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

Arkadwyn's page

78 posts. Alias of Dean Kimes.


RSS

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

No, No, no. The witch or any other caster can attempt up to one touch per level (assuming they can reach that many targets) during the round of casting. After that the spell is expended and unused touches are lost. This is pretty clear from the PRD.

PRD: "Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell."

You must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell. Pretty succinct.


According to the PRD, the effects of multi-touch spells do not last past the round of casting, they cannot be held and all touches must be used in the round cast or they are lost.

PRD:"Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell."


Oly for attacks made that same round. From the PRD: "Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell."

Thus any potential touches you didn't use are lost at the end of the round.


Chimerical wrote:

Hey crowd, just wanted a rules check on the Frostbite (UM 221) spell and how it works with the Magus class.

Frostbite is an instantaneous touch spell that has at the end "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level."

Basically, I want my math checked on the following, assuming a 3rd level Magus who hits all the time:

Round 1: Using Spell Combat, Magus casts Frostbite and gets a free melee attack with his weapon for casting a touch spell, suffering a -2 penalty. He hits, and does weapon damage plus Frostbite effects. Then he takes his regular Spell Combat attack, and hits, doing weapon damage plus Frostbite effects. (Frostbite gives 3 melee touch at his level, Spellblade allows weapon to deliver touch)

Round 2: Magus makes a normal weapon attack, and does weapon damage plus the final third Frostbite effects.

Is this correct?

Am I correct in thinking that if the Magus were to try casting Shocking Grasp with Spell Combat before attacking on the second round, that would discharge the final Frostbite effect?

Finally, only slightly related, am I correct in remembering that if no other movement is done, a 5-foot step may be taken in between attacks during a full attack? Thus allowing a Magus to, for example, cast Burning Hands using Spell Combat, then step up and make his weapon attack?

You cannot Hold the Charge on Touch spells which allow multiple touches. All touches must be completed in the round the spell was cast or are lost.

From the PRD: "Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell."


Zonto wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
The important thing is to make sure that a ninja can never take the Pirate archetype.
Thankfully there's no Robot archetype for the rogue either!

Wish there was, then I could play Bender!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k2i5?Why-are-weapon-energy-effects-command-wor d#20

Jacobs specifically states that the effect stays on until you turn it off, not until you turn on something completely different.


loganstarr wrote:

did you ever find the post?

James Jacobs Creative Director Oct 20, 2009, 12:01 AM | Flag |

List
Post #7 in "Why are weapon energy effects "command word activated"?"Add to: New List Comment:
Add to List | FAQ | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. +

While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.

from

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k2i5?Why-are-weapon-energy-effects-command-wor d#20


Why in the name of all that is holy would you base the hex size on something that doesn't correlate to the movement rates for overland travel in your own game??? This hex size makes absolutely zero sense. 12 miles center to center, now that would make sense, though 6 miles center to center would be better.


Doesn't say it can only be used in a charge action so you could also use it to escape by riding through a house, or to circumvent a defensive wall, or to avoid a large chasm. I'm actually much more interested in all the non-charging actions this could let you perform!


Don't forget you need Skill Focus: Perception as a prerequisite to Eldritch Heritage (Draconic).


Neo2151 wrote:

Then how does a Magus or Rogue hit? Legitimate question, btw.

This question has been bugging me for a while, what with all the "Monks are bad" threads we see popping up all the time.
Everyone knows the Rogue is bad, but most of it's problems are Special-Abilities-related, since they're not a class meant primarily for combat.

We've had this problem for some time in my campaign, the rogue hits fairly often, but even the cleric is more likely to hit than the monk on any single attack. The reason is simple enough, both rogue and cleric have a weapon with a better plus to hit than the monk.

The cost for an amulet of mighty fists is extremely prohibitive compared to that for a single magic weapon. Also rogues often shine outside of combat, which a monk seldom does unless something needs jumping over, most of their skill areas are already covered by a rogue, and generally better covered.

