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

Ascalaphus's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,676 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,676 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

@Diego: I'd call those attacks, yes. You may have his best interests at heart, but he's not willing.


Huh. Smite damage on a channel. That's cool, if it works.


If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.


Greylurker wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Greylurker wrote:


The biggest one though is actually Read all the Spells and stuff on Magic. There is a lot of stuff you find just reading things that nerfs spells right there. Like if a Summoned creature dies you can't get it back for 24 hours or that Fireball can detonate prematurely if something gets in the way of it's line of fire.

I agree very much that you need to actually know and enforce the limits of magic. However, this isn't really one of them.

Suppose you summen a lantern archon, and it gets killed. You can just summon a different one. You could even summon a another one if your archon doesn't get killed, to have two of them at the same time.

if that was the case they wouldn't even need to put the 24 hour limit in there. But since they did you have to consider the summoning lists to be creature specific, with each creature on the list being a specific being.

I'm not really sure why the 24 hour clause is in there. I know that at least from 2nd edition onwards, there were various suggested bits of optional rule about personalizing summoned monsters and all that. Those never made it into default rules though. I think this is vestigial.

Although, with the more intelligent summoned monsters, summoning you already have a working relationship with might have some advantages; you can teach it some advanced tactics so that you can later on command it to execute complicated plans with only an "attack pattern delta!" order. If your favorite Lantern Archon is dead for 24 hours though, you're stuck with the "temp" who doesn't have that kind of training.

Hmm. That might be an interesting angle to play for a summoner/conjurer/priest actually.


Don't you like summoning? I found the leopard to be one of the best summons from Summon Monster III, so if you can summon them with Totemic Summons as a Standard action that's pretty good. You'd need Augment Summoning to make it work well though.


Aren't you afraid that Veteran's Will would become a required feat for fighters, rather than merely an attractive option?


Do GMs normally allow campaign traits from other campaigns though? PFS doesn't.

Which seems fair; I think campaign traits are often more powerful than regular traits, just to lure people into getting tied into the backstory/setting through those traits.


KainPen's point about Alluring is valid: since SLAs from Domains are Divine, even though they mimic Arcane-only spells sometimes, it's possible that the same logic applies to SLAs from religion traits.

On the other hand, Aasimar SLAs are not Divine by default, no matter how celestial the character may seem.

Expect table variation?


What lies can truly be said to be "impossible" in a world where 9th level spells exist? Maybe we need more Degrees of Improbability?


@Belafon: you're probably right.


Rynjin wrote:

No, because you're still using something you needed prerequisites to get into without having the prerequisites any more.

As soon as you retrain the Rogue/Wizard levels you fail to qualify for whichever one you went into first, which causes a cascade effect of "NOPENOPENOPE" and now all your class levels are useless.

I'm not sure it works that way.

If PrC A qualifies you for PrC B, and B qualifies you for A, then it looks self-sustaining to me. As soon as you get it going, that is.

It's a chicken/egg thing; as soon as you have a chicken and an egg, doesn't it keep going by itself?


Greylurker wrote:


The biggest one though is actually Read all the Spells and stuff on Magic. There is a lot of stuff you find just reading things that nerfs spells right there. Like if a Summoned creature dies you can't get it back for 24 hours or that Fireball can detonate prematurely if something gets in the way of it's line of fire.

I agree very much that you need to actually know and enforce the limits of magic. However, this isn't really one of them.

Suppose you summen a lantern archon, and it gets killed. You can just summon a different one. You could even summon a another one if your archon doesn't get killed, to have two of them at the same time.


Karuth wrote:


Unholy Rage
At 5th level when entering rage, the Barbarian can destroy a valuable object as move action to gain additional power during the rage.

Why only when entering a rage?

Also, does the object need to belong to the ravager?

Wouldn't it be nastier if you could also trigger this with a well-placed Sunder?

Karuth wrote:


10th level - object worth 250gp - Critical hits reduce an enemy's DR by an amount equal to your Barbarian level.

Shouldn't this be "ignore an amount of DR possessed by the enemy equal to..."?

Written the way you do, the reduction in DR appears to be permanent...

