rkr1970's page

Archives of Nethys and d20pfsrd got you covered in a way no physical book ever will.

Those are fine in some cases, but I prefer the 1-2 line write ups found before spell descriptions when looking for spells to take. Also, online resources are occasionally less useful depending on signal, etc.

GM Rednal, do you know who and if it's been OK'ed?

I would like to suggest/request an Ultimate Spellbook as one of the last PFRPG 1st Ed products. I know the production schedule is probably set in stone for the last few products in the line, but since it would be a compilation, it should be a fairly quick build-out to prepare. Even if it's only offered as a pocket edition, I know folks will want them, mostly to save themselves the headache of digging through 8 or 9 books to pick spells, but also as a GM to have a single-source spell reference guide mid-game. I personally would want no less than 3, possibly 4, for my group.

Verdant Bloodrager Bloodline... The Verdant Growth ability says "At 1st level, you gain fast healing 1 while bloodraging. Your fast healing increases by 1 at 4th level and every 3 levels thereafter, to a maximum of fast healing 6 at 19th level." HUH?? That's a +1 at levels 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19. My math says that's 7 at level 19, not 6.

The animal tricks Menace, Subdue, and Withhold Venom (on pages 216 and 217) involve attacks. Wouldn't that mean that they should require the attack animal trick to learn?

The bonus a puffin familiar provides its master (p.191) says it grants a +2 on Stealth checks, but this seems inconsistent for several reasons.

1) Skill bonuses granted by familiars are almost always a +3, not +2
2) Puffins have no particular facility at stealth (in-game or IRL!)
3) The puffin from the Reign of Winter Player's Guide shows them to grant a +3 to swim, which given the change from Weapon Finesse in RoW-PG to Skill Focus (Swim) now granted by UW seems an even stronger argument for a +3 to swim.

Granted, many familiars from earlier books have been retooled, but this feels more like a typo than a retooling. Can someone clarify this, please?

The puffin familiar in Ultimate Wilderness says it grants a +2 on Stealth checks (p.191), but this seems inconsistent for several reasons.

1) Skill bonuses granted by familiars are almost always a +3, not +2
2) Puffins have no particular facility at stealth (in-game or IRL!)
3) The puffin from the Reign of Winter Player's Guide shows them to grant a +3 to swim, which given the change from Weapon Finesse in RoW-PG to Skill Focus (Swim) now granted by UW seems an even stronger argument for a +3 to swim.

Granted, many familiars from earlier books have been retooled, but this feels more like a typo than a retooling. Can someone clarify this, please?

Only if it's ripped!!! The max load for one is 690 lbs. A horse weighs between 1000 and 1500, so, assuming loss of weight for buoyancy, I'd still estimate around 750 minimum...

But thanks. I will tell the DM an official WotC -type says it should be 1 lb!

So what kind of coral is the CORAL HIPPOCAMPUS FIGURINE OF WONDROUS POWER made of if, as a tiny statuette, it weighs 400 lbs!?!?!?

OK. Maybe someone clarified this and I missed it, but I scanned all the posts and didn't see this.

Does Versatile Design ADD a weapon group to a weapon or CHANGE the group the weapon falls into?

Also, wouldn't a warpriest taking Modified Weapon Proficiency instead of the bonus Weapon Focus feat fail to qualify for several class features until they finally took Weapon Focus?? A kensai just limits himself severely on which feats he qualifies for, but a warpriest cripples himself with this choice!

And a little quibble, first release was in Aug of 2001 I believe. So 16 years :)

August 1, 2000

This sounds really stupid (I hope), but I am trying to explain things to some people at PCGEN.

The question wasn't stupid. It's been asked in various ways for 17 years. Not doing a search for the answer was, well, short-sighted, if any thing.

What I find disturbing is that you're upset because a FREE, volunteer-only program that's been around for going on 8 years didn't conform to your interpretation of the rules so you came here to complain. They work hard for no money. Just love of the game! If you run into any more quibbles with those fine folks, PLEASE don't mention them in your future posts. Trying to make them look foolish or stupid reflects poorly on you and upsets those of us who appreciate their work!

Personally, I love PCGEN! It has bugs, sure, but they fix them when you find them, and I can add my own toys to a game with a little light coding work. If I had time I would volunteer to add more books to the program. That's MY biggest complaint with PCGEN - I can't find time to help them! So kindly back off, or better yet, apologize to whomever it was over there you got in an argument with. I'm sure they have enough headaches translating the game into Java without people yelling at them.

