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

Ckorik's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 470 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

1)

Illusions are tough to adjudicate and RAW only offers some guidelines - in general a good rule of thumb is to keep in mind the 'total area' that the illusion can encompass - interaction typically means 'trying to determine if it's real' - as others have said it's usually a standard action minimum inside of combat - although I'd say if the illusionist is causing the illusion to interact with something intentionally that should allow a save without the need for an action. The fun thing of illusions is (if you are creative enough, and the gm is game) the ability to combine spell effects, or even duplicate higher level effects with a low level spell - when trying to judge this type of use just remember an illusion gets at least one save - and more once someone figures it out (at a huge bonus) and can be auto-disbelieved with proof - so a 1st level illusion duplicating darkness might seem powerful - in reality it's not in most situations.

2) I'd say based on the current RAW and writeups on illusions - no.

3) Yes assuming the entire area is within the limits of the spell - the enemy shouldn't get a save until their turn when they should use a standard to interact - at least the first person to do so anyway. Only once someone saves and shows the illusion to be fake do the rest of them get the automatic save. The key here is that the effect isn't actually touching the enemy - if the illusionist forces the effect to be in contact with the enemy I believe they should get the auto-save.

Another question important to the ramifications of 1,2, and 3:

You are supposed to auto-disbelieve if you *Know* it's an illusion - in such a way assuming the caster adds 'tells' to his spells for his allies he can create fog clouds over the party that frustrate the enemy but don't hinder the party - same with wall spells and other 'battlefield control or obstacle spells' - note however if he creates a wall and the party goes through it - that should trigger a save from the enemy.

And, a final question; That's a tough one - RAW I'd say - yes but only within the area of effect of the illusion. So for silent image "four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level " - in the case of a skylight depending on how high up it is most likely not - and in that case the light being broken up would be enough of a 'tell' to get a save automatically. In any case I think uses like that will require a bit of the GM's touch in what they will or won't allow - I'd most likely try to keep lower level spells from duplicating much higher level effects - so for silent image I'd say lowering the light by one level might be appropriate, and perhaps for Illusory Wall (as a 4th level spell) I'd let it block any light source. Both are figments, but in this case I go with the 'the higher level the spell - the more you can do with it' - to whit:

Paizo PRD says "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. "

Paizo PRD says "When the spell is used to hide pits, traps, or normal doors," (Illusory wall - figment)

The rules are slightly contradictory regarding illusions - so I fall back on the idea that the higher level the spell - the better it is at what it can do - also in the case of the more specific the spell *or* description - the better the illusion is.

I like the thought that an illusionist who wants to make a wooden chair and focuses on it can make a chair so real that you couldn't tell it was fake after falling through it - while something big - vague - and without alot of description will correspondingly be vague and easier to figure out.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Strife2002 wrote:

Pg. 262 - Xyoddin Xerriock

For what it's worth I think I'd just add 'variant' to this one and call it a day - there is too much wrong for it to be just a mistake.

He was correct in the old version - here are some stats:

hp 93 (12d12+15); fast healing 10
Str 24, Dex 16, Con —, Int 9, Wis 8, Cha 12
Skills Balance +7, Bluf +19, Climb +15, Diplomacy +19, Escape Artist
+7, Hide +7, Intimidate +25, Jump +15, Knowledge (nobility and
royalty) +15, Listen +8, Move Silently +7, Perform (strings) +17,
Profession (cook) +7, Search +8, Spot +8, Survival +8

My guess is that when looking at high level pathfinder they came across this guy - and 93 hps at this level (or 106 if you work him up favorably under PF rules) is just too low to be any kind of threat - so instead of adding HD they bumped his CHA ... alot...

He also had no class levels in the old version (Male ravenous dread zombie human aristocrat 12) so it's obvious they worked him over and intended to bump him up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with that in many cases. There are quite a few abilities from Trickster, Champion, and Guardian that are more than merely numbers.

The problem with (or advantage of, in some cases) Mythic is that many of the options boosters are for very niche builds. Stuff like Grapple specialists get a lot more besides numbers, but your standard 2H wielder...not as much.

Which is awesome for grapplers, not so much for the 2H as far as interesting options go.

I'll agree with this - it would have been nice to see similar options for weapons that combat maneuvers received - something like a feat that let you use any weapon feat chain for a surge - and the entire chain for 2 surges (like champion gets an ability that lets you use any of the maneuver feats).

I'd have loved to see mythic feats that were 'you can ignore any two prerequisite feats - when selecting a normal feat with this option'.

I'd love to have seen things like 'your sword strikes so hard that it creates a wave of force pushing anything in a straight line prone up to one size larger than yourself - spend a mythic point to increase this to two size categories'

Pure numbers would be... ok - had they crunched the math and added things like 'at rank 5 and above add 1000 hps per tier to an enemy'


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
I personally support that effort. This is NOT a question of Martial/ Caster disparity. The problem is that Mythic increases much the offensive power, but only slightly the defensive side. So I support totally this, with some modifications to power up the defensse.

On the Defensive side:

Adamantine Mind f+$#s up anything that attempts to use its puny mind affecting magic on you.

There are not one, no two, but THREE abilities that allow for 24 hour duration on buffs.

Not to mention the obvious like the higher Tiers' immortality, or the one Legendary Item ability that can heal you for a lot of damage or remove any condition.

Quote:
Adamantine Mind (Ex): Your mind is as hard as any armor, and is dangerous to engage. You gain a bonus equal to your tier on saving throws against mind-affecting effects. Whenever you succeed at a save against a mind-affecting effect, the creature attacking you with that effect must succeed at a Will save (at the same DC) or be stunned for 1 round.

On it's whole I don't see much wrong with this ability. If it's truly overpowered perhaps the following change?

Quote:
Whenever you succeed at a save against a mind-affecting effect,as a swift action, you may spend a mythic surge to force the creature attacking you with that effect must to succeed at a Will save (at the same DC) or be stunned for 1 round. As a swift action a mythic caster may spend a Mythic surge to negate this feedback.

Still gives the protection - punishes non mythic foes at a cost - and allows a mythic enemy to defend themselves back...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Onyxlion wrote:

The casters don't need mythic feats they are nasty strong with just the casty tiers. But if you really want to know the power of a mythic spell caster then go look at mythic cloudkill because that's the only spell they need to wipe most things out.

If you're real savy you'll combine it with the mythic paragon feat so that you kill anything no save 5+tier HD or less, 6+tier - 8+tier save or die, 9+tier con dmg, it also lasts mins per level and it's controlled moveable. Bye bye armies, towns, dungeons, everything immune to poison after tier 8 (except undead and constructs). It's also a relatively low level spell so you could even metamagic widen, extend, or maximize the con damage for the tough buggers.