A magus will pretty much never miss if he really needs to hit. With Spell Combat and a few cheap L1 Pearls of Power the magus can almost always have that True Strike available when he needs it, and he can use the +20 on his attack in the same round thanks to spell combat.

A monk Ki power that allowed them to add their Wisdom bonus to hit for a round would be a good addition I think.


Yeah, it doesn't really make sense that if they had called it Mymidarch Armor Training and repeated all the verbiage, then it would stack because it is an untyped bonus, but because they tried to save page space they just referred back to the fighter ability, it doesn't stack.


11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.

Does the Armor Training from Fighter 3 stack with that from Myrmidarch 8? Probably not a build a lot of folks are doing, but one of our players is currently an F3/Myr7 and is wondering if he will get to improve his Armor Training from fighter when he gains it as Myrmidarch 8. I am inclined to say "Yes" but wondered if there was an official answer.


Yeah, this is one of my few beefs with the magic weapon and armor system in 3.5/Pathfinder. Wish they had changed it. Adding flaming to a weapon is pretty much equally effetive whether added to a +1 weapon, or a +5 weapon. If anything, it's less useful to add it to a +5 weapon, because by the time you can afford a +5 weapon, adding 1d6 to your damage is fairly inconsequential. I'd rather see all of the special abilities have fixed costs with a modifier for stacking fixed cost abilities. Say +5000gp for flaming, then to add shocking to that costs an additional +5000gp (x1.5 for being the second fixed cost enhancement).


Something Wicked This Way Comes is still one of my favorite stories, ever since the first time I read it in middle school. We will not see his like again...that generation of writers is passing from this realm and our days are sadder for it.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'd love to see an official answer on how chill touch (and other instantaneous muti-touch spells) works. I have yet to find two DM's who run it consistently going all the way back to early 3.0. It's one of the most poorly written, either highly abusable or useless (depending on interpretation) spells ever propagated from one edition to the next.


Oliver McShade wrote:
Zeldenhandel wrote:

Racial heritage allows a character to take feats and prestige classes as if he were another race as well as human.

Do the elf blood and orc blood racial traits have the same effect?
Could a half-elf character for example take "elven accuracy"? Or "racial heritage: orc" even? (being descended from an elf and a half-orc perhaps?)

In a Logical World ... they should.

But in Pathfinder, i can already tell, they went a different direction, when they came out with the APG.

So think of them as different races now.

So you get double the vulnerability but generally speaking, none of the optins of either race? Since bad effects that affect a particular race (bane, favored enemy, etc. are much, much more common than beneficial one, that definitely makes this ability fall into the Weakness category rather than Strength. No other races have a built in weakness like this.


Hunter ranger could be tracking down someone who burned the witch's home to the ground, and in so doing, wanders onto the lands of the barbarian rancher's tribe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My problem with limiting it is that the example given is that a monk can always make his or her full attacks regardless of how many of her limbs etc. is impaired/unavailable. If that is true, how can it not be all the attacks with any of the monks many weapons...I always thought of it as monk hits you with numchuks, swaps them to other hand and hits you with that hand, rinse repeat...it fits the genre of the kung fooey classic imo.


I would like to point out that it is highly unlikely the weaponsmith can actually sell 2 martial weapons a week, even in a big city. So while he theoretically could make that amount, it is much more likely he spends most of his time making much less doing weapon repairs, sharpening weapons, etc. At a guess, I'd say his yearly wage is likely 1/10th of what you have here due to most of his wares sitting on the shelves for a couple of months. Same for the armorsmith.


Personally I like the idea that they are refugees of the Sodden Lands, having fled when the Eye of Abendigo appeared, they no longer have a homeland to call their own.


Maccabee wrote:
"We're coming for your Turnips!!!!!"

You mean radishes?


I definitely would not have taken that route. I would have let the players massacre the children, and when they arrived back at town there would be officials there to arrest them. It would be easy for someone to have been scrying on their efforts, or for some passing woodsman to have seen them commit the atrocity. I also would have shifted alignments of the players which could definitely have caused issues with their deities, especially for any cleric in the party.

