Baphomet

thorin001's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,884 posts (1,885 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 19 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,884 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Slyme wrote:
According to this FAQ you can only crit on things that deal hit point damage. So no crit's on ability points, levels, etc.

What you linked says no such thing.

*

You can hire NPCs to cast spells of up to 6th level at up to 12th caster level.
You cannot have them cast metamagic versions of the spell, nor can you have any special class features (such as being harder to dispel) as part of the casting.

But, can you hire someone to use a magic item for you? Cast a spell from a wand or scroll in your possession? How much does this cost?

Can you hire someone to cast a spell and use your metamagic rod to enhance it? Does this affect the cost in any way?


But don't get confused by wraiths. They do 1d6 negative energy plus 1d6 Con drain. The Con drain is an extra die, like for flaming, and so is not doubled on a crit.


You can mix and match ranged and melee attacks in a full attack action as you see fit. As others have noted, you must make sure that any special attacks can be done as part of a full attack sequence.

Take an unchained monk as an example. At 11th level his full attack (flurry) is +11/+11/+11/+6/+1. He starts in melee and drops his foe with his first 2 hits. He still has 3 attacks left, but no one within melee range. But he can continue to attack using shuriken (they have the monk trait).

Or take an archer with a bite attack. If he starts 10' away from an enemy he can make his usual ranged full attack and then 5' step and bite.


He has an ability to use the shield's (defensive) enhancement bonus to hit and damage. That ability does not actually change the shield's (weapon) enhancement, which is what the defending property keys off of.

On a different note, has he paid for the shield properly? It is enchanted separately as a shield and a weapon. That means separate masterwork costs. So as a shield you do things normally. To put defending on it, it must be a +1 weapon (not shield) first. So a +1 defending shield costs 8300 gp more than whatever defensive abilities the shield has.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:

You could also acquire a greater metamagic rod of Empower (73,000 gp) to add another 50% to the "base" 24d6 with Varisian Tattoo (Evocation), an ioun stone (orange prism) (30,000 gp) and Potent Magic: 36d6 total.

A greater metamagic rod of Maximize (121,500 gp) is a bit more pricey, but gives the polar ray with the tattoo, stone, and exploit a flat 144 damage vs. average 126.

It does not do 36d6, it does (24d6)*1.5. There is a slight mathematical difference.

Most of the time, it's quicker and easier to just roll more dice. And more fun for many people, too.

Rolling more dice does make the total more likely to be closer to the average result, however.

True, but what do you do when it is 23d6? It is best to use the same rule/math all the time.


Dragonchess Player wrote:

You could also acquire a greater metamagic rod of Empower (73,000 gp) to add another 50% to the "base" 24d6 with Varisian Tattoo (Evocation), an ioun stone (orange prism) (30,000 gp) and Potent Magic: 36d6 total.

A greater metamagic rod of Maximize (121,500 gp) is a bit more pricey, but gives the polar ray with the tattoo, stone, and exploit a flat 144 damage vs. average 126.

It does not do 36d6, it does (24d6)*1.5. There is a slight mathematical difference.


Various things that boost caster level. There is an arcanist ability to do so. There is a tattoo. There is an ioun stone.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roysier wrote:

Yes, what Bill said, if you are mocking groups of people by using negative/offensive stereotypes you are out of line and being a jerk.

If not carry on.

Unless you are mocking Scientology, then it is perfectly acceptable to be a Razmiran.


Yup. Criticals are not limited to hp damage. But a critical on something that imposes a condition will do nothing.


1) This is correct. It is not as big a hinderance as it seems. Assuming that you need a teacher, rather than copying from captured spellbooks, it costs 6,750 gp total for the 10 levels of Arcane Trickster.

2) Are you planning on melee or ranged attacks? For melee there are a couple of Necromancy spells that are very useful, false life, vampiric touch, and chill touch. Though you might be able to depend on wands for false life. Illusion becomes much more important because you need a reliable way to run away.
If you are planning on ranged you need Conjuration and Evocation for ranged attacks that you can apply sneak attack to.
Either way I would go with Enchantment and Divination as opposition schools.

