|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
...The Synthesist just doesn't care at all what his physical stats are.
This is why I houserule that the synthesist changes are always temporary bonuses - thus, they don't qualify for feats if they try to completely dump their physical stats. It seems to work well enough that I question whether that was always the intention.
Uhm, both of these were adjusted per playtest feedback. The Kineticist didn't get adjusted enough but it certainly got a bump, and the problem with the Medium was the playtest version had a bewildering array of spirits, intended to introduce an exponentially larger number, and only two or three of the ones they had were of any value. They eliminated a ton of chaff and made six good ones, with the possibility of introducing more later.
Milo v3 wrote:
Wait... You don't want the "Mind Control capstone" because it's mind control... On the mindcontrol class... There is a reason the iconic is evil in alignment....
Short version (from my perspective) . . . there's mind control, and there's mind control, so to speak. Degrees by which things can be measured.
Hypnotic Stare is less "control" and more "general interference with mental function" as are most of the Mesmerist Tricks. There are also a whole bunch of spells which add up to the 'Jedi Mind Trick' which is generally considered acceptable, if a bit dubious and probably neutral rather than good.
It's not easy being a good-aligned Mesmerist, but it's not impossible.
Which, by PF standard, can't happen. That's why my VERY FIRST thing was asking about exactly that kind of thing, we really need more information. . . although again, I would say the Paladins falling is absolutely going to happen regardless. One of the problems with objective morality is that it restricts options, this is one of them.
You can debate the degree of evil, but it is evil, is deliberate, and thus a direct ethos violation. Period.
(And I'd never run a campaign on this premise for that exact reason.)
This one is going to require A LOT more information - we basically need to know your entire cosmology because you're clearly not using the Pathfinder standard, or possibly you're misunderstanding it.
However, proceeding on the presumption that you are, indeed, trying to use the PF standard cosmology, the first thing is that this kind of wanton murder is never Good. Never. The GOD would become evil for ordering it of his priesthood.
I'm going to sort of skip the first question you asked, because it's an individual thing and I don't really have enough information on what their belief system is.
Paladins who follow the order fall. Period. No ambiguity on this one - direct murder of an acknowledged innocent is a deliberate evil act, regardless of reasons. That's the one rule ALL Paladins have to follow
ALL Paladins who refuse retain their status, so long as their ethos doesn't have an edict requiring them to obey their god (And they don't have an archetype requiring them to follow a deity.) Base Pathfinder doesn't even require Paladins to draw their power from a deity, so they'll retain their powers regardless over their refusal.
Mesmerist with Psychic Inception has. . . a really bad chance to pull it off, and I believe there's a Bard archetype that can use mind-affecting spells on Undead.
I'd say it's poorly edited, rather than poorly conceived. It seems pretty clear the intent is to work only on abilities that require some sort of conscious action but the game makes that fairly hard to word properly. This is . . . obviously not a good solution, which makes sure that you can confuse a troll into not regenerating.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Agreed. A poll is best used as a tool for the PDT for finding out where their time spent on communication is best directed.
To take these in order...
Chris Lambertz wrote:
The first idea sounds all right, but it's not really what we're going for here. The key problem is that the rules team already has the tools they need, but are choosing, for whatever reason, not to use them. I'm not trying to pass judgement on their reasons for not doing so, but it's leading to the problem whereby there's a disconnect. This can't be solved by giving them more tools, but by them using the tools they have.
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
I think it needs both, if not more, personally. Right now FAQs are extremely difficult to find if you don't know where to look. Stickied posts at the top of the Rules forum, individual Product Forums, and the General forum (could concievably be cross-linked somehow so they only need to be posted to once) plus a BIG link on the actual product pages might work.
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
The first thing I'd do is stop calling a great deal of stuff like this "errata." Instead, reserve the word "errata" purely for editing issues. A +20 where a +2 was obviously intended, pure typos, that kind of thing. This would bring you in line with the English language. Errata might change rules-as-published, but would not consist of any changes of rules-as-intended. Errata, ideally, would happen very rarely as this kind of thing should be fairly easy to catch.
Now, how to handle the rest of these kinds of changes? First, let's instead call them (for want of a better term) "Updates." Updates reflect new ideas on how a particular rule should work from the rules team. They can be folded into the FAQ system (and announced in the same manner as above - an Update doesn't require a specific forum post to ask a question) but should be subjected to pretty restricted internal review. That would, hopefully, expedite serious changes like this to avoid problems like the massive retraining crisis PFS is undergoing.