Edit: Fixed HD ranges.

On the table - Mythic cloudkill

Quote:

Mythic Cloudkill

As a move action, you can move the cloud 10 feet in any direction.

Add your tier to the spell's level and Hit Dice categories to determine its effect on creatures. (For example, at 3rd tier a creature with 6 or fewer Hd gets no save, one with 7–9 HD must save or die, and one with 10 or more HD must save or take 1d4 points of Con damage.)

Augmented (6th): If you expend two uses of mythic power, the spell bypasses the poison immunity of living creatures.

combined with Mythic Paragon

Quote:

Mythic Paragon (Mythic)

Your mythic power is even more potent than that of most other mythic beings.

Benefit: Your tier is considered 2 higher for determining the potency of mythic abilities, feats, and spells. This doesn't grant you access to mythic abilities or greater versions of mythic spells at a lower tier than you would normally need to be to get them, nor does it grant you additional uses of mythic power or adjust the dice you roll for your surge.

So the progression of this ability is
  • autokill anything with 4hd at tier 1 - up to 13hd at tier 10
  • fort save or die 5-7 HD at tier 1 - 15-17HD at tier 10
  • 1d4 Con damage to 8HD(and up) at tier 1 - 18HD(and up) at tier 10

Adding paragon to this makes it worse.

At tier 10 this spell instakills most CR16 encounters, many CR17 - and even a few CR20+

Even worse for an extra mythic surge it takes away poison immunity - which will wipe out mythic encounters at these levels too.

Fixes...

My suggestions for consideration would be:

  • change the 'add your tier' language to 'add your tier to the spells top HD range, nonmythic creatures get no save for the effects if their HD are lower than your tier + the normal range. (This in effect doesn't autokill things at a higher level but makes the con damage automatically affect monsters at a higher level range)
  • change the secondary surge to remove poison immunity from non-mythic living creatures and mythic creatures with poison immunity require a save


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
Mythic power attack is fine, though I'd be really tempted to toss out that "double the damage bonus before applying crit multiplier" nonsense on critical hits for adding a completely unneeded extra step.

I don't think that the added damage is a problem at all - as is the feat is too good in terms of removing the penalty for one surge and no action for 10 rounds - IMO in terms of other abilities this facet of the feat sticks out as not working like the design of the rest of the system. However again I do agree that actual damage increase it gives you isn't the problem itself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Seranov wrote:

So the problem is that the blasting spellcasters feel weak?

Let me assure you, that's because blasting is terrible. The martials finally being able to act like they're serious threats (even if only in hitting things) is hardly a bad thing.

Don't think anyone has said that - however plain vanilla Pathfinder a blaster can keep up with martial damage output, so the fact that it's out of whack may indeed be an issue - I'll have to consider that.

Thanks for your input - if anyone else is super worried about caster/martial disparity within mythic I'm interested in seeing the broken feats on the caster side to add to the discussion - lots of people posting that martial feats are fine but casters are broken without nice examples for us to discuss - please add to the discussion, play experience is a bonus in this case.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
GM Niles wrote:
I've already houseruled that you can only use 1 mythic point per round, period for any reason. Was that too harsh?

I agree with the others; the problem is augmented mythic spells or fighter abilities that take 2 surges; you'd kind of knock them out.

That one per two tiers Seannoss suggests sounds ideal.

Thanks, Seannoss! Stealing that right now!

Is it the surge # or feats that are 'always on' or last for 10 rounds?

I have a thread going in pathfinder general trying to come up with fixes if you are interested - limiting surges wouldn't stop mythic vital strike as it's 'always on' for instance, the math makes this feat way out there in power land - once you take it - you do more damage on your minimum hit than you *could* have done on a maximum hit prior to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Turgan wrote:

We're playing WotR (I am a player) - there are, until now, no problems with the mythic rules - just the usual "problems" with the opposition. (no real problem, just if you begin to mildly optimize characters and have 25point buy, APs may have to be adjusted accordingly)

The GM of WotR and me, running RotRl, we both use quite similar methods to keep things interesting/challenging (I look at you, simple Advanced template and max HP).

How can Power Attack and Vital Strike be a matter of concern? Sorry, but this is simply beyond me.

Mostly, people who are perfectly fine with the rules do not write about that in the Internet. I am and do (in this case).

From a different thread:

NobodysHome wrote:

OK, we had our first "stupid damage event" of the campaign. The 12/5 fighter burned 6 mythic surges to do 804 hit points in a single round.

The casters aren't even coming close, though the sorceress' maximized mythic fireball that did 100 to everyone over a wide area did more damage total.

Yeah, we've started Book 4, and damage output is just getting silly. Single creatures aren't a challenge any more...

A 12/5 fighter can take out a demon lord (CR 30) in one round.

He's supposed to be 'level 14.5' according to the CR rules - If you don't take mythic power attack and mythic vital strike this situation can't happen. That should be a clue these feats are an issue. The focus however isn't just these two feats.

A suggested house rule would be to limit mythic surges to 1 per every 2 tiers you posses - which would cap out at 5 per round under the current system - however that still would make feats that last for 10 rounds or don't require surges more powerful than those that don't.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Onyxlion wrote:

Your reasons don't change anything about what's said. The short of it is if you're having problems with HP damage nothing is going to help you because you will have problems with everything else as well.

I will admit that the wording on mythic vital strike is horrid.

Thanks for the input - I'll continue to try and work on a set of house rules that makes Mythic more balanced and look for more input from people who would like to contribute.

In general if you would like to add either a feat/path ability/or system that you feel is part of what is breaking mythic play please chime in and we'll ad it to the discussion. Thanks :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Ipslore the Red wrote:

Your idea of making Mythic Adventures less broken is to... nerf MARTIALS?

Solid idea, abysmal execution. 0/10.

No - I'm playing a martial in the mythic campaign and these two scream about being broken.

These two feats are also the #1 and #2 complained about in terms of breaking the game by several GM's and so they got my full attention to see why they were being complained about - and I agree they are broken.

If you read my first post - I didn't say these were the only two feats that needed fixing - the idea I have is to identify the feats that are way too overpowered compared the most and then see if we can't come up with a solid set of house rules that reign everything back in.

