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

David knott 242's page

1,995 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,995 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

James Jacobs wrote:
Kajehase wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
A Mr. Morden would like to know "What do you want?"
That changes at every second, but right now? I'll go with a chocolate chip cookie.
He'll be disappointed with your answer, which is good. Just ask Ambassador Mollari what happens if he likes your answer.
I was confused before, but now I have NO idea what you're talking about.

Mr. Morden was the agent of the Shadows (major villains) on Babylon 5. You should treat the question as though it came from Asmodeus himself. The best answer to his question is the one given by Vir Cotto:

"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this." [gives a mockingly cheerful finger waggle]

So if you have four claws and one rend attack, then would I be correct in interpreting this as saying that you would roll your claw attacks and then follow it up with a rend attack if at least two of the claw attacks hit?

Jeff Merola wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

D&D 3.5 had an official statement on the Wizards site that specifically disallowed using the same stat to modify something more than once -- so this FAQ actually confirms a certain degree of compatibility with D&D 3.5.

Was it part of CustServ? Because CustServ wasn't actually a rules source and repeatedly got their own rulings wrong.

Edit: I checked the most recent CustServ FAQ anyway. Nowhere in it is an FAQ that states what you claim it does. In fact, there's one that the Monk, Ninja, and Swordsage AC bonuses don't stack because the class feature has the same name and is thus the same source. The other bit in the FAQ about stacking untyped bonuses was talking explicitly about items like the Orange Prism Ioun Stone

This was an article for the site that specifically discussed the subject of double dipping ability scores and not something from Customer Service. I will see if I can track it down this evening.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

D&D 3.5 had an official statement on the Wizards site that specifically disallowed using the same stat to modify something more than once -- so this FAQ actually confirms a certain degree of compatibility with D&D 3.5.

Bacon666 wrote:
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..

While I am not particularly fond of the overall idea, I do have an idea for how multiclassing could be handled: once you have levels in more than one class, you simply use the slowest applicable XP table for whatever classes you have. Shifting from a faster table to a slower table could leave you stuck at one level for quite a while if you are of high enough level when the shift occurs.

Ughbash wrote:
graystone wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Toughness is better than Fast Learner in every way, actually... But they stack, if you want to go that route... Overkill, IMHO.

How is toughness better than it? The front loaded 2 hp? Important at first but totally irrelevant at 3rd (where I like to start characters).

Toughness added though IS an interesting option. I can see some cases where the extra bump in HP could be handy. (such as a melee caster with AC issues)

PS: Fast learner also give access to Improvisation. On the right character it allows for in impressive bump in skill use.

Toughness gives you 1 HP per level (and frontloaded 2 extra).

So if you want to put your favored class bonus into skill points it matches Fast learner.

Toughness is not tied to Favored class so if you multi class Toughness is better.

Toughness gives you the option of gettign 2 hp a level rather then 1 hp and 1 skill a level, so again toughness is better.

Finally toughness gives you the ability to get 1 HP and Favored class bonus rather then restricting you to 1 HP / Skill point.

So toughness is signifigantly better then Fast learner because among other things even as a one dimensional feat it is more versatile... It does however stack so fast learner is not a total waste.

You should take Fast Learner if you want one or more feats for which that feat is a prerequisite and you do not intend to multiclass. Otherwise, you should definitely take Toughness first.

Major_Blackhart wrote:
Ugh, all the way til December, eh?

The annual fall/winter slippage season has begun. It will be over when the releases currently scheduled for March slip to April, if the past couple of years are any indication.

For anyone who allows old D&D 3.5 material but not other 3rd party stuff, there is a feat called "Extra Slot" that gives you one extra spell slot each time it is taken. That feat is a bit weaker than the 3pp feat in that it gives you only one spell slot rather than two.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just remember: If you are playing a human in Pathfinder, the odds are that you are playing a teenager.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not only is Pathfinder Unchained not bound by backwards compatibility, but I see no indications that the different systems in the book even have to be consistent with one another. Classless characters could be achieved by a system that creates a single generic class for all characters, although I am not quite sure how it could be done within a reasonable page count.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Turn it off beginning of round

do monk-ey things
Turn it back on end of round

That doesn't help when one of the monk-ey things you want to do is add wisdom bonus to AC between your turns.

Monk, prd:

AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.

--> a ring of force shield is not a shield, it's in the ring slot: the monk is therefore not carrying a shield

ring of force shield, prd:
This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free.

--> this addresses the question of encumbrance; therefore the monk is unarmored and unencumbered, and therefore retains his monk AC bonus.

But in that case, turning the ring off and on as Purple Dragon Knight suggests is unnecessary -- you would only need to do that on the rare occasions when you need to do something that requires two free hands.

