|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Maybe a bit glib but I remember something a pastor told me once, "I don't worried about those that talk to God, that is fine and normal and good. It's the ones that claim he tells them what I/we should do that I get concerned about."
Of course one of his major points was you should always note what scriptures are being preached or talked about and study the and what is going on around them yourself instead of relying on what someone else tells you they mean.
Um... no. Knowledge does not equal lack of doubt. Probably why they stick that infallible part on him (after all we can have knowledge on a subject and still make a mistake) knowledge allow is never enough to dispel doubt (Thomas would be an excellent example of this).
Look I can know what's going to happen and still want to test my knowledge (just because the Biblical God doesn't want us to test him doesn't mean he can't test himself) -- and even when he knows what will happen he still lets things happen (case in point Job, and Peter with the lies) in fact there are a couple times in the old testament we see god talking with and being persuaded to change his course -- (there is a lot to question about the absolutely all knowing end of things quite honestly if you check back further on source materials).
Being neither hot or cold, I spit thee from my mouth.
I am confused on what if any bearing this has on the current conversation. Would you please elaborate? I mean I realize where the quote comes from and the popular meanings of it today, but I fail to see how it touches on this subject.
Summon 6 and summon 9 would be on my list, as would minor and major creation. Shades and a few of the inbetween shadow spells aren't bad either.
Remove curse and break enchantment aren't horrible either.
Still and silent spell as well as eschew materials would also be necessary for me at this point as feats instead of just rods.
Meh for me it is the part of my statement you left out that is the more interesting question.
IF god has the aforementioned traits god could be infallible and still intentionally do things halfway or intentionally incorrectly to watch the outcome, perhaps to test his own omnipotence/omnipresence, being all powerful all knowing and infallible does not mean you are immune to worries or doubts. In fact it could make your doubts worse.
Choosing to act or not is another matter beyond ability, and does lead some into theodicy and questions of the uncaring god/ the mechanisms of god, but those are not the only options. God could be lying. He might tell people something is the one true way allow and others will be punished and then leave us to do what we wish as a test with no intention of punishment. Instead "judgement" might simply separate those that get to go their own way from those that would rather stay. Going your own way might be a hell for those that stay even if it is not for those that leave.
How does quote go? Only the foolish are certain and the wise/smart know doubt?
In any event I have answered the question I was addressing and see no reason to defend or condemn it beyond what I have already done.
Easily. This is not to be anti anyone but:
I can believe that an ultimate god exists. That is is all powerful, all knowing and infallible. I can believe this and not worship him because in my mind with the world as it is and the traits he possesses he must be evil, at minimum in part.
I can also believe a being may be such things and still not be perfect, after all just because he is infallible (unable to make mistakes) does not mean he can't screw stuff up on purpose.
When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
My religion is absurd. When you start in absurdity everything else becomes much more reasonable. It also makes dealing with the "reality based" people much easier too, if a trifle tiring.
UMDing a Kitsune Star Gem makes sense. It's not a wand, so I suppose it doesn't stop working for the night on a roll of a one like a wand.
Rolling a 1 while using UMD hurts you no matter the item type, and it's not over night, but a full 24 hours.
However that only matters if you fail. If you can roll an one and succeed then no fear!
Ooo, I suppose.
Not at all -- there is very good reason to do it your way: If you take racial heritage(Kitsune), you can't take racial heritage(Gillman). racial heritage(Gillman) gives access to the eldritch raider archetype which allows you to choose a second and third level spell with the eldritch minor and major magic talents, which can be recharged with the UMD Kitsune star gems too.
So it's a question of how you want the rest of your magical talents: Spending feats on predestined magical tails, or only having two (but of your choice) and recharging those with UMD (provided it gets past your GM's smell test).
With the extra uses from using the elvish racial ability and the bookish rogue you could conceivably get a lot of different uses from your minor and major magic talents.
But most classes that grant familiars say that you count as a wizard of your level for the purposes of your familiar - I would say that qualifies you for improved familiar in most cases.
Counting as a wizard allows you the normal advancements for a familiar. That does not grant you an arcane caster level and therefore you do not meet the requirements for most (not all) improved familiars if you are not already an arcane caster.
Adelwulf Meneldur wrote:
Almost always, you have a better chance of getting off a full attack, can deal plenty of damage with more attacks, only deal with DR once and with the proper feat choices can even make attacks of opportunity.
It automatically includes ways to hit all the targets meleers usually have trouble with and has fewer weaknesses of its own.
However it is more feat intensive (even a fighter could spend all his feats on archery if he so chose), and isn't melee so some people don't like that.
To be clear normally investigators don't get spells. This archetype does gain a limited number. That's why I put the language in about how they prepare these spells and what stat is used to prepare them. They are spells, not extracts -- however it is in the place of an extract when done.
