npaulagain's page

With the discussion, and my own desire for a draconic version of a tiefling or aasimar... decided to whip this up after I got home from work today.

ROUGH DRAFT!

Giving an advanced bow the monk trait just seems cruel. Since the monk archery suite just gives (and advances) proficiency in simple and martial bows with the monk trait.

So a monk would have to spend two feats to get proficiency in the advanced weapon, and then it would stay at trained forever.

Definitely an over sight on my part. No reason for it to be advanced at all then really.

All this to not even mention it being an Advanced bow, one that is basically objectively worse than any other bow even without being advanced.

Definitely a misprint I say. I am expecting either martial, deadly, and monk OR deadly, monk, and propulsive.

A Cold Iron club deals 1D6 damage that has both the Bludgeoning and Cold Iron damage types. That's one source.

A +1 Striking Flaming club deals 2D6 damage that has the Bludgeoning damage type, and 1D6 damage that has the Fire damage type. That's two sources.

I would agree, however it is a question of whether that still counts as one 'instance' or if instance = source, and thus it is two 'instances'. I would generally say it does, but that would benefit my PC in a coming fight, hence wanting to get a second opinion as DM and I try to figure it out.

Does anyone know if there is an actual definition for what an 'Instance of Damage' is?

Looking at weakness and resistance rules and they do not seem to define it and some of the examples given frankly only confuse it more.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=335 <--- damage rules AoN

Weakness:

"If you have more than one weakness that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material a weapon is made of."

Resistance:

"If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value.

It’s possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely."

What really confuses me here is how is - in the example given for resist all 5 - resist all 5, and having resist 5 to both slashing and fire any different in this case?

If I am a Wizard of at least 5th level, with the thesis that allows me to burn 2 lower level spells to get 1 of up to 2 levels higher? Well... EKUSPLOSION! It's Megumin time, because what else does any self respecting Wizard need besides Fire ball explosions?

Sorry, nope. "Hell" is right in the name. Not buying what you're selling. They're bad guys.

That is a pretty reductionist way to look at it, especially if you've read into any of their lore for the world.

The only alignment requirement to join most - if not all Hellknight organizations is that you're lawful. They state that being lawful good may make it harder depending on the group, but not impossible.

The order of the nail could very easily have a keep that is sitting on a boarder between a town and an area infested with raid happy orc tribes. How would they be evil for protecting said town from the raiding orcs and attempting to reduce the overall violence in the area?

For me, the things that have gotten me into arguments with my GM in the past are all character/theme based things.

At one point he told us that he wanted to run a thieves guild type of game, heavy on the role-play and character based things. He wanted us to make characters that actually had something beyond a stat block. I did as he asked - because that's how I always make characters - and everything went fine for a little while.

However, one of the guild members - controlled by another player - started to get rather open about his activities, and wanted to become famous. My character took it as a bad idea and warned theirs IC about continuing down that path.

After the game, my GM spoke to me about it, and told me that he didn't want my character to do anything to prevent the other player's character from doing what it wanted to do, or if I did, I had to make it obvious and go against my character's general style. I was at the time playing an assassin, so the idea of challenging the other character to a non-lethal dual was not in their wheel house. They would of given the other person one last warning, then if it happened again, they would of just killed them in their sleep - or tried to.

I've always seen IC as separate from OoC, with actions in character creating consequences in character. To me telling me that I could not play my character as the character design he accepted, simply so someone else could play their character how they wanted was hypocritical.

I left the game because it just got more and more focused on the other player's character.

TLDNR: Tell me to play a character, and then tell me I can't try to do what the character would do, while at the same time telling another player they can, even if it is disrupting the rest of the party IC and OoC.

Also, when the whole thing focuses on a single character and their exploits.

So, everyone is so far in agreement that it just doesn't make sense/look like they read any other rules regarding animals and animal like things? Eh, I suppose that is what house rules are for.

Can anyone explain to me why stealth is a restricted option under this archetype? It's meant to be very animal like... and there are countless animals that are stealthy by nature, or ambush predators... Was this just an oversight, and it is supposed to be allowed? Or am I just crazy for thinking that it should be allowed?

The animal creature type has Stealth as a class skill, so... why is it 'unnatural'?

When it comes to me and bans, it is less based on a standard list, and more worked around what makes sense for the characters/setting. I am fine if people want to be a special snowflake - so long as they have a reason for their snowflake to be falling in the summer. 3pp and anything from a book I don't own is fine so long as I can be shown the original rule. I do however tend to take a bit more of a hands on approach with any player's character creation. Simply in the fact that I ask for facets of the character to explain their mechanics.

