| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking for suggestions, people! With Book of the dead about to drop I'm thinking skeleton tyrant champion with divine sorc multiclass dedication. How would everybody else go about it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping that Blood Lords will introduce some more Undead Archetypes, including Graveknights. That said, the one "Graveknight" I've made was simply a Skeleton Champion of Susumu. I had intended on giving him Lich as well, but that was before I got my copy of BotD and realized that you have to be living to take the Archetype. May add something else to him to push the idea a bit further; but it works fine, especially when adding the Rejuvination Token Feat and using one's armor as the token.
Another idea I have considered is a Lich Magus as another option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And here I was, feeling original with my Skeleton Tyrant of General Susumu...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Skeletons get an ancestry feat that lets them imbue their soul into their armor (well, anything really, but for a Graveknight armor would be thematically appropriate). Badda bing, badda boom, badda you're functionally immortal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Skeletons get an ancestry feat that lets them imbue their soul into their armor (well, anything really, but for a Graveknight armor would be thematically appropriate). Badda bing, badda boom, badda you're functionally immortal.
Level 9, uncommon. All it does is enable raise dead, resurrect, etc to work on you to restore you as an undead at the cost of a precious memory and a note that pharasma can't prevent it. Not quite graveknight's lich-like restoration.
I thought I read somewhere that graveknight was supposed to be in Book of the Dead as an archetype. Perhaps I misunderstood or misread something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And here I was, feeling original with my Skeleton Tyrant of General Susumu...
They can be friends!!!
If/when they ever add LN/N/CN Tenets and additinal Causes, maybe then they can be more different.
I think Skeletons get an ancestry feat that lets them imbue their soul into their armor (well, anything really, but for a Graveknight armor would be thematically appropriate). Badda bing, badda boom, badda you're functionally immortal.Wait... how does that work now that armor doesn't have hit points and attacking it is questionable at best? *headaches*
Also, I don't have the book but is it only skeletons that can do that? Because Pathfinder Graveknights from what I know are closer to zombies. (Even in the PF2 art they look more like zombies that skeletons).
True. I'd suggest it really just depends on how old their body is and maybe when they were risen. So really, I think any of the Undead options work fine, with the current lack of a proper Graveknight option.
I think Skeletons get an ancestry feat that lets them imbue their soul into their armor (well, anything really, but for a Graveknight armor would be thematically appropriate). Badda bing, badda boom, badda you're functionally immortal.Wait... how does that work now that armor doesn't have hit points and attacking it is questionable at best? *headaches*
Also, I don't have the book but is it only skeletons that can do that? Because Pathfinder Graveknights from what I know are closer to zombies. (Even in the PF2 art they look more like zombies that skeletons).
Armor still has Hit Points, since the Corrosive Rune also directly interacts with it. Metal armor has 9 Hardness and 36 Hit Points off the top of my head, but I don't know the others. Precious materials update this, but I don't believe that (by default) runes do. Generally, the HP is 4x the Hardness.
EDIT: Zombies don't have an equivalent for Rejuvination Token, but it seems somewhat reasonable to ask a GM to be able to spend an ancestry feat on it.
Zombies can spend a class feat on a ferocity-like effect, but you should know that zombies lose Speed. Graveknights are more... ghoul/zombie like in appearance, though. Though they lack the hungers of either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... how does that work now that armor doesn't have hit points and attacking it is questionable at best? *headaches*
Armor has hit points. I once again suggest you'd once read the rules you enjoy discussing so much, that would make you far more credible in debate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They'd likely be given a hunger if made an actual Archetype. I'd imagine a Graveknight would likely hunger for battle or something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geb writes that no graveknight plans their undead existence as a route to immortality, but their curse gives them an urge to conquer and slaughter. Hunger for battle seems appropriate.
Armor HP is in a section that I was not expectingArmor has hit points. I once again suggest you'd once read the rules you enjoy discussing so much, that would make you far more credible in debate.Wait... how does that work now that armor doesn't have hit points and attacking it is questionable at best? *headaches*
"Teacher, I did not learn this equation because it was in a section of the book that I was not expecting" was not the best explanation in primary school and it still isn't whatever years later (unless you're still in primary school, in which case I'm going to let this slide).
Hence my statement still stands that attacking items is weird and the HP is practically meaningless as you don't interact with it except for a handful of things (ex: the corrosive rune that was mentioned). Hence why the question, "how does that even work?"
A bunch of monsters including iconic staples such as Rust Monster or Black Pudding deal damage to armor.
Let's not be graveknights on the forums and let dead arguments lie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Armor still has Hit Points, since the Corrosive Rune also directly interacts with it.
Yes, but really no. Corrosive does jack all against most armor thanks to hardness.
Take your metal armor for example. With hardness 9, you'll deal an average of 1.5 damage per critical. With a broken threshold of 18, you'll need an average of 12 critical hits just to get the armor past it's broken threshold.