To whit:

  • I am fully on board with mythic being superpowered - I enjoy systems like heroes unlimited and Mutants and Masterminds. Superhero games are actually the most often run at my table outside of fantasy/d&d/pathfinder type games - so mythic to us was a big excitement.
  • You'll notice I used a level 7 barb in my example - that's because I wanted to show how even at low levels/tiers these two feats start to cause issues.
  • I am at this point unsure which caster feats in the mythic book are causing the most problems - from anecdotal evidence it would be the inspired spells the conversation as of yet, has not gotten there
  • With 'being superpowered' in mind there still needs to be some kind of balance, and the question is how best to achieve that - my guess is that some part of this thread will need to deal with CR adjustment and new mythic feats for 'mythic foes' that increase hp and or defense to allow for impressive fights
  • My hope is at the end of this we'd get a set of house rules that make things balanced - to that end if a single feat is in every case better than not just one - but more than one put together (like power attack) or is on it's own a doubling of power (like vital strike) then it should be the outlier - I'd rather have house rules for a smaller number of things than rebuild 90% of the martial feats (and the headaches this would cause to make a fight balanced) to keep up with these two - same goes for caster abilities.

Does that help? As to some of the other comments about 'being good on a single attack' - I do have issue with a martial putting out more damage on a single attack than a full attack - and that same barb could have achieved a full attack simply by changing his action priority - 'swift action to move and make a standard action (swift charge)' - hit the monster - free action single attack (tier 2) - make his full attack and then 5 foot step away to get distance - that's a valid attack chain in mythic - making a single attack shouldn't be the candy for the martials - making a full attack chain with options and mobility should be a more tempting cookie - right now it's not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
The Archive wrote:
Mythic Power Attack is problematic in its current state if only because Mythic Furious Focus also exists. It really should not have the ability to eliminate the attack roll penalty while Mythic Furious Focus exists. Mythic Furious Focus is inherently worse. While it gives you the benefit of always ignoring the penalty on AoOs, the penalty ignoring via mythic power lasts for a single round. Mythic Power Attack does so much more and lasts for a full minute. It is too good in that regard.

I agree - that's why I suggested one round of reduced penalties - after reading furious focus I think the only fix would be to allow one round of reduced penalties with a swift action - this sets up an interesting difference between the two feats (furious focus requiring one more non-mythic feat to achieve - but giving the reduced penalties as a free action instead of swift).

It seems that they used 'swift action' (and immediate as that either uses swift on the current round or the next round's swift depending on the timing of the usage) as a way to limit mythic power from becoming absurd - the power attack feat as it stands breaks that design however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

So given that Mythic seems to have a few broken abilities lets have a conversation about what is broken and how we can fix it.

I start the conversation with two of the biggest ones:

Quote:

Power Attack (Mythic)

Your attacks are truly devastating.

Prerequisite: Power Attack.

Benefit: When you use Power Attack, you gain a +3 bonus on melee damage rolls instead of +2. When your base attack bonus reaches +4 and every 4 points thereafter, the amount of bonus damage increases by +3 instead of +2. In addition, the bonus damage from this feat is doubled on a critical hit, before it's multiplied by the weapon's critical multiplier.

You can expend one use of mythic power when you activate Power Attack to ignore the penalties on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for 1 minute.

Why it's broken - the bonuses on power attack themselves aren't the problem - it's the line "You can expend one use of mythic power when you activate Power Attack to ignore the penalties on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for 1 minute" for a single use of mythic power - using no action you ignore the penalties for 10 rounds. The progression ignores up to negative 6 on attack rolls.

I believe that this feat can be fixed by one of the following:

  • Reduce the duration to one round and require a swift action to use
  • keep the duration and no action but remove the attack penalty reduction
  • keep the duration and require a swift action to use and make the attack penalty reduction only work on the round activated

If you have another idea that would make this a bit more balanced I'd love to see it - we are looking for input into a house rule for our games.

Next up - Mythic Vital Strike:

Quote:

Vital Strike (Mythic)

You can strike your foes with incredible force.

Prerequisite: Vital Strike.

Benefit: Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of weapon damage dice you roll for that feat.

Extra damage from sources that wouldn't normally be multiplied on a critical hit isn't multiplied by this feat.

Ok breaking the problem down behind a spoiler to make the numbers not clog up the conversation... (it has a minor spoiler from wrath of the righteous in it also so...)

Spoiler:

Barbarian level 7.

Str 16 to start - human +2 str = 18

+2 ability score from Iomedae = 20

+2 from level up = 22

+2 from tier 2 = 24

Rage = +4 = 28 Str

Feats = Power Attack - weapon focus - vital strike - whatever else
Mythic feats = mythic power attack, mythic weapon focus
Mythic power attack = -2, +6 (for 2 handed it would be -2,+9)

Earthbraker - 4d6 + 18 ( 9 * 2 power attack) + 26 (13 * 2 Str)/3

Barb mythic power attack/vital strike = +7 (level) + 9 (str) + 1 (weapon focus) = +17 to hit

That's a minimum of 48 and max of 68 damage. Without Mythic Vital Strike it would be a minimum of 26 and a max of 46.

Crits would be a min of 140 and max of 180. Without Mythic Vital Strike they would be minimum of 74 and max of 114.

From one hit. From a barbarian with a starting strength of 16, and *NO CHEESE* (outside of the built in mythic cheese)

If my math is off please let me know - what this means is one feat gives the following : Your min damage is now more than your previous max damage.

This is broken - there is no getting around it - no mythic surge needed - no actions used - and makes situations where you can use a charge attack to get in close - then use a mythic surge (swift strike - swift action) for an extra standard attack - getting off a vital strike for insane damage. At 2nd tier you can then use a free action for yet a third standard action - letting you hit again.

This means that 7th level Barb in the example gets 3 attacks for the cost of 2 mythic points and his swift action. He does a minimum of (charge power attack - 24, mythic vital strike 48, mythic vital strike 48) 120 damage, and a maximum of 170 damage.

This feat scales with the vital strike chain in a straight linear fashion.

Fix - I have no idea - at a minimum I suggest that this feat only works with a swift action surge. I'd lean towards including language that only allows a single vital strike per round regardless of the number of standard actions on your turn. I would also think only applying the 'multiply by the number of dice' language to crits only - which would make this feat very random - but satisfying when it does go off.

Open to suggestions...

Please bring up other examples.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

edit - nevermind this is magus fun I get it now.

