|
I don't believe you can cast a spell while holding the charge on a touch spell, generally. If you could stack on a fatigue effect that would bump fatigue up to exhausted, that would certainly further hinder the enemy's dexterity. Frostbite cannot make a fatigued target exhausted, but there's no reason another source of fatigue that does stack couldn't make a target already fatigued by Frostbite exhausted. If you've got some arcane support, (Reach) Touch of Gracelessness is a fantastic spell for piling on Dex penalties. I don't know how your GM will run it but if a creature's Dexterity penalty exceeded its score I would have that creature suffer the Paralyzed condition until the penalty decreased and they had a nonzero Dexterity score again. Or until they got coup-de-graced and the condition 'Dead' superceded it.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:Are there any other interesting ways to attack someone's Dexterity? That touch attack can apply a -6 DEX penalty, and if I or some party members could lump on some more DEX penalties we could put the baddies in a real bad way. From the ability score page: quote:Ability Score Penalties So you can't knock someone out, kill them, or paralyze them with this spell. (well, you can if you deal enough nonlethal)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Kabanaw posted:So you can't knock someone out, kill them, or paralyze them with this spell. (well, you can if you deal enough nonlethal) There are actually two different, contradictory rules there. One says that it's possible to paralyze someone with score penalties, because it functions just like ability damage except you can't fall unconscious or dead. Being paralyzed due to dex damage isn't being unconscious or dead, so it can happen. The other says it's not possible, because "in essence" penalties can't reduce your scores to 0.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:There are actually two different, contradictory rules there. One says that it's possible to paralyze someone with score penalties, because it functions just like ability damage except you can't fall unconscious or dead. Being paralyzed due to dex damage isn't being unconscious or dead, so it can happen. The other says it's not possible, because "in essence" penalties can't reduce your scores to 0. I will say that most of the spells which do 'damage' with the spell's duration instead of imposing a penalty (which is really just inconsistent, stupid wording on Paizo's part) specify that the given effect cannot reduce a score below 1. It seems that the intention is for temporary penalties to not be able to inflict the helpless condition on an enemy. Especially as this would make Touch of Idiocy a no-save touch attack Save-or-Die against every single animal and a good number of other creatures. That said, as a GM I generally do let "penalties" act identically to damage, and if the party goes to the trouble of dropping like 12 Dex damage on something I see no reason why it shouldn't be helpless. Edit: Unless yanno, it has 13+ Dex. That is a good reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:There are actually two different, contradictory rules there. One says that it's possible to paralyze someone with score penalties, because it functions just like ability damage except you can't fall unconscious or dead. Being paralyzed due to dex damage isn't being unconscious or dead, so it can happen. The other says it's not possible, because "in essence" penalties can't reduce your scores to 0. I would probably go with the explicit rule that ability scores can't drop below 1 because of penalties rather than the implicit rule that because it doesn't mention being paralyzed it's still allowed. But, this is one of those dumb rules left just vague enough it's impossible to say, so it's really up to the GM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Kabanaw posted:I would probably go with the explicit rule that ability scores can't drop below 1 because of penalties rather than the implicit rule that because it doesn't mention being paralyzed it's still allowed. But, this is one of those dumb rules left just vague enough it's impossible to say, so it's really up to the GM. Likewise. Being able to take out a creature with ability score penalties is enormous, every creature has at least 1 weak ability score, such that you can wipe them out in one hit that way. EDIT: An exhaustive exploration of spells reveals that: -Spells that inflict penalties are not limited other than by spell level, they can take you from any number to 1, if you fail to defend. -Spells that inflict damage/drain only inflict a maximum of 1d4 or 2 points flat per round, with a defense roll each round to get rid of it. Metamagic then means the maximum is 6 points if you put it all in. EDIT2: Missed a 9th level spell that deals 1d6. veekie fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Jul 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Your best bet for a DEX minus is a net. They get the entangled condition which is -2 AC and -2 DEX? Plus they need to spend actions to get out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
