Bear

haremlord's page

Organized Play Member. 498 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 498 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

As a coder who may have, in the past, used code that I didn't fully understand but got to work, I applaud this concept of spellcasting.

And primal magic events are purely sloppy coding that created a few... bugs.

It's black box coding where as you level up you get greater system access.

Awesome :-D


I've been tinkering around with a similar idea for a campaign world.

There was a God war roughly two millennia ago and the gods ended up destroying themselves. The faithful learned to power their own magic through belief (think of it like an electrical grid that suddenly loses the power company... the infrastructure to get power to all of the homes are still there, but no source... and then one day people start installing generators that feed back into the grid). The more faithful in the world, the more power to go around, until things are back to normal. Now, however, people believe in general concepts (the power of love, for example) and those who can tap into that source have "divine" power.

It does require a player to work a bit to pick domains/favored weapons, and develop a creed that fits their devotion, but I thought it sounded fun and different. It also allows for fun RP possibilities when two people have differing ideas on what is the "right way" for the same devotion that isn't always possible in the normal rules.


Darkvision is in black and white, so it would probably be all black.

The real question is those with the See in Darkness universal monster ability. They would probably see their skin color which is an odd thought.


In our current game, my character is starting to become a lay-priest of a fellow party member because of how cool he is.

I don't know the full build, but he combined street performer bard with mesmerist and has created the ultimate infomercial salesman that turns others into the fail parts of infomercials and routinely hawks his wares and gets us out of tough situations.


I'm making a character that uses (among other things) blade rush, and I have a couple questions.
1) this is for an earth kineticist with earth glide. Can the movement be underground at any point?

2) what if the target is 20' away, do I have to move the full 30' before making the attack?

For reference:
Blade Rush
Source Psychic Anthology pg. 20
Talent Link Link
Element universal; Type form infusion; Level 2; Burn 2
Prerequisite kinetic blade
Associated Blasts any
Saving Throw none
You use your element’s power to instantly move 30 feet in any direction (even straight up), manifest a kinetic blade, and attack once. You gain a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn. The movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, though activating blade rush does. If you have the kinetic whip infusion, you can manifest a kinetic whip instead of a kinetic blade at the end of your movement by increasing the burn cost of this infusion by 1. The blade or whip vanishes instantly after the rush.


VoodistMonk wrote:
The ACTUAL distance fallen is used to determine damage for Branch Pounce... both Expert Leaper and your Skill Unlock would prevent you from taking falling damage, assuming you succeed at the appropriate Acrobatics check... and hit your target with the attack.

Good :) Branch Pounce wasn't part of my original plan (I just wanted to dive from above and didn't know the rules for it) but now I like it and I want to take advantage of that :D

Thanks again!!!


Ok, wait. How does that effect Branch Pounce?

Branch Pounce (Combat)
Source Ultimate Wilderness pg. 107, Heroes of the Wild pg. 22
You are adept at exploiting higher ground to its greatest advantage in battle, and can leap from above to deal incredible damage to your foes.

Prerequisites: Climb 3 ranks, Stealth 3 ranks.

Benefit: When charging a target by jumping down from above (such as when jumping out of a tree), you can soften your fall with a melee attack. If the attack at the end of your charge hits, the attack deals damage as normal and you also deal the amount of falling damage appropriate to your fall to the target (1d6 points for a 10-foot fall, 2d6 points for a 20-foot fall, and so on). This falling damage is not multiplied on a critical hit. You land in an unoccupied square of your choosing adjacent to the target, and you take falling damage as if your fall had been 10 feet shorter. You can attempt an Acrobatics check as normal to treat the fall as an additional 10 feet shorter for the purpose of determining the damage you take from the fall. If your attack misses, you land prone in a random square adjacent to the target and automatically take the full amount of falling damage.

If I lower the height of the fall for ME does it lower the damage for the target, too?


VoodistMonk wrote:

Normally:

If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.
...........................................

So, under normal circumstances, a DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first TEN feet... blah blah blah.

With Expert Leaper, a DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first TWENTY feet! Ooh...

The Skill Unlock requires a DC 20 Acrobatics check, which is automatically going to activate and exceed the Expert Leaper DC 15 check by 5 if you make the 20 for your Skill Unlock.

You have both, and intentionally jump off a roof or whatever:

You get a 21 on your Acrobatics check, which exceeds Expert Leaper by 5 and just barely passes the Skill Unlock check...

