jbadams's page

293 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Dereklord is correct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, my wording was poor, I also don't believe it grants spells known - just effective "spell storing slots" on the weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looks like a third-party bloodline, so the Rules Forum probably isn't the place to ask.

My reading of the ability is that you choose a fixed spell, and that it can be expended once per day.

At higher levels you can choose and imbue additional spells, so yes, the weapon would be holding multiple spells at once. In my opinion it's not clear whether you can choose not to expend on a successful attack, or whether multiple spells are expended at once at higher levels.


I would attempt to play those stats, but my group are willing to play along with interesting concepts and would likely create characters specifically to help with my survivability. They would also expect me to carry my weight in other ways; support, social, casting, etc.

There's no question it would be mechanically weak and a lot of effort would need to go towards just surviving, but as MrCharisma suggests, it could be an absolutely amazing roleplay opportunity.

I wouldn't make a group deal with this unless they're all onboard with the challenge though.

On the side conversation regarding Raistlin Majere, the War Of The Lance 3.5 sourcebook has his Con as 9 and Fort Save as + 0 as a Level 6 character. If I were trying to write a character faithful to the novelizations I would definitely go with a lower Con. The character's survivability is supposedly aided by possession of the powerful Staff of Magius (although exactly what powers this imparts are often unclear and vary by source. At minimum it provides Featherfall and Light.) and his protective twin brother.


Mechanically, just consider the Eidolon as not existing when not summoned. The game does not intend that you interact with it in any other way, and so there are no rules or guidelines to cover something like the Eidolon independently coming to find it's summoner.

You're attributing more to the Eidolon than the game intends or specifies in the rules.

-OR-

You're welcome to create whatever background and attributes you like in your own home game, but that would be a house-rule, not a question for the Rules forum. If you're not the GM for your game, whatever your GM says goes.


I agree actually, that post was unnecessary and mean-spirited. I'm unable to edit at this point, so reported my own post for moderation.

My apologies OP. :)


Keep in mind OP is the person who cared very deeply that a hammer loosely based on Mjolnir isn't exactly the same as a particular version of Mjolnir.


<3


As above, there's precedent for Evil worshippers of Sarenrae, so that line certainly doesn't prove anything.

Goblin stat blocks list them as evil. The Young template doesn't alter alignment. QED, non-Evil baby-goblins are custom monsters (house ruled content), an exception rather than the rule.

If you wanna make a Paladin fall in your game for killing baby goblins, all power to you, but others are free to make different decisions.


Looking specifically at your most recent suggestion, personally I don't think I would consider any individual class level - especially at low level - to be a good grade for -4 to all stats.

That doesn't produce a Batman-like character in my mind, unless the point buy is unusually high it's more likely to produce weak peasants with an extra ability or two that they won't be especially good at using.


Are more options always better than less options though?

There have been numerous studies showing that more choices often decreases satisfaction, and we're talking about adding another option - and one that may have unforeseen consequences or interactions - to a game that already offers choices in droves.

More (or different) options can be great if they fulfill some specific purpose within your game, but I think without a purpose in mind and some thought into how it may change the game there's a chance you might just be frustrating your players.


Pricing for items (and to a lesser extent abilities) is often off, sometimes quite badly.

If you're running your own home game feel free to make sensible adjustments as a house rule. If you're a player perhaps bring it up with your GM. Otherwise, that's unfortunately just the way it is. There's probably no good reason for it, but that's the way it is.


If it bothers you, house rule it in your games.

It doesn't bother most people. It's a weapon with an obvious theme in mind that does an adequate job of filling the role in question.


Oracle Curses already scale at half level for non-Oracle levels, so an obvious answer might be to take a single level dip if that would work for you?

Variant Multi-Classing as Oracle gives you a Curse that scales at half level, along with a few extra to goodies in exchange for half of your feats.

Outside of those you're probably doing something homebrew, so it's probably something to discuss with your GM, perhaps taking the above options (give up an entire character level, or half your feats) as a guideline.


