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, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 7,445 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

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

About the OP post.
Until the advent of mechanization 90% of the population was working in agriculture to raise enough food for the population. Beside plant growth I don't see anything that directly impact cultivation. Create water can help a bit, but the quantity produce isn't so great (as someone pointed out in another thread a single 1st level caster will produce less water than a wind powered pump. Sure, you can produce it even in a area where there isn't a water table accessible for the pump, but you need a large number of casters to produce the water needed for a single village.

an animated plow that do the same work of a team of ox will cost 2.000 gp (small animated object).
Actually it will do less than the oxes. With the oxes you can use them to pull a wagon after you have finished plowing, the animated plow will do only a single work.

Maybe you could commission a large animated object in the form of a cart to do all the work of a farm tractor. 12.500 gp. My rough estimate is 1 gp = 25 €. That is 312.500 €. Very few people can afford that. And to build the construct you need a 5th level wizard (Craft wondrous item at level 3, craft weapon and armor at level 5, 5th level bonus feat for craft construct).

Then there is the problem that you raise your character level very slowly or the hard way, earning XP. So to get a 5th level wizard without adventuring we need to have him train for a lot of years. Probably he would be a 40+ years old guy in a age where most people will die of disease before becoming so old.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

Killing people is actually pretty ineffective for keeping them gone most of the time, as you've noticed.

This is why you use spells like Trap the Soul or the Helm of Opposite Alignment.

Trap the Soul locks their soul into a gem if used successfully. Combined with beguiling gift (heightened) you don't risk destroying the soul trap when using the trigger object method.

Helm of Opposite alignment turns you antithetical enemy into your ally., at least potentially. At the very least, they'll no longer be interested in whatever they had been doing as their personality is no completed inverted.

Alignment, not personality.

He was a CE individual that loved his son and like to play with puppies? Now he is a LG individual that love his son and like to play with puppies.
He was a LG guy that hated your guts? He is now a CE individual that hate your guts.
He will regret his old actions, if he hated you because you were a sadistic torturer he will probably change his opinion of you fairly fast, but if he hated you because you killed his betrothed he probably will go on hating you because you killed his betrothed.

Andoran

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

More races than humans get the fc bonus.

Human, half elf half orc, so 3 out of 7 basic races. 42% of the basic races. If someone is playing "maximize my character" with this kind of masterpiece he will do it completely, I think, taking the races that pay less for it.

Andoran

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

It don't say that you can make untrained skills checks as trained, so you can't.

Honestly it is a very badly thought ability. You lie so well that the whole universe decide to change to make your lies true? No thanks.

PRD wrote:

Pageant of the Peacock (Act, Dance)

Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

Prerequisite(s): Perform (act) or Perform (dance) 4 ranks.

Cost: Feat or 2nd-level spell known.

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check.

The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

Use: 1 bardic performance round per 10 minutes of the effect's duration.

Activation: 1 standard action.

Reading the first part of the effect it seem logic to apply it to charisma based skills as "you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement", then it go on and say that convincing others of your "breeding, eloquence, and refinement" give you a bonus to your intelligence based checks, i.e. craft checks, knowledge checks, linguistic, appraise and spellcraft. Like any of those cared about your breeding, eloquence or refinement (with the possible exception of linguistic when trying to use it to communicate in a language that you don't know).

Incomprehensible.

Andoran

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

I am sorry, but I strenuously object to this. "Logic" or "Realism" dictating rules for a game leads to horrible game balance.

If we used logic we would say "Hey Mr. 20th level with a trait for swim, a feat for swim, 32 Strength, max swim ranks and Swim as a class skill! You are wearing full-plate carrying 200 pounds of gear and holding a shield. NO SWIM FOR YOU!"

Why?

Because "Realism lol" or "It's logical lol".

In any game where people are capable of falling from orbit and walking it off, or taking magma walkies logic and realism have left the building.

Now internal consistency and balance, those are important, but D&D is not and has never really been a simulator game, so the argument should never be "Well in the real world" or "Well this is how it works in my real world experience".

This is of course my opinion, but I believe "Logic" and "Realism" are what got us the Rogue.

actually, realism has show that it is possible to do it. There area few video in internet of that:

In Japanese armor
plate armor
And those are normal men, not 20th level characters.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


2. Thematically people can't actually swing a sword all day so it makes sense for basic attacks to pull from a pool just like how basic psionic powers also pull from a pool.

Actually that is one of the thematic powers of heroic combatants. Fights lasting hours or days are often cited in legends and even in some modern fiction.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gnoams wrote:
Trying to tie hardness rules into making real world sense is futile. A strong miner, with straight 15, according to the rules cannot break stone with his mining pick (1d6+2).

1d6 is the damage of a heavy pick, that is a one handed martial weapon, not a mining tool. The closest item in that table to a the mining tool id a Mattock, a 2 handed weapon that do 2d4 damage.

So our str 15 miner using it against a piece of stone, DR 8, will do 2d4+3 damage. Rolling damage he will do some level of damage to the stone 6/16 of the time. 10/16 HP of damage/round. He will turn to gravel a 1x1x1 cube of solid rock in: 90/10*16= 144 rounds, 864 seconds, 14 minutes and 24 second.
A 4x4x2 hole in a day of work.
It seem reasonable.

Add:

PRD wrote:


Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.

Vulnerability to Certain Attacks: Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object's hardness.

and you will see that almost certainly a pick has a bonus against the DR of a piece of stone.