I should put in more fluff about the goetic system though and probably clean up parts of it too.
Big Blue 22 wrote:
Wizard Level 4 - Minor Creation (why not just buy it or find it)
Because sometimes I need 10 cubic feet of crop dust to blow a tower apart with, and I need it to appear now.
Dust explosions are nasty.
My biggest problem with the spell is it either lasts too long, or doesn't quite last long enough. Dropped a level and 10 minutes per level would be about perfect.
All the bonuses that you listed apply to every attack with a weapon he makes with each of his weapons.
Most buffs are applied to the character not the weapon.
The key to these abilities is they offer different bonus types. Most (not all) bonuses of the same type do not stack.
A bard is one of (if not the) best buffers available because their buffing action economy and diversity are so great. In one round they can buff their entire team with an extra attack increased movement, increased initiative, and substantial bonuses to hit, damage, skills, saves and ability checks.
Second sentence first ability dragonchess. You bolded the wrong part. The general rule is the stack. Vivisectionist explicitly states however that you stack levels not dice. That is the much more specific and explicit case in this.
It even explicitly gives an exact example.
From you own quote:
If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack's extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on).
However what I think your argument isthe alchemist level would count as rogue level not brawler level. This is false it stacks with whichever class grants the sneak attack at that classes scale.
A sandman bard 5 vivisetionist 1 would only have 1d6 sneak attack. A snakebite 1 vivisectionist 1 only has 1 1d6 sneak attack Because the level stack and snakebite does not get his second die until level 6. A brawler 5 vivisectionist 1 would have 2d6 sneak attack.
Fake mage using the feats that expand on the minor and major magic talents and a house rule allowing further expansion for the gillman archetype's talents as well.
Your basic huckster.
It doesn't prevent the forewarned from acting -- it just means he doesn't know why he's reacting.
Basically his spidey sense tingles but he doesn't know who/what causes it. So he could cast a defensive spell (mirror image) for example.
Please note that this is after initiative is rolled, so combat is joined already. It's just a matter if the wizard knows what his target is.
Tcho Tcho wrote:
Yeah it is high investment but you miss the fact you have a rogue that can now sneak attack with touch attacks by moving 10 feet, so vital strike isn't as bad in this case. Get 2d4 weapons and deal 4~6d4+5d6 damage a go. You are a party of rogues your damage will be comparable. Also extra bombs will help. Be the high intelligence rogue take amatuer investigator and the studied combat feats that go with it. Consider the minor and major magic talents and such.
Tcho Tcho wrote:
The rogue's base damage is different from the alchemist's bomb. Instead of being 1d6 and then increased the bombs damage is assigned as equal to the rogue's sneak attack damage.
Since we have an FAQ about using the alchemist bombs with vital strike allowing them I don't see why you couldn't use the rogue's bombs with vital strike.
I have two threads about it up in the rules forum if you care to look for them.
I have a guide called optimizing your GM. That and the GMG might be good reads for the both of you.
What I see lacking is trust and respect for you as a GM and an equal. Every GM should be able to field objections from their players on the spot. However every player needs to understand objecting doesn't mean it will go their way.
I love how people presume to know that an increase in a progressive part of a class ability you already get includes a different part of the same class ability that isn't linked to the prior section.
With nothing to cite to prove it other than, "You are wrong this is how it works."
Which again points to poor editing and a need to reword either each of the archetypes or the base class.
Panicked is a specific condition in pathfinder. You do not apply specific conditions without something stating you do.
The rules in the ride section state you can take no other action on an untrained mount if you fail the check. The rules do not say what the animal is doing during this time period.
The animal is not panicked (a specific condition).
The rules for panicked:
Panicked: Characters who are panicked are shaken, and they run away from the source of their fear as quickly as they can, dropping whatever they are holding. Other than running away from the source, their paths are random. They flee from all other dangers that confront them rather than facing those dangers. Once they are out of sight (or hearing) of any source of danger, they can act as they want. Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing.
And for shakened:
Shaken: Characters who are shaken take a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.
Neither of these apply to the animal in question.
Yeah I agree you don't have the feature until you have the feature, but all in all I stand by my position that if the abilities had been edited better or the archetypes were better written we wouldn't have these questions at all.
As it stands we have a psuedo-class ability that isn't and references advancements in such a way as to not tell you what those advancements are and what parts are lost.
This is a problem that could/should be fixed with just some editing.
I think wood shape and warp wood should be a bit better than listed. Out of combat I have gotten more use out of those spells than I probably should.
I also don't get the hate for the curse spells.
Also you are missing three archetypes for familiars. Valet particularly is probably green. It's not as awesome as mauler but it is definitely still a very nice one to have.