I would allow it to work, assuming the recipient of the message doesn't have some other reason for being immune (such as not sleeping, or it being specified that they do not dream). As you said, the target of the spell is the messenger rather than the recipient, which means the mind affecting tag applies to them.

I can certainly see an argument for also applying it to the recipient, but considering that the spell is strictly limited to a one way communication of a message it isn't going to harm a recipient to allow this to work.


I'm quite fond of the Liberation Domain's Freedoms Call power for support characters:

Freedom’s Call (Su):
At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura of freedom for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. Allies within this aura are not affected by the confused, grappled, frightened, panicked, paralyzed, pinned, or shaken conditions. This aura only suppresses these effects, and they return once a creature leaves the aura or when the aura ends, if applicable. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.


Taking a cue from Dairfaron's thread replacing the last one that went off topic, let's have a version of this discussion without anything inflammatory and for on topic replies only.

The on topic snippets from our original thread:

doc roc said wrote:

I'll get the ball rolling with my own personal #1 fave....

ASH SUBDOMAIN
Wall of Ashes (Su): At 8th level, you can create a wall of swirling ashes anywhere within 100 feet. This wall is up to 20 feet high and up to 10 feet long per cleric level you possess. The wall of ash blocks line of sight, and any creature passing through it must make a Fortitude save or be blinded for 1d4 rounds. The wall of ash reveals invisible creatures that are inside it or adjacent to it, although they become invisible again if they move away from the wall. You can use this ability for a number of minutes per day equal to your cleric level, but these minutes do not need to be consecutive.

Such is the effectiveness of this in terms of battlefield control or debuff or concealment effect that I have played clerics that used this more than actual spells themselves!

So many uses, so many uses per day and an auto scale DC..... simply wonderful!

JiaYou said wrote:
Question: Is it required/implied that each use is for a minute? I assume so but wasn't sure. Second (more important) question: how thick is the wall? I was thinking I could use it to blind enemies in a line by dropping it on them.

Please stay on topic everyone. :)


As above, the percentage chances your GM are rolling are a house rule.

The spell does have a built in 'failure' method of sorts, in that characters interacting with your Silent Image get a Will saving throw to potentially disbelieve the illusion.


Nothing in the archetype appears to alter how a Figment archetype Familiar heals, so they heal as normal (Cure spells, mundane healing, etc.).


CBDunkerson wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:
By making it “end of your next turn” instead of “end of your turn” it enables you to draw the weapon as a move action, hold onto it for a round, the. Throw them in a full attack on your next turn. This makes it useful even if you don’t have quick draw.
You could make one attack with each of two weapons already in hand... but you could do that w/o the belt too.

But if you did it without the belt your weapons wouldn't teleport back to you, and that's a rather substantial difference.

I believe the wording is very intentional, and allows for exactly this situation.

Quote:
Someone said this earlier, but I'm not sure how it is supposed to work.

Turn 1: draw both weapons.

Turn 2 (i.e. "your next turn"): throw both weapons as part of full attack, and benefit from both returning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Otherworld Mapper is pretty flexible for world maps, cities, buildings, or dungeons.


They probably do time travel, and perhaps on rare occasions even meddle, but because the mere mortals that are generally player characters are part of the altered timeline we're not aware of what they've done.


Adjacent means immediately neighbouring; on a grid squares which share a side (or in some instances a corner). This definition doesn't change with size increases (although you will naturally be immediately neighbouring more squares at a larger size), and it doesn't change with reach - just because you can reach a square doesn't make it adjacent.

The fact that you can reach 10 ft away doesn't change the fact that those squares aren't in direct contact with the one you occupy; they aren't adjacent.


Cevah wrote:
Telling me that it is up to me when I am asking for your advice doesn't help. :-/

Three. They should have three extra spells.

More seriously, lots of advice has already been given and I'm not sure what you're looking for that hasn't already been provided. There are no rules to follow here, or even any guidelines. No extra spells might be most appropriate. An extra ten or twenty spells may be most appropriate. Literally every spell ever printed may be appropriate in the right situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How many more do you need them to have?