By exceeding the Expert Leaper check by 5, you avoid any damage from the first 30' of your intentional fall.

By passing the Skill Unlock check, you treat the entire fall as if it is 10' shorter.

If you jumped off a 40' roof, you hit the ground unscathed with a 21 Acrobatics check.

If your Acrobatics check had been a 35 on an international fall:

Expert Leaper would allow you to avoid any damage from the first SIXTY feet, because you exceeded the DC 15 by 20.

Skill Unlock check was exceeded by 10, therefore you count the entire fall as 20' shorter.

If you had jumped off a 80' roof, you would land on the ground unscathed with a 35 Acrobatics check.

Expert Leaper is...

It took a few times for me to go over this but I think I've got it now.

Thanks! :)


I'm in the process of making an unchained leaping rogue and I took Expert Leaper and Rogues Edge (Acrobatics) at separate points in the build process. As I was going over everything I started to get confused how they would work together (if at all).

Expert Leaper (Ex): When using the Acrobatics skill to jump, a rogue with this talent is always considered to have a running start and adds her rogue level to the check result. Whenever she deliberately falls, a successful DC 15 Acrobatics check allows her to ignore the first 20 feet fallen. For every 5 by which she exceeds the DC of this check, she can ignore an additional 10 feet of distance fallen.

Acrobatics skill unlock: With a successful DC 20 Acrobatics check, you treat an unintentional fall as 10 feet shorter plus 10 feet for every 10 by which you exceed the DC, and treat an intentional fall as 10 feet shorter for every 10 by which you exceed the DC.

They are both in Pathfinder Unchained, so they should be compatible (I would think), but I'm not sure how.

Expert Leaper alone would get the following:
DC 15 - 20' less, DC 20 - 30' less, DC 25 - 40' less, ...

Acrobatics skill unlock would get the following:
DC 15 - 10' less, DC 25 - 20' less, DC 35 - 30' less, ...

Would you take the best (which would always be Expert Leaper) or would you combine the two (every 5 makes it 10' less, with a bonus 10' at every 10):
AKA
DC 15 - 20' less, DC 20 - 30' less, DC 25 - 50' less, DC 30 - 60' less, DC 35 - 80' less, ...?

Or something else I hadn't considered?

Thanks!!!


Derklord wrote:


Claxon wrote:
But then we would need to clarify why AON and d20pfsrd are incorrect.
I can actually do that: The change isn't listed in the errata notes. Since both these sites only update their rules according to these errata notes (the official SRD did it too), such "stealth updates" are usually missed. Not the only such case, by the way. Reincarnate springs to mind, both sites still list the costly oil as a divine focus and not a material component, which was also fixed in the 5th printing.

Well done. :-D

Back to original topic, an 8th level stalker vigilante can get the same ability. For what it's worth, in the Giant Hunters Handbook there are rules for using stealth to hide under larger creatures. My thoughts were that HiPS combined with those rules should allow you to hide in the shadows of creatures at least one category larger than you... at least until they move. You might not be hidden from them unless they were unaware of you to begin with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just thought that I would add this. It's a day by day accounting of an NPC commoner who retrains into a wizard and what he does every day using the downtime rules. I think he's doing better than any PC I've played :-D

Edit: I realize he isn't a specialist, just thought it should be mentioned... carry on.


baggageboy wrote:
To me saying you have hexs without having the "hex class feature" is silly. You can have 0 level spells without having the cantrip or orison "class feature" and no one bats an eye.

I fully agree, but I wanted to head off that suggestion ahead of time.


Is there a way for someone with a hex (in this case, a Sylvan Trickster with Evil Eye) to deliver their hex through a melee attack (in this case, a dagger).

I know about Hex Strike (requires the hex class ability and is done through an unarmed strike, so no go) and the Conductive weapon property (requires the supernatural ability to use a touch attack or ranged touch, which Evil Eye does neither). Any other way a melee attack can be combined with a hex?

Thanks!


My group has long discussed playing a single character (sort of Voltron-like), but made up of different undead (two crawling claws, a skeleton, and something that was just skin).

I've played as an intelligent sword once, that was fun (3.5 fiend of possession/fiend of corruption build).

