Search Posts
Isnt this who'e thing made up? You know, the magic and demons and stuff? So what if a book comes out that explains that that is why X is evil? Actually, it kind of has, though not in a pathfinder/paizo book. Maybe it has and I missed it. Anyway, in an old D&D 3.0/5 book they did address that. I think it was Book of Vile Darkness or Exalted Deeds. While discussing evil spells and undead it made specific mention that those are evil because they let more evil influence into the world regardless of the intent of the caster. One could argue that was then, this is now, but I think for a philosophical discussion that is sufficient unless something more recent over rules it. At the very least, I think it makes a stronger argument for design intent. That or an adequate explanation to a mechanical feature post fact. As to the use of internal healing, well I think that falls into the perview of corrupting influence. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," could be taken litterally here. I'm sure the forces of good and morality and sunshine and puppies will look the other way that one time if you have to save that orphan, but is it so unreasonable to think that constantly, willingly, calling on Hell's power might result in a kind of soul strain?
I see two contributing factors. The first is that players often seen [evil] in a spell discriptor and see it as a purely mechanical flair. They don't see it from an intended or character perspective where casting the spell requires calling on some dark god's power or crushing a baby bird to power it. Evil just make a spell seem darker, but not having a specific change to how it works for the player. I think that the same thing can be said with poison. Players are often most interested in weapon poisons, things used in battle. However, the dishonor that we associate with poison has more to do with its history of being slipped into food and drink. Players see a difference between a battlefield weapon and something more subtle and sinister. The other issue is that it forces a confrontation between a desired outcome and the morality involved in reaching it. People can and will justify their actions, and people rarely see themselves as the bad guys. For many people the ultimate arbiter of their actions is their own conscientious (which they can tell to shut up when it is convenient). Consider pirating things online. Objectively, it is stealing, but people come up with all kinds of ways to justify it. Imagine, though, if before downloading something there was a popup sign from the websie that said "just so you know, this is moraly wrong no mater what you tell yourself." People would be pretty unhappy with that because it would force them to choose between the thing they wanted and what was objectively right. That is why people do not like [evil] spells.
If you dont know what kind of equipment you will be getting and are not playing a fighting class, you might be ahead to build towards other roles and focus more on being combat support. Spend your feats on things that will enhance your skills, saves and spellcasting. A bard can probably get more use out of an extended spell than spending 5 feats to build up to whirlwind attack. Rely on your spells and bardic abilities to buff up for a fight instead of trying to build around a less than optimal weapon. As to the boarding pike, there is a lot to be said for flanking and aid another. It is not as glorious as being able to deliver the killing blow, but granting your bruiser a +4 to hit can make a world of difference. Of course.
The magic item system. You have to have weapon, shield, armor, belt, cloak, etc with the proper +X for your level. You spend more of your money buying +1 than on cool items like a cloak of the bat (which you dont want because you need it for your +4 cloak of not dying). Also, why are there so many items available to to buy? Half of the time you go to town, sell the items you found, and buy the ones you want because there is an unlimited stock of +3 swords laying around. I would much prefer a system where having +2 items was not part of the balance system. As well, it should be rare to buy stuff. Instead you should have to find or make the item. That would be a lot cooler. Now, I will grant that they did make some strides towards this in Pathfinder Unchained.
Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. The lawful part is pretty easy. She is obviously following a code of conduct and places importance on tradition. She also attempted to change things in the system before getting screwed over. I dont think she has slipped down far enough for evil. Her punishments are extream, but restrained and narrow. She limits her killing to dragonguard and nobles, and doesn't go after them until they have done something they should not. A strong case for neutral. however, I could see her as good, but teetering on the edge. A lot of this comes down to the details. How does she act when nobles and knights aren't involved? How big or small an infraction does it take to get a death sentence. I would weigh those and decide on LN or LG.
Well, the ghost might demand payment other than gold such as some kind of service. They might want gold donated to a temple or descendant. The ghost would also likely require you to provide the components for the magic item in question. Also, the spirit only preforms one task, so you can't just have him follow you around casting spells.