Do they need a particular set of spells to fulfill the role you have planned for them? If that set of spells didn't fit within what they already have from starting/leveling, they'll need to have aquired the additional ones through other means such as purchasing.

Do they have a particular back story or theme that would be suited to certain spells? Again, if they can't all be selected via leveling they'll need to have acquired them another way.

Can they afford more spells? Perhaps your particular wizard is poor, or has to funnel their resources into something else. Perhaps they're rich and like to collect exotic spells. Do what makes sense for the character.

Also consider your game balance: are they likely or certain to die and have their spellbook looted by the PCs? What should or shouldn't be in there so that PCs can access it? Maybe some spells are better off as consumable scrolls or potions, or they've invested in knowing them without having them in their spellbook.

Does that help?


I would say your second interpretation; when you gain an ability that depends on scale colour you choose which colour and are locked in to that choice (for that ability only) going forwards.


I believe you can also swap for the Bloodline Feats as per the general rules for Bloodline Mutations; nothing in the more specific descriptions of each individual mutation overrides that, and so it still applies. :)


Really good, thanks for sharing! :)


Agreed with the above for 1).

2) is a bit problematic, did you make a typo and say "Bloodline Arcanas" when you meant "Bloodline Powers"? As your question is currently written I would have to disagree with the above responses and say the answer is no - a Bloodline Arcana is a separate feature of a Bloodline (possessed by Sorcerer Bloodlines but not Bloodrager Bloodlines) that is not mentioned in either the general Bloodline Mutations rules you have presented or the specific Blood Intensity rules. You can not trade a Bloodline Arcana for a Mutation. You can trade either a Bloodline Power or Bloodline Feat, as per the text.


eyelessgame wrote:
- "You can attack into your own square if you need to" is a perfectly sensible rule - but is it then the case even for a Reach weapon?

No. The general rule is that you can attack into your own square if needed, but using a reach weapon is a more specific situation adjudicated by it's own more specific rule which alters the squares you threaten/can attack when using that weapon. :)


Yqatuba wrote:
I remember reading somewhere the reason some people are born as sorcerers are because they have some draconic ancestry

In Pathfinder that depends on the Bloodline. For Draconic bloodlines it may be from a dragon, but there are numerous other options. It also isn't necessarily a blood relation, but could be the effects of some encounter that an ancestor had.

"Each sorcerer has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that grants her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities. This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family’s past. For example, a sorcerer might have a dragon as a distant relative or her grandfather might have signed a terrible contract with a devil."


I don't think they're hoping to refresh spells more than once per day, just wondering if they can refresh them with broken rest if necessary.


Agreed with the above. The rule in question is quite clear and has been well clarified.

I'm not sure what your question (if there is one) is?


I don't know of anything specifically in the Mythic rules, but if your DM allows them you could probably use the retraining rules from Ultimate Campaign.


The design of the system is intended to limit the player to two rings so that they have to choose between those items. Want that ring of regeneration? You'll probably need to remove the ring of sustenance. Allowing players to override that limit (by combining items, making items slotless, removing the two ring limit, etc.) risks altering the balance of the game and should be carefully considered.

That being said, for a home game, it's not uncommon to allow custom crafting on a case-by-case basis, with a slotless version of the item costing 150%, or allowing the player to "combine" items with an associated cost increase.

Keep in mind as Claxon says above, allowing custom crafting is one of the easiest ways to break the game's balance.


Agreed with all the suggestions above, but I hadn't seen anyone address your third point yet.

Firstly, anyone consistently getting high or low results over time may have poorly balanced dice. Have you checked this, or even tried just mixing it up with new dice periodically?

Unfortunately this isn't one you can resolve yourself, but the DM can absolutely change their style to improve the game if their run of good luck is making it overly difficult. Rather than showing their rolls so that you can see how well they're rolling, they could consider hiding their results so that they can fudge them if needed. A good DM might pretend a crit didn't confirm to avoid dropping a player -- not every time, but on occasion -- or that a save failed so that a player can break a run of bad luck and be useful. They might pretend a low attack roll was higher to get off an attack and increase the drama and tension for players.


