|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
captain yesterday wrote:
For me, because Id love to be able to play a cleric that raises the fallen to to fight the good fight once more (with their permission). And to have that in PFS or whatever game where the GMdoesnt default to Golarion canon.
Its also a wonky idea (that all/most Undead are auto evil just because they are undead). Personally, in my opinion, it stifles options and creativity rather than invites it.
GM Xabulba wrote:
Skill ranks are based off of hit dice, you need three ranks in intimidation to get boar strike, an ECL3 character can put 3 ranks into a skill thus allowing them to get the Boar style feat at class level 1.
Don't want to go to far off:
What you are saying is a bit confusing. If you had a Level Adjustment (and thus an ECL), and where also (ECL) level 3, that means you did not have 3 character levels, (and thus couldn't put 3 Ranks <or 5 Ranks in 3.E>), and the DM was correct. Your ECL is your Class Level/Racial HD + Level Adjustment. -
If you mean that you where a 3rd level character (class level plus racial HD), then that's fine, assuming those all added up to 3rd level. But since there is no LA, there is no real reason to say ECL, because you don't have a different effective character level than your actual character level. Does that make sense? It's the + LA that makes the ECL important, and that LA does not allow you to increase Skill Ranks, it just treats you as a higher level for XP needed.
The problems with rogues are pretty well known by now. They are a primarily melee class with only 3/4 BaB,
I would say that you summed up the actual problem with Rogues that plagues the forums perfectly, in that people continue to mistake the Rogue for a primary melee class. Rogues are not Fighters with a crapload more skills. Rogues are just fine, and still a pretty commonly seen and fun class.
It's kind of a throw back. In 2E, a Ranger had to attack their favored enemy to the exclusion of others unless it was completely impractical. In 3.0, you had t be evil to select your own race as a Favored Enemy unless they where normally evil (like Drow), (I think it was something like that). In 3.5 that mostly went away and a bit more social effects where added in. It still retains the Favored Enemy rather than something like Favored Target/Subject.
Playing a ECL 3 character with 1d8 unarmed attacks The DM's own creation; two-weapon fighting doesn't work with unarmed attacks. When I try to pick up the Boar fighting style, you need to be 3rd level for that and I don't care what ECL means.
That's actually the way that ECL works. Level + Racial HD + LA = ECL, but only the Racial HD/Level count for qualifying for Feats. So if you are playing a +2 LA creature with 1 Class Level, your an ECL 3, but you only count as a 1st level character for anything but XP purposes.
I dont believe that is right. Reading through the Ult Camp, it looks like there is no Movement Phase, its only Tactics, Ranged, and Melee. But an army only gets one of those a day, (which all resolve at the same time). But Mass Combat itself is Day by Day, (so just like a normal basic combat round, one standard, one move, etc which is Round by Round),you only get one turn. You just cant move away, or shift location without special rules. I
There are also rules for extra combatants joining the battle in progress, so it can not put everyone else on hold while each individual one isresolved between DM and 1 player.
My understanding is that once combatants are locked in a combat, they must continue to fight until one is Dead, Routed, or Withdraws. They only get one Melee Phase (normally) a day, but it doesn't put everyone else not in combat on hold. It just generally means actively fighting combatants get to advance to the Tactics -> Ranged -> Melee Phase each day, while everyone else only gets their Movement Phase in a day.
Personally, I would think the best option would be to have GM Star Replays renew each year on Jan 01st. Or at east maybe 1 - 2 of them. 3 and 5 GM Stars (or maybe 4-5?), might work well as a special Con Boon, allowing those GMs that go to Cons to still get a reward that they are more likely to need anyway, but allowing everyone else to still be rewarded for DMing.
If it's on Jan 1, for one it's a hard date, and it allows DM's that go to large conventions to plan for using their stars nearer the end of the Reset date, and also to start to use them for a good bit of the next season as well. Particularly on the newer scenarios that a lot of players are going to want to get into, (likely the newest 1-5s and 3-7s), continuing to reward all DMs for DMing for others and not playing themselves.
