes. If the pursuer wins, it catches the fleeing creature.

Sometimes a chase occurs overland and could last all day, with the two sides only occasionally getting glimpses of each other at a distance. In the case of a long chase, an opposed Constitution check made by all parties determines which can keep pace the longest. If the creature being chased rolls the highest, it gets away. If not, the chaser runs down its prey, outlasting it with stamina.

from here.

My point is that I always saw flurry of blows as offering a number of attacks you can fill in as you see fit.

Assuming you have two weapons and an unarmed strike. At first level (2 attacks), this would give you 9 ways to fill your attacks (3^2 or (number of weapons)^(number of attacks) different ways to fill your attacks.)
At level 6, this increases to 27 different ways to fill your attacks offering an interesting tactical edge.

Sadly, this is not adapted though I think I'll just do as I want anyway.

Anyway, atleast it's now more interesting than two weapon fighting, something the monk could really use (as they can't use flurry of blows to qualify for the other two weapon fighting feats), so I guess it's a good thing.

Rynjin wrote:

When I use the monk class feature, flurry of blows, can I make all of the attacks with just one weapon, or do I have to use two, as implied by the ability functioning similarly to Two-Weapon Fighting?

You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. This FAQ specifically changes a previous ruling made in the blog concerning this issue.


So, this does not allow a monk to use 2 kama's with different enchantments and start using the one kama and revert to the other for the remaining attacks (i.e. one with more damage but lower to hit for high attacks with high attack bonus and one with lower damage but higher attack enchantment.)

blue_the_wolf wrote:
6) DO NOT close to melee, ready a charge this is a variant on step up + ready action. basically I close to 15 feet and ready an action to charge if the caster tries to cast. its a means of countering both 5 foot step AND defensive casting as defensive casting only stops AoO not readied actions.

Can you ready a charge?

A charge is a full round action so I don't think you can.


You travel through the woods. Out of nowhere, a goblin ambush attacks.
You fight against 3 standard goblins and one goblins dog.

The end.

For some reason, I don't think this is what you are after.
Maybe you can specify what exactly you want.

Did you check out the beginner box bash demos?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not based them around a starknive?

The hilt (or maybe you call it differently) is very similar to a starknive. Unlike the starknive, you can't thrown it though you gain a shield bonus when wielding two of them (when you cross your arms in front of you, you get a nice and strong surface to catch blades). The shield bonus increases when fighting defensively or taking the full defence action.

Other option might be to base them around short swords and allow the weapons to do 1d3 damage to either the weapon or the attacker on a sunder or disarm attempt.
Maybe you could grant this damage in addition to the normal effects of a critical hit. On a critical hit, you ram the sword so deep into the flesh of you opponent, the spikes at the hilt damage the opponent.

see wrote:
LazarX wrote:
A club however doesn't pass social muster.

If a cane doesn't pass social muster, then something that looks like a cane won't, either.

That a cane counts as a club in Pathfinder was established back in Ezren's writeup as an iconic, where the equipment list he has says, "Cane (as club)". Which was mentioned earlier in the thread.

All the writeup proves is that the cane Ezren uses can be used as a club (so unless you kill Ezren and steal his club, you still can't use a cane as a club) and that who ever created Ezren was more concerned with flavour than with the consequences of his design would have on the way some people like to play the game.

As you pointed out yourself, if you can use every cane as a club, there is no point for the sword cane.
So just accept that it's a NPC feature only there for that specific NPC.

Just like there is that NPC that uses spring attack and vital strike (or what was the combination that was used?)
As have been pointed out several times, this does not change the rules. Spring attack still is it's out full round action and can't be combined with a standard action (the vital strike chain of feats).

Both are either things you use or don't. They are not the core rules, so you are free to ignore if so desired.
If you want to use every cane as a club, do as you see fit. I just don't think you should force your choice on everyone else. And I don't think it has a place in this topic as it's a house rule that you try to represent as a core rule.

btw, does it anywhere in Ezren's description says what the perception check is to see that the cane is a weapon?
If not, I think by raw, one should consider Ezren's cane a weapon which is automatically viewed as such. Therefore, having a club-cane doesn't not work if you try to hire it as a weapon.

P.S.I just hope I haven't missed a faq or something.

CaspianM wrote:
I'm running Kingmaker and am currently trying to build a human NPC designed (hopefully) for one on one combat with a PC. What suggestions would you make regarding classes/feats/etc?

What level do you plan to make this NPC?

It's an NPC, if your build is under optimised, artificially lower the cr rating.
I like the idea of a magus/duellist personally.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The character gets a +2 circumstance bonus to intimidate checks. That's the bonus you get from something like that.
To balances things, he probably gets -2 circumstance penalty on diplomacy checks and some social consequences or alignment issues as collecting trophies isn't exactly main stream behaviour.

