xiN's page

dot

England has to beat the Springboks today. Then we can have our coach fired!

Haha! I completely forgot about my(Risdins) healing since I dont have it till next level.

Slave-like behavior seems to work in lions.. Or humans, for that matter.

All slaves do is work, so saying they dont work well is kinda funny :D

Plus they brought us the Pyramids so obviously slavery is the way to go.

+1 for Doc.

-James
PS: Why not lower CHA to 7 and up the CON to 14? Also I would suggest that you look at Furious Focus instead of dodge, though I can understand wanting the higher AC.

I think he was trying to not min-max it too much. Furious focus only works with two handed weapons (or wielded with both hands) btw, so it wont work for him.

I'm not sure if we lost Pierre, but he is taking a while to respond. Risdin also can't do anything until he channels or heals me somehow.

Is it possible for you to play Pierre until (if?) he returns?

Ok so you work on xls, then save an xlsx version from that.

So would you suggest that we rather download the xls version then if we work with Excel 2007?

There won't be any different features in the xlsx file right?

This is great, thanks!

This character generator is a life saver. Thanks so much!

BUG: You have level 5 summon spells listed as IX, should be V. The higher level ones that follow are also wrong. Quick fix though.

Yea its annoying hey. 90% of the portraits are monsters.

I am going Ranger, shapeshifter to be specific. Working on it now.

Just putting a dot down here. Will start on my character now. Same rules as other game, right?

By the way the three of us have the players guide, even though we've never played it.

Me, LoreKeeper, and his girlfriend are all in for Legacy of Fire. We are all GMT + 2

What about Legacy of Fire then?

I'm also having fun in your game so far. Would love to be involved in another if there is space.

Arc, how many players do you think would be the right amount?

I think 4 players is the perfect fit. 3 if the players know what they are doing.

It would be really cool if you started a Serpent Skull game, since I already run a Council of Thieves game so I know the plot. If you're dead set on Council of Thieves then i will bow out :D

Hey Guys and Girls!

As Shak said, I'd like to join your campaign. Obviously this will only be if you have a space open. I'm quite keen if it is at all possible, so I will be watching this space.

I am GMT + 2.

Oh and I love puppies and rainbows, if that helps :D

The best part about Protection from Evil is that it makes you immune to mind control (the extra save is only when you cast Protection from Evil when you are being mind controlled already). Since you are going to be wearing this the whole time its safe to assume things will never dominate you or whatever.

The protection vs summoned creatures is just a bonus. The +2 AC and save is nice but once you get to about level 7-8 they wont stack with your cloak of resistance or your ring of protection.

Still this is a great item if we can make it work. Lets use something else as a refence. Seeker of Secrets has an Ioun stone, the Clear Spindle one. When you insert it into a wayfinder and you carry the wayfinder around (backpack), it grants you:

"Sustains creature without food or water"

and

"Protection from possession and mental control (as protection from evil)"

Stone costs 4000gp and the wayfinder costs 500gp. So it gives you the best part about Protection from Evil for only 4000gp, and this is not in a body slot. It also gives you what a ring of sustenance kinda gives you, I would value that at about 500gp.

So what is the value of Protection from evil (mind control only):

4500 gp
- 500 ( thats the sustenance part, a conservative guess)
/ 2 ( doesnt use item slot )

= 2000gp more or less

At least thats what Paizo thinks is fair. A barbarian in my campaign has this wayfinder and ioun stone. It has saved him a LOT of times. They went up against vampires and he couldnt be dominated. Extremely useful.

So your item seems fine I think. Just dont argue with your DM about it being circumstantially useful since it doesnt work against plants, animals, and non-evil. It will work against almost everything you want it to work against. Very few things that have mental control are non-evil.

Classes are carried by the player that wields them. The most powerful class is nothing with a Mighty Player to wield it.

A weak class doesn't become a powerful class when a "Mighty Player" wields it.

xiN wrote:

Pretty basic stuff for anyone that has created a Wizard, or any dnd character for that matter.