I personally also feel that this should not be a "lets reward Con-goers at the expense of everyone else" sort of deal. This is not something I would like to receive for going to a Con or GameDay or whatever, but it is something I would like to be able to use for being the main DM in my local area and for all the online games I run. I still think that (at least a limited) automatic reset is the best option for everyone. I'm holding back my stars just because there are things I specifically want to replay, but as I usually GM now, they have not come up and well, I'm usually the GM. When I do play, I have enough characters that I can usually help make nearly any party, but I would rather get no credit for most scenarios than use my Star Replays at this point, not knowing for sure that certain scenarios I want another crack at may then be out of reach. I want another go at Midnight Mauler (story) and In Wrath's Shadow (chronicle Item), for instance. I'd also love to have a single character with all of the Blakros Museum scenarios (but not Blakros non-museum), including the coming Season 6 one, which is probably going to require one of my mostly unplayed DM credit characters to fit all the levels in and be legal.
The Fox wrote:
Further small correction. The only books that are required are the ones that your current GM asks you to present when there is a question. In practice, this is generally none, including the crb. (At east in my experience, it's never happened with the single exception of brand new books that not a lot have had the chance to read through yet, and even that is rare.)
Personally, and no offense to the fury's out there, but I am glad the Kitsune are not generally legal. They are just one of those races that smacks of "special rare snowflake character". I've had two players with the boon in my games, and both stated beforehand out of character something to the effect of "Hey, I'm a Kitsune, but your not allowed to know that in character unless I tell you (or you can beat my disguise, which I should get all sorts of free bonuses and stuff to, just because)." It leads me to believe that they, as players, are expecting to receive special treatment and special spotlight regardless of anyone else at the table, which in turn is a really good red flag for not something to encourage in an organized play setting. Just my opinion. Everyone's free to their own. I'd much rather see something like Ratkin or Grippli more open, myself. Less balance issue involved as well as less of the above.
So much for inclusion, right.
But anyway, it really, really depends on to what extent you mean "as true". In the setting, the various faiths all have creation stories that "are true", but also contradict and falsify other deity's creation mythology. Now, on the other hand, you could go the inclusive route or trying to get something for everyone and have the Christian/Jewish/Islamic/etc. . . god as an option without automatically jumping to the conclusion that doing so would invalidate or demonize others (and why is that ok one way, but not the other?). Golarion isn't RL, and it's pretty clear that Golarion was basically cut-off from the rest of universe to limit outside forces from interfering much, (as we can see in the Egyptian pantheon in Osirion's history, particularly in how they sort of stopped really being a presence for a long, long time). One of the setting's basic ideas is that deity's do not require worship or followers to exist or to gain/maintain power, (that is they do not loose their divine status or weaken if their worshipers all go away, they just have no tools to use indirectly on the mortal plane).
The problem with a monotheistic world with pathfinder is that all divine magic is sourced from the gods. If you remove all but a single god, you either remove all divine magic that isn't sourced from that god's domains, or you grant that singular god all domains. Ultimately, you remove all flavor from divine magic in the process.
That's not really true. Non-Deities can grant magic in Pathfinder/Golarion, such as Empyreal Lords, Arch Devils, the Four Horsemen, etc. Including a God/Jesus/Allah, etc . . . doesn't necessarily mean that the world is monotheistic. Even biblically speaking, there are other deities mentioned which grant magic. A good portion of the miracles of Moses have the Pharaoh's priests doing the same things like turning staffs to snakes.
Which relic is the Christian one in Artifacts and Legends?
Saint Cuthbert's Mace on page 41.
