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

Ascalaphus's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 4,012 posts. 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 6 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 4,012 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

What about a Slayer? It's not technically a ranger, but if you want to get the approximate feel of one without magic or traps, it's a lot easier with a slayer than with a ranger.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that in the past, not all writers were on the same page. Some probably thought it would stack (see Dragon Ferocity), which gave them leeway for some now-problematic language. A bit like how "wielding" can mean a lot of different things depending on where you're reading it.

I do think though that with the amount of stat-switching and stat-adding powers floating around, that it's time Paizo made up its mind and dealt with this in a more consistent fashion.

@thejeff: "intended" is fuzzy with cursed items anyhow. Many of them are uber-powerful weapons if you know what they are, because they don't allow saving throws. There's more than a few discussions about players trying to make cursed items intentionally because they're actually way OP, but not for sale due to being "cursed" and lacking shop prices.

There's several different kinds of shapeshifter you could make actually;

  • The Infiltrator; assumes the shape of humanoids, perhaps even specific individuals. Focus on social/soft skills. Perhaps sneak attack and such. Attack enemies from within their own ranks. At higher levels you might also be able to force others into different forms, and yourself quickly change shape many times per day.

  • Natural shapeshifter; shifting into animals, maybe elementals or plants like the druid, but without the spellcasting but with more BAB and combat oomph. Maybe keep the animal companion, but if you do, you have a better time changing into that species and a harder into others. Close to a lycantrophe monster class.

  • New types; perhaps the ability to turn into oozes or aberrations (and mechanically executed better than the Cave Druid that doesn't get blindsense). Or into one or more magical beasts. Or into an outsider. Or even (gasp) a self-designed creature, cribbing from the eidolon rules.

    Note that these classes pretty much ignore spellcasting, focusing on shapeshifting as their one main theme.

  • Kazumetsa_Raijin wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    Finlanderboy wrote:

    From what I understand some people do not want ability modifiers to stack, and so they read the rules to say that.

    Funny. I keep seeing people that really want them to stack, so they try really hard to read it in a way that'll let them.
    It's funny how that works for both sides, in every argument. Right?

    That's what I wanted to show yeah.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I think most schools of wizard magic can be spun off into dedicated classes; transmutation even into multiple directions.

  • Abjuration: create smaller and greater forcefields on the fly to intercept enemy movement and attacks, counter spells, banish outsiders. Eventually, get good at reflecting spells back at their casters or any other target you like.

  • Conjuration: we already have the Summoner, basically the inspiration for these other school specialists.
  • Divination: focus on either telepathy or precognition. The telepath might have some overlap with psionics. The precognition-based one could also overlap with magus, to make a warrior that's always a few steps ahead of his enemies. Evade their blows, duck under their cover because you can predict what they're going to do and so forth. Also, win at games of chance.

  • Enchantment: perhaps the Witch/Bard already does this.

  • Evocation: c'mon, you know you want to play a Real Blaster. Not the current paradigm, where you're either a tragic failure or a Dazing munchkin. You want a blaster that wins by actually blasting, not debuffing concealed as blasting. Get rid of wizard's versatility and make a blaster that gives the barbarian's DPR a run for its money.

  • Illusion: current illusion spells seem rather rigid. A class based around illusion should have a more flexible system; definitely not a prepared caster. Maybe a power pool where you expend more power to create bigger illusions, or infuse them with more reality (shadow). Combine this with a good essay on how exactly disbelief works so that player and GM both know how those rules really work.

  • Necromancy: we all want the Dark Lord to be an arcane caster, but currently clerics are so much better at raising undead. There's a design niche here for an undead-focused arcane necromancer, that either raises or puts down undead at least as good as a cleric. Also, really go nuts with Magic Jar and other possession style effects.

  • Transmutation: there's lots of possibilities here. Machine-mages that make construct pets and animate objects, biomancers that create animal/plant/aberration pets (comparable to Eidolon but not an outsider), shapeshifters, telekinetics. Item-mages that can quickly create temporary magic items, and manipulate your and enemy magic items, redlining or suppressing them.