Even the greater version will require so many critical hits, that the target will most certainly be dead before you're able to break the armor.
Armor still has Hit Points, since the Corrosive Rune also directly interacts with it.Yes, but really no. Corrosive does jack all against most armor thanks to hardness.
Take your metal armor for example. With hardness 9, you'll deal an average of 1.5 damage per critical. With a broken threshold of 18, you'll need an average of 12 critical hits just to get the armor past it's broken threshold.
Even the greater version will require so many critical hits, that the target will most certainly be dead before you're able to break the armor.
I take the following to mean that the acid damage ignores Hardness.
In addition, on a critical hit, the target’s armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage (before applying Hardness)...
The before applying Hardness is not the clearest way to say "ignoring Hardness", but I can't think of what effect that text could have other than that.
YMMV, but I run the corrosive rune as ignoring the Hardness entirely with the critical effect, regardless of if it is a shield or armor targeted.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Armor still has Hit Points, since the Corrosive Rune also directly interacts with it.Yes, but really no. Corrosive does jack all against most armor thanks to hardness.
Take your metal armor for example. With hardness 9, you'll deal an average of 1.5 damage per critical. With a broken threshold of 18, you'll need an average of 12 critical hits just to get the armor past it's broken threshold.
Even the greater version will require so many critical hits, that the target will most certainly be dead before you're able to break the armor.
I take the following to mean that the acid damage ignores Hardness.
In addition, on a critical hit, the target’s armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage (before applying Hardness)...The before applying Hardness is not the clearest way to say "ignoring Hardness", but I can't think of what effect that text could have other than that.
YMMV, but I run the corrosive rune as ignoring the Hardness entirely with the critical effect, regardless of if it is a shield or armor targeted.
I could see that possibly being the case, but even then you're talking an average of two crits to get metal armor to the broken threshold (unless you're really lucky). Again, your target is either dead or so close to it that it likely won't matter much anyways.
Sure non-metal armor would be much more susceptible under such a ruling, but then you're talking about a minor debuff at best since those wearing light armor generally rely on Dexterity to avoid damage rather than armor. Stack onto that the fact that enemy stat blocks aren't really affected by the absence or presence of armor in the first place and one wonders, "what even is the point of such an ability unless used against PCs?"
In the end you're accomplishing very little other than destroying potential party treasure and opening up the can of worms that is "do the runes survive?"
Armor still has Hit Points, since the Corrosive Rune also directly interacts with it.Yes, but really no. Corrosive does jack all against most armor thanks to hardness.
Take your metal armor for example. With hardness 9, you'll deal an average of 1.5 damage per critical. With a broken threshold of 18, you'll need an average of 12 critical hits just to get the armor past it's broken threshold.
Even the greater version will require so many critical hits, that the target will most certainly be dead before you're able to break the armor.
I take the following to mean that the acid damage ignores Hardness.
In addition, on a critical hit, the target’s armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage (before applying Hardness)...The before applying Hardness is not the clearest way to say "ignoring Hardness", but I can't think of what effect that text could have other than that.
YMMV, but I run the corrosive rune as ignoring the Hardness entirely with the critical effect, regardless of if it is a shield or armor targeted.I could see that possibly being the case, but even then you're talking an average of two crits to get metal armor to the broken threshold (unless you're really lucky). Again, your target is either dead or so close to it that it likely won't matter much anyways.
Sure non-metal armor would be much more susceptible under such a ruling, but then you're talking about a minor debuff at best since those wearing light armor generally rely on Dexterity to avoid damage rather than armor. Stack onto that the fact that enemy stat blocks aren't really affected by the absence or presence of armor in the first place and one wonders, "what even is the point of such an ability unless used against PCs?"
In the end you're accomplishing very little other than destroying potential party treasure and opening up the can of worms that is "do the runes survive?"
I'm not even sure if broken armor is meant to remove the effects of any runes on it, now that you mention it. The broken condition has some exceptions for armor where it just grants the usual item bonus to AC but with a status penalty. It is a bit vague about the other abilities of armor. I assume outright destroyed armor is gone gone, but as you mention it is unlikely the creature survived those multiple crits to get to that stage on heavier armor.
Wait in what world is "deal 3d6 before applying hardness" read as "deal 3d6 after applying hardness"?
"Before applying" means to do something before something else, not bypassing it. So 2d6+3d6 before applying hardness is 5d6-hardness, while after applying hardness it's (2d6-hardness)+3d6.
It just seems strange wording to me, personally. When 3d6 is the only damage, having the concept of before or after applying hardness feels unnecessary - either you are applying it or not. I was reading it as the item was taking damage before Hardness applies but after reading the verbiage of similar abilities I admit that my reading is 99% incorrect and take that back.
I agree that the verbiage seems superfluous.