Ok, so I had to go flip through my rule book to check on this one. My interpretation is that a concentration check is required for non-damaging spells only if it hits you while you are casting the spell the same way you only have to make a check for attacks that hit you while you are casting a spell. So that means it only comes up if someone uses a readied action or a spell with a full round or longer casting time is being used. So, as I see it, prayer would for you to make a concentration check, but only if it comes into affect as you are casting the spell. I want to add that part of my reasoning is that the rule is meaningless or overpowered otherwise. Consider a spell like gliterdust. If a spell caster had to make a concentration check each round that he was under the effect of it, that would be to many concentration checks. However, if we say on going effects are not the cause for the rule, then we have to say that it applies to when the non-damaging spells affect you as you are casting or there will never be a need for that concentration check.
So, my thoughts on how to handle it involves some hand waving. This isn't personal combat so the details of what is going on can be glossed over more. After the bombardment, add some random boulders to the map with squished bodies. They are NPC's so you can say they are crushed or trapped if you want. If you want to aim at a PC though, I would just roll for damage, not being trapped. That will just make things to complicated. NPCs get smashed, PCs just get clipped in the shoulder as it flies by. This may be a bit off topic from your question, but it seems relevant. Those barbarians are going to be standing only 50 ft from that fort. If the defenders have ranged weapons, they are going to turn the barbarians into pin cushions. Also, I think it is worth noting that Raging Hurler is kind of an opportunity power. Most barbarians don't go lugging around a wagon of boulders.
They do not stack because they are both enhancement bonuses. The bonus from Arcane Strike only applies to damage as well, so you cannot just use it enhance the weapon then use the Arcane pool to give it special abilities. You could however use one point from the arcane pool as a +1 base then the other + to give the weapon special abilities. Then you could use Arcane strike to add up to +5 (not stacking with the +1 from the Arcane pool) to damage.
I've always found this to be a fascinating subject. How to fit monotheism into a game can be tricky. I've been slowly working it into my home campaign. Taking something from real world monotheism makes it even harder. Green Ronin's Testament and Medieval have both been mentioned. They are great resources for this. I would like to suggest maybe looking at Paradigm Concepts' Witch Hunter game. It is set in an alternate history and is based off of judo-christian traditions. However, it adds in the nice touch that Even if there is one "God" that there are still other immensely powerful beings that exist outside of His conflict with the Adversary that are capable of granting power to people. Historicly, people did believe much along the same lines. They might believe that their gods were the right gods, but did not necisarly think that the gods their neighbors worshiped didn't exist. I would like to add a few thoughts on domain options. I think that Law should be one of God's domains even if He is not specically being portrayed as a lawful aligned deity. It sits well with a lot of things, particularly from the Old Testament. Also, Law allows for "coruption" in the church. This is where you get someone who is following the tenets of the faith but not their intent. Also, I would suggest not putting in some domains to which there is nothing in the mythology to particularly support it. Keep in mind, that a lot of the domains flavors come from more polythesic mythologies. For example, there is nothing really in the Bible to suggest the Hebrew god has a particular affenity for cold (of course it is also set mostly in a desert), where as it is easy to see how some viking deity would have such a domain. Admittedly, patron saints might be able to help more with that issue.
Threatening is based off of your ability to attack, not your ability to make AoO's. Consider if you will a tiny creature. It does not threaten adjacent squares because it cannot attack into them, not because it lacks AoO's. In the case of Total defense you loose your ability to make attacks against a target, barring special abilities or feats. Mechanically I would say that you do not threaten anyone. Also, consider a wizards with no spells in hand. He does not threaten any squares because he is unarmed. So while a wizard, tiny creature, or someone in full defense is still a "threat" they do not actually threaten the area around them so far as the rules are concerned.
I would make it a move action. It probably fits more with a standard action, but seems like you could get a lot more cinematic fun out of it this way. (Picture two warriors with only one sword tossing it back and forth after they make their attacks.) I would not require a check for the thrower in most situations unless the person he was throwing too was in a bad position or something. In that case, just like throwing a splash weapon. I would require the catcher to make a dexterity check. Probably DC 10 with a penalty or bonus based on the item and how far it was thrown. If he misses, just use the random square table like you would with a splash weapon.
I'll jump on the band wagon for Arcadia. I mean come on, its the great unknown. That would be some real pathfinding. If we do go to Arcadia, I would like to do it before they release a splat book on it. That way there is some real surprise to it. Each place will be a true adventure, not us predicting what will come next because we've read up on locations and NPCs.