  • Finlanderboy wrote:

    From what I understand some people do not want ability modifiers to stack, and so they read the rules to say that.

    Funny. I keep seeing people that really want them to stack, so they try really hard to read it in a way that'll let them.

    Galnörag wrote:
    Kyle Baird wrote:
    Galnörag wrote:
    The Fun Sponge wrote:
    Galnörag wrote:
    GM Lamplighter wrote:
    Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
    I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
    I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.
    My opinion and experience are coming from GMing and Playing 6-02 and having seen a table of 6-01 I haven't suffered 6-03 yet.
    So your opinion that 6-03 punishes well-rounded players is based thoroughly being involved with one scenario and watching another one play? Okay then.

    I'm not commenting specifically on 6-03 at all, I was responding a comment about 3 different scenarios, and then clarifying that my opinion was based on my explicit and detailed experience with one. From that experience my disagreement with the poster is that the technologist feat, and the clarification of it made in this post is a punishment to well rounded characters, because no matter how well rounded a character is, they need a single specialization to enable all their other abilities.

    You're making rather strong claims about 6-03, ("suffer through it") but now you turn around and say that you're not really talking about it at all.

    If you want people to understand what you're actually trying to say, don't distract them by throwing fire at something else.

    Galnörag wrote:

    What scenarios I have or haven't read was actually a fallacious argument to fall into, because with or knowledge of the individual scenarios, I stand by that the technologist feat is a specialization or feat tax for PFS players who want to participate in scenarios with technology in them, especially players who have already spread their resources around generalizing, they barred from using those resources without this one specific key. It would be better to use the existing mechanic, higher DCs for more esoteric things, and allow the technologist feat to give a bonus like skill focus to using skills for technology related things.

    Boiling that right down, why create a new mechanism/rule system when a suitable one already exists?

    I too think the Technologist feat is bad game design. There are so many other extremely obscure things in Golarion that locking this specific one behind a feat tax seems stupid. You don't need a feat to understand Azlant, Thassilonian, Serpentfolk, Mwangi, Tian, Mythos or other systems of magic/alchemy/whatever.

    That said, the three scenarios are different when you're looking to see how much impact having/not having the feat actually has.

    S6 scenarios:

  • In 6-01 you actually need to operate some technology to complete the scenario.
  • In 6-02 the only thing you really need to know is how to kill gearsman and the BBEG. Killing gearsmen works mostly the same way as killing any construct (DR/adamantine or Hardness, not a lot of difference to a melee guy. Hardness or immunity to any magic that allows SR, also not an endless difference.)
  • In 6-03 the gearsmen are basically mooks for your actual enemies, who are pretty much all of them humans with a few toys. They're scary because they're high-level spellcasters, not because of the tech they use.
  • I maintain that you basically miss only 3% or so of 6-02 and 6-03 by not having the feat. The tech you do find isn't really powerful enough to justify the expense; those laser pistols and such aren't more powerful than non-tech options you already have. So without Technologist you're not really missing out on anything that you'd actually use.

    6-03 wasn't suffering. I really liked that scenario.

    Also, it's likely you're not playing Scars and Day with the same PC, because the tier range of Day is higher than Scars. In my case my paladin became level 6 after Day, so he couldn't actually play Scars.

    @BNW: I put the products I want to buy in my Wishlist, then ask a friend with a creditcard to buy them for me; they're added to my downloads and that works fine.

    We really didn't feel like the feat would've done a whole lot at all in 6-02 and 6-03, only on 6-01 perhaps. In 6-02 I guess you're supposed to get by on the few clues the scenario provides to you, as well as just knowing that the solution to all constructs is always adamantine. In -03 the gearsmen are decidedly secondary. You don't really need to understand them, just whack them hard.

    @Under A Bleeding Sun:

    I'll agree about 6-02 rewarding specialization in adamantine/2H weapons. Less so about 6-03;

    There's a lot of non-gearsman enemies, including a several very dangerous spellcasters. The gearsmen are basically mooks in that scenario. There's also much fewer of them than in 6-02.

