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

Diego Rossi's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,930 posts (10,449 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 711 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Forseti wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

After a couple of seconds it deposit on everything, even the invisible person. But there is a big difference between what stick to a moving creature against what fall to the ground.

You have ever seen one of those graduation ceremonies where students throw handful of flour against the one getting his degree?
They are throwing flour directly against him, but unless he/she is wet very little stick to the target. And they are throwing it directly against him.

I've seen pictures (and video) of Kim Kardashian being flour-bombed. She was covered in copious amounts.

Diego Rossi wrote:

In this situation you aren't doing that, you are throwing your flour in the air or on the ground trying to cover the whole square.

so it do [b+exactly[/b+ what it say it do. It "momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there".

you see, there is a rule,it say exactly what it do. Arguing that it "logically should do" something different as no place in this section of the forum.

There's no doubt in my mind that there will be significant amounts of flour on a creature if there was enough flour to outline it. The invisibility mentioned in the powder entry is referring to the general concept of invisibility, as mentioned in the glossary. (Which, incidentally, includes this snippet: "One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).")

Diego Rossi wrote:

So for you, how long is "momentarily" and how you read "reveals if there is an invisible creature there" is the same thing as it is cover it and make it visible?

That's another problem right there. "Momentarily" is not specifically defined in the rules so anyone's interpretation of how long this moment lasts is valid. Anyone's interpretation that's not ridiculous is valid and a correct way to handle the powder issue in the game.

Also, who's to say that the interpretation of "momentarily" we're supposed to apply here isn't its...

PRD wrote:
One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).

Object, not a creature, for the simple reason that you aren't throwing some flour in its general direction, you are coating it.

Coating something in flour is a bit more thoroughly than simply throwing the flour in its area and hoping that enough will cover it.

And, just for the record, a unit of powder is 1/2 lbs, about 230 grams. In a 1,5*1,5 meters area.
About 1 gram for square cm of the floor. Way kless when you consider all the vertical surfaces. "significant amounts". Not really.

You are missing the not insignificant point that you are targeting the square, not a creature.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Forseti wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Forseti wrote:
Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.
You would think, but some explicitly believe otherwise. They make up rules about what happens when the rules are silent... the text does not say creatures get covered so by magical default rule #77, they do not.

The rules don't say anything at all about what happens to the powder when you throw it at the square. When Diego writes: "you are creating a cloud of calk or flour in the square and you see the empty outline of the creature", that's not in the rules either. He made that up. But it is what you would expect when you throw around generous helpings of powdery substance. It makes sense in the imaginary world.

Filling in sensible specifics where the rules fall short is something everyone does all the time. It's such a natural thing to do that Diego probably didn't even realize that he criticized me for making something up while the whole scenario he paints is one he just made up himself and has just as little grounding in the rules as written as my version.

What makes no sense, is to invent sensible stuff where the rules aren't explicit, but at some point in the narrative arbitrarily stop following through. If you imagine a cloud of powder, the powder is there all the way, and it should behave like a cloud of powder, or your game devolves into nonsense.

Perfect, you throw the powder and it do something, that something is spelled out:

"momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there".
Full stop.

I added an explanation of how it do that, you added something that isn't in that text and actually contradict it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Forseti wrote:

So where does all the powder go? Does it disappears completely? Does it settle down to indiscriminately cover anything that happens to be in the square? Does it magically avoid creatures in the square?

Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.

After a couple of seconds it deposit on everything, even the invisible person. But there is a big difference between what stick to a moving creature against what fall to the ground.

You have ever seen one of those graduation ceremonies where students throw handful of flour against the one getting his degree?
They are throwing flour directly against him, but unless he/she is wet very little stick to the target. And they are throwing it directly against him.
In this situation you aren't doing that, you are throwing your flour in the air or on the ground trying to cover the whole square.
so it do exactly what it say it do. It "momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there".

you see, there is a rule,it say exactly what it do. Arguing that it "logically should do" something different as no place in this section of the forum.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Forseti wrote:
Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.
You would think, but some explicitly believe otherwise. They make up rules about what happens when the rules are silent... the text does not say creatures get covered so by magical default rule #77, they do not.

So for you, how long is "momentarily" and how you read "reveals if there is an invisible creature there" is the same thing as it is cover it and make it visible?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Forseti wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
All this talk of "it's outside the rules"? Nope, sorry. The pinpointing rules are clear as day, and do not include any special caveats about items not picked up by the invisible character. Even the ubiquitous "bag of powder" trick only allows pinpointing "momentarily" and only works in a single square, and the rules for that suggest that sprinkling it on the floor and tracking (what do you know, there are rules for tracking invisible creatures, too) is more effective.

The bag of flour trick will work for as long as the creature is covered in it in my games.

Quote:
Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
That's how the bag works against general invisibility. One manner of becoming invisible is the more specific Invisibility spell, which has its own caveat about how to deal with stuff picked up while under its influence.

Re-read what you quoted, in particular the parts I bolded.

1) you don't throw the bag at a creature, you throw it to a square.

2) it momentarily reveal if there is a invisible creature in the square.

So you are not covering the creature with calk or flour, you are creating a cloud of calk or flour in the square and you see the empty outline of the creature.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:

2 things spring to mind, one Earth Glide is the specific ability here as it is clarifying both the spell and the creature.

second, not seeing a conflict with the spell as it requires move earth to be cast on the area, not the creature. It is disrupting the earth the elemental is moving through, which affects the creature, not the elemental directly.

So, yeah critter gets stunned despite the immunity.

Move Earth wrote:

Area dirt in an area up to 750 ft. square and up to 10 ft. deep (S)

This spell has no effect on earth creatures.

1) the spell can't target a creature

2) the spell say that it don't affect earth creatures.