Originally in D&D, there where no named deity's. It was more based off of an idea of "I serve the light", while there where often names for evil deities, devil-worshipping cults, and the like. As they began to flush out the world, they introduced 2 religions to be more player centric. St. Cuthbert and Pholtus. Both where LG (which worked a little bit differentely then), but represented two different variations of it. Pholtus was the ultra zealot, cleans the world of evil, n questions asked sort of faith while St. Cuthbert, (taken directly from the RL catholic saint and history) represented more of the working man's idea, and had a reputation for basically smacking people on the back of the head (sometimes with the mace), to let people know they where being stupid. Sort of the common sense version of LG. In 3E, they changed St. Cuthbert to LN, and also played up his law and order aspect a ot, (literally because they felt that there was not enough LN deities in the core book, which kind of ruined a lot of his flavor and essentially kind of combined Pholtus and St Cuthbert into one being,, (which as I understand it a lot of people didn't like, and in later products kind of started to shift St. Cuthbert back, sort of, making him LN with heavily good tendencies). However, Oerth is not a magic-starved world, and St. Cuthbert (the greyhawk version) I think is owned by WotC, so I'm pretty sure (in addition to other things in the article) it's not referring to the greyhawk deity but the RL saint, (which the greyhawk deity comes from directly anyway.)
Just a head's up, Golarion is actually connected to Earth in the setting, and 2 AP's actually dip into this. Mummy's Mask has already brought RL religion in with a lot of the Egyptian pantheon while Reign on Winter actually take the players to Russia. A 3rd product, Artifacts and Legends has a Christian Relic (but only vague references to God or Earth), but otherwise I'm pretty sure that Paizo is going to avoid Judeo-Christian as much as possible.
I disagree, specifically because it is so, so many changes like this that really stick it to the Fighter, (or the Rogue, or the Monk), and that is specifically things that are Paizo's Design/Balance experience. Similar with the Cleric. The vast majority of the nerfs that hit the Cleric are not actually the Cleric class, but rather things like changing a lot of spells, or altering Turning to Channeling which makes some of the older material just no longer work (such as the Fire Domain with Turning/Rebuking Fire and Water Creatures). I like Pathfinder, but honestly, 3.5, in my opinion was better, and a lot of the little changes that PF made from 3.5 to make it their own are also some of the worst parts about PF. Not even the ones that are setting centric, just the ones to the base D20 system. That doesn't mean they didn't do some good things too. They did. That also doesn't mean that the Fighter, for example, didn't get some cool things. They did. But a lot of it is also very subjective, or it could just be things that people hadn't realized had changed until much later, like the issues with diagonal reach in PF.
But, we should probably get back to the Warpriest now that this is going again.
Yes, they do have something to do with each other. Fighter was significantly worse in 3.5, and Rogue was better only because of material outside the class itself.
The 3.5 Fighter had 3.5 Power Attack. They had the 3.5 CLEAVE. They had a ton of amazing Feat options with no Pathfinder equivalent most of the time, and they had a Spiked Chain with 10ft Reach that threatened both 10ft and 5ft. Yah, 3.5 fighter stomps the crap out of the PF Fighter, hands down.
Who would also get 4+Int with that groin kick. . .
James Jacobs wrote:
Rahadoum was never intended to be a Nazi Germany bad guy nation.
Not trying to be a jerk or throw you unde the bus here, just trying to show you why some of the little "retcons that are not real retcons" are kind of odd to a lot of people. For a lot of us that go way back in the day with Golarion, the Taldor banning of Sarenrae is a fact of the setting, and one that has been show in various material to be one that is still very enforced and very prominent in the nation, especially in the more civilized parts. Same with Rahadoum. I can't find the post, but you literally said you modeled Rahadoum after a combo of Nazi Germany and the Scarlet Letter. This is exactly why Taldor really needs a new book. There is just way too many conflicting ideas about it (not to mention others), both in intent and published material. Again, not trying to be a jerk or throw you under the bus, just explain why people have issues with things like this.
James Jacobs wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Actually... lawful neutral is my 2nd favorite bad guy alignment. (Chaotic evil is my favorite... demons are the bomb!) With lawful neutral, you can have enemies that can be legitimately non-good, but not evil, so that it really torments paladins to have to deal with them as villains. Good times.