===

Otherwise: nice work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've written a house rule widget for this.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


Called is an error. The word "wielder" should be replaced with "owner" in the next errata. That makes much more sense.

Define "owner". :D

Generally it mean the guy with the weapon in his possession, but called can remove the weapon from someone possession.
It should use a command word.

That's a good point. Although, if two people know the command word, that could still get silly...


@Belafon: let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists a PrC called AT*, which is miraculously identical to the Arcane Trickster PrC in every way, except it's a different PrC so you can have levels in both.

Then you take levels in Rogue and Wizard to get into Arcane Trickster, and take 4 levels in it (earning a 2d6 SA from it). Next you take 4 levels in AT*, also earning 2d6 SA from AT*.

Then you could retrain those rogue levels to wizard levels and be a full caster, beacuse AT* qualifies you for Arcane Trickster and Arcane Trickster qualifies you for AT*.

Cheesy? Sure. But is it actually illegal? I don't think so.


I was mostly inspired by the other thread, about the elemental plane of wood. I was just poking around, looking for surprising effects if you alter the elements. I was thinking it would be mainly a lot of sorcerer bloodline blast powers that would need to change.


I think it was only meant for Summon Monster. It's in the name, otherwise it probably would've been called Neutral Summons, or Neutral Summoning or something. Compare to the feat names for other summoning-related feats like Augment Summons and Moonlight Summons, or Summon Good Monster for another feat that doesn't do anything for Nature's Allies.

That said, yeah, Druids are missing out here.


quote=Paths of Prestige, 34-35]
Superior Spell Mastery (Ex): At 2nd level, by spending a total of 24 hours studying over a maximum of 3 days,
a Magaambyan arcanist can change the spells she has mastered with the spell Mastery feat. She can choose a number of spells she knows up to her Intelligence modifier, which have a maximum combined spell level total equal to or less than her caster level, to be her Spell Mastery spells in place of the same number of spells she previously selected for her Spell Mastery feat.

Is it me, or would this allow you to reconstruct a spellbook from scratch? You still know the spells even if the spellbook is lost, and you can then use SSM to assign them to Spell Mastery. Thereafter, you can scribe them, because you're allowed to write down prepared spells.

Nifty, if it works.


FuelDrop wrote:
PSusac wrote:
So...Walk around naked and when people point at you tell that that only fools fail to see my splendid raiment! For I am the emperor!
To be fair, there is probably a magic item that works just like that.

You can leave your Hat of Disguise on.


I wonder what it would be like to computer-generate some (semi)random lists of prepared spells, so you start each adventuring day surprised by the spells you have available today. Forcing you to improvize new tactics.

(I'm working on a mystic theurge who worships Sun Wukong.)


I think in most cases wielding means the item is in hand and ready for immediate use (weapons), or worn correctly for immediate use (shields, armor, armor spikes).

Ready for immediate use means that NO more actions are required before you can use the item. Not even a Free action to Quickdraw. You're never wielding a sheathed weapon.

Then there are a handful of item properties that are exceptions to this.

Defending is the worst offender, with that weird FAQ. That FAQ is consistent with other "defensive fighting" powers: you can't use Fighting Defensively without making an attack roll, nor can you do so with Combat Expertise. However, if you try to apply the Defending FAQ to wielding in general, stuff breaks because then a whole lot of items can't be used; because they require a Standard action while you're also attacking. So I think Defending is an exception.

Called is an error. The word "wielder" should be replaced with "owner" in the next errata. That makes much more sense.

The base definition makes sense and wouldn't surprise anyone. If you draw a weapon, then spend two rounds running after a goblin, it would be very surprising if you weren't wielding that weapon during those rounds.


Okay. New variant.

Suppose you have two PrCs that both give and require Sneak Attack.

Could they be used to qualify for each other?


Well, if a spell kills the whole creature (like the spells I mentioned) that might not be a problem. Since they're all connected to each other (because it's one WtW) the spell would also kill all worms.

But, it depends on the GM's funky monster. It probably won't be that easy.

How about some Inevitables? This kind of persistence sounds right up their alley.