Andoran

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

As a GM that has been there and done that, your post make me suspect that the GM is using your character as a plot hook for most of his adventures.
Sure, he is willing to accept other players input and give them chances for character development if they ask for it. The problem is that some player don't want to ask or don't know what to ask but at the same time feel that he is denied some space in the spotlight.
This kind of meta plot can have been their way to try to take control of part of the tale your group is telling. Clumsy and off character (the player of a paladin supporting that?), but still something that they feel they needed.
You could suggest the GM to contact the guys and to try to discover what they want in the current campaign. That probably can more useful that changing your character, as if you tend to make colourful characters with easy story hooks and the others tend to make more amorphous character this situation will repeat and the other players will feel even more frustrated.

Andoran

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

The eidolon is way better than a animal companion

The summoner has a 9 level spell list masquerading as a 6 levels spell list (he get 9th level spells as 6th level spells) and existentially get all the "must have" spells in his list.

Playing two characters almost all the time. While a AC is an animal, a eidolon is a fully intelligent creature managed by the player.

It don't pay anything for that. BAB 3/4, as all other classes with 6 levels of spells but it get 9th level spells, able to use light armors, proficient with simple weapons, between his skill list and that of the eidolon he cover all the needed skills and he get 6 skill level between his two characters.

Andoran

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

At least we still have the Samsaran.

Until that's "FAQ'd" too anyway.

Only benefit of Samsaran (after FAQ) now is getting a spell at a lower level: for example, Stoneskin is a lower level if taken from Summoner, than if you are a Wizard, etc.

Since it was already on your list: the FAQ is cool with this. You are just changing up the level of spell.

How many time this should be repeated before people notice it?

Mark Seifter wrote:
The PDT's second post in this thread calls out that the Samsaran definitely adds the spells to your class spell list.

To put in all the passages:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Take a look at Unsanctioned Knowledge:

Unsanctioned Knowledge wrote:
Benefit: Pick one 1st-level spell, one 2nd-level spell, one 3rd-level spell, and one 4th-level spell from the bard, cleric, inquisitor, or oracle spell lists. Add these spells to your paladin spell list as paladin spells of the appropriate level. Once chosen, these spells cannot be changed.

This feat specifically adds spells to the paladin spell list.

But let's say for the moment that paladin was spontaneous and had a list of spells known. If we changed Unsanctioned Knowledge as well so it read

Unsanctioned Knowledge wrote:
Benefit: Pick one 1st-level spell, one 2nd-level spell, one 3rd-level spell, and one 4th-level spell from the bard, cleric, inquisitor, or oracle spell lists. Add these spells to your paladin spells known as paladin spells of the same level. Once chosen, these spells cannot be changed.

Then you would need to pick spells from those lists that were also on the paladin spell list if you wanted to cast them. It would need to also state that they were added to the paladin spell list, like the original does.

As in the case of Unsanctioned Knowledge (and Samsaran's Mystic Past Life), all instances of intentional additions to a class's spell list should specifically indicate that the spells are added to the class's spell list.

and

PRD wrote:
Mystic Past Life (Su): You can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of your current spellcasting class. You add a number of spells equal to 1 + your spellcasting class's key ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, and so on). The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you're adding them to. For example, you could add divine power to your druid class spell list, but not to your wizard class spell list because divine power is a divine spell. These spells do not have to be spells you can cast as a 1st-level character. The number of spells granted by this ability is set at 1st level. Changes to your ability score do not change the number of spells gained. This racial trait replaces shards of the past.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lifat wrote:
Scythia wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Unless the summoner takes those crafting feats, it's not going to happen.

Wrong, LazarX, and you know that perfectly. With the rules for collaborative crafting he only need to know a guy with the feats and work with him. it can be a party member, a cohort, or a NPC.

Collaborative crafting for items like weapons, wondrous items, and the like, not items under the catergory of the creator MUST know the spell, i.e. wands, scrolls, potions.
About that...
Technically speaking not official ruling. But it does speak to intent... And I would agree with it.

There is a official ruling, and LazarX know it well, it has been cited several times to him. simply he refuse to acknowledge it.

PRD wrote:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

The crafter meet the spell prerequisite through another caster, as specifically allowed by the rules.

To add:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


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."

Andoran

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

When a summoned creature dies or the spell end ll of its possessions disappear.

What happen if the summoned creature has poisoned someone and the poison is still affecting the target?

The damage clearly stay, but, AFAIK, the poison itself part of the creature, so it should disappear, stopping immediately its effect.

Andoran

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

èquote=DAZE]This spell clouds the mind of a humanoid creature with 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions.

Even it someone hasn't taken any action, that is not the same thing as "hasn't acted". His turn has come and his action has been "take no action".

And the complete description of flat footed is:

PRD wrote:

Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.è/quote+

That "pecifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order" is even more telling. It is not important what you have done, your first turn has come and passed, so you are no more flat footed, even if an enemy has rendered you unconscious before you had any chance to act and you have been later cured by an ally.

Andoran

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

I think that lesser restoration can remove the physical need to sleep without problems. That is NOT the same thing as saying that you can work more than 8 hours in a day without the need to rest. Mental fatigue is a different matter and the rules are explicit in saying that working more than 8 hours in a day is not normally allowed and generate fatigue.

