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

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 5,106 posts. 27 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 5,106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court *

I do think maps should be designed with some principles in mind;

- Avoid unnecessary diagonals. If rotating the map 45 degrees reduces the number of diagonals, please do so.

- Try to use curves that can be plotted with a compass (i.e. circles or partial circles) instead of others; this makes drawing maps a lot faster, and hand-drawn maps will look a lot better.

- Try as much as possible to make it clear whether a square can be occupied or not. If you cover a square 50%, for example with a diagonal line from corner to corner, it's quite unclear. If you shift the wall a little bit, squares will be covered 75% and 25% alternatingly, and it's clear to everyone if you can move into that square.

I think in most cases, you can achieve the visual effect of the map while also keeping to these guidelines for useability.

This map... the idea of the butterfly shape is wonderful. But it was really annoying having corridors with a width of 0.5 + 1 + 0.5 in combats, because of diagonals.

Sovereign Court


Don't worry about it though. You can craft stuff like Acid flasks very cheaply, and at low levels those are just as good as bombs. In practice running out of bombs is extremely rare until you get Fast Bombs.

Sovereign Court *

The range increment isn't a problem if he's throwing them at people standing right below the walkway, trying to get up the ladder.

Sovereign Court *

I just played it this afternoon, and my GM did it like this:

* Take a moment to introduce the idea of Chase mechanics to players not used to them, then:

- Describe the challenge
- Name the two options, and which check to make (but not the DC)
- Give the players 10 seconds to agree which check to make
- Checks are made

We didn't know the DCs, and looking at the scenario afterwards, they were pretty easy to make. But we didn't know that at the time; we'd kinda flubbed the first roll but got 27+ on subsequent rolls. But every one of them was exciting, because we got little time to decide which approach was best for most of the group.

I do think the scaling could be done differently, depending on group size. We had my roc AC helping out as well and that meant 7 checks per round. That's quite different from 5 players with no ACs.

I've talked about this before in the Library of the Lion thread; I think this is one of those cases where perhaps we need more refined scaling than a simple choice between 4-player adjustment or not.

That said, I quite enjoyed it. I also liked that expending a spell (or feather token) in an appropriate way could also be done as an Aid auto-hit. That added flexibility takes away a lot of frustration with the Chase rules.

Sovereign Court *

It would be cool if a bit more flavor was released for these races. As is, wayangs have about three pages worth of information on them and just a single picture. For a PFS-legal race, it would be sweet if there was a bit more than that.

Sovereign Court

@Archaeik: it depends a bit on how you read it.

CR, Handle Animal wrote:
Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.
  • The way I read this, it means the same as "Normally, using this trick, you can only command an animal to attack [...]. To command an animal to attack [...], you need to take this trick twice."

    In other words, the "Normally" part only applies to the Attack Trick, not anything else.

    It's not the same as a feat, where a "Normal:" line starts a new paragraph discussing the situation without the feat; this is still part of the discussion of what the Attack Trick X1 and X2 does.

  • Also, it would be rather weird to hide the rules for what natural animals do in the Handle Animal skill rules. The rules for animals are in the description of the Animal Type in the Bestiary, not buried in a skill description. All that the skill description does, is tell you what the skill can do.

    Conversely, the spell says what animals summoned by the spell will do. A summoned creature will attack the caster's enemies. It doesn't say "attack some of the caster's enemies, according to various restrictions scattered throughout the books".

    A summoned wolf, earth elemental or shadow demon: it makes no difference. They'll attack the caster's enemies, because that's what the spell says they'll do.

  • If you tried to rigorously enforce the Handle Animal limit to all animals in all situations, you'd get ridiculous results. A T-Rex would be unwilling to snack on a Tiefling PC (native outsider) and a mother bear wouldn't protect her cubs from a zombie.

  • Sovereign Court

    @BretI I think you're overstretching the Handle Animal rules.

    Animals, as defined by the animal type in the Bestiary, have no rule about what they will or will not attack.