Earth Glide (Ex wrote:
) When the creature burrows, it can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water. If protected against fire damage, it can even glide through lava. Its burrowing leaves behind no tunnel or hole, nor does it create any ripple or other sign of its presence. A move earth spell cast on an area containing the burrowing creature flings it back 30 feet, stunning it for 1 round unless it succeeds on a DC 15 Fortitude save.

1) Earth glide say that if the creature is in a area targeted by a Move earth spell it the creature can eb stunned.

2) Nowhere it say: "this override specific immunity to stunning" nor "this override the specific limit of move earth where ti say This spell has no effect on earth creatures."

So no, it don't override specific immunities.
It work on druids wildshaped into earth elemental, oracles with the stone gliding ability and any other creature with stone gliding that isn't a earth creature, but it don't bypass specific immunity as stone gliding don't say that the stun effect bypass specific immunities.

To apply "specific beat generic" you need to have a specific that say that it beat generic immunities.
"a fireball deal fire damage" don't beat "immunity to fire", even if that is the specific of the spell while immunity to fire is a a benefit of the generic fire subtype.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

@OP

It appears no specific rule cover this, but it's unequivocal that if an arrow did stick into a person, the arrow would remain visible per RAW. While it's clearly open to GM adjudication, I would highly recommend GMing the game in a manner as consisted with reality as you can manage. If that means some BBEG gets taken out much easier than you thought...you can always create more.

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows, you're going to be able to at least track the square based on the arrows. So as others have suggested, I'd allow pinpointing without negating the miss chance.

Arrows kill by piercing and sticking. If you're not sure about this, watch a bow hunter reality TV show.

Alternatively, let the wizard spend a round to pull out the arrows.

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."

BTW: "He has hit me with his weapon, so there is blood on it, I see where he is ..."

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Covent wrote:
...the ammunition is destroyed after a hit.

Forgot that part! Yeah, that changes the equation.

The player should have used a net instead. :D

Also, wow, it's amazing how many people missed my "ammo is destroyed" error and instead went with the (also wrong) "if it's on his person it's automatically invisible too" answer. And then there's the whole "maybe getting hit doesn't actually mean getting hit because HP might not mean what the CRB says it means" thing. I guess we could all stand to put a little more effort into actually knowing what the hell we're talking about.

So! Let's put it all together! Walking through it step by step:

We know that the damage dealt from the arrows was piercing damage. More to the point, it was not slashing damage (so we know it didn't graze him with a slice as it passed by) and it was not bludgeoning damage (so we know it didn't run into him and explode without puncturing him).

We know that the CRB defines hit point damage as actually physically getting hit (not straining to dodge at the last second or whatever), which is further backed up by the interactions (or distinct lack thereof) between the rules for cure spells, fatigue/exhaustion, injury and contact poisons, natural HP recovery, falling damage, rolling a 1 on a save against an AoE, and plenty else.

Furthermore, we know that "ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless". This clearly includes the possibility of breaking into pieces, but also clearly includes the possibility of simply being bent/cracked/split to the point of uselessness while still being all one piece. As the rules go no deeper on this topic, it's left to the GM to make a ruling. Given that the OP's goal is to find a way to enforce how he wants things to go, I'll go out on a limb and say we're going with "broken into pieces".

When you put the above three paragraphs together, we have the following firmly established: The arrows physically struck the target, they punctured the...

There is a BIG difference between being hit and having arrow stick in you in Pathfinder.

You are trying to apply RL logic to an abstract system, but the you stop halfway because applying it in full will break the system.

RL: you get hit by a solid hit by an arrow, it penetrate a few centimeters and stick in your body, true.
But then you have a piece and metal and wood struck into your body. Moving increase the damage, probably you are bleeding, there are very good chances that you are dead or incapacitated.

Pathfinder: you get hit by a arrow, you lose X hit points. End of the effect.

If you want to add effects because it is "more realistic" you should redo the whole system as you are breaking piece of it to follow your tastes and you shouldn't do it in the rule forum.

PRD wrote:
Hit Points (hp): Hit points are an abstraction signifying how robust and healthy a creature is at the current moment. To determine a creature's hit points, roll the dice indicated by its Hit Dice. A creature gains maximum hit points if its first Hit Die roll is for a character class level. Creatures whose first Hit Die comes from an NPC class or from his race roll their first Hit Die normally. Wounds subtract hit points, while healing (both natural and magical) restores hit points. Some abilities and spells grant temporary hit points that disappear after a specific duration. When a creature's hit points drop below 0, it becomes unconscious. When a creature's hit points reach a negative total equal to its Constitution score, it dies.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
DM Jelani wrote:

I have a player who successfully pinpointed a creature under greater invisibilty during one round (due to the invisible creature casting a spell with a point of origin), and shot it twice with his longbow, successfully overcoming the miss chance. Now the player is insisting that his arrows should be visible, and that he should be able to visually track them in order to automatically pinpoint which square the invisible creature is in. Furthermore, he is asking that it negate/mitigate the miss chance from total concealment. I know that this is wrong, but I don't know how to articulate the reason it's wrong using the rules. Can anyone spell out exactly why, per RAW, the arrows shouldn't be visible?

I know I can just say, "I'm the DM, too bad bub." But I don't like doing that unless I have to. Thanks in advance for any advice.

The invisibility spell description wrote:
...items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.

Those arrows are visible until the creature spends the actions to hide them behind his invisible clothes. (Perhaps this is why wizards wear those flowing robes? In fact, I think I'm adopting that as headcanon now. But anyway, moving on...)

Strictly speaking, the rules are silent on what effects result from having visible arrows sticking out of an invisible target, so that's a GM call. However, any sense of internal consistency for your game world is shattered if the visible, seemingly-floating arrows don't tell you anything (and you'll probably lose any sort of trust from your players and be branded an adversarial GM who just wants to "win", deserved or not). Personally, I'd let it reveal the caster's position, but not mitigate the miss chance.

