Are's page

The argument that was presented is that, for a caster like the summoner, who gets several normally 7th-9th level spells as 6th level spells, a medium rod (which works on spells up to 6th level) will work on those spells, while a full caster would need to use a major rod on the same spell.

While other hybrid casters could also benefit similarly, most of them don't get as many spells that would normally be off-limits for a medium rod.

Again, this is only based on my perception of the presented argument :)

I love the adventures, I love the setting material, and I pretty much daily find myself amazed at how frequently and thoroughly various Paizo employees answer questions about this, that, and anything on the messageboards.

As for the rules, I feel about the same about the PF rules as I did about the 3.5 rules; there are things I like and there are things I don't like. Most importantly, both versions are very enjoyable to play with :)

He didn't say that cheap wands were a buff for a summoner PC, but that it was a problem in general. You don't need any summoners in the party in order to buy those cheap wands, just like you don't need a wizard or cleric in the party in order to buy wizard/cleric wands.

At least, that's how I understood it. It could certainly be a misunderstanding on my part :)

There's no need to add new words; simply use "1st level arcane prepared caster". That seems to cover everything (assuming, of course, that you want to expand the list of classes the feat is available to).

Except that's not what the rules say. The rules say if a creature is invisible, it gains +20 to its stealth rolls. I can only assume that "is invisible" equates to "has the invisible status". I had casted invisibility on myself and therefore had the invisibility status, thereby granting me +20 to stealth rolls. My argument up above is just the fluff reasoning for why it works.

Even if that's the way it works, see invisibility is quite clear in stating that you can see invisible creatures (by your thinking; "creatures with the invisible status") as if they were visible (so; "as if they didn't have the invisible status").

Either way, you don't get the +20 bonus.

Why does your GM want you to make a specific type of character, anyway? Is it a replacement-character?

I think it was more a case of "melee shouldn't get quite as nice things". Some of the higher-level maneuvers were akin to 9th-level spells in terms of what they did (one gave you a second full-round attack, if I remember correctly).

If Ultimate Equipment and an "Ultimate Spells" in the same manner serve as a precursor to a "Core Rulebook Lite" that omits the sections on magic items and spells, then I would be all for it.

For concern #1, I'd say it might be a good idea to tally up the individual wealth of the current characters, and give the new character an amount about equal to the average (modified by the trait). Don't include the ship in this calculation; the new character will likely be using it during the AP as well.

For concern #2, talk to both players OOC. Tell the captain's player you're not interested in PVP, and tell the newcomer it would probably be a bad idea to parade wealth around on a pirate ship. Problem should be solved :)

3.5 did eventually publish a trickle of feats allowing for slightly-less-horrible hybrid multiclassing (example: the Ascetic Rogue feat allowed rogue levels and monk levels to stack for the purpose of determining unarmed strike damage).

Of course, as my example shows, this was woefully inadequate. If that feat instead, say, stacked those levels for all purposes (or at least for both unarmed strike, flurry of blows, and sneak attack), then it might serve a suitable purpose.

I've been considering some sort of mechanic allowing multiclass characters to count as a higher level in each class than they actually have, but it's far from fully thought out (Edit: The method Lumiere Dawnbringer outlined is close to what I had considered).

I pretty much read the alchemist's say into it anyway, to be honest; if the alchemist doesn't want a particular infusion around anymore, simply declare it inert and regain the slot. Works for me.

The only thing I dislike about the new base classes is that I feel the summoner class should really be two different classes; one class (summoner) focused on summoning creatures and improving your summoned creatures, and another class (eidoloncer?) focused on the eidolon companion. I think both concepts should have a stronger focus than the summoner class gives them.

Oh, and I also don't like that the eidolon has a number of abilities that are almost-but-not-quite like regular monster abilities. I'd prefer that they used the normal monster abilities in those cases.

I thank Paizo weekly for finally making a true "gish" class (Magus). WotC never made anything like it, and it is very close to the kind of class I longed to play for years.