    The Handle Animal skill has an option to command an animal to attack. It then lists a limit to what you can order the animal to attack.

    That doesn't mean animals can't attack other things - just that you can't use Handle Animal for that.

    Sovereign Court

    BretI wrote:
    Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

    What I'm not getting is this whole topic. Summon creatures are just that Summoned and under the control of the Summoner. They do not behave like an Animal companion would.

    Animal companions will not attack certain creatures without a special trick attack all. this counts as 2 tricks under the attack option.

    Even with the 2 point trick attack to attack creatures with unnatural auras you will need a much higher DC to handle them. Mounted combatants can take Valiant Steed and get bonuses to pushing your animal companion to get near a creature with an unnatural aura.

    But for anything summoned it does not require any further handle animal completely control it and its willing to do things normal animals won't do.

    The rules for Handle Animal aren't exclusive to animal companions. If you buy an attack dog or a mule, you will want Handle Animal skill to control it. Fortunately it is only DC 10 for the creature to do a trick it knows so taking 10 most anyone shouldn't have a problem.

    Summoned creatures attack to the best of their ability. They are normal creatures of the type summoned, which means even a fighting dog wouldn't have the attack trick twice.

    So, does attacking to the 'best of its ability' include being able to attack something the animal would not normally attack? My reading of the Handle Animal skill makes me believe that a normal wolf pack would not attack undead.

    You're stretching Handle Animal rules beyond their scope.

    The only thing the HA rules tell you is what you can make an animal do using HA. It doesn't say anything about what you can make an animal do by using Feral Speech, Dominate Animal or any number of other things.

    Summon X says "attacks your enemies to the best of its abilities". Not "attacks some of your enemies using only some of its abilities".

    Sovereign Court

    BretI wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:

  • You don't need Handle Animal to make a summoned animal attack your enemies:
  • Correct, you don't need it in order to have them attack most creatures.

    It is questionable if a summoned animal would attack undead, aberrations, and other unnatural creatures probably should require a Handle Animal trick.

    CRB, pg. 97, Handle Animal Skill wrote:
    Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.
    So the question becomes what makes up the 'best of their ability'? You couldn't make a pony attack undead normally.

    By that logic, a T-Rex wouldn't attack a tiefling PC because it's an outsider. I think you're stretching that rule beyond its intended scope.

    You need a second trick when using Handle Animal to make an animal fight an outsider. But when you use Summon X, you're not using Handle Animal. Instead, the spell just says what the summoned critter is going to do.

    BretI wrote:

    Flanking with other wolves, perhaps.

    Flanking with a specific character (such as the rogue), better make the roll.

    This can be argued, but even animals can recognize that a PC is hostile to an NPC and exploit that opportunity.

    BretI wrote:

    I believe the other points stand though.

    Anyone who is going to summon should have the creatures stats before doing so. Not doing so slows down the game. That should be made clear to all the players who may want to summon.

    For every monster you actually want to summon, yes. That's good sense.

    For every monster with awful stats that you will never summon, no.

    Sovereign Court

    thegreenteagamer wrote:

    I did not say summoned monsters would not attack, but that a) they would be on autopilot to the best of their respective intelligences without handle animal or a common language, and b) they have no means of intrinsically telling friend from foe aside from the one who summoned them. This means without a means of directing them, they will not know whom to coordinate tactical movement with and who to attack and who to ignore. They just show up and go after the person closest to them that didn't summon them in the most efficient way they can do so alone UNLESS they can somehow be told not to, whether that's handle animal, speak with animals, or in the case of the sentient, a common language.

    EDIT - I also clarified they would recognize and work with those summoned as part of the same spell, but again, they would not intrinsically work with the rest of the party, and if summoned between friend and foe, for example, have a 50/50 shot of attacking the wrong guy unless clarified by the character summoning them.