Hope that helps!

Please, show me the rule that explain what result you need to do to have the arrows stick in your target instead of grazing him.

Doing 1 hit point of damage is enough or you need more?
Barely rolling enough to hit is enough or we need more?
If we hit touch AC it stick in the armor even if we miss the enemy actual AC?

There is no rule about arrow sticking in a target, adding it change the game.

if we follow this kind of logic: I have wounded you with my sword, your blood a has been spilled, now it is outside of you and visible. You need to tuck it away to make it invisible again .

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Jelani wrote:

I have a player who successfully pinpointed a creature under greater invisibilty during one round (due to the invisible creature casting a spell with a point of origin), and shot it twice with his longbow, successfully overcoming the miss chance. Now the player is insisting that his arrows should be visible, and that he should be able to visually track them in order to automatically pinpoint which square the invisible creature is in. Furthermore, he is asking that it negate/mitigate the miss chance from total concealment. I know that this is wrong, but I don't know how to articulate the reason it's wrong using the rules. Can anyone spell out exactly why, per RAW, the arrows shouldn't be visible?

I know I can just say, "I'm the DM, too bad bub." But I don't like doing that unless I have to. Thanks in advance for any advice.

The arrows don't stick in the target. Most of the hit points damage are grazes, cuts and bruises, not an arrow piercing your lung and sticking out.

Hit points are a abstract representation of our ability to dodge, get minor wounds and still be able to fight and so on.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hasteroth wrote:
Our 4 star VO whom I spoke to online later said he's not really familiar with the Magus either as the only archetype he wanted to play isn't legal, and just as surprising... Magi really aren't popular in this particular pool of players for some reason.

It seem to be a circular thing. People (GMs and players) in your area don't know how a magus work so they don't use them, and as no one use them no one learn hot they work.

What trouble me a bit is that you don't seem to realize that, while you later corrected it, you did a serious error. Missing how a core mechanic of a class work is pushing a player into rerolling. It is the equivalent of glancing a druid description and saying "Your animal companion is a wolf, it use the stats of the wolf in the Bestiary."
If you don't know how a class work it is better to spend 10 minutes before the start of the game to read it carefully. You will still miss some nuance but you need a good grasp of the base abilities.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blindmage wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Blindmage wrote:
I've always read the all as simply meaning, that you don't have to pick a specific knowledge, like arcana, or religion, etc, but that the dc10 cap is still there.
You do realise that that means that bardic knowledge does nothing then? Anyone can already try a DC10 knowledge(anything) check.
But you get your bonus on all untrained skills, so your trained and untrained knowledges are still fairly close. Even skills you have no training in are half as good as those you do, bards always get the bonuses, making the dc10 automatic at lvl20, you know all the common knowledge without a single roll.

Take 10. Intelligence 10. No skill. Any class.

"all the common knowledge without a single roll."

There is no need of a class ability for that.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SillyString wrote:


I guess it depends on whether the "You gain a +2 bonus on Sense Motive checks, and you can deal piercing damage with your unarmed strikes." part of snake style effect (and thereby boar's too) is always active AND whether or not being capable dealing slashing damage with a weapon makes it a slashing weapon.

"You can deal slashing damage with it" don't make something a slashing weapon. To be a slashing weapon it should that in the hands of everyone.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Slashing Grace doesn't work like that, it requires you to choose a weapon when you take the feat, and the weapon has to qualify for the feat on its own merits.

Sure. Unarmed strikes are a weapon. If those strikes do slashing damage then they qualify for Slashing Grace.

Quote:
At the time you're taking Slashing Grace, Boar Style is not active

Why not?

Boar Style can be activated at any time. Someone with the feat could use it to deal slashing damage in every actual combat and every 'off screen practice session'. If all the training and experience someone undertook to learn the Slashing Grace feat came from using Boar Style to do slashing damage then how would it have not been active when they learned the feat?

Quote:
But they cannot pick Slashing Grace with a greatsword, because it is not considered a one-handed weapon for the purpose of feat selection during character creation or leveling up.
A greatsword cannot be used with slashing grace because it is a two-handed weapon. Even if someone has an ability allowing them to use it one-handed (or just using a small greatsword) that doesn't stop it BEING a two-handed weapon.

Slashing grace requirement point to the weapon, not your other abilities. The weapon is a slashing weapon? No. Test failed, don't work.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FrozenLaughs wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, you've cast magical enchantments upon your physical body, much in the way that you would enchant a weapon. You've made them permanent, just as you would a weapon or any other object. Your enchantments remain upon the body even as the soul leaves the body, because it's not the soul that is enchanted, just the vessel.

If you are polymorphed permanently and then die, does your soul travel to the appropriate Plane looking like an Elf, a women (if you were male) or a frog? No. You go back looking as you did when you were created. Reincarnation? That's a whole different discussion that could be argued either way.

Anyways, does a broken weapon lose its enchantments when broken? No. (unless I've blatantly missed a rule) Destroyed? Yes, there's nothing left to physically hold the magic so it dissipates. Why are we applying different logic to a body?

And you can even recover the magic in a destroyed magic item is you have make whole and your level is high enough.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Which makes no sense.

If the intent of the Superstition Rage Power is "I hate Magic, I'll do anything to not have to deal with Magic," then that should include not being able to be automatically targeted by the spell too.

In other words, if you're unwilling towards the effects of the spell, you should be unwilling towards being targeted by the spell too, meaning an attack roll should be required (but isn't, because apparently that makes sense).

Thin it this way:

"I fear magic. Magic is Dangerous."
Friend touch you to cast a beneficial spell.
Conscious thought: "He is healing me, I need this spell."
Subconscious: "Magic, magic is death, I must resist."