Fun trick - not sure how useful it is in the long run.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I use a computer to GM - I also use a program called 'dm's familiar' although hero lab and the combat manager app (combat manager is free for the PC) also would work - pick one that works for you or just use google and make liberal use of searching (if you need to look something up in google type 'pathfinder <ability name/skill/spell here>'

So - if the statblock lists a 'before combat' note - this means the monster is *assumed* to have already cast/done/whatever is in the before combat section - before initiative is rolled. This is important because if the monster casts any buff spells or uses a potion/etc. it will already be incorporated into the stat block.

In my opinion this is the most important part of the tactics section - the monster is placed and built assuming the stats as written, if your party surprises the monster or you allow them to get the jump somehow then you should expect the fight to be easier for them, and you may need to remove the buffs by hand. During Combat and Morale are suggestions based on how the monster was added into the story. Sometimes these have a very good reason for being 'fight to the death' - if a monster is charmed or compelled in some way if the party can't figure that out and dispel the compulsion then there is no chance the monster will surrender.

Attacks: If a monster moves more than 5 feet (one square) it only gets one attack (usually the first one listed) regardless of how many are in it's statblock - it only gets the extras if it's standing still - it does get a free 5 foot step each round like a player.

Cheat sheet for special abilities:

Special attacks: Typically one as a standard action unless otherwise noted - like sneak attack where it just is situational. This section can also include class abilities that modify other attacks (like light blades from the warrior class - which should already be included in the statblock)

Special abilities: Typically one standard action unless otherwise noted.

Spells: Typically one standard action unless otherwise noted.

Spells: This can be tricky - as you get higher level monsters they may have feats that increase the spell DC - in the spell section anything that has a higher DC is called out with a DC number next to it - so if you see spells with different DC's in the same level tier that's why.

Feats: This is the most difficult part - if a monster has power attack - it's not in the printed statblock, ditto for vital strike, or awesome blow, or many other feats that modify the attack roll. You should have a cheat sheet with how the combat feats work - and very likely should have a cheat sheet for the most common ones. I try to go through the statblock of monsters the PC's are *likely* to encounter and look for feats I don't know and make a note of them before the session - for the first book be on the lookout for the goblin chief's rideby attack and spirited charge for instance.

FINALLY: Monster special attacks have DCs - these are all tied to a stat and if the monster gets a buff spell (or you used the advanced simple template on them for instance) the DC of the special abilities also should go up. Special note is anything tied to constitution becomes tied to charisma if the monster is made undead. This can be important because many times Paizo will use a line such as 'advanced goblin dog' without the stats and make you do the conversion yourself. When you do so - don't forget to increase the DC of any special they have by 2. This is also important if they get hit by a spell or effect that increases or decreases a stat - if a player hits them with a curse that reduces the stat tied to their abilities it will reduce the DC (1 for every 2 stat points increased or decreased) - this is why when you go through the bestiary you will notice a line in monster descriptions that indicates what stat the ability DCs are based off of.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Chemlak wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I'm curious Chemlak which forum you think this should go into? It is pathfinder related and a very general question....
Then it should be in Pathfinder General Discussion.

I'm pretty sure Seoni is represented in products that fall outside of the RPG line - making this question not patfhinder rpg specific.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I'm curious Chemlak which forum you think this should go into? It is pathfinder related and a very general question....

Anyway - I disagree with Chemlak that she cares or modifies her outfit, and I disagree with you Romaq on the premise of the question.

My answer is simple - if you were covered in magical tattoos that came to life on their own or required being able to touch to activate - you'd have as many of them exposed as possible. As to practicality - real life has examples of people who stripped naked to fight - and in some cases these were the most terrifying opponents. These people didn't have magical tattoos - but there are many reasons to not care about armor (bravery, foolishness, religious, etc.) that give explanation.

Considering Seoni is really the exception rather than the rule of females portrayed in Pathfinder art it's fine to let it go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:

As long as you make sure that you won't be able to get 1.5 times your DEX bonus to damage then i don't think that such a feat would be OP.

As Bob Bob Bob said the dervish dance feat works only with scimitars because both IRL and in Golarion, dervishes use scimitars (IRL two scimitars in Golarion one).

Just a note - a dervish dance in real life is based off of a specific religious ceremony in Turkey - and it involves no weapons of any kind - the only 'real world' examples of dervishes using scimitars in both hands is from the inspired minds of writers I'm afraid.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Incorporeal first - then DR. Taking Ice Storm as an example as it's called out in the DR section we'll go through it.

Shadow Demon has the following:

Spoiler:

Defensive Abilities incorporeal; DR 10/cold iron or good; Immune cold, electricity, poison; Resist acid 10, fire 10; SR 17

Ice Storm has the following descriptor:

Spoiler:

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

Great magical hailstones pound down upon casting this spell, dealing 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage to every creature in the area. This damage only occurs once, when the spell is cast. For the remaining duration of the spell, heavy snow and sleet rains down in the area. Creatures inside this area take a –4 penalty on Perception skill checks and the entire area is treated as difficult terrain. At the end of the duration, the snow and hail disappear, leaving no aftereffects (other than the damage dealt).


Incorporeal says this:
Spoiler:

Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source[b]. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water affects incorporeal undead. [b]Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature (except for channel energy). Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.

An incorporeal creature has no natural armor bonus but has a deflection bonus equal to its Charisma bonus (minimum +1, even if the creature's Charisma score does not normally provide a bonus).

An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see beyond the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. An incorporeal creature cannot pass through a force effect.

An incorporeal creature's attacks pass through (ignore) natural armor, armor, and shields, although deflection bonuses and force effects (such as mage armor) work normally against it. Incorporeal creatures pass through and operate in water as easily as they do in air. Incorporeal creatures cannot fall or take falling damage. Incorporeal creatures cannot make trip or grapple attacks, nor can they be tripped or grappled. In fact, they cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions. Incorporeal creatures have no weight and do not set off traps that are triggered by weight.

An incorporeal creature moves silently and cannot be heard with Perception checks if it doesn't wish to be. It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB. Nonvisual senses, such as scent and blindsight, are either ineffective or only partly effective with regard to incorporeal creatures. Incorporeal creatures have an innate sense of direction and can move at full speed even when they cannot see.

Damage Reduction says this:

Spoiler:

Damage Reduction (Ex or Su) A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

The entry indicates the amount of damage ignored (usually 5 to 15 points) and the type of weapon that negates the ability.

Some monsters are vulnerable to piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage. Others are vulnerable to certain materials, such as adamantine, alchemical silver, or cold-forged iron. Attacks from weapons that are not of the correct type or made of the correct material have their damage reduced, although a high enhancement bonus can overcome some forms of damage reduction.

Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures' natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures' natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Some monsters are vulnerable to good-, evil-, chaotic-, or lawful-aligned weapons, such as from an align weapon spell or the holy magical weapon property. A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that matched the subtype(s) of the creature.

When a damage reduction entry has a dash (—) after the slash, no weapon negates the damage reduction.

A few creatures are harmed by more than one kind of weapon, such as “cold iron or magic.” A weapon that inflicts damage of either of these types overcomes this damage reduction.

A few other creatures require combinations of different types of attacks to overcome their damage reduction (such as “magic and silver”), and a weapon must be both types to overcome this type of damage reduction. A weapon that is only one type is still subject to damage reduction.

Format: DR 5/silver; Location: Defensive Abilities.

FAQ on DR says this:

Spoiler:

How does DR interact with magical effects that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage?

Although the Bestiary definition of Damage Reduction (page 299) says "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities," that's actually just referring to damage that isn't specifically called out as being of a particular type, such as fire damage or piercing damage. In other words, DR doesn't protect against "typeless damage" from magical attacks.
However, if a magical attack specifically mentions that it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, DR affects that damage normally, as if it were from a physical weapon. (Otherwise the magical attack might as well not have a damage type, as it would only interface with B/P/S damage in a very few corner cases, such as whether or not an ooze splits from that attack.)
For example, the ice storm spell deals 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage. If you cast ice storm at a group of zombies, the zombie's DR 5/slashing protects them against 5 points of the spell's bludgeoning damage. Their DR doesn't help them against the spell's cold damage because DR doesn't apply to energy attacks.

So from all that lets (for the example) pretend this is a maximized ice storm - 18 points of bludgeoning and 12 points of cold.

First - the spell needs to make a resistance check - assuming that succeeds we move on.

Next we go to anything the creature is immune to - in this case cold - so it ignores the 12 points of cold - we do this only because if it's immune it doesn't matter if anything else modifies this damage - so it doesn't pay to waste any more time thinking about it.

Now we move onto the bludgeoning - in this case we find the line in incorporeal that states it will only take half damage from a spell (other than force) that does damage - so 9 bludgeoning. This is because it's not reducing the damage by 50% - that 50% 'passes through' the creature or misses - much like a more powerful form of invisibility or cover.

Finally we apply DR to the damage that *did* effect it DR 10/cold iron or good. Well based on the FAQ we know the damage from Ice Storm is typed and that *does* matter - in this case it is bludgeoning but it is not cold iron or good - so we take 10 away leaving 0 (never negative) letting a shadow demon ignore a maximized ice storm as if it didn't exist.

Hope this helps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:


1) A feat allowing you to do something shows that without that feat, you are not allowed to do it.

When discussion 'is this in the rules' I agree 100%.

Outside of that discussion I hate this - feats should allow you to *break* the rules for specific effect - outside of that players that come up with crazy solutions make the game fun (at least at my table) - I try to encourage this with my players when possible - for instance I don't make them use a feat to pull someone out of the way - I just ask the person being pushed/pulled if they are willing - if they are it works - if not I make them do a cmb check - despite the fact that there is a feat for it that exists.

I don't want every action to be a 'feat' - it diminishes the creativity of the game - and in all seriousness - just makes the bloat worse and the martial problem worse as well.

The designers should be making feats up that let you do incredible things (This feat lets you use your whip as a swing ala Indiana Jones - as long as there is a ceiling you can use your whip to move over any square up to your move distance and the whip comes free as a free action when you are done - for example) - not 'I swap places with my buddy who wants to swap places with me' - just the existence of that feat means 'omg we can't swap places anymore because *now* you need a feat for it!'


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Personally this is how I'd handle it.

1) caster picks line of fire and begins casting

2) fighter has readied action for fireball (You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. ) - so the fighter gets a free spellcraft check to identify the fireball (don't forget there is a penalty on distance as per perception) - *IF* he identifies the spell he can take his action - I'm *assuming* it will be a move (as firing a bow to make the caster attempt a concentration check would be a more viable tactic) - he can't move *and* attack - so the fighter (not knowing the casters actual line of attack) has to move into what he *thinks* is the most obvious line of fire.

Fine - he does - now I have to see if it's *in the way* of the pre-picked line of fire the caster was using (again this is just how I'm ruling it - I realize the caster could alter it but for the 'rule of cool' I'm fudging the fact that ready actions happen before the action that triggered it by RAW).

3) if the Fighter gets the path right - I would allow him to be called 'soft cover' - giving the wizard a ranged touch attack on the square he meant to send the bead. - I would *perhaps* allow the fighter to make a CMB check lets say DC = Wizards attack roll + spell level - if he beats this I would upgrade the cover to 'improved cover' (+8 ac) with the idea that the fighter was actively trying to jump in the way.

4) if the fighter succeeds - full damage from the fireball - you don't jump on a live grenade and get to avoid the damage.

I'd go further though if someone wanted to do this and 'cover' the bead (as per the grenade thing) but in that case I'd make them take double damage and anyone else would get a +4 on the saves and a temporary 'evasion' should they save - now that *would* be 'rule of cool'.

Just my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

So... here is what you do.

1 - Sit down with the GM and ask if he is OK with you killing off anyone else's character.

2 - If he is - find another game - if he isn't then ask if he's ok with you suggesting you are going to kill everyone else and trying to find loopholes (charms, compulsions, geas etc.) to do so but with everyone at the table knowing what you are doing.

3 - if he says yes find another game - if he says no then ask him why he thinks it's fun to do the same thing to your party with the imp.

Based on this answer either explain to him that intra-party conflict *forced* on the players isn't fun and stop it, or he will realize that himself - or find another game.

Honestly it's a jerk thing to do - outside of said charms/compulsions etc. that must be *very* carefully handled or agreed upon by the players this kind of thing just makes a game miserable to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
JuanAdriel wrote:
Every single encounter PC using pit is fun-destroying too. Except you make fly encounters 3/4 of the time, which will make it ridiculous again.

Or they could have a climb speed, or a very good climb, or acrobatics, or reflex save. They could have feather fall or a way to levitate. Dispel magic for allies to escape - etc.

As a dimensional space there is no penalty for being in the thing when the spell ends - they just end up outside the pit. The only thing it really does is provide a terrain obstacle and possibly a live hazard for whoever is under it if they can't deal with a hole in the ground.

There are other ways to deal with a pit than having everything fly....