I think they can and should face the consequences of their actions, this is an RPG after all, not a board game so any whining about you "not being their Daddy" is just that, whining. the whole point is to pseudo-replicate a real world wherein actions have consequences and the where displeasing the gods have very real, visible, and directly attributable effects. think about how Hera reactes to Hercules...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why this is such an issue, nobody complains that the rapid fire sequence allows using a single weapon to make multiple attacks when the two weapon fighter cannot. I just don't see it as that big of an issue, certainly not enough to justify the complexity of tracking what a monk can do when he has which body parts unavailable and how many attacks he is limited to at that point.


james maissen wrote:
Dela wrote:

Hi,

if you take Eldritch Heritage(Arcana) and Improved Familiar with a class with arcane caster lvls, what is the minimum lvl für the lvl 7 familiars? EH says your sorcerer lvl is character lvl -2, but Improved Familiar just talks about your arcane caster lvl.
So is it possible to take for example an imp as a summoner at lvl 7?

Always look to draw analogies when a specific rule is confusing you.

Would a Bard7/Wizard1 be able to take improved familiar to take an imp? Yes, it doesn't matter that his wizard casting level is 1 because he has an arcane casting level that's 7 even though it's not the class that gave him access to a familiar!

So while the character level -2 for the sorcerer level can be used (say if he was a pure fighter or multiclass) as a pure summoner you have another arcane caster level that's 7 and thus it works for you.

That said, can I interest you in trading out something that your character likely doesn't use/need for a better imp? Check out the diabolist PrC ;)

-James

Hmm, frankly I disagree with your first assertion, the Bard/Wizard would not be allowed to take an Imp familiar.

Clearly for some folks rules must be written so that mere table headings say thing like (Arcane Caster Level for Class that allows you to take this familiar) because otherwise the intent will be subverted to the literal wording, though likely only when it suits you.


1) There is no miss chance for incorporeal creatures, incorporeal creatures talk half damage from weapon attacks which can hurt them (magic weapons).

2) No, Channel Energy is a burst effect so it is stoped by physical barriers. See Channel Energy in cleric description.

3) Possession does not eliminate the possessor's body so if that can be reached it can still be attacked. If the possessing entity moved his/her body inside the pc's body before possessing them, then it would be hard to hit and could be immune to channel energy since (as in 2 above) it is a burst effect. However, a Protection from Evil spell cast on the PC will prevent the Ghost from being able to control them.


James Jacobs wrote:
Yours is mined wrote:
What do the numbers 12, 24, 35, 85, 89, 92, 95, 98, 134, 139 and possibly 112 have in common?

They all appear in your question.

Come ON folks! Ask me some HARD questions!

Ok, How does Frostbite (or Chill Touch) work even by itself? Do you get the multiple touches in the round you cast it (like the section on Touch Spells says) or do you get one touch a round until they are exhausted? And depending on that answer...

How do Chill Touch (or Frostbite) and Spell Combat, and Spellstrike work together???

Inquiring Magii want to know? or maybe their GM's do?


Grick wrote:

The only time you can touch more than one target is when the targets are willing. (IE: Teleport)

submit2me wrote:
If you can show me anywhere that states you can actually use this spell over multiple rounds, then I'll join the crowd. But I don't feel that the line "uses per level" implies this at all.

You're not going to find that, the spell is not very well written. Even James Jacobs don't really know how it works. (But he supposes it works the same way we do, you get a certain number of touches, once you've used them (or cast a spell) then the spell is discharged.)

Actually that first part is incorrect. And yes, it can be shown where in the rules it says you can touch multiple targets in the same round and specifies how it works IF the spell says you can touch targets over several rounds, which Chill Touch does not.

From the PRD under Magic, Range:

"Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action."

Thus Chill Touch allows you to touch up to 1 target per level on the round it is cast and then it is exhausted. Still a poorly written spell, but unfortunately they didn't improve the mechanic when they wrote Frostbite which reads the same way.