Aratrok wrote:

I'm currently playing a ranger, and at the end of the last session I hit level 4 and got my animal companion. However, I already have a heavy horse that I've been riding around that I wanted to become my companion.

If I'm reading the animal companion rules right, they're saying that if I wanted my horse to be my animal companion it would actually become weaker than a normal animal of its type, and lose combat training. How the hell does this make any sort of sense? Aren't animal companions supposed to be better than standard animals? Why does my horse spontaneously become worse than a standard combat horse?

Because the rules are written from a balance perspective and not from a realistic perspective.

Just talk to your dm, I'm quite sure he won't mind letting you keep the stats for a heavy horse until lvl 6 (which is where I think the animal companion version takes over).
After all, it makes more sense, creates a more engaging story and you have just waste 100 gp as you could have sold the horse and just go you a companion for free.

Mark Hoover wrote:
Skills to use to bypass would be Survival (see tracks of monsters that bypass), Knowledge: Nature or Geography to see EXACTLY what's out of place, and finish up with an Acrobatics or Climb to go over/around the afflicted path.

Does your trap has these characteristics or not? Would you allow the same things if there was a rogue in the party?

Don't play into their cards. Let them be creative within their powers.
If the best they can come up with is throwing rocks, then let them throw rocks to trigger the trap. It'll cost them time though that's live. Not everything goes as smoothly as planned.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was a monster in a campaign that a GM ran that happened to have an ability that allows it to charge with a speed of 200 ft.

I don't see the problem.
A GM is free to use the monsters he sees fit for a given encounter.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

More Loot 4 Less.

More of your archetypes series.

More archetypes are definitely happening, eventually.

Any chance you can make some of those archetypes focussed on prestige classes.

A gun based duellist? Or a gun based arcane archer?
Or a favourite enemy based assassin? I'm sure there are some ranger that hate their favourite enemy enough to go on a killing spree.

Bardess wrote:
I'd like some more combat styles for rangers! What about an Unarmed Combat Style for those rangers who want to use martial arts? What about a ranger archetype using monk combat style feats?

you are not alone, Combat Styles can use some love.

The original combat styles haven't changes since the core rule book, and I'm sure there are feats that fit in the combat style that can be added. Maybe adding a single feat at 1st, 6nd and 10th level (or create a feat that allows this)?

I would like to see a combat style for throwing weapon. My halfling switch hitter ranger deserves a combat style specifically designed for it.
And maybe a style that focusses on daggers/small weapons? Something for ranger/rogue dual class? They'll have high dexterity though low strength, maybe there are interesting feats that require strength?

d20pfsrd seem to have done so for you. Just select V in the components column.

P.S. the site seem quite heavy, so give it some time to load.

Vicon wrote:
I spoke to my GM and he's in support for the most part, with the only restriction being I should be able to sensically justify how I am counseling/lending aid... this is not a problem for most skills, but I am running a block on PERCEPTION... how can you aid somebody else in hearing something? Smelling something? Seeing something?

If you are having so much problem describing what you do, you should maybe just accept the fact that aiding an other for perception isn't possibly in most cases.

Anyway, I'm found one. When looking for traps, providing a light source that's not coming from the character who's looking for traps might help. The shadows are pointing to him rather than away from him which makes the easier to see.

You should be careful not to trigger traps though.

Hi all,

I like the idea of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary Box. It's a quite resource efficient way to get a visualization of the monsters you are/will be fighting.

However, if I start with this, I kinda wanna go all out on it. Not just doing something half. I want to have a pawn for each and every monster to face. For the adventure paths, this is not a problem with the release of pawn sets specifically for the campaigns (I assume this will continue).

However, there isn't an analogue for modules. 'GameMastery Module D0: Hollow's Last Hope (OGL)' is already hard to get a pawn for all opponents and this is probably one of the simplest first level modules. I can probably fetish a dwarf from the beginner box and be fine.
However, from what I know of it's natural sequel (Crown of the Kobold King), there is a unique monsters at the end. So the fun ends there.

So my question, is there a list somewhere with 'Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary Box' compatible modules?

'Crypt of the Everflame' seems interesting though it's sequel 'Masks of the Living God' requires a bunch of cultist which I don't think are included anywhere.

Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
Because Ezren is the worst wizard you could build...honestly, if you use Ezren expect to die...horribly. Well the worst wizard that can actually cast spells...I mean if you want to create a Wizard with 10Int, you would then be THE WORST possibly. He's just a Bad Wizard...

