Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sleepless Detective

Abraham spalding's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 11,391 posts (16,234 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 14 aliases.


1 to 50 of 11,391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CBDunkerson wrote:
Even sorcerers have to spend 15 minutes (after 8 hours of rest) to regain their spells. That's a form of 'preparation'... but obviously not the kind the DD requirements are referring to.

That's not even close to the same thing.

rules wrote:

Sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells, but they do not use spellbooks or prepare spells. Their class level limits the number of spells she can cast (see these class descriptions). Her high Charisma score might allow her to cast a few extra spells. A member of either class must have a Charisma score of at least 10 + the spell's level to cast the spell.

Daily Readying of Spells

Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), after which she spends 15 minutes concentrating. (A bard must sing, recite, or play an instrument of some kind while concentrating.) During this period, the sorcerer or bard readies her mind to cast her daily allotment of spells. Without such a period to refresh herself, the character does not regain the spell slots she used up the day before.

Regaining spell slots is not the same thing as preparing spells.

CBDunkerson wrote:
The question then becomes whether an Arcanist's ability to choose a set of spells which they can spontaneously cast is closer to the Sorcerer model or the Wizard model. As they need to select the spells and use a spellbook I'd put it closer to Wizards and thus say they don't qualify for DD.

No the question is do they prepare spells. How they cast spells has no bearing on the prerequisites for the class. If the wizard could cast spells without preparing them then the wizard would qualify even if he still had "locked" spell slots.

However at the end of the day we both agree they do not qualify.

CBDunkerson wrote:
That said, tt might be reasonable to allow an Arcanist with the Blood Arcanist archetype and the Draconic bloodline to qualify for Dragon Disciple. Their spellcasting occupies a unique 'semi spontaneous' category which blends aspects of the two more common types together. So adding in the draconic bloodline might be a reasonable excuse to 'bridge the gap'.

Again spontaneousness has nothing to do with it, only the lack of need to prepare spells, but for homebrew rules I fully agree that could be a fine compromise.

DoomOtter wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Sounds reasonable. I haven't been to any part of New England myself, and campsites here in Ohio usually have concrete buildings with pit toilets instead.
We call those outhouses where I come from. I don't think I've ever seen a stereotypical one that was still in use.

Fort Sill still uses them out on ranges. I've been told several other Army bases still do but haven't been stationed at those bases.

Jack of Dust wrote:

I just want to hands of fate was a great game.

range and creature touched? might want to explain the interaction on that better.

Is it creatured touch then while range tells a lie or something else?

RE UP you're crazy!
RE UP you're outta ya mind!

QuidEst wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
was not asking about the tumor familiar directly, just any familiar.
Whoops, missed that. Still no, since it's not a familiar or a regular homunculus. Having a mini-homunculus version would be kind of fun, though.

I was thinking the save increases, late level intelligence boosts natural boosts would help and hp would likely not drop much. with the skill boost would make a great pet.

zainale wrote:
are you just trying to get a mutagen?

my interest lays more in the interaction of the rules and curiousity on oulayers.

Had an idea for an android promethean alchemist that sent his homunculus out for him. I then looked through the archetypes to see what could stack and the idea of the homunculus having experimental mutagens came up.

was not asking about the tumor familiar directly, just any familiar.

QuidEst wrote:
The archetypes don't stack, because Oenopion Researcher references your normal mutagen, which you don't have. Essentially, Oenopion Researcher is missing the note that it alters mutagen.

That would be great but it does not in fact alter mutagen. It is a completely separate ability that replaces poison use, and I am not aware of any faq or even developer opinion existing that suggests what you say.

Could a promethean alchemist that has an improved familar feat and appropriate caster level take his homunculus companion as his familiar?

My personal thoughts:

1. Yes
2. As long as they do not have a specific prerequisite of mutagen.
3. Meh, no as you don't have mutagen, just the "experimental" mutagen.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So the promethean alchemist cannot taken mutagen... However the oenopion gives an ability like mutagen, but technically not mutagen.

Nothing else conflicts between them.

So would the alchemists with both archetypes be able...

1. to craft his experimental mutagens?

2. take other mutagen based discoveries?


3. since experimental mutagen gives the option to create normal mutagens can he now create those as well?

I like two ninja levels for the ki pool extra attack and piddly sneak attack (mostly to open up a few talents) but otherwise I wouldn't dip out of archeologist.

Azih wrote:

For firearms:

Emerging Firearms are crossbows. Except

* They get to hit touch AC on the first range increment
* x4 crit!