    But that is NOT how the spell works. Compare Summon Monster to Summon Swarm:

    Summon Monster wrote:
    It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability.
    Summon Swarm wrote:
    You summon a swarm of bats, rats, or spiders (your choice), which attacks all other creatures within its area. (You may summon the swarm so that it shares the area of other creatures.) If no living creatures are within its area, the swarm attacks or pursues the nearest creature as best it can. The caster has no control over its target or direction of travel.

    There's something built into the spell that lets summons distinguish friend from foe. When in doubt, I'd go with friend/foe as understood by the caster, so a doppelganger masquerading as PC wouldn't be attacked either. Likewise, the summoned monster would attack a gross-looking but benevolent thing that the arcanist thought was an enemy.

    I think that in your desire to stop summoning from being "OP", you're going far beyond what's fair or reasonable.

    Sovereign Court

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    thegreenteagamer wrote:

    As soon as I said I will use the entire rules sets for controlling summons, including handle animal for animals, speaking a common language for intelligent creatures, fly checks for hovering and sharp turns and the like...and that I'd require him to have any monster he could possibly summon pre-statted with all templates, modifiers, and abilities written out so that we don't have to wait for it mid-combat....

    ...well, he changed his mind. Will make note of those tactics mentioned for the future, though, should a similar situation crop up. Really appreciate the input.

    That sounds like a bit of an overreaction though. I dunno if that's the way you told it to him, but this sounds a bit like you're going to punish him by making him adhere to some dubious rules;

    • You don't need Handle Animal to make a summoned animal attack your enemies:

      Summon Monster wrote:
      This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.

      How good is "the best of its abilities"? Suppose the party ran into a wild pack of wolves. Would they use flanking against the party? I'd say so, since wolves are known as typical teamworkers. So if a while later the arcanist summons a wolf, it makes sense that that wolf will also take advantage of flanks against the arcanist's enemies.

    • You only need a common language (or other means of communication) if you want to issue specific instructions to the monster. Learning just a few languages will allow you to command most monsters worth giving specific commands. Most of the really good ones are smart enough to speak a few languages like Draconic, Celestial or just Common. And as an Arcanist you should be able to afford some Linguistics, too.

    • You don't need a Fly check to hover if you can just make full attacks from the ground. The only monster I can think of that might have to hover fulltime is the lantern archon (no ground speed, maybe it can't land) but that one has a +14 to fly so it succeeds on a '1'.

    • Requiring statted out monsters for the monsters he wants to summon makes sense. Requiring statting out for every monster he possibly could summon sounds like a vendetta.

      You're not making the same demand of clerics or druids, who also get Summon Monster/Nature automatically, right? Are you demanding that fighters have their combat routines with every possible weapon and set of buffs listed?

    So yeah, I hope you didn't ask him the way you wrote it here...

    Sovereign Court

    Ross Byers wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    Otherwhere wrote:
    Depending on what he summons (and what level you're playing at) - if level 1, he'll likely use eagles because they get 3 attacks/rnd @ +3 each to hit. Be sure to use the Fly check rules: they must successfully hover to get in their 3 attacks, otherwise they have to move.
    They could just make a full attack from the ground.
    I'm not going to claim to speak for every GM, but I know I personally won't allow birds to use their talon attacks while on the ground.

    The problem with that "realism" argument is that it's kind of a gut reaction where you say "that's clearly implausible", but you might be wrong. Take this example video of an eagle using both beak and talons while fighting on the ground. If you look around a bit, you'll see that that's a fairly typical way for eagles to fight; they use their claws to hold something down and then bite it to death.

    It's really easy for us to make snap judgements to change the rules because we know better about what's realistic or not, but we tend to do that quite a lot without actually knowing better ourselves.

    Sovereign Court

    Otherwhere wrote:

    At least the Occultist can't have more than 1 active Summon X in play at a time.

    Take note. This is a significant limitation. Also, don't forget the arcanist is also a 9-levels caster, so he has other tricks too. Summoning is nice but he can do a lot of other things as well.