But the one that I built that I REALLY wanted to play was Harry Beardmeister, my gestalt mythic dwarven white haired witch. I had him ready to play until the game didn't end up happening. He had some of the dwarven cleave feats, as well, so when combined with the reach of his beard he was a one-dwarf AoE. :)

Oh, and he would brew beer that he would filter through his beard for that added oompf.


Slim Jim wrote:

But now lets alter our motoring experiment slightly -- to one which purportedly is possible, according to apparently prevalent interpretations of Paizoese:

* Instead of your +1 longsword of mailbox-slaying, you are now wielding a bow. Because you need both hands, you will be multitasking like boss, and "guiding" your mount with lower appendages. Per above procedure, your passenger will simulate mount-control difficulties.

* Driving at a modest distance from them (one ranged increment for a composite longbow is 110ft, right?), you will now attempt to shoot each mailbox with an arrow as you drive by.

It sounds like you are saying that a full attack with a bow should be impossible while the horse is moving, but I thought your original premise was that you could only do it when your mount moves 5', double move (70mph in your example), or runs (140mph in your example), but NOT at a normal move (35mph in your example).

So which is it? Should mounted archers only get one attack if the mount moves at all (not counting a 5' step) or should they get a full attack if the mount double moves or runs, but not if the mount only does a single move?


First off, no one in my group ever really fights while mounted, so it has never come up. I'm not here to put in my 2 cents, but I've been reading a couple of threads where this has come up and I'm curious about something. I was trying to ask my group if they ever thought about it and what was the rule, but I was having trouble framing the initial inquiry.

Is the OP saying that you can get a full attack with ranged while your mount has taken a 5 foot step, a double move, or a run, but not a normal move?

For example, if my mount as a 60' MR, I can get a full ranged attack if he moves: 5', 120', or 240', but not 60'?

I'm just curious and if this question derails the discussion, feel free to ignore. Thanks! :)


VoodistMonk wrote:

A traveling group of Luchadores!

Tetori Monks and other Grapple-oriented players.

Bright spandex, bright masks, and tons of unnecessary acrobatics checks.

Player: I bounce off the ropes and throw myself at the enemy.

GM: There are no ropes. You aren't in a ring. You are in a dark alley with stone walls on either side.

I remember reading a Hellboy comic where he briefly partnered up with a group of Luchadore monster hunters that did just that. I think two would lock hands to provide the ropes when another needed it...


I had a similar discussion (although I used Venom as my example, since it was more about method that stands him apart from normal PCs).

My GM and i agreed on LE at the end, since he follows a code, but kills the wicked in non-good ways.


SomethingSomethingSomething wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Slayer is exactly a rogue/ranger blend. It might work very nicely for what you are after.
Its interesting, but the sneak attack is pushed back a bit too far for appeal, and the penultimate ability is Int-based (which the character in question will be looking at ~12 max by level 15+). Will add it to considerations though.

Just wanted to say that if you dip vivisectionist then take slayer, by RAW your sneak attack is the same as a rogue.

As you were :-D


The Phantom Thief rogue archetype can get some.


Does this count?

AON wrote:

Drink Is Life

Source Mythic Adventures pg. 63
Strong drink fuels the mythic fires within you.

Prerequisites: Con 19, 3rd mythic tier.

Benefit: You never take penalties for consuming nonmagical alcohol, and you can consume an alcoholic beverage as a swift action instead of a move action. Each time you consume an alcoholic beverage, you may gain one of the benefits of polypurpose panacea (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic 232). You can have only one of these benefits active at a time. If you expend one use of mythic power while drinking an alcoholic beverage, you can heal 2 points of ability damage, negate a temporary penalty to one ability score, or remove one of the following conditions: confused, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, frightened, nauseated, poisoned, shaken, sickened, or staggered.

You "never take penalties for consuming nonmagical alcohol."

Sure, it's mythic, but....


I just saw episode 15 of Dimension 20: Fantasy High. If you aren't familiar, some cast members from Collegehumor play a game of 5e set in a modern world with fantasy elements. While it isn't a game i'm playing, I find that i'm fully invested in the game as if I were.

One of the best parts is how the PCs interact with various adult NPCs in the world (they are high school students), especially their parents.

Spoiler:
In episode 15, the PCs have to split up and rush to their homes because the bad guys have targeted their families. It's a running plot element that the bard doesn't get along with her mom, but she slowly starts seeing her mom in a different light, and when she comes upon the unconscious body she heals her and apologizes... it's a real heartfelt moment that I totally teared up for... as did the player. You could also see how the various moments impacted every player.