That's great but:

* Generally lower range
* They're incredibly expensive
* Their ammo is incredibly expensive
* On fumbles (misfire) they become unusable, and their misfire range can get very high very easily
* Same number of range increments as thrown weapons (5 instead of 10 for regular projectile weapons)

Just a slight fix. Great points.

Part of the problem in my view as a programmer is that we have a bunch of tags and objects that are not actually defined.

We don't have anything that defines "living" for creatures for example.

We have 4 forms of creatures:


The issues is Undead is also a type, as is construct and no where are the these distinguished from living or dead.

IF these were defined then many things (including interaction with positive and negative energy) would clear up. Barring that simply clearing up what is positive and negative energy would be a great thing too. Are they energy types? Are they damage types? Are they something else?

Honestly at the end of the day I think from a 'development' prospective and a 'rules' perspective what would help clean up pathfinder the most is going through grabbing all the loose terms and pinning definitions on them. After this going through interactions between these definitions should clean up most conflicts.

Very herculean task that would be though.

Goth Brakashii wrote:
Hmmm.. I cant see d20 at work so i was using l among other paizo references.. is there a discrepancy?

The problem is you are looking at the book specific spell list instead of the class specific spell list.

Also why the witch looks like it has next to no spells on its list.

Use the link I gave you and you'll see the witch's spell list (including all spells as of that book coming out).

The Guy With A Face wrote:


They are witch spells. Right at the top after Level. Its the last class listed there.

theevilmonk wrote:


They are both on the list

Maybe look at the witch spell list?

It's at the bottom of the link.

Prophet of Kalistrade holds that if you follow their tenets you will become wealthy, and are considered big merchants in setting.

Dotting for later review.

Do you want magic and are you want worship related mechanics, or just a commerce focused character?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you care to actually look at the math and theory which has been presented plenty of times on this site (and others) you can easily see that fighters out damage gunslingers without breaking a sweat.

For a level 16 fighter (barbarian, paladin, ranger) taking out a pit fiend or balor in a single (maybe two) round(s) isn't out of line.

If you want to argue that, then go to those threads.

If you want to argue the math of firearms in pathfinder present some evidence for your claims. Otherwise I'm going to stick with what has already been hashed out multiple times.

Honestly it's like dealing with someone that just found out about bitcoin and how it's going to revolutionize finance or claims sha1 is encryption... I just don't have the energy to deal with them anymore.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pyro165 wrote:
Well, that's a thing, but even a normal revolver can do many damage. Maybe they'll lose a round but at high level even 1 round can be enough to kill many big monster. I don't know if this really balance all the good things

Most high level fighter builds that are consider "fairly to mostly" optimized can drop a CR equivalent or higher monster in one round, so that's not much of an argument against this weapon.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

hookers and blow

previous discussion

for those to lazy to follow links:

Me wrote:

You are correct that with a standard pistol the misfire with an alchemical cartridge is only going to be a 2. However that's 10%

So what you do is you take 10% on the first attack. This means 90% of the time you will get a second attack 10% of that 90% is 9 so 19% of the time you will have a misfire by your second attack. this leaves 81% of the time you will get a third attack, 10% of that is 8.1 so 27.1% of the time you will have a misfire by the end of your third attack, this leaves 72.9% of the time you will get your fourth attack, 10% off that again means 7.29 putting us up to a misfire by your fourth attack chance of 34.39%.

You remember critical fumbles? Always happen on a 1? The probabilities for this are the same, but doubled (since it starts at 2).

Now remember a misfire means you missed the attack.
So we have:
10% chance misfire first shot. No attacks land
19% chance of a misfire by the second shot. 1 attack lands at most
27.1% chance of a misfire by the third shot. 2 attacks land at most
34.39% chance of a misfire by fourth shot. 3 attacks land at most
40.951% chance of a misfire by the fifth shot. 4 attacks land at most

IF you have a misfire on the first shot you can quick clear for 1 grit to have a full attack action on the next round (since you can change to a standard action attack and then spend grit to take a move action clear).

A misfire on any other shot means you cannot full attack on the following round -- you need either a standard action to quick clear or to spend grit and take a move action. Either way you have an upwards limit of 1 shot on that round with a 10% misfire rate.

This only takes into account a normal pistol and simple paper cartridges, if they have a double pistol those numbers increase by 50% each. Same with a pepperbox (which is a nice choice for early gunslingers since it gives you time between reloads and can delay the use of rapid reload early on).

I have been doing a run through where I have avoided all power armor locations until after level 30 with the idea to get as many full sets of the X01 possible.

This is a rather tricky archetype and any time you grab a class' primary class feature it needs a hard look I agree.

I see this archetype switching between two modes: melee and spell casting. Leading with spell casting and building some burn on the initial blasts then as then enemy closes switching to hammering them with weapons.

