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

Are's page

4,154 posts (8,072 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I'll happily say it again. All the "fluff" SKR wrote was amazing. If you guys ever publish those spreads from the Adventure Paths about deities I'd buy it in hardcover happily.
Due to the busy-ness of work and family life I had to stop my AP subscription a few years ago (frankly I had no time to read them all let alone keep up playing them) but I do recall getting a lot of satisfaction from the deity articles... now I'm several years behind and catching up with all the APs is certainly even less an option... I would totally buy a condensed / recollection of all the deity articles... great idea. Man those are awesome!

You should both be happy about this brand-new book then :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
Only 2 more session of serpents left then the npcs can celebrate their victory!!!!!!!

Having read Serpent's Skull, I never got the sense that the NPCs were in any way more important than the PCs (or even anywhere close to as important). The NPCs are there either as support for the PCs or to provide information, while it should be up to the PCs how to utilize that support and how to act upon that information.

While it could easily be turned into a game where the NPCs are very important, it doesn't have to be. I believe it should be possible to run through the AP with minimal NPC-interaction if that's what the players desire. It's been a while since I read through it, though, so my memory could be faulty.

Minor spoiler:
I will say that I wish the AP had provided an option for groups who don't want to be affiliated with any of the factions; when I run it, I'm going to make sure such an option is available.


The original non-Anniversary version had the duration listed as 1d4+1 rounds, but the ability was changed quite a lot in the update. For instance, it was a 10-ft aura rather than 30-ft, and it made creatures nauseated instead of sickened.


If you want to combine the bite attack with another attack, you must use a full-round action to do so (which can't be combined with cleave). You could use the bite attack as the initial standard attack to cleave, though.

Lesser fiend totem works the same way.


It wouldn't be listed in the conditions section (as most conditions can be the result of any number of different abilities). It should have been listed in the ankylosaurus write-up, but for whatever reason it was missed. Likely the d20pfsrd people have written it up as a Fortitude save due to a developer forum post or other similar clarification.


The ice devil's entrap should be some type of ice shard attack, or a frosty breath, or similar. I guess exactly how it's manifested is up to each individual GM.

Sooty flame doesn't appear to be listed anywhere; it might have been a universal ability that got cut at some point in time, and they forgot to remove it from the dragon's statblock.


1. Yes.

3. Every 4 HD.

4. The +4/+4/+2/+2/+0/-2 represents changing from 11/11/11/10/10/10 to 15/14/13/12/10/8. If you apply a different array, you shouldn't also apply this change.

5.

Potential AP spoiler:

Check out the Serpent's Skull AP (particularly #5 and #6).

6. The "+1 per 4 HD" is pre-included for all monsters.

***

[Edited to add spoiler tags, just in case]


Strictly according to the rules, I believe that would be correct. I don't play it that way, though.


I use misfortune as written (ie; working on both yourself, your allies, and your enemies) in my game, and PC-rerolling hasn't been problematic at all. Based on those experiences, I can't really see any reason why I should reduce its usefulness.

The biggest advantage of the ability is always going to be its use against enemies (as it works once on every enemy in every encounter), and the additional boon of allowing PCs a 1/day opportunity to reroll a failed save or a particularly important attack roll (as long as the ability hasn't already been used in the same round) hasn't struck me as being overpowered.


Narah wrote:

I'll send PMs out to the group right away.

Oh, the game thread is here: http://paizo.com/campaigns/TheRestorationOfRavengro/discussion&page=2#8 7

I've got a brand new discussion thread for you here; I don't see much point in requesting to take over the existing one when it doesn't yet have a gameplay thread. Check in over there, and we'll get started :)


Robert A Matthews wrote:
If the summoned demon also has greater teleport, he should be able to.

No; summoned creatures can't use their own teleportation or summoning abilities (or any abilities that would have an expensive material component if it was a spell).

Edit: That's according to summon monster, which the summon ability references.

Personally, I treat a monster's summon ability as a standard action, for the simple reason that a full-round ability with a 50% chance of working (or less) would almost never be worth the risk of using unless the creature can use the ability before the encounter begins.

Of course, most summon abilities have rather large issues, anyway. For instance, you wouldn't think an encounter with a single ice devil would be equal to an encounter with 1 ice devil and 2 bone devils, but if the ice devil uses its summon ability, there's a 50% chance of either. Not to mention something like the nalfeshnee, which is very swingy.. I'd prefer it if all summon abilities were 100% and were balanced accordingly.


1. Good question. The "Inspired Defense" ability says it modifies the "competence bonus against charm and fear", while the actual "Inspire Courage" ability provides a "morale bonus against charm and fear".