Lastly, and I think this is important - there needs to be a moratorum on Updates between the end of Paizocon and the start of GenCon. If that means they don't make the new printing, they don't make the new printing.
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
Display the updated rule as colored text (I'll suggest red, but I'm no web designer). When moused over, red text in rules shows a pop-up of the original text and a link to the Update post or relevant Errata document.
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
Updates on product over a certain age should probably require a poll. Obviously, a strong 'no' vote shouldn't be an automatic veto but it should give the rules team pause, which would hopefully make the point more clearly that the community finds certain types of updates . . .less than acceptable.
Glad to see it worked out!
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Little as I post these days, this gets me to come out of my shell. Josh isn't roleplaying paladins, he's roleplaying jerks. Even the oldest of the old-school was only required to donate his own share. Anything else wasn't his to donate, and doing more than politely suggesting it would be a minor ethos violation itself.
I would suggest not reinventing the wheel - The Daring Champion already does most of what you want, so I would just apply it to the Samurai, perhaps with modification to give him the Slashing Grace feat at level one. Yes, Panache is not ki but it's honestly better in most cases.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Dump stats are a player creation.
Uhm....no? The game was designed to reward players for putting high scores into certain attributes, then switched from a random generation system to a point buy (meaning those high scores are a scarce, hard-to-expand resource.) The label 'dump stat' is arguably a player-made one. You are, of course, free to do what you want with your resources, but the idea that "If you're playing class X, putting points into Y won't reward you so it's a questionable choice" is baked solidly into the game at a number of points.
Uhm, the really egriegious thing here is the GM declared "Automatic damage every round until you're dead from being grappled once and you have no options to escape." There's a bit more going on than just the legality of the grapple itself.
While the opponent might technically be able to grapple a whirlwind, your GM messed up on a couple of points.
1) The Whirlwind ability triggers in response to touching the creature using it - grappling most certainly counts as touching, so he has to make a save before the grapple can begin.
2) Being grappled does not deny you the ability to use any actions in particular - it imposes penalties on some of them and prevents actions that require two hands but changing shape with Wild Shape doesn't require any hands at all (It's a Supernatural, not a spell-like).
3) In addition, each round the grappler needs to make a new CM check to maintain the grapple. This would almost certainly continue to count as touching the whirlwind, requiring new saves against the Whirlwind ability. Plus, of course, a natural 1 on any given check is an automatic failure, so there's also that.
In addition to the above, you also can't actually do this - Summoned creatures can't use spell-likes with an expensive material component (or, more likely, won't.) Continual Flame requires 50 gp of ruby dust.
What about the White Mage Arcanist? You'll probably need the Witch to be willing to cover some of the non-Curing spells, but you'll be able to use spontaneous healing pretty well. Then build as a blaster Arcanist.
EDIT: Just double-checked myself and forgot that Witches don't have some of the key spells either. This would mean you'd be dependent on purchased scrolls and wands, although with UMD on your list you could probably do this since you'd likely need some Charisma as a blaster anyway.
In PFS, an animal companion's intelligence and languages are considered irrelevant - you always need to use Handle Animal checks to control the animal regardless of what you try to do to get around it.
the secret fire wrote:
Wizard: "Gah...uhhhhh...this is...but I...wait! I'm going to cast a web between the rocks down there, and you peeps jump down into it. It might be a bumpy landing, but it should catch you, and I can dispel it when you're all down."
And then the party dies. There are about ten reasons it doesn't work or is a rotten idea in this scenario, starting with the fact that you can't cast it on the area described in the first place.
I'm sure others will also point out that the wizard's probably going to have scrolls of better solutions to the problem handy, and know which ones.
Arcanist: "Well crap guys, I didn't prepare the right spell, but...give me six seconds...ok, now I can cast feather fall with all of my 1st level slots. You may jump at your leisure."
And he's burned through about a fourth of his resources for the day given a probable party of five-six targets. So even IF your web scenario worked, an Arcanist working with his fewer spells has just as much, if not more, reason to apply cleverness and ingenuity to the problem so he doesn't burn through his entire spell allowance. He also doesn't have ready access to Scribe Scroll, so he's (a bit) less likely to have the right answer a move action away without spending daily resources.