They made a couple that were similar; hexblade (full BAB, 4th-level casting) and duskblade (full BAB, 5th-level casting). I think their spell lists were slightly more limited than that of the magus, but they do have one thing the magus lacks; full BAB :)

Nine lantern archons can combine into a bigger version. That's the only one similar to what you want I could remember off the top of my head (although that's multiple creatures combining into one rather than one creature splitting up), but there are probably others.

Paizo altered, removed, or added several rules when they printed the Pathfinder RPG. It has to be assumed that anything they left as-is were things they wanted to keep the way they were or didn't feel strongly about one way or the other. Why must that be assumed? For the simple reason that if they kept things they either didn't consider or didn't want, then the job wouldn't have been particularly well done.

So, Paizo's design team will be strong authorities on how anything printed in the Core Rulebook works, since they must have some idea of either why they changed it or of why they kept it.

If multiple PCs have an interest in using diplomacy, you could have one person make the main roll, and all others rolling to aid that person's roll (DC 10 to grant a +2 bonus).

It sounds to me like the tension is you have a player focused on crunch in a game that was focused on fluff.

Yes, it does sound like that. I think the OP would be perfectly happy and welcomed in the first 3.5 group I joined, where the mindset was essentially "if we wanted to roleplay, we'd play a different game" :)

It might be hard to reconcile the differences in playstyle here, by the sound of things.

ciretose, what do you feel about the case where the player did exactly what you suggest he should do, the GM gave the okay on the spell in question with a few limitations, and then during the next session the GM said "no, you can't use that spell anyway"?

A very simple non-lethal slashing: a paper cut. So, by using a sword to deal non-lethal damage, you're essentially making shallow cuts rather than deep gouges or strikes at the major veins.

(unless you strike with the flat of your blade or the pommel, but that would be odd for such things as a merciful sword; would everyone owning such a sword be obligated to striking in a bludgeoning manner?)

Pounce is meant to be used in surprise rounds. The general tactics for most of the monsters who have pounce (big cats, for instance) is to ambush their prey with pounce. That only works if pounce works on a surprise round.

Yes, you can pounce during a surprise round, just like you can make a regular charge during a surprise round.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.

Yes; subtract 10 from all even scores and 11 from all odd scores. The result is the racial ability score modifiers.

For instance, a centaur has racial modifiers of: +4 STR, +4 DEX, +4 CON, +4 WIS, +2 CHA.

I would personally say that the druid would have to willingly wear metal armor in order to lose their powers (at least the 24 hour part). Being forced to do so shouldn't be sufficient, although the shock of wearing metal armor might impose a penalty even if you don't take away their powers completely (like a 50% chance to fail).

Regardless: Gauntlets don't qualify as armor or shields, so they should be fair game for druids.

I don't buy the idea that characters know that if they leave themselves open to attack twice in quick succession that foes generally can take advantage of only one of those openings.

Why not? I would imagine that a group of adventures would at least occasionally practice their abilities within the group, when they're not spending their time actually adventuring.

During such practice sessions, scenarios like that would certainly have come up, perhaps especially so for a wizard/sorcerer/<other main spellcaster>, who would presumably spend additional time attempting to find out how to cast spells while in a close-combat situation, given that such situations are among the most dangerous situations they can find themselves in.

So, the wizard would "know" that his companions were unable to take advantage of multiple openings during short spans of time, except Rannolf the Ranger who has particularly good reflexes. Thus, this tactic would be a sound one, unless faced with a similarly skilled opponent. Hence the gamble.

But where is that line? Substitute "competence" for "optimization" and "optimization" for "troublesome optimization" in my post if that makes my point clearer.

Most of the time, you should probably not use the Leadership feat for enemies. There's no in-game limit to the number of followers a BBEG can have, so just make the encounter with the NPCs you want to have there, and give the BBEG another feat in place of the Leadership feat.

As a DM, I would feel like something of a cheater if I gave a BBEG the Leadership feat only for the purpose of handing out less XP for the encounter.

My problem with SD was the "here's a bunch of unlikeable elves who don't want us around - oh, they need help to win their war against a bunch of evil elves - let's go on a near-suicide mission to help them" followed by "the elves we helped lock us up".