Compilation books signal the end of an edition's lifecycle. If you put one out, everybody will switch into "Patfhinder 2.0 is imminent" mode.

Unlike other systems, you don't have players able to track their spells in a book or two. JUST the hardcover books, you're loooking at CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, ACG, MA, OA, UI, and soon, HA. That's 10 books!! The spell sections of these books alone could probably be a book unto themselves! Add in all the Campaign stuff, the supplements, adventure paths.... It's becoming necessary to track one's spells on apps! Assuming the apps HAVE all the spells!!!

No, this wouldn't be a "warning to a wind down". This would be more of a mid-game recap!

Ooooo.... Rare cantrips would be sweet! MORE rare cantrips would be even better.

And Seeing as PF's UE was far, FAR superior to 3e's MIComp, I would expect the same from a spell compilation. I agree there were too many spells in 3E's SComp that were only useful in very specific situations.

If I had a laptop or tablet I'd use more .pdfs. But I don't, so hardcover books and d20pfsrd.com are it for me.

You can enlarge most web pages, and there are even "web page magnifiers" you could use.

I'm sure at some time someone has requested this, but nothing I can find recently. With the CRB, APG, UM, ACG, and OA, we're now up to 27 spellcasting classes (counting the adept), 20 of which have unique spell lists. With the "everyday" spells spread out between the "Core Four", and even more spells spread out through all the adventure paths, companions, "non-core" rules additions (ARG,ACG,etc.), blog posts, and Nethys knows what else, it gets confusing, even annoying, to manage one's spells.

Can we get a compilation book? One with the spells from the "Core Four" and the other "non-core" rule books, with a decent selection of the better spells from other sources, as well as some never-before-seen goodies rescued from the editing room bin or culled from the RPG Superstar competitions? I'm sure it would quickly become one of the most often referenced books, like Ultimate Equipment, at many a game. My group uses the CRB and UE so much we always have at least 2 copies of each floating around the table, and I would be surprised if this weren't that way as well!

As a logical follow up, a Campaign Setting expansion would be quite useful as well. And I'm sure folks would love a Companion that focused on getting more out the spells they already have....

How many cantrips does an arcanist get at each level? Am I having another brain fart or is this missing??

rkr1970 wrote:

DM Sothal wrote:

It is simply 2d6 per round as specified in the spell. Overwriting the 1d6 general from being on fire.

Being on fire is 1d6 with an additional 1d6 upon failing a save. So is it NOW 2d6 with an additional 1d6, is it 1d6 and 1d6, or is it 2d6 and no additional damage for failing the save??"

Let's try that another way:

If you were to catch fire from any other way, you immediately take 1d6 fire damage (as per the Core rulebook page 444).

Once it is your turn you may do whatever you want, and at the end of your round you make your REF save to not be on fire anymore, failure meaning you take another 1d6.

Okay?

now, this spell is specifically designed to set you ablaze and kill you with it. You take 1d6 points of fire damage per 2 caster levels (maximum 8d6) once it triggers.

Then, on your turn you (again) may do whatever you want, and as per the rules on page 444, at the end of your turn make your REF safe to not be on fire anymore, failure meaning you take another 1d6 2d6 (as per the spell).

All clear now?

YES!! THANK YOU! It must be the late hour making me muddled.... I swear I was reading something totally different each time I looked at it.

It is simply 2d6 per round as specified in the spell. Overwriting the 1d6 general from being on fire.

Being on fire is 1d6 with an additional 1d6 upon failing a save. So is it NOW 2d6 with an additional 1d6, is it 1d6 and 1d6, or is it 2d6 and no additional damage for failing the save??"

In Pathfinder, specific > general. The general rules for catching fir is 1d6 points of damage per round. The spell specifically calls out 2d6 points of damage per round, but otherwise references the catching on fire rules.

Hmmm... Now I have to ask.... IS it 2d6/round PLUS 1d6 for failing/not attempting a save?? Or is it the same 1d6 plus 1d6 from the rule??

Yes, it IS clear that they catch fire an hour after falling asleep. It is ALSO clear that the rules about catching on fire come into play. What takes a sideways jog is that the rule on 444 of the CRB says "If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round", whereas the spell reads "Furthermore, it catches on fire, taking 2d6 points of fire damage per round at the end of its turn each round until the creature dies".