I would allow people to go 3 day without sleeping and mental rest, if they are using lesser restoration to recover the physical effects. After that I would start to apply mental damage, 1 point/day to wisdom, unrecoverable until you sleep at least a full night (or equivalent for your race).
Some race or character can substitute meditation or other forms of mental recuperation.
One of the function of sleep is to allow us to process the information we gathered while active and store them in our long term memory. I don't think that lesser restoration will be enough to cover for that need.

Note that if you are sleeping badly (like sleeping in full armor without endurance) lesser restoration will cover for that forever.

- * -

About the scribing spell part. I think you can work only 8 hours every day at scribing spells. An those are the same hours used to make magic items or craft items. I would allow you to scribe spells in your spellbook using the "make magical items while adventuring" rules (if you are adventuring, obviously), so 4 hours in a day, worth only 2 hours of progression in the job, while doing mundane things at camp.

Andoran

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

The presence or absence of the big caster(s) pretty much decides encounters in my opinion. How likely are you going to tackle that Dragon knowing your Cleric is away. Do you dare fight multiple vampires without arcane support?

I know in my case the party has avoided fights because our wizard was away.

Honestly, INMFO, the GM needs to take party capabilities into account. If you don't have a cleric or other good way to handle vampires, then the GM should not throw vampires at the party, or at the very least do so sparingly and keep in mind that weakness so the battle remains fair.

Encounters should be tailored to the PCs, not the other way around.

Sometimes GM's dont have time. This is mostly for AP's.

And the players can adapt their playstyle to the absence of some specific class in a party.

You have a oracle instead of a cleric? Probably he can spam dispel magic, but it is not a given that he will learn restoration or be capable to use positive channel to damage undead.
Depending on his build he can or can't be able to bluff the party. For sure he can't his spell load depending of the probable obstacles.
So, probably, he is less effective against a group of undead than a cleric, but that don't mean that the GM should remove or redo every undead encounter. It is the job of the players to take that into account and adapt their tactics. Wand exist and you can find some with less than full charges for a good price. Or you can buy scrolls.
UMD is a class skill for several classes or you can take a trait to make it a class skill. Potions exist, there are even elixirs of some spell that can't be made into a potion.
Generally what you lose in efficiency for not having a specific class you can get back in other situations from having a character with another class. Some adversary can be a big obstacle if you don't have spellcasters at all, but not insurmountable.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
K177Y C47 wrote:


Did you miss the party were I said strong will saves help a lot.

You missed:

Diego Rossi wrote:
outsiders or spellcasting enemies.

- * -

K177Y C47 wrote:
Oh! And for people complaining because "Witch's Hexes are Su so they get around SR!!! SO BROKENZZZ!!!" I have to ask, When was the last time you actually PLAYED a caster? Short of some very extreme examples, SR on monsters is a joke. Most of those things do jack squat to actually stop a caster... just saying... That is like saying DR x/magic is meant to help slow down high level martials... At that point DR x/magic may as well not exist...

A 20% or so chance of failure before the target make a save is not a joke.

Losing a spell or SLA if someone has a readied action to wound you is not a joke.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:


Leaving aside the fact that critical fumbles disproportionately affect characters who make attack, a lot of people get annoyed with critical fumbles on a thematic level, given the way d20s work. The idea that your fighter can't last a full minute in combat without stabbing himself in the foot, taking a pratfall, dropping his weapon, or accidentally hitting an ally rather hurts the image of the character as competent in their chosen profession.

Right, few Fumble systems allow for a wizard to fumble a fireball. Thus, as the game goes along, Fighters get more and more chances to Fumble (some systems just give them one, but other give a chance every time a 1 is rolled).

This just makes any caster/martial discrepancy worse, and makes the Mighty Warrior into one of the Three Stooges, while the casters get to laugh at them, safe in the idea that they can choose to never roll an attack die.

Hardly fair.

And, having been a SCA heavy weapons fighter for quite some time, and a Marshal after that, I can tell you that "fumbles' are rare, and occur maybe once or twice a whole tourney , and a few more times during a entires day war. That's for ALL the participants, many Fighters go for months without a "fumble".

If you wanted to make it "realistic", it'd be a nat 1 followed by a nat 1, followed by a nat 1.

A tourney isn't a real fight to the death, with uneven footing, bad lighting and so on. Friendly fire is distressingly common.

That said fumbles in D&D are a bad idea, and system that use them as part of the core rules generally have fumbles for both caster and martials (Rolemaster, Gurps).

In Rolemaster (1st edition) the fumbles for the caster were way worse that those for the martials. If you fumbled with a weapon you incurred the risk of injuring yourself, but any kind of wound was curable.
With the caster fumbles you incurred the risk of die or to lose forever the ability to cast spells.
Death was potentially "curable",losing your spellcasting ability wasn't.
I did some math for fun. Assuming that a caster was casting 1 spell every day of his life without ever taking risk (casting with an heavier armor than allowed, or other negative modifiers), on the average he had a professional life of 40 or so years before losing forever his ability to cast spell. And that was with non combat spells, The combat spells had a way nastier table of fumbles.
The tables that I have found in Internet [second edition](my books are in a box in the basement) have less nasty tables, where the worst result (beside a 1/160.000 chance of brain death [modified by the level of the spell]) will only make you lose your casting capability for a few weeks or months.

Fumbling a spell in Ars Magica can trigger a Twilight event, with long term effects on your PC, adjudicated by the GM.

So some system integrate fumbles in the game, but generally it integrate them both for the martial and spellcasting characters.

Andoran

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

I think that the only possible comment is one made by SKR:

"You're not stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules are written assuming the reader isn't stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules don't have the room to spell out every possible allowed combination and spell out every disallowed combination."