So really they need to either rewrite the duration to be 1 rd/lvl with the usual 1 touch per round, or faq how this works with spellstrike. With just the spell, it really isn't a big deal since the damage is small and you can only touch a few targets generally. But with Spellstrike, some interpretations say you can use your weapon for each touch and get 1 attack per level if enough targets are there. That seems outrageously effective to me. Frankly I also would errata Spellstrike so that it does not work with cantrips.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
James Jacobs wrote:
Warforged Gardener wrote:
As near as I can tell, 3.5 allowed players to take both Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot if they were throwing weapons and the rules in Pathfinder are worded in the same way. I realize it would be a -4 penalty and thrown weapons have very short ranges, but would a character be able to make three throws in the same full attack with only these two feats(well, three feats, counting Quick Draw, assuming it's not a Shuriken)? Is there an official Pathfinder ruling on this?

Quick Draw does indeed let you take additional attacks with thrown weapons. Rapid Shot is a trickier case, though, since its name implies, flavor wise, that it should work with ranged weapons you "shoot" (like bows). Further reading indicates that Rapid Shot works with ranged weapons, not melee weapons, and thrown weapons are technically classified as melee weapons despite the fact that they can be hurled.

So, the flavor and intent of the feat Rapid Shot is that it should work on bows (and crossbows of lighter construction, assuming the user has Rapid Reload), and were I a strictly by-the-rules guy I'd say that Rapid Shot won't work with thrown weapons.

But what abnout shuriken which are a thrown weapon that is listed as ranged weapon and that is treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them? Could such a user with TWF, Rapid Shot and a BAB of +6 throw 4 of them at +4/+4/+4/-1 plus applicable dex bonus? With Str bonus and Sneak Attack this could be more effective at close range than a bow.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

So this is very odd, you can use an SLA while paralyzed...however, using an SLA provokes an attack of opportunity??? How exactly does someone perceive that the person is using an SLA so that they know there is an opening to exploit??? Especially if the person using the SLA is paralyzed??? So I can't just get a free AOO on a paralyzed person, but if they use an ability I cannot perceive them using they let their guard down and I get to whack them??? This makes less than zero sense...if that's possible.


UltimaGabe wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Actually adamantine weapons (and tools) ignore hardness of less than 20. So, no, adamantine would still be affected by adamantine hardness. So vs. an adamantine sword hardness of 0-19 is treated as 0; hardness of 20+ is treated as 20+.
My mistake. Regardless, the rest of my post is still 100% valid. An adamantine weapon would still slice through a stone wall as if it were made of cheese.

Um...sure, but it doesn't remove friction. Even if you sliced through a wall the weight of the stone would push the two pieces together and friction would make removing that wall piece, even with 4 cuts to form a square nearly impossible. Cut through a block of cheese and then try to just push the top piece off the bottom one...now extrapolate that to 500+ lbs of stone.

The stabbing someone through the wall thing is cool though.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Title says it all...what class would you consider The Doctor to be? I'm kind of leaning toward bard, skills rogue, or sorcerer myself, but even those don't seem to fit completely.

Reincarnation Druid 5 / Detective Bard 15 ?


Cheapy wrote:
Mine is an adamantine dagger. Need to get through that door? Easy, I'll just cut through it.

I prefer an adamantine hand axe, still works for cutting, but has more chopping power.


James Jacobs wrote:

Spellstrike: The free attack is NOT an extra attack. It's a free attack you ad on to spellcasting. Casting the spell still takes the normal amount of time—spellstrike just effectively adds the weapon attack as a part of the casting of the spell. Think of the attack as a somatic component if you will. So when he uses spellstrike, he does NOT get his full iterative attacks—his primary action in that round is the spellcasting, and normally that means he gets NO attacks. Spellstrike lets him make ONE attack as part of that spellcasting.