It's an excellent show. I highly recommend it!


An abandoned theme park that was built to delight children, but the attractions fell into disrepair and/or had other ideas for entertainment. Sort of a Five Nights at Freddy's meets Disneyland.

The previously well-maintained landscape has since overgrown, with the only paths created by the wandering attractions... places where once the sounds of laughter filled the air, now the occasional creak and muffled scream can be heard. A once merry sign adorns the entrance, covered in dust and cobwebs and a few random brown specks of dried blood...


Ryze Kuja wrote:
Not sure if you watch the Sherlock show with Benedict Cumberbatch, but in one of those episodes he had to deal with a serial killer who owned a hospital that had secret passageways going throughout the entire hospital. When the serial killer built the hospital, he kept firing the architect so that the passageways would be completely undetected. Not exactly a maze per se, but it could be a motive/backstory for why a maze would exist?

That was loosely based on Herman Mudgett (also known as H. H. Holmes), a serial killer who built a hotel where he would rent rooms to tourists and kill them in his maze.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Synthesist & Blood God Disciple.

You can turn into a monster that gets stronger by eating people!

:D


Many years ago, a powerful (wizard/noble/etc.) was corrupted by an alien intelligence to build a portal that would summon the being to the moral world (think Ivo Shandor from the first Ghostbusters movie).

Before the final ritual could be enacted to bring the being into existance, the designer died. Since then, others have found the maze and have taken residence, without any knowledge of its intended purpose.

You could even throw in that the architect is out there somewhere, maybe as a spirit, that is trying to influence others to finish his design to bring out the end of the world.

Another idea could be that it was used as a burial site. Whether it was built to protect their final resting place, or to protect the world from the dead rising... well...


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
haremlord wrote:

May I suggest a weird alternative?

Hinyasi brawler, hamatula strike, a set of forks

Each successful fork attack gives a grapple check, and you can flurry with them.

I haven't thought this through all the way, but I figure if you keep one fork stuck in the target, they are considered grappled (as are you, this may be where it falls apart), and each subsequent forking maintains the grapple, allowing for grapple damage. If you have quick draw, a lot of forks, and you are allowed to let go of a fork and let the other keep the condition, it may allow you to full attack with them.

I'll have to research this...

Hamatula Strike doesn't allow for quite that level of coolness. If you make an off-hand attack with your Grappled opponent, you take a -2 to your Attack Roll as per the Grappled Condition. Your Grapple Check will have a -4 (not stacking with the -2) due to your not having 2 hands free.

The way Hamatula Strike was envisioned to be used is make lots of Grapple Checks as Attack Actions, each one Damaging your opponent, but each one taking a -4 because of the only-1-hand-free thing.

The way I like to use Hamatula Strike is with Armor Spikes. You get lots of Attacks somehow with Piercing Weapons, each one granting a free Grapple Check. Each successful Grapple Attack does Armor Spike Damage, and you release your opponent after every Grapple as a Free Action.

I'm not seeing how having a -2 or -4 penalty makes it less cool :) With a set of forks you can shred people. That's awesome! :D


May I suggest a weird alternative?

Hinyasi brawler, hamatula strike, a set of forks

Each successful fork attack gives a grapple check, and you can flurry with them.

I haven't thought this through all the way, but I figure if you keep one fork stuck in the target, they are considered grappled (as are you, this may be where it falls apart), and each subsequent forking maintains the grapple, allowing for grapple damage. If you have quick draw, a lot of forks, and you are allowed to let go of a fork and let the other keep the condition, it may allow you to full attack with them.

I'll have to research this...


Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't greater grapple let you maintain as a move action, and flurry of maneuvers requires a full attack?

If so, how would you combine the two?


willuwontu wrote:
haremlord wrote:
My current character is a gloomblade and I plan on taking two levels of hinyasi brawler as my next two levels. He will then be proficient in all close weapons and will treat improvised weapons as close weapons.
Improvisational focus will get you proficiency in improvised weapons, and won't slow your progression on bonuses for your blades.

True, but it also gets all close weapons. And since you can create any weapon with which you are proficient and since there's the weapon modification that can add a weapon to the close weapon group....