Evocation only gets you a +1 to damage on evocation spells. Admixture subschool does help you get around energy resistances.

Divination does give you the ability to always act in the surprise round, but those are actually pretty rare. I would be very surprised if it comes up every session. The +1 to initiative is of marginal usage.

Conjuration gives you a bunch of ranged touch attacks that you can sneak attack with.


First off, gravity bow lasts 1 minute per level, not 1 round. That means that it could be up and running for a second encounter.


Shuriken are considered ammunition and so are drawn as a free action, like arrows, even without Quick Draw.


All these calculations are assuming a fresh party. A party that has used up significant resources will be challenged by a lower CR fight.


Witches. They make other people roll dice.


You can take a full-attack action, activating abundant step or casting dimension door as a swift action. If your do, you can teleport up to twice your speed (up to the maximum distance allowed by the spell or ability), dividing this teleportation into increments you use before your first attack, between each attack, and after your last attack. You must teleport at least 5 feet each time you teleport.

Under specific conditions this feat allows you to cast D Door as a swift action; this includes Abundant Step. So you do not need to have a separate ability to use D Door as a swift action.

The specific condition is making a full attack action. So you cannot use Dimensional Dervish to cast a Fireball and then D Door away.


There are no rules for this, only ones for specific scenarios. And those often conflict because the authors want to set a different scene with a panicking crowd.


Chakat Firepaw wrote:
Sutehp wrote:
Seriously, how did the inhabitants of Golarion come to name the trompe l'oeils as "trompe l'oeils"? French doesn't exist on Golarion, does it? Sure, Common might be the Golarion version of English, but that's Translation Convention, isn't it?

I assume "trompe l'oeil" is itself just translation convention: Its English meaning, (an art technique that uses realistic imagery to create the illusion of a 3D object), directly matches the creature.

(Insert oft-misattributed James Nicoll quote here.)

Sutehp wrote:
And if I'm wrong and Common essentially *is* English on Golarion, then which language does French become on Golarion? Taldan? If Galt is essentially Revolutionary France, then is Hallit (which is the other language besides Common spoken in Galt) essentially French but just spoken on Golarion?

Taldane/Common would probably be the French equivalent, given how it is spoken in all five of the "Frances", (Andoran, Chelax, Galt, Isger and Taldor¹). And, TBH, why shouldn't the lingua franca be the French equivalent?

1: The Revolution truly successful, First Empire but diabolic, The Terrors unending, Vichy, and First Kingdom's twilight.

Taldane is Greek because Taldor is the Byzantine Empire.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

So, against my better judgment, I have to ask: Does breaking wind break invisibility?

Only if it involves a saving throw.


Ferious Thune wrote:
"Unless otherwise noted, using a hex is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity."

However, since it says that you are actually casting it is otherwise noted.

*

4-11 (The Disappeared) and 4-13 (Fortress of the Nail) feature Zarta and her fun with Cheliax.

*

You are out of tier, level 3 playing tier 1-2.
To find the gold of out of tier you average the gold of the tier played and the tier of the character. In this case 505 and 1266. (505+1266)/2= 885.5, so 885 gold.


Lina Inverse


Ballpark figure is if you need to roll a 16-19 to hit (before PA) then you should not power attack. Otherwise swing for the fences.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

You know what that table you propose doesn't do, though?

Answer the question of "what DC will typically be difficult but not impossible for a level 17 character?"

But that should never be a question as that is just placing everything on the treadmill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots of GMs seem to have a problem with Save-or-Suck effects making the fights with their big bad irrelevant because of single die roll. Lots of players seem to have a problem with SoS effects making their characters irrelevant because of a single die roll. So it would seem that SoS/SoD effects are a problem all around.