He want to accept the spell, but his hindbrain think it is dangerous.
And when he is raging it is his instinct that command, not his reason.

To make a RL example: a insulin injection is very important for a diabetic, but if he suffer of needle phobia he will have a hard time forcing himself to accept it.

BTW:

PRD wrote:


Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

The rage power don't speak anywhere of hate, fear or whatever. Any explanation of why he is particularly resistant to magic is left to the player. It can be the blessing of the clan elder he received when he was a child together with the geas of never harming a black rooster.

"Superstition" can easily refer to some superstitious ward against evil (with the lowercase) that he always use to protect himself against magic. It is a morale bonus, so, as long as he think it work, it give him a bonus to his saves.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Abraham Z. wrote:

Yep, I am talking about the rage power. Didn't even realize that is an archetype of the same name.

The superstition rage power is extremely common, in my experience, and also a fun way to play a barbarian: gives a significant boost to your saves (my barbarian's problems have all been caused by failed saves) and also is very flavorful in terms of role play. It is also a prereq for the spell sunder rage power, which is also lots of fun, and is probably the main reason that I didn't switch this character to an unchained barbarian when Unchained came out.

However, it does have this potential death trap built into it, as discussed in the thread above. I had previously thought that a superstitious barbarian just had to save against healing spells (meaning that it uses up double the resources). But the realization that a superstitious barbarian can't willingly accept such healing is a whole different situation. If you are unconscious (but still raging via Raging Vitality) your friends can come over and hit you with some healing. Even unconscious you'll have to save, as pointed out by Diego above, but you'll still take half the healing. The really dangerous point is once you wake up. Now you can't willingly accept your allies' healing spells, but unless you've been brought to a hp level where you can safely drop out of rage (probably falling unconscious again, but at least not being dead), you will be very likely to die once your rounds of rage run out. In fact, absent some form of non-spell healing, or your allies' grappling your raging self and *forcing* you to drink the damn potion, it's hard for me to see how a barbarian doesn't auto-die in this situation.

Obviously this is totally moot if you've got a channeling cleric, a paladin with lay on hands, etc, but you really can't count on that in pfs.

Quote:
Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

It say "willing target" and that has a specific meaning in Pathfinder. It isn't the same thing as "he can't willingly accept". It don't mean that you will punch in the face whoever try to cast a spell on you. It mean that, for the spells requiring that, you can't be a willing target. So it is not possible to cast teleport on a raging superstitious barbarian, but it is possible to cast any healing spell without him actively resist. simply his innate distrust make it resist the spell, hence the need to roll a save.

You can drink a potion, you simply are forced to try to save.

PRD - magic chapter wrote:

Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets.

...
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Sword wrote:

5ft step faq question

There are arguments on both sides and the words of the text can be construed to support either argument. Have a read through and ultimately speak to your group to see which way you want to play with and stick to it.

I'm disappointed that with 110 FAQs no-one picked this one up.

That FAQ request is badly worded. The reply to the generic question: "If I have an action interrupted by another characters readied action (or AoO), and my action is no longer valid as a result, can I choose to take a different action in place of the one that triggered the readied action?" is clear: no.

If you provoke a AoO casting a spell and lose you hae expended your standard action and you can't change your action.
After committing to an action you can't "take it back".

But that isn't what the OP is asking. What he ask is way more nuanced and require a different FAQ request.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BrotherZael wrote:

@Diego Rossi

If what you say is true I shall acquiesce the point.

However, I was under the distinct impression that

"A character can go without water for 1 day plus a number of hours equal to his Constitution score. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each hour (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead."

Which means not immediate death, thus being lethal damage without instantly killing the monster and thus is subject to regen.

HOWEVER!
"When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates."

So in the case of suffocation the creature bypass the concept of damage and instead is dealt (theoretically) pure constitution damage, kind of. In this case, as you said yourself, regen wouldn't apply.

So I guess the final answer is it can't die from starvation or thirst, but it can die from suffocation.

That why I wrote:

"The last level of damage dealt by suffocation is death. A creature can't regenerate back from that and is dead."
I can't claim the same thing for thirst or starvation.
it would be logic that at some point a creature would die by thirst or starvation even if it make all its saves, but there is not a rule supporting that.

After all we know some kind of creatures in RL that can stay in hibernation for decades, centuries or even millennia (viruses mostly).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SlimGauge wrote:

I believe Fuzzy Wuzzy and Bill Dunn to be RAI correct.

A preferred wording might have been "any extra or bonus attacks"
My original reading was akin to an implied oxford comma
"any bonus, or extra attacks".

Just for a laugh:

BAB = Base Attack Bonus

If Whirlwind Attack were to remove every bonus it would remove the BAB and the characteristic bonus.
Several attacks with a +0 to each dice rolled. What everyone want.
:)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:

I'm right handed. My left hand is my off hand.

Not for Pathfinder. You can switch your off hand as you wish (within the limit of the limbs that you can use to attack). It can be your right foot, your left hand or your left shoulder.

All could count as off hand if you are attacking with your right hand.

Next round you can choose your left hand as your primary hand and use either of your feet or knees, your right hand or right shoulder as your "off hand".

It has nothing to do with you being right or left handed or your hands.

You can even choose to attack with your knee as your primary hand (if you have Improved Unarmed Strike) and use the armor spikes on your right shoulder as a off hand weapon.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Angrimbor wrote:
Freelance writer does not mean amateur, it means not permanently employed. E.g., they pay him by the piece to write, he's not on retainer.

Search a bit the forum about errors in modules. Blatant errors like potions of personal use spells.

Freelance in no way is a guarantee about rule knowledge.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rory wrote:

Does an Invulnerable Rager (barbarian archetype) damage reduction (EX ability) go away if subject to a polymorph spell?