And I like the damage possibilities.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Multiclassing a gloomblade seems like a terrible idea since your gloomblade's enhancement bonus is tied to your level in the class.

So a normal fighter 5/sohei 6 would be able to buy just a +3 weapon, but a gloomblade 5/sohei 6 would be stuck with a +1 weapon. An 11th level gloomblade, however, can just manifest a +3 weapon with +3 equivalent of special abilities whenever they want.

My current character is a gloomblade and I plan on taking two levels of hinyasi brawler as my next two levels. He will then be proficient in all close weapons and will treat improvised weapons as close weapons. That should mean that he can use his gloomblade ability to create nearly anything. I fully plan on having flaming chairs and frost mugs.

In other words, I don't think multiclassing is always bad for them :-D


Ryze Kuja wrote:
Duiker wrote:
Definitely balance in order to keep it useful. You don't start starving for a few days, which means that if it was a 24 hour item, you could just have one and pass it around the party, which doesn't seem nearly as interesting of an item.
^ That right there. 1 Ring of Sustenance with a 24 hour attunement could keep your party alive indefinitely just by passing it around every day.

Can you imagine how desperately hungry you'd be if you were only satisfied once every three days? You'd start to look at your party members differently...

"It isn't really cannibalism to eat a halfling if i'm a human, right? Hey, Samwise. Can you come here for a minute?"

Seriously, tho, if you start taking penalties after 3 days, and it takes 24 hours to attune, at best you could do this for 3 party members, right? I'm not sure if you'd need it on the whole day to get the benefits the first day or not... still, even when we need to eat, it's typically the other things that kill us before starving to death.


Chrion wrote:

I really appreciate everyone's responses, but they really haven't spoken to my original request.

Some of the options we have been thinking about have been:

Can do NL after a successful CMB check.

Can do NL when you would be able to get sneak attack damage.

Can do NL but always do minimum damage.

How about requiring a successful knowledge check (maybe with a higher than normal DC)?

You might also consider a special magic item that allows it, perhaps a limited number of times per day.


Adjoint wrote:

It's definitely to stop some exploits from happening.

Note the Starvation Rules:

Quote:

A character can go without food for 3 days, in growing discomfort. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each day (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead.

Characters who have taken nonlethal damage from lack of food or water are fatigued. Nonlethal damage from thirst or starvation cannot be recovered until the character gets food or water, as needed—not even magic that restores hit points heals this damage.

Now consider that the ring could be atuned to in a shorter time (like 1 day). As soon as a character gets attuned to the ring, they receive nourishment that allows them to recover from starvation and reset the counter. That means that multiple characters could swap it beatween themselves, passing it to the next person as soon as they get attuned and nourished.

With longer time or attunement this tactic is no longer feasible, as one person would already start taking starvation damage before the ring attunes to another person, and then they would need to wait until the ring attunes to them until they start recovering. Unless they have a lot of Constitution or hp, they cannot usualy affor to take that much nonlethal hp they cannot instantly heal.

Another possible exploit would be to wear the ring only once in a while, to stop the starvation, and use a different ring in its slot for the rest of the time. Long attunement means that if you want to use it to get nourishment for a longer time, you need to wear it constantly and sacrifice the corresponding item slot.

To sum up, the atunement period is set on that length to prevent the exploits I described above.

Huh, yeah ok. It seems like a lot of work for little benefit (you could do the same by buying less food) but sure. It does keep players from doing that.

Thanks!


Dasrak wrote:

It's a legacy 3.5 item that was brought over in the CRB, and a lot of the stuff there was just straight copy/paste and only got changed if there was a problem that needed fixing. The one week time is excessive and it probably should have been 24 hours, but stuff from the 3.5 era was often arbitrary and inconsistent with other rules.

One possible reason could be to prevent swapping it in. The two purposes of this ring are to reduce sleep requirement and food requirement. You'll generally know 24 hours ahead of time if you need to do an all-nighter or if you're going to run out of food, meaning the ring could just be swapped in 24 hours in advance if that's all it took to take effect. One week is harder to predict meaning people who want the benefit.

Way back in 2e days, it took a week to attune, then it worked for a week, then took a week to recharge. It was a nice change in 3e that it only took a week to attune. But, again, it was one of those things that I took for granted without thinking much about it. Like how I KNEW that it was illegal to keep the dome light on in the car while you were driving. Turned out is not

I thought that maybe there was some ancient lore (like from an issue of Dragon magazine or a splatbook) that suggested a reason. I assume balance, but i'm struggling to see why it would be unbalanced otherwise...