    Otherwhere wrote:
    Depending on what he summons (and what level you're playing at) - if level 1, he'll likely use eagles because they get 3 attacks/rnd @ +3 each to hit. Be sure to use the Fly check rules: they must successfully hover to get in their 3 attacks, otherwise they have to move.

    They could just make a full attack from the ground.

    Sovereign Court *

    I really enjoyed the scenario, but while playing it I didn't realize that unlike the other characters, Caught is "3D" - the rest are basically caricatures, but he's a real person.

    I haven't read the scenario yet, but I'm interested in how a GM might convey that Caught is actually "real"?

    Sovereign Court

    In PFS it's fairly common for people to play scenarios they've already GM'ed. That's one situation where this would happen without any evil intent being involved.

    I've also seen scenarios flounder because a lot of the players already knew the scenario, and were holding back so much to not spoil it for the others, that those remaining players were having to do a lot more riddle-solving per player than normal.

    Sovereign Court

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I've seen waves where there were a lot of melee types, then a shift to a lot of support types and lack of melee types, then going back to melee again.

    People notice an "unfilled niche" in their environment, and a lot of them try to fill that niche at the same time. The system is in constant flux.

    Sovereign Court

    Okay, I may have been too unclear on what my main objection to CE is. That is, it is not useful for it's "child feats", and in fact actually hinders their use. The direct child feats of CE include:

    • Butterfly Sting
    • Gang Up
    • Harder They Fall
    • Improved Dirty Trick
    • Improved Disarm
    • Improved Feint
    • Improved Parry
    • Improved Reposition
    • Improved Steal
    • Improved Trip
    • (Improved) Two-Weapon Feint
    • Pack Flanking
    • Second Chance
    • Slayer's Feint
    • Surprise Maneuver
    • Swift Aid
    • Whirlwind Attack

    Apart from feinting, all of these involve attack rolls or maneuver checks, and having CE active hurts them. Successfully using them (tripping, disarming) will also usually make the enemy less dangerous in a more effective manner than gaining a small temporary bonus to AC.

    The unifying theme here is "tricky fighting", but that's not what CE does. CE has no good thematic connection with the feats for which it's a prerequisite. It's a feat tax for those feats.

    Now, CE might be useful in its own right for some characters, but I think it's rarely useful for characters who need it as a prerequisite. They deserve something better. Compare: you rarely hear anyone complaining about needing Power Attack as a prerequisite, because it makes sense and it's useful for most people who take it. And you don't hear anyone saying that Improved Unarmed Strike makes no sense as a prerequisite for Improved Grapple.


    So I'm fine with CE continuing to exist as a feat for people who actually want that feat. But I think that the prerequisite for the feats listed above should be a feat that has a function that has more synergy, thematic connection and not anti-synergy.

    I still want the replacement to be a "fight smart" feat, and I'm fine with keeping Int 13 as the prerequisite. I feel that between class abilities to skip prerequisites and Brawler's Cunning that that is bearable. But for the characters that do take "Technical Fighting", it should be useful.

    I think my earlier version is useful. +2 is a significant bonus size, and it's quite flexible. A Move action cost prevents you from using it in combination with charge, full attack and a few other thinks, but that's intentional; getting +2 to hit on a full attack would be too food for a single feat. (Compare to Weapon Focus.) However, there are quite a lot of Standard action abilities that will combine with it. (Cleave, Vital Strike, touch spells, lots of Standard action spell-like domain powers, casters that only use Standard action spells anyway...)

    If you look beyond full attacks for a moment, I wonder - isn't it perhaps too good? Should the attack bonus perhaps be limited to melee attacks?

    Sovereign Court

    One of my peeves with CE is that it's redundant; the built-in option to Fight Defensively does the same thing (penalty to hit, dodge bonus to AC). The "efficiency" is different, but the effect is the same, and that looks dumb to me.

    Sovereign Court

    So there's lots of people who don't much like CE, me among them. I'm okay with there being a prerequisite for those maneuvers, but I don't like how Combat Expertise does it. Taking a -X to hit for a +X to dodge has nothing to do with all those fancy maneuvers.