I purposefully left the pool and spell recall in to help shore up spell usage and to give a means of burn mitigation.

If you are worried about taking a hit you can spend pool points to clean off burn (side note, I need to clean this part up, it should be a free action once per round on your turn and you can clean multiple burn points at a time).

Of course then you are down the pool points instead, but it is an option.

On the burn mechanics:

As you burn you will adjust up your con (with euphoria) so there is a slight offset there. Burn helps long term spell casting by upping your DC (side note two, need to extend to hit and damage bonus to spells).

I fully agree I should have made the Int based class features charisma based. That was an oversight on my behalf.

Over all this class is about the back and forth balance of using burn and its bonuses and pool points and its bonuses and your hp.

Statwise I could see two primary "builds"

Con = str > cha primary... Build some burn to get bonuses and focus on melee afterwards.

Cha=con primary... The focus of the archetype, cast hard and balance out if/when damage happens.

DarkestHeart wrote:
Any way of finding the Cyberpunk rules online by any chance?

Datafortress 2020 had a large portion available, but I haven't been there in years.

I have almost all the source books and don't mind sharing information (but I will not be making pdfs or copying books for people).

Dasrak wrote:
Keep in mind you can always buy back Mutagen as a discovery, so this is only a major tradeoff for 1st level characters or builds who are really starved for Discoveries/Feats. That said, it's a pretty bad archetype in general and mostly outclassed by the Homunculist which offers similar benefits at a lower cost. The Promethean Disciple discovery is kinda neat for low-level NPC's, but for PC's anyone who wants it can pick it up at the 6th level and you probably won't want to blow your wealth on constructs before then anyways.

This archetype says it can't take mutagen at all.

Having a homunculus preparing means you can prepare twice as fast if prep time is an issue. If you have infusion both you and your homunculus can pass the out at the same time too.

I could see an instance for a character that sends out the homunculus with his companions while crafting or researching not too far away.


HeHateMe wrote:
I wasn't under the impression that the cleric just prays and has a whole bunch of random spells granted to him. Rather I was under the impression that the cleric prayed specifically for the spells he chooses. It would be kinda a d--k move for the god he's serving so faithfully to go "Nah, you're getting these other spells instead!"

When I've done this it has been a small selection of the cleric's spells per day. I think the most I ever did was 3.

Also I talk to the player before hand and as I said before the spells generally come with boons.

Boons I have used:
Deity chosen spell cannot be interrupted or countered
Deity chosen spell cast at 4 caster levels higher
Deity chosen spell can be cast twice before it is expended
Deity chosen spell affects two alignments (holy/axomatic word as a single spell basically)
Deity chosen spell is quickened (or other metamagic is applied)

So while the player may be miffed that a few spells were chosen for him, he also knows he's getting something substantial for it as well.

Weekend bump

No problem

Orthos wrote:
Scythia wrote:
The Redwall series (by Brian Jacques) would make for some wonderful animated features.
Oh heck yes.

Redwall is already on netflix. My kids loved it and it was true to the book. Two seasons on just the one book.

I've done it sparingly but I usually give a slight boon with the spell(s) I choose for the player.

5) covered in the mounted combat section.
6) no but it's a good idea
7) depends on build but usually not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

AAs others have mentioned a wizard necromancer is much better at debuffs, damage, and save or die/suck spells, and with better range/mass targeting.

Witch tends to make a better all around necromancer for the reasons others have cited.

Divines tend to do armies of undead better than wizards and about as well as a witch, but typically give up less versatility for this specialization than the witch does (not that the witch gives up too much).

Nope, only when an attack roll happens unless the spell has some unusual wording.

Acid arrow for example specifically states it does 2d4 damage a round after the attack (for every 3 caster levels).

If instead it said something like "this spell repeats the same damage as done on the initial attack" or something then there might be a case for repeating sneak attack damage, but I don't think many people would buy that either.

Well the idea is the countering is a strong and staple component for this guy.

He literally steals the magic then later own uses it for his own. While he can store friendly magic the intent is to make countering a good option for him.

And since he is likely looking at an at best 50/50 I don't mind at will. Otherwise players won't use it since it's limited and most their enemies are already higher level than them.

Just a bump for any comments.

VMC wizard?

Ciaran Barnes - I think you have identifying a spell and countering a spell confused.

The DC to identify a spell does become laughable (DC 15+ spell level), however this gives the kleptothage no advantage in countering a spell.

Countering a spell (in the manner the kleptothage does it) requires a caster level check with a DC of 11 + the spell's caster level.