In addition anything with a duration longer than the encounter has a disparate impact on player characters. If the bad guy is permanently blinded/deafened/paralyze/whatever it is no big deal because he is probably dead, and if not is still likely t be "Sir No-Longer-Appearing-In-This-Adventure". Not so for a PC. Those effects carry on, and those that render a character unplayable take a player out for a while. If there is an easy fix, like a (relatively) low to medium level spell then it is no big deal.

That is not to say that these things cannot be used, but you must be aware of the pitfalls of doing so.


Darrell Impey UK wrote:
Rules say, "If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver." It doesn't say "if you are within their threatened area" or similar, so I'd have allowed the opportunity attack personally.

It provokes, just as you said, but the target is denied the opportunity to actually make one because it cannot reach the offender. This is just like any creature with greater reach making a provoking attack from outside the target's reach.


Cevah wrote:

To make a pre-planned character work, you need to know the endpoint you are aiming for. Remove that knowledge, and you you loose incentive for such plans.

Simplest way to do this is not to play an Adventure Path. These have a theme, and half known endpoint. Whereas if you play random modules, the PCs never know what will be needed later.

/cevah

This does nothing to disincentivise people from building towards certain feats or prestige classes.


1) perception check or the usual detect magic
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) There is no clear RAW on this. My best interpretation is that the potion applies its effects and is immediatel suppressed like any other spell in such an area. So an instant effect like a Cure spell woud be wasted. One with a duration would still count the time in the AM effect against its duration, but would start immediately working at full effect once out of the AM effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules say that "Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion or use an oil." Skeletons are corporeal and creatures so skeletons are able to use potions.

This is magic we are talking about, so trying to apply logic to it is just silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
You don't choose your ability scores the same way you choose your feats. Not every ability score needs to be equally powerful as the others for every character.
Of course not for every character, but you should be able to build a class in multiple ways in terms of ability scores. Currently things like a wizard maxing Dex and Int is a completely clear choice, there's no trade-off.

My latest wizard has a 12 int and will not increase it. So Int is not even required for all wizards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rolling dice is fun. Rolling lots of dice is lots of fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, there's a world of difference between "worth using" and "as strong as the strongest option at this level."

My two hander barbarian will always do the best damage with his great axe that's he blings out with the best runes he can afford as soon as he can afford them. His back up bow will probably pay a potency rune or two behind. Does that make the bow worthless? No, because sometimes the great axe won't work for a particular encounter.

Heightened spells (or at least damaging spells) are back up weapons.

No, cantrips are backup weapons.


Why exactly should some 6th level spells be weaker than other 6th level spells? Because that is what people are saying about heightened spells. It is a bloody 6th level slot and all 6th level spells should fall into the same power range.


I have a serious problem with dropping the number of channels to 0 + Cha modifier. Why should you need a non-primary stat to use a class power? Sure, a non-primary stat may well give some additional benefit; barbarians gain from Con and wild order druids gain from Str, but they can still use those abilities without a bonus in the associated stat. Not so with channel energy.

The simplest solution is to not have channel be its own separate pool, but for use the cleric's spell points that fuel the spell powers.


Just a note, Disrupt Undead is worthless. First you have to hit and then the target gets a save.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Common - Available unless told otherwise

Uncommon - Ask the GM

Rare - Ask the GM so they can work it into the story later :3

Close to what we intended, but I do want to add a caveat or two...

Common - Available unless told otherwise
Uncommon - Available to specific builds, otherwise ask the GM
Rare - Given by the GM when appropriate for the story, possibly the culmination of a PC story

The thought here was

Common - 100% player agency
Uncommon - 50% player/50% GM agency
Rare - 100% GM agency

There are clearly a few of you who do not feel this system is necessary and that is great! You have clearly identified the problem and have taken steps to fix it in your games (or not if you are OK with open access). While that works for you, it has been identified as a huge problem for many GMs and something that a simple tool like this might do wonders to help fix. If you don't need it, just like any other rule in the game, you can ignore it, but this is one that I feel very strongly about including the in game.