It's very likely that this is a typo in the Inspired Defense ability, and that it's supposed to apply to the morale bonus. Otherwise it wouldn't actually do anything.

2. Another good question. Since you have to be able to cast the non-mythic version of a spell in order to be able to choose the mythic version, the existence of "divine favor" in the list of mythic Bard spells must be an error.


The summoner class write-up also specifies as follows for the eidolon:

PRD wrote:
The following skills are class skills for eidolons: Bluff (Cha), Craft (Int), Knowledge (planes) (Int), Perception (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), and Stealth (Dex). In addition, at 1st level, the summoner can choose 4 additional skills to be class skills for his eidolon. Note that eidolons with a fly speed receive Fly (Dex) as a free class skill, even if they do not gain a fly speed until a later level.


Nefreet wrote:
How is that "distinctly different"?

He's probably pointing it out because some people might believe "DR 10/good and evil" would be the result (according to questions stated in past threads), rather than "DR 5/good and DR 10/evil" :)


Yes :)


They both apply, reducing damage from attacks the other doesn't stop.

So, against an evil attack, the DR/good applies (reducing 5 points), while against a good attack, the DR/evil applies (reducing 10 points). Against non-evil, non-good attacks, you would apply the strongest DR (also reducing 10 points).


Since I was considering replying to Narah's previous thread, but ended up not doing so since a GM was found, I figure I should at least reply to this one!

I'm currently running two other PBPs here (Council of Thieves and Legacy of Fire), both of which I've inherited from other GMs (the first one about 2 years ago, the second about 4 months ago). I think it would be somewhat poetic if the first PBP I start myself is one where the PCs were inherited from another GM's recruitment thread :)

So.. If you would have me as GM, I'd be happy to take on Narah's group (preferably no more than 5 players).


It only redirects teleportation into or out of the area (so, teleportation involving a location outside the area), while the redirect goes to somewhere within the area.

Thus, the second teleport trap won't have anything to redirect, since it doesn't apply (the redirect is from within to within, and doesn't involve outside at all).

(Note: You could have multiple teleport traps with progressively smaller areas of warding, and bounce people around until they reached the smallest one, but I can't really see any point to that)

If you did have two teleport traps both warding the same area, I suppose there'd be a 50% chance of either applying first (and cancelling the other).


That's an excellent argument. In light of that, I'm going to revoke my earlier statement in this thread; as you say, it wouldn't make sense for the Matriarch to be worse at wisdom-draining than the rank-and-file Lamias :)


Magda Luckbender wrote:
#1 In which of the mount's 4 squares is the PC, for purposes of determining AoOs during enemy movement? <My understanding is 'any and all', meaning that the PC can strike out from any of the 4 squares, and can be attacked at any of the 4 squares. Is that right?>

Yes, that's right.

Quote:
#2 Mounted combat question: If the Axe Beak charges, can the mounted PC also make a Standard Action attack? Can the PC make a charge attack? Note that both have 10' reach.

Mounted combat is a hotly contested topic at the moment, and I'm not entirely sure what the rules actually intend. I believe the PC could do either of the two.

Quote:
#3 Does this combination work: PC casts Truestrike on mount via Share Spells. Axe Beak mount charges, rolls normal charge attack +20. If this hits, Axe Beak rolls a Sudden Charge (see above) free action trip attempt. Does the +20 Truestrike bonus still apply to the Trip attempt? <I think it does and several GMs have likewise played it that way, but wish to get more opinions>

I would let it apply.

Technically, it probably doesn't, since true strike applies only to a single attack roll and the trip attempt requires a CMB check (which is defined as an attack roll).

Quote:

#4 An adjacent foe draws an AoO from the Axe Beak. The rider and mount both have Paired Opportunists. Does this provoke an AoO from the rider, who has a reach weapon? Does the rider take a -4 Soft Cover penalty for taking an AoO past the mount?

...

Can rider attack Foe from 'far edge' of mount? The mount would ordinary provide soft cover, making an AoO impossible. In this case, though, Paired Opportunists seems to say it would allow the rider an AoO in this situation. <I would allow the rider an AoO in this situation, but would impose a -4 penalty for attacking through soft cover. RAW this penalty could theoretically be eliminated with Precise Shot, but I'dnot bother. Opinions?>

I agree with your opinion.


I would suggest it would be +1 added to the total. So the first round of infernal healing would grant 2 hit points, but subsequent rounds would grant the normal 1.