James Jacobs wrote:
What does this mean for other nations lime Rahadoum? I know the original intent was that they where suppossed to be a nazi germany like bad guy nation, but you didnt want paladins to just be able to go in and fix things. But in the same way, others have really shifted the focus, and even made it somewhat heroic.
I just wanted to double check. Are these legal?
They come from Blood of the Moon page 21.
The Add Resources says:
It's not a Feat, Trait, or Spell, (racial or otherwise), not is it a Magic Item or Equipment (or on pages 30-1). It's a Magus class feature, and my understanding I that because it's not listed as Legal, it is not.
Is there a Boon that allows it?
Plus, we've never determined which category of armor Mage Armor would fall under.
Do we really need to? It doesn't affect your sleep or reduce your speed. It can not be made out of other materials like Mithral. Based on the first two alone, it can not be Medium or Heavy Armor, and it is also not a Shield. If it needs to be an category, there is only one it can possibly fit into, Light Armor. It's weightless. It makes no mention of gauntlets, but only specific armors grant gauntlets.
Not having an ACP (0 or -) means there is no penalty at all for non-proficiency.
Fighter Armor Training would not change anything.
I'm sure there are some off Feat or Trait that it might matter, but even then, it's pretty clearly Light of the 3.
I'm note sold on the idea that: "Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction." translates to ACP: -, ASF: -, or Speed: 20ft/15ft, (rather than ACP 0, ASF: 0, Speed: 30ft/20ft).
Under Undead, it says "No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as when calculating a breath weapon’s DC)."
Now compare it to "Arcane Spell Failure Chance: Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor and use shields without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells."
Clearly the Light Armor still has an ASF, it just doesn't affect the Bard while casting Bard Spells.
Now lets look at Barkskin: "Barkskin toughens a creature’s skin. The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus. This enhancement bonus increases by 1 for every three caster levels above 3rd, to a maximum of +5 at 12th level. The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target’s natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."
It could really go either way, and there is no default "correct" way so far.
Well, honestly, I think that they had a significantly different direction in mind with a lot of characters, (particularly Skye), and had to shift things around a bit too. I'm not sure if I think how things turned out with Ward where planned or part of the shift. In retrospect, with how the team basically screwed him over and pushed the guilt on him for it, in retrospect fits, but it also kind of feels like it was done in retrospect, (at least to me).
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Sadly, there are individuals here that admittedly spam the Flag buttons on posts that make points they don't like in a lot of the "hot button" threads, just to get them locked. There are a few staffs that do similar things as well, sadly link, which ironically was also locked.
Enhancement Bonuses increase the existing Bonus, but then count as whatever they already are. So the +3 Robe (+0 AC with +3 Enhancement = +3 AC bonus). Mage Armor is also an Armor Bonus to AC, and because they are from two separate sources, they do not stack. There is nothing stopping you from wearing both, you just only benefit from one (usually the highest, but not always). The Robe takes the "body" Item Slot while the Mage Armor takes up the "armor" Body Slot. But, both provide Armor Bonuses, which do not stack (you use the total Bonus, not the individual ones for each single item/spell).
Now, if you had a Magic Vestment cast on the Robe and another Magic Vestment cast on a Shield, they are two different Bonus types. The Robe is an Armor Bonus to AC and the Shield is a Shield Bonus to AC, so they do stack.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
See that in the Chart there are both Armor and Shield Bonus Types, but no "AC Bonus Type".
Also the note beneath the chart "Spells and magic items should never grant dodge bonuses because dodge bonuses always stack, and it would be a simple matter to stack various low-power items or spells with small dodge bonuses and get an incredibly high Armor Class more cheaply than by achieving that AC using the armor, deflection, enhancement, and natural armor bonuses in the game."
