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

Chris Kenney's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,162 posts (4,129 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters. 11 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yeah, I'm forced to third the request for further clarification. I've read both the FAQ and the post ten times today and I still can't tell why the interpretation Tels originally posted isn't the "correct" one (in the RAW sense vs. the RAI sense you're trying to convey.)

*Sigh* I strongly get the feeling that someone on the design team really doesn't like the kineticist at a very deep level, if things like this are anything to judge by.

Ryzoken wrote:

You are categorically, factually wrong.

I have personally completed Library of the Lion and The Bronze House Reprisal without once rolling initiative. In both instances it was fully intended that this be possible. There are other scenarios where this is also possible. With a good GM, there are several other scenarios beyond those.

There's more than one way to play Pathfinder. Stop insisting people play your way.

I downloaded and read through both scenarios...and concede the literal point only. Now show me how to play an entire career where you, even in theory only, never get into a serious scrape and I'll concede a character doesn't need a solid plan for surviving and contributing to combat in some fashion.

I'll do you a favor and exclude Seeker play, so that just means you need to find 31 more scenarios where there isn't an instance where it is not stated as inevitable the PCs run into a force that will automatically attack them regardless of any skill check or decision on their part. Heck, I'll go ahead and make it even easier - if the CR is below the level of the tier, it doesn't count as a "real" combat for this purpose.

By the way, I'm not calling you out here. I'm genuinely curious - I haven't played very much past season 4, and only dropped in because I started running an AP. If I'm wrong, go ahead and prove me wrong.

All right, look. I looked through the thread and saw someone tried to convince you you can get by without a fair amount of combat competence.

In theory, it's possible, but would require in many cases picking up the adventures you play ahead of time and cherry-picking ones that have a full non-combat path. In practice, it will not happen, and if you insist on it you are going to ruin the game for everyone at the table some day.

No scenarios in PFS are written with outs for all of the combats. There are two reasons. First, because of the nature of sitting down with a bunch of strangers when you sit down someone's going to want to do some fighting, and almost every player doesn't mind that. Second, because D&D derivatives, including Pathfinder, really do function on the assumption that combat is where most of the XP comes from, and it's actually really difficult to write a scenario of only skill challenges and puzzles that will give exactly enough XP to advance one third of a level in only four hours of playtime , which is what the PFS system is based on.

Most of the time, you'll be spending at least half of each four hour session in a fight, probably more. You need a plan for what you're going to be doing when, not if, that happens or your character is going to end up a stain on the floor sooner or later.

If I may be so bold, I think you're looking at this backwards. You've chosen a concept, picked stats, and are now trying to make classes fit your conceptions. This is the opposite of how roleplaying in a class-based system works. You start with a concept, true, but then you need to decide what that concept does in the situations you expect to face, and pick classes to match, which guide your stats.

As to your assertion that, as an Investigator, you're purely int based, that's just objectively wrong. Look at the class. I mean, really look at it, don't just cherry pick stuff you think is cool and ignore the rest. What do you see? There's alchemy, some of which you've traded out and so far you haven't seemed to approach things with an understanding of how you will be using the major chunk that's left. There's Inspiration and some related skill-based talents.

Those represent the things you've addressed. But there's plenty more here. There's 3/4 Base Attack, which, contrary to what you seem to believe, means that when you sit down at the table you're gonna be expected to attack stuff. 3/4 BAB is also home to the Bard, Magus, Inquisitor, the Alchemist (one of your derived classes), the Rogue (also one of your derived classes), the Warpriest, Slayers, Vigilantes, and Monks. What all these classes have in common is that they're all at least theoretically good at smacking things around, including both of the classes you're hybriding off from.

There's Alchemy, which comes with extracts. Again, look at the whole list and tell me what you see there. Restricting it to the first level extracts to keep this manageable, well, there's some utility, yes, almost all of it situational. But about half the list is combat buffs that, in some way, improve your ability to hit things. Given you won't be seeing Infusion until second level, delaying access to all the Investigator talents I'm sure you want, those will be cast on yourself only for awhile.