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

9th - Wish, Time Stop, Shapechange
8th - Polymorph any object, Clone, Maze
7th - teleport, greater; scrying, greater; limited wish
6th - contingency, mass suggestion, veil
5th - Overland flight, Wall of Force, Cloudkill, Major Creation
4th - Greater Invisibility, Dimension Door, Tounges - Communal, Ice Storm
3rd - Fly, Displacement, Fireball, Mad Monkeys
2nd - Rope Trick, Make Whole, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Continual Flame
1st - Mount, Endure Elements, Grease, Magic Missile, Feather Fall
0 - Detect Magic, Read Magic, Prestidigitation, Light, Mage hand, mending, message, Detect Poison, Drench


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Usual suspects for Quicken are things you *need* to get out in a hurry.

Mirror Image, Blur, Resist Energy....

Suspects for heighten are generally spells you want to increase your DC on - because the produce a useful effect at higher levels but saves outstrip the utility of a lower level spell. Hideous Laughter, blindness/deafness, glitterdust, create pit... increasing the DC on these spells can still yield results at higher levels.

For the money - a lesser rod of quicken is worth every penny of gold if you can get one - and it opens up your third level spells as well. Yes it's only 3 times per day but you don't have to pick them ahead of time and keeps your higher level slots open for interesting stuff.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

From what I understand they are actually doing the hiring using a blind test.

That is if you have the qualifications, your submissions of work and design are being sent to be reviewed with no names or identifying info attached - which means they are likely to pick whoever impresses them the most.

These type of blind auditions typically favor female candidates.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

You can check out the anniversary edition players guide if you want to see - but yes they are traits.

The guide is free to download.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

People who like 'low-magic' don't have to be egomaniacs as someone above suggested...

They might just pine for the days of AD&D - where a +1 sword was awesome and valuable for a long time. The idea that a caster had to use experience to make a magic item - made them really rare to make. You can easily do the same thing by requiring rare ingredients to make stuff (want a ring of fire protection? Get a scale of a red dragon willingly to make it).

This can also bring back the old rules of no automatic spells for wizards and a hard cap to # of spells known per level. The latter did make scrolls more interesting and deciding to put a spell in your spellbook was something to really ponder.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Latrecis wrote:
lots of good points

but... I figured she was in the process of trying to turn into a demon - she was down there alone because she was working on that process and wanted to be alone.

I also figured that goblins (being goblins) and yeth hounds (being yeth hounds) made one hell of a racket at all times so lots of noise wasn't going to really cause her to perk up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Yeah he's supposed to have access to any spell printed in the core book and more (ancient forgotten magic) at the GM's discretion, with the exception of illusion.

Honestly of all the casters in the AP he is the one I'd be most tempted to break out 3rd party spell lists (deep magic, 1001 spells, etc) and mess with his spell list a bit. If you plan to stop after his defeat - there really isn't any harm in tossing some oddball stuff into his book and it has the opportunity to give the players something a bit unexpected instead of what they *think* they know.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

This is a bit of a change in the newer version vs. how it worked in the older version.

They changed the letter to make things a bit more 'tied together'.

I looked at the timeline

* players start the adventure at the end of summer
* players are supposed to end book 2 at the beginning of or in 'winter'
* the stuff in book 3 has nonstop rain.

The third part to me didn't fit.

So I had the mayor tell the PC's to rest up as guests of the city for the winter as a reward - made winter out to be pretty miserable - gave the players time for 'downtime stuff' such as crafting - and the mayor said he'd send a contact out to the Fort to get a report.

So... when the mayor gets worried it will be the beginning of spring - i.e. the start of the rainy season. Fitting what should be happening weather wise.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

You can skip the Graul's 100% - if you are using exp just add in a few encounters - if not then just ignore it and move on - I'd keep the encounter with the graul and the firepelt - outside of that you could put the rangers in the fort still (less help) or move them to a typical camp in a forest - without any of the squick being present.

Up to you honestly - the rest of the adventure doesn't really have the 'ew' factor.

Changing the descriptions is alright as well...

Take for instance the description for A3
(spoiler obviously - and for those who might be sensitive as well)

Spoiler:
This dark room stinks of putrefying flesh.
Eight wooden chairs with grinning bleached
skulls crowning their backs circle a monstrous
four-foot-high oak dining table covered with a
crude tablecloth of crinkly human leather. The
centerpiece of the dining table-a rotting human
head, its stringy red hair thankfully draped over its
mutilated face-serves as a gathering place for a
host of buzzing, bloated flies.

So take that and change it to the following:

Spoiler:

This room is dark and smells horrible. Eight wooden chairs are crowned with what look like skulls. They circle a monstrous four-foot-high oak dining table covered with a tablecloth that looks like it may be animal skin - or worse. The centerpiece of the dining table is the head of a human victim - recent.

I think this gets the same 'horror' factor without being too nasty - but that's me - everyone has different tastes - if you wanted to tone it down even more you could do this:

Spoiler:

This room is dark and smells horrible. Eight wooden chairs are arranged around a large four-foot-high oak dining table covered with a leather tablecloth. The centerpiece of the dining table is a vile abomination.

Now IMO the third only really works well if you establish *once* that they eat humans - just as a dry fact - this lets you cut *all* the nasty out of the descriptions and let peoples imaginations run with the idea, but you could leave that out as well if you want - but I think you can back off what's written until you find a comfort zone for your group if you want - it *will* take more work for you - and I'd go through and rewrite the spots into a document to reference while you play so you don't have to be creative about it on the fly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:
As a follow up, pathfinder has the worst balance of any game I have played, and it isn't even close really.

Oh my - D&D 2nd edition - after the players options came out (shudder).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
FanaticRat wrote:

Ok, thanks for the input (but quickened time stop plus prismatic sphere? That's some SMT level stuff right there).

Another slightly unrelated question, but how dramatic is the fight usually? What I mean is, by this time has karzoug really built himself up against the PCs so that there's a lot of tension and personal reasons for winning, or does it tend to just be a sort of here's the final boss type thing?

Well - by the time they get there - they should know the following:

* who he is
* what he represents
* that he is trapped but almost free
* that they are working against a clock of sorts
* that he was one of the most powerful beings on the planet prior to the age of darkness
* spent a *very long* adventure just making weapons to help them defeat him

All of that should really ratchet up the tension - if your players don't seem to be spending time looking for that you can push the info as the GM - Big K wasn't just some schmoe - he had armies of giants - unlimited wealth - and a nation at his whim.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
2) is just GM fiat all around. I guess that works if everyone is in agreement. Not so great for PFS.

PFS has GM fiat all the time - I realize that many people hate that but if the rules are vague (as the designer himself pointed out) then it's up to the GM to adjudicate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

RAW they really went out of their way to remove the feats and such that allowed a caster to hide what they are doing.