I would like to point out that you can solve the Kalashtar and psionics issue by just not having them in the campaign. Just say that they are not a player option and do plots with the Emerald Claw or Lords of Dust instead of the Dreaming Dark. Psionics is pretty well integrated to Eberron, but they designed it in such a way that you don't have to have it as part of the game.
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.Remember that stunned is not completely incapable of defensive activity - it still able to defend barely enough to avoid being killed automatically. Thanks, that does help some. We were actually playing 3.5 (though heavily modified with Pathfinder but not using CMB & CMD).
Ok, so I'm looking to run a campaign where all of the players start out as new pathfinders. What I'm wondering is if that means they should all start out possessing Wayfinders. I've looked around and have not seen any mention of when pathfinders recieve those. While not terribly powerful, I'm slow to give first level characters a magic item. Any thoughts? On a secondairy thought, I'm looking to create a campaign trait for all of them called Pathfinder Training: Choose one knowledge skill as a permanent class skill and you start play with a wayfinder.
In my group we've usually just used the rule that the Cohort is a second character for the player. Saves on trouble. I am curently a duke in the kingmaker game my DM is running and picked up the Leadership feat. I told him I wanted the feat and ran several possible cohort ideas past him. He really didn't want me to have any more bears at my command, so I decided on a psionic human bodyguard. Also, being somewhat neurotic I've stated out all of my followers. I have control over them, but he gets to approve or dissaprove anything. This lets him focus on running the game and me focus on fielding my own army of minions.
My opinion: Unless binding a druid with iron chains steals their magic, why should forcing any other piece of metal on their person do it? Whether you see the metal prohibition as a mater of druid philosophy and vows or a nuance of how their magic works, there is no absolute limit on how much metal they can have on them as by RAW. So, unless they are intentionally breaking the code it seems unnecessarily punitive to the class. Also, to me it seems to be a kind of metagaming. Really, lets depower the guy with metal gloves? Who would come up with that without reading a rule book?
Ok, I'm hoping that this is the right forum for this. The pathfinder comics come with map inserts. I'm trying to get clarified if they are dungeon grid maps or area maps. I just saw that they are suppose to release the first 6 issues in a collected edition with the only difference being the maps. So I figured this was worth investigating.
Im surprised that no one has brought up the falcata yet. It has 19-20 x3 for its crit. Talk about best of both worlds. Mix it with improved critical or keen and you get 17-20x3. Now that is nasty. While it alludes me off the top of my head, there are ways to increase the multiplier too. I thought I would throw in that for massive damage, nothing tops a x4 critical. I played a 3.5 game where I had knight that focused on mounted combat, particularly spirited charge, and had an acidic burst pick. If he critted someone while charging they were pretty much done for. It might not happen often, but really it only had to happen once.
I guess how you picture them does effect how you would see their size catagory. Sometimes I picture a grenado, other times a beaker of unstable chemicals. Still, if we go with something in the granado size and shape you are looking at a softball sized object that would probably be somewhat dense with a decent weight. Light thrown weapons like the dart and shuriken have almost no weight.
Now, here is something I have not seen, though I could have missed it, are bombs counted as light or one-handed weapons? If they are light weapons then between TWF and Rapid Shot you have a -4 on attacks, but if it is one-handed then that is a -6. Even with a touch attacks that is a pretty steep penalty. Personally, if I were the DM I would rule bombs are a 0ne-handed weapon.
Actually, you don't have to end up face to face. The whole tactic with mounted combat and a lance is to just keep on riding by and hitting up for damage. Mobility is the big advantage of mounted combat. With Ride by Attack you will not take an AoO from your target, though others could take them on you. You may wish to consider the Mobility feat if that is a big concern. Keep in mind that when you charge with a lance, even if you do not ride by you do not have to stop adjacent to the target, just within reach with your lance. If he moves in closer, then on your turn have your mount make a 5ft adjustment away from him and attack with the lance (which is how realistic mounted combat works). Or you can drop the lance, have your mount attack, and draw another weapon for your own attack. Whatever works best by the situation. A Klar or a regular old spiked shield would work fine if you want to have a close weapon and not drop your lance. As long as you only attack with one and not the other you do not take two-weapon penalties. Now, an important thing to remember about letting your mount attack and still being able to get reach with your lance is that you can make the 5ft adjustment in the middle of your turn. Direct your mount to bite then retreat 5ft. Then you can attack with your lance. In theory I suppose you could even attack with your klar then adjust and attack with the lance if you were a two-weapon fighter, but I'm not sure a lance can be used for two-weapon combat given that it is listed as a two-handed weapon even if you only need one hand while mounted.