Arcanists prepare spells and then cast them spontaneously. They clearly meet the requirements for being prepared spellcasters. Whether they qualify as spontaneous casters depends on the exact wording of the ability -- for example, they would not qualify as being able to "cast arcane spells without preparation". There may be wordings for abilities of prepared casters that they also do not meet.

Shouldn't the name of this product be "13 True Ways" instead of "True Ways"? I really want to get my hands on this book.

I like what I have seen of 13th Age. I just need one more book (13 True Ways) in my hands to consider myself as having enough information to convert a D&D 4E campaign to that system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Triphoppenskip wrote:
Liranys wrote:
A rogue. Wielding a Greatsword. This does not compute. Yeah, I'd say that beats the rogue-trying-to-be-a-fighter hands down.
How about a sorcerer trying to be a fighter? He made our real fighter really mad when he claimed the masterwork plate and +1 keen longsword from the loot.

That would be bad unless his intention is to present the fighter with plate +1 and a +2 keen longsword made from those items a few days later.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Turn it off beginning of round

do monk-ey things
Turn it back on end of round

That doesn't help when one of the monk-ey things you want to do is add wisdom bonus to AC between your turns.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depending on the needs of your setting, you might want to go as far as to eliminate all races except humans. Remember that differences in lifespan and other factors will force cultural differences among the races, which might not be desirable if those differences don't fit the flavor of the setting.

They probably mixed it up with the handling of the Racial Heritage feat, for which Aasimar would not be a valid choice because it is not a humanoid sub-type. In any case, there is no question that Hero Lab got this one wrong and thus they need to be informed of this error.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If you allow a spellcaster to cast a quickened spell as a standard action, do you let them ignore (or change) any other metamagic spell?

What advantage does a spellcaster gain from doing that? Doing this would be on a par with talking while you cast a Silent Spell or making hand motions while you cast a Still Spell. If you prepared two spells as Quickened spells and decide to cast both of them in the same turn, that was poor planning on your part given the high spell level adjustment of the Quicken Spell feat.

The answer could be deity dependent. While trying to work out a code of conduct for an Iroran Paladin, I came up with the idea that interfering with somebody else's free will in such a manner might violate that individual code of conduct. However, a corollary of that conclusion would be that it would not violate the code of conduct of a deity who places less emphasis on free will.

RavenStarver wrote:

It's an online campaign run on

It's working really well so far, just use Skype instead of the built in video.
Yeah, 5 players and the DM has 4 NPCs. As for making combats unruly, we're handling it like Mass Effect or Dragon Age were we pick which companions every time we disembark. Or like Star Trek ^.^

In that case -- most likely the players themselves are all male.

It needs to be fixed in the book first -- then we should start bugging the PRD folks once we have an errata, FAQ, or update to point to.

The medium save progression was actually introduced in d20 Modern, primarily because that game pretty much requires multiclassing and the save bonuses might otherwise stack too high.

But if we follow the arguments about BAB and save progressions diverging too much at high level, we are soon driven to the solution that WotC resorted to in D&D 4E and 5E of divorcing those progressions from class level completely and basing them solely on character level as modified by one time bonuses from class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

D&D also has a deity named Ioun, but they can't make it Product Identity because that name isn't original with TSR or WotC.

Since a 2nd level player character is CR 1, I would probably go with playing the Atomie as listed in the Bestiary as a 2nd level character and then letting him gain normal class levels afterwards. Note that a Drow Noble has CR = character level, and the Drow Noble is a seriously overpowered race.

I think you should work towards the Mammoth Rider prestige class. I thought it would be amusing to try to talk our Halfling paladin into working up to that class, but it would be even funnier for your character, whose main problem with the mount would be getting it to notice that you are there.

Valantrix1 wrote:
Its threads like these that really make me miss swords of sharpness.

Well, Paizo did provide a conversion guide, so you can always just import the D&D 3.5 version.

Update: Never mind, I forgot that this weapon didn't even make it into D&D 3.5. In that case, I would probably treat it as a "merciful" variant of a vorpal sword.

Whoever is performing the operation to add the prosthetic limb to you should be able to amputate your existing limb as part of the process.

I would exclude scenario 2. The ability to downgrade swift actions was specifically not allowed in D&D 3.5, from which Pathfinder is derived. If Paizo's intent was to change that, there would have been a corresponding change somewhere in the rules, whether by replacement or by deletion.

lastknightleft wrote:

in the ecclesiathurge archtype, the ecclesiathurge vow states that they loose their blessing of the faithful ability...

An ecclesiathurge doesn't have a blessing of the faithful ability (unless it's missing), and neither does the cleric.

That is an accurate quote of the book text though -- so fixing it would be errata for the book instead of for the PRD.

The only restriction is that the eidolon cannot be of a smaller size than the Synthesist. It can certainly be larger. There are actually some pictures floating around that show what the Large or Huge eidolon of a Synthesist Summoner might look like.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the character was already committed to another deity that was not hostile to Abadar, the GM screwed up -- he had Abadar making an offer that the PC had to refuse and unnecessarily creating a crisis with another deity.