There is one way (to the best of my knowledge) to hide your casting -

Quote:

False Arcanist (Ex)

At 1st level, a hidden priest is able to disguise his cleric spellcasting, presenting it as arcane magic of some kind. Typically, this is as alchemist, bard, sorcerer, or wizard magic, and the cleric disguises the words and gestures of the cleric spell with accoutrements appropriate to his apparent profession.

He must make a skill check (DC 10 + twice the level of the spell) to disguise his casting and successfully cast the spell. The type of skill check depends on the type of caster he pretends to be: Craft (alchemy) for alchemist, Perform for bard, Knowledge (arcana) for sorcerer or wizard. Using Spellcraft to identify the spell works normally, though unless the observer beats the DC by 10 or more, she doesn’t suspect the source of the magic is divine.

For example, a hidden priest pretending to be an alchemist wants to cast cure light wounds on a wounded townsperson. If he makes a DC 12 Craft (alchemy) check, he disguises his spellcasting as the mixing of an alchemical extract or potion (perhaps with the words disguised as reciting an obscure formula or talking herself through the list of ingredients), which he gives to the target. An observer making a DC 16 Spellcraft check can identify his spell as cure light wounds, but doesn’t realize his “alchemical” methods are a sham unless her check result is 26 or higher.

When the hidden priest uses this ability, he must still provide any divine focus components for the spells he casts. However, the divine focus doesn’t need to be an obvious symbol of his faith. It could be a small coin, tattoo, or garment bearing the symbol, whether presented openly, disguised, or hidden within a larger picture.

For example, a hidden priest of a god of dawn or light could use a coin with an ankh or sunburst, a complex tattoo or scar that has an ankh shape hidden within it, a glove with an ankh stitched on the inside of the palm, and so on. He must use this replacement divine focus just as he would his true one (for example, he couldn’t leave the coin in his shoe). If a spell requires a divine focus with a specific or minimum cost, the replacement divine focus must be of similar value to be used as the divine focus.

A hidden priest adds half his class level (minimum +1) on all Bluff skill checks to send secret messages about religious matters, and on all Sense Motive checks to recognize similar messages. He also adds this bonus on Perception and Sense Motive checks relating to agents of the laws against his religion (including city guards in lands where these laws are in effect).

This ability replaces one of the cleric’s two 1st-level domain powers (her choice).

I'm unaware of any other options that help along those lines.

As pointed out by RD the 'rules are silent' - the debate goes both ways in terms of metamagic (a silent, still, no component spell) and so it really rests in how your table want to run it - people can argue both ways - but considering SLA's are all the above (that part is certain) whichever way you play it - affects those metamagics as well.

Wands and SU abilities are totally different - they aren't listed as being silent, still, and requiring no component (by default).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

And thus the ambiguity - some feel that a silent/still/ingredient spell that is activated by a single thought shouldn't be able to be identified.

The RAW is you can - how is left to 'it's RAW'

SLA's work like a spell except where it's called out different - thus - they can be identified by spellcraft - RAW.

RAW aside many feel that this is too much incongruity and so they don't allow it.

RAW says - yes - you can tell - if you can make the spellcraft check - with distance rules applied.

Jason B. who wrote the rules admits that it seems a bit too easy - and thus would but a -4 on the check for each thing missing. (that's a houserule) so on an SLA it would be at a -12.

Others think if it's just a mental action - nope can't figure it out unless the spell has a visible effect.

YOU will honestly need to figure out how you will handle it (any of these honestly is fine - none of them will break the game) and try to make sure it's always how it works *in that game*.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Cuup wrote:
Majuba wrote:
Cuup wrote:
Detect Evil is definitely noticeable, as it's a Spell-like ability, and therefor functions exactly like the spell Detect Evil; it requires a Standard action to activate, requiring somatic components. Onlookers would therefor see him waving his hands in catsty-like movements for a couple seconds before directing his attention to them one by one.

Not really correct. Spell-like abilities do not have any components, verbal, somatic, or material. Paladin looking at a single target is also only a move-action.

I agree it's fairly obvious in general, at least for standard actions.

My mistake. Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity while casting though, correct? It must be moderately obvious, then, when someone's casting one if while being flanked by 8 creatures, you would still be able to notice (no Perception check required) if one of them casts a Spell-like ability with enough awareness to be able to react with an attack.
Quote:

Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted.

link

So - yeah - it can be disrupted - but within combat it would be the 'mental' activation distracts them enough I'd say - outside of combat I have a hard time figuring out how you notice that someone used one - without GM fiat about the spell in question


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

As an aside - remember that the only things that ping on detect evil are clerics of evil deities and stuff with high HD - also (if using the official setting) any decently large city most likely has someone from Cheliax around with a priest high enough to ping and 100% legit and non-touchable - just pinging evil doesn't make something a target.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

It's up to the GM - if you want it to be detectable - explain how it works (some GM's have the eyes glow on any detect spell for example) *before* the situation comes up - now that it's happened if you want to change it - you must ignore what went before and explain the change and just move forward.

That being said - be consistent about whatever way you rule - and if you make it work as a big 'flag' be consistent about all detection like things - not just one you don't like.

If you want examples from how it may not be - check out the fiction section of the store and get 'King of Chaos' - it describes paladin detect evil as being 100% non-detectable - and different for every paladin - the main protagonist gets the 'butterflies of evil'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:


That's actually incorrect. Using a swift does not prevent you from taking an immediate, taking an immediate outside your turn prevents you from using your next swift. "Effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn". So what I described is, in fact, the result of the proposed rules change.

No - you are incorrect.

Quote:
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn.

If you use a swift - you can't use an immediate on your turn. You technically could use the immediate after your turn - it would then burn your swift for the next turn. RAW what you proposed couldn't work, you'd have to wait for initiative to pass and then burn the immediate. Pedantic perhaps but this is the rules forum after all.

As to if this really results in being overpowered for the inquistor - I'd have to playtest to see how it really pans out - it looks good on paper - but so many things do that turn out meh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Hawktitan wrote:

Not sure how this is a 'FAQ' as it's pretty clear you can't.

What is really being asked for is a rule change.

I disagree - it's clear enough once someone takes the time to point out the details of the action types and why they are so important - then it's clear - but it's not clear on a normal reading of the rules for most people.

If it was you wouldn't have people making these kinds of assumptions in home games without realizing it's a deviation from the rules.

For that reason alone - rules change or not - this should get a FAQ and errata for cleanup in future printings. Surely you are for making the combat rules more clear and easier to understand? Take 'vital strike' for instance - if the 'attack action' language was cleaned up we wouldn't see people trying to use it with other things all the time.