First, thank you for the clarification.

Second, it was possible for you to have given that clarification without implying that I don't know the game, but I note you felt compelled to get a dig in.

Then I will explicitly state it. I don't think you should be spearheading the Sorcerer side of the argument, because you don't know the game.

The points noted above were fairly straight-forward. I don't think you have been playing very long. What's even more shocking is that you did not even know that wizards gained spells when they leveled up. I don't know how you can go on for so many pages on a debate that is all but settled.

Oh wait, leadership. Sorcerer wins.

Stephane Le Roux, I’m reviewing your 5th level Wizard build and there are some things about it I don’t understand.

1.) In your attributes, what is Sag? What is For?
2.) Assuming For is supposed to be Str and Sag is supposed to be Wis, it seems you built your character on -2, 2, 5, 7, 0, 3 = 15 points (which is a standard build), yet you say that you’re using the “elite array”. Please explain.
3.) You have 14 spells in your spell book, but by my count, you should have 13
4.) How did you get 35 skill points? By my count, you’ve got (4 + 2) * 5 = 30
5.) What is Knowledge (all)?

1) Maybe he was typing on a screwed up keyboard. It's Str and Wis I think.

Pretty basic stuff for anyone that has created a Wizard, or any dnd character for that matter.

People. Please. Let's not start this war up again.

Caineach wrote:

you could always go for Aldori Dueling Sabers. d8, 19-20 X3 crit, finessable even when wileded in 1 hand, with a unique trait to give you a +1 bonus to hit.

Aldori Dueling Sword is 1d8, 19–20/×2, not x3. If you're looking in the Adv. Armory, it's stats are swapped with the Falcata.

This is correct.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

I don't think - and certainly hope against - anyone has called sorcerers one of the weakest classes in the game.

Yes, they aren't as good as wizards. They're still a full caster. The sorcerer is at infinity, the wizard is infinity +40, or something. The sorcerer has only a few nuclear bombs while the wizard is a nuclear bomb golem, but they're still atom bombs.

As for paladin, he's the most powerful of the melee classes.

As for trying to use leadership to equate to real life, plenty of people without charisma have fan clubs. Hell, nobody that was involved in the Twilight movies could act their way out of a paper bag, and people LOVE them.

I'd probably put Sorcerer at #3 or #4 of the base classes, behind wizard cleric and tossup between them and druid.

Yes. I would say,

#1 Wizard
#2 Cleric

Then for #3 and #4. Druid from level 1-11 Gets #3, and Sorcerer #4. Once you get to Mid-High levels, the sorcerer goes to #3 and druid #4

Ranking is dumb. There is a ton of variables to take into consideration, and each class shines in different scenarios.

True, the criteria is not specifically stated. The point is that certain classes are just more powerful, more often. Given most situations, full casters, especially wizards, are just in a league of their own.

As the only charisma based, spontaneous, full caster among the base classes, the sorcerer is able to do a bunch of stunts none of the others can

O.O

and do many other stunts better than any of the others. For example, without any forthought he can bluff and back it up with an illusion he cast sttill and silent. Have you ever noticed that many spells work significantly better with a high charisma (such as charms and planar binding)? Illusions, charms, and binding spells are all on the short list of the most powerful spells in the game and they all are more powerful in the hands of a sorcerer.

It is widely accepted that Conjuration and Transmutation spells are the most powerful spells in the game. Illusion and Enchantment spells can be really powerful given the right circumstances, but I have to disagree with you on this. Most are certainly not on a short list of the most powerful spells in the game. Even the ones that are don't give a rats ass about your charisma. Planar binding is a walk in the park for a sorcerer and a wizard (Which btw you have to pay for, since no sorcerer would be stupid enough to take planar binding as a spell).