    We played 6-03 first, and thought "these robots aren't so bad", then we played 6-02 and were "are these really the same robots? These seem so much more dangerous."

    In 6-03 we just quickly mobbed the individual gearsmen and got rid of them. In 6-02 we actually got surrounded in the opening encounter and had to deal with them healing each other and getting healed by the plasm in the final encounter.

    I had a funny experience with this: for some reason nobody seems to be playing clerics of level less than 5 in my area. So I'd gotten pretty used to not having in-combat healing available beyond panicked wanding the frontliner with the only weapon that works against the monster.

    And then you suddenly play with someone who plays a competent cleric; he doesn't spend all his time healing because he's also got other neat stuff to do, but when the front line is just about to collapse under the enemy assault he's suddenly there and you're at full health again.

    That's when you really start appreciating healing.

    The objections against photocopying pages from a physical book seem to be these:

    1) The copy might be incomplete; it might reference something elsewhere in the book that the GM also wants to look up.

    2) Unlike a watermarked PDF, you can't prove ownership through photocopy.

    I think that #1 is a false argument, because that's no different from someone choosing only some pages to print from a watermarked PDF. It's a mistake by the player making the photocopy, but it's just as much a mistake for the guy printing a PDF. So I don't think we can hold this as an argument against photocopies.

    #2 is the real argument. I've mentioned before that you could just write your name on the book, probably on the title page, to prove ownership. You could include a photocopy of that page to your photocopy stack to prove ownership. There are some arguments against that:

    A) It doesn't help people who buy second-hand books. True enough. Although I suspect more people use first-hand than second-hand books.

    B) It's a bit weird for people who buy books as a group. They couldn't use this option.

    Even so, the people of objections A and B aren't actually hurt by this change. The change doesn't help everyone, but it does help a lot of people. I think partial improvement is better than no improvement.

    Scott Yauger wrote:

    Any decent trap would not have observable stimuli. That's what makes it a trap.

    In that case there is NO way to detect it other than doing stuff that might trigger it.

    Most traps are hard to spot; that's why the spot DC tends to start at 20.

    Consider the tripwire trap. If you're actively looking for traps, you can spot it. But it's possible you'll spot it just because you happen to look that way and have sharp eyes.

    If it's not possible to spot it passively, why could you even spot it actively? That doesn't make sense.

    Scott Yauger wrote:

    Granting a 'free' perception check would negate the need to ever take Trap spotter. I don't think granting a second chance to spot traps would be considered RAW either.

    It doesn't negate the need, although it makes it less useful. It turns it from "roll at all" to "roll twice and take the best result".

    Also, you can even have three chances to spot it: passively, then with Trap Spotter, and again with Stonecunning if the trap happens to involve stonework.


    Anyway, your post proves precisely what I said earlier: that because Trap Spotter exists, people believe that without it you can't spot traps passively.

    But the Perception and Trap rules don't say that - they don't say anything one way or the other. So maybe you have to actively search, or maybe Trap Spotter gives you a second chance. With the rules as they are, both interpretations are entirely possible.

    So people often say that you have to search actively "because otherwise it'd be too easy". But that's not really a RAW argument, is it?

    Dave Baker wrote:

    I was of the impression that if you are not actively looking for a trap (or unless you have the Trapfinder ability) you do not get a perception check for traps. The perception check is listed for those actively looking for traps (as in statign that they are searching an area for a trap).

    I'm running it this weekend and unless the PCs are actively looking for traps (which is unlikely) they will be subject to the trap.

    This is actually a pretty unclear issue. In the section of the CRB environment chapter detailing traps, nothing is said one way or the other; it only talks about the results of Perception checks, not when you're making them.

    In Skills->Perception, the only relevant part is this:

    Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

    Is a pressure plate or tripwire an observable stimulus? I'd say yes. So a reactive check seems in order.

