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. 2,692 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,692 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It's fine that magic is normally obvious. But for spells like Charm Person and Suggestion, I want there to be a way to hide the casting. So that you can try to publicly Charm people.

It's okay if it has a hefty price. If Silent+Still+Eschew did the trick, that'd be fine. But it appears that's not sufficient, since you can somehow still identify those spells with Spellcraft.


*bump*

Does anyone else know any ways to hide spellcasting? I'm thinking about making an Urban Druid, spymaster type. Being able to cast spells without drawing attention would be very useful.


@Guy: No. But I don't think the arrows count as magical, for DR purposes for example.


Can option C cast spells in light armor?

---

Other than that, no, none immediately strike me as more powerful.


An interesting side effect might be a general change in the wizard's attitude. Instead of having a choice between a PC fighter or a faceless minion, he is now almost always dealing with faceful minions/colleagues. It means a sociably played wizard will have an edge over a total dork.

Another idea I had: the monster you summon is basically a projection of an actual monster somewhere out there. So if you summon devils to do clandestine jobs, there are devils out there who know what you've been doing...

That might make summoning a lot more powerful/risky though; you could summon a monster, ask it a question, and next day he might know the answer. Or you could use it to lobby the gods.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

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.

With the plethora of magical gloves and bracers, having pieces of armor taking up those slots would be a problem.

True.

But arguing from common sense - if the maker of the armor intended you to use the gauntlets, presumably they're required to get 100% of the armor's benefit. If you don't wear the whole armor, you're not getting the whole protection.

If I sold armor I'd put it in the warranty; we can't be held responsible for armor failure if you don't use the armor as intended.

===

I disagree that something is not armor (or something else) because it's (also) listed in the weapon tables. Gauntlets are part of armor, they can be used as weapons as well. Shields are part of [shields and armor]; they can be used as weapons as well. Fists can be used to make unarmed strikes; fists are also still body parts.


I have to say I'm not convinced of the wisdom of the PF approach. If you get penalties for distance, and the traps are scary enough, shouldn't you make the check again every 10ft? (IIRC the penalty is per 10ft.)

At that point, the benefit is mostly gone.


@Mosaic: the "within point blank range" part?


I think the structure of your rules is reasonable. I'm not familiar enough with the numbers from UCamp to judge those.

These ideas could be extended to mindless undead.


I think slams are mostly hands, yeah. Although you could probably come up with a legitimate mythological monster that slams in a different way.

Bites do all damage types and that's a pretty rude surprise for a GM who thought he was being clever by having (for example) skeletons with DR/bludgeoning, only to have two animal companions go wild on them.


How DO you keep everything going then? I found it hard to keep up speed with 7 players. WHAT DO YOU KNOW?! :P

Seriously, I'm quite interested in how you manage to handle so many players. Is your group unusually well-organized? Do you have tricks to streamline combat?

===

About Carrion Crown: you might like all the little bits without liking the whole. Just like a movie might have ten things in it you like, except you hate the director's style..

But it might be a good place to look for interesting tidbits.


Nature adapts. Even to a zombie apocalypse. I've heard that these days, Chernobyl is actually a lush and green place, since most of the people have gone. Nature just comes back, but with species that can survive in the local horrors.

You rarely see bunny-wights or rat-wraiths. (Although those could be scary in their own way.) Most undead are anthropomorphic. It would seem that animals that feed on corpses, like rats and bugs, rarely have trouble surviving in undead-rich environments. Maybe they're beneath the notice of undead, maybe they're just fast and good at hiding, or maybe they're actually resistant to negative energy. For some reason undeath doesn't seem to kill off diseases either; you'd think negative energy might be a good way to sterilize medical equipment (like radiation), but that doesn't work...

Some animals might actually evolve to have both undead and living tissue. Maybe jackals actually eat careless/slow zombies.

Bottom line: you have an excuse for introducing quite weird and scary animals and plants. Those aren't Evil, so it's not quite so trivial to kill them with divine magic; but they're also just animals, so you can scare them or use more intelligent tactics. It should be a good break in the routine.


How would you apply it to monsters, for example monsters with full BAB progression? I think that's where a lot of the trouble might come from.


Da'ath wrote:

We use a rule that each choice in the summon list was a separate spell. Each time you used said spell, it summoned the same entity. If it died, that version of the spell couldn't be used for a day.

You have a relationship of sorts with said creature: treat it well, it would gain certain improvements (a template, etc); treat it as an ambulatory trap detector, you'd lose loyalty. Eventually, if you treated it poorly long enough, it would stop answering your summons or on rare occasion, answer one last time and attack you. That version of the spell ceased functioning from that point on. You ever wanted to use that version again, you had to discover the true name of another creature of its type, which was roughly the same as creating a new spell of that level in terms of costs and time.

The changes served several purposes and had some unforeseen, but pretty sweet side-effects.
1 we suddenly stopped having summon spells used as trap detectors.
2 we suddenly had something that never occurred before: players role played with the summoned monsters. They became NPCs and not a tool. Working relationships occurred and when the players shifted to another plane and met their summons for part of a quest, they immediately had a contact to help them along their path.
3 by playing on player avarice (in the form of desire for better stats) I added more flavor to my setting, while "nerfing" the hell out of a problem behavior.

May or may not work for you, but it was one of the only ways I could think of to correct a problem with a "light hand."

I like this a lot. You could make a cool summoner/conjurer out of this, not nearly as sterile as the classic god-wizard. More like a general who wants high morale among his troops. And summoning within alignment becomes relevant.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

Think of it this way.

Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and Moe

If Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3

but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.

But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.

but there is text that says if it dies you can't get it back for 24 hours.

Frankly, It's one of those things that needs expanding on and it is an area where a DM can make a call regarding the spells

Nothing in the text says that you summon the same specific creature each time. That you are limited to summoning that one specific creature. Indeed, the rules show explicitly that you can summon multiples of the same type of creature and have them all active at the same time.

Honestly, I think it's intended to be an RP rule. It's a way for people playing good aligned Clerics, Druids, and the like to not feel like they're summoning forth creatures to die for them. You summon a creature and it dies? It's okay, it isn't really dead, it just spends 24 hours reforming on its native plane and is good to go again. Otherwise people may feel that yanking a creature off its native plane and putting it between you and something that can kill it with one hit would be an evil act.

I think this is the real background to the rule, yes.


Greylurker wrote:

Think of it this way.

Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and Moe

If Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3

but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.

But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.


@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.

1 to 50 of 2,692 << 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.