I think you are missing the interaction between Spellstrike and Spell Combat. Spell Combat allows the Magus to cast a spell with his offhand as a full round action and still receive his iterative attacks. If that spell is a touch spell that provides a free touch attack as part of it (like shocking grasp) then the magus would still get this attack. So using Spell Combat, but without Spellstrike, the magus could attack with his sword and cast shocking grasp and deliver it as a touch spell with his off hand. With Spellstrike (which the ability states can be used with Spell Combat) the magus can make the attack for the shocking grasp with his sword instead of his off hand (though it is no longer a touch attack). I think this works fine so long as cantrips are errata'd to not be usuable with Spellstrike.

Does this make sense?


I'm going with a Monk / Magus (Kensai), with Magical Knack trait my two levels of monk at least won't hit my caster level.

It's a point buy game stats-wise so having 16 Dex, 16 Int, 14 Wis is more cost effective than going for 18 Dex, 18 Wis.

I'm sure it won't be completely optimal, but it should be fun!


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm especially interested in knowing how racial traits transfer.

Are all/no Racial Traits of the old form lost?

Are all/no Racial Traits of the new form gained?

Since speed is a Racial Trait for core races it would seem that trait is lost/gained, but what about others?


6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.

AACK! This really plays havoc with an adventure line like Kingmaker. The impacts on travel and exploration are significant enough, but the impact on military encounters where suddenly light horse skirmishers are slower than heavily armored knights on destriers due to the light horse's encumbrance are extremely out of sync.

How is it the Dog and Riding Dog warrant each getting it's own stat block, but the vastly more common light and heavy horses do not. Simply making a Light Horse "Advanced" is not a reasonable way to model a heavy horse.


Midnightoker wrote:
Nico Crispin wrote:
Arkadwyn wrote:
No, I'm interpreting that it ends when your next round begins. I agree that logically you shuld be able to use it, but I don't think the rules support that logic. If spells work the way you suggest then I could cast Vanish and would disappear not only for the rest of my current round, but for my next round as well.

Good point. As a GM I'd use the GM duty of common sense here and not strip the power of it's usage, but I'd like to see the Piazo Guys chime in with a ruling here as I could see it's utility as part to make the Attack before 4th level with AoOs and in buffing party members... as the OP pointed out.

Isshia

People are confusing Round with Turn.

They are both referenced through out the books but are entirely different, your turn is not a round, it is a small part of a round.

If an action takes the end of your turn then a full round is until the end of your next turn.

Sounds good, but since this is a standard action I could cast it and then move...so when does it end, when I move next round? when I finish a standard action next round? what if I take a full round action next round, does it end somewhere in the middle of that action?


Gilfalas wrote:
Arkadwyn wrote:
If spells work the way you suggest then I could cast Vanish and would disappear not only for the rest of my current round, but for my next round as well.

No, because Vanish is reactive, defensive and passive. It's effects kick in and are applicable from the moment you cast it till the start of your next round. Since it is defensive and passive, it is doing it's job for the entire time and if your attacked or targeted in the time period it is effective.

With an attack effect that requires an action to utilise, such as the OP's situation, I cannot see where the round of duration is used up simply in starting the ability. It would allow one round of 'use' before expiring. Since it's use requires another action, it should be available for your next action.

While I cannot support this with a specifically cited RAW, I can attest that if played this way your game will most certainly not collapse or explode and the ablity would then be USABLE by the caster at the level it is received, which would seem to be the part of the intent of giving the ability in the first place.

I agree with all the points made logically, I just don't believe the duration rules as written make any reference in utilizing the effect of a spell in determining when that duration ends, i.e. all spells with a duration of 1 round end when the caster's next round begins by rule. I'm perfectly fine with houseruling the ability to work for 1 effective round per 2 caster levels, and that probably is the intent. I just wish they would write things better so that you don't have to houserule a bunch of things because they didn't think it through when writing the ability.


Gilfalas wrote:

I was under the impression that the rounds duration was USABLE rounds. If the simple act of casting the spell (Or SLA) uses up a spells duration to 0 effect then it would seem logical that the spells intention is to give at least one round of usable effect.