Then you've got leadership, one of the most powerful feats in the game

No. Leadership is THE most powerful feat in the game. It is actually quite strange that Paizo of all people did not make this feat optional. I would say that at least 50% of experienced DM's disallow this feat.

which is most powerful in the hands of a charisma based character,

No it's pretty much the same in everyones hands. Nobody cares about followers, its all about the cohort. A wizard starting with CHA of 12 with a + 2 headband (3000gp to add it to your INT headband) will get a cohort of appropriate level. Increase modifier as you get to high levels.

and skills such as bluff and UMD.

Game breakers.

The sorcerer is not only easily able to have a magic item factory, but with UMD and a familiar, can create multiple magical effects per round. In short, with a little ingenuity,...

A wizard and his familiar do that for FREE. you have to pay thousands of gold pieces at mid to high levels every combat to keep up with the wizards versatility using UMD.

Btw have you seen the trait, dangerously curious. Makes UMD a class skill and you get +1 to it. So thats +4 already for a Wizard taking that.

Oh no the thread has ended!

I could read LilithsThrall's comments all day.

I just have one thing to say.

Your gaming table decides to create all top rank characters, so they all make wizards. and you start them at say 11th level.

Party of Wizards... meet the CR12 Iron Golem.

Hilarity now ensues.

Why? Whats so good about an Iron Golem?

Wizards have a lot of spells to deal with it. Most common one being summon monster.

On the Sorcerer vs Wizard debate. I think the sorcerer's UMD ability doesn't give him close to any versatility the wizard achieves. Assuming standard wealth (or even broke-ass wealth), a wizard will have a massive spellbook by level 10 (for argument's sake).

At this level most wizards will have a very high INT, which means they can cast a lot of spells. Very close to the amount that a sorcerer can, as posted above by Stéphane Le Roux. This means they have most of their daily spells in combat spells, but also some versatility included, to improve this they have a bonded item optionally that allows them to cast any of their spells once per day on the fly.

A sorcerer cannot choose utility spells for his known spells, unless it's super useful. I can't really think of one now. So anyway, he needs to use scrolls, and this is where the wizard trumps him. You can't pay 1125gp (5th level spell) every time you want to teleport or cast whatever utility spell you want. It just becomes too expensive for a sorcerer to try and keep up with a wizard.

5 ft. The easiest way to figure this out usually is to look at the same creature in the Bestiary (if available). If the reach is 5 ft. less than the size, then the creature is 'long' and it's reach will always be 5 ft. less than size (min of 5 ft. for small/medium creatures). If it's equal than the creature is 'tall' and the reach will be equal to its size.

In the case of a normal Roc, it's size is 20 ft. with a reach of 15 ft. So a large animal companion Roc (size 10 ft.) would have reach of 5 ft.

Cool, thanks. So if I want to charge with my Roc and attack with reach while mounted on it, and have it attack, it just needs lunge?

When I reach level 7 and my Roc increases to a Large creature, does he have 5 or 10 feet of reach?

xiN wrote:

Are you saying that the majority of soccer spectators go out in groups and assault other people?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm saying that it happens. A lot. Not all do it, but enough that it is a real problem.

And the percentage of football fans being violent is a huge lot bigger than RPG players engaging in group violence. Except make-belief violence, but that doesn't get anyone into the hospital so it doesn't count.

I don't know why you are comparing soccer fans to RPG players. You're basically saying that you dislike soccer because their fans are violent. I don't think it has anything to do with the sport. If another sport was more popular in the countries where this happens, and their supporters were violent, would you then also dislike that sport?

xiN wrote:

I think the point he is trying to make, is that you can make any activity seem childish.

I can. But that's because I'm good. I'm not even trying here, though.

xiN wrote:

If you don't like soccer then just leave the thread alone.

If you don't like the fact that hooligans exist, then become Batman and do something against it.

This "if you don't agree with me you should go away" crap never works, anyway.

To me the point of the thread was to highlight and build anticipation to one of the biggest sporting events in the world. It's not that I want you to go away if you don't agree with me, it's that I am pretty sure nobody cares about your deluded hatred for soccer/football.

CourtFool wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Or you could say that the idea of millions of people going nuts (and hurting/killing each other) over a bunch of millionaires chasing a toy around is one of the main reasons I lost faith in humanity.

