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

Derek Vande Brake's page

991 posts (1,031 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 991 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My favorite character was Viconia. I always made her TN in ToB. I'm a sucker for a redemption story.


Also in Golarion: Can't normal elves still become drow? It wasn't a one time event, but a distinct possibility for any modern elf that starts worshipping demons?


Bandw2 wrote:

if spells has spell prerequisites (needing a prior spell or number of spells) then it might go a long way of curbing their power as wizards would be forced to specialist just like fighters do.

can't just pick up fireball at 5th level when you were an illusionist until now.

Honestly, I was thinking this as I read the thread.

Make spells with prereqs, either skill, feat, or other spell. Want to learn Greater Invisibility? You have to be able to cast Invisibility. Want Spider Climb? You need ranks in Climb. Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion? The Improved Grapple feat.

Casters can still outshine others... but at least it is in fewer areas, because they had to invest more to do so, and since it is more likely they'll have invested in areas early on where other party members weren't focusing, it helps ensure they maintain that niche later.


Oh, cool! Never mind then!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Did anybody else hear the song, "What If God Was One Of Us" when reading the thread title?


At 20th level, a Wizard 5/Cleric 5/Mystic Theurge 10 will not be able to cast any 9th level spells, only a few 8th level spells on either side, and will need two ability scores at 18.
At the same level, a Wizard 7/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 10 will get 9th level arcane spells, 7th level divine spells, and will only need a 17 Wisdom.
Similarly, a Wizard 3/Cleric 7/Mystic Theurge 10 will get 9th level divine spells, 7th level arcane spells, and will only need a 17 Intelligence.
Having *any* spontaneous casting classes in the mix ensures you will not get 9th level spells, because of where the level breaks are.

So your best bet - if the party needs more arcane support, go Wizard 7. If the party needs more Divine support, Cleric 7.

When leveling up to MT, avoid the temptation to pull your "weaker" side out too soon - Wizard/Cleric/Wizard/Cleric/Wizard/Cleric (or vice versa) - just to get to the prestige class quicker. You will eventually come into your own but be much less effective to the party early on. Instead, considering leveling your primary side up to 5 for 3rd level spells before even considering a dip into your secondary side - so something like Wizard 5/Cleric/Wizard/Cleric 2/MT.

Lastly, I used Wizard and Cleric, and these might be the most common choices. Cleric has the nice feature that it gets increases to channel energy at 3rd and 7th levels, which make nice breakpoints for either side, but the wizard's class abilities would happen at 5th - only viable if you use that as a main class. However, don't discount the potential of other classes:
On the arcane side, a witch could get a few useful hexes; for divine, you might also consider druid (a primary druid can wildshape) or a shaman (note that you can't go witch/shaman).


OMG I just installed the old BG1 and 2 (and modded them up to BGT) Thursday! I would love this to happen!!!


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
When my son was three he bit my brother in law's then girlfriend on the butt. Hi-larity.

Wait... What is the exact relationship here?

If he was married to your sibling, and the then-girlfriend was not your sister (since then you would have just said your son bit your sister), it indicates your son was biting some person totally unrelated to you that happened to be dating your future in-law. Which might happen in a small enough town but would otherwise be a weird coincidence.

Sounds like Cal was friends with his brother-in-law before brother-in-law started dating Cal's sister.

EDIT: or what Cal explained as the actual reality xD

I considered that, but I would figure if that was the case he'd have said his friend rather than his brother-in-law, lol. I would consider brother-in-law less familiar. Is there a hierarchy of familiarity, lol?

But yeah, I hadn't considered his wife's brother, which also makes total sense, hahaha!


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
When my son was three he bit my brother in law's then girlfriend on the butt. Hi-larity.

Wait... What is the exact relationship here?

If he was married to your sibling, and the then-girlfriend was not your sister (since then you would have just said your son bit your sister), it indicates your son was biting some person totally unrelated to you that happened to be dating your future in-law. Which might happen in a small enough town but would otherwise be a weird coincidence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing in a Scarred Lands game, and I'm the only one in the party who fails the save on some kind of mind altering mist. I decide my party is no longer trustworthy and all serving a titan... so I attack! The party paladin, seeing me attacking in a rage, decides to disarm me - by literally cutting off my hand midway through the forearm. The shock at least brings me to my senses. However, I'm a bit bitter OOC and especially bitter IC, thinking there were better ways to handle the situation. Especially as we had no access to a regeneration spell.