B.B. Rodriguez posted:Your best bet for a DEX minus is a net. They get the entangled condition which is -2 AC and -2 DEX? Plus they need to spend actions to get out. Well, Rime Spell already makes them Entangled, so the statuses won't A Rimed Frostbite is slotted as a level 2 spell and does: 1d6+CL damage (no cap on the +) Target is Fatigued with no save from Frostbite (no run/charge, -2 STR/DEX) Target is Entangled with no save from Rime (half speed, no run/charge, -2 to hit, -4 DEX) for a net -2 STR, -6 DEX, and -2 to hit (not including the -2 STR) Then, my Tiger can grapple the target, which I outlined before, but the Grappled condition also affects the DEX, with another -4, for a total of -10 DEX, and another -2 to hit (to anything other than the Grappler) Even if the target can't be paralyzed, that's a -10 to DEX, a -5 to AC with two actions (a touch attack and a grapple with an effective +15 at level 3). My friend in the group is a Witch with Evil Eye, which can be used for another flat -2 to AC. A -7 AC makes a 20 a 13 and I'm pretty alright with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
Are there any of the published Pathfinder adventures/modules that fit in with a dark sun-esque theme? I would just look online but Paizo.com is down. Not explicitly dark sun but something that doesn't involve a bunch of deity stuff and in a world without much in the way of government. Low level, like starting at level 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
My (positive) take on the Carrion Crown path, trying to address the points that have been brought up so far. For reference, I'm GMing a group that is now nearing the end of book 3: SPOILERS AHOYBook 1: I felt that this adventure was great, though the haunts took a bit of getting used to. The party had a Cleric, which was especially useful for the channeling, but I feel that holy water was available enough to deal with most of the haunts in the area that can't be bypassed. Of course undiplomatic parties could have pissed off the priest enough to get him to not sell holy water, but there was a decent stash of the stuff in the crypt. Speaking of the crypt, the ten +1 arrows, five +1 ghost touch arrows, and two +1 undead bane arrows should also come in pretty bloody handy. As for melee fighters being unable to damage ghosts, there are a +1 handaxe (that is ghost touch versus the Lopper) and +1 heavy mace both available before the final encounter along with the Moldy Spellbook which can be used to do 1d6 free damage to the boss every single round for anyone with nothing better to do. A resourceful party that takes their time exploring the top floors and finding the hidden vault really shouldn't have any problems dealing with the basement. I felt this book was fun, atmospheric, and had lots of cool encounters (Father Charlatan was a favorite for our group). Book 2: Another super fun adventure if played right. Our party is mostly neutral, but still didn't have any problems sympathizing with the Beast once it became pretty clear that a lot of things about his imprisonment just didn't add up. Add in the cash reward for defending him and me making a special point to make him a character that the party actually wanted to save and we had zero motivation problems. I suppose my players may be more easily motivated than some groups, but a good GM should know how to motivate his players. If I ran a group that completely had zero interest in helping the guy despite my best efforts to make him lovable or awesome or whatever, I definitely wouldn't tell my party "you guys get paid either way," even if the book said they do. I thought that the time crunch of the investigations and the set pieces of the trial worked out great and were a really cool centerpiece for the adventuring. The one complaint I agree with was that the transition to the castle was a little awkward with lots of questions of "Beast, why don't we just go with you to the castle?" Since that would make a lot more sense than separating like it was written. My solution was to just make the Beast super stubborn and insist on gathering up some of his things before meeting them, but I could definitely see some parties not accepting this. It also took a long time for my party to have any idea what was going on once they got to the castle and found the place overrun with trolls, being pretty convinced that the trolls worked for Caromarc and that he had captured and done something horrible to the Beast or something. I didn't really have any problems at all with getting the party to understand what to do versus the Promethean though, since there is a friendly homunculus in the previous room who can completely explain what's going on and what needs to be done. Climbing the tower really isn't that difficult with a DC 25 climb check or maybe the Rope of Climbing that was found in the previous adventure. So overall, there was a little bit of an awkward transition mid-adventure in this one, but aside from that it was a lot of fun with tons of very memorable moments. Book 3: I'm not all the way through this book, but I will admit that it is my least favorite so far. The Harrow reading was fun (and spelled certain doom for the party from an ancient evil with an actual reading of the cards so that was cool), but the murder mystery theater was a little meh. We don't have a Paladin so didn't run into any detect evil issues, but I can definitely see that being a pain to run and an oversight, though not a fatal one since speeding along the investigation is probably just fine in the long run. After that, the adventure has mostly just been about killing werewolves, which is fine, but the adventure as written tries to interject more inter-pack politics that aren't very well fleshed out to give the party a reason to work with werewolves so I dunno, we'll see how it goes. Worst case seems to be just roaming around killing werewolves and necromancers in pretty straightforward fights so I don't forsee anything going particularly wrong. So yeah, spoilers aside, I've really enjoyed running the Carrion Crown books so far. They're certainly ambitious with their plot devices, but if properly run, have lots of fun and memorable encounters so far. Book 4 is cthulhu monsters so I don't really see what could go wrong there, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