With a 10 int, you can still cast cantrips.

1d3 damage is too good, better drop that int to 9.

ImperatorK wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Aid Another wrote:

In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial...

The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
If it doesn't make sense for helping someone to be possible in the first place, then you're fully within the rules to disallow Aid Another altogether. I currently can't think of a reason to allow Aid Another on knowledge checks, though I'm open to suggestions.
Ever watched 'House MD'? During their differentials Dr. House was making a Knowledge (medicine) check and his team was Aiding Another by throwing ideas at him, making the tests, finding new symptoms and giving him inspiration for brilliant deductions.

ihmo House and his team are doing profession (doctor) checks (or even just heal checks) and not knowledge (medicine checks). The untrained assistants gain a sliver pieces each day which seems enough as it's always House who saves the patient.

Furtheremore, even if you place the check on knowledge, it's closer to find the answer in a library (due to the long time it takes them to find the answer and the many wrong paths they follow) rather than a strait remembering knowledge check. Something for which I never argue you couldn't.

ihmo, House is a bad example to prove your point.

If the skill check is concerning finding information about in library, I agree aid an other helps.

If it's just knowing something or not knowing it, I don't think one should be able to use aid an other.
There's a reason the rules refer to the decision of the individual GM.

Anyway, don't let your players abuse aid another. It's a low dc, doesn't have a risk involved and can be made untrained. There are hardly any reason why someone wouldn't constantly use it.
I even think introducing a failure chance would be good. This encourages people to invest at least a limited number of points in the skills you want use aid an other for.
A character with 2 or 4 skills points per level can than make the decision to invest in different skills and focus on aid an other or invest a few skills and take the lead on those.

You can never use aid an other on knowledge checks, there is just noting beneficial you can do.

Furthermore, as you said, it's literally in the rules; he can only use aid an other untrained (for trained checks) if the DC is less than 10 for the check.

this seem very clear cut. not sure what else I can say.

Really, you all think this a good idea?

Maybe it's because I'm in Europe (and I assume you aren't) though if one of my 'leaders' would bring something like that to a campout, I'm not sure it would it out alive and I'm not sure it would catch on. There is just a to large difference between what we did on normal activities and sit down and play an rpg.

Something I could see that could work is organising a games evening (forinstance when people have exams and don't have time to spend a whole day) and brining the beginner box as one of the games you propose. This way, you know people expect this. Those who really don't want to do this, will probably not show up (atleast, that's my experience).
Your public will be much more suited for what you hope to achieve.

Astrikkar Arkylon wrote:

Ive always wanted to make one, but there aren't any archetypes or feats that offer benefit to double weapons.

Does anyone ever actually use Double weapons?

although not a fighter, I think a ranger could be interesting. They don't need dex to qualify for the feats;

Probably a dwarf using a dwarven Urgrosh.
Advantage is that you can use it as a 2 handed weapon when making attacks of opportunity or when you only have a standard action (without having to use fancy tricks like gloves of storing).

Jiggy wrote:
Every time I've either run it myself or seen it run by the book, there's never been a problem. If they forget to search, they blunder into the trap - as it should be. If they take the time to search, they find the traps - as it should be.

The problem - although problem may not be the correct answer - is that the player has to remember each time to search for traps. I think there are more interesting things to focus on when playing.

When strictly playing by the rules, one has to remember and explicitly say they are taking of their armour when going to sleep and explicitly put it back on in the mourning.
They have to explicitly take time to eat and drink or they starve.
I'm sure there are more examples to be found.

These are things a character would is actually living in the world wouldn't forget as they have a mourning ritual, they feel hungry or they feel the vibe of the dungeon they are exploring.
Even the best gm/roleplayer can only live the character to a certain extend.

Things like these are easily forgotten while they don't make sense to have been forgotten. Depending on the character, the party, the player and the situation, offering a free/passive check is just a representation of what would have happened if they player would not have been a player though would be a living in the world.

Theconiel wrote:
arioreo wrote:
Does this mean that a +2 int item (headband forinstance) has a language attached to it, similar as for skills?

After you wear the item for 24 hours, its benefit is treated as a permanent increase. So, yes, after 24 hours of wearing the headband you would gain the retroactive skills and language (if I understand correctly).

Yes, but the skill bonuses you get are decided at the item creation. Not when you wear the item for 24 hours. Else, you can just take it off and get a new set of skills after 24 hours.

I assume the same goes for languages and maybe other things. Wonder if someone complied a list. languages are not in the description of the "Headband of Vast Intelligence"

Does this mean that a +2 int item (headband forinstance) has a language attached to it, similar as for skills?

1 to 50 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>