Shortly after, we are on an airship and a storm causes two characters to fall overboard, dangling by a rope - one of which is the paladin. I go over to pull them back on board. And yell, with a bit of snark, "Here grab my hand! Oh, wait..."

The group loses it.

Same game, later. We have determined the BBEG is working for the god of death and disease and is spreading a plague around the world. We are in a fort, under siege by a horde of plague zombies. The enemy leader sends an emissary to demand our unconditional surrender. I suggest our response be to send a Scroll of Cure Disease.

The group loses it. (The enemy leader laughed, too. Then set back a Scroll of Slay Living before starting the assault.)

Different game. Eberron. I'm playing a hyperintelligent yet cowardly and horny goblin. The goblin promotes a vision to lift his people up to the status of more civilized races through eugenics. Really, it's just an excuse to allow him to sleep with more women. So during some down time, I euphemistically say my character is, "improving the local goblin warrens." The GM chuckles, then starts talking about how I go through and start cleaning, dusting, making repairs, and such. Everyone chuckles... except one guy who is clueless. "I don't get it. Why is he doing housework in the goblin warrens?"

The rest of the group loses it.

Same game. The party has found a massive door that we need to get through. The only way to open it is with a lever, found down a side tunnel, that only a small or smaller creature can fit in. The problem? The tunnel is crawling with spider swarms. The rest of the party looks at my goblin expectantly, who takes one look, and decides, "Uh, I can't. It's... um... it's warded against goblins."

The rest of the group loses it. AND I succeeded on the bluff check! Though proved I was lying when a small army of shadows started attacking and the only way to escape was through the door...

Different game. 3.5 edition. I made an poor perception character - deliberately dump statted Wisdom, then took extra drawback that further reduced my Spot skill. The idea was that he was so absent minded he was just too busy inside his own head to be that aware of the world around him, but once something caught his attention he was hyperfocused on it.

The GM creates a haunted pocket dimension, accessible via a one sided rip in reality. My character becomes fascinated with the spatial physics involved. He ties a weight to the end of a rope. Throws the rope through. It goes through. He pulls it back. Goes around the rip to the far side. Ties down the free end of the rope. Throws the weighted end again. The weight lands in front of the party. He walks back to the front side. The rope now appears to stretch through the rip itself, but is entirely in the material plane. He throws the weight back into the rip...

The GM pauses, thinks a moment, and declares. "Well, now I have a headache. I have no idea what the hell happens in that case."

The group loses it.

Same game. The party is walking down a road, and sees a figure merged into a tree. Not a spirit, the guy is literally trapped in it. The party goes to check things out. I wait. The conversation begins. I wait. The GM has described the guy's situation and what curse caused it. I wait. The party is now asking further questions to see what will fix it. I suddenly speak up, "My God! There's a man in that tree!"

The group loses it. And it has now become part of our collection of in-jokes, referenced whenever someone fails to notice something really obvious.

Different game. This time I am running a Fallout PnP game. This was years before Fallout 3 and none of my players have played anything in the series, so they have no idea what to expect. I consider this a feature, not a bug, since they are clueless vault dwellers. Two hours after they leave the vault (in search of a water chip!) they are attacked by a cannibal raiding party. After the fight, and again, a mere two hours after leaving the vault, one of my players asks the rest of the party, "That brings up a good question. Is it okay if we eat people?"

The group, of course, loses it.


It's definitely a campaign vs. adventure level problem. One adventure where your character doesn't fit I don't see as a problem. One campaign, I definitely do.

Prep time also factors in. If you are throwing together a quick game, and your players have a day to make characters but are only using them for a single adventure, I'd think you'd need to give less warning because there is less time wasted. Whereas if your players have weeks to make characters, there is more at risk and you should be extra careful not to screw them over.

Finally, it isn't just about letting your players know what works and what doesn't. It's also about fitting your game to the characters the players have made. The GM should have fun at the table, but not at the players' expense. (The reverse also holds true.)