adaz posted:Are there any of the published Pathfinder adventures/modules that fit in with a dark sun-esque theme? I would just look online but Paizo.com is down. Not explicitly dark sun but something that doesn't involve a bunch of deity stuff and in a world without much in the way of government. Low level, like starting at level 3. Not really. You can use the 4E adventures, but it might require a bit of effort to convert the monsters. (Dark Sun for Pathfinder is in the works and everyone starts at level 4. Don't ask me how this is legal. It's in playtesting and works pretty well.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Does anyone else think that the Inquisitor's Solo Tactics class feature should just be a feat that can be taken? Or better yet, a class feature for more than just the Inquisitor? I'm tempted to give the fighter Solo Tactics and a progression of Teamwork Feats just because.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Fudge Handsome posted:Does anyone else think that the Inquisitor's Solo Tactics class feature should just be a feat that can be taken? Or better yet, a class feature for more than just the Inquisitor? I'm tempted to give the fighter Solo Tactics and a progression of Teamwork Feats just because. But yes, it wouldn't be a bad way to upgrade the Fighter. It's not like it's going to make the class weaker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
My gaming ground and I are primarily board gamers but I've had the inkling to start up an RPG. The thing is, I can pretty much count on them doing zero work outside of the actual sitting at the table and learning to play part of the game, which is fine with me, I'll be able to create them characters just fine. Another thing that is a plus is a tangible game board and pieces and such. So, my question is, for a group of board gamers does the Beginner Box fill these roles reasonable well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
B.B. Rodriguez posted:Not really. You can use the 4E adventures, but it might require a bit of effort to convert the monsters. Interesting. I ended up doing a homebrew and just using some of the 3.5 dark sun rules paizo made way back in the day for a few of the things I wanted to keep. We started at level 3 actually in classic dark sun fashion with 20 point buy. Did they add any new classes or is it under NDA? e: Also a minor annoyance but I hadn't DM'd pathfinder before, only 4e, and it's kind of annoying how in the Bestiary it lists the spells but they don't tell you what the spells do in the monster stat block. I'm sure after awhile I'll just know them by heart but for a new DM not used to the rules it's incredibly frustrating. adaz fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
adaz posted:Interesting. I ended up doing a homebrew and just using some of the 3.5 dark sun rules paizo made way back in the day for a few of the things I wanted to keep. We started at level 3 actually in classic dark sun fashion with 20 point buy. No NDA because I'm not sure it's legal, but it relies pretty heavily on Archetypes to create different classes. There are bounty hunter, corsair, templar, traders, etc. Things like witch doctors, shamans are Cleric archetypes. Most races have favored archetypes like Kreen Clerics get a special one or Tarek Fighters. It's actually pretty fun and works well with Pathfinder. The only thing that happens is that you need to stack HP, Fort saves, and Will saves because gently caress Psions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Planning an island hopping campaign, so thinking that heavy armor won't be standard amongst the native cultures. What would be a good replacement for the Heavy Armor proficiency? Thinking just a free feat for every class that had it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
I'm dealing with a lot of sailing and islands and whatnot, and one thing we came up with was a potion of Touch of the Sea (after someone mentioned the spell here, I think). http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/touch-of-the-sea It gives creatures a swim speed, and when you have a swim speed you don't need to make swim checks unless you're "avoiding a hazard" or doing something complicated. quote:Swim Speed A creature with a swim speed can move through water at its indicated speed without making Swim checks. It gains a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform a special action or avoid a hazard. The creature can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered when swimming. Such a creature can use the run action while swimming, provided that it swims in a straight line. So you could be in full plate and swim in calm waters without any problem. You could give potions to the NPCs, or maybe make a reusable wondrous item, or just make up a feat that allows characters to ignore the AC penalty specifically for swim checks. Conversely, make a special type of heavy armor that floats. IF your NPCs have cold resistance, you could use Blue Ice (from Frostburn in 3.5), which floats in water, and deals cold damage to anyone wearing it. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040911a&page=5 I'm sure you could come up with other ideas too, like mostly-hollow honeycombed metals or something. If you really want to go for the aesthetic that these people don't use heavy armor, you could just give them all AC bonuses from other sources, like Dodge, Shield Focus, or Improved Natural Armor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
