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

Andrew Christian's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul. 2,029 posts (6,081 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,029 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:

Could you elaborate on what part of the rules this contradicts? As far as I can tell, this post is only valuable for answering the question "is a robot an object" for the purposes of halving energy damage.

I'm well aware that James is not a rules guy, but at the very least it's relatively clear per the text quoted directly from the rule book that energy damage is halved on objects, not for things with hardness.

The reason animated objects have hardness, is because they are objects.

Its a crossover creature, that is both an object and a creature.

That's why they have hardness. It is also why the rules on hardness specifies objects, because except for two very rare exceptions (foo creatures and clockwork creatures) that didn't exist in the original bestiary when the rules for hardness were written, the only creature that has hardness is the animated object.

So the common rule is that hardness applies like hardness is supposed to apply, regardless of where you find that hardness.

To indicate that hardness suddenly works differently because the creature is suddenly not an "object" doesn't make any sense.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:

Look what I found!

James Jacobs wrote:

As it turns out, robots are not objects—they're creatures. And as such, energy damage is not halved when applied to them. That bit about halving energy damage is a quality of an object, not a quality of Hardness. (And in my opinion... it's a kind of silly rule anyway—the idea that fire deals half-damage to paper is ridiculous.)

A plasma weapon used against a robot subtracts 10 points from the total damage done for its hardness 10. For sake of ease, it's best to say it subtracts 5 from the fire and 5 from the electricity, with any leftover (in a case where something does less than 5 fire or 5 electricity) applying to the other damage type.

And in fact, anything that deals electricity damage (including plasma) is a pretty solid choice against robots, due to their electricity weakness.

Based on this, it sounds like you still subtract the hardness from the electricity damage even though it is vulnerable. But that's ok, because it does 150% damage, right?

EDIT: Summary: Robots are creatures, not objects. You do not half the energy damage, but you still subtract the hardness from the energy damage as normal.

James Jacobs is not a rules guy, and this does not follow common understanding of the rules.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

If a construct has hardness, use the hardness rules. If it does not, don't.

As far as I'm aware, until Robots, there wasn't a construct that had hardness that was not an animated object. Thus the confusion. It became easy to differentiate how constructs dealt with energy damage based simply on whether it was animated or not.

But that is immaterial to the rules.

If a creature has hardness, regardless of type, you apply the hardness rules.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Bypassing or disabling a trap through mechanical means is not a creative solution. Its the solution expected.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congrats Lucas!

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

You must not have looked hard enough, cause we rolled Bonekeep 3 with 5.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

David Bowles wrote:

I will defend my NG necromancer's right to animate a giant beetle pretty vehemently. It's a BEETLE.

One thing you have to ask yourself is this though:

The standard pathfinder rules indicate that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. This was confirmed by Sean K Reynolds and James Jacobs.

Pathfinder Society has created a home rule around this to allow for certain spells to be cast like infernal healing and to remove the argument about such that was so prevalent prior to that ruling.

Are you willing to use the PFS home rule in your favor to cast an evil spell and then still adamantly defend your right to say your character is Good?

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As always, I try to discern the intent of the character. If I can't easily discern intent on my own, I'll ask the player a leading question like:

"So let me get this straight, your lawful good paladin is going to murder this non-evil dude in the middle of the streets of Westcrown because he tried to pick-pocket you?"

It allows the player to redefine what he's doing, or define his intent to a point I feel comfortable with it. (yeah, these things are subjective to each individual GM, table variation so to speak).

But ultimately, the intent of the action weighs more heavily on my interpretation of "evil" than does the actual action itself.

If you want to execute a murderer in some form of frontier justice, I do not consider that evil. It may be stretching lawfulness a tad sometimes, but in a lawless area, then I'd consider a Paladin the law. They are supposed to be beyond reproach, so if the player can convince me that they have judged the individual appropriately, and as long as I feel the sentence they want to hand down is just, then I'm fine with execution.

As a general rule, cannibalism is evil. But if you are playing a Shoanti who has a different idea of spiritualism than the average person (i.e. the consuming of a dangerous foes organs allows you to subsume their power--a means of respect toward the foe, that you allow their power to continue to live on through you) then obviously exceptions can be made.