What's NOT immediately clear is that the 1d6 of burning hair and clothes and the 1d6 of failing the save are necessarily the same 2d6 the spell was referencing. If, after "until the creature dies", you added "or the flames are extinguished" would clear up the less-than-crystal-clear intent of the spell and give one pause to re-examine the wording of rule and spell. I realize it's just a matter of style, but it would be far more in line with the style most other spells are written in. It's the style we players have trained ourselves to read and interpret!

Sorry. The way it was written, I had to actually work out the INTENT of the spell description. The "see text" apparently refers to "(Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 444)" and the Reflex save mentioned THERE required to extinguish the flames.

Sorry, Sean. That's one spell that needs a rewrite before thrusting it at players. It SOUNDS like "If the target failed their save, they take xD6 damage, followed by 2d6 "you are on fire" damage every round until they die, no save!

Going through the spells... Finding poorly worded and unclear stuff left and right, but here's the first I can't figure out well enough to allow my players to use...

Curse of Burning Sleep - When EXACTLY is the save made? And what part of the text are you supposed to see about the save?? This is written in such a way as to appear to be a 4th level delayed auto-kill spell for those with poor saves.

Let's hope the errata is quick to be released!

Oh! Since priests of Cayden get to use create water to make ale or wine, why not add this to Drunken Devotion?

Priests of Cayden Cailean may, as a swift action, cast create water to fill the tankard with fresh ale or wine. They may not, however, cast any other spells in the same round if they use this ability.

That fight could turn out to have quite the after party!

SWEET!! I'll definitely add that!

Something besides a +4 on the feint/disarm/trip would be nice. +4 on ONE seems cool, but to keep repeating the bonus is kinda weak. I like the blindness idea better than the feint.

Is THIS better?

Blocking Beerstein (Armor Proficiency - Shield): You treat the tankard in all respects as a light steel shield. Note: You may not use both the mace mug and the blocking beerstein in the same round, but the tankard does count as a weapon for the Two-Weapon Defence feat.

In Your Face (Improved Feint): As a swift action, you can throw the liquid contents of your tankard into your opponent's face, momentarily blinding him. Your target must make a Reflex save equal to 10 plus your Dexterity modifier or be blinded for 1d3 rounds. Those that make their saves are still dazzled for one round. Your tankard must be at least half full to use this trick, after which your tankard is considered empty. This trick also requires you to have reasonable access to your opponent's face, so creatures more than one size category larger than you, that you are not adjacent to, or without discernable faces are unlikely to be affected by this trick.

Goes Down Smooth (Improved Trip): As a move action, you end up splashing your drink on the floor, causing your enemy to become less sure footed. On hard surfaces only (stone, wood, etc.), those standing in or moving through the affected square must make a DC 10 Acrobatics check or be forced to take only a partial action that turn. Affected creatures also take a -4 penalty to trip attacks until they either move or succeed at their next Acrobatics check. The floor remains slippery for 1d4+1 rounds.

Taking some suggestions, I find things looking like this:

In addition to the feat or skill requirements listed for each of these tricks, you must have the Equipment Trick (tankard) feat. You may use these tricks with any metal tankard weighing at least 1 pound.

Mace Mug (no additional prerequisites): You are considered proficient with the tankard in combat dealing lethal damage to your enemies. Treat the tankard in all respects as a light mace.
Blocking Beerstein (Armor Proficiency - Shield): You treat the tankard in all respects as a light steel shield.
In Your Face (Improved Feint): As a swift action, you can throw the liquid contents of your tankard into your opponent's face, distracting him momentarily. You gain a +4 circumstance bonus on any feint attempt made in the same round (To be sure you hit their face, opponents should be no more than one size category larger, etc.). Your tankard must be at least half full to use this trick, after which your tankard is considered empty.
Slippery Grip(Improved Disarm):As a move action, you can splash liquid on an enemies hands to weaken their grip. This grants you a +4 circumstance bonus on disarm attempts made during the same combat. To perform this trick, your tankard must not be empty.
Goes Down Smooth(Improved Trip): As a move action, you end up splashing your drink on the floor, causing your enemy to become less sure footed. You gain a +4 circumstance bonus on trip attempts made before the end of your next turn. To perform this trick, your tankard must not be empty.
Alehouse Amplifier (Ranks in Perform (acting, comedy, oratory, or singing): Using your empty tankard, you enhance the volume of your voice. The Listen DC for anything you say in this way is reduced by a number equal to the number of ranks you have in the attempted form of Perform. If using a bardic Performance, your range for the performance is increase by a number of feet equal to the number of ranks you have in the attempted form of Perform. This trick only works with Perform (acting, comedy, oratory, or singing).
Drunken Devotion (Divine spellcaster who worships Cayden Cailean) : As long as the last beverage your tankard held is beer, wine, or ale, you may use the tankard as a holy symbol.