    However, many people believe that you must spend the Move action to search, perhaps because they're just used to people saying "I search for traps", assuming that they wouldn't be doing that if it wasn't necessary. A sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Another argument for the need to search actively is the existence of a couple of abilities that give you a Perception check anytime you come close to a trap;

    Stonecunning: Dwarves receive a +2 bonus on Perception checks to potentially notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors located in stone walls or floors. They receive a check to notice such features whenever they pass within 10 feet of them, whether or not they are actively looking.
    Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM.

    Some people believe that the existence of these abilities implies that without them, you have to search actively. I'm not so sure of that; they could also mean that you get a second chance to spot traps.

    I personally think it makes sense to grant a Perception check even if not actively searching, because there's a chance people will spot a trap just because it's visible in the direction they're looking at. It's an observable stimulus. However, if not actively searching, it'd be fair to apply a penalty to the DC, the "Creature making the check is distracted: +5DC" line shown in the Perception skill.

    Actively searching will definitely avoid that penalty, and also allow you to Take 20. (Note that since the Perception check takes only 1 Move, it takes only 1 minute to Take 20 on a look for traps, not nearly as long as some people think it does.)


    Back to this scenario. Even if you decide that searching for traps requires an action, they can still choose to do that. Move; check; track; move; check; track and so on ad nauseam. It means they'll be going slower, but I've played that scenario, and those traps can really wear you down.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    @Undone: ah, but you forgot to look at page 403 of the CRB:

    CRB p 403 wrote:

    Handling PC Death: Eventually, through bad luck or bad

    tactics, a player character is going to die in your game. Other
    events, such as petrification, paralysis, sleep, and stunning
    can have a similar effect on the game as PC death, and the
    following advice should apply to those effects as well.
    When a PC dies, his player b]no longer has any input into
    the game[/b] (unless he has a cohort or other allied NPC he
    can start playing). That player has to sit at the table quietly,
    watching and waiting while everyone else continues to
    have fun with the game.
    In some cases, the effect is only
    temporary, with another player able to step in to restore the
    PC to life (or cure his petrification, remove his paralysis,
    or whatever), but nevertheless, when a player stops playing
    the game because his character’s been removed from the
    action, you as a GM have a problem on your hands.

    You're not even allowed to have fun while you're dead. :P

    Also, since you don't have input into the game, you can't take actions. This makes the Dead condition a lot like being Stunned or Dazed. It even says so; stunned or even sleeping PCs should have quiet unhappy players :P

    There are so many parts of the CRB I reference regularly that I basically just need to have the whole book there. With most of the others it's usually just a few pages - a class, a piece of equipment, a feat or two, a spell.

    @Walter: resurrecting old threads tends to result in a weird discussion where people heatedly reply to posts from a year ago. Especially if it's a multi-page thread, that gets quite confusing.

    Parasites are a pretty niche part of the game. I guess that means it doesn't justify adding whole new spells and abilities you'd need to deal with them. That would certainly not help classes like the Oracle who have limited spells known.

    @Andrew: the inquisitor has unusually many ways to either add wisdom to charisma skills, or replace charisma with wisdom on those skills. It's really quite strange design.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Adding to Orfamay's points; while Count von Overthere may have the right of high justice in his own county, that doesn't mean he can try people in the county of Duke von Next Door.

    @Undone: under your logic FOM would also help someone who's dead, because being dead prevents him from moving around.

    Loengrin wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    Loengrin wrote:

    So am I right to think that if you use this ruling an Order Of the Sword Cavalier 15 / Paladin 1 issuing a Knight's Challenge at an Evil badass can not use is Smite against this guy ?

    The Knight's Challenge say :

    the cavalier adds his Charisma bonus on all attack rolls and damage rolls made against the target of his challenge.

    The Smite Evil state :

    the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls
    Yes, they don't stack. They're both Charisma bonuses.
    But it's not logical why can't I do that while I can, with the same Knight's Challenge and Focused SHot add both my Charisma modifier and my intelligence modifier to damage and not the bonus from Smite and the bonus from the Knight's Challenge ?!?

    Because you can't stack bonuses with the same type unless specifically permitted (such as with Dodge).