In my quest to find an answer, I found a post on stack exchange that suggested it's from the Gygax era of DMs torturing players, and having the ring wasn't fair to the DM.


For as long as I could remember, the Ring of Sustenance took a week to attune (and then only worked every other week, initially) and I never questioned it. It's a magic item, so... because a wizard said so.

It was only last night that I started to wonder why. Was there ever an explanation (in fluff or rules, in any edition) that said WHY it takes a week? In pathfinder, there are a lot of items that take some time before they give their full benefits (typically 24 hours, I believe), but a week seems excessive, and I'm just curious if anyone has an explanation.

Thanks!


Dave Justus wrote:

I don't think looking at the modern value of bullion is relevant to how 'rich' your character would feel. Purchasing power is what matters, and a whole lot of what they would want to buy isn't available at any price. Even things that you can find a magical equivalent of are going to be vastly expensive. You could come up with the magical equivalent of a car, but it is going to cost you a whole lot more than 4000gp.

Now, obviously if you had a way to get the bullion to your own society, that would be great, and you might want to do that, but unless it is pretty clear and immediate, I wouldn't expect that to be anywhere near the top of my worries.

The way Isaw the suggestion was based on putting myself in the mind of a blue collar worker who was given 80 pounds of gold.

In gaming terms, it isn't "retire and live the good life" money... it's only 4k and even living a simple life it wouldn't last forever.

Me as a modern guy given 80 pounds of gold, I'd think I was rich. There have been stories in the media about people finding a cache of gold coins and being able to turn them into a lot of money (finder's fees, auctions, etc.). Even if I didn't have an immediate way home, I'd still have that urge to hoarde it somehow just in case.

My current thought is securing a place to live, then hiding a chunk of it, because my character wouldn't necessarily know that gold practically grows on trees in fantasy games. :) Once he has had that revelation, he might be less tight-fisted with it.

I'm still not sure how he'll feel about the "kill them and take their stuff" line of thought, tho. Good thing he was built to deal nonlethal anyway :)


Scrapper wrote:
Watch the Original Dungeons & Dragons animated series...

That's funny. I had not thought of that. :) And that show is a big one (mentioned a LOT) by us (we are the right age to have seen that on TV when we were kids).

I will think about that. I know one of us has them on DVD... Thanks!!


I probably should have mentioned (stressed) that my character is very simple. For reference, think Bubba from Forrest Gump. He's a shrimpin man who was in the military for a bit but came back home to work in the local fishery. Because of his fishing skills and learning how to use them in combat (net/trident build) he was tapped by the local chamber of commerce in his small coastal town to represent them and bring attention to small businesses in the area. He does that by fighting in gladiatorial events that are broadcast on tv to the entertainment of the masses. (Xcrawl, to be precise... think WWE meets dungeon crawling). We were in an event that went off the rails and we were sent to Waterdeep in Forgotten Realms.

He doesn't know or frankly understand any of that. He just knows that people talk funny and his credit cards don't work but the stuff they just found sold for golden coins which are neat to look at and are probably worth something in real money but his heart was never in the celebrity stuff. He just wants to get home or, barring that, back on a boat and make himself useful. I'm going to assume that he wouldn't ditch his companions, so that's why he'll follow them into adventuring, but the idea of carrying what would take 6 years to earn on a boat is troubling.

Add to that the fact that he has no experience with bags of holding (not allowed in the crawl) and he has no local home (buy one, maybe?) i'm just stuck with what to do.

As a gamer, there's a lot I want to buy, but I want to roleplay this as well as possible.

Magda Luckbender wrote:
Spread the money out three different places. That way you can't lose it all through bad luck. Bury 1/3 in a hidden place. Have someone trustworthy hold 1/3 of your money. Carry 1/3 on your person, perhaps in less bulky form like platinum or gems.

I think this makes the most sense starting off. I'll see if I can buy a home, maybe with a trustworthy crewmate to keep it occupied when i'm out, and take a few coins to have some money. Once he gets used to the change in lifestyle, depending on if they find a way back, of course, he can grow into his new role/ way of life organically.

Thanks!


I realize that i'm over thinking this, and I'll probably submit to the inevitable, but I'd like some others to provide input.