(It is not about you, Bandw2)

Andoran

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

@ Eridan

PRD wrote:
Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.
Quote:

Andoran

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

Rule 1 is broken by the Mythic Ability: Always a chance. And any multi-roll or re-roll abilities.

A specific rules changing how a general rules work don't break it.

maouse wrote:


Rule 2 is broken by some terrain bonuses to concealment as well as (I think) a few feats that add 10%.

Concealment isn't a bonus.

maouse wrote:


Rule 3 - one charge at a time? naw... don't think that is the limit (chill touch). Charges from one spell at a time, yes.

1 charge with multiple uses.

maouse wrote:


Rule 4 - finally one that isn't broken (I think).

Rule 5 - yep. OK. That's two good "unbroken" rules listed.

Rules that are broken aren't really rules, right? More like "guidelines for mortal characters."

No rule was broken.

Andoran

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

For those of you looking to recharge your staff more quickly, you may

Why does a staff have to be charged in the morning? You can prepare spells as many times as you want, provided you leave some slots open. I agree that the INTENT is meant to be each day, or once per day.

Not "in the morning" but almost certainly "when you memorize the bulk of your spell for the day and decide if you want to leave free slots or not".

Charging the staff is part of your spell slot management, and that is done when you first prepare your spell for the day.

MagusJanus wrote:


The recharge period for a staff is specified as morning:

Se my earlier post about that and a divine caster that prepare spells at midnight never having the ability to charge a staff.

Andoran

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

@ Lycar
the feat you cited have very specific rules:

PRD wrote:


Greater Feint Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Improved Two-Weapon Feint If you successfully feint, that opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC until the end of your turn.

Other feats can benefit other character that don't have them, if you have grater trip and trip someone, he is suffering from the prone condition against all opponents.

BUT they benefit other in a indirect way, allowing the other characters to benefit from the effects of the feat, not to benefit from the feat directly.
If my character has improved trip your character don't get to trip a enemy without provoking a AoO.

Beside that there is a rule about creating high level characters with crafting feats and their initial WBL, it is in Ultimate Campaign:

PRD wrote:

Adjusting Character Wealth by Level

You can take advantage of the item creation rules to hand-craft most or all of your magic items. Because you've spent gp equal to only half the price of these items, you could end up with more gear than what the Character Wealth by Level table suggests for you. This is especially the case if you're a new character starting above 1st level or one with the versatile Craft Wondrous Item feat. With these advantages, you can carefully craft optimized gear rather than acquiring GM-selected gear over the course of a campaign. For example, a newly created 4th-level character should have about 6,000 gp worth of gear, but you can craft up to 12,000 gp worth of gear with that much gold, all of it taking place before the character enters the campaign, making the time-cost of crafting irrelevant.

Some GMs might be tempted to reduce the amount or value of the treasure you acquire to offset this and keep your overall wealth in line with the Character Wealth by Level table. Unfortunately, that has the net result of negating the main benefit of crafting magic items—in effect negating your choice of a feat. However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

If you are creating items for other characters in the party, the increased wealth for the other characters should come out of your increased allotment. Not only does this prevent you from skewing the wealth by level for everyone in the party, but it encourages other characters to learn item creation feats.

Example: The Character Wealth By Level table states that an 8th-level character should have about 33,000 gp worth of items. Using the above 25% rule, Patrick's 8th-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item is allowed an additional 8,250 gp worth of crafted wondrous items. If he uses his feat to craft items for the rest of the party, any excess value the other PCs have because of those items should count toward Patrick's additional 8,250 gp worth of crafted items.

The concept is very clear: a crafting feat isn't a free ticket to double the party WBL, it is a ticket to personalize some items and add 25% of the WBL of a single character to the whole party.

In different campaigns the results can be very different.
The players in my Kingmaker campaign have crafted a lot of items and their WBL is well above the norm.
In the Carrion Crown campaign in which I am playing we are hard pressed for time and I have been capable to craft very few items.

Andoran

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

Yes the cleric in question is channeling negative energy we talked about that. Channeling negative Will boost undead diplomacy not human.

Edit: this one was a response to a post that dissapered.

Yes, I wrote my post after reading a few of the initial posts, but voideternal had already raised the question,

voideternal wrote:

Actually, with the OP's current setup, I think an undead encounter gets around the daze problem.

1) They're not living, so negative energy to harm doesn't affect them -> Immune to daze from channel negative to harm.

And Just a Mort gave a possible response to that:

Just a Mort wrote:


Clerics next feat : command undead / versatile channeling. Ra is a neutral deity so both options are open. At least he isn't a sun domain cleric...

so the post was a unnecessary repetition ad I deleted it.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability,

After all the modification isn't limited to the class, it simply cite the class, like in the cleric ability.

+1 So using this clearly wrong interpretation, a Skirmisher with a level in Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Witch, Bard, and Arcanist would have no spell casting ability. No slots at all.

Skirmishes explicitly replaces the spells feature. It's gone. Not modified. It's clear right there in the ability.

Swapping spells is modifying spellcasting, removing spells isn't modifying spellcasting?

I fail to see how you can argue that one is a thing the other is another. What is your definition of modifying?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PRD wrote:
Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability, do not have a caster level, and cannot use spell trigger and spell completion magic items.

It appear that spell and spellcasting aren't the same thing.

Or maybe they are?