Note a FAQ about a confusing or non-intuitive section of the rules doesn't mean the rule has to change - but it sure would be nice for them to clean up rule language that trips up *so* many people - especially if the rule doesn't change but the resulting text makes things clear.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
barry lyndon wrote:

Sorry, I'm quite an inexerienced GM, the questions keep coming!

Further to this level: Malfeshnekor.

[1] The brief is that he casts rage, but I don't see that on his/ Greater Barghest's list.

[2] He has Charm Monster for the range N/Pcs hanging outside the door but he only speaks goblin, infernal and worg. Presumably he gets one shot at guessing which of those 3 languages his target may speak?

1) That's a typo due to his spell list having rage in the 3.5 version. Ignore it.

2) His original write up had full stats and a custom build - he had the following languages:

common, giant, goblin, worg, infernal.

I'd personally give him the languages in the new version.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Nualia is a fine example of the map being a big part of the encounter.

If the party is able to bypass the trap in front of her lair - and sneak up on her - *then* avoid running from the hound - she isn't too bad.

If however they trigger the trap - manage to get feared into the trap and or have other issues like that - and she moves into the hallway - or the hound does and she uses her bow... it becomes a much harder fight.

the hallway prevents her from fighting many at one time - the odds are you *might* only have a single PC able to use acrobatics to move through her square - and then it's a single BBEG up against a single PC - and the stats at that point don't lean in the PC's favor.

So in reality - it depends. This one in particular a stealthy, careful party shouldn't have an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


The point is that the rules apply certain actions(game term) to certain acts. As I said in a previous post there are times when this would not be a problem but the intent is to use the listed action type barring certain cases which I gave examples of. If the intent was to use _____ or a longer action it would have been stated. If you(general statement) allow this then I would suggest it be on a case by case basis.

While I don't disagree with you - and actually like the 1 swift per round limit as is - I did FAQ this for one reason:

Any rule that goes against common sense, and is opposite of how most people will *think* about the rules - should be laid out in a more specific and direct manner.

That is the concept of the action round - swift is faster than standard - common sense says you could accomplish the faster action in the longer amount of time. The rules as written are not exactly clear about this - as in a reader not steeped in the idea of actions as discrete bits - but rather as concepts - will not understand the change. For that reason *alone* I hit the FAQ - I am 100% behind any question that helps remove rules that are active and defy a common sense reading.

The rules to this game are already vast and (for the most part) impossible to know 100% - making the combat actions clearer and easier to parse is always a worthwhile goal - as combat is where most players are exposed to the chunkiest parts of the rules, the most frequently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:


A smart Inquisitor in a group with another melee opponent could, under the proposed houserule, swift to activate Bane, drop standard to swift to activate Judgement, and the when the Barbarian/Cavalier/Fighter/etc. charges into the fray, use their immediate action

Under the proposed change they could convert a swift to standard - under your example the inquisitor uses:

1x swift
1x standard
1x swift (immediate)

Using a swift stops you from using an immediate. Being able to convert a swift action to a standard doesn't let you get an extra swift or immediate action in addition to that.

Under the proposed change the inquisitor could use:

1 swift
1 swift converted to standard
move

They couldn't attack (standard) or use an immediate (counts as swift).

So the attack couldn't happen.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

What's the DC he's working with? The Grauls have a decent Fort save and the ogres have +13.

Is he really rocking a 23+ DC on that spell?

If not the ogres should be saving way more than the stuff they've fought so far.

As it's a bard song (in essence) you could toss in a couple of bardish ogres for countersong (giving a huge bonus to the save) - perhaps after seeing this tactic used against them they call for their 'ogre rhymers' to shout back...

If it's a rush situation - as in everything notices the thunder and rushes them you can spread the ogres out - stay in initiative - and use delay/ready actions to stay out of range and rush\charge the bard if they spam the ability.

Also I'd have the really stupid ogres (the ones without class levels) start stuffing bit's of ranger/grass/whatever they can in their ears if they see this happen giving a +1 or 2 circumstance bonus on the stun save (not on the damage).

As to other critters - silence works as a counter, as does surprise and range.

I do have to agree - that ability seems pretty nasty, if it's *really* giving you fits perhaps a sit down with the player and ask them if they could avoid spamming it - or possibly changing the effect to staggered instead of stunned - which would at least allow things to either move or attack/defend themselves.

Other things immune to stun...

Undead
plants
constructs
elementals
behemoths
inevitables
robots


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:
When people complain about sluggishness of the PDFs, they're not talking about the PDF of the books or the AP. They're talking about the "interactive map" which uses layers so you can turn off grids and remove such things as secret doors and the like. Unfortunately, this has the effect of turning the PDF into a glacier.

I disagree - some of the older products are horrendous the newer stuff including the interactive maps aren't so much. I have 32 gig of memory so it's not really a memory issue - I find PDF X-change viewer works with the pdfs much better, but has issues with some formatting and images so I have to resort to adobe if (for example) I want to print something.

The text is funky in the older stuff as well - I copy\paste the text into DM's familiar for help running dungeons - and while the newer stuff (like mummy's mask for instance) has been pretty much flawless - going back to say shattered star cut/paste would get lots of issues, more like adobe had to OCR the text.

I'm guessing they've switched tools recently - resulting in better PDF's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Un-winnable - change his spell list around a bit and add:

Teleport trap to his entire demi-plane, anyone without the password gets teleported directly into the fire.

Start him like the old AP flying above the battle.

Quickened Time stop along with sphere as above - anyone outside the sphere have the minions bull rush the party into the sphere.

It'd be easy enough for him to have given his minions the ability to fly (besides the dragon).

Just having the teleport trap active gives him a huge advantage - he can dimension door around while the party (including monks etc.) can *not* - if they save they don't move - if they fail they get punted into the fire.

There are other things you could do - he's only a super genius that has been watching the players for a while now - I'd be surprised if he didn't use his wish to mimic spell immunity and make himself immune to the 3-4 most used offensive spells the players cast for example.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I user a computer and a program called DM's familiar to run combats - and while I copy\paste the text from the PDF into that program I still find having the physical book (or printouts of things like maps) helps me when I'm at the table.

As with others I find the PDF's to lag and have a hard time jumping around the material (although the ones over the last year are vastly better than the earlier ones).

I also use the images and such to create handouts for my players. I find the PDF's really useful but tend to rely on printed more so at the table.

1 to 50 of 470 << 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.