    So you can stack a Cha bonus with an Int bonus, because they're different, but can't stack Cha with Cha, because they're the same.

    @Seranov: <ability> bonuses do exist. They're all over the book. They're defined here:

    CRB, "Getting Started" wrote:

    Determine Bonuses

    Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells shows the modifier for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.

    As for the Dragon Ferocity: you do add that bonus, because it is not a Strength bonus, it is a bonus equal to half your strength bonus.

    "Equal to" means they're not the same thing, just equal.

    Loengrin wrote:

    So am I right to think that if you use this ruling an Order Of the Sword Cavalier 15 / Paladin 1 issuing a Knight's Challenge at an Evil badass can not use is Smite against this guy ?

    The Knight's Challenge say :

    the cavalier adds his Charisma bonus on all attack rolls and damage rolls made against the target of his challenge.

    The Smite Evil state :

    the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls

    Yes, they don't stack. They're both Charisma bonuses.

    Ughbash wrote:

    Yes it would.

    Divine grace is a BONUS over and above the stats.

    That's what I just said.

    Ughbash wrote:


    With your interpretation if he then took the mystery sidestep secret his reflex save bonus would DROP to 4.

    No, my interpretation is that it works, because Divine Protection is not a Charisma bonus, it's an untyped bonus equal to your Charisma bonus. Sidestep Secret is a Charisma bonus. They're different, so they stack.

    Ughbash wrote:
    This is clearly not the intent nor is it the clear reading of the mystery.

    I'm pretty sure there wasn't any developer intent at all here; developers didn't intend for you to make that particular build, or for it to work or not work. That's just something found by players making a build.

    Yeah, that's got to do with the wording of Divine Grace;

    PRD-CRB Paladin wrote:
    Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws.

    The magic word here is "equal to", which means it's just as much, but not the same thing. If it had been like this:

    Hypothetical wrote:
    Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin adds his Charisma bonus (if any) to all saving throws.

    Then it wouldn't stack with Sidestep Secret, because that also adds the Charisma bonus.

    Hey, I'm not saying that it's not clunky. I would've preferred more explicit wording. Heck, I'd have preferred if they'd made it (Ex) and stacking with the Monk, rather than the current "haha, it's redundant!" paradigm, wherein for example a Brawler's Unarmed Strike doesn't stack with the Monk's.

    Dragon Style:
    - The Style just shifts the Strength bonus from 1x to 1.5x; it's still the Strength bonus
    - Ferocity gives you an untyped bonus that is equal to half your Strength bonus. Equal to, but not the same thing.

    As is, I would prefer tighter wording, because these things take veeery careful reading to figure out.

    @Larkos: the OotS analysis is a good one, but only IF you assume that WBL and XP for encounter rules apply to off-screen NPCs as well. But if you apply that zealously, that also means that every rich merchant is also a high-level character, that low-level characters can't become tax-collectors because they can't handle having that much loot in their pockets and so on.

    SAMAS makes a good point though; banditry is usually "dynamic"; people with little left to lose take it up and many of them don't live all that long. The ones that do tend to get smart and pay off or co-opt those local forces that could stop them. To deal with entrenched successful bandits, you're going to need outside heroes...

    I don't think you can both respect a (legitimate) authority and take matters into your own hands by executing people you have no legal right to kill.

    Now, if the law or jurisprudence gives you some leeway to stop a crime in progress, that's something a paladin can work with. Or if you can reasonably claim that the law is no longer capable of doing its job (because the bandits murdered the sheriff and all his deputies), that'd also make sense.

    But if you think "well, they're just going to hang them, so I'm gonna save myself the inconvenience of a detour to drop them off", that's crossing the line.

    Kazumetsa_Raijin wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:

    No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.

    The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.

    The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".

    So they're really the same thing.

    If they were the same thing, they'd list them as the same thing. They also should have just listed it as "as the Monk ability of the same name" like they did THREE other times in that Archetype. Wth. I don't know who wrote the archetype, but they must have been severely scatter-brained or a subcontractor of a subcontractor. They clearly had the Monk in mind when creating this Archetype... so why not look back and reference it 20 or 30 times to avoid this kind of complication? A lot of writings seem "clear" to certain people, but if it isn't written properly, it's not truly clear to Anyone.