PRD wrote:
Diminished Spellcasting: A kensai may cast one fewer spell of each level than normal. If this reduces the number to 0, he may cast spells of that level only if his Intelligence allows bonus spells of that level.

Less than 2 minutes of search, mostly to make the citations.

Not so clear cut as you make it.

- * -

Let's apply the "modifies spellcasting FAQ" to those two abilities with teh broad interpretation.

Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability,
This modifies spellcasting? With the pro interpretation, yes.
so a giu with 1 level in the Skirmisher archetype and 19 levels as a wizard will have no spell.right?

A kensai may cast one fewer spell of each level than normal. so this guy instead get 1 less spell of each level he can cast in each class with casting abilities?
After all the modification isn't limited to the class, it simply cite the class, like in the cleric ability.

Andoran

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

That's a really interesting theory, but it directly contradicts the absolutely unambiguous wording of the FAQ.

Here's that wording again, since you seem to be forgetting it constantly:

FAQ wrote:
General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

Bolded a bit for emphasis. Note the word: SPECIFICALLY.

That does not mean "implies". That does not mean "suggests". That does not mean that it is totally okay for you to insultingly imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your reading of the FAQ is not applying thought.

Now define spellcasting and modifies.

You and a few other posters in this thread think that swapping spell on the fly modifies spellcasting, Wraithstrike, I and a few other poster in this thread think that it don't modifies spellcasting.

A lot of opinions have been given to support one or the other position, but in the end those definitions don't exist and neither you or I can prove that who is right.

You say:

seebs wrote:


I was on an international standards committee for a decade for recreation.

Very well, what is the first thing you do when setting up a international standard?

You get clear and unequivocal values for the reference tools you use.
Here we have highly subjective reference tools and you are amazed that we reach different results?

In this thread we have people supporting the position that using magic items is spellcasting and that SLA are spellcasting.

People that say that you modify as spell only if you change some parameter of the spell, other people that say that swapping a spell for a unmodified version of another spell mean that you are modifying it.

Andoran

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

My personal answers:

1) yes, but you must fulfill all the rules required to make a climb check, i.e.both your hands must be free. If you had something in hand you could drop it as a free action when you attempt the climb check.

2) If you are in the pit area the DC is that of the pit walls +20.

3) If you are on the sloped part of the pit and fail the refelx save you can try to catch yourself on the sloped part, but the DC is based on the climb DC set by the spell +10, not on the Dc of climbing a generic slope.

You have a single chance to catch yoruself, so if you fail it you fall into the hole, you don't get a second chanche when you enter the hole area.

(If someone has a link to the moment in which Indiana Jones fall in the pit and try to grasp the Grail, link it, it seem a perfect reference. Plenty of films with that kind of images, too.)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seebs wrote:
James Risner wrote:

seebs wrote:

I was on an international standards committee for a decade for recreation.

read them correctly even when the result is stupid

I recall, as I've seen a couple previous posts where you mentioned it.

Then you should have no trouble understanding my motivation.

Quote:
I assert if you read a rule and result in a stupid interpretation as you say, then you are probably reading it wrong. Several developers have said "if it seems too good, it probably is" or similar over the years.

Your assertion is plausible if and only if the rules are objectively perfect. Otherwise, it's quite possible that the rule does not correctly express intent.

I am aware of the "if it seems to good to be true, it probably is" ruling. You know what? I've seen it used a lot on these boards, and in a large number of those cases, after multiple people spent hours or days being snide and derisive and dismissive about an argument and citing that over and over as the absolute proof that they were right, we got a FAQ or errata which confirmed that the thing in question was not actually "too good to be true".

Remember magus spell combat and haste? Lots of people said that giving the extra attack would be "too good to be true". Paizo did not agree with that conclusion.

"Seems too good to be true" is very subjective, and relies heavily on personal evaluation of the relative worth of various options. It's not a useful heuristic if you're trying to actually figure out what the rules are in any kind of formal sense.

It's a good heuristic for a specific game with friends who don't care that much what the rules are and everyone's having fun. But then, that also produces things where, say, the game I'm in has a half-dozen or more spells which are simply banned because they are too powerful, or they've been bumped up or down a few levels because they are good or bad. And that works fine, but you couldn't use that for PFS.

Read the rules of Star Fleet Battles. They are very clear and precise and seem exactly what you want.

Now look how many people play Star fleet Battles against how many people play Pathfinder.
SFB is based on Star Trek and the first edition was made in 1979, so it has all the basis to be a very successful franchise with as many followers as Pathfinder, but I doubt is is even in the same order of magnitude.
The Pathfinder rules are made to be readable as recreation even if you don't use them. That require a different approach than a technical manual or a old stile ruleset for a boardgame.

Andoran

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

Time to pull out the (highly subjective) "reasonableness test":

Would a non-gamer who is not trying to read the rules as a legal document believe that a Cleric 1/Wizard 7 can convert a 4th level Wizard spell into a Cure Critical Wounds?

My own answer is "probably not, but it is not clear", which therefore makes this FAQ-worthy.

What is the caster level of that Cure Critical wounds?

It is a clerical ability, so it has a CL of 1.

But:

PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

this seem to prohibit that.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
2) The "divine" source you keep quoting is flavor text and completely not relevant to this conversation. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU HAPPY... Lets talk about the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. No need to cloud the stage with bit parts. There is no flavor text which suggests that a Druid's ability to swap in SNA spells is divine. So I assume you are ok with a Druid 1/Wizard 19 spontaneously casting SNA9?