As a general rule, slavery is not evil. I don't care what our modern day sensibilities and political correctness tell us. Slavery is not evil. There can be slavers who abuse the power of being a slave owner, and as such their individual institution of slavery is evil. But as a general principle, slavery is not evil.

Defiling a dead body is evil. The problem becomes, what is considered defiling? Certainly perspective can define this differently. I personally try to look at the intent. In Quest for Perfection, Part III: Defenders of Nesting Swallow, you could argue that chopping off he dead bandit heads and posting them on spikes to warn further bandits from harassing the town, is not defiling the dead bodies. While, performing vile acts with a dead body for pure depraved enjoyment would be. A family might consider anything you did to a depraved murderer's body other than giving them a respectful burial as defilement. We see examples of this in our modern times fairly often, where some religious group or other believes that an autopsy is defilement. Ultimately, the intent of the individual that is doing whatever to the dead body is ultimately an important factor in determining if the action would be considered defilement or not.

There is no black and white in my mind. Its full of shades of gray. And a GM needs to really look at the intent behind the action, and not just simply at the action itself.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder Society is not in the habit of rewriting things from published sources. In fact, unless it specifically needs to be changed because of organized play (i.e. Extra Bombs vs. Brew Potion or Spell Focus vs. Scribe Scroll), PFS doesn't change anything.

So the fix would have to come from the developer of the Dragonslayer's Handbook.

We know that it is very unlikely that a companion or campaign book will get any errata or even an FAQ entry. Paizo tends to only do either of those things for their Core line of books.

So for PFS, the two options really are, "deal with whatever interpretation your GM wants to use," or Ban it.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I do not recall this being a hard rule. It is certainly accepted, and logic dictates, that it should rarely occur, but it is a legal, and occasionally, valid tactic.

Hm, I had always thought that Mike Brock specifically said to not do it unless it was listed in tactics. I could totally be wrong.

The best I could find along those lines was this.

Mike Brock wrote:
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change.
I mean, seems to suggest to me that CDG should not be used unless called upon, but this isn't exactly the best post for that ruling.

Look further in the same thread. Mike clarifies. It doesn't have to be called out in tactics, but Mike expects GMs to use good and fair judgment when doing so.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Awesome. We will just play the new 5-9 at level 5-6 then so her Druid doesn't level out. Just means I will still be an 8 Slayer.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

My wife has a Druid 9.2 she could bring.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congratsto you!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would not allow it. Reloading a repeating crossbow is an entirely different type of action as reloading a crossbow.

Reloading when the box of 5 bolts has bolts in it, is a free action. Reloading the box of new bolts is a full-round action.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Also don't forget to actually write on the GM chronicle sheet "This character will be a Tiefling when I play it" to get him under the grandfathering.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Paizo is not currently updating Season 0. They will not accept unsolicited modifications either.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Fromper wrote:

What about Bonekeep? It's technically season 4, but I believe it has no 4 player adjustment. Would 5 players averaging level 5 be required to play subtier 6-7 instead of 3-4? What if none of them are level 6 or 7?

And no, this isn't a hypothetical question. Scheduled to play it in 12 hours, and this may happen. I think those of us with multiple characters in range will probably intentionally decide which PCs to bring to make sure we have no more than 22 total character levels (4.4 average).

Yes they would. But its Bonekeep. It is supposed to be deadly.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

primary natural attacks only get 1.5 strength if you only have one natural attack.

So for those who have bite/claw/claw as 3 primary natural attacks, your strength bonus is only x1.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
FLite wrote:

1) You are required to move (and to be seen moving? does it work on blind people?)

2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (since there is no numerical bonus, this requires further elaboration:)
--2a.) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
--2b.) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check
3) You get a +4 circumstance bonus to disguise
--3a.) List of examples, as you say, presumably not exhaustive.

Being subclauses, both 2a and 2b are circumstantial on 2. You can't use the +4 from 2a to convince the king the butler killed the chef, likewise you can't use the bluff check to know random facts about random goblins.

Hm, that's an interesting one. It seems (somewhat) plausible when viewed in a vacuum; to check it, though, in what circumstances *does* 2b apply in a way that (A) isn't already part of what the Bluff skill does and (B) is something a reasonable person might try to communicate by writing the text of 2b?