Damon Griffin wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Carrion Crown is the exception because it uses the lower wealth as a tool for enabling it's horror theme, from what i have heard it must have enough wealth for 70%-80% WBL, assuming the party doesn't miss anything.
We might be even more screwed than that; we're a party of six, and I'm not sure our GM is adjusting wealth (or encounters; he'd need to increase both) in many cases. He's an experienced D&D 3.x DM and experienced Pathfinder player, but this is his first time running an AP.

In this particular case, is it possible that the GM figures a lower wealth average will mean the written encounters actually work fine compared to the larger party, so he won't have to adjust?


Suthainn wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Creature types - Undead wrote:
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.

Interestingly...

True Resurrection wrote:
This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can't resurrect constructs or undead creatures.
Which contradicts that. Either way, I'd suggest that the spell, like Raise Dead as mentioned, has no effect upon an unwilling creature.

It's actually not a contradiction. See the sentence directly before the one about not being able to resurrect constructs or undead creatures:

True Resurrection wrote:
You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

This is the part the undead type refers to.

The sentence you quoted presumably refers to attempts to "resurrect" an undead creature before it has been destroyed, which isn't possible.


No..

Blood money wrote:
Spellcasters who do not have blood cannot cast blood money, and those who are immune to Strength damage (such as undead spellcasters) cannot use blood money to create valuable material components.

Skeletons don't have blood and are also immune to ability damage.

Hold on, I see.. You're suggesting that making the blood money spell thanatopic bypasses those two innate limitations. While that would allow it to pay the additional ability-damage cost, it doesn't grant it blood (some other types of undead wizards, however, would be able to do this).


You can decide after each attack who to attack next, just like with a regular full-attack.


Lifat wrote:
and grappling also allowed you to do full attacks.

Hm. Very odd. For some reason noone I played with was aware of the line "If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses" in the 3.5 grapple rules. It's a very strangely written line, too, considering several of the actions listed are actions you couldn't normally make multiple times in a turn (such as activating magic items and casting spells), but that aside..

I guess we played those rules wrong during the entire lifetime of that system :)

In light of that, it might be worth noting that even with our (apparently wrong) rules application of only allowing a single attack, swallow whole was very rarely a relevant ability. I can't recall a single time when someone was in real danger because of it (except one NPC who was already swallowed when we came to the rescue).


Lifat wrote:
I even think it is quite fair to believe that it is RAI.

I think it's more likely that it's an oversight (assuming it's RAW; you're presenting a compelling argument that it is). The swallow whole rules didn't change from 3.5 to PF, while the grapple rules changed from allowing one attack to allowing a full attack. It seems unlikely (to me) that the RAI was to nerf swallow whole that much in the process.


Note, of course, that the damage done to the stomach also applies to the creature's regular hit points (which is one reason a full-attack seems like overkill; not only are you cutting yourself out in the process, but the creature also gets a lower AC).


Lifat wrote:
Swallow whole on the big tank should hurt imo.

And it does hurt. Quite a lot, in fact. The big tank will likely be out and about within seconds, and the creature won't be able to use its swallow whole ability again until the stomach heals.. which is likely days away at least, unless the creature is in the company of a healer.

Giving the tank the ability to full attack from inside would just be overkill.


jimibones83 wrote:
There's a huge difference. I can think of several examples but the one at hand is with counterspelling. If you can't hold your action or ready an action to move up in initiative the next round then you wouldn't be able to counterspell anyone who acts before you on initiative

You can ready an action to counterspell, regardless of where you are in the initiative order. Delaying until the start of the next turn doesn't change that :)

Of course you're right that there's a huge difference between being able to delay/ready into next turn and not being able to; the comments on lack of difference were related to the difference between having initiative "last in round 1" and initiative "first in round 2" (which are essentially the same, as the same options would be available in both cases).


Swallow whole would be a horrible ability if the swallowed creature could simply full attack the creature itself from within (as the stomach's AC would virtually always be lower than the creature's normal AC).

IMO, it's those two things, only.


No, that wouldn't normally be possible. The two quotes below say that attitude shifts normally last up to 4 hours, and that you can't use Diplomacy to influence attitude more than once per 24 hours. Together, that means it's only by GM discretion that you'd be able to gradually improve someone's attitude by way of Diplomacy.

PRD wrote:
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
PRD wrote:
Try Again: You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature's attitude more than once in a 24-hour period. If a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks, although other requests might be made. You can retry Diplomacy checks made to gather information.


Yes, but there's rarely any difference between the two.


Samy wrote:
Okay, so the bestiary writeup is completely 100% irrelevant to animal companions? You just and only take the two things, the animal choice list and the base stats table, and they both stack with each other? Don't think *at all* about the bestiary?