Good point. At least it is not a bunch of grown men sitting around playing pretend.

Oh, but it is.

It's a lot of grown men (well, legally) sitting around pretending that they're doing sports.

The big difference is in that other thing you so slyly bring up, people usually know they play pretend, they engage their brain and not just their vocal cords, and when the game is over, practically nobody goes out in groups and assaults other people because they pretend to belong to a different class then they.

Are you saying that the majority of soccer spectators go out in groups and assault other people?

I think the point he is trying to make, is that you can make any activity seem childish. If you don't like soccer then just leave the thread alone.

Did you know only Canada, Samoa and the United States (according to wiki) and South Africa still uses the word "Soccer". The rest have conformed to football.

What's very weird to me is that in every single Hollywood movie I watch, the children are always being dropped off at or picked up from or playing soccer.

Is this because children are too young to play American football?

(we play rugby from 5-6 years.)

Stuff

Sorry for not posting more. Will have more input when I'm not so busy. I like your custom class. It's fresh. Alchemist in my opinion was kakka. This on the other hand is very nice!

xIN wrote:

Hit die should be D6 not D4 already. Maybe D8's based on BAB progression.

You're right, I think I should bump it up to a d6, like the Alchemist.

xIN wrote:

What's up with the saving throws? Fix that. Should end in a +12 or a +6. Probably +12/+6/+6

If you compare the numbers to the Alchemist's saving throws, they equal up to the same total, just switched around a bit. This guy invests and exposes himself to all sorts of deadly substances on a daily basis. He has every reason in the world to have a +15 Fort save.

xIN wrote:

That save is very high. I would say 10 + 1/2 Poisoner class level + Int( or Con)

What other non spell casting class do you know of that offers the enemy a save for their main class feature. Rogue's sneak attack doesn't offer a save. If I made the save too low, I'd be effectively making the class useless. There's already a plethora of creatures out there who are immune to poisons as it is.

Then maybe take the save away, or only introduce it when one of the heavier effects kick in. The alchemist's saves are +12 / +12 / +6. Saves follow one of two progressions. Good or bad. Good ends with +12, bad ends with +6. I don't know of classes that deviate from this.

I'm not 100% sure how the crafting works. So with price reduction, can he craft a poison for (20%) x (1/3rd of market value) = 6.67% of market value eventually?

I dont know if I'm reading it wrong but you don't actually say what kind of damage the innate poison does?

Blinding Spittle - As a standard action, the poisoner may spit as a ranged attack. If this attack successfully hits an opponent, the opponent must make a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + class level + Constitution modifier) or be blinded for the next 1d6 rounds. This attack has a range increment of 10 ft. Creatures without eyes or creatures that are immune to critical hits are also immune to this attack.

This is broken. 1d6 rounds is a LOT of rounds. I suggest maybe reducing the saving throw or the rounds, but probably the best is just to say. Ranged touch attack, if it hits your blinded for 1d4 rounds (no save), but you can spend a full round action wiping it off your face. Put a limit on the amount of time he can do this every day. 3 + con mod?

I'm still reading but as far as I can see. Hit die should be D6 not D4 already. Maybe D8's based on BAB progression.

What's up with the saving throws? Fix that. Should end in a +12 or a +6. Probably +12/+6/+6

The Fortitude save DC for this poison is equal to 10 + poisoner class level + Intelligence modifier + Constitution modifier.

That save is very high. I would say 10 + 1/2 Poisoner class level + Int( or Con)

SO an arcane spellcaster with light armor proficiency could wear an armored kilt without penalty to spellcasting...?

Seems so.

Guys. The kilt weighs 10 lbs but when you add it to armor it adds 15 lbs.

Thanks Karui Kage. Awesome site btw. Do you know if you need medium armor proficiency if you add a kilt to light armor?

I dont think that applies because you're actually wearing the shoes with your feet. Your not wielding/employing/picking it up. You certainly cant drop it, unless its a pair of slippers as stated above.