To a significant degree, Ravenloft is about Unique Monsters. Sure, there are some random zombies. But any significant adversary tends to have some backstory. Do the research; ask about for the history of the monster. That may give useful clues about its (unusual) immunities and vulnerabilities.


thorin001 wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Expect not to be able to use Arcane Strike while raging. You are tapping into spells/SLAs which you cannot use while raging.
You're only using Arcane Strike, you're not casting spells. I'm not sure if I would define Arcane Strike as "requiring patience or concentration", since it's something you casually do as a swift action every round, in addition to doing a lot of other things. And it doesn't look like any of the other things you're not allowed to do.

I did not say that it was against RAW, because it is not. It is however a gray area that different GMs will rule differently on. And some GMs will be offended by a raging barbarian using Arcane Strike.

There is certainly that risk.


The tricky part about nerfing classes is that people know what they lost. "I'm supposed to be able to do X, but that's been nerfed." It's a sore spot you're constantly rubbing up against.


thorin001 wrote:
Expect not to be able to use Arcane Strike while raging. You are tapping into spells/SLAs which you cannot use while raging.

You're only using Arcane Strike, you're not casting spells. I'm not sure if I would define Arcane Strike as "requiring patience or concentration", since it's something you casually do as a swift action every round, in addition to doing a lot of other things. And it doesn't look like any of the other things you're not allowed to do.


wraithstrike wrote:
Sneak attack does not call for attack rolls either but most players know the intent was for attack rolls. The same goes for smites.

I'm fairly certain the INTENT was for SA not to work with stuff that doesn't use an attack roll. But I'm having a hard time PROVING it.


Have you checked out the Honor rules in Ultimate Campaign? That's close to this.


Dot.


Two standard actions is still pretty extreme.


Personally I'd prefer removing classes instead of nerfing classes. Playing a nerfed class is often not all that much fun.


It depends on how the WtW's ability works. You could try [death] spells that do not target a set number of creatures, such as Soulreaver and Symbol of Death. Those might be able to kill the WtW as a whole, even if not all worms are in the AoE.


Isn't Alluring meant to be for dwarves? So you'd need Adopted first to get access to dwarven racial traits.

Not a big problem, just due diligence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Normal PF is built on 4 classical elements and "associated" energy types; fire->fire, water->cold, earth->acid and air->lightning.

We also have (since Ultimate Magic) some other elemental schools of magic: Wood and Metal. (We'll ignore Void for now.)

These come from the eastern concept of Wu Xing.

So I was thinking. How would it work to rebuild PF to use the elements of Wood, Metal, Earth, Fire and Water?

I thought maybe the damage associations should become:

Wood->Acid (digestive saps)
Metal->Lightning (conducting electricity)
Water->Cold
Fire->Heat
Earth->Sonic (earthquakes)

What sort of ripple effects would this have on the game system? What other things would need to be changed? I'm thinking that sonic damage (and resistance?) would become a lot more common. What else?


Oooh, neat ideas here.


I don't see any language in Smite or Fireball that would stop the Smiting Fireball from doing some additional damage to one person in the AoE.

Then again, I also don't see language in Sneak Attack and Magic Missile or Fireball preventing you from adding SA damage to those spells. But the premise of the Arcane Trickster PrC is that you need a special ability for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If there's a surprise round, and I move towards the enemy while drawing a weapon. Am I then wielding that weapon? I haven't used it to attack yet.

If I make an attack with a sword, then drop the sword and draw a mace. Am I wielding the mace?

If I hold a staff with two hands, then take one hand off to cast a spell, then grasp the staff with both hands again. Am I wielding the staff?

If I cast a touch spell but don't deliver the touch attack (I'm holding the charge), and I now wielding a spell or weapon in my hand?

If I'm holding a charge, is my hand "free"? If not, can I still do the touch attack with my other hand the next round?

===

I think the issue of what "wield" means bumps into the issue of what a "free hand" means. They're not the same question, but they are related.

I also fear that even the writers weren't all on the same page about this, so there will be contradictory uses scattered throughout the material.


I think the problem is that people have somehow acquired the idea that there was a deep and significant decision, to make you choose between threatening at reach and threatening close by.

I've seen no evidence that this was ever actually intended.

Most reach weapons happen to be two-handed because they're pretty big (which they have to be, to reach). Those hands are therefore occupied. That's just a verisimilitude thing.