So in essence, you can have individual Enhancement bonuses to each of the different components that make up your total AC, An Enhancement to Armor, and Enhancement to Shield, and Enhancement to Natural Armor, and Enhancement to Deflection, and even an Enhancement to Dodge, (I don't think there is anything that does this, and even if there where, Dodge Bonuses do stack with themselves, so kind of pointless), and each will contribute to the total AC. But if you have more than one to an individual component, they do not stack, ad only the highest applies, (so having two shields is doable, but you only get one Shield Bonus to AC).
from PRD under AC:
"Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides." It does not apply to AC, but rather "to Armor to increase the Armor Bonus it provides. And ye, I realize what's going on here :P
Remy Balster wrote:
It's actually a good argument for this. Undead have a Con Score of -, which is very much not the same thing as 0. It means that things that lower their Con have no effect on them, (outside of they are immune to it for being Undead), but it also means that things that would raise their Con lie Bear's Endurance can not help them, because their Con is not 0, it is "-". It also means that (there are exceptions to this), that Undead can not qualify for Feats that require a Con Score.
So there is a significant difference sometimes.
Remy Balster wrote:
Mage Armor isn't worn.
This isn't strictly true either. According to Paizo, to wield/use/wear an item basically means to two things. 1.) that it is "put on" and utilizing a slot and 2.) that it is being actively used, (so they ruled for example that you need to be actually using a Defending Weapon to attack to get the AC bonus from it, you can not just have it out, in your off hand, not attack with it, and get the bonus while you attack with another weapon). So Monk, (and everyone else) is in fact wearing Mage Armor when they have it cast on them, and they are actively using it (if they get the AC bonus from it). But it does not rob them of their ability to use their Wis and Monk abilities. Nor do wearing Bracers of Armor. Now would wearing cloths and having a Cleric MV them for an AC bonus.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Can you sunder Mage Armor? If not, I do not believe it can count as armor.
In 3.5, you could not Sunder (or target) Armor at all. Nor would most want to, because it ruined the armor (ie party treasure) completely. PF changed the way Sunder works, allowing for an item to become broken, but not destroyed, specifically so that players could make enemy gear not usable, but afterwards repair it to use themselves or sell.
If your looking just at this, it's just as likely that they never updated Mage Armor to this, because you can Sunder objects made of Force. It's not in the Objects Hardness and HP sections, but if you look at other spells that use Force, there is Hardness and HP given.
from Wall of Force:
(A wall of force can be damaged by spells as normal, except for disintegrate, which automatically destroys it. It can be damaged by weapons and supernatural abilities, but a wall of force has hardness 30 and a number of hit points equal to 20 per caster level. Contact with a sphere of annihilation or rod of cancellation instantly destroys a wall of force.)
A spiritual weapon cannot be attacked or harmed by physical attacks, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it. A spiritual weapon's AC against touch attacks is 12 (10 + size bonus for Tiny object). Though it counts as a spell, not a weapon. "It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction."
It has as many hit points as you do when you're undamaged, and is AC 20 (–1 size, +11 natural). It takes damage as a normal creature, but most magical effects that don't cause damage do not affect it. Though again, it doesn't count as an object, but a creature. There are specific exceptions to Sundering against a creature (Hydra), but outside of called shot, normally you can not.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If they where not Armor or Shields than it wouldn't say so, nor would it need to contain that info.
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.
Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can't bypass it the way they do normal armor.
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
However, both are set. Mage Armor offers a straight +4 Armor Bonus to AC, and the Shield spell offers a straight +4 Shield Bonus to AC. Instant Armor on the other hand offers variable numbers.
"You instantly wrap your body in a suit of armor made from opaque force. At your option, the armor can be decorated with your religion's holy symbol in a prominent place, such as upon the breastplate or helm. While it exists, this armor replaces any garments or other sort of armor worn, magical as well as mundane. You lose access to, and all benefits from, armor replaced by this spell until the spell ends and the instant armor disappears.
A little surprised this is still going on. :)
Actually, lets nock that one out right now. Yes, the Burden of Proof is on you to show why it does not. Both of the spells specifically say they create Armor/Shields. Just because they are made of Force rather than metal, wood, cloth, or leather doesn't automatically place them in the "not real armor or shield" category that people seem to be making up. If you say it works differently than normal, (outside your own games, obviously), than it's up to you (general not specifically you) to show, within the rules and material, why.