I tend to agree with the "treat as constantly walking through greased area" rule. If they walk they have to make acrobatics checks, otherwise there is no effect.

Realism wise, there should be no difference between a Floor/Grease/Boots sandwitch. I dont think it matters if its cast on the boots or the floor first, it should have the same effect IMO.

If I cast Grease on the shoes of my opponent, is he considered flat-footed when he moves?

The "smoke" part of this argument is disregarding the previous rules FAQ rulings/clarifications (written by the same people who, you know, designed the rules we are talking about) simply because this is "Pathfinder" and not "3.5". The Paizo folk have repeatedly stated that the Pathfinder rules are meant to be backwards compatible with 3.5. Unless the Pathfinder rules explicitly spell out a change to previous rules (grappling for example) it is entirely absurd to think that the Paizo folk intended to change previously established and explicit rules by making minute alterations to tangentially related text in the hopes that people would notice and change accordingly.

Paizo staffers aren't the writers of Lost, they are game designers whose goal is to create an easy to understand rule set that is an extension/evolution of an already existing game. If they intended to change the way armor spikes work and interact with TWF and THW fighting, I'm pretty sure they could have come up with a better way of signalling their intent (as opposed to the way some posters are inferring they have). As they have not changed the relevant wording, it is entirely reasonable to assume they had no such intent. This, or course, could change in the future.

Until then, armor spikes work exactly like they did in 3.5, corroborated by the FAQ, UNTIL Pazio decides to say otherwise (via a new FAQ or somesuch).

We get it. You don't like it. And until something changes? Tough. Deal with it (or house rule it as you see fit).

The question of whether the rules regarding armor spikes SHOULD change is an entirely different discussion from whether they DID change.

This thread should have died 200 some odd posts ago, and another asking "Should armor spikes work like they do?" should have been started in it's place.

Cheers

Agreed. This is where the thread should have ended.

Kinda like asking FORD a question about Cheavy. They are both cars after all.

No. It's like taking your Toyota to Pimp-my-ride.

Then afterwards when all your friends are saying,"Dude, you have might have a defective accelerator, you should have your car checked out!"

Then your like,"No! XZibit pimped my car out, it's a completely different car. It doesn't work like a Toyota fool!"

"VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!"

"BANG!"

You Are Dead

To all the people that say its not possible to THW and Spikes:

If you were to play 3.5 now, would you say that THW and Spikes are allowed or not?

Im confused about the armored kilt now that it is mentioned in the AA.

If you add it to armor does it still add 15 pounds to the armor, and lower the maximum Dex bonus by 1?

If you add it to light armor, do you then need medium armor proficiency to wear that armor?

Thanks!

True, but two handed weapons takes up both hands. The physical one, and the metaphorical game ones.

Dont agree.

That is why I don't think off handed attacks were meant to be used with two handed weapons.

Wizards have stated that it was the intent to allow this. I get the feeling here that you guys are looking for ways to disallow this because you dont like it, not because it isnt RAW. (side note: Wizards designed this combat system that Paizo uses, so to say that you need a ruling from Paizo doesnt make sense, since nothing has changed with regard to TWF with Armor Spikes)

You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)

That off hand refers to your free hand not the "off-hand" that means your secondary attack. You guys are constantly getting off hand the attack and the actual hand mixed up.

What bothers me is how technical you guys get about the terms but you fail to see that armor spikes is an off-hand attack. Doesnt that bother you?

One of the points I think people miss is this:

What is the Off-Hand?

It's either your weaker hand, or it is your weaker attack. You have to choose between either saying the off-hand is literally your one hand OR the off-hand being a label for a body slot that holds a weapon, and is your weaker attack.

Since we know that armor spikes are not held in your hand we have to conclude that the off-hand is not your hand itself, it's actually just your secondary (for lack of better word) attack.

I see a lot of people saying the off-hand is being used, but since we know the off-hand is now your body (for armor spikes) then it isnt being used. Off-hand has NOTHING to do with your hands.