    I see what you're saying, and I think I understand better after you clarified, but I now feel more solid on what I stated previously.

    I don't think it's strange that they didn't use the exact same language, for at least 2 reasons;

    1) It is NOT the monk ability of the same name. Monks get a bonus due to inner piece. Sacred Fists are protected by a god. One ability is extraordinary, the other magical. One leads to an untyped level-scaling bonus, the other to a deflection level-scaling bonus.

    While writing the ability, new text was inserted to emphasize these differences ("divine protection"). At that point you're not just copy-pasting text anymore, and differences creep in.

    2) If you've ever written a mass of house rules, you've noticed that even for a single person it's hard to be consistent with your terminology. "Modifier, at least 0" and "bonus" mean the same thing, so when you're proofreading, neither looks incorrect, because they aren't. Differences that aren't errors are REALLY hard to spot. The ACG was written years after the monk, probably by different people. Also, there was the rush for GenCon.

    thorin001 wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:

    No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.

    The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.

    The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".

    So they're really the same thing.

    No wisdom bonus is the value, not the type. It they want to add a type they specify it, just like with the Duelist.

    Again, lack of a type does not mean you can make up your own, it means untyped.

    Nuh-uh :P

    CRB, Monk class, AC bonus class feature wrote:
    the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD.

    I contend that that means exactly the same thing as saying "gains a Wisdom bonus to AC equal to his Wisdom bonus", except the second sentence sounds really dumb (even if it is more explicit).

    If you read the "Getting Started" chapter in the CRB, they talk a whole lot about "Strength bonus", "Wisdom bonus" and so forth. These are bonus types that really exist.

    The Duelist has a Dodge bonus for a reason. He adds Intelligence to AC, but not all at once, and not as an Intelligence bonus. If you had a different ability that also added Intelligence to AC as an actual Intelligence bonus, they'd stack.

    If you compare the Duelist to the Iroran Paladin's Confident Defence ability, the difference becomes obvious. Confident Defence is still limited by the maximum Dex bonus that your armor will let you add (as opposed to the Duelist's Dodge bonus). Also, if you dipped into Lore oracle for Sidestep Secret, you'd be first replacing Dex with Charisma for AC, then adding Charisma to Dex for AC, which most likely doesn't work. Because the Duelist has a Dodge bonus, it can't have that problem.

    So the Duelist Dodge bonus doesn't prove that it's not possible to have an Intelligence bonus to AC, just that the author didn't want it to be an Intelligence bonus, for some reason. Perhaps to ensure that the bonus would be lost on flat-footedness, since that's a property of Dodge bonuses to AC, but such a standard rule doesn't exist for Intelligence bonuses to AC.

    No, it's type is "Wisdom bonus" to AC. In both cases.

    The Monk applies his Wisdom bonus.

    The Sacred Fist applies his "Wisdom modifier (minimum 0)". But according to the definition in the CRB, an ability modifier that's always positive is a bonus, so the Sacred Fist's ability is equivalent to "Wisdom bonus".

    So they're really the same thing.

    @Charon: because the standard paladin code requires you to respect legitimate authority. That includes respecting their jurisdictions.

    Jurisdiction is actually a very medieval concept. Overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions were pretty common; many people were covered by Personal rather than Territorial law. Meaning, if you're from City X, you're bound by the laws of City X wherever you are. If you get into a fight with someone from City Y, he's bound by his laws. Then the court gets into the difficult area of figuring out what legal system(s) would apply here. Often this was something that was arranged by treaties; for example, Hanseatic German merchants in Bruges were covered by their home laws in disputes with other Hanseatics, but in conflicts with other people or in violent disputes the Flemish law would apply. And added to that you've got class-based exemptions; like clergy being immune to prosecution under secular law except in the most extreme circumstances. That's where the whole concept of trial by a jury of your peers comes from - from the time when not everyone was your peer.