    The other maneuver-prerequisite feats do match their maneuvers: power attack is actually useful for sundering, and "hitting really hard" makes sense for overrun and bull rush as well. And requiring Improved Unarmed Strike for Improved Grapple is pretty sensible as well.

    So, my aim then is to change how CE works to make it match the feats more. For me CE is a "fight smart" feat, using technique instead of brute strength. So I was thinking about the following:

    Combat Expertise
    Taking a moment, you calculate your next move.
    Prerequisite: Intelligence 13
    Benefit: you may spend a Move action to gain one of the following until your next turn:

    • +2 insight bonus to hit
    • +2 insight to AC
    • +2 insight to Fortitude saves
    • +2 insight to Reflex saves
    • +2 insight to Will saves

    I'm a bit concerned that the to-hit bonus will stack rather quickly with the bonuses granted by the maneuver feats. But you're paying a serious price for that. It's also a decent combo with Vital Strike, which I'm happy with.

    What do you think?

    Sovereign Court *

    Hrothdane wrote:
    Bomber alchemists can be very deadly to their team if they like to take risks or they are very unlucky. Precise Bombs doesnt work on a miss.

    It also only works on bombs, not the other stuff you're good at throwing.

    Sovereign Court

    It's easy enough to give a simple answer to all of these questions, by just recycling the language from composite bows. But we still need the PDT to actually do that.


    Sovereign Court

    The text is pretty clear to me. You're already entangled and have to make a save to prevent it from getting even worse.

    Sovereign Court *

    When we realized that the first Virml might not have been the real Virml, I said "well, most disguise magic can't make an exact likeness, but it's a very good start for one, so if you're also skilled in mundane disguise..."

    Then I got an Intelligence check from the GM to see if I could remember enough about V1 to know if he was the same as V2, and tanked the check.

    Problem solved :)

    Sovereign Court *

    You get credit for GM 101?

    Sovereign Court

    Honestly, Vital Strike isn't bad, it's just not as good as a lot of people hope and the disappointment has embittered them. The feat is basically meant as a consolation prize for situations when making a full attack isn't possible.

    But I've seen it be consistently useful in the first round of combats, when a full attack usually isn't possible anyway. My friend's Living Monolith uses it in surprise rounds to good effect:

    • quickdraw greatsword
    • 5ft step forward
    • Enlarge self, growing forward; he's now reaching enemies at 20ft from his starting position.
    • Vital Strike for 6d6 (+22 or so; he's not relying on VS alone).

    +3d6 damage isn't really bad for a single feat, especially if that full attack wasn't going to happen anyway.

    Also, Vital Strike, Power Attack and Furious Focus make an obvious and effective combination. Especially if the PCs are trying to sabotage full attacks anyway, you better make that one attack count.

    Sovereign Court *

    BigNorseWolf wrote:

    taking 10 does not take 10 times as long, BUT, you still need plenty of time to take 10.

    It doesn't actually take any longer than making a single d20 roll. But you can't do it if you're being rushed, because that would constitute an outside distraction.

    Sovereign Court *

    Deussu wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    In our case the GM decided that [Kinore] had just enough time to open the cage before I (Large) fell through the deck and squashed him flat.

    I hope you used falling objects rules!

    ** spoiler omitted **

    No. This was just a flavorful explanation for why an NPC cut in the 4-player adjustment was able to open a cage without participating in the combat afterwards.

    Sovereign Court

    Yeah, Zen Archers and Rangers/Slayers can take Improved Precise Shot at level 6, which is somewhat better than Friendly Fire Maneuvers (but also later). And there's the Deadeye Bowman trait which is a bit more limited than Solo FFM, but it's also just a trait and available at level 1, so...

    I noticed FFM yesterday and I'm really excited about it. The way I read it, it looks like it will also allow you to ignore that cover with polearms, which is something that IPS doesn't do. At the low, low cost of two archery feats, you can use reach weapons from the second row.