Then there's studied combat/strike. Now, there's long discussions about the math out there, but the long and short of it is that Studied Combat, unless you build for Strike, will be your bread and butter combat ability when you get it. But a bonus equal to half your level will do you no good at 3/4 BAB unless you manage to get there, and right now that's kind of iffy. Even so, you will be /much/ better off with more ability to hit things.

And that's it. Investigators get no direct damage outside of weapons, no combat tricks, nothing. Your goal when combat starts as an investigator is to maybe drop a buff or two on yourself, then wade in and hit things hard to try to bring them down. They really don't have any other options available to them.

That means Strength. At least enough of it to wear light armor effectively (right now you're not even close). That means Dexterity, at least enough to supplement your AC to survivable levels in that light armor (You're actually sorta there, but only if you can manage light armor which I just pointed out you can't.)

You can't go just ignoring 3/4ths of your class abilities and expect to manage to accomplish anything. That's just as true in PFS of musclehead fighters who dump intelligence and have no skill points - I have a fighter, not even a Lore Warden, who managed to save the day with Aid Another on many occasions simply by spreading skill points around to "Trained Only" skills to give an assist when needed. Heck, I even tried to take a sorcerer into a melee without being a Dragon Disciple. Didn't work out so well, but it was a neat experiment.

Lastly, you assert your character is 'done.' By the rules, that's not true. PFS has a special house rule that you can freely change anything you want between sessions until you make second level. It's specifically for cases like this one, so you really don't have to take our word for it that this isn't viable. Go ahead, play a session, and see what happens.

Ekibus has the right of it. Just to illustrate the point, I've plugged the numbers for his not-ideal build vs. yours into the DPR calculator (I know, I know, 'you don't care about numbers' but this is really going to be huge, so bear with me.)

Your build comes up with an average DPR of 1.23 per round at first level.

Ekibus' comes out to 5.43 DPR. That's literally an extra kobold dropped every single round. Plus, as he pointed out, your AC is effectively only going to be 11-14, compared to his at 15-16. You are literally helpless in melee, where you are expecting to function.

Believe me, the 7-strength Melee build has been something of a passion of mine. It's possible, marginally, but this combination of classes isn't going to do it. You're pretty much stuck with some variant of Dervish (Bard's got the strongest variants here, again), maybe a kineticist of some description, or very maybe a kensai magus, but none of those are exactly easy to build and may not function the way you'd like for a few levels, or about 24-36 hours of your life invested at a real-time table, or several months on the messageboards.

It might be marginally better for a school with good save-or-suck spells you might genuinely want duplicates of, but for evocation you're definitely better off just increasing the damage per spell.

I'm just going to point out that there are several 'detective' type archetypes for the bard. Yes, they predate the actual full Investigator class, but the point stands - you really shouldn't get stuck on a class name as if that defines every aspect of your character's life.

Mind, your GM really is being silly anyway. That's just the best known example of what the discovery is obviously trying to represent in a fantasy-appropriate way.

If you're going to be that focused on outputting large numbers of spells, straight Sorcerer is probably better -you won't have many utility spells, but you can grab the utility spells you want rather than being cut off from a number of them.

Also, I'm fairly certain what you're planning doesn't work - while the Archives of Nethys lists Thasilonian magic as an archetype, checking Inner Sea Magic says that they're actually Schools. The PRD also lists Admixture as a School. Thus, when you take your first level in wizard, you can only select one of these for your Arcane School feature, unless there's an archetype I'm unaware of that lets you choose two Schools.

As always, check with your GM.