To put it a different way, people are saying that the things created by the Mage Armor and the Shield spell d not count as actual armor, despite having rules in them that only apply to armor and shields (such as ACP, ASF, movement reduction for armor, etc. . .). The burden of proof then falls to you to show a few things; a definition of armor and shields in the game, that shows your specifications outside the obvious (like material made of Force don't count), and then the issues that come from that like how other abilities I pointed out above actually do say specifically they create a suit of armor, but somehow, again according to your interpretations, do not apply.
Gambit always had the power to keep someone listening as long as he keeps talking, it was just not referred to for a long time. Same with Nightcrawler's ability to blend into shadows.
That's true. It was a little bit less of a Suggestion and more of a Fascination like ability. It only worked if people where not aware he had it, and only worked as long as he kept speaking. The character is otherwise just naturally charming, but doesn't have any mutant ability to make people do things. For the most part, a lot of the writers didn't like the character (and continue not to) despite him being rather popular (particularly amongst female fans) since his introduction, primarily because he steps on Wolverines "badboy" loner toes a bit. Add in that the charm ability has a sort of natural mental manipulation/telepathic block that is pretty close to Wolverine's "I can't remember and it's too strong for even Prof X to fix" thing going on, there's a lot of crossover.
He however did develop secondary and tertiary mutant abilities, later on. His true mutant ability was originally dampened (an arrangement with Mr. Sinister) because he was not able to control them, but he did not need to touch in order to charge things, and could do so nearly instantly and to a greater level. Later on, he developed the secondary ability to continuously charge himself, making him faster and stronger, but still within a mostly human level. Later, he amplified that which makes his metabolism burn through most poisons quickly, and then a form of healing factor (I'm not sure if that was added when he became Death or more unlocked around that time), and now his final power (so far) in a limited ability to tell the future through cards. This one seems to be the only truly new power, where the healing, enhanced metabolism, extended life/youth, and enhanced athleticism are all directly tied to his ability to manipulate Kinetic Energy, just in different ways.
Victor Zajic wrote:
None of those effects are suits of armor either. They are all effects of spells and abilities. Just like Shield of Faith isn't a literal shield, Mage Armor is not literal armor. There is not going to be a rule that spefically calls it out as not armor, Pathfinder rules are inclusive, not exclusive. The only way said effects would count as a suit of armor is if they explicitly said "This counts as a suit of armor"....
I'm offering that yes, it is actually a literal suit of magical armor made of force (Mage Armor, not Shield of Faith obviously). According to that interpretation, not a single one in the Core book count, then. Sure, they all offer Armor Bonuses to AC, and a few are even called out as suites.
Banded Mail: Banded mail is made up of overlapping strips of metal, fastened to a leather backing. The suit includes gauntlets.
Breastplate: Covering only the torso, a breastplate is made up of a single piece of sculpted metal.
Chain Shirt: Covering the torso, this shirt is made up of thousands of interlocking metal rings.
Chainmail: Unlike a chain shirt, chainmail covers the legs and arms of the wearer. The suit includes gauntlets.
Full Plate: This metal suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor. Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith, although a captured suit can be resized to fit a new owner at a cost of 200 to 800 (2d4 × 100) gold pieces.
Half-Plate: Combining elements of full plate and chainmail, half-plate includes gauntlets and a helm.
Hide: Hide armor is made up of the tanned and preserved skin of any thick-hided beast.
Leather: Leather armor is made up of pieces of hard boiled leather carefully sewn together.
Padded: Little more than heavy, quilted cloth, this armor provides only the most basic protection.
Scale Mail: Scale mail is made up of dozens of small overlapping metal plates. The suit includes gauntlets.
Splint Mail: Splint mail is made up of metal strips, like banded mail. The suit includes gauntlets.
Studded Leather: Similar to leather armor, this suit is reinforced with small metal studs.