So i was wondering if anyone could give me a run down on the Rise of the Runelords anniversary book that Paizo put out. I'm really just wondering if its good for a DM who has a small amount of experience and has never written his own campaign and if it is in general a well done conversion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Planning an island hopping campaign, so thinking that heavy armor won't be standard amongst the native cultures. What would be a good replacement for the Heavy Armor proficiency? Thinking just a free feat for every class that had it. Wooden Platemail with the Ironwood spell cast on it should be within flavour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
In the previous session, the players of my campaign managed to find five basilisk eggs. They want to keep the eggs and then each raise one of the basilisks to essentially grow up as allies with the Gaze ability. Great idea, I'm very excited that they're owning the situation like that. So, I'd like to make the process of raising these infant basilisks interesting and somewhat challenging. My first impulse is to simply cause the basilisks to get sick if the players fail to feed them, with Handle Animal checks being allowed to identify the needs of the creatures and/or generally create a sense of empathy. My only problem is that sounds really boring and micromanagey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
What you have sounds like a good idea, but why not skip the "if they fail to feed them" clause. Just assume they take good care of them, but unpredictable consequences from raising the creatures without their real mother arise or some otherwise rare illness, and they become sickly. The players then discover they need to create a tonic to cure them that will require a McGuffin ingredient or two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
considerably posted:What you have sounds like a good idea, but why not skip the "if they fail to feed them" clause. Just assume they take good care of them, but unpredictable consequences from raising the creatures without their real mother arise or some otherwise rare illness, and they become sickly. The players then discover they need to create a tonic to cure them that will require a McGuffin ingredient or two. This is a really good idea. It's a great way for me to hand them an adventure or two that they'll willingly take without throwing gold at them or approaching anything that resembles railroading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Real quick question - I'm pretty new to PF and RPGs in general, and I'm wondering how zombie creation in regards to Animate Dead works. For example, I'm a level 7 oracle raising a level 7 fighter-class mook the party just killed. Zombie rules say to subtract all his class hit die (minimum of one HD), turn that HD into a d8, and then add additional HD based on his size. Medium, in this case. So he has a total of 2 d8 HD + CHA mod for HP, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
UberChair posted:Real quick question - I'm pretty new to PF and RPGs in general, and I'm wondering how zombie creation in regards to Animate Dead works. For example, I'm a level 7 oracle raising a level 7 fighter-class mook the party just killed. Zombie rules say to subtract all his class hit die (minimum of one HD), turn that HD into a d8, and then add additional HD based on his size. Medium, in this case. Yep. When raising medium-sized humanoids as zombies, it's a lot easier to just use the standard zombie statblock as written, and only add stuff like gear and/or extraordinary special qualities that the zombiefied humanoid might have retained on top of that if you want a particular zombie to stand out in combat for story reasons. Necromancy can make you end up with a lot of minions, and it saves a lot of pain if you only need one statblock for each type of zombie in your posse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Planning an island hopping campaign, so thinking that heavy armor won't be standard amongst the native cultures. What would be a good replacement for the Heavy Armor proficiency? Thinking just a free feat for every class that had it. Free exotic proficiencies(and then make some non-lovely exotic equipment) seems to work best without changing the nature of the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Yep. Cool, thanks. What sort of qualities are kept besides equipment when I raise dudes? If I raise a wizard can the wizard still cast spells? Can I give my zombie a rod and have him use it in battle?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