However some of my own ideas on things can make certain class combos, races, or obscure traits/feats, harder to get approved. For instance, I don't see the logic behind someone being a wizard and a barbarian. One takes a lot of time, effort, and study... the other is instinctual and rage filled. Those don't seem to mesh well to me. If they wanted to be a spell casting barbarian, I would suggest oracle or sorc, as both are 'inborn' and not learned.

I am even fine with using RP to alter or create a race - typically allowing someone to have either 2 traits, or 4 rp, at character creation. However, if they go with RP then it needs to make sense. Having fire breath because... magic... isn't good enough of a reason for me to allow it. Now a catfolk getting a bite is more logical - though I'd still discuss with the player as they are potentially getting 3 natural attacks.

In general I guess I am more about trying to let people play what they want within reason. I would rather have a game I run be about the characters that people make and how they grow, than be about the specific story I want to tell.

I have been trying to work up a draconic version of a teifling or aasimar. To me, it makes sense that a male dragon and a female humanoid would make a half dragon, however... the half dragon would make something less than a half dragon. This could also happen in a similiar manner to the sorc's draconic blood line.

At character creation, a player must pick a type of dragon - from the primal, imperial, chromatic, or metalic family. That choice will decide what the energy type their resistance, and natural weapon is.

Name: Draco-lin
3RP Type: Monsterous Humanoid - 3RP
1RP Senses: Low-light - 1 RP
1RP Ability Scores:Specialized: +2 con, +2 str, -2 Wis -1RP
6RP Defensive: +2 natural armor - 3RP, resist 10 to the energy type of the 'parent' race: If the player choses a dragon that has a breath type that does weapon damage, then they get DR 10 vs that type of damage only - 3 RP
4RP Offensive: Draconic jet - 10ft range natural attack that does 1d6 damage as the energy type of the 'parent' dragon - the umbral dragon's breath cannot be used to heal undead. 4RP

15RP total, thoughts, changes, or qestions?

I will be adding the 'fluff text later today

Incredibly late to the party here, but I did want to put in my two cents. As I am working up a Paladin of Sarenrae at the moment I've been looking into just what her code would entail. One thing that I keep coming back it is that while Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption, she doesn't exactly hand out 3rd, 4th, or 5th chances.

For instance, if someone requests my paladin to stay her hand as they give and shall fight no more. She shall do so. If they then attack her or another as soon as their guard is down, then clearly they do not seek redemption and must be cleansed from the world. Sarenrae is very much the speak softly and carry a big stick goddess. She gives everyone a chance, but if you decide to use that chance for evil, then she will be swift as well as final in her response.

In short, to me a paladin of Sarenrae will give anyone, or anything, a chance. However, they will only be given that chance. If that chance is used to continue a path of destruction, then they are marked 'nonredeemable'. So if you're a succubus and you request a stay of hand, or aid in turning to the light, my character will be the first to aid you. If you do so and then use such a chance for evil, they will be the first to slay you - or punish you in a reasonable manner... not going to kill a kid because they got trying to steal again.

When it comes to playing something a little unique, I think you may be best to stick somewhat within the realm of the ARG. One way I have done things slightly different is to have X number of RP beyond the first tier count as 1 level. What X is, is up for you - and too a lesser extent the player - to decide. If you work with him on the race, as a check of sorts to make sure it isn't just 'stick things in to make the race strong' and it sticks within the feel of the race it should be fine. If you're willing to have a doppelganger in your campaign.

An example of this would be a port over of a kroxigar from Warhammer I did. It was large, scaly lizard beastie. Not the brightest, but physically imposing and large. To give it the things that the creature should have it ended around 37 or so points. So I discussed it with the DM, and instead of having a class level at level 1, I simply had my race along with the HD, BAB, skills, and the like of the race type. Essentially taking a level in that race. That way you don't need to worry about CR as much. Of course, I had also modified some of the race point things. For instance, taking advanced ability scores but not using the +4. This kept it relatively in line with any PC class level + a basic race. When it came to wealth we didn't give it any, but instead had it have a couple of items that made sense. A greater trebujte(SP), and hide armor. This made it somewhat lower than a PC perhaps, but it was what I wanted to play so I was willing to lose some power to do so.

So, in the instance of your player, figure out how many 'levels' of it is worth, and have it take up that many - giving HD and what not as if its creature type was a normal class. Like an animal type would only get 1HD at first level as opposed to the two.

Sorry this got longer than I expected it too but I got a little rant-y.

Speaking for myself, if I come to a DM with a race idea it is because I have a specific thematic idea that I want to play out. I don't care if it is underpowered and am willing to take negatives in order to play the theme I want. I also tend to be a story over power player when possible. If the player seems to want to be X because of the powers of X and all the 'broken' things he can do, I would be more worried than a person who comes to me and says, "I want to be X because I have this idea for a character: (Insert backstory, personality and the like. Not abilities and powers)

One thing I would like to do - especially with the new arch-types that give classes access to companions or familiars. I'd like to mix a couple of them, cavalier/barbarian or druid/barbarian.