Diego Rossi wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

Ah, it was james jacobs who said how it should work,

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qtom?Pit-spell-A-shrink-wall-and-dispel-pit#26
That is pretty reasonable

Based on this, all you need do is cast Create Pit on a movable flat surface (like a 10x10 board) and then tilt it up against a wall - boom, instantly walk through any wall! Stuck in Orv? Place the board up against the ceiling, and the opening will snap up to the surface!
Not really. Even with that interpretation, the pit is not a door. It opens into an extra dimensional space, not the other side of the wall, etcetera.
You missed my point. If you cast it on the 10x10 board, and then place the board up against the wall, you have an extradimensional space in the board. When that spell ends, anybody inside that space will wind up between the board and the wall - except that, by JJ's reasoning, they would actually pass through the wall and wind up on the other side of it. I'm not saying the extradimensional space punches through the wall, I'm saying the new "surface" would be the wall rather than the board.

You are disregarding this little piece of the spell:

You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size.
The pit stay on the horizontal surface, so you move your board, it stay on the horizontal surface below it. You can't move the pit.

Cuuniyevo wrote:
I agree with ryric's interpretation if the board were laying down when the spell was cast on it, but if the board were being held up during the casting time, I think the pit could travel with it, as per the spell's clause referencing a ship's deck, which can clearly move and even become vertical. The surface only has to be horizontal at the time of the casting, by my reading.
You should always remember that we are operating with a perceptive...

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If two people hold a board horizontally, and a third casts create pit on it, that is your "universe" - moving the board wouldn't make it jump to the floor any more than moving a ship would make it jump to the sea floor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

37. To meet people of the gender you are attracted to!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manwolf wrote:

Yes it's bad when the GM uses "well everybody knows the fighter would be susceptible to mind affecting spells, but sorry about the TPK because the BBEG used Charm Person on the fighter in the first round and he killed the wizard using his full attack, then killed the cleric in the second round, then..."

I prefer to randomize the targets sometimes. If the bad guys don't know who they're dealing with, sometimes instead of simply picking the weaker looking one or stronger looking one, they just pick one based on a roll of the die.

Actually, when it is based on a feature of a class, it doesn't bother me as much. As in your example - "Hey, that's a heavily armored warrior swinging a sword around. Warriors like that are often more likely to be susceptible to mind altering magic than, say, that skinny robed dude tossing lightning around." Now, he wouldn't know a paladin from a fighter (unless the paladin was doing things like smiting, laying on hands, or adjusting the stick in his nethers) but targeting the warrior isn't exactly GM metagaming.


Rynjin wrote:

58.) Killing a player.

59.) Killing a player character.

Have to disagree on 59. Not saying it should be a common event, but PvP is a viable part of the game and CAN add to the story.


Bumping this. Anyone know?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow! Psionics is one of those things that people choose sides almost as a religious level!

So given that you seem to be openminded at the moment, Alkenstarian, have you heard the good news about our Lord Jesus Christ? ;-)

Personally, I don't like Psionics on a pure flavor level, and the fact that people are already used to standard magic, but I agree with Rynjin - I think it might actually be more balanced than the standard spell system. Narrower but more customization. I wish the default magic system was actually more like psionics.

I also find people who think it is horribly broken either a) missed some limiting element in the rules, or b) have players that nova a lot (which is even easier with psionics).


43. Group uses laptops. Suddenly, as a GM, you get a Steam popup that one of your players, that you are sitting at a table with, has started playing Skyrim...


kestral287 wrote:
Ha. My players go the other way with this one. They seem to get annoyed when the NPC says something, they Sense Motive, and the NPC is being absolutely honest.

Yeah, this gets tricky, because players learn that when you ask for a check, the NPC isn't being honest. So you can always ask, which bogs down the game, or never ask, in which case players complain that you never gave them a sense motive roll.


Fixing the numbering from two 31s...

41. Picking your nose at the table and wiping it on the battlemat. No, it is not a random encounter with an ooze.


You could always learn one of the algorithms computers use to pseudorandomly generate numbers.

Or get hold of a pregenerated random number table.


20. You want to expand the hobby so you don't feel so marginalized anymore.


29. Player ragequits because he doesn't like a GM Ruling.

As for politics, religion, etc... given the nature of the game, that kind of thing can and will come up at the gaming table. Especially when people associate moral stances with political alignments. For example, I read an article recently that tried to associate liberal politics with the good alignment, and conservative politics with the neutral alignment.


This behavior really sucks, because it really just punishes your allies. If you become immune to fire, suddenly it means all the other characters are getting disproportionately hit by fire attacks. I think the only thing worse is when the GM stops using something altogether - cutting out any enemies that use fire.