Does an Abyssal bloodline (sorcerer) claws (SU ability to grow claws that last 1 round) and Demon Resistance (EX ability that gives electricity damage resistance and a save vs. point effects) go away if subject to a polymorph spell?

Does a Draconic bloodline (sorcerer) Dragon Resistances (EX ability that gives energy resistance and a natural armor bonus) go away if subject to a polymorph spell?

I would saynone of those go away as they are class abilities, so not dependent on "your original form". they depend on your class.

When you get the class ability it don't matter if you are a human, dwarf, asimaar or half dragon. You get it.
I don't think you should lose because you change your form.
It can become irrelevant (as an example different kinds of claws don't stack normally) ut it shouldn't be lost when you polymorph.

Some other GM can feel differently, so expect table variation. consult your GM.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mairn wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Depends if this part of the polymorph section:

Quote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form

would apply, or whether:

Quote:

Change Shape (Su)

A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities.

overrides that portion of the polymorph description.

Not sure myself.

No, it don't override the polymorph description, look the SQ:

PRD wrote:


SQ change shape (humanoid or giant, alter self or giant form I)

It say exactly in what it can change and under what rules. He applies the rules that applies to the cited spells. So the whole polymorph paragraph of the magic chapter.

The specific description of change shape (retains its own qualities) overrides the general rules of polymorph (loses its own qualities). Thats how the rules of Pathfinder work.

+

Read the ability description:

PRD wrote:

Change Shape (Su) A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature's description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their description.

Format: change shape (wolf, beast form I); Location: SQ, and in special abilities for creatures with a unique listing.

So: "functions as a polymorph spell ... but the creature does not adjust its ability scores". That is what "retains most of its own physical qualities" mean.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

Depends if this part of the polymorph section:

Quote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form

would apply, or whether:

Quote:

Change Shape (Su)

A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities.

overrides that portion of the polymorph description.

Not sure myself.

No, it don't override the polymorph description, look the SQ:

PRD wrote:


SQ change shape (humanoid or giant, alter self or giant form I)

It say exactly in what it can change and under what rules. He applies the rules that applies to the cited spells. So the whole polymorph paragraph of the magic chapter.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
andreww wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

I think I could still make a case that RAW, scry & fry doesn't work with Greater Teleport. The spell works like teleport except where otherwise stated. The 'you must know the location' clause is not specifically excluded. You don't have to have seen the location, but if you haven't you need a reliable description. Scrying doesn't say it gives you a reliable description.

Teleport explicitly calls out scrying as providing sufficient information to allow you to teleport as "viewed once".

As said several times in this thread, it is not clear at all if "scrying" in the level of familiarity description refer to the spell Scrying, to the divination (scrying) class of spells and powers or to the general english meaning of scrying (there are a few ways of magically scrying an area that have little or nothing to do with the scrying sub school of magic).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Activating a wand require a command word, spoken clearly.

If the player want to complain on the basis of some real life experience (and none of us has the perception a lot of PC and NPC have), ask them if they hear people speaking in the street when they are at home with the windows closed

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PRD wrote:
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses.

To me it seem that she can "expend a use of an attack of opportunity" meant that the swashbuckler need to be able to make attack of opportunity, so the ability don't work if she is flat footed and unable to make attacks of opportunity.

I wouldn't allow her to make an Opportune Parry and Riposte against an opponent if she is unable to make an attack of opportunity against that opponent, but I can't say if that is RAW or not. For sure the parry roll applies all the modifiers the character would apply to an attack of opportunity, miss chance for concealment included.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
You don't need fabricate for diamond dust when you can just use a hammer.

Hammer's really aren't very good for diamond dust, unless you just want bits of diamonds flying in every direction and dents in your hammer/anvil.

For diamond dust, you are probably using the byproduct of the gem-crafting process for cutting the diamonds. It's unlikely that entire diamonds are being ground into dust, as the hardness of diamonds makes grinding them an expensive prospect (destroys tools quickly, in real life).

Diamonds can be melted down and poured into molds. The act of melting them down ruins any polishing or cuts, but you can create bigger diamonds from smaller diamonds (in real life, without magic). With magic like Fabricate, you could transform several cut gems directly into larger cut gems.

Mohs scale of mineral hardness is about what can scratch what. It is not about resisting blows.

Iron has a hardness of 4-5, quartz of 7 on that scale. Quartz can scratch iron, but if you hit a piece of quartz with a iron hammer it shatter.

"Diamonds can be melted down and poured into molds." Source for that piece of information?
Diamonds can be made artificially, but you don't take existing diamond, melt them down and poor them in a mold. The process is way more complicated.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aziraya Zhwan wrote:

So now with new information, I have some questions and warnings regarding the use of 3.5 material.

The main question is "Did you tell them 3.5 material was ok in advance?" If so, the player was well within his right to be a bit upset that you were telling him that he couldn't do something that you (basically) told him in advance would be ok, and you should probably stick to your word and allow the 3.5 version. If not though, I would explain to him that the game you're playing is Pathfinder, not DnD 3.5, and every source that pertains to 3.5 has zero relevancy to the rules and workings of your campaign. If you want to allow some 3.5 stuff that's perfectly fine and there are a lot of really good options in there that didn't get ported over to Pathfinder. However, make it very clear to him that if he wants to use something from 3.5 then he needs to discuss it with you beforehand. Especially as a new GM you don't want your players to just be grabbing at whatever source tickles their fancy that you then have no way to keep track of.

Yes, they're very compatible, but there will certainly be some things that simply don't mesh well between the two systems and it may become very tedious keeping track if a player is using a 3.5 version of something or the Pathfinder version of something.

The best option is "3.5 materials can be accepted, but it must be decided on a case by case basis".

3.5 had a lot of splat books and third party materials. A blanket statement is is almost guaranteed to cause problems.