On the other hand, if the PC previously had no patron deity, the PC's choices are to accept or reject the offer from Abadar. Becoming a divine spellcaster follower of another deity at that point would be an insult to the deity that actually offered him the power. In this case, the PC would be the one unnecessarily creating a crisis between two (presumably) non-hostile deities. The fact that the PC is considering such an option indicates that Abadar seriously misjudged the PC.

The problem with the dream scenario is that it seriously constrains the player's choices in an unrealistic way. I am assuming that the GM and not the player presented the dream and thus had Abadar make what was essentially an unforced error. The only way to fix this problem is via a discussion between player and GM.

The question boils down to how deities handle divided loyalties. Most don't take such things too well. Note that saying a prayer to a deity other than your patron is not a rejection of your patron in a polytheistic system -- but having two patrons is more problematical.

In this case, your GM created the issue by having Abadar be the deity to approach your character, even though that character had no inclination to serve Abadar. Since he created the problem, he should solve it.

Humphrey Boggard wrote:
Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?

Why should that be allowed?

In PFS, there is definitely a rule that you can only have one patron deity; outside of PFS, it is up to your GM.

But what are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Paladins have very few if any abilities that are deity dependent.

Deuxhero's comment could still be applied to Battle Oracles with the Skill at Arms revelation.

In one of my earliest games, I recall having the rest of the party wanting to track down and kill my PC after he fled from a seemingly hopeless battle. And I didn't even do anything to stop the rest of the party from fleeing -- the only thing stopping them was that BBEG who was dropping one PC each round.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
What's funny is that a Dragon can cast this to turn into a medium humanoid and still get a str buff.

Only if it is size Medium or smaller. If the Dragon starts out at size Large or larger, there is a net loss of strength as the strength loss from reducing its size is greater than the +2 for assuming a size Medium form.

LazarX wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Personally, I kind of wish they would break that nasty habit of making neutrals the mechanically best alignment and requires you (and deity) to actually have the appropriate Alignment to cast a spell with Alignment Components.
Neutral Priests don't get options like Summon Good Monster.

Is Summon Neutral Monster inferior to Summon Good Monster?

Ken 418 wrote:
I've been playing Pathfinder for only a short time... was there a similar companion released when the Advanced Player's Guide came out?

No. Mythic Adventures was followed by a Player Companion called Mythic Origins (as well as a similarly themed Pathfinder Campaign Setting product), but as I recall no other hardcover book until now ever got a similar treatment.

But note that since Evasion is a prerequisite for the Twist Away feat, you do lose access to the Twist Away feat when you have no panache points (since that is a requirement for you to have Evasion).

To make that spellbook actually count for something -- it should be a mundane book in which you stash loose Pages of Spell Knowledge, so you actually learn the spells contained in the book.

Stephen Ede wrote:

I have a player playing a Ettin Druid.

Interesting question.
If a Ettin somehow gains extra arms does it get to make full attacks with each extra arm at no additional penalties?

Only if it gains an extra head for each extra arm at the same time.

What are the names of the new feats?

Since Wizard Wally was not using a readied action, why doesn't he get to pick a new target for that Magic Missile spell?

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

And gaining proficiency is gaining the feat.

Fighters and paladins automatically have Heavy Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat.

Well, there was a recent FAQ that contradicted this. The question posed was a reasonable one: if I have the feat, can I use the retaining rules to lose Heavy Armor Proficiency and replace it with something else.

The answer was "you don't have the feat, you just have the proficiency."

You also cannot retrain fixed feats for which you have no choice -- thus, for example, a standard sorcerer would not be able to retrain away the Eschew Materials feat he receives automatically at 1st level. The same would apply to a fighter or paladin with heavy armor proficiency.

Jason Wu wrote:
Dylos wrote:
(At least the Advanced Rage Guide says they are legal without it).

I realize this is a typo, but I would very much like a product of this name.



Okay, the next person to write an optimization guide for barbarians really needs to give this title to that guide.

You probably are best off allocating your eidolon's entire armor bonus to natural armor, as an Amulet of Natural Armor or a Barkskin spell would stack with a natural armor bonus while Bracers of Armor or a Mage Armor spell would not stack with an armor bonus. I cannot think of a single good reason to do otherwise.

I am curious as to why most of the feats in this book have wisdom prerequisites. I was going to complain about those values all being even, but the fact that the requirement is a stat that Oracles normally don't care about at all stood out even more.

What is this from, Path of War? It definitely does not look like anything Paizo published, so the Paizo dev team would not be the best people to answer this question. I would ask it in the thread for the 3pp product in question.

Well, the opponent is in melee with you. I think that what is relevant is that the enemy you are shooting at threatens someone, not that he is threatened.

1 to 50 of 1,995 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.