I actually enjoy playing clerics. But I make it clear that I'm not a healbot, too. In fact, there are few roles I don't enjoy playing so I often do choose last and fill in a hole but I don't mind it.

I also find on occasions where I don't do this, players who choose after me will make characters without concern for party makeup. And will complain that the GM should adjust. We didn't make anyone who can handle traps? Oh, the GM shouldn't put traps in the game! I disagree with this philosophy... so I don't choose early anymore.


Mighty Squash wrote:

Being that Wayang Spellhunter is a setting specific trait, and that setting specific stuff is very rarely even FAQ'd, it seems slightly disingenuous to play the "it's legal until errata'd" when the core line trait it is mirroring has already received the FAQ showing the intent.

Yes, it is possibly RAW, but it is clearly not RAI and considering the source it is unlikely to ever get FAQ'd and will also certainly never see errata (as far as I can find the Winter Witch prestige class is the only setting line errata to have ever come out).

If you try using it in PFS, expect some GMs to rule against its legality.

I neither play nor GM PFS, so no worries there. But as for the core line trait... the text on Magical Lineage is different from Wayang Spellhunter. Magical Lineage explicitly says the metamagic feat has to increase the spell level. I could see, based on the wording, how someone might interpret it as saying it reduces the level *instead of* adding to it. The FAQ given seems to clarify the grammar on this, to me - by specifying that ML cannot reduce the level, it is saying you both increase the level and reduce it. However, Wayang Spellhunter does not have this text - all it says is that you would reduce it.

So we basically have two possibilities on the FAQ:
1. It is correcting a possible misunderstanding based on the wording of ML that specifies the trait reduces the spell level in addition to metamagic changes, not replaces it. If so, it doesn't apply to WSH because the latter's text doesn't have that abiguity.
2. It is specifying that ML cannot reduce a spell below its original level, regardless of modifiers. If so, this would (while not specifically carry over) at least indicate similar traits should function the same way - including WSH.
However, given that the very text of ML would always make it impossible for a spell to be reduced in level (since it can only decrease spells that have been increased) there seems little point in mentioning 2 in regards to that trait. Thus, 1 seems the more likely interpretation.

Now, I'd never use this trick on a character so if 2 is correct it makes little difference to me. But I can certainly understand a player who wanted to do this and it does seem to be in the rules as they are written. And as a GM, I would allow this, because again, I don't think it is really *that* overpowered - a merciful spell is generally strictly inferior to the base spell, and I think player who wanted to spend a feat and a trait to get a single inferior 1st level spell castable at will should be allowed to.

Not to mention that at least once, someone will forget the enemy is just knocked out rather than dead, which can lead to all kinds of fun surprises!


There's also no general rule allowing you to trade attack for damage, but Power Attack allows just this - specific rules beat general ones, especially when the general is a *lack* of ruling.

Wayang Spellhunter specifically would allow a spell to be lowered with a metamagic feat that gave no level adjustment. This may be errata'd - but until it is, this is a legal move.


Qaianna wrote:
This makes me wonder if you can use prestidigitation, mage hand, or telekinesis to manipulate spell components.

Given that an Arcane Trickster needs a class ability to do Disable Device or Sleight of Hand at range, I would think allowing Mage Hand or the like to do fine manipulation like lifting components out of pouches should be out. If I need an ability to lift a coin out of someone else's coin pouch (even when they are unaware), why shouldn't I need that ability to lift things out of my own component pouch?


Ah, good call.

Also, where is the ruling that spells can't drop below original level? All I have seen is the FAQ on Magical Lineage - which wouldn't apply to the general rule since, again, it requires the metamagic to increase the spell level before it then decreases it.

So why couldn't Wayang Spellhunter decrease a spell by a level, which doesn't require the same effect?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
PRD wrote:
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.

Does this include fast healing and regeneration? For example, if a character with fast healing 5 has 10 lethal damage and 10 nonlethal damage, would it heal just 5 lethal the next turn, then another 5 the turn after, then start on the nonlethal? Or would it heal 5 lethal, and then because an ability cured hp damage, it also heals 5 nonlethal at the same time for a total of 10 that round?

What about healing over time naturally? Is that considered an "ability"? So let's say the above character is level 1 and has NO fast healing, but the same damage. He sleeps for 8 hours. He'd automatically heal 8 nonlethal damage at a rate of 1 per hour; he'd also heal 1 hp. Would this mean he'd also heal 1hp of nonlethal damage as well?