If you've got good answers there, you might be onto something.

My thought on this would be:

Bard: "You see that group of stars there? That's known as Platypus!"

Normally, if talking to a commoner, it would probably be a standard Bluff, but to an Astrologer, it would probably be an impossible lie, so a -20 Bluff.

Astrologer: "You are full of crap, its obvious you know nothing of the stars, because two of them are Aroden's Staff and the other three are part of Callistria's Girdle!"

Bard then starts Pageant of the Peacock and rolls a Knowledge (geography) check using his Bluff at +4. Depending on what he rolls, at the GM's discretion, he might move the lie from impossible to plausible or somewhere inbetween.

Bard: "Ah, to the average person, you are correct, but down in Sargava, the Platypii are very dangerous, nigh unto Gods to the savages. Indeed they believe they come from the stars--those 5 stars to be exact."

Poppycock... but he made his Knowledge (geography) to obviate the penalties for lying.

Without Pageant of the Peacock, I would probably not allow an obvious Lie bluff check to convince an expert you know more than he does.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Well based on what Mark Seifter has said, the best thing I can do is lobby to get it banned in PFS.
Then I believe you should do that, instead of insisting that it somehow lets you make bluff checks that would otherwise be impossible, despite containing no language to that effect.

I won't repeat it, cause its all through this thread.

But there certainly is language that says it lets you make bluff checks that would otherwise be impossible.

Not in those exact words. But it does essentially say that.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.

I don't think it's reasonable to take a very clearly written ability and change it because you don't like the power level. Is it too strong? Probably! But so are a lot of other things that I'm not allowed to change because PFS isn't my home game.
I don't believe, based on all the conversation here, that its as clearly written as you think it is.
What I'm seeing is a bunch of people who are doing their best to mangle the wording into something they feel is an appropriate power level, rather than saying it's too strong and working to get it changed from there.

Well based on what Mark Seifter has said, the best thing I can do is lobby to get it banned in PFS.

I mean seriously. If people want everything always run exactly RAW (or rather their interpretation thereof) and clarification or needed change doesn't or can't happen... then the only recourse (rather than let your GM come up with some reasonable interpretation) is to remove it from play.

Because as you are interpreting it, this ability is WAY outside the scope of what a single feat or 2nd level spell should be able to do.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.

I don't think it's reasonable to take a very clearly written ability and change it because you don't like the power level. Is it too strong? Probably! But so are a lot of other things that I'm not allowed to change because PFS isn't my home game.

I don't believe, based on all the conversation here, that its as clearly written as you think it is.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Acedio wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.

That's basically meta gaming. Do you apply a blanket -20 penalty?

If it boils down to using Bluff to make knowledge checks to discern what a monster does, then yeah, its a -20, and then you get the +4 for Pageant.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Teatime42 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except that there's no bonus to the bluff check. You can already try a bluff check to pull that off.
But now you're getting +4 instead of -20 or worse.
Except that, mechanically, PtoP doesn't negate any penalties to using the bluff skill at all.

That's where being a reasonable GM and knowing the rules comes into play.

If I'm going to try to convince an astrology expert that some grouping of stars is the constellation Platypus, and he knows that grouping I'm pointing at is actually parts of two other constellations... that's going to be a nearly impossible bluff. That's a -20 to your bluff check.

But if I use Pageant of the Peacock and make a Knowledge (geography) check with my Bluff skill, I can convince him that I actually might know more about that grouping of stars than he does.

Bard: "So my friend, see those 5 stars right there? They are known as Platypus..."

Astrologer: "You friend are full of it. I happen to know two of those stars are actually Aroden's Staff and the other three are part of Calistria's Girdle."

Bard: "That may be so, and you would be correct, if you were not from the small nation of Sargava. In Sargava you see, they have this fearsome beast that is nigh unto a god to them, and they say he comes from the stars. Those 5 stars to be exact."

Pure poppycock... but the Bard was able to mitigate the -20 by making a Knowledge (geography) check with his Bluff skill, and got a +4 instead.