Be careful of the cut off point when you cite another guy post.

You have missed a row.

PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along.
...
Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature's Ally Spells:
The divine energy of the spell that the summon spell substitutes for is converted as if that spell had been prepared all along.

It was bolded, but missing something is so easy.

- * -

I "like" people that say RAW, RAW, RAW, and then reject some of the RAW as "flavour text" because it don't agree with their opinion.

That flavour text is in the section about Divine Spells. You are claiming that it is all flavour text? to me that section seem all hard rules.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eidolon wrote:
Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures,

I think that that clear it. It is in the description of the edolon class feature.

Andoran

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

Take a look at the Great Old One Bokrug. Notice he is a large magical beast, which covered by Beast Shape 4. Nothing seems to be stopping you from being less scary version of the thing itself, but is it actually a worthwhile shape? Here's what you'd get by my calculations:

-Bite (1d8)
-2 claws (1d6)
-sting (1d6) + poison 1r/6r, 2d4 wisdom
-tentacle beard (1d6) + grab + constrict (1d6?)
-Dark vision
-swim speed
-20 resist cold, fire, acid
-You are a great old one in spirit though not mechanically

Seems like an okay package, but obviously less awesome looking with the damage dice sizes defaulted back to normal. Assuming there isn't some a special rule somewhere that makes him an invalid target for Wild Shape/Beast Shape 4, would you actually consider using him for his mechanical benefits? The concept is cool, but I'm not sure myself.

Bokrug is a type (a class of creatures) or an individual?

PRD - Transmutation wrote:


Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type, granting you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor.

...

Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals.

AFAIK it is a specific individual and you can't assume its form.

Andoran

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

For the people advocating that Clerics can swap out Wizard spells for Cure spells, consider this quote:

"A Magus must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time".

If you claim that the phrase "The Cleric" is irrelevant, and what it really means is "The Character", then wouldn't a multi-classed Magus/Sorcerer have to "choose and prepare" ALL of "his" spells "ahead of time"?

In effect, a Magus/Sorcerer would lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells.

This is not an ability that modifies Spellcasting, like Bloodline Arcana or Spontaneous Casting. It is Spellcasting. Not comparable.

Spontaneously casting cure or inflict spells is Spellcasting, not an ability that modifies Spellcasting.

:-P

Andoran

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


INVISIBILITY
School illusion (glamer);
PRD wrote:


Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

To repeat it: the spell change the sensory qualities of the target of the spell, it don't affect the mind or sense of other people.

An example of how it work is the Chroma key effect used in making films. It is something that happen at the origin point, regardless of who is the viewer.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Samasboy1 wrote:
bbangerter wrote:

No, you can only convert your cleric spells into spontaneous healing spells.

SKR

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
We have a FAQ. The FAQ takes precedence over a a post.

Seeing as you feel you trump SKR post with Radney-MacFarland post, I thing it only right to cite what he say in the pos just below that of SKR:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
seebs wrote:
I don't necessarily generally think it's safe to assume that coworkers know each others' intent.

When it comes to our team, you can count on it. Trust me, we talk every day about the rules, we discuss the wording in the rulebook and the intent of the rules, where they collide and where they deviate. We have had a number of discussions about this thread.

You've asked your question, we have answered it. You have made your viewpoint plain on many posts in this thread. Thank you.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MorganS wrote:
ryric wrote:
seebs wrote:

I would never give you the "restrictive" discount on an item, since for player characters, that's a bonus.

Also, the wording on the arcane bond thing is ambiguous, and some people read it as meaning "as if he had the feats and were of sufficient level", while other people read it as "as if he had the feats, but only if he is of sufficient level".

The example, in the ability itself, of needing to be fifth level to enchant a dagger pretty much indicates which interpretation is the correct one.

MorganS, making anything that is not a "pure out of the book item" is a custom item, which needs GM approval. Adding a "restriction" to your item makes it a custom item. Most experienced GMs will not let you get "something for nothing" by making your own magic items restricted to yourself. The favored way to interpret that section of the item creation guidelines seems to be that restrictions affect only the sale price(it's tougher to find a buyer), not the cost to create.

So for your 30% discount, a base 10000gp item costs 5000gp to create and can now be sold for 3500gp.

Basically, adding restrictions to a homemade item is a bonus for the creator, and if anything should require a price increase not a discount. Those guidelines are intended for GMs to design items for use as treasure, not for PCs to use to design perfect toys. In fact very often the "math" version of the guidelines is the worst place to be, which is why it's a last resort when designing items.

Ryric... your opinion is no doubt based on years of gaming experience, but with all due respect, I didn't find anything rules-based in your post based to back up your opinion.

I have no doubt that your opinion is founded on years of experience (only experienced players appreciate the extent to which item creation can skew the balance of the game), but I don't agree with your analysis. Please note that I'm focusing on "RAI" now, and whether or not the "restrictive" discount fits in...

PRD wrote:

Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

Prices presented in the magic item descriptions (the gold piece value following the item's slot) are the market value, which is generally twice what it costs the creator to make the item.

Notice the difference.

Cost is what you pay to make an item.
Price is what you get when you sell it.

Limiting a item to a class or alignment don't reduce the crafting cost, it reduce how much you get when you sell the item.

Andoran

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

9 levels of spells? Cantrips? How many are the spell per day of you revised ranger? and what levels?