I would actually allow it in my games. Might be a bit powerful early on, sure, but later a first level spell - that still takes the time to cast and only does nonlethal damage - isn't going to be gamebreaking as castable numerous times. And Magical Lineage wouldn't affect it (again, as worded the trait only works with metamagic that increases spell level in the first place) so there's only one trait that allows it. You'd have to spend one trait and one feat for your trick to work.

And keep in mind the limitations of nonlethal damage. It can't kill the target, heals naturally much faster, and is cured point for point along with hit point damage - so if you are relying heavily on nonlethal damage, enemy healing is effectively doubled. (Possibly including fast healing and regeneration, I'm not sure whether those qualify.) Several kinds of monsters - including all constructs and undead - are completely immune to nonlethal damage.

When you consider these factors, is a nonlethal magic missile really that much more powerful than a Disrupt Undead spell? It is definitely less powerful than a 1st level spell.


Sgt Spectre wrote:

You add the merciful spell metamagic feat to it, and that makes a spell non lethal. Now that the spell has a metamagic feat attached you add the traits: Wayang Spell Hunter and Magical Lineage, there was something else that I was told that could be used, Tenebrous or something....

but basically it lowers a 2nd level spell that has a metamagic feat on it to become two levels lower... so 2nd level minus 2 equals zero... which one would think could be a cantrip or orison.... and thus infinite and not expended....

but the rules have been errated/ faq'ed so its not eligible anymore.

Yeah, but even without the errata, a cursory reading of Magical Lineage wouldn't allow this combo. Wayang Spell Hunter, sure, but not Magical Lineage.


I think I am confused. Even if Metamagic could reduce levels I'm not sure how you would get to 0 on a 2nd level spell here... what am I missing?


RDM42 wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

Ah, it was james jacobs who said how it should work,

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qtom?Pit-spell-A-shrink-wall-and-dispel-pit#26
That is pretty reasonable

Based on this, all you need do is cast Create Pit on a movable flat surface (like a 10x10 board) and then tilt it up against a wall - boom, instantly walk through any wall! Stuck in Orv? Place the board up against the ceiling, and the opening will snap up to the surface!
Not really. Even with that interpretation, the pit is not a door. It opens into an extra dimensional space, not the other side of the wall, etcetera.

You missed my point. If you cast it on the 10x10 board, and then place the board up against the wall, you have an extradimensional space in the board. When that spell ends, anybody inside that space will wind up between the board and the wall - except that, by JJ's reasoning, they would actually pass through the wall and wind up on the other side of it. I'm not saying the extradimensional space punches through the wall, I'm saying the new "surface" would be the wall rather than the board.


Shadow Magic, from Tome of Magic. I thought the spells were kind of weak given the low number you had, but I did like the concept and implementation. And the direct choice between more powerful spells or extra feats.

Also, the Archivist, from Heroes of Horror. Someone reminded me of the book and I can't believe I had forgotten it - one of my favorite characters was an Archivist.


CWheezy wrote:

Ah, it was james jacobs who said how it should work,

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qtom?Pit-spell-A-shrink-wall-and-dispel-pit#26
That is pretty reasonable

Based on this, all you need do is cast Create Pit on a movable flat surface (like a 10x10 board) and then tilt it up against a wall - boom, instantly walk through any wall! Stuck in Orv? Place the board up against the ceiling, and the opening will snap up to the surface!


DM_Blake wrote:

I understand it this way:

You have 10 "free" points of AC (because your AC is 10 + all the other stuff). Those 10 points of "free" AC mean that you're doing all that you can to make yourself hard to hit. Sure, highly dexterous people do it better, but that's a separate part of your AC.

Also, a combat action fills six whole seconds. That's a long time. During those six seconds, you're moving, twisting, bending, ducking, doing whatever you can to A) hit the other guy to the best of your ability and B) avoid being hit.

That said, if a combat situation grants you more AC, you still do the very best you can to use that AC.

To directly answer your question, the bonus to AC the giant gets from his cover already assumes that he is bending into it for maximum effect, doing the best he can to avoid being hit.

In other words, if two giants are on that ledge and one of them is bending/squatting/ducking down to get Improved Cover, then what's wrong with the other giant? Is he a half-wit? Does the moron giant want to get hit? No, he's doing it too. And if there are 50 giants on that ledge, they're all doing it. And they all actually have Cover, like the rules say, not Improved Cover.