Sometimes mechanics can't all be laid out for you in a nice little package. Sometimes one has to extrapolate things.

Otherwise you get ridiculous things like being able to make 15 different checks for 1 rank with the equivalent of a feat or 2nd level spell. Something that is far more powerful than any single feat in the game, or any single 2nd level spell.

I'm not seeing that as anything but a chain of Bluff skills that you could do without PotP.

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

In a home game you can modify the Aasimar however you and your GM agree to.

But in PFS, you cannot go outside of the exact stats and mechanics that are listed for the Aasimar.

You cannot make them small. You cannot make them half any other race.

They are essentially half-human but they don't get the human subtype unless you take the Scion of Humanity racial trait.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Teatime42 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except that there's no bonus to the bluff check. You can already try a bluff check to pull that off.
But now you're getting +4 instead of -20 or worse.
Except that, mechanically, PtoP doesn't negate any penalties to using the bluff skill at all.

That's where being a reasonable GM and knowing the rules comes into play.

If I'm going to try to convince an astrology expert that some grouping of stars is the constellation Platypus, and he knows that grouping I'm pointing at is actually parts of two other constellations... that's going to be a nearly impossible bluff. That's a -20 to your bluff check.

But if I use Pageant of the Peacock and make a Knowledge (geography) check with my Bluff skill, I can convince him that I actually might know more about that grouping of stars than he does.

Bard: "So my friend, see those 5 stars right there? They are known as Platypus..."

Astrologer: "You friend are full of it. I happen to know two of those stars are actually Aroden's Staff and the other three are part of Calistria's Girdle."

Bard: "That may be so, and you would be correct, if you were not from the small nation of Sargava. In Sargava you see, they have this fearsome beast that is nigh unto a god to them, and they say he comes from the stars. Those 5 stars to be exact."

Pure poppycock... but the Bard was able to mitigate the -20 by making a Knowledge (geography) check with his Bluff skill, and got a +4 instead.

Sometimes mechanics can't all be laid out for you in a nice little package. Sometimes one has to extrapolate things.

Otherwise you get ridiculous things like being able to make 15 different checks for 1 rank with the equivalent of a feat or 2nd level spell. Something that is far more powerful than any single feat in the game, or any single 2nd level spell.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Bold Strider wrote:

All the pro-modified PotP people seem to be saying is "This lets you Bluff in social circumstances instead of using Knowledge(________) or any other Int-based skill."

The problem with this interpretation is that PotP doesn't do anything then. You can already do this with the Bluff skill. You can already tell people that you are some rich and famous guy from somewhere no one has heard of. You can convince them that your Knowledge is the correct Knowledge. That is what Bluff is. If you follow this interpretation, the masterpiece just gives a +4 to Bluff and Disguise.

This makes PotP vastly weaker than many other options you can take in its place and goes against a plain reading of the text, in my opinion. If the writer intended for it to be a simple +4 to Bluff and Disguise, then they would have just written that.

Sure it does. Bluff isn't just a roll vs a sense motive. There are modifiers, some quite heavy, based on how dubious your lie is.

Pageant of the Peacock let's you mitigate the dubiousness of the lie, by effectively making up info that's believable. So that instead of potentially getting a -10 or -20 on your bluff check, you get a +4 with either no or less of a penalty.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Quest for perfection 1 and 3. Just make sure the final fights of both aren't too much.

Cyphermage Dilemma can also have some very fun encounters and some hilarious wackiness at subtier 1-2.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Disk Elemental wrote:
LazarX wrote:


it dies even sooner when it becomes "give the player what he wants, because he can twist rules language creatively."

There's no twisting of the rules being done.

Peacock Pageantry wrote:


For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check.

RAW, the masterpiece allows you to make knowledge checks. Saying otherwise is "twisting" the rules.

Does it make a whole lot of logical sense? Not really.

But it's magic, it doesn't have to make logical sense; according to the description of masterpieces, they are supernatural effects unless otherwise stated.

As always, quoting a singular phrase in the larger context, a rule does not make.