If you cast it on someone else they get to use it on their next action for 'one round's' total effect.

I see 0 reason why this would not work exactly the same when using the ability on one's own weapon.

So you would cast it on round one and be able to take a swing on round two with it active for one rounds worth of effect.

They way your interpreting it currently your getting a 0 round duration. In effect the spell ends the moment you finish casting it on your own weapon, which is not the intent or function of the ability.

No, I'm interpreting that it ends when your next round begins. I agree that logically you shuld be able to use it, but I don't think the rules support that logic. If spells work the way you suggest then I could cast Vanish and would disappear not only for the rest of my current round, but for my next round as well.


Necromancer wrote:
Makarnak wrote:
I believe that if a spell has a duration of one round, it will last until the end of your action the next round (or even until the end of the next round, though I can't find any text to back up exactly when spells 'start' or 'end').
This is what I've always assumed, but now I'm having the same problem pinning down the section of the rulebook covering it.

Based on the wording in True Strike I would have to say that is not how it is intended to work, otherwise there would be no need to specify that the bonus in True Strike is effective the next round.


Makarnak wrote:
Arkadwyn wrote:
The new Stormborn bloodline looked like a good thematic fit, however one thing struck me about their first level ability...you can't use it on yourself until 4th level.

It seems you're concerned about the duration being too short, which I think is misplaced.

I believe that if a spell has a duration of one round, it will last until the end of your action the next round (or even until the end of the next round, though I can't find any text to back up exactly when spells 'start' or 'end'). At the very least, the sorceror will have his next round to act after spending the standard action, allowing him to smite his enemies with an extra 1d6 points of damage.

So it isn't useless. In some ways, the concept mirrors 'sanctuary' at first level. If you only count the round you cast it, it becomes relatively useless. If it lasts until the end of the next round, it becomes useful. Same thing with 'summon'ing spells at first level.

Many other low-level spells and abilities function in much the same way.

Actually the duration is fine I think, I was going to propose to my Gm making it a full round action, then it would be in effect starting the following round and be more useful. Ironic eh? sanctuary is a bad example though since it affects others and they are guaranteed to get to act sometime before your current round and the start of your next one. Summoning spells are similar in that they are a full round action to cast and hence the first round is the round following it being cast.


Necromancer wrote:
Arkadwyn wrote:
The new Stormborn bloodline looked like a good thematic fit, however one thing struck me about their first level ability...you can't use it on yourself until 4th level.
How do you figure that? I just read the entry and understood it to mean "touch a weapon", not "someone else's weapon". This means, to me, that you can enchant your own weapon and others.

That's why I said you can't use it on yourself...sure you can touch someone else's weapon and it will have the Shock property for 1 rd, but givning your own weapon the shock property for 1 round is useless since you won't be able to attack with it having used your std action to activate the ability.

Being stormborn you would think it would be easier to enhance your own weapon than it is someone elses...


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.

So I was working up a new character and thinking of being a Sorcerer, so the obvious question of which bloodline to take was first on my list. The new Stormborn bloodline looked like a good thematic fit, however one thing struck me about their first level ability...you can't use it on yourself until 4th level.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how it shoudl work, but since it only lasts for for half your sorcerer level in rounds (hence 1 round until 4th lvl), and it is a standard action to activate, and it enhances a weapon, you can only effectively use it on someone else until you are 4th level. Now that might be reasonable, but it seems out of concept that the stormborn sorcerer can only make someone else's weapon charged with electricity (the boreal power works the same way). Out of all the bloodlines, only Destined gets an ability at first level that is of reduced uselfulness when used on themself or directly used by them and that one is so good it seems ok. Both the boreal ability and the stormborn ability seem way underpowered and thematically out of place in contrast to other bloodlines. Maybe if it were a swift action but could only be used on a weapon that you wielded yourself that would be better?

I haven't seen any errata yet on the APG so perhaps this will be fixed?