That's right :)


Remy: Since you have gone from arguing "readying to sunder" to arguing "readying to attack" in general, you'll have to contend with the existence of the Strike Back feat (that you've previously elected to dismiss for the earlier argument).

If you can already ready to attack the dragon when it bites you from reach, then is it your position that the only purpose of the Strike Back feat is to attack someone who uses manufactured weapons from reach? And that even then, you could ready to disarm or sunder even without the feat, making it an exceptionally limited high-level-requirement feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
I'm not sure what the RAI is (using manyshot in that specific kind of attack and move is hardly broken), but I'm fairly sure any argument from RAI that would sink this interpretation would equally sink Vital Strike on a full attack.

The interaction of Manyshot and that phrase regarding full attacks has been clarified in the FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Manyshot: Can I fire two arrows with my shot, then cancel the full attack and take a move?

No. Though the rules for "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows.


Yes, that should work fine.


Clearly. I'm only pointing it out because you're using similar language for AoOs to invalidate an argument.


There are also a few creatures who have specific abilities allowing them to use multiple natural attacks of a certain type as a standard action (manticore, for instance). If your old GM didn't use a houserule, your conclusion may have come from remembering an encounter with a creature like that.


It's a bit difficult to say based only on the description of the medallion, but based on another description in the book I would say it's not a property of the medallion itself.

As for unfair scrying; if your GM follows the book's instructions on the matter, I wouldn't consider it unfair.


Remy Balster wrote:
Look, even if they provoked from attacking into your square, the AoO happens before any of that attack is resolved, meaning that even if you can reach them during the resolution of the attack, you cannot reach them at the initiation of it. AoOs have nothing to do with this conversation. Neither does threatening, as threatening isn’t a requirement for an attack.

I'll just point out that readied actions have similar language as AoOs; they too occur before the action that triggered them:

PRD wrote:

Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.


Also, be aware that all the statblocks from bestiaries 1-3 can be found on Paizo's PRD for free, which would be an option if you don't wish to buy so many books before starting to play (not to mention it generally being a great resource!)


There is, however, a druid spell that lets you transform into one or more swarms.


All of the regular swarms have their own statblocks (such as bat swarm and rat swarm).

Anyway, IMO you can't wild shape (or beast shape) into a swarm. The reason is that you take the form of "a" creature, while a swarm is a collection of at least 300 creatures (while swarms act as one creature in several ways, they aren't actually a single creature).


Shimesen wrote:
also, keep in mind that FoM doesn't allow you to move if you are bound or held in place by mundane means. if i hogtied you, the spell is useless.

It very much allows that. It says "even under the influence of magic", not "only" under the influence of magic. It even goes on to specifically state that you automatically succeed on any CMB or Escape Artist checks to escape grapples and pins, which are decidedly mundane.

Since using rope to tie someone up is treated as a pin effect (Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect), FoM allows you to automatically escape it. That shouldn't even be a point of contention.


The 3.5 FAQ presumably doesn't apply (at least not completely), since it suggests that FoM wouldn't work against hold person, which PF developers have said in the past that it does work against.

It would make some sense to rule it the way that FAQ entry suggests (note that it calls it an interpretation, rather than "this is how it works"), but IMO it would be equally sensible to rule it the other way.

Of course, official clarification regarding dazed/stunned vs FoM would be nice either way :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Instead of asking "why doesn't this exist?", try asking "what would my PCs do to disrupt something like this?" Answering the second may well answer the first.


As a GM (primarily), I find the arguments against allowing FoM to function pretty weak compared to the arguments for allowing it.


PRD wrote:

Caster Level

A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

In the event that a class feature or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt), but also to your caster level check to overcome your target's spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).


shadowkras wrote:

Well, i will give paizo the credit thats a leftover rule from 3.x.

But if the restriction is to be ignored everytime, then it shouldnt even be in the core rulebook. Dont you agree?
I wish they made a set of possible restrictions and a 5% of discount for each, with a maximum of 20 or 30% the base cost.

There are many specific magic items that have restrictions on them, so rules for that must exist somewhere.

Yes, it's that rule.

The point he was trying to make is that it's supposed to be used for things that would be unique to a certain class or alignment, and not for things that could be used by any class or alignment, but the crafter decided "hey, I want a 30% discount, so I'll say it only works for my class".

Essentially, those types of things are part of the "magic item creation is an art, not just selecting from a table" philosophy. That discount should only be used when necessary.

1 to 50 of 4,154 << 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.