One of my players came to me with an idea for his next character, a ranger who follows Cayden Cailean, follows the two-weapon path, and holds an ale tankard in his off hand. He asked if I could come up with a few tricks for the Equipment Trick feat for him to use with his tankard. I personally LOVE this concept, and agreed to try. So far, this is what I've come up with.

In addition to the feat or skill requirements listed for each of these tricks, you must have the Equipment Trick (tankard) feat. You may use these tricks with any metal tankard weighing at least 1 pound.

Mace Mug (no additional prerequisites): You are considered proficient with the tankard in combat dealing lethal damage to your enemies. Treat the tankard in all respects as a light mace.
Blocking Beerstein (Armor Proficiency - Shield): You treat the tankard in all respects as a light steel shield.
In Your Face (Combat Expertise): As a move action, you can throw the liquid contents of your tankard into your opponent's face, distracting him momentarily. All allies threatening the opponent when he is distracted may make an immediate attack of opportunity. This trick may only be used against opponents with a face whose face is reachable by the tankard's wielder (No more than one size category larger, etc.)

Any other suggestions or ideas would be welcome. Thanks!

There's something so familiar and exciting about a bunch of melded classes. Whether trying to combine a sorcerer and monk into a "spellfist", or working out a way to empower a cleric to channel more dangerously while raging, ever since 3rd Ed came out, my friends and I have tried various ways to merge classes into a new concept: gestalt, dual classing, writing our own classes, etc. None of these were ideal, so I was naturally thrilled when I first got my hands on the ACG playtest.

As I looked everything over, I loved the balance (a tweak here and there will surely come of the playtest and improve things even more). Some things, like the Bloodrage ability to cast spells while in a blind rage, felt weird, even taboo, while others, particularly the skald, were things I myself have tried to cobble together at some time in the past. There were things I might have changed, and a couple things felt a bit forced, but all in all, I found nothing that I actually disliked.

And yet, when I was done reading it over, I felt like the whole thing just fell too short of the mark. I was actually disappointed even though I had enjoyed it. As I sat there wondering why I wasn't thrilled, I realized what was lacking; these weren't the customized, tweaked out characters I have gotten used to. These were blended classes that were so specific that they feel like they should fill a larger role, not a niche, and so they fell short of similar mixes I had envisioned or even tried to play. They look great, but I feel no compulsion to play with them.

That said, I immediately knew what I wanted: Bits and pieces of classes that I could put together my way! I want to see the classes broken down into more basic components and then be allowed to fit the parts together into a new creation. I want to take "unarmed combatant" and "spontaneous divine caster" and blend them together with a bit of "feat-based abilities" and see what comes out. I'm curious what might come of combining an "armed combatant" with a "precision damage dealer" and give him "companion-based abilities". And while a "firearm wielding" character isn't likely to be a "rage-based warrior" with "domain-based abilities", that should be my choice. If there are even just 20 good partial classes like these, that leaves hundreds possible combinations for me to play with.

And finally, I think this book would do well with a number of solid prestige classes and, if possible, archetypes. Maybe even a class builder similar to the race builder in ARG. So while much of what I've seen seems to hit the mark so well, as a whole, it seems to fall short. But that's just my opinion!

Winston Churchill, Adolph Hitler, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whatever else may be said about them, are considered three of the most charismatic individuals of the 20th century. And while appearance may be subjective, none of these three were nthought of as "good looking". So yes, your character could have that "cult of personality" charm even C.H.U.D.-ish bad looks.

When I tried to make a 20 level base class with the kensai archetype, I noticed a problem. The class ability Fighter Training got moved from 10th level to 7th level, leaving no class abilities to be gaind at 10th level. The class ability Critical Perfection is supposed to replace the 9th level Magus Arcana, but doing so reduces the usefulness of all Magus Arcana that require the character to be 9th level before taking. My solution to this is to move Critical Perfection to 10th level, filling the void left by Fighter Training and keeping the 9th level Magus Arcana.

Is it possible to have the authors look at this class and possibly add this change to a future errata??

Under the spell Form of the Dragon, the gold dragon form should list a vulnerability to cold. This needs to be added to the errata.

I see this name in the Kensai recommended Arcanas but I cant find the description. Was not included in the Ultimate Combat Book.

That's because it's in Ultimate Magic, under the Magus.