And the Pathfinder version should take precedence it there is a Pathfinder version of the ability.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Haven been busy playing PFO.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Trimalchio wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Why did it even matter? It mattered enough to argue with your GM apparently.

In particular, it was a permanent spell, i.e. one he'd paid to acquire with permanency. If it "ends" (is effectively dispelled) by his death, than he's wasted a large amount of gold.

My go-to solution for such things is to get continuous magical items, but many GMs don't like those. My guess (though it's only a guess, as I really don't know the guy) is that this GM doesn't like the permanent magical access - something many GMs find frustrating for various reasons -, and so ruled against it persisting beyond death.

That said, it could also just be his genuine impression of how it's "supposed" to work - what makes sense to him.

Either way, there are other methods of getting stuff, and I recommend those, in general. :)

EDIT: To be clear, I recognize that you understood (and addressed) the issue of permanency, but that, I think, is the core of the reason the question mattered in the first place.

Permanency is significantly cheaper than a continuous magic item, and multiple permanency effects can be done a day as opposed to multiple days of crafting for one item (yes an item might be purchased, even a custom item if the a GM is generous, but sourcing these items is more difficult than expending spell slots and tossing diamond dust to the gods).

My guess is the player just wants a favorable ruling and doesn't care about rules, world building, balance, etc etc

That's actually not my guess, just an exercise in countering one silly argument with another silly one.

For everyone saying there are no rules for this or that, please look in the mirror and realize there are no rules for the opposite conclusion, certainly nothing explicit.

"Only" a whole paragraph that say when a spell end, with very clear conditions. None is "at the death of the target".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Let's say I cast Enlarge Person and Dominate Person on someone and then kill him and bring him back as an undead creature. Is he still affected normally by those spells even though he is no longer a valid target for them?

Enlarge person: yes. It is the same body.

Dominate person: yes, but you are dominating the original person, not the undead you just created. They are different creatures.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

For the Nth time: you are houseruling.

Show any piece of the rules that say that you must recheck a target validity after a spell or SLA or supernatural or exceptional ability has been resolved.

Show any piece of the rules that say a spell's effects persist once there is no longer a valid target.

This is not something that is covered either way. There is nothing that says spells persist after death. There is nothing that says spells dissipate after death. There is no solid evidence on either side of the argument. If you're the GM consider what is reasonable and use your best judgement, or if you're the player ask your GM. Expect table variance.

Here it is:

PRD wrote:

Duration

A spell's duration entry tells you how long the magical energy of the spell lasts.

Timed Durations: Many durations are measured in rounds, minutes, hours, or other increments. When the time is up, the magic goes away and the spell ends. If a spell's duration is variable, the duration is rolled secretly so the caster doesn't know how long the spell will last.

Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.

Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.

You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.

Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.

Creatures become subject to the spell when they enter the area and are no longer subject to it when they leave.

Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

Discharge: Occasionally a spells lasts for a set duration or until triggered or discharged.

(D) Dismissible: If the duration line ends with "(D)," you can dismiss the spell at will. You must be within range of the spell's effect and must speak words of dismissal, which are usually a modified form of the spell's verbal component. If the spell has no verbal component, you can dismiss the effect with a gesture. Dismissing a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
The duration of a spell has nothing to do with conditions that eliminate spells.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
*Sigh* this is my point. There is not evidence on either side. Each side is trying to put burden of proof on the other, and there is no proof on either side. This is a rules argument where the rules are ambiguous. You cannot win by saying "If you can't produce rules that prove your point, then I am correct". That is a logical fallacy.

False, read what I cited above.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the Nth time: you are houseruling.

Show any piece of the rules that say that you must recheck a target validity after a spell or SLA or supernatural or exceptional ability has been resolved.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:
I wonder if the lack of a blog is more due to the PDT being baffled by our collective difficulties in understanding it or perhaps they themselves dont agree on where the limits should be.

The latter probably. And asking themselves how many things the reply will affect.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

The rules don't often make sense. They are there for game balance.

The rule only says that you can not end movement in an occupied square.
It does not automatically let you know that someone is there.

Can a GM assume that the character bumped into the invisible creature and could not stay there? Sure

A GM could also say you don't know the creature is there and you progress is halted "because the book said so".

If one wants claim auto-detection of a creature they need to provide some rules. Otherwise stand an FAQ because right now, as far as the rules go, nothing is supporting it.

By rule the character know that there is something in the square that made impossible for him to enter it.

He don't know what or who it is, but he can attack the square.

By rules you don't need to know that there is someone/thing in a square, you can attack blindly, hoping for the best.

Combine the two and you get "there is some kind of obstacle in this square, I take a swipe at it."
It is not "auto-detection" of someone invisible.

wraithstrike wrote:


Some are saying that an invisible creature in this occupied square is automatically detected.

The other side is saying that you have to stop in the last legal square, but you don't automatically know that a creature is the reason why.

Not what they are saying Wraith. They are saying that you know that there is a invisible obstacle. You don't know if it is a dragon paw, a invisible wall, a invisible character or some other thing.

you can guess, but you don't know.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You pay the penalties of the squares you enter, not those of the square you are leaving.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

LOL

I have lot's of opinions. Most of them are even valid.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Weapon and natural weapons are different. I am not convinced it work but it can be interpreted differently.
Aspect table variations and ask your GM are the only possible replies.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quintain wrote:

Is it permissible to have a magical item duplicate the abilities of a prestige class (in this case, supernatural effects)? If so, what kind of costs are involved/how would costs be recommended to be calculated?

Prestige Class: Elocator

Abilities to be duplicated:
Aerial Acrobatics: (add fly skill ranks to acrobatics, and vice versa)
Personal Gravity: change "down direction" as long as they are within 1' of a sufficiently stable solid/liquid, etc)
Scorn Earth: continuous limited air walk
Terminal Velocity: Cannot fall, as long as personal gravity or scorn earth are active.