Right. I just feel compelled to detail a few more things about Vahyu's background/core idea. One thing is that I see her tribe as more worshipping the Mythos pantheon (or some portion thereof) out of ignorance/awe/tradition than some of the nastier stuff detailed in Paizo's version of the stories. Which isn't to say they aren't nasty customers, just that there's some potential there. She will probably learn quickly that worship of Shub-niggurath (or whatever is most convenient to the plot) is not all it's cracked up to be over the course of the adventure. Lastly, while I did it in herolab that sheet's obviously a rough outline and I'll handle background skills if/when she's selected.

Overall, I'm going for gruff, distant, and obviously somewhat alien (maybe even describe the tiger-form as an entropic tiger rather than mundane, although that's fluff that will only be supported by feats that are otherwise legal to obtain) who will remain somewhat of an outsider even as the campaign leaves the asylum (I'm guessing) and goes into Ustalav proper.

...although managing to stage an entire AP inside a single non-megadungeon building would be quite a trick.

PS - Oh, right, and to get around the inherent problems of being able to turn into an eating machine in the section without equipment, I'll kindly refrain from using Rage until the party's equipment is found.

All right, have an idea for something that's kinda appropriate to the original Lovecraft, albeit in a more modern and less offensive way than the original stories (I hope) - "Savage" from a tribe that probably fell to worship of the Dark Tapestry. I was thinking she might be a Lirgeni (The name she goes by having been given to her by the cult that captured her, since I can't find any info on her names) who pushed further inland after their people were scattered by the fall of Aroden.

Vahyu Merya

Stat Block:
Vahyu Meyra
Female human (Vudrani) barbarian (mooncursed, savage barbarian) 1 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide 79, Pathfinder RPG Horror Adventures 47)
CN Medium humanoid (human)
Init +2; Senses Perception +3
AC 13, touch 13, flat-footed 10 (+2 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 16 (1d12+4)
Sanity 33, threshhold 1, edge 16
Fort +5, Ref +2, Will -1
Speed 40 ft.
Str 15, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 12
Base Atk +1; CMB +3; CMD 16
Feats Dodge, Weapon Focus (claw)
Traits Pugnacious, savage
Skills Acrobatics +6 (+10 to jump), Climb +6, Handle Animal +5, Intimidate +5, Perception +3, Survival +3 (+4 to get along in the wild)
Languages Common, Vudrani, Vudrani
SQ fast movement, shifting rage
Other Gear 150 gp
Special Abilities
Fast Movement +10 (Ex) +10 feet to speed, unless heavily loaded.
Shifting Rage (Tiger), 7 rounds/day) (Su) Shift into form of chosen animal when raging.

(Since Shifting Rage isn't supported properly by Hero Lab yet, I'm guessing on the changes here)

Tiger Form - AC 15, Str 17, Scent, Low-Light Vision.
Claw +4/+4 1d6+3/1d6+3, Bite -2 1d10+3

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Inc.®, and are used under license.

Quick point - he specifically wants to give up the spells to get half his favored enemy bonus on all ranged attacks. At that point, you're looking at something that's a bit more even, although I'd generally say the weight is on the fighter side. Vanilla ranger beats both options, though.

Kurald Galain wrote:
Twelve rounds should cover every combat for the entire day, so that's sufficient. Also, you can easily get more: take a trait for +1 pool, a feat for +2 pool, or a wyroot weapon. So it's not "maybe 12", it's at least 12 and up to 20 if you want.

I never have a full combat day go less than twenty rounds at 4th-5th level. How would that kind of scaling affect your analysis?

Note, however, that the general rule is "Most recent published is the official version." Since the UC errata post-dates UE, the final UC version takes precedent in org play.

Erm, I think the proposed action sequence here is to, before combat, cast one or more iterations of Coin Shot to 'prime' the attack later. THEN, once in a fight, possibly if an enemy has closed to close range, use spellstrike with a different spell on the already-enchanted coins.

Which seems to work if you have some way to get spellstrike with a ranged weapon.