    Also, the law might be going to let murderers go due to lack of evidence, or failure to convince a jury to convict. That's just too bad for a paladin - he still needs to respect legitimate authority, even if sometimes bad guys get away with murder. That only goes out of the window if the law or government is actually so corrupt as to lose its legitimacy. He doesn't have to like it, but he'll have to live with it.

    Monk AC bonus wrote:
    When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD.

    Looks like that bonus is typed.

    Monk AC bonus, continued wrote:
    In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

    And this one isn't.

    The CRB actually explains the difference between ability modifiers and ability bonuses:

    Getting Started wrote:
    Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells shows the modifier for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.

    So when something tells you to add your Wisdom modifier, that can be a negative number (for example, Sense Motive). When something asks for your Wisdom bonus, it can't be less than 0 (Monk AC Bonus ability).

    But there is definitely such a thing as a "Wisdom bonus".


    I'd say that the Monk and Warpriest's AC Bonus ability is not the same source; they may happen to have the same name, but they are not the same thing.

    Moreover, it seems that they both give you two separate bonuses, one drawn from Wisdom (shared source) and one from class level in that class (not a shared source).

    So to me it seems obvious how it stacks: Wisdom only once, and levels in those classes applied separately.

    What now if you're in an AMF? The monk ability still functions, so you're still getting Wisdom and monk level-based bonus to AC. You're not getting the War Priest level based bonus to AC however.

    If you disarm a 2H barbarian, suddenly he's just a very angry dude with perhaps a dagger. Still dangerous, but not nearly as much.

    Also, it can be pretty decent if you have a reach weapon, against people moving in to attack you. If they suddenly need to spend an additional action to obtain a new weapon, that buys you some time.

    Also, enemies without weapons don't threaten attacks of opportunity anymore. Meaning your party wizard can cast spells in their face, and you can grapple them and so forth.

    Well, first you take a few minutes to make sure you've actually captured the right people. We don't want any miscarriages of justice after all. Then, it comes down to a question of jurisdiction. Are you empowered to enforce the law locally? In that case I guess it's time for a lawful execution.

    However, a paladin adventuring in a foreign land might hesitate to execute prisoners. Killing in self-defence is acceptable; usurping the role of local law enforcement not so much.

    I think it's quite plausible that a paladin has certain legal powers to try, convict and execute people, within some jurisdiction. But that's definitely you should clear beforehand with the GM.

    Serpent wrote:

    Some more stats: alignment

    N 14
    NE 7
    CE 6
    CN 6
    NG 2
    LE 2
    CG 2
    LN 1
    LG 0

    Huh. I guess if I had written up my archon, I'd have been the only one.

    Yeah, I consider the scorpion whip to be "damaged beyond use" with regards to PFS. I'd be exposing myself to significant table variation on a thing that requires a very dedicated build.

    How I think it is supposed to work:

  • Scorpion Whip uses the exact same proficiencies as the whip. Feats that require whip proficiency also work on the scorpion whip.

  • Like the whip the SW is a 1H slashing weapon with funky reach/provocation rules. Unlike the whip it does lethal damage and works against any AC.

    I've been thinking about a Slashing Grace whip build, although the feat chains are ridiculous. If I do I'll use the normal whip though, both to sidestep table variation, and because Whip Mastery makes the normal whip capable of lethal damage and sidesteps the AC issue. At that point it's more versatile at the cost of a bit of damage die.

  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Remove Disease often gets called in to remove parasites, but it doesn't really seem like parasites are a disease per se. Rather, they're rare enough not to have a standardized game mechanic. When a spell is needed to evict them, Remove Disease seems appropriate.