A ability of a non Paizo prestige class ....

Well, let's have a bit of fun and try to price it.

"Aerial Acrobatics: (add fly skill ranks to acrobatics, and vice versa)"

Essentially a +20 to one skill. 20*20*100=40,000

"Personal Gravity: change "down direction" as long as they are within 1' of a sufficiently stable solid/liquid, etc)"

Better than constant spider climb. We use the Slippers of Spider Climbing, but it hasn't a duration while the slippers are equivalent to a 1 daily use item, so 24,000.

"Scorn Earth: continuous limited air walk" Air walk in all respects, with a speed reduction.
4th level permanent spell. 4*7*2,000=56,000, it is slow, so 30% price reduction. 40,000

"Terminal Velocity: Cannot fall, as long as personal gravity or scorn earth are active." Permanent levitate. 2*3*2.000= 10,000

All in one package: 40,000+24,000*1.5+40,000*1.5+10,000*1.5= 151,000 gp

Quintain wrote:


I was asking for suggestions on the price, not whether it should be created or not. So, as long as one sticks to the questions asked, it is a rules question.

"Psionics Unleashed. Copyright 2010, Dreamscarred Press."

Maybe, but it is a Dreamscarred Press rule question.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Spindoc wrote:

Thank you guys for the quick replys!

Thats sad day for me I guess being as paizo has decided to, once again, vaguley define their own game (pet peeve of mine) :/. But I see what youre talking about that despite being an enormously common part of the game, how death interacts with abilities and spell effects has no rule and is left to interpretation, among a very long list of other things...

On a more positive note, I do appreciate the replies and even though I am still thoroughly unconvinced my spell effect ends, I suppose I can at least take heart in the fact that even though it sucks... I do understand that my gm is not just trying to spite me; its just what he thinks is the most logical conculsion without further explicit proof

LOL: "vaguley define", "pet peeve of mine".

You GM make an oddball interpretation of the rules, based on nothing and you harp against Paizo?
Find a better reason to do that, this time you are wrong.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
StabbittyDoom wrote:


If we presume that the spell is merely suppressed,
...
If we presume that the spell is dispelled if you become an invalid target, then effects targeting your body would be dispelled, but those that affect your mind/spirit would remain.

Why spell should be dispelled or suppressed because you aren't a valid target anymore?

The validity of the target is determined when the spell is cast. Not after the effect has been applied or the next week.

Ruling otherwise, beside not following the rules, would make plenty of spells useless.

Some random example:

PRD wrote:


Color Spray
2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)

3 or 4 HD: The creature is blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, then stunned for 1 round.

Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray.

Color spray blinds creatures with 4 HD or less. But blind creature are immune to it. So as soon as the targets are blinded color spray stop affecting them?

Invisibility

Unless the caster has see invisibility/true seeing or he is touching the target he can't cast a spell on an invisible target.
So all targeted spells stop functioning when you become invisible (invisibility included)? Better than any form of dispel magic "become invisible, it will defeat any curse."

Target creature or object touched

Any spell with a target of creature touched is suppressed as soon as you aren't touching the target anymore?

Sorry, but checking a spell target again after a spell has been cast and the effect resolved is insane.
With a large part of the spells with a duration it would mean that they end as soon as they are cast.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gwen Smith wrote:
Duncan7291 wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

I tend to try to give what I think would be most important to the party. I have never even considered letting the Players ask questions, and don't think I would, primarily because there are thousands of good valid questions, but most only apply to a subset of monsters. I think it would be a huge disadvantage to require the players to ask questions to get the important information.

I disagree. I think this is how it should work as knowledge isn't always useful. I may know 10 facts about a particular monster but if no one told me that it was vulnerable to fire then I wouldn't know that. I think it also gets the players to think critically about how they handle various encounters (in particular when they only get 1 or 2 questions). Alas, I think this can be chalked up to table/local variation on terms of how its handled.

The knowledge skill description specifically says you remember useful information. That's in the rules.

If you want to dole out "useless" information for flavor, go ahead, but making the check means you get "useful" information.

Useful isn't the same thing as unknown to the player.

As DM_Blake said the first thing someone will recall about red dragons is that they breathe fire. Then it can vary.
Useful information:
- they are fast but relatively clumsy fliers.
- they are very strong and resistant (high strength and constitution) but not so agile (average dexterity)
- they are typical magic resistance (have SR, a caster with the same Cr of the dragon has about 50% chance of success)
- they have a modest DR that increase with age against non magical weapons
and so on.

If you are a member of a fourteen level party where no one lack a magical weapon don't make knowing that it has DR/magic a useless information. It can be useless to you, but "useful information" isn't about their utility for you, it is about "general utility in the game world".

As DM_Blake say, it is what people record after an encounter with the creature, not what a fourteen level character want to know.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scythia wrote:


I suspect what's being pointed out is that the Touch Attack rules specifically say "with a touch spell", which everyone has just established that Produce Flame is not. Therefore, there's no basis from which to assume the text following that applies to Produce Flame, such as "is considered an armed attack", which everyone seems to think does apply to Produce Flame.

Sure.

Like Flame Blade, Produce Flame give the caster a weapon, not a attack armed by a touch spell.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Meager Rolmug wrote:

I believe most of the "confusion" about this spell results directly form the core rule book paragraphs...

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

If you read them both all the way through, without aligning their meaning to preconceived notions, "touch spells" are never clearly defined as this or that. "Many spells have a range of touch." is NOT the same as..."all touch spells have a range of touch". Apparently this IS what it means, but is poorly written.

Furthermore,"Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity." Is a unclear sentence because it includes "with a touch spell" in it, instead of "Touching an opponent with a offensive/damaging spell". Now we now these rules apply to things like produce flame.

Make these 2 changes and most anybody will understand it straight off.