I'll admit Vanilla Skyrim isn't my thing (I've generally had more fun using SkyRE or Perkus Maximus, but if you're not on PC those aren't going to be options.) But one thing that's almost universally true regardless of mods - Combat First. The game's systems are set up on a presumption of combat skills being at particular levels compared to your character level - if your primary damage skill is above this, you will devastate, almost regardless of which skill that is. Although, as a mage, you need spells to go with it, and a warrior type needs appropriate weapons.

Also, for the record: The wording you'd be looking for to cover this rules interpretation is not: X does not stack with Y.

The wording you're looking for is: A subject/target cannot be affected by both X and Y simultaneously. If they would be, (X or Y) takes precedence.

My ruling would basically be that the target has to obey rules for line-of-sight and line-of-effect as if it were going in a straight line from you. Otherwise, as others have said, this lets you bypass a number of infusion costs that are obviously intended.

Right. I think I get it, there seems to be some confusion. In a batch of MMOs that includes WoW, spells are considered individual entities unto themselves. In those games, one spell that doesn't 'stack' with another overwrites it when cast, even if the new one is worse (Or the best applies, depending on the game.)

Pathfinder explicitly doesn't work that way. Per everything above, spells are always divided into their individual effects for purposes of determining how stacking functions - in effect, "stacking spells" doesn't even mean anything in the system, because it never happens.

Tectorman wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
Theatrical Version has always been used to refer to the Original release versions as opposed to the Special Addition versions.

On a halfway related tangent...

I have the original version of Episode 1 on VHS, and when I got it on DVD, I was disappointed to find a number of additions. I'd like to find the original version on DVD; I just don't know what exactly to look for.

It officially doesn't exist.

Mathmuse wrote:

Instead, we have to extend the not-stacking method to be able to handle this impossible case.

One method is to claim that the not-stacking method was not meant to apply to ordered pairs, so we should break down the ordered pairs into pieces that can be completely ordered. This means to treat the threat range number and the critical multiplier number separately. This form of not-stacking combines 17-20/×2 and 19-20/×3 to give 17-20/×3. The examples that Avoron provided are consistent with this method. We could argue that this is RAW because it lets us interpret the rules so that the impossible case does not exist.

Another method is to allow circumstances to dictate which number of the pair is the most relevant to the ordering. If the crossbow attack roll was a natural 17, then the threat range is the most important number because 17-20/×2 gives a better result than 19-20/×3. In contrast, if the crossbow attack roll was a natural 20, then the critical multiplier is the most important number because 19-20/×3 gives a better result than 17-20/×2. We could argue that this is RAW because RAW delegates determining the highest to common sense.

As James Risner said, Table Variance is a thing. And that thing happens when the RAW have an impossible case.

This almost seems to sum up the rules issue in a logical way. Now, what is the logic for "The spell says it does not stack, therefore nothing in the entire game can overwrite it" per CapinCaril's apparent argument?

ZZTRaider wrote:
...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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeltaPangaea wrote:

Which, y'know. Ain't a good thing if it's true. The Kineticist would probably be less awful if they did, and the Medium might well have more spirits...

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.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Anzyr wrote:
Lord Van Hohenheim wrote:
So a level 2 Bard spell can perma kill a Lich without the whole hassle of hunting down the Lich's phylactery. Need to be sure to pick this up.
[mind-affecting]. Sorry.

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:

I think the existence of a poll itself isnt going to help. The only way to fix the perception of those who currently feel ignored is either better communication as to why the PDT went the other way or a shift in design direction. Neither of those things requires a poll, but a poll without either of those things gives the potential for the perception to get worse, in my opinion.

Agreed. A poll is best used as a tool for the PDT for finding out where their time spent on communication is best directed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To take these in order...

Chris Lambertz wrote:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

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.

*Facepalms* Because spontaneous casting is an overwhelming advantage.

Please note, the above is sarcasm.

Grond wrote:

I appreciate everyone's input and advice. I called him this evening and told him I was sending him a link in an email and I wanted him to check it out and give me a call once he had.