Seriously, nothing you have described of this guy sounds LG. I suggest making it clear that if he keeps down this path he will loose his abilities. In game a dream from his patron could be a good hint along with telling him he finds that he has to pray twice as long to regain spells and abilities. Possibly have a demon approach him with an offer of more power to smite infidels.
Wings really are not that broken. There are lots of situations, like in a dungeon, where the DM can rightly rule you can't fly. It can protect you from melee, but spells and ranged weapons are still a threat. If something happens that prevents you from flying while high up, such as getting hit with a sleep spell, then you are pretty much dead. After a few levels, the advantage dies down a lot because other characters can cast fly. DMing for a race with wings just means making sure to add a few challenges for them. Give enemies ranged weapons. Use terrain that affects where they can fly. Nets are the bane of winged opponents. When building flying races, I always try to look for a way to add a dissadvantage. Maybe unbalanced ability scores or some special racial weakness. A particularly useful trick is prevent them from using their hands while they are flying. For instance, consider wings like a bat where the front appendages are the wings. They can fly over opsticles but are going to have trouble fighting and casting spells.
Unless combat is only lasting one or two rounds, lack of "pounce" should not be that big a deal. Most of the time the frontliners should be able to close in the first round, and likely attack, then full on all subsiquent rounds. Against high AC targets only the first and maybe second attack are generally that likely to hit. The only people that absolutely need full attack are dual-wielders, and that is the drawback to that build.
The great thing about Kingmaker is that you really can fit in just about any kind of character and style of play. There is lots of exploring and traveling, so mounts work better than they might in more dungeon delving type campaigns. Not only can you use social interaction to get around encounters, it is often better that way. Plenty of fights still, with random encounters being normal. The group I'm playing with is on the third part right now. I've been playing a bear shaman druid follower of erastil with a summoner build. Took the trait Erastil's Speaker to get diplomacy as a class skill since I want to be king. So I'm the healer and face of the group along some moderate buffing and melee. The build has been working out great. My suggestion is look at what role you want to fill in the kingdom. Do you want to be the leader, general, treasurer, marshal, grand diplomat, magister, high priest, etc? Once you know that you can decide on a class and ability score that fits it and go from there. Druid and ranger obviously shine in this campaign. Out in the wilderness all of their nature oriented skills and spells and abilities really shine. An animal companion you can ride is a major boon. Also, greater wild empathy and fast wild empathy feats from ultimate magic can be a way to be the face of the group without the usual social skills. Alchemist can be a really good option as well. They do have survival as a skill. So you can play it more like a natural herbalist. That is real good if you pick up healing abilities. There was also an archetype that lets you bottle bugs then release them as giant vermin. Cleric's are always popular and Paladin's should not have any problem with this campaign. I would recomend following Erastil. He fits well with both the theme and some of the adventures in the campaign. Favored weapon is the longbow so you can be a cleric archer that hangs back with ranged support or a mounted paladin that does ride by shootings.
Seriously, some kind of healer looks to be what you need most. Parties can survive without them, but it can be rough. In particularly it means a lot of treasure is going to be dedicated to potions and wands of cure light wounds at this rate. Other than that, it seems like a very versatile party. Cleric would be really good. With that many people that are going to need healing, channel energy would be really efficient. A bard can do a little healing and won't need use magic device to use a wand. With that many in the party a buffer would be a great boon. Open with bardic music and some spells, join combat, then heal as needed.
I was skeptical at first, but I really liked the show. Tyrion the Imp is the best part by far. He is funny and witty, while at the same time, so far, has shown himself to be a decent person. Jon Snow is a very likeable character as well. You get someone very intent on being honorable and a bit more martial minded that the much beloved Tyrion. I am reading the first book right now. So far the show has stuck to it about 97%. Most changes are the kind that obvioully have to be made for tv fliming. Frankly I'm glad they aged some of the characters. While the T&A is part of the fun of the show, it can be a bit distasteful in the book.