Also, and one thing I feel the need to keep bringing up, is that Golarion is written as though it's not a static setting even though it very much is. What we see isn't intended to be taken as the end point, but a continuation of a never-ending cycle whereby the sentient races (particularly humanity) rise up from the stone age, usually to the beginnings of a Magiindustrial Era...and then some moron wonders what the World Destroyer Button on the new doohickey does and/or a rock falls out of the sky and resets everything back to the stone age. This has literally happened four times in various incarnations that I can think of off the top of my head.
Golarion does not have some wondrous continual upward curve of accumulated knowledge. Even in the real world, where we don't have to contend with civilization crumbling every couple thousand years on average, knowledge has routinely been lost and regained all the time up through roughly the later half of the 20th century. And we're still rediscovering stuff we obviously once knew.
How much worse is that going to be in Golarion, without an internet, where printing presses exist for maybe 300 years at a time and then people have to burn the books to survive the winter?
It just so happens that the 'snapshot' of this development and redevelopment cycle we're given is at a point where the "unknown" about the science of arcane magic still vastly outweighs the "known."
SLA can be gain from 1 class.
Not true. You just need one SLA from an Arcane source and one from a Divine source. Racials are always Arcane, but the Trickery domain gives Mirror Image as a divine SLA, allowing you to qualify via SLAs for both requirements. There may be others, but they're probably not as useful so people aren't going to know them off the top of their heads.
It should also be pointed out that Golarion goblins have been described as having a seriously unreal metabolism at times (such as four killing and eating an entire horse in a single night.) That's probably a bit extreme, but it gives you an idea of some of the problems even a "civil" goblin might cause.
All right, here's the idea for a character - Ex NEG who got drummed out of the service, and was grabbed by the Society who recognized that she is still dedicated to the fight. She has a small PI job on the side as a cover for her activities for the Society, and uses her Tager abilities for investigation more than combat.
Crunch below, probably best to check it since it's been a very long while since I made a character and memory of the mechanics is fuzzy.
Sarah Watson (Female Human Tager (Shadow)/Former NEG Mecha Pilot)
Age: 28 Height: 5'8" Weight: 130 Lbs
Agi(7): 8/4 10/5
Actions: 2/3 Movement: 6/8 Orgone: 5 Reflex: 7/8
Skills(20 + 2 human + 12 Cheats = 34):
Armed Fighting: 1
Eidetic Memory (3)
My read - a Pearl would only work if the Arcanist has some way to "burn" the prepared spell slot (Losing access to the spell prepared in that slot) and would restore it for use with their spontaneous casting pool. Right now, I don't know of any way to do that other than maybe some 'steal spells' type abilities.
Definitely interested - have an idea for an ex-pilot. Would mecha skills be verbotten by the campaign rules? (I was thinking a few points put towards them to represent "Used to do this all the time, but it's been awhile.")
Nathanael Love wrote:
Sure if they put all the revisions in one single volume of an updated core book and don't redo any other books, that would be fine. . . that's not an "edition" though.
Uhm, yes it is. WOTC's been trying to change the idea of what constitutes a new edition by creating a new game every five years and labeling it a "new edition" but that doesn't make them right.
captain yesterday wrote:
These sorts of things have never proven a long-term solution. It's been tried before, and at best you get temporary bickering about as bad as any edition war short of the 3E/4E one, followed by lots of "Well, I like it but it's 'just a sourcebook' and one of the other players hates it so we don't use it." Plus it can't actually fix underlying issues like the save divide, the Feat structure, the spell level assumptions, and so on.
And yes, I believe it's possible to fix these things without invalidating the Adventure Paths, although it's enough work that I can see Paizo being very hesitant about trying.
Pathfinder Unchained is a good breeding ground to try out new ideas for a revision. It's not a substitute for actually going in and doing that revision.
Especially when they are not actually indented to be BBEG in Aps.
So you completely missed my point. Anybody in a secondary supplement who gets more than a few lines is potentially going to be one of these down the line. To use your example, just because the head of the Acadame has not yet been featured in an AP doesn't mean he will not be. In fact, given the background on the Acadamae, he's a very good candidate for such at some point in the future. Just because that AP hasn't been written yet doesn't make it good practice to make him unsuitable for it.
I'm going to take this to a meta level for a moment. Those arguing that characters CAN be low level are disregarding a very key problem.
Every six months, one of these rulers might be designated the BBEG of an Adventure Path. Not 'your personal campaign', but something meant for general publication. This enforces a very tight structure, including pre-selecting a CR range that can be used. On average, APs end with the PCs at around level 15-16, which means the CR has to be something that would be appropriate to challenge PCs of those levels.