And what is the cost of getting "every spell you would want" in your spell list? Looking your list it seem that the class become more powerful without getting any drawback.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Meiliken wrote:
Just wanted to put a little science into this. For Glitterdust to sparkle, there must be light of some kind for the light waves to bounce off. In darkness, glitterdust is useless even with darkvision. Darkvision does not create light for the sparkles to reflect light. Further darkvision is only in black and white. Darkvision would negate the shadows, the target is invisible with dust on him but the dust gives no sparkles since there is no light to reflect it. Science wins, he's still invisible.

Not all the light waves are in the visible spectrum. Darkvision isn't a SU ability, so it don't work by magic, you simply see some some wavelengths that a human eye can't see. Glitterdust can reflect those wavelengths as well as the wavelengths of the visible light so a person covered in glitterdust in a dark area can sparkle for the guy with darkvision while it don't sparkle for the guy without it.

To make an example, you use a salt lens to focus some infra-red wavelength, a lens that is opaque to normal light. The right surface will reflect UV or IR wavelengths without problems.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Yes, that's my point. It's a fantasy world, even the non-spellcasters don't have to be limited to nonmagical abilities. :)

Exactly. I dislike the argument you made in your blog because I see it the opposite way: The fighter can/should have supernatural abilities. Currently, AFAIK, it is the only class that will never get a SU or SLA ability.

The keep the feeling of the class they should be things that affect the fighter abilities, similar (but different) to the monk abilities. Something that give a fighter more flexibility and versatility or mimic some creature ability but (generally) don't affect other creatures directly.
The worst SU abilities you can give to a class are those similar to the witch hexes, where essentially you are giving a class spells without a spell drawback.

Giving a fighter the ability to deflect or reflect a spell back to its source with a shield or a parry or giving him the ability to breath flames is acceptable.
Giving him the ability to kill someone frightening him to death isn't.

But the difference between SU and EX should stay. "This is a magical effect" and "this is something that someone with enough training can do even where magic don't work" is a meaningful difference to me.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Many of those monsters work for someone, and if you abuse the spell somebody will come looking for you, and it may not be CR appropriate. I would tell the players up front about this though, so they can decide to take the risk or not.

Well during normal play you'd already expect creatures to come after you. So if creatures come looking for you because of using Gate, the only real difference is their motivation.

The DM can always decide to end the campaign by sending inappropriate challenges after the PCs. It'd be a lot nicer if you just stated you want to end the campaign though.

It is nice if the player realize that actions have consequences and don't start crying foul when the consequences happen.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
I don't mean to necro this thread, however, would cackle drop invisibility?

No. You don't target anyone, you don't damage anyone and you don't force anyone to make a saving throw.

It only affect already existing hexes.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mojorat wrote:
Charge isn't a full attack actio. So no defensive charges.
PRD wrote:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.

You can't do that, but:

PRD wrote:
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

it is way less clear if you can or can't do this.

In the title it call for a standard action, but in the text it call for an attack (without requirements for an action).
So, if we think it require a Standard action and an attack, it is a no.
If we think that it only require an attack it is a yes.
RAI I think that it is not possible to "charge defensively", if you want to do that you need the mobility feat, but RAW is ubclear.

- * -

spazztick wrote:


2nd. If you are wielding a Two-Handed weapon, are you still able to make unarmed attacks?(Say if you trip a creature, and get a free unarmed attack to anything that gets knocked prone next to you.)
FAQ wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

This (and all the corollary discussion from the DEVs say that you can't use "3 hands" of weapons (unarmed strikes included [but natural attacks excluded]) as your iterative attacks, but if the attack is an AoO or some other extra attack generated by a feat or ability you can take it without problems.

- * -

spazztick wrote:


...Like charging and fighting defensively with a Scythe, 2 acrobatics checks to jump twice(To a ledge, and then off the ledge to gain further altitude.)to make a leaping attack from above, also using acrobatics to avoid an AoO(while in the air.) from a large creature with reach, blowing a ki point for an extra attack after landing to trip, taking an unarmed attack against said creature using Crane Wing on the first attack that comes his way and I think that's it.

All in one charge? From your description it seem to have violated several rules.

1) charging and fighting defensively. questionable, see above;
2) "2 acrobatics checks to jump twice(To a ledge, and then off the ledge to gain further altitude.)"

Charge wrote:

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

Jumping on a ledge don't seem to respect the "clear path toward the opponent" requirement, nor the "If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge."

3) "blowing a ki point for an extra attack after landing to trip" after a charge.

PRD wrote:


By spending 1 point from his ki pool, a monk can make one additional attack at his highest attack bonus when making a flurry of blows attack.
PRD wrote:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
PRD wrote:


Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
PRD wrote:
Charging is a special full-round action

To sum it us: he is making a charge, so he can't make a full attack, so eh can't use flurry of blows, so he can't spend the Ki point fo get a full attack (and the charge rules are already prohibiting him from getting the extra attack).

Andoran

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


To an earlier poster: If you ever build a trap that cannot be disabled, how can you, as the trapper, get by it? If you trap your front door so well, that it cannot be disabled, that front door is, for all eternity, unusable. Have a nice time, until your food runs out, being stuck eternally in your home.

If, on the other hand, you set up some way for you to get by the trap, then someone with sufficient skill at bypassing traps (i.e. Disable Device) can also bypass the trap in some fashion.

Spiked pit covered with a mat that will not support more than 10 lbs of weight. It is a trap? Yes.

You can disable it? Not exactly, you can remove the mat and make it evident, but unless you fill the pit with earth or concrete you can't disable the pit.
The trap will be a problem for the builder? Depend. it can weight less than 10 lbs, or he can be capable to fly, or he can walk on walls or be capable to bypass it in a myriad of other ways.