I don't think it was ever the intent to stop you from also giving someone a bump with your spiky shoulder, or to kick them with your boots of curbstomping. That is fine.

I personally prefer the kick over the armor, aesthetically. Sadly, the armor is more optimal because you need a feat for the kick.


Hmm. I was a bit confused by the "New ruling" part - does it replace the previous part, or just add to it?

The strange this is that both updates have the same date stamp.


FAQ for Ultimate Campaign wrote:

Retraining: Can I retrain out of my base classes and use my prestige class levels to meet the requirements for that prestige class?

No.
The retraining rules say, "If retraining a class level means you no longer qualify for a feat, prestige class, or other ability you have, you can't use that feat, prestige class, or ability until you meet the qualifications again." Therefore, if you retrain out of the base class and that causes you to no longer meet the requirements of the prestige class, you no longer have access to the class features from that prestige class, and therefore can't use that prestige class to meet the requirements of anything (including itself).

Update 10/16/13: In any case, you cannot use rule elements from a prestige class to meet the requirements of that prestige class.

Update 10/16/13: New ruling: You cannot use retraining to replace a base class level with a prestige class level.

Does the last update supersede the previous update?

For example, let's say I have a Rogue 3 / Wizard 3 and take 4 levels of Arcane Trickster. Now can I retrain those rogue levels to wizard levels?

* I'm not retraining class to prestige.
* I am however using the prestige class sneak attack bonus to qualify for itself.


Because summoners "pretend" to be 6th level casters, but actually have spells from all 9 levels in their list, just converted to a 6-level list.


Hmm. May have to pick this up. I've read that these novels also give some sort of boon in PFS, but I don't know what kind of boons those might be. Does anyone know?


I recall we had some controversy a while back in the Netherlands about the concept of the "corrective tap", and whether that was just normal parenting or horrible abuse.


Oh hey, this thing. I initially abandoned the idea when severing the hands of PCs came into view. But I still kinda like the idea of using it on monsters.


I think the Conan RPG (loosely based off 3.x) has a system where spellcasters accumulate corruption points. Haven't read the details though.


* I generally trust the GM to have good intentions; have a fun afternoon with players, give them a fair chance to succeed etc.

* I trust GMs to understand the rules well enough until proven otherwise, which is not unusual. PF has some tricky corner cases. If it's not hurting people seriously, I don't make an issue out of it.

* I don't trust rolling behind the screen. That is, if you're rolling behind a screen I suspect you may be fudging. Else, why aren't you rolling openly?

* I trust GMs to be able to balance encounters appropriately, until I see (repeated) proof otherwise. This one has a learning curve with new PCs with new strengths and weaknesses, so I expect it to improve over sessions. If it's done right, no fudging should be needed because the difficulty was placed correctly.

If a GM is fudging "to improve the story", I prefer he be more candid about it. This is an interesting article on that subject.

If a GM is fudging because random chance doesn't seem to be working out that day (for or against the PCs), I don't like that.

If a TPK is looming, I tend to subtly make the enemies act at less than 100% killing efficiency. Let them gloat a bit, act overconfident, neglect to CdG if there are other PCs still active, avoid risks at the cost of speed (thereby giving the PCs a moment to recover), offer surrender (wasting a round) and so forth.


@Liam: it's always nice to have good relations with the local nobles.

However, if you can reliably obtain +3 weapons, it means you have access to a (roughly) level 9 spellcaster. Maybe you ARE that spellcaster. You're not exactly a common peasant that's easy prey for predatory nobles.

These people have, and sell, military grade weaponry to people with dubious morals. You can try to squeeze them, but it's not as easy or safe as squeezing peasants. If they get too upset, they might hire some PCs to kill you, payment in magic weapons.

I'm beginning to think that magic arms dealers might actually become a sort of Military-Arcane Complex that has significant political influence, due to the amount of money they handle and the dangerous people they know.


Jiggy wrote:
On the other hand, that changes the whole face of the game, which is a bigger impact than simply putting martials and casters on the same track. Possibly a desired change, possibly not. Sounds like it's good at what it does, though.

I think anything that changes the quadratic/linear thing must necessarily be a major game-changer.

1 to 50 of 2,676 << 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.