I have done nothing to alter these mechanics.
(links for reference Counterspelling and Dispel Magic

As to unlimited use of counter spelling:

In practice the best a kleptothage can hope for will be facing a caster of equal level. If that's the case then his caster level will equal the caster level of the opposing caster meaning he needs an 11 on the dice to counter (a literal 50/50 chance).

If the caster he is facing is higher level than the kleptothage his chances of succeeding drops by 5% per level difference.

Honestly countering spells is a losing proposition in general, and it's still not ideal for this guy, he spends his action and takes a gamble that he can keep his team even. If he doesn't succeed he's contributed nothing this round of combat; no damage, no spells defeated, no buffing, nothing. If he succeeds he stops one spell this round, significantly less than if say a wizard had used a save or suck spell, or a fighter had just killed the caster in question through hp damage.

As to the item suggestion:

Since spell completion is the same as casting the spell the kleptothage can already store spells cast from scrolls.

There is an ongoing thread about countering spell trigger items so adding some explicit permissions for those would be a good idea while it's getting resolved.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Battle Poi. You get quasi two weapon fighting for free and battle poi are light exotic weapons that deal fire damage (1d3 for small creatures).

Also you get to be a goblin that does this.

So rather than continue waiting I went ahead and built my Sith Lord replacement

As always comments, concerns and cookies are appreciated. Also I am horrible coming up with names.

He's mad, but all the best people are.

The idea here is sacrificing for more power. Euphoria is the part that ties in emotions and feelings.

I purposefully did not include gather power as I felt that pulled away from the central theme of giving of yourself for more power now. As a work around to keep the expenditure of burn from killing the class I did offer the option of spending arcane pool points to lower burn. You have to keep the constant balance, go too far in either direction and it's going to hurt.

Interestingly enough there's an entire school of fencing where your "parry" is simply repositioning the rapier so your opponent will stab themselves before they can stab you. Most of the maneuvering is done in the wrist for this style. I will try and remember the name of it and post it up here later.

Sissyl wrote:
It is what made me throw the book away in disgust and never open it again. And really, it is not actually the rape itself, but the way he whines about how unfair everything is, and how justified it is for him to do it. Bleah.

Absolutely understandable. The second book really drives home for him just how terrible of a person he is due to that one act. The third book is mostly him trying to find a reason to live with himself after the absolute havoc his actions have wrought on the world and trying to find a way to fix it.

I do not defend this man; this one action literally almost ruined the world (and in many ways did anyways). I mostly find myself recommending this series for males (especially MRA types), the message in my opinion is really about the absolute horror the act of rape is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what I liked about each game:

1. It is.
2. The usage based skill level up system
3. The only one I haven't actually played
4. The story, and specific characters. Granted the growth wasn't deep but it was there and it was expanded on in a good way in TAY. Summons are the bomb (and the chocobo, and the goblin, and the mind flayer, and the cockatrice, and Titan, Ifrit, Shiva...)
5. Class change system.
6. Magicite and the range of characters involved. The length was nice too (also, it was almost too long and good god jumping from character to character to character just as I was really getting comfortable with who I had)
7. The size of the world, and the Materia system. The fact weapons in the characters' hands changed as you changed weapons, and had an impact on what you could use ability wise.
8. The draw system and usage of GF and spells to augment stats. I really liked the Ragnarok spaceship and enjoyed the ideas presented in the plot even if the plot itself always deflected to goofy.
9. The art style was new classic. The characters were enjoyable, and while earning skills could be a pain I thought the item upgrading was a nice change of pace for the FF series.
10. The battle system and artwork. I appreciated the amount of work that went into the world building and story even if parts of it were annoying (EVERYONE IS UNDEAD EXCEPT YOU YUNA! AND NO ONE EVER NOTICED!)
11. Didn't play
12. Ivalice and the storyline. The battle system was innovative but not in a good way this time. Character development (i.e. leveling) was a neutral for me.
13. I got nothing.
T0. The characters and the philosophical discussions involved and range of the story. However there are definitely depth issues here, and the learning curve (as well as what to expect) was steep.

15. The brand new source of slashfic. I kid, but you know there's going to be plenty

Kelp is healthy! But thanks for pointing that out got it fixed.

Werthead wrote:
I think THOMAS COVENANT really is unfilmable. You can't not have him carry out the sexual assault he does in the books as that torpedoes the entire story (which is all about his redemption from that act), but it will also revolt and turn off viewers in droves (the same way it puts off enormous numbers of readers).

That is the major point I am worried about too. As you said it is central to the second book especially. However with all the other things that have gotten through with GOT and other HBO series I think it could make it.

Though I would expect outcry about it, and honestly would be a bit disappointed if people just took it as "just another thing".

1 to 50 of 11,391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.