    Sovereign Court

    A big dump monster with power attack, I'll have it always-on. A smart monster would assess the likely AC of the PCs to see if using Power Attack would improve it's likely DPR.

    Vital Strike (on a fighting monster, I assume) - when it looks like it might give me more profit than a full attack. This will often be the case for big monsters with a single natural weapon, like a T-Rex, since they don't get iterative attacks anyway.

    Basically, my take is that if monsters have these feats to cause mayhem, that's what they'll try to do. If I don't want to hurt the PCs, why did I give the monsters feats to hurt the PCs?

    So the decision-making process is more or less the same as that of the players deciding to use PA/VS: will it be useful? Then we'll use it.

    Sovereign Court

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    @Mark, Owen: I very much appreciate you sharing this information about just what happens behind the scenes at Paizo HQ. I think one of the things that frustrated people was the lack of communication on Paizo's part.

    I also think that the people begging for Errata Now have a point. I understand the reasons for the old policy, but I doubt it's the best policy in this case. A policy that works well for a product with a few flaws doesn't necessarily work well for a product with a lot of flaws.

    I also think there's a broader issue playing here: a choice between maintaining older products vs. putting out new ones. Paizo's errata-on-reprint policy plays havoc with paperbacks, and that's very frustrating. I do think Paizo should spend some time considering if the current strategy is really the right one. And if you do (or already did), I hope you'll give us some insight into the decision. Just like you did in this topic. I really appreciate that.

    Sovereign Court

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Insain Dragoon wrote:
    Maybe I'm not paying attention, but I've yet to see a real argument for the delay of errata. Usually the argument is based on entitlement, but that's a false premise and I just keep scrolling.

    I can see several understandable reasons why Paizo won't publish errata just yet.

    1) The errata isn't finished yet. For some bits, a finished revised rule is available. For some bits, there's just "we need to do something about this, but we don't know what yet". And some bits are still just being noticed for the first time.

    Now imagine that Paizo released a set of errata every month. That'd be fine for one or two months. But then people would start complaining that it's hard to stay up to date if you don't want to pore over change docs every month. They'd rather read through a list of the important changes once.

    2) They want to get it right. You've seen the uproar over Crane Style. An errata that doesn't work well, and that needs to be errataed again, that's a nightmare.

    3) This has always been the policy. I'm not saying that's a good reason for it to stay that way, but it's definitely a reason for why things started out as they did. And in previous books, there were fewer severe flaws, so back then that policy might've been a good one.

    4) They don't want the PRD to be different from the latest printing. Because that would be confusing.


    I think Paizo's policy was good with previous products. But I also think the ACG is much more severely flawed than other books, so I'm not so sure it's the right policy in this case.


    All that said, I'd like to say that I own the hardcover and that I'm quite happy with it. I very much like several of the new classes and archetypes. Much of the content is in good enough shape that I can play with it. I'm looking forward to the errata, but in the meantime I'm enjoying playing a Slayer, Investigator, Bloodrager, Arcanist, Huntsmaster Inquisitor and I'm thinking about starting a Brawler.

    Sovereign Court

    Another plan is to have a LOT of reach. People can't come close as easily if they have to traverse a 20ft zone of terror.

    Take a look at the following:

    • Enlarge Person spell

    • Long Arm spell (dip into alchemist or investigator, UMD or infusion)

    • Growth subdomain. You can even use the shrinking after the round to your advantage to reposition yourself backwards.

    • Aberrant Bloodrager's aberrant reach

    • Abyssal Bloodrager's demonic bulk; is one is more powerful than most people realize. The sheer speed of the growth makes this strong. You can take a 5ft step, Enlarge forwards, and your reach weapon's reach increases. That's extending your threatened area 30ft forwards, and THEN you can start a full attack.

    • Living Monolith PrC. Much like the Abyssal Bloodrager, but with quite a different flavour.

    Sovereign Court *

    My take is the same as Seth's above.