I would partially disagree with this. An attack on an armorless, flat-footed opponent has a 10 AC. Such an opponent is not "doing all that [they] can to make [themselves] hard to hit" - though they are still more active and mobile than a grid intersection (AC 5). So the 10 free points is not them naturally doing what they can. In your two giants example, if one were aware of the party and the other not, both would still get cover. Consequently, ducking should improve the cover.


Might finally be a good time to use the gun mage or seige mage archetypes...


We shouldn't joke so much, this is a grave matter.

I'm so garlic for your loss.


James Jacobs wrote:
Interesting theory... although the fact that the paladin is the class that is easiest to be disruptive with got a significant power boost kinda blows a big hole in this theory's hull... ;-)

Ah, but the paladin at least is limited to being a dick for goodness! The rogue isn't.


Arguably, no other racial abilities function when dead. So why should NEA?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you are looking for self-referential (and possibly self deprecating?) vampire jokes...

And I assume you don't want them to suck? Nothing that will make your party's blood boil? (Because it wouldn't taste as good!) I'll consider shining some sunlight on your dilemma, since you ashed so nicely. Maybe some wooden pointers to lead you to your heart's desire.


Good to know, thanks!


Ordinarily, two creatures cannot share the same space. But you are allowed to move through an ally's space, so long as you don't end your turn there.

If you have Spring Attack, can you move into an ally's square, attack, and then move out of that square?


DM_Blake wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
BadMJ wrote:

Hi,

with the summon monster spells or allies, if multiple monsters are summoned at the same time, it's last all appear in the same box or the caster can choose independently their appearance slots anywhere spells in the coverage area?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Unless the creatures' size permits them to occupy the same square, they can't appear in the same square. Since the summon spells don't specifically address where multiple creatures appear, the creatures can appear anywhere within the range of the spell.
Actually, they could, since the rules only prohibit ending their movement in the same square. So it could be an interesting visual - summon 4 dire lions that appear, one after the other, in the same square, each one leaping into battle a fraction of a second before the next one appears. In game terms, same square, even though only one really exists there at any moment (moment = fraction of the round).

This may be true. But how would this be beneficial? At best they'll be taking 5 foot steps, and thus wind up in a different location anyhow before other actions. At worst, they'll have to take move actions, possibly provoking AoO and losing half their turn, before winding up in different spots. Is there a condition where you wouldn't want to just summon multiple creatures to different spots?

EDIT: Actually, wait... since it isn't in the middle of a move, could they attack, then move? In which case it might be beneficial after all under certain conditions...


BadMJ wrote:
So multiple summon can encircle (or flank) a target when they appear.

Yes, on flank. Encircling is harder, depending on positioning. Near a wall it is easier; in an open space, you'd have to get eight of them going at once!


Just curious... which deities did Cayden Cailean and Norgorber worship before they ascended themselves? Were there any particular deities who had their portfolios beforehand, and if so, what happened to those deities? Finally, do gods get ticked at followers who ascend to godhood in their own right, or is it more like a parent seeing his child at graduation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Where do you see that Aid Another cannot be used for ability checks?

Nowhere, but I can't see anywhere that says they can be.

"Aid Another
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort..."

There are rules for dying of starvation. Yet there are no rules for eating. A lack of rules doesn't mean you can't. That's why there is a GM, to figure out what kind of check - if any - needs to happen where rules do not exist.


KestrelZ wrote:

They appear where the caster designates them to, so long as they appear in range of the spell.

You may want to rule that they cannot appear in an occupied square or a bunch of shenanigans happen (I summon a dinosaur to drop on the opponent's head kind of shenanigans).

This actually doesn't work, since the spell says they have to be summoned onto a surface that supports them.

But yeah, you can otherwise place them anywhere in range. Really makes them strategically useful even at low levels. Spending a full round to cast a spell that gets 1 attack seems like a poor choice, but spending a full round to cast a spell that gets 1 attack, and provides an ally flanking, is a bit better bargain. Especially if that ally is a rogue.


From a simple game balance perspective, one person could drop the item as a free action, the other could pick it up as a move action provoking an AoO. Handing something one to the other should *at minimum* be at least as good as that, and probably should be better. In which case, it should probably only take a single move action (by either party) and not provoke an AoO.

I wouldn't worry about readying actions unless someone was throwing an item across the battlefield for someone to catch.

1 to 50 of 991 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.