The problem is there is no such thing as 50/50 agency. If it is only with GM permission it is still 100% GM agency.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I'm a little worried about them getting pounded by AoOs due to their semi-anemic AC, but the fact that they actually work as a highly mobile skirmisher is awesome.
Only 1 point behind a fighter is not really semi-anaemic.

Only if they are a Dex build. And then they are lacking in damage.


The point is to keep them from being used on offensive spells.


Skills don't matter that much if you do not have a good stat in it. Having a 10 stat in a trained skill is the same as being untrained with an 18 stat. If you have neglected the stat yo probably do not have relevant items for the skill either. So at level 1, assuming trained with a 10 stat, you have a 30% chance of success at an average, er hard check. At level 5 you have a 25% chance of success. At level 10 it is down to 20%.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

1st and 2nd edition dual-class is not the same as multi-class of 1st and 2nd edition or of 3rd edition.

Dual-class was "you stop at X level and start doing a new class. You keep the old hit points of the original class but have to use the new class's to-hit, saving throws, and everything else or you don't gain any experience. Upon reading X+1 levels you regain all the talents of the old class but continue leveling up with the new class. You can never again train in the old class."

Multi-classing was "you have 100,000 experience points. You are spending 50,000 XPs for Thief and 50,000 XPs as Fighter, making you a 6th level fighter and 7th level thief, compared to the 7th level fighter or 8th level Rogue you'd normally be. But you can backstab and use Thief abilities." The 6/7 Fighter/Thief would be the same experience as the 7th level Fighter or 8th level Thief. That said, depending on your race you might be stuck with a 5th level Fighter and 7th level Thief because of racial maximums... and about the only class that either had very high maximums or none at all was Rogue.

3rd edition became "oh I feel bored with being a Fighter I'm going to become a Wizard despite it needing years of training to learn because I feel like it and oh hey I don't like Wizard after all so next level I'll go in with Gunslinger... no, Swashbuckler! Yeah, Swashbuckler looks good..." and every so often people found combinations that were uber-powered and broken.

For instance, the Asimar who takes three levels of Rogue and one level of sorcerer and then immediately becomes an Arcane Trickster because of their racial spellcasting.

This new system looks far superior to 3rd edition. That you can't just alter your path willynilly isn't a bad thing. Seriously, if you dislike your old class that much? Make a new character.

When did you get appointed minister of approved fun?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
Moro wrote:


Yes, sarcasm. I don't believe the devs hate freedom.

However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.

I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.

I was actually a big fan of the 2nd Edition D&D form of multiclassing, minus the race restrictions, though, so I readily admit that I may not be the typical audience.

I mean, AD&D 2e multiclassing pretty much was the definition of commitment, considering you literally could never take levels in your previous class. Though you may be thinking of Dual Classing, which was honestly a hot mess and with the tighter math of Pathfinder in any form a Dual CLass character could not survive due to leveling at half the rate of either class, and only got a slight bonus if they had god stats due to needing a 16 in all their prime requisite stats to get the 10% bonus XP.

You have it backwards. Multiclassing was the demi-human thing where you progressed in both classes at the same time. It is much closer to the modern gestalt builds. Dual classing was the human thing where you took one class at a time and then abandoned it for a new one. And you could not use your old class features until your level in you new class equaled that of your old class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
thorin001 wrote:

With perception being a class ability rather than a skill it forces a certain party composition. While any class can get to expert with a feat, only 3 classes get to master proficiency, and only 2 get to legendry proficiency. Since there are hazards that require master or legendary proficiency to spot, a party without the ability to spot them is at aa severe disadvantage; hence virtually requiring a party to have members with these proficiencies.

These classes are fighter, ranger, and rogue. Fighter is the one that can only go to master proficiency. Another option is multiclassing into ranger, but that can only get you to master proficiency, and that only at 12th level.

Saying you have to have a fighter, ranger, or rogue in the party does not seem like that much of a restriction, but once you get to the highest levels (15+) that drops to ranger or rogue.