    While there's some possibility for abuse, I haven't seen it happen yet. Also, it can be Used For Good.

    A few weeks back we sat down to play Frostfur Captives with a party of Rogue 2, Paladin 4, Investigator 3, Cleric 2 and 2x Pregen 1. After some looking around we said "let's make this more interesting" and switched to the level 4 pregens instead, and played high tier.

    It worked out quite well. I think if we'd used the low-tier pregens then the whole thing would've been way too easy.

    Sovereign Court *

    I wonder... is the admixture vial the actual bottle in which you put those combined extracts? Because then you might not want to casually drop it after drinking, so you end up with another thing in your hands.

    Sovereign Court *

    In our case the GM decided that [Kinore] had just enough time to open the cage before I (Large) fell through the deck and squashed him flat.

    Sovereign Court *

    N N 959 wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    Then you'd be going against the "run by RAW" part of PFS. Just because it wasn't intended doesn't mean it's against the rules.

    The rules are subject to interpretation. I interpret the rules as requiring an arrow that does damage.

    The rules are clear. You can see that a plain reading of the rules allows the use of dye arrows. All that the Grenadier ability requires is that you attach stuff to "a weapon or piece of ammunition", which a dye arrow certainly is. And all that Explosive Missile requires is "a single arrow, crossbow bolt, or one-handed firearm bullet", and a dye arrow is still an arrow.

    However, you think the rules shouldn't allow it. But in PFS, that's not your call to make.

    N N 959 wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    These rules are written by several dozen people (including freelancers who write supplements) over more than five years now. The game is full of consequences that weren't originally intended, and that's fine.

    No, it's not fine. The PDT is constantly having to address things that were not intended and cause problems for the game as they see it.

    Using dye arrows to benefit from an ability that requires you to "hit" with an arrow, is a loophole.

    Everyone who is in this conversation knows it.

    It's a very nice combo. And possibly it's not what the writer was counting on. But it's allowed by the rules. Also, it makes sense in-game. You're using the arrow to splash stuff on someone, and a dye arrow is a perfectly sensible way to do that.

    N N 959 wrote:
    Think about it for two seconds Nefreet, I can use any arrow to target touch AC and technically hit someone with an arrow. That's what Touch AC is, what I need to touch you. The dye arrow uses Touch AC to trigger its effect. It's no different than any other arrow except it releases a dye when you "touch" the target. Any arrow can touch the target if it exceed touch AC and thus trigger the effect of the AT and EM. Clearly that's not how the ability works.

    Splash weapons normally target touch AC. Dye arrows target touch AC to splash someone with a payload. I see no problem there.

    Now, if you're wondering why a normal arrow can't deliver a payload on a Touch, and only penetrate for normal damage on a normal-AC hit - that's the same as a magus delivering touch spells through a weapon. To keep things simple, you roll one to-hit against one number, not one to-hit against two different numbers.

    Sovereign Court *

    N N 959 wrote:
    Nefreet wrote:
    N N 959 wrote:
    Nefreet wrote:
    You probably use Dye Arrows for extended Touch range, too, right?
    I was confused by this statement. The dye arrow does no damage but does use Touch AC. Why are you phrasing the question in this manner?

    Grenadier archetype + Explosive Missile discovery + Dye Arrow

    (and, I imagine, whatever that funnel is that combines two splash weapons together)

    Instead of tossing a Bomb with a 20ft increment, you shoot a Dye Arrow with a 110ft increment.

    - still targets Touch AC
    - same action as throwing a Bomb
    - arrow does Bomb damage
    - arrow can also be imbued with an Alchemical Weapon (ala Grenadier) for the cost of an extra move (or swift) action

    There's an Alchemist in our area that uses this combo to great effect.

    There's no way I'd allow that to work without a FAQ stating this is intended.

    I'm betting dollars to donuts that there was no Touch AC attack arrow in the Core books when the Grenadier AT and the Explosive Missile Discovery were authored. As such, there's no way I'd allow any Touch AC arrow that does no damage to work with those abilities barring a FAQ which explicitly allows it.