Hard to believe this is even being argued.
I agree, it's hard to believe this is even being argued, coming from the other side.
No, mage armor isn't armor.
Why, cause you say so? If you have some sort of rules to back up that opinion, please share. I've showed above that it does correspond to all of the things that what we can define as "armor" within the game, and it's also been shown that the spell itself classifies it as armor as well as includes lines like "Unlike mundane armor. . ." and "the way they do normal armor".
What it does say is that it creates a touchable, physical layer of protection
No. It's a "touchable" force field. *Not* a physical layer of protection. That's why it affects incorporeal touch attacks.
It does not say it's a force field. It says it's a field (as in an mathematically distinguishable area) of Force (which in the game is a defined thing that specifically applies against Incorporeal). It's obviously a layer and it obviously provides protection, so not clear on what you where trying to say here other than calling it a force field (which it does not say it is) implies that it's less "armor"? The last time this came up, the arguments against basically boiled down to "No jus' "cause". So I'm honestly interested in hearing reasons why not within the context of the game. :)
Does compairing it to other similar things change your viws?
Armor of Bones (Su)::
You can conjure armor made of bones that grants you a +4 armor bonus. At 7th level, and every four levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2. At 13th level, this armor grants you DR 5/bludgeoning. You can use this armor for 1 hour per day per oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-hour increments.
Coat of Many Stars (Su)::
You conjure a coat of starry radiance that grants you a +4 armor bonus. At 7th level, and every four levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2. At 13th level, this armor grants you DR 5/slashing. You can use this coat for 1 hour per day per oracle level. The duration does not need to be consecutive; it can instead be spent in 1-hour increments.
Ice Armor (Su)::
You can conjure armor of ice that grants you a +4 armor bonus. At 7th level, and every four levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2. At 13th level, this armor grants you DR 5/piercing. In cold conditions, the armor bonus (and DR bonus) increases by 2; in very hot conditions it decreases by 2. You can use this armor for 1 hour per day per oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-hour increments.
Air Barrier (Ex)::
You can create an invisible shell of air that grants you a +4 armor bonus. At 7th level, and every four levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2. At 13th level, this barrier causes incoming arrows, rays, and other ranged attacks requiring an attack roll against you to have a 50% miss chance. You can use this barrier for 1 hour per day per oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-hour increments.
I'd say yes, you can. I can see the argument against I, sort of, but it seems it does seem like it takes a lot to get there.
Like Wraithstrike said, if It doesn't say it, that it doesn't happen. Nothing in Mage Armor indicates that it's not real armor, (not defined). What it does say is that it creates a touchable, physical layer of protection, though invisible. Because it's made of Force, it is weightless, and unlike other armors, it does not reduce your speed for wearing it, carry an Arcane Spell Failure chance for wearing it as armor. It also does not have an Armor Check Penalty, (and thus a -0 to all Str & Dex skills for Non-Proficiency.
Qualities of Armor:
Armor Check Penalty: Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character's ability to use Dexterity- and Strength-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
Sleeping in Armor: A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He takes a –2 penalty on Strength and Dexterity and can't charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.
Arcane Spell Failure Chance: Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they're wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor and use shields without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.
From what I recall from back then, it was also pointed out that at that point, with the abundance of healing in the game and how little it actually does (10 hp max, but thats at 20th level), its just not as bad as it sounds. Which it really isnt.
So it wouldnt surprize me at all if it was not revised to the PFS way on purpose, honestly. Not saying it wasn't and it may have just slipped through. If so, the real question is so what?
The only difference between the way Heighten Spell's higher level spell adjustment works from any other metamagic feat's is that Heighten Spell is not set. It modifies the way a spell works in some way and increases the spell level slot to do so. Dont confuse the function with the cost. If you are using it to make a Orison use the DCs and Spell Level of a 1st level spell, it is a +1 spell level metamagic adjustment making it a 1st level spell. The cost is +1 spell levels. The trait reduces that by 1, but can not decrease it beyond either +0 or the original, unmodified spell's level (0 in this case).