So by linking perception to class rather than leaving it a skill this system is limiting choices rather than fostering them. Players cannot seek multiple creative ways around the problem, they must do the approved thing.

Actually, the opposite is true. Players need to find creative solutions when the default option isn't available (in this case, when there is no party ranger or rogue). Allowing everyone to just become master and then legendary in perception would make the default option next to mandatory, even allowing for pjrogers' valid counterpoint. This is precisely what stifles creativity.

More broadly, restricting the automatic progression of Perception to certain classes enhances class differentiation. That's a good thing overall, except for folks who'd rather have a classless system (ie not Pathfinder).

There is no creative solution to hazards being undetectable by most people. Either you have the one or two options to detect them or you do not.


According to the exploration rules if you are thoroughly searching you move at no more than 10' per round. Which is taking the step action twice. According to the step action you do not trigger reactions. According to the bestiary, hazards do their thing based on reactions. So, the way the rules work you can walk across a trap door for a Drowning Pit without triggering it as long as you are taking the step action. Which is what you have to be doing if you are doing the careful search.


scoutmaster wrote:
the only problem I have with perception is that the cleric has it higher than the ranger and rouge. As a result, at low levels, the cleric is looking for traps and not a rouge or ranger

Except lots of traps require expert perception. The cleric has to spend a feat at 3rd level to get to expert while the rogue starts there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

With perception being a class ability rather than a skill it forces a certain party composition. While any class can get to expert with a feat, only 3 classes get to master proficiency, and only 2 get to legendry proficiency. Since there are hazards that require master or legendary proficiency to spot, a party without the ability to spot them is at aa severe disadvantage; hence virtually requiring a party to have members with these proficiencies.

These classes are fighter, ranger, and rogue. Fighter is the one that can only go to master proficiency. Another option is multiclassing into ranger, but that can only get you to master proficiency, and that only at 12th level.

Saying you have to have a fighter, ranger, or rogue in the party does not seem like that much of a restriction, but once you get to the highest levels (15+) that drops to ranger or rogue.

So by linking perception to class rather than leaving it a skill this system is limiting choices rather than fostering them. Players cannot seek multiple creative ways around the problem, they must do the approved thing.


HWalsh wrote:
WizardsBlade wrote:

Rogue tent to die because they are fairly low hp, light armor, they have to move into (usually bad) positions to do any serious damage and when they do good damage they become targets of monsters designed to attack tanks with lots oh how and heavy armor.

I love playing rogues, but in combat you either feel useless or your about to die.

The AC argument doesn't work.

A light armored rogue has the same, if not more, AC than a heavily armored one.

HP maybe? But the HP differential isn't much to be honest. 1 hit maybe 2 at the most.

Not true. Rogues are at least 1 AC behind those who can wear medium armor until level 10. Max rogue AC is 6+level (4 dex +2 armor), medium dex+ armor is 7+ level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:

Reverse gating

Somebody came up with a very nice method to reverse gating, I thought it was in this thread, but seems it was not. Anyway:

Instead of having gating to be allowed to even attempt a task, gating means you auto-succeed at said tasks. Lesser heroes need to roll, but the Expert at Thievery is assured of success when removing this trap. With reverse gating, the requirements can be quite harsh and it is still carrot instead of stick.

Resonance became Focus to make it a carrot and not a stick. The same should work for skill gating.

Neat idea but it will never fly. Too may people insist that there must be a chance of failure for everything.


Bruntfca wrote:
As far as I can see those are *untyped* bonuses. These bonuses stack.

There are no untyped bonuses, only untyped penalties.


Lyee wrote:
One solution I've been considered is that when you reach Master or Legendary in a skill, you immediately get a feat for it. It's an extra 10 feats or so over a character's life, but it means a legendary character can immediately have a legendary feat, which is more interesting than just letting it give a bigger number, and easier to implement than making individual TEML unlocks for every skill.

Given how worthless most skill feats are this is not really game breaking.

1 to 50 of 1,884 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>