And people tend to be kind of touchy when something new deviates wildly from previously published material.
This pretty much dictates that more NPC rulers will fall into the high range than the low, simply so that future authors and developers won't continually find themselves in a position of having to justify a previously-discussed NPC suddenly adding ten levels and an artifact they didn't have before. You can get away with that every now and again, but not every time you start on a new AP.
Nothing's stopping you in a homebrew campaign, but Golarion's got to support the main product and that imposes design limitations.
Flame mystery has several decent blast powers, as does the Winter mystery.
Honestly, you're going to be very unhappy trying to be a blaster as a Mystic Theurge. It may be doable at this point by hunting through every single splat book, but it's literally going to take you months of research and possibly hundreds of dollars buying relevant Additional Resources if you're new to the game as a whole, and you'll still probably going to be less capable than a straight class because you'll be, at best, a spell level behind everyone else.
I think the goal was to try to keep it relatively balanced with the Core races. Flight's expensive with the Race Builder (and correctly so), so you probably can't get everything you want. If your GM doesn't mind a little more power, you can probably add some of that in, but not all.
Jonah "Deadshot" Johnson wrote:
at the end of it i think it came out to almost a 40 RP rating...
That should be your first clue that it's massively OP. Zero HD races should average around half that. 26 would be pushing, 40 is beyond the pale.
I also think there may be a cultural aspect to it. The gestures are close to universal, but casters taught in one school may exaggerate the motions, creating sweeping gestures that have some "force" behind them to try to ensure accuracy, whereas others make the shapes in a manner that is tight and controlled, with precise angular motions. It's the same spell, looked at through slightly different lenses.
Eh, not sure it's that cut and dried. The proper way of phrasing this is "Do you get all the Domain Spells unlocked at 1st level and are just unable to use them, or do they get added to spells available as you level?"
Before you ask, this is actually possible. Gnome Oracles have the ability to advance their Curse class feature faster than their Oracle levels. When combined with the Haunted curse, this starts adding spells known that are above the highest level the Oracle has access to. She knows the spells, but cannot cast them (absent a metamagic feat that reduces their effective level.)
Domain Class Feature wrote:
Each domain grants a number of domain powers, dependent upon the level of the cleric, as well as a number of bonus spells. A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot. If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in her domain spell slot. Domain spells cannot be used to cast spells spontaneously.
Reading that, I think that you get the spells from your domain immediately on gaining access to the domain, whether you can cast them, and the Domain slots as well. But I'm not positive.
To clarify further - Psionics references in Golarion are mostly confined to the pre-PFRPG days, specifically the old "Pathfinder Campaign Setting" and maybe a few splatbooks. The rub is that they're not really Avistani, coming from further east (Pretty much between Avistan and Tian-Xia by land.) There are a few other references as well, like Aboleths and other monstrous races with access to the abilities.
They're rare, require training that comes from beyond the core campaign setting, and even then are acknowledged as just being an unusual way to access magic. I might not have any issue with it in a "kitchen sink" party, banning it as simply unavailable even though it's in the setting because, say, you want the players to all be Andoran slave liberators or from the Land of the Linnorm Kings is well within your perogative.
Asking politely for the above references so you can decide whether it fits the local flavor you're going for wouldn't be out of line, but you want to be careful about not escalating it into a challenge.
Thanks, said it better than I could have. Only going to add that Mythic power isn't meant to be "relatively normal" at all. At least in Golarion, having it represents nothing more or less than the start of apotheosis.
Magi only really function well as pure melee blasters. You are just too dependent on the blast spells for your damage to waste much of your store with buffing. This makes sense, since this was the specific gap in the bard's repertoire the Magus was designed to fill.
If you want to go the self-buff route, Bard, Inquisitor, Warpriest, and Cleric should be your go-tos. Probably in that order. The Bloodrager may actually join that list in the final version, probably at the end as a partial caster.
The Eldritch Knight is an interesting approach, but it does have the disadvantage of being mostly-caster for about half the campaign, more or less (assuming a typical AP.)
It's old terminology left over from the pre-3E days. "Spells Known" for prepared casters is "every spell they have access to." For wizards, that means every spell in every spellbook you've ever owned. For a witch, this presumably would apply to familiars, and Divine Prepared casters it would mean every spell ever printed. (Not that they can actually use the item, but you get the idea.)