Reading that phrase in the larger context certainly lends ambiguity to it, and as such, allowing it only to fake an Intelligence check, but not actually know something, certainly is a legitimate interpretation.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Rudy2 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Having read the ability carefully, I don't see it as invalidating people who make legitimate skill investment in knowledges. I see it as an art for effectively faking knowledges to bluff someone when you're passing off yourself to be someone you're not, as lack of knowledge is generally the Achilles Heel to many a would-be impersonator.

IF this is a valid interpretation of the ability, so that I can tell a player "No, you can't actually know true facts about monsters using this ability, you're just faking.", then that 100% resolves any issues I have with it. There's no more problem.

However, many people, including many in this thread, are very insistent that it does really truly provide real knowledge, and that if I say otherwise I'm going against the rules.

Obviously, because there are two very different interpretations of the rule, it is ambiguous enough to not be clear and cut on how it works.

Therefore, you would be completely in your rights to interpret it in one way or the other as you wish.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Holmes?

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

RobertN-MSP wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I'd cut the Witch.
Likely my fault... The Extra Hex feat should be banned.

You were my first.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

andreww wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
But dipping a level of crossblooded sorcerer (orc/dragon) so you do +2 damage per damage die with your Wizard spells

Finally, a way to actually get vaguely encounter relevant direct damage spells as opposed to the anaemic rubbish they are without it. Also you missed the Goblin Fire Drum for +3/dice. The move from 2e to 3e murdered direct damage as an effective form of magic as HP scale far faster than damage dice do.

Quote:
or dipping a level of Cleric of Gozreh so you can get the Growth subdomain so you can enlarge 7 rounds per day with your otherwise reasonable Dragon Disciple...
Or they could just cast Enlarge Person, its only level 1 and lasts 1minute/level. Dipping and losing yet another caster level seems like a terrible idea.

Uh, what?!

Not sure how you can argue with a straight face that magic is underpowered and the only way to make it worthwhile is to make a dubious single class level dip to amp it up.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


But dipping a level of crossblooded sorcerer (orc/dragon) so you do +2 damage per damage die with your Wizard spells or dipping a level of Cleric of Gozreh so you can get the Growth subdomain so you can enlarge 7 rounds per day with your otherwise reasonable Dragon Disciple...

... is perfectly fine.

Or maybe is badwrongfun if you are that type of bully.

I don't appreciate being misrepresented. I don't bully anyone.

But nobody can sit here and say that dipping particular classes just to specifically eke every last ounce of power out of the game rules isn't overpowered.

If that's how you have fun, so be it. You just happen to have fun with overpowered options.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

FLite wrote:
Because the druid doesn't have any limiting language on what ACs it can take. If something is an animal companion, the druid can take it. (Barring certain archetypes.)

A legal source granting access to something, is exactly that, a source that essentially adds to a list of what you have access to.

So the archetypes that expand cavalier mount options or ranger animal companion options are exactly that: another source granting legal access to something.

In this case, the Roc animal companion entry in the Bestiary is not expanding the ranger's list of options. It is merely saying that rangers and druids that take the roc...

In the case of a druid, it isn't the Bestiary that is granting the druid access, its the Core Rulebook that grants the druid access to the options in the Bestiary.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would allow a Worg with order of the paw.

I mean a Worg is just the magical beast version of a Wolf.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

When I ran this a week or so ago, the players summoned a large air elemental, it went up and sucked all the bad guys into a vortex, and then they climbed with communal spider climb.

It was quite anticlimactic.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Congrats!

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Starglim wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
What if you retrain a 1 level class into something else. The way I've read it, to me it doesn't imply that you actually lose the stuff you got from the previous class or gain what you would normally get from the second without also paying to retrain the feats/class features.
If you retrain a level, you remove the class features you got for that level and replace them with those granted by your new choice.

Note: when retraining class levels, you retrain backwards. In other words the first level of a class you can retrain is the last level you took. You can't cherry pick which level to retrain.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

And Lirianne has no special materials and barely any money to buy them. So is nearly completely ineffective vs DR.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

andreww wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
NPCs decidedly do not follow all the same rules as PFS PCs.

NPC's may use different rules to PC's at the point of creation and may have access to material which PC's do not have but once they hit the table they use the same rules for play as everyone else unless something in their stat block calls it out as being different.

Quote the Pathfinder rule that disallows this then.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Woo!