Poison gas trap that can't be disabled? Not a problem for a undead or construct.
Non magical blades? Not a problem if you can turn incorporeal.

Normal human that has built a maze filled with traps that can't be disabled? He know where he should turn to avoid the traps and where are the secret passages to bypass them.

Plenty of reasons to make traps that can't be disabled, included "after I leave this location no one, me included, should enter." Most pyramid treasure chambers are protected that way.

Andoran

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

A side question: do you see this post of mine? It should be the n. 15 of this thread.
I can't see it on my PC when looking the thread, but it is present in the posts in my page, so it hasn't been deleted.
Any idea of what happened?

Diego Rossi wrote:

I think that, even if you base your world on middle aged Europe, it is not a problem if you look beyond some small corner of the world (and usually the PC go well beyond that).

Let's look at what ethnicities were present in the middle ages Europe and neighboring territories:

1) White skinned people in the northwest of Europe;
2) not so white skinned people in south Europe (Italy, Greece, Easter Roman empire);
3) Arabs in Spain;
4) Mongols in the Middle East, in some period in Russia end even further west;
5) Egyptians, Arabs and several shades of black along the southern shore of the Mediterranean sea;
6) there was trade between Europe, the Muslin nations, India and China. There were Indian and maybe Chinese traders in the Muslim nations.
7) slave trade distributed black people, Egyptians, Celts and members of every defeated army in all corners of the Roman empire and the trade continued even after the fall of the western roman empire. It wasn't limited to black people, the Teutonic Knights did raid in the neighboring pagan states capturing people to convert and sell as slaves. Arabs did sell Christian slaves, Christians did sell Arab slaves and so on;
8) Hannibal and his Carthaginian troops, included his Nubian mercenaries, did stay in Italy for 16 years and, to cite a song, "What did you think they did during 20 years of military occupation?" ;-)

So, usually, unless you are playing in a very small and insular area, there are all the reasons to have people of different ethnicity.

Add that with magic it is way easier to travel for long distances that with conventional means.

BTW, the Inner Sea area of Golarion is larger than the whole of Europe, the southern side of the Mediterranean basin and the Near Est together.
I checked the maps some time ago.

Andoran

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

So, essentially, making a strong class stronger.
No, I don't think that will improve the summoner popularity.

Trading away something that don't interests you for something that will make the eidolon stronger isn't a cost at all.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
*sigh* Now we'll see every PC ever pausing to swap shoes and stand around for a few minutes between battles. Nice one, guys.

5.000 gp isn't exactly cheap for a low level group, and characters with spells that last rounds or minutes level will hate the pauses, but for a middle to high level group it is a cheap way to recover HP between battles. I comprehend that there are groups that hate the need to heal between battles or treat your hp as a resource that you need to manage, but making easier and easier to recover them don't seem a great idea.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Quote:
For the record in 30 years of playing I've never had a skeleton not attack me. Sure it woukd be nice if they just stood there as we walked into its centuries dead castle... but noooo they always make like its jason and the arfonaughts.

That's because mindless undead make the ideal guards for ancient castles and tombs and such. I mean, they're absolutely loyal (without magic shenanigans which often only affects one or two at a time), fearless, have low upkeep, aren't going to go crazy from boredom of abandon their posts, and can be given basic tasks and commands that they'll follow until they've got something better to do.

3.0 (0E-3E had mindless undead as "Neutral", rightfully so) was pretty good at explaining this concept. If you want to protect a place for a long time, undead are a good way to do it. Doubly so if you want to make sure they cannot be bribed, won't run away, and might just scare the pants off some would-be grave robber.

I'd surmise that if in 30 years you never had a skeleton not attack you, then that skeleton probably had a reason to attack you (even if that reason was a simple as someone saying "kill all intruders except me" or "protect this place until I return"). However, if the skeletons had been ordered to "clean the castle when it is dirty, and tend to the animals" you might find a rather creepy old castle filled with servants who ignore your existence, only attacking when you disturb them or their duties.

That would be a pretty cool thing to see as a backdrop or setting for an adventure. Especially if the main antagonist was the ghost of the castle's original owner who still haunted the castle.

In earlier editions (up until 3.5, if I recall correctly), skeleton and zombies were neutral and very similar to an automaton. That made them very different from the pathfinder version (were the zombies are essentially the horror films zombies, hungry for flesh and the skeleton are NE and so basically hostile).

In our games in the earlier editions, depending on their orders, we had skeletons and zombies:
1) not caring about adventurers,
2) attacking them on sight;
3) rowing a ship for them;
4) march ahead of the party to work as trap detectors;

After accidentally creating one while trying to discover what a magical item did we had a player order it: "stay here unmoving until the sun fall on your head." and we even had a LG cleric ask for an Animate dead spell to add troops to the defense of a beleaguered dwarf outpost and getting them. He had to atone afterward and put the undead to rest, but the spell was granted.

AFAIK, until the 3.0 version of the game it was possible to create an unlimited number of mindless undead without control problem. You gave them their orders (or to better say it, you programmed them for 1 task) and then you could leave them to their devices until you needed to change the orders.

JJ comment on that is that if you want to create a skeleton that way is that you should use the rules about constructs, not those about undead.
Effectively that kind of skeleton is way more similar to a construct than a the Pathfinder version of an undead.

1 to 50 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.