So it counts as a 1st level spell for IDing, Dispelling, how it interacts with other spells, DCs, etc, but takes a 0 level spell slot only.
As for Glorious Heat, healing is so abundent, and being that you need to be 5th level to cast it (and a Cleric of the primary deity of Healing), I think people see infinite healing and overreact a lot more than its really worth. Most times its not going to matter in combat, and really only good in downtime healing, basically saving the party a little bit of GP at best. But it costs a feat for one of the most Feat starved classes, and outside of Spark, also requires spellcasting to function (plus your action). Seems perfectly fine for a Cleric of the patron of healing to me.
I was thinking that the blue guy might be the remains of the Red Skull. I think the Tessaract is actually the Mind Infinity Gem, and the Red Skull besically entered the Gem. As a supersoldier, his blood does have some regenerative properties, and the syrum does amplify a persons existing attrtibutes, which might explain the touch of insanity. Combined with the Tessaracts lingering influence.
Kevin Mack wrote:
I don't mean to speak for others, (and also realize that JJ isn't going to respond here), but for many people the ISG (and more correctly the threads that came up about this from the ISG) are the first time we had even heard about it, and have been going off of the other material that reinforced Taldor's continuing purge of Sarenrae's faithful. So what implications?
While that's true, too a point, other published materials have shown that the "cult" of Sarenrae is still forbidden throughout Taldor, (on pain of death).
To me, this issue isn't so much that it's being retconned, as it's yet another conflicting view of Taldor, (presented as the truth). In the end it just shows that Taldor, at best, is boring. And at worst, is boring. Meet in the middle, and it's still boring.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
How am I not taking you at your word? Also, your past history was not included in the original or follow up, only that you noticed a difference, which I was only suggesting might be more about how you saw yourself than how others saw you. Or for example perhaps you joined a different group afterwards.
Im choosing not to be offended, :), but are you not doing exactly what you are implyingof me (not taking me at my word)? Or somehow assuming your word has greater value than others?
It could say a lot of things, but not automarically the one you assume. Maybe they had more self confidence afterwards, or had a different group of players.
I think you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding things. APs and adventures are cheaper to make, and being soft covers, bring in more money after the cost to produce, and because multiple adventure products come out a year verses rulebooks being more around 1/year, they bring in more profit to Paizo. But thats not the same thing as they are more desired or sell better than rulebooks.
Multiple companies agree that rules/options/splat books are the ones that sell, including Paizo, but Paizos business model is heavily influenced by subscribers, and their production schedule favors APs and Adventures for this.
Even back in the Dungeon and Dragon mags days, Dragon (rules and options focused) outsold Dungeon (adventures and DM focused) significantly because generally only one person in a group would pick up Dungeon whereas (assuming they purchased either), multiple people where more inclined to pick up Dragon.
If Paizo where to make monthly rulebooks in soft cover the size of APs for Pathinder (not Golarion setting), things might change significantly.
Im pretty sure the reason that 3.5 died is that it stopped being supported, both by WotC and then by Paizo as well once many of the fans came over or split between 3.5 and 4E.
Im pretty certain that they could have continued strong with 3.5 for a good while if they wanted to. Back then, there where a lot of books requested that never even got touched on.
3.5 Epic Level Handbook
a few off the top of my head.
I, personally think that Pathfinder could use more bloat, in some areas. There are still plenty of things not covered. I think there are way too many Traits, to the point that some do the exact same thing 2 or even 3 times. I think some classes have an obnoxious amount of archtypes, while others have not nearly enough. I'd be happy to never again see a new Alchemist, Bard, Monk, Magus, Rogue, Summoner, or Witch archtype, for instance, but Cleric, Cavalier, and a few classes could not only use a bunch more, but break even further away from the mold than has been done.
I can't wait for the ACG and Advanced Class Origins books. I don't really like Golarion though, so generally don't care too much for the setting specific books, and only pick them up for the crunch. So everyone is different.