Depending on his age I would suggest talking to the player and asking him how he deals with things. If he is a no older teen or adult he probably knows his strengths and weaknesses and how to deal with them. He may be blind, but he still has to count and writing things down like the rest of us. Find out what systems he uses to deal with his handicap. As for using a battle map, I would say just go ahead and use it and make good descriptions for him. Maps are more useful for some then others. I've been at a table with a map where I'm marking out distances and another guy does not even look at it at all. He may not need the map the way another player does. When it comes to distance, I would suggest describing things in the number of squares instead of feet. For one a smaller unit is easier to track in your mind. Also, even if he cannot look across a room and know what 30ft is he can still understand the idea of 6 squares (fixed distances reguardless of size) away.
There is nothing stating a paladin cannot be stealthy. They also are not prohibited from flanking or using sneak attacks. That is all just good tactics for any warrior. The reason poison is dissalowed is because it is generally seen as the weapon of the dishonorable and cowardly. While people can, will, and have made arguments on that subject, that is the presumption that the game follows. Some skills are a bit tricky and depend on how they are used. Disguise can be viewed as deceit or stealth. If you use it passively to not be recognized, then it is stealth. If you are trying to impersonate someone, then it becomes a lie. Slight-of-hand depends on the context of what you take and why. Simply stealing some coins to by drinks is obviously out of the question. However, lifting the keys off of a guard, particularly if this avoids physically knocking him out and taking them, would probably be fine. Another good example would be if say a lord forcefully takes some money from some orphans it would be fine to lift it off of him to return it to them if you could not face him in open combat. Bluff can be really hard to pull off. A bluff is not necisarly a lie. Telling someoen you have an army coming when you don't is a lie. Telling someone you have an army coming but not mentioning that it is three days away is a bluff.
A raven is a great choice because you can use him to send messages. Been captured? Just have the raven go tell the party where you are. That he can talk means you can use him for a distraction as well. Toad is the best spy. They have a 21 to stealth, so if you are willing to put a few ranks in yourself you'll have someone that can hop through the dungeon without much chance of being noticed. Depending on enviroment, even if it is noticed no one will care. A bat has blindsense so in a dark room he can help you navigate and target your spells.
Um, I can't help but feel that the perversion of life factor is being over looked here. There is no getting around undead being unnatural and that is a big part of what makes them antithetical to life. To answer the original question, most undead are evil because they have an evil origin. Ghouls were cannibles in life. Wraiths were people that died full of hate. I don't mind throwing in the ocassional neutral or good undead. I just don't like seeing it over done. Especially with vampires.
I think there is something to be said for the idea that the highest CR enemies should be tough to tumble around. Just like the way they are going to be protected with SR, DR, energy resistance, and a host of other defensive abilities to negate and counter high level fighters and wizard. Why shouldn't they be capable of negating an important rogue tactic? Big monsters with massive Str scores do have high CMD, but that is how they are suppose to be. Someone dedicated to Acrobatics can still hit the mark. Other enemies of comparable CR would not be so high. A 20th level fighter's Str should be about the same as a 20th level rogue's Dex and he might not have much Dex to add to CMD and the +3 bonus for a class skill should even that out. The rogue can pick up plenty of feats and items to boost his acrobatics higher than the fighter can increase his CMD.
I would say a monk would fare average or above average in this kind of campaign. With magic items being rare, all of the melee based classes will advance at about the same rate. Fighters and others that wear heavy armor will probably have the high AC, but that comes at the mobility trade off. Still, a monk that focuses on his AC would have the same level of defense because the fighter's armor is not going to get enchanted. No one's damage is really going to go up by much without magic weapons. The monk's damage will actually improve over time. The monk will also have a lot of abilities such as poison and disease immunity and healing that other characters won't have access to. If I were doing a build in this game I would max out Wis and Dex to get the best AC possible, not to mention bump up your saves. Pick up weapon finesse and you should be hitting at about the same rate as a fighter or paladin. Without Str your damage is not going to be great, but you can make up for that with lots of attacks. Also, Stunning Fist is going to be your friend. Working your way towards Spring Attack would be a good choice as well.
|