About thirty minutes later he called and was apologetic. It turned out my suspicions were right in that he wanted to play a paladin this campaign and was not expecting the, as he admitted, new girl to want to play a martial character and thought she would want to play an Elf magic user of some sort.

I asked him why he thought she would want to play an Elf magic user because it honestly confused me and he sheepishly responded that almost all new players that were girls in his experience wanted to play an Elf magic user of some sort or some kind of Dark Elf ranger.

We had a nice talk and I told him that kind of thinking was really insulting to other people, explicitly sexist even, and he agreed. He then asked me how I liked how he RPed his paladins over the years. You could have cut the dead silence that stretched out with a sword. I finally told him that while I didn't mind the "typical" paladin every once in a while the fact he played it the same way each time made it less interesting. Not to mention it made it always a source of IC conflict with any kind of rogue class or a character that was not very religious.

He said he would apologize in person to Theresa at our next meeting and he would stop the attempts to alignment check her and criticizing her RP. I told him I would hold them to this and if he did not change then despite our being friends for about 20 years I would ask him to step out of the campaign. He agreed.

So hopefully all of these comments that came from someone else besides myself helped turn him around. We have this argument before to lesser degrees over the years and I think he just tuned me out this time because he thought it was just another argument and not a real issue affecting other players.

Thank you guys and gals for your help. :)

Glad to see it worked out!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Grond wrote:
His idea of a paladin is the holier than thou, look down my nose, constantly checking to make sure the party isn't violating rules, ready to donate all the party's loot, never crack a joke or be anything other than some steadfast Puritan warrior. Or as some Witch Hunter using Warhammer an an example.

Frankly - if he ever tries to give away other party members' share of the treasure (as you mentioned above) - he should fall. It's stealing, no matter his reasoning. Arguably Robin Hood style stealing (though less so as it wouldn't be from evil men who'd arguably stolen it in the first place) - but he was called the Prince of Thieves for a reason.

The paladin 'Josh' likes to play epitomizes the things that make many players not like to be in a party with paladins. It sounds like 'Theresa' is doing a far better job of playing a paladin than 'Josh' ever did.

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. 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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Aelryinth wrote:

Continual Flame is at will ability of Torch Archons. it costs NOTHING to do massive amounts of Continual Flames. You could light a city in a day or two by Calling up an Archon or two and having them drop CF's where instructed for a nominal fee.


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.

Deylinarr wrote:
Why would the DC be Cha based for a class that uses Wis as it's casting stat?

Because, unless specifically called out, that's how SLAs work.

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.

4.If the parrot stays a parrot, but gets feats and things, do I still have to use handle animal to control it in pfs.
Moot point, as PFS only goes to level 12 and true spirit ability isn't available before level 16. But even if that wasn't the case, your dear parrot would be way above animal intelligence and understand language, so no handle animal check should be needed.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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."

666bender wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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
Virtue: Courageous Flaw: Violent

Agi(7): 8/4 10/5
Int(6): 6/3 6/3
Per(7): 8/4 10/5
Pre(6): 6/3 6/3
Str(4): 4/2 6/3
Ten(7): 8/4 10/5

Actions: 2/3 Movement: 6/8 Orgone: 5 Reflex: 7/8
Vitality: 11/13

Skills(20 + 2 human + 12 Cheats = 34):

English: 4
English (Literacy): 2

Athletics: 2
Communications: 2
Law Enforcement: 1
Misdirect: 2
Observation: 4
Pilot: 3 (Wheeled Vehicles, Mecha, Personal A-Pod)
Stealth: 2
Streetwise: 2
Surveilance: 2

Armed Fighting: 1
Dodge: 3
Fighting: 3
Marksman: 2
Support Weapons: 2


Eidetic Memory (3)
Tager (Shadow)(4)

Disgraced (-4)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

All right - working on ideas, but have to work tonight. I should be able to finish in the morning - this is gonna take a LOT of skills to get just right.

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.")

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 to 50 of 1,162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.