Sorry, yes, I parsed it wrong, but I would say you're locked at minimum 1.


The Emissary doesn't have Cleric levels, and the ability text does not say to treat any other value as Cleric level, so I would give it the minimum 1 round.


In some settings, teleportation carries a risk of attracting unwanted attention; demons, elder gods, rogue magic, or what-have-you.

The idea of attracting demonic attention may not specifically suit your game if you're aiming for low magic, but you could potentially use something similar.


Third and fourth scenario.

The player knows the location and strength of auras within their sight.

If the items aren't plainly in sight, I wouldn't automatically reveal them to the player, but would probably grant a bonus to Perception to spot them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously, I can no longer see what the original post was, but in most cases it's better not to remove your posts even if you've been mistaken - the topic would then make sense to future readers, and other people with the same question or confusion could benefit from the responses.


Cevah wrote:
2) Finding the spot where person X ate breakfast on date Y is easy. A visitor consulting the Akashic Record simply turns her attention to the moment she wishes to observe, and it appears before her, not as a two-dimensional image like an illustration on page, but rather all around her, as if she were actually present witnessing the desired moment in history.

Note that the text you quoted is for "a visitor consulting the record". Akashic Communion explicitly does not work the same way.


Dispel Magic should do the trick. :)


1. You get experential guidance (that is, guidance based on experience or observation) based on flashes of insight. The spell specifically states that you do not get "perfect knowledge", and that "impressions gleaned from the distant repository are sometimes skewed when received".

The rolls are made in secret so that the player doesn't know how well they've done, a really bad result can be "wildly inaccurate" (but doesn't have to be obviously so), and the player can't try again on the same subject for a long time.

My interpretation is that it's left up to GM interpretation. This allows you to control what information you give the player so that you can provide guidance or hints without necessarily ruining plot details.

You can choose to give incomplete or somewhat cryptic information - it's guidance based on potentially skewed impressions! That being said, unless the roll is actually a natural 1, you should give something that's at least potentially useful to reward the player's investment into the spell, skills, and crafting of their questions.

2. It's a perfect record of everything in the multiverse, that's pretty clear that it includes everything without omission, even down to small details like you mentioned.

Any omission or inaccuracy would be a matter of plot outside of the normal rules of the game.

3. Yes, I believe it would "get around" such things - as above, it's a perfect record of the history of everything in the multiverse. Do note however the limitations above - the record is complete and contains everything, but the guidance you give the player may be significantly less complete (although unless their result is very poor it should at least be accurate if interpreted correctly).


No. Noone thinks that.

If you think that's what "some people" were saying you have read incorrectly or misinterpreted.


This is *not* the question James suggested you should ask for a FAQ on...

You probably wanted to ask something along the lines of "can a creature effected by a polymorph effect benefit from non-spell size changes or polymorph effects (e.g. from Supernatural or Extraordinary abilities)".

It's also customary to cite any relevant rules, and to link to discussions showing that a faq response is necessary.

//EDIT: Removed something unnecessarily antagonistic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No.

Why would we need a FAQ response for this, I don't think I've ever seen confusion around it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The text for Spell Storing specifies "a single targeted spell". I would agree with James Risner that you get ONE spell that you may discharge with any relevant attack.

This FAQ is for a different weapon property, but I think pretty clearly shows that the developer intent is not to allow properties of this sort to apply to multiple natural attacks:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9oaf
Spell Storing is written with a single weapon/attack in mind, and applying it to all natural attacks would be way too powerful for the cost. One of those instances where a GM should apply common sense.


This is probably an advice question rather than rules.

I would rule that taking the ability with the intention to, or knowledge that, you will definitely become immune to it later is not really within the spirit of the rule, and therefore wouldn't allow it.

If the character happens to organically develop towards immunity, with appropriate roleplay and later wants to take an ability that would remove the negative I might allow it.

1 to 50 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>