    Based on that, I'd understand a ruling going either way, although I'll lean towards interpreting parasites as being disease effects. I think this fits a trend where infestations are lumped together with diseases for game-mechanical purposes, such as with Diagnose Disease

    You determine whether a creature, object, or area carries any sort of disease or infestation (including molds, slimes, and similar hazards), or any exceptional or supernatural effects causing the sickened or nauseated effects. If there is disease present, you know what disease it is and its effects. If the target is a creature, you gain a +4 bonus on Heal checks to treat the creature's disease. The spell can penetrate many barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

    Note how the text of that thing first includes a list of things that are sufficiently like diseases that the spell would function, and then continues talking only about what you learn about diseases, suggesting that "disease" is now a cover-all word for all the things mentioned earlier.

    Likewise, Remove Disease has text talking about it working on parasites. So at least part of the ruleset thinks that the next closest thing to parasites is disease.

    Peet wrote:

    Obviously the PF Haunt rules were written after the Core Rulebook so the text of disrupt undead should be superseded by anything in the haunt rules that suggests that they are vulnerable to it.

    PRD wrote:
    positive energy applied to the haunt (via channeled energy, cure spells, and the like) can damage the haunt's hit points...

    The use of the phrase "and the like" suggests to me that disrupt undead would work.

    Do you guys agree?


    Otherwise we'd either have to start amending core spells every time a supplement introduces a new mechanic, or accept that increasingly many things in the rules don't work as you would expect them to.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'd say honorable surrender is only available to those who have, or might have, honor. If a bad guy has proven himself dishonorable, he forfeits that right.

    Although I'd start by assuming that even common criminals will honor the terms of surrender, until proven otherwise. But it might be different for always evil/chaotic races. Those might have to first prove they have honor, rather than being presumed honorable until proven otherwise.

    Muser wrote:

    Did some tier 1-2 checking:


    Night March: 2 pincers 2d8+10, 2 claws 1d6+10, bite 1d8+10

    If that happens you've totally, and I mean totally, screwed up. The scenario goes out of its way to make that not happen.

    The Glabrezu is imprisoned and can't get out on its own, so it can only attack you if you step into its circle or free it. There ate lots of clues as to why you shouldn't do that. And even if you do free it, its tactics dictate that he ignores you because you really aren't a threat to him.

    FLite wrote:
    Fortunately, Kyle Baird was aware of it while writing 6-3. So just 1&2 are potentially affected

    Having played all three of them, I thought the feat had the most impact in 6-01, where you actually get to use a lot of technology yourself. In 6-02 you're just fighting a lot of robots and holding onto your adamantine twohander for dear life. In 6-03 the opposition is much more varied and Technologist really doesn't matter a whole lot. "Oh, these constructs have hardness instead of DR and magic immunity. Now let's focus on the spellcaster they're serving as bodyguards, because that guy is SCARY."

    The current system isn't unjust, but it is impractical (lugging around lots of weight), and has unintended but significant negative side effects for FLGS.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Laying a ghost to rest is certainly an original villainous plan. I like that.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I think bandits tend to prey on people who are a lot less tougher than experienced PCs. When they see just how well-equipped the PCs are at level 2+, they'll probably just try to remain hidden in their ambush until the PCs are far away.

    Now, it's entirely plausible that beleaguered villagers hire the PCs to deal with bandits, particularly if the local noble lacks the skilled woodsmen needed to track down those bandits. The hunter has become the hunted.

    When bandits do strike, they're pretty brutal. Attacking in large numbers, employing flanking, focus fire and Precise Strike teamwork feats or Sneak Attack.

    Also, clever ambushes. A few archers might lure the PCs into a trap; if the players see four archers they'll probably charge that, and end up surrounded by ten more bandits with melee weapons.

    Also, snares and pit traps; tax collectors probably have an armed escort, but are worth robbing. Reflex-based traps are quite effective against big stupid fighter types.

    Ultimately though, normal bandits are low-level opponents.

    (I should mention though that I quite overwhelmed my party with level 1 rogues yesterday.)

    I'd just buy a breastplate, splint mail or banded mail, and then save up for fullplate if I were you.

    I wouldn't even bother with masterwork, because this is not going to be your long-term armor and the skills affected by armor check penalty fall into the category of things that you're mostly hopeless at anyway.

    1 to 50 of 4,012 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.