In case you're not familiar, prior to 3.0 wizards had a hard limit on the number of spells of a given level they could store in their spellbooks, linked to Intelligence. If they wanted to learn a new spell outside of this limit...they were completely out of luck, since the "spells known" were permanent and even if you lost the spellbook they took up a slot.
Very few groups actually played this rule as written, if at all.
Which is why a lot of people houserule around it....
Well, yeah. Just thought the explanation would be helpful since the logic is fairly non-intuitive.
Basically, it's down to Wildblooded not functioning the way it really feels like it ought to. It's not a "separate" bloodline that's very similar to an existing one, it's actually the same as the base bloodline abilities with an archetype applied.
Once you understand that, all the logic falls into place really. Since it's an archetype, and functions as such, the abilities replaced are archetype abilities. Crossblooded replaces all bloodline-related abilities, including Arcana, while any Wildblooded selection will inevitably replace at least one of them. Hence, by RAW, they conflict.
It's just kind of silly and awkward.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Infernal Healing originally limited to worshipers of Asmodeus back when it was printed in Gods and Magic? Yes, that's a 3.5 source that's been superseded, but that does seem to indicate at least original intent.
Would both revelations apply to the Cleric healing or would it be more prudent of me just to make my Changeling a full 10 Life Oracle?
Go fully one or the other. If you absolutely, positively must have the ability to heal in melee, a Cleric with the Merciful Healer archetype can be useful.
Also, quick lesson in Pathfinder Healing - As you go up in levels, it becomes harder, and eventually impossible, to do the "Holy Trinity" bit during combat. Damage will eventually outstrip pure healing capability over the course of a single combat (but not an adventuring day.) The Heal spell helps with this when you get it, but you can't keep that up to the pace necessary.
I don't go so far as to say healing in combat is useless, but you seriously need to be looking at other options. Holy Word/Blasphemy is the same level as Heal and can potentially prevent far more damage. And of course there's a reason the saying "The best debuff is death" exists.
Short version: Even if you want to be a "primary healer" pick yourself some kind of secondary role and make sure to get spells and feats to support it.
It never mentions size, neither the character size nor the weapon size.
Precisely. Therefore, these things are irrevlevant.
It even goes as far as to assume the reader already knows that the EB is a Two Handed Weapon.
This is an appeal to designer intent, and therefore not relevant to the discussion and a distraction. We already believe the designer didn't intend the feat to work this way, but that's not the topic. The topic is how it works. There have been many cases over the past five years where the designers either didn't foresee how rules would interact, or simply made a formatting error. PFS-RAW says that you use how they wrote it until a specific FAQ (the lowest level of errata) says otherwise. You have posted many FAQs that speak to intent, but none specifically speak to either the feat or the Earthbreaker, so they too are not relevant.
The only thing that matters is the strict words on the page, and what they mean. Until you can explain why "You may treat X as Y" with no other qualifiers means anything other than that, you're wrong.
Thax, what you're missing is that this is a fairly obvious case of the design team trying to simplify the feat and screwing up to make it now do a number of things that weren't intended.
However, PFS-level RAW (the standard of this sub-forum) doesn't care about that. The feat does EXACTLY what it says and nothing else. You're trying to argue that the RAW and the obvious RAI match, but some of your own quotes pretty much prove that isn't true. There is literally zero room for interpretation on this point, but you keep trying to twist logic around to 'make' it so.
Specific always trumps general, as well. So if you have a feat that says "You may treat X as a one-handed weapon" all that the feat says is that you have the option to use the rules for a one-handed weapon when you are wielding a weapon that happens to be named "X." It needs additional text to limit that to a specific size category.
Agreed. To further clarify, these are all good seeds for backstories, much less so for mid-campaign events if the GM isn't on board. It sounds like your GM isn't on board.
Weird thing is that I'd regard the character as high Cha with no ranks in Social skills save possibly Intimidate. She certainly leaves a strong impression, it's just usually a negative one.
That said, this is likely a bad idea. PF being a cooperative game, making a character with the intention of being a jerk to the other PCs is almost inevitably going to come off as being a jerk to the other players unless it's in a group of close friends. You indicated that this is a concept looking for a game, which means that you'll most likely be playing with strangers or acquaintances.
All in all, I'd save it for a group of people you know exceptionally well, and even then have a very long talk about it before the first session with everyone who will be involved.