Can I also say I think it's a bit funny that you wonder what people didn't like about SD, and then when people answer you say "we didn't like those bits, so we changed them completely" :)

***

The other two APs that have been brought up don't have the same issues, or at least not as strongly. Neither of them have the "I don't see any reason why the PCs would do this" aspect.

I personally like Serpent's Skull quite a bit. The only problem with that particular AP is the amount of work required to create memorable encounters in part 3, since that whole book is simply a framework. However, creating and tweaking encounters is one of my favorite things to do as a DM, so that didn't bother me at all.

The story flows fairly well from one section to the next, although there's certainly bits and pieces that aren't awesome, plus there should have been some consideration made for groups that want to explore on their own rather than be a part of any of the five organizations.

Here you go.

The game uses ordinary English meanings of words that aren't otherwise defined by the game. So this isn't an issue that needs any kind of clarification.

Actually, I thought about it some more, and came to the conclusion that RAW definitely says you can see yourself.

Invisibility is an illusion (glamer) spell.

Illusion says "Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others." and "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."

Since you cast it yourself, you know it isn't real. Thus you can see yourself.

shallowsoul: If the PC succeeded on his knowledge check, that means the PC had heard of the creature before. Even if the player didn't know until now that the PC knew, the PC always knew that he knew.

Channel Smite would be good for a cleric who is already based around being a melee fighter. Instead of having to spend a standard action to channel energy against everyone, he gets to make a full attack and use channel energy against a single target.

Out of combat healing is easily handled with wands of clw anyway, so you don't really need those channel uses for healing.

I interpret "respect legitimate authority" as "I won't resist the local officers of the law (and similar) if they question me, fine me, or arrest me".

I don't interpret it as "as long as the laws were created by someone with legitimate power, I have to follow those laws".

Why? Because following the second interpretation and following your other codes of conduct can very easily conflict. Say a law in an NE society says you have to sacrifice a slave every year. The paladin can't do that and remain a paladin, so he has to break that law.

Examples:

The guy that complained about reach weapons.

Every other diagonal being double movement.

These aren't new concepts and if people don't get them they need to go back to math class. They existed in 3.5, 3.0 and other games as well.

Both concepts existed in 3.5, true. However, 3.5 had a clause specifying that "for purposes of reach, treat the second diagonal as 5 ft instead of 10 ft". That clause is missing in Pathfinder.

Since the developers have stated that a character with reach still gets an AoO when someone moves diagonally towards them, it's pretty much a moot point now, though.

Considering the PF power attack grants a 2:1 return instead of a 1:1 return [3:1 instead of 2:1 for two-handed weapons], I think the rigidness is a fair trade. Plus it avoids time spent to calculate the "optimal" power attack trade-off.

While I like most of the big, sweeping changes, every couple of weeks I discover a new minor thing that I dislike. Off the top of my head right now:

- The alter self spell has had its duration reduced from 10 minutes per level to 1 minute per level. That pretty much eliminates its usefulness in a social, diplomatic setting, especially at low-to-mid levels.

- The CMB mechanic should offer greater advantages to larger and naturally-grabby creatures; as is, creatures with grab are frequently better off simply attacking normally than by using the ability.

- I don't understand why the bonus Weapon Finesse feat was removed from Tiny creatures (cats, monkeys, rats, etc). All of these creatures used to have one of the skill-bonus feats in addition to Weapon Finesse, which at least served to differentiate them a little bit more. Now, their feat slot is taken up by a feat they should have had for free.

- I don't like that a high enhancement bonus allows you to overcome DR/material and DR/alignment, and I like smite evil's ability to overcome all DR even less.

That's all I could think of right now :)

Paizo - please stop making awesome previews of books I was on the fence about purchasing! It would be nice if I could keep at least some of my hard-earned money for other things :)

By the way, I just realized that my Awesome Blow/Combat Reflexes "trick" would look very similar in action to how my cat looks when he plays with his favorite mouse-like toy:

He'll frequently begin by throwing it in the air and swatting it away, then back away a little bit, lie in wait until just the right moment, then pounce on it and throw it halfway across the room while charging after it and continuing to swat it every time he gets within reach :)

As an aside, mobile fighter is a cool archetype.