I must admit though I am mildly entertained by the concept of an aasimar monk/barbarian since one of the sub-types can use a race trait to be allowed to be neutral as a monk.

Or a rouge/fighter or fighter/barbarian or fighter paladin for the more combat oriented characters - depending on playstyle. I do like the idea of a paladin of sarenrae that strictly follows the idea of giving 'evil' things one chance. If they deny it,then kill them swiftly.

Grapple check is usually a standard action, so you could only make one check without the feats.

I have a question about the eidolon's constrict and when it goes into play, as well as the damage type it does.

The eidolon evolution states:

"An eidolon gains powerful muscles that allow it to crush those it grapples. Whenever the eidolon successfully grapples a foe using the grab evolution, it deals additional damage equal to the amount of damage dealt by the attack used by the grab evolution. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the serpentine base form." Source: Advanced Player's Guide

However, the constrict special rule states:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Constrict-Ex-

that includes errata change in a box.

My question is 4 fold I suppose. First. Does the eidolon one only go off on the first grapple check? The first grapple check each round? Or each grapple check made? All of using bite in this case. The time that each successful grapple check really comes into play is when you have rapid grappler, or greater grapple.

Second part is, does it do bludgeoning damage like the constrict special rule states? Or does it do the damage done by the bite - in this case - meaning S/P/B damage. I am pretty sure it is just bludgeoning.

In short... does the eidolon's constrict work like the universal constrict rules?

thank you for your help.

I don't think it should apply to both at the same time if that is what you meant Hama. But as a single total, I do think they should be effected.

I am kinda thinking that until a FAQ, I will just treat it as a single number. As your total armor penalty is shield's armor penalty + armor's armor penalty. As like I said. You have to wear a shield to get its bonus to AC as well.

Yeah that is what I was thinking, it is all armor check penalty. I was thinking it would remove the armor penalty first, and then whatever was left over would go to shield? As for the dex, if you have a chain shirt - Dex 4, and a tower shield - Dex 2, increasing the max dex allowed wouldn't do a thing for you unless effected your armor all together.

EDIT: You have to wear a shield to get its bonus too.

Does the dex bonus increase, and the armor check penalty reduction also apply to shields as well? Or is that only armor?

Hmm... Quite the odd wording they used then. I would think it'd be easier to simply say "Lose armor training" and then go, "at level blah, blah, blah, and blah. You get bleh, bleh, bleh, and bleh."

*edit* I'm not really holding the same view anymore. Just curious if anyone else kind of paused and went... "wait..." on it.

Yes, it is all a part of armor training. The discussion is whether it is taken away with the loss of the levels of armor training, or if it is its own specific thing. An armor training 0 of sorts.

Even though it is not part of armor training 1-4? Since each class feature replaces armor training 1, 2, 3, or 4. But never Armor training itself, I wasn't sure. I guess I am seeing it as more of a "modification" to armor training, than an actual replacement of the entire thing.

To me, the "in addition" is separating that part of armor training from armor training 1-4

The way I can see it allowing someone to have the breath weapon is if the campaign is at least level 3. Basically The DM allows the character to use the template in exchange for 2 class levels. Giving him 2 racial hit die instead. So it would always be a 2d6 breath weapon with a DC of 11. Meaning, good early on, but not so much later. At least that is how I would do it. Or just use the racial creation rules to wing up the dragon version of an Aasimar or Teifling.

A discussion came up in a game the other night about fighter's and armor training. However, since level wise for the character it won't matter for another two levels, it was largely set aside for now. It comes down to an issue of semantics and interpretation of the rules as written.

The character I am using is a two handed fighter. The two handed fighter archetype replaces armor training 1,2,3, and 4. The way I interpret this, is that that means that I do not get the dex or armor penalty check improvements. Which I understand and knew.

The disagreement came with the rest of the armor training class feature.

"Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and 15th), these bonuses increase by +1 each time, to a maximum –4 reduction of the armor check penalty and a +4 increase of the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor. At 7th level, a fighter can move at his normal speed while wearing heavy armor."

Posted for ease of reading. The fact that the reduction of movement penalties is separated from the description of armor training 1-4, means to me, that it is not replaced bye the loss of armor training 1-4. The other side was saying that because the fighter does not get armor training 1-4, they do not get the additional bit that was not attached to any specific level of armor training.

Simplified, it was a discussion of whether things replacing armor training 1-4 meant that it replaces armor training entirely, including that which is not something specifically given on any specific level of armor training. Or if things replacing armor training 1-4 meant exactly what it says. It replaces only the dex/armor penalty bonuses earned at 1-4.

Thank you for your time.