I still don't get it. When I first saw this Combat maneuver I thought it would be really cool, but it's really not...I mean, why would I want to give someone any of these conditions if they could end them with a move action when I could just as easily trip, grapple, or disarm them and all of those either give me an attack of opportunity (in all likelihood) or prevent the person from moving, and are much harder to remove than the Dirty Trick effect is.

I mean, throwing sand in someone's eyes is the classic one-on-one fight maneuver, but it's not at all useful the way Dirty Trick is written. If the action of removing the condition provoked an attack of opportunity then I think it would make sense, but as written it is useless except for those weird, multi-skill/spell/feat combos.

Adding the AOO balances it perfectly with Trip and Disarm I think and makes it worthwhile. You throw sand in the guy's eyes and if it works you still get to smack him when he tries to clear them. Your smacking him is more effective than if he is tripped in some circumstances, but not all since you get +4 to hit the prone guy with no dex bonus, but only +2 to hit the blinded one. Yes rogues can more out of this than other characters, but shouldn't rogues be the ones most likely to benefit from a Dirty Trick???


James Jacobs wrote:

I believe that it's an intentional design choice that some abilities substitute out higher level abilities; you get a lesser power earlier, but at the cost of a better power later.

But hit that FAQ flag and we'll get to answering the question eventually!

Any chance of getting an update on this soon? It's been nearly a month now. Seems that getting the take 20 ability earlier (at the cost of versatile performance) does not balance unless the ability to take 10 is retained.

This isn't a case of getting a lesser power earlier, but rather of getting the same power earlier and giving up another power entirely.


voska66 wrote:

Cleave is a standard action not an attack action. Attack actions are listed in the Combat section under actions. Cleave isn't listed there so you can't use Vital Strike on Cleave.

A little confusing if you take attack action as the dictionary definition and not the listed attack actions in the rules. I know it caught me the first time I saw this combo come up.

Exactly, while a single Attack is both an Attack Action and Standard Action, a Cleave is a particular another type of standard action from the attack action that just happens to be a standard action, just as casting a spell is another type of standard action (in most cases).


War Jack wrote:

As for the rules set, it has been hinted that they are looking at a in house rules set that will more parallel the table top game. Thus making it easier to cross pollinate thier fans from one game to the other.

-War Jack

Sadly, as game companies continue to refuse to learn, all this does is ensure that only players of their tabletop game will who happen to play rpg's will buy in. They would do far better to take an established rpg system and use it's popularity to drive people to their tabletop game. Sigh, sadly its a lesson that every game company refuses to learn from history.


Kolokotroni wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
This is a game. So play it. When we roll a d20 to solve a puzzle, we're not playing the game - our character sheet is playing the game, our dice are playing the game, but we're not. We're just sitting back watching our stuff play the game in front of us.
Does this mean as a dm you also set up targets and hand your players a bow and say, ok make your attack? This is indeed a game, and part of the game is your character can do things i cant do. The 26 int wizard can conjur fires from the abyss but his ability with riddles is limited to that of normal old me? That makes as much sense as the barbarian being limited to my ability to swing an ax, or the rogue to my ability with a lockpick.

Well, your 26 Int wizard is limited to only tactical combinations of spells that you can come up with on the fly...shouldn't a wizard with a 26 Int be able to figure out the optimal combo of spells to memorize every day and thus do a much better job of it than "normal old you"? Like it or not, your 26 Int wizard already is limited by what you can imagine and remember, and figure out...not just in the area of puzzles.


Garden Tool wrote:
Arkadwyn wrote:
Carpy DM wrote:


Battle herald: bard/cavalier multiclass.
What are the requirements for the Battle Herald PrC? Can a Bard/Paladin qualify?

No. Not unless you're a bard/paladin/cavalier, anyway. The PrC requires the Challenge ability.

That's disappointing. PrC's that require a specific set of classes to even qualify for aren' very useful. I've been looking for a good PrC for my Paladin/Bard and was really hopeful for this one...

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.