What is a touch spell is is defined in the magic chapter.

That is the appropriate section to define it and there is no reason to repeat the definition in the combat chapter.

Similarly the damage, threat range and critical multiplier of a bow or dagger are described in the equipment chapter and aren't repeated when you speak of ranged or melee attacks in the combat chapter.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@2 Hit die, let's accept your idea that the faerie fire effect isn't duplicated.
what it do: it negate concealment.
What do mirror image? Read the spell text:

PRD wrote:
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.

There is no consideration there about being able to select the target you want to hit.

So even if only one of the images is outlined by faerie fire, you can't target it bypassing the effect of mirror image.

To do that you need a spell that explicitly overcome mirror image.

And another thing: repeating the same phrase over and over don't make you right.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Meager Rolmug wrote:


...
Yes it helps to think of produce flame as a splash weapon, but that IS NOT the first thing the vast majority of people unfamiliar with a spell are going to compare it to, in order to understand how it works. They are(like me) going to compare it to other spells they have experience with. And confusion is all but unavoidable, since for many that will mean touch spells. Saying it shouldn't be confusing...is basically saying we are all idiots, i reject that statement(because it IS confusing at first) and resent it.

I you compare it to another spell, you should compare it to this:

PRD wrote:


Flame Blade
School evocation [fire]; Level druid 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range 0 ft.
Effect sword-like beam
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.

You aren't an idiot, you are uninformed, and that is curable asking information (what you did) and processing them. The problem is that now you are resentful for the help received.

When you look a spell stat block you should look the whole statblock, if you only read part of it and assume what is in the other parts you will incur in several errors.

Consider touch spell and armed touch attacks.

PRD wrote:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

When I first came to these boards I participated in a a long discussion as I was convinced there was something like a "offensive touch spell" and that only those spells counted as armed attacks.

After a while the posts of the people explaining how it work clarified to me that any touch spell count as an armed attack. Even if you are casting (for whatever reason) invisibility on your opponent.
And I had already played the 3rd edition of D&D for 10 years at that point.

Sometime we use mental shortcuts and we miss crucial information.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This reply from SKR made when he still was a developer and the one in charge of replying to questions made in the forum is enough?

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sep 24, 2011, 02:43 am
Oliver McShade and the Core Ruleook wrote:
"It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary."
A wizard and a cleric cooperating to craft a scroll of cure light wounds are, between the two of them, meeting all of the prerequisites for the item's creation. Thus, the "you cannot create this if you don't meet all the prerequisites" rule on page 549 does not apply, because "you" in the case of cooperative crafting is "the people involved in crafting the item."

It is here.

And:

PRD - Ultimate Campaign wrote:

Cooperative Crafting

If you need another character to supply one of an item's requirements (such as if you're a wizard creating an item with a divine spell), both you and the other character must be present for the entire duration of the crafting process. If the GM is using the downtime system, both you and the other character must use downtime at the same time for this purpose. Only you make the skill check to complete the item—or, if there is a chance of creating a cursed item, the GM makes the check in secret.

If the second character is providing a spell effect, that character's spell is expended for the day, just as if you were using one of your own spells for a requirement. If the second character is a hired NPC, you must pay for the NPC's spellcasting service for each day of the item creation.

FAQ wrote:

Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?

As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.

If you need to find an outside source for the requirements you lack, this FAQ has no reason to exist.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
I might have known that it would require a feat — and that there would be one for it. Thanks, folks.

Natural spell works, but there are other ways too.

You can use metamagic feats to remove the components of the spell that you lack in wild shape.

Eschew Materials is also a good option for casting while transformed.

There are also a few druid archetypes that gain additional wild shape forms which would be able to cast normally while transformed (though you'd still need eschew materials because your gear melds into your form). The Naga Aspirant specifically can, while you could make a sound arguement for a Mountain Druid using the giant shape option of her wild shape.

Multi-classing could also yield good results. The Oracle already has some nifty curse options to remove spell component requirements.

Eschew Materials don't remove the need to use Divine Focuses, and a good number of druid spells require them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tels wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

Today I had a brainstorm that turned out to be a bust where I thought I might be able to make a "Mark Seifter, Game Designer" page and thus have a Facebook page without having to log into my personal Facebook page (which makes me feel super privacy invaded every moment I'm on there for a variety of reasons). However, I just discovered that I have to be logged into my personal account anyway to deal with that page, thus logging in for the first time in maybe a year or two, so seems like a bust. Anyways, the upside is that I do have that page now and you can like it at facebook/MarkSeifterGameDesigner. If I get enough likes, I probably won't notice due to having to log into Facebook, but then maybe I'll post some cool game design stuff on there when I do.

I wonder about the overall use/interest in those sorts of fan pages (Facebook or otherwise), so feel free to respond in this thread about your experiences with them (or opinions for lack of experiences). On the plus, side, it seems like it could be a good way to foster a positive discourse, perhaps, kind of like these AMA threads usually are much nicer and more fun than an average thread.

Mark Seifter, Game Designer.

You might consider dropping into the Pathfinder RPG group from time to time. It has nearly 11,000 followers and many of them don't seem to know about, or use the Pazio forums. Might be interesting to see what they have to say, or maybe do an AMA post on there, or something.

Potentially something to look into! Since I have to be logged in with my personal account, which makes me uncomfortable, I probably won't be active enough for a satisfying AMA though.

You only need a different e-mail and possibly a different phone number to make a new facebook account.

In theory you can only have an account
That's actually a really clever idea, though I wonder if it's too late having linked to my personal page already. It's certainly something to look into!

You can give your old account administrative abilities for the page to your new account, but the link to the old account stay.

If you want to separate them completely the best option seem to create a new page "Mark Seifter, Game Designer" with a slightly different name.

1 to 50 of 711 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.