Here's the situation. Last game our characters were sent back in time, from a roughly modern setting (still fantasy, with magic and monsters, but with some modern mentalities and financial institutions) to a standard fantasy world (with gold pieces). During the downtime between last session and our next one, we sold off the treasure we found right before we got here and we ended up with about 4k gp each. My character is a blue-collar worker (a fisherman by trade when he's not doing the "adventurey" stuff) and, after some rough calculation, I figure it would take about six years to earn that much gold as a fisherman.

How would you, as a modern person used to cash, credit, debit, etc. deal with having six years of salary (almost 100 pounds of coins) with no permanent address and at least the hope of returning home some day? I know what I'd do as a player, but I'd like to at least consider this from a realistic perspective.

Would you hide it somewhere so you won't lose it?

Would you try to find someone trustworthy that would hold onto your money like a bank (without really knowing how that kind of stuff works in the past)?

Would you spend it, not truly knowing if another windfall like that will come (it will, of course, but YOU wouldn't necessarily know that)?


Derklord wrote:
haremlord wrote:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but this was changed in an errata or faq, yes? Originally it was allowed?

I think it enver actually worked, but only due to lack of language, and not by being specific.

Here's the original wording: "Arcane Deed (Ex): When a magus takes this arcana, he can pick any one deed from the swashbuckler class feature as long as that deed can be used by a swashbuckler of his magus level. The magus can use that deed by using points from his arcane pool as the panache points required for that deed. A magus can take this arcana multiple times, each time gaining a new deed. The magus must have the flamboyant arcana (see below) to select this arcana."
There is nothing in that arcana description that makes you count your Magus levels as Swashbuckler levels. But, there are plently of archetypes that...

My group tends to assume that your class level counts unless it states otherwise (my Sylvan Rogue is the perfect example), so I assumed it was a change, but I can see your point.

To the OP, I remembered an instance where I realized that a player was doing something that wasn't rules-legal (he was using an ability that was only supposed to trigger under certain circumstances all the time) and I mentioned it to him. I believe I said that I think it's only when X happens and he reread it, then brought it to the GM's attention himself. In that case, it was just a mistake. He wasn't happy about it, but he didn't want to be cheating, either.


Correct me if i'm wrong, but this was changed in an errata or faq, yes? Originally it was allowed?

If so, it may just be that the other player was not aware of the change (in fact, the gm might not be either). In the past, when there was a change that affected a character someone was playing, I sent the link to them, typically with a "dude, this sucks" or something along those lines. If you are all good friends, you might even share it with the group (assuming that you aren't doing it to be mean, but really because it was a nerf that hurt a fellow player).

If not, and if it bothers you enough, you can instead be passive-aggressive about it. "Hah, you took arcane deed with precise strike? How is that +0 to damage working for you, since you aren't considered having at least one panache point as well as being effectively level 0?"

My group has been together for almost 30 years now. We still make fun of each other of the cheating that some of us used to do back in the day. "100,000gp for my own mummy? I have just enough!"


I believe that a maneuver master monk with a piercing weapon and hamatula strike should be able to do it.

Hit with piercing
Free grapple
Flurry maneuver to maintain and pin


Under Path Ability, for every path, it says this:

Path Ability wrote:
Path Ability: At 1st tier and every tier thereafter, select one new path ability from the champion path abilities lists or from the universal path abilities lists. Once you select an ability, it can't be changed. Unless otherwise noted, each ability can be selected only once. Some abilities have requirements, such as a class ability or minimum mythic tier, that you must meet before you select them.

You may have a lenient gm, tho, so it wouldn't hurt to ask.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Cevah wrote:

Major Image [3] states: While concentrating, you can move the image within the range.

You can argue that the move is not as a whole image, but say an image of a creature can be moved as if walking.
Well yeah, I don't think I've ever heard someone dispute that an Image spell of a creature can move like a creature rather than hovering around. But I want to do a whole moving picture: background, foreground, multiple characters. Concentrate to produce a story in pictures. And then team up with an actual narrator to do awesome entertainment.

I had an entertainment-focused character that used Major Image for that reason. He would buy books whenever he could and would put them on as shows for kids.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We once dropped a helm of opposite alignment on a glaberzu and he failed his save. That's the only way I know, unfortunately.

Maybe research something similar?