    As a data point, an acid bolt does not target Touch AC.

    IMO, this is a loophole, like the double dex damage for the pistolero. i seriously doubt that the authors of these feats wanted these abilities to be used on dye or tanglefoot arrows.

    Then you'd be going against the "run by RAW" part of PFS. Just because it wasn't intended doesn't mean it's against the rules.

    These rules are written by several dozen people (including freelancers who write supplements) over more than five years now. The game is full of consequences that weren't originally intended, and that's fine.

    Also, none of the things you mentioned is actually a feat.

    Sovereign Court *

    Re: Confirmation -

    Isn't the crit range of the post-cave minotaur encounter only a 20/x2? I remember some discussions about that number, because it's less than you'd expect from an axe. But, less by design perhaps.

    Sovereign Court *

    But, just to be sure: any other possible solutions you can think of?

    Sovereign Court *

    Woran wrote:
    DesolateHarmony wrote:
    His issue is that he wants the item from the high subtier.

    Oh yeah. Teaches me to read things without the extra coffee.

    I think you could choose not to take the chronicle sheet from GM credit, and then GM the scenario again at a later date, when the characters are higher level, and then take sheet.

    I completely forgot that option. I might go with that. It's certainly a scenario I wouldn't mind running again.

    Sovereign Court

    That's one of the reasons given why an overhaul for the rules for the Stealth skill was so hard. The new rules had to fit the same space as the old rules. It took them quite a few printings to figure out.

    Sovereign Court *

    So last weekend I ran a 3-7 scenario and there's an item in the high-tier items section of the chronicle that I really like. However, the characters I'd like to get it with are now level 3 and 5.

    Is there a way for me to attach that chronicle and still get access to the item (eventually), or did I just mess up beyond recovery?

    Sovereign Court

    Just a Mort wrote:
    What happens if you miss with a tanglefoot bag? Is it like missing with an alchemist fire?

    You just miss, that's all. They only have an effect on a direct hit.

    Sovereign Court

    Eh, I suppose it could be clearer. It's tricky to fix though, because you don't want to change the space taken up by the text too much. Everything has to stay on the same page in the CRB to maintain the integrity of references to pages in other books.

    Sovereign Court

    I played Blood Under Absalom this weekend, with a party made of Barb6, Bloodrager6, my Alchemist5 and a Bard6.

    Sure, I did pretty good damage, but those ragers did a lot more.

    Sovereign Court

    "Teach" your players that sometimes you put two encounters in a day, sometimes you put six encounters in a day. Don't let them feel like they can predict it. They'll have to plan for the worst.

    Sovereign Court *

    @Desolate: That's if you're drinking extracts normally. Potion glutton only allows you to drink something you're already holding as a swift action. It doesn't draw the item for you.

    Sovereign Court

    Drackhyo wrote:
    Would this trigger on death effects? And what about disintegration effects?

    RAW, yes on both counts. But I'd not let it do so after disintegration, because that makes no sense.

    Sovereign Court

    1) didn't seem all that vague to me. If you're determining scatter direction relative to the target, it makes sense to me that the placement of the weapon will also be relative to the target.

    2) Yes. To move 1 square off-target means ending up adjacent to the target, and therefore splashing it.

    3) The problem here is that the way Pathfinder is written, it's mostly a 2D game. The grid doesn't actually exist in the vertical dimension; the game has squares, not cubes. This occasionally creates some weirdness that is best solved just by using common sense and applying gravity.

    Sovereign Court *

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The real problem with potion glutton is that you're probably going to have to bring a dictionary to argue about the meaning of "other potable".

    Per the text, I'd say you could drink extracts with it. But a lot of people have knee-jerk reactions to it. I'm not sure I'm gonna get it on my (Urgathoa-appreciating) investigator, because I don't feel like the constant arguing.

    1 to 50 of 5,106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 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.