UberChair posted:Cool, thanks. What sort of qualities are kept besides equipment when I raise dudes? If I raise a wizard can the wizard still cast spells? Can I give my zombie a rod and have him use it in battle? Nope, zombies are mindless. If you want any advanced capabilities you'd have to create undead which retain their class levels, which is somewhat harder. For zombies the usual go to is either large mobs of expendable humanoids or large wildlife.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Wildlife is easy to kill and not many people are going to make it a problem for you if you poach some rabid bears or whatever, but the real standard in zombie production is in Giants. Make a quest out of breaking into a storm giant burial mound and stealing all the dads, because those dudes are super bad and you can outfit them with (very reasonably priced) masterwork equipment and some armor to make them more imposing. You want as much size, STR, DEX, non-class based HD, and as many movement types as you can get (though skeletons can't fly using their wings). They retain "special abilities" as long as those aren't defensive or a discreet attack. Extraordinary qualities that make them better at using their normal attacks get to stay, apparently. Everything else is gone or overwritten.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
I have a question about forced marching.quote:A character can walk for more than 8 hours in a day by making a forced march. For each hour of marching beyond 8 hours, a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour) is required. If the check fails, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from a forced march becomes fatigued. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue. It's possible for a character to march into unconsciousness by pushing himself too hard. If I'm reading that right, couldn't the party march for 16 hours a day and still have 8 hours to rest and slot spells? If they march for that 9th hour and someone fails, the Cleric can lay healing on him and completely remove any penalty, and allow the party to continue marching normally. The DCs get harder and at some point I guess they'll run out of healing for the day, and I still have to factor in encounters which could slow them down, but I'm curious if that's how it works, RAW, at its core. If the party wanted nothing more than to march in a straight line, and used all their resources to do it, could they seriously march 16 hours a day?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:I have a question about forced marching. Pretty much. Forced march is only really a problem when you're dealing with large bodies of men.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
Ultimate equipment is coming out. Could it contain the key to making monks not suck? no Bodywrap of mighty strikes: chest item (so you can't wear monk robes), grants an enhancement bonus to ONE natural attack per round, costs 50% more than a magic weapon. Brawling armor property: +2 to unarmed attack, damage, and grapple checks...would be awesome, but it's an armor property, meaning monks can't get it. They seriously don't want people to play monks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Meepo posted:Ultimate equipment is coming out. Could it contain the key to making monks not suck? no 1st one is useless for a monk, but hey. Make it into a shirt and you're fine. Most DMs allow poo poo like this. 2nd one is... gently caress it. Put it on the shirt. Or bracers. Ugh. Stupid Paizo. ONTO MY QUESTION: PCs took over a Rahadoumi pirate ship in Skull and Shackles and want the name of the crew. What kind of a people are Rahadoumis, so I know what to name them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Meepo posted:Ultimate equipment is coming out. Could it contain the key to making monks not suck? no Are you loving kidding me? This stuff is garbage. It's like Pathfinder's developers have no idea how their own loving game works. I've seen better and more balanced magic items from 3.5's glut of lovely third-party splat books -- you know those books, the ones with absolutely no playtesting whatsoever and written by people who gave no fucks about game balance or rules?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Meepo posted:Brawling armor property: +2 to unarmed attack, damage, and grapple checks...would be awesome, but it's an armor property, meaning monks can't get it. You can put armor properties on Bracers of Armor. To get these, you'd have to pay 9,000 for +1 Brawling Bracers of Armor, but you're using up your bracer slot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Hopefully there will be a Magic Vestment-like spell that lets you put Brawling on mundane clothing. Also hopefully this will be an ability added to the Quingong Monk's list of abilities. I'm optimistic! Kind of!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:You can put armor properties on Bracers of Armor. To get these, you'd have to pay 9,000 for +1 Brawling Bracers of Armor, but you're using up your bracer slot. The designers said specifically that Bracers do not count as Light Armor. Seriously. Monks cannot have nice things because this is Pathfinder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Could be worse, you could be a monk who uses thrown weapons! Seriously, how can they have learned absolutely nothing from this? What is the thought process that motivates them to design like this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:Could be worse, you could be a monk who uses thrown weapons! Martial classes can't have nice things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
It could be worse.. I mean.. err.. Seriously. The rules to design items in the back are right there- Just make custom stuff for your mundane/melee classes to give them a chance. Especially monk, poor little abused monk. Never listen to a ruling from paizo about the poor guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 04:42
|
|