Animals in the wild do everything they can to maximize their chances for winning a fight. Why wouldn't the Tarrasque do the same?

I will grant that it would begin the fight with a full-attack with power attack from 30 ft away, but as soon as it realized its opponent could hurt it, I would assume it would quickly switch to the awesome blow/combat reflexes tactic.

Intelligence has nothing to do with combat-instincts. I would put my money on virtually anyone who failed every test in high school over Einstein in a fight :)

He doesn't need to have one, since he's moved to the nearest otherwise-legal square if such an option is closer than the "last legal square".

So, he drops on top of the ally, then rolls off to any adjacent square.

Yep. Animals understand that if they show their undefended belly to their foe, that belly will get slashed by a claw. Likewise, they understand that if an opponent shows his undefended belly to them, they can easily slash it.

Even if 5-ft steps had been a tactical decision (which they're not; they're just something you can do), I'd say being able to use tactics well in combat would have much more to do with Wisdom than with Intelligence.

Rolling a 1 isn't an automatic failure for skill checks, either.

You wouldn't expect to see a master woodworker fail to create a chair, so why would you expect to see a master magical craftsman fail to create the simplest magic items available?

In other words: If someone specializes in crafting magic items (as the character in the above post's example), then they should be able to create the simplest magic items as a routine task.

Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

I take the above to mean that using intimidate to demoralize actually is a fear effect. Of course, it could certainly have been written more clearly.

There is also circumstantial evidence pointing in the opposite direction, since the 3.5 version of intimidate specifically stated it didn't work on characters who were immune to fear, while the Pathfinder rules removed that sentence:

A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.

Of course, the same sentence can also be taken as circumstantial evidence suggesting what the intent of intimidate is.

Paizo's adventure modules are $19.99 for APs, and $13.99 for regular modules, so I'd say you're still right where you remember the days of AD&D in that regard :)

I'm getting mixed signals!

The 'special' npc's DO perform on equal terms with the pc's. They participate on adventures (perhaps by invitation, but still...), receive equal shares of treasure (again, the players actually decide, at some point, that the npc has become integral to the party so they deserve it) and experience (i used to give half-shares but, in Kingmaker, it was very easy for the players to load up on npc's so I had to make it a heavy consideration for them). So by these criteria, I might have a GMPC with the party.

However, everything else says I don't...

I'm pretty sure you're safely in NPC-territory; in your case it's the players who are making the decisions of which NPCs to "elevate", rather than you as the GM. Plus, you're only fleshing the NPCs out once this happens, as opposed to having everything related to the NPC set up from the start.

Unless you would force the party to keep one of these NPCs with them if the players at some point decide to "relegate" that NPC again, you don't have a GMPC on your hands :)

The way I see it:

A GMPC would be a character on equal terms with the other PCs. They would participate in adventures on equal footing with the PCs, and get an equal share of treasure and experience.

An NPC is what you have described.

If your NPCs were GMPCs, you wouldn't hand their sheets to others to run, just like you wouldn't hand your PC-sheet to another player to run.

So CR 21 max, right?

I would strongly consider a Pleroma Aeon:
- CR 20, casts spells as a 20th-level cleric AND can choose sorcerer/wizard spells as cleric spells (this also stacks with cleric levels), fast healing, 20d8 melee touch with reach, 1/day Wish, and 3/day Sphere of Annihilation!

WotC's 3.5 environmental books specifically stated that fire/cold immunity/resistance worked against the effects of a hot/cold temperature. That was their way of addressing the same unclarity with the way those sections were written in the PHB/DMG.

there's other cases where wording didn't change but officially verified intent did.

This, by the way, is my #1 dislike of the Pathfinder system. If Paizo wanted to change the way something worked, they should have changed the wording, rather than keeping the wording the same but issuing rulings to the opposite effect.