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. 4,024 posts. 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 6 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,024 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yeah, but I'm no longer so sure that was the right thing to do.

I guess it depends a lot on GM portrayal. Some GMs portray him as a dangerous fool that needs to be put away for his own and everyone else's good. Others make him out to be a nice if somewhat absent-minded guy.


Note: I'm not saying it's costed correctly in the ARG. I think most of that point system is busted. But being Large really is quite powerful. I've seen it in action.


You don't take the average of all possible weapons, you have to look at the average of the kind of weapons that players will use to take advantage of size.

A medium no-dachi does 1d10 (avg. 5.5); large it does 2d8 (avg 9); that's +3.5 average damage on every hit. That's quite a lot at lower levels. It's the same for the greatsword (2d6->3d6). A large Amiri could two-hand an oversized bastard sword for about 3d8 damage (instead of a medium Amiri doing that for 2d8), that's +4.5

Also, while ARG Large doesn't give you reach immediately, it IS required if you do want to take reach with a further upgrade.

You also become more resistant to various combat maneuvers that only work on creatures no more than X bigger than you. And you can start using those maneuvers on bigger monsters yourself.


I've recently seen an Abyssal Bloodrager in action. At level 4, they can enlarge any time they go into rage. The guy had only AC 12 when raging, but he took less damage than my AC 23 paladin because enemies just couldn't come near him. With a polearm he had 20ft reach and he did enough damage to seriously punish anyone who moved inside his threatened area. Pretty much nobody survived a full attack from him.

The big advantage of being large is reach. The second one is higher weapon damage.


In addition to the good advice given by previous posters...

Krell44 wrote:

Greetings all!

I have a group of friends that want to get into Pathfinder and they are a bit hesitant to go to a structured gaming event at the comic shop and would rather learn slowly and amongst friends that they will feel more comfortable with will learning the flow of the game. It would be a smaller group (5 players and a GM) ranging from 9 years old to 45 years old. Basically, it will be two dads with their three kids and a friend.

I want to GM for them at least until they get to the point where they are confident with their own abilities to game and RP, and if they decide to just continue running our campaign thats fine, but if they want to try out the game sessions at the local comic store thats fine as well.

I've been trying to get some of my friends to get into PFS as well. Playing scenarios at home has helped to soften the ground a bit for that.

Krell44 wrote:


My question:

How do I become a GM? What are the benefits (if any) of being a GM for the Pathfinder Society? Is it even possible to run a "home game" for PFS?
What is my next step (other than reading tons of material).

Like BigNorseWolf said, just run the scenario, get everyone a PFS number, and report it.

In addition, I'd like to mention some things that are good to have on your reading list:

- the Guide to Organized Play; absolutely necessary.
- the PFS FAQ. Also absolutely necessary. You don't have to smother the players with precise rules from the start, but it helps if you know them, just so you can avoid teaching them bad habits.

In addition, Paizo's written some tracts of supplementary advice:

- PFS GM 101
- PFS GM 201

These aren't critical to success, although they do contain some useful tips.

Finally, it's a good idea to find out who the Venture Captain of your area is and say hello someday. It can be useful to have someone nearby that you can ask questions.

Krell44 wrote:


Also, can someone suggest a good entry level scenario packet that I could run them through that wouldnt be terribly difficult for a group of new adventurers and also isnt terribly taxing on the new GM.

I appreciate all the help! Thanks!

I would recommend The Confirmation, which was specifically built as an introductory scenario. It isn't as dated as First Steps. It's also not too hard for the players, but it has plenty of learning about the game system built in, to teach players about for example swarms, creatures with DR, traps, climbing and big monsters with reach. Also, it gives the characters extra nice rewards if it's the first scenario they play.

I'd also recommend The Night March of Kalkamedes. It's a very beginner-friendly scenario because most of the challenges require common sense, not game mastery, to solve. It's also funny and interesting. It has all the classics: a dungeon, a dragon, a "princess", bandits, wild animal attacks, a mysterious portal and many more such things. As a GM though, it's important to read this one through a couple of times beforehand, to get the backstory right, because that's important. But I think it's one of the coolest early scenarios to play.


If you've played Weapon in the Rift;

Spoiler:
I like to think of that weapon as one of those UV-lamps used to zap bugs. The bugs find the lamp irresistible, and then when they come close KZAPPPP!

It's not a true solution, but it's kinda pest control.


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Ascalaphus wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

It's this point I disagree with.

In mythology, a VoP is not unheard of, and often the source of a great hero's powers. Or a saint's. I think it's a little sad if the game can't simulate that.

I'm fine with there being downsides; you'll certainly lose some flexibility because you can't have a consumable for every situation. But I would like it to be basically playable, especially in a party.

Why, a vow of poverty is traditionally a personal choice, to not let material things, distract you from your spiritual path.

However, this is a game, build on getting and using loot, you can make more out of it, but this is pretty basic to the whole concept.

And why shouldn't that have its own significant mechanical benefits? If you're so spiritually advanced, that should make you better at defeating spiritual enemies, like most evil outsiders, ghosts and other monsters that attack you spiritually, and so forth.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


If your character can be successful while giving a lot of his/her wealth to charity, well done you have just unlocked hard mode well done.

Let's face it most of the characters with a real life vow of poverty didn't have to face an demons or since we have stats for it chutulu.

Most stories about saints who vanquish demons don't tell us about their piles of magic items that helped them do the job. They talk about how the saint was so virtuous that the demon didn't stand a chance against it. That the demon was effective against common, sinful, greedy folks, but that it couldn't touch the saint because he wasn't a sinner.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


And I suspect, that none of those characters were fighting in 4-7 person groups of adventurers equipped according to the wealth per level table.

I don't have the time right now, but IIRC the designers mentioned this in response to a complain about the vow, it is not supposed to be an equal replacement to all the things you would normally get.

I'm not saying it needs to be exactly the same, or even very nearly equal. But I think PF should be able to do these kinds of fantasy I'm talking about, rather than only having the choice of worshipping at the altar of WBL.


Oh, standard for activating a magic item with no other action listed? That makes sense.


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
A vow of poverty is not supposed to be a good option of an adventurer.

It's this point I disagree with.

In mythology, a VoP is not unheard of, and often the source of a great hero's powers. Or a saint's. I think it's a little sad if the game can't simulate that.

I'm fine with there being downsides; you'll certainly lose some flexibility because you can't have a consumable for every situation. But I would like it to be basically playable, especially in a party.


Sleight of Hand with a Scarab of Death, or just sending in an unseen servant/summoned creature to deliver Dust of Sneezing and Choking.. that stuff is brutal. If it was a level 5 spell people would still be saying it's OP.


Serve seems to indicate that you need to permanently assign a single person that the animal will listen to. How is that used in PFS? Could I reset the secondary commander every session, or is it only useful if always playing with the same party?


I suppose it could be

PRD, Combat wrote:

Manipulate an Item

Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.

This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.

But Standard seems about right to me as well. Since you also need to draw the item as a Move, that's still a whole round's effort.


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;

    Spoiler:
    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:

    Quote:
    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;

    Quote:
    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.
    Quote:
    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 :

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

    The Smite Evil state :

    Quote:
    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 :

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

    The Smite Evil state :

    Quote:
    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:

    (snip)

    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.

    1 to 50 of 4,024 << 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.