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Sammy T wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Otherwise a wizard could stand in the 5' square behind his 2 fighter friends and not have to make concentration checks to cast defensively against an Ogre.

That wizard has cover and does not provoke while casting if there is a wall of PCs between him and the Ogre.

** spoiler omitted **

Yes, now go read the soft cover rules and half high walls rules on the next page, either if which can be used to say a Large Ogre that's twice your size can consider you not cover if its closer to the cover than you. Or if the cover is half your height. And the fact that soft cover states you don't get other things cover grants.

So if its Ogre who's 10' or taller and two fighters who are roughly half height by the way the grid works, and the wizard... It could be argued that the fighters provide partial cover at best, and being the same distance away from partial cover essentially negates the cover.

Would you rather the +4 to your AC or have to cast defensively?

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Iron Giant wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Pirate Rob wrote:

Probably a slight misunderstanding of:

CRB wrote:
Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.

No. My understanding of the rule of soft cover, is that it only provides an AC bonus vs ranged attacks. That it otherwise does not act as cover and thus does not stop an AoO.

Otherwise a wizard could stand in the 5' square behind his 2 fighter friends and not have to make concentration checks to cast defensively against an Ogre.

Careful with the details though. A reach weapon counts as ranged for the purpose of cover.

My example would be moot if that wasn't assumed.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pirate Rob wrote:

Probably a slight misunderstanding of:

CRB wrote:
Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.

No. My understanding of the rule of soft cover, is that it only provides an AC bonus vs ranged attacks. That it otherwise does not act as cover and thus does not stop an AoO.

Otherwise a wizard could stand in the 5' square behind his 2 fighter friends and not have to make concentration checks to cast defensively against an Ogre.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Iron Giant wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
Iron Giant wrote:
If you want an almost guaranteed rules debate, try going into stealth using an ally for cover, then move straight to a non-flanking position for a flat-footed sneak attack.
Yeah, starting your turn off by doing something the rules explicitly call out as not working tends to cause people to point that out..

I suppose that was a bit ambiguous. The soft cover stealth part is the catch, but otherwise it's legal as far as I can tell. I use it as an example because 1) the stealth with soft cover catch is strangely buried under the main heading "cover and attacks of opportunity" in the pfsrd, while the CRB places it under "soft cover" rather than "cover and stealth checks". In other words, it can be hard to find even if you're looking for it. 2) the stealth rules have been changed in an errata, so even if someone did know them, they might not now. 3) said errata is ambiguous, so you have to actually dig up a post on here by Jason Bulmahn to verify that yes, you can sneak attack from stealth.

Soft cover does not disallow attacks of opportunity, nor can you use soft cover to stealth.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

It also says that GM's may apply credit like players.

Just because in that particular paragraph it doesn't specifically say it, doesn't mean you can't.

You gotta take the entire section in context with itself. Not read each paragraph as a separate entity.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Sniggevert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Unless I've misunderstood something, when you assign a higher-level pregen chronicle to a 1st-level PC, you can "scale it down" (reduce the gold to 500gp) and apply it immediately.
True for pre-gen...not an option for GM credit though.

In all cases, you can apply GM credit exactly as you can apply player credit.

The language in the guide is not 100% clear on this, but certainly you can take a higher level GM credit and downsize the gold and give it to a brand new 1st level character if you wanted.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Kyle Baird wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
I'd remove multiclassing.
This would solve almost all the problems of OP builds.

But it's for flavor I swear!

There's still crazy powerful builds with single classes (any summoner, twf gunslingers, most druids, etc), but it would certainly remove a lot of what some consider badwrongfuncheese.

*disclaimer* 1/2 my characters are multi-classed.

I have multiclassed characters as well. Many of the Prestige Classes require multiclassing to be able to take them. Bbauzh wouldn't exist in his current form if it weren't for the Rage Prophet requiring multiclassing.

But dipping a level of crossblooded sorcerer (orc/dragon) so you do +2 damage per damage die with your Wizard spells or dipping a level of Cleric of Gozreh so you can get the Growth subdomain so you can enlarge 7 rounds per day with your otherwise reasonable Dragon Disciple...

1 to 50 of 2,029 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.