Weables wrote:
No, because the Kineticist doesnt make traditional ranged attacks, they fire off spell like abilities as a standard action that happen to use ranged attacks to hit. Which may seem like the same thing, but isnt.

That said, while it isn't RAW, since an Elemental Annihilator can use Rapid Shot, a case might be made (at a home game, likely not for PFS) to allow one of them to use it.


Meirril wrote:


There is no reason to believe an item that adds to either monk or brawler levels would somehow allow them to stack together along with the item. You can add 4 to your monk levels, you can add 4 to your brawler levels, or you could just be considered a level 5 monk. It says nothing about adding all of your brawler and monk levels together and I don't see any reason an either/or item would allow stacking classes without actually saying it allows stacking classes.

If you are still inclined to believe otherwise, could you quote which parts lead you to believe otherwise? This would be much easier to discuss if we can be perfectly clear what the point of contention is.

Honestly, it's only because it says that it counts as monk levels, which I assumed meant that if you also had monk levels, they would add together. When I looked for a ruling, I found multiple interpretations, including mine, with each person seemingly believing that was just how it worked without realizing that it could be read another way. Even when I initially questioned my assumption (I was making fun of how they don't stack unless I wear a robe) the idea that both classes would be increased by 5 and the benefits would stack was a surprise to me.

In fact, since it doesn't say to pick a class, the RAWiest interpretation is probably that. It increases your monk level by 5. Is the monk class a monk? Then it's increased. Is the brawler class treated as a monk? Then it's increased. Do the AC bonuses stack? One is untyped, one is dodge, so yes.

The easiest is to add the levels together, then increase, imo, but honestly i'm fine with any of the three (or even maybe one I haven't heard yet). It's honestly the least messed up thing i'm doing with this character :D

Edit: side question. Say I took stunning fist (1 use per day per monk level). Would you say that the monk 1/brawler 2 gets 2 or 3 daily uses? It's the same clause in the ability, but it feels different, for some reason.


Meirril wrote:
I don't see anything that says that Brawler and either Monk stack levels to determine unarmed strike damage. Without a rule or FAQ that says it explicitly the abilities from 2 different classes do not stack. The abilities share similar tables, but they are named after the respective class. i.e. they don't share a name, and they aren't the same.

I'm sorry if this wasn't clear, but I was referring to ONLY when they are using magic items (or feats, for that matter). The section ONLY MENTIONS those situations, not any other time.

I know full well that they don't stack in any other situation. Granted, that is weird that they would somehow stack when you put on the robe, but be completely different when not. You could then do a monk 10/brawler 10 and be considered a monk 25 when you put on the robe, but not otherwise...


I looked at a number of threads, but I couldn't find a consensus. I have a Monk (Maneuver Master) 1/Fighter (Gloomblade) 6 that I was thinking about taking two levels in Brawler (Hinyasi) for the next two levels, and picking up a Monk's Robe at some point.

My initial thought was that the levels of monk and brawler would stack when wearing a monk's robe, but now I'm not so sure.

Brawler wrote:

Martial Training (Ex)

At 1st level, a brawler counts her total brawler levels as both fighter levels and monk levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats. She also counts as both a fighter and a monk for feats and magic items that have different effects based on whether the character has levels in those classes (such as Stunning Fist and a monk’s robe). This ability does not automatically grant feats normally granted to fighters and monks based on class level, namely Stunning Fist.

From reading the threads on this forum, I've found three interpretations for calculating Unarmed & AC bonus:

1) Monk + Brawler. For this example character (Monk 1/Brawler 2) they would count as a Monk 8 when wearing the robes. (1d10 unarmed, AC bonus +2). Since you get the wisdom bonus at 1st level, you'd get that either way.
2) Monk v. Brawler. For this example, you compare Monk 6 and Brawler 7 and take the highest (1d8 unarmed, AC bonus +1). Since you get the wisdom bonus at 1st level, you'd get that either way.
3) Monk & Brawler. For this example, you'd get the benefits of BOTH Monk 6/Brawler 7 (1d8 unarmed, AC bonus +2). Since you get the wisdom bonus at 1st level, you'd get that either way.

This character doesn't wear armor, so that aspect of it doesn't factor in.

Has there been a consensus? For the record, this isn't for PFS, so I can bring it to my GM, but I'm just curious what others have done.

Thanks!

1 to 50 of 498 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>