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. 10,552 posts (11,129 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 803 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

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

Late to the party and I hadn't the time to read all the posts, but I would do something like this:

Centaur leader:
throw an handful of cons to the dwarf "Now you have had your reward, greedy creature, now all of you, depart the land of my people and know that if you return you will be greeted with arrows and spears."
Immediate apologies by the other party members will allow them to stay, but unless the dwarf PC grovel while making his apology he will be banished.

Even if they somewhat appease the centaurs, they will hear some of them muttering "greed mercenaries". If that has happened frequently they will discover that they have a reputation of working only for money.

That way you show that the way in which the characters act have consequences and that those consequences can be bad for the whole group, not only for the one insulting the NPC.

Liberty's Edge

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

Bob Bob Bob, the official rule for evaluating the damage against the CR say: "Average Damage: This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.

A creature that relies on melee or ranged weapons in combat should have average damage within the range of high and low damage.

A creature with higher than normal attack bonuses will often deal lower damage, while a creature with lower than normal attack bonuses will often deal higher damage."

The average damage of a Barbed devil [a Horned devil is another creature] is 52.5, above the high damage for a CR 11 creature.

Add the high attack of 18 vs a high value of 19, when the same set of rules say: "Creatures with a higher than normal average damage typically have a lower attack value to compensate." and wee see that increasing its average damage by another 22,5 points put it way off the scale for a CR 11 creature.

As an added bonus every time he damage a creature with its claw he applies his fear ability. Gifting him a 40% increase in average damage for "reasons" based on cheesing the game isn't a good idea.

Liberty's Edge

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


• The Collective Recollection feat exists, so clearly someone else didn't think Aiding Knowledges was possible prior, either.

Actually, Nefreet, that feat make you capable to help even if your skill isn't high enough to achieve success with a roll of 20, something that otherwise is impossible, as Aid Another say:

PRD wrote:


In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

It don't say: "You could try" or "in wick you have trained", it say "you can't achieve alone". So if you are unable to get a success with a roll of 20 on the dice, you can't help.

The Collective Recollection feat change that to:

PRD wrote:


You must have at least 1 rank in the Knowledge skill to be aided in order to use this feat.

a way less stringent requirement.

Liberty's Edge

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

As Cevah said, you apply all the perception penalties. Invisibility give a perception penalty? Yes.
So we have wat penalty invisibility applies to identifying a spell.

Liberty's Edge

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

Evil Eye does not actually require the witch make eye contact, so there's no reason a mask or helmet would hide it.

If the witch is invisible they wouldn't notice her until she started to Cackle. They would, however, notice that creeping feeling Evil Eye mentions and I'd give them a Knowledge Arcana check to figure it out.

Evil Eye and Misfortune are attacks, so she would become visible as soon as she use them.

@Cevah

PRD wrote:


The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.

Liberty's Edge

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

I recall this question from some years ago, and the answer was "you can activate power attack with any of your attacks, even an AoO, but, after that, it stay on till the start of the next turn".
I think some Paizo employee confirmed that, but can't find the thread.

Edit: thanks to the power of Mozilla Thunderbird and me sharing the post with my friends:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I can't find anything in the rules that says you have to activate PA [power attack] before your first attack of your turn, or on your turn at all. Thus, you could activate it between your primary attack and your offhand, or your primary and your 1st iterative, or between your last iterative and an AOO. All are valid options. Some are poor choices, but they are still valid choices.

Liberty's Edge

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

Page 91 of the APG sets out the subdomains of Golarions deities. A quick glance indicates that subdomains should be assigned to deities as appropriate. A deity does not automatically grant all sub-domains available to it's core domains. It grants those appropriate to it's alignment and cause.

While not explicitly spelt out I would assign (number of domains+1 or maybe +2) to each deity if I was creating a pantheon.
To the OP: If using a homebrew pantheon a chaotic evil or lawful good deity should not offer the devil subdomain as an option. But I can see scope for a NE or LN deity granting it.
I was asking in the case that the clerics alignment is not that of his god. Asmodeus gives Devil[evil][law], my cleric is LN, I read that alignment domains (I assume subdomains too) should match the clerics alignment. I was wondering if it should match BOTH. From what Dominus says, its not needed :)

They should match only the one you choose, as Dominus explained.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alni wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Java Man wrote:
This all sounds very reasonable, but can someone point out the rule that prevents a CE cleric from taking the Devil subdomain of Evil? Or a LG cleric taking it off of Law? Assuming that the deity or philosophy domain list contained it, which admittedly would be odd.
Probably no rule against it if you can find a LN or NE god that offers it. The trouble, as you alluded to, is finding that god. I wouldn't hold my breathe for such a deity being published anytime soon.
So a LG cleric of Erastil could get the Devil subdomain? Would be weird.

Erastil don't offer that subdomain. Erastil subdomains are: "Archon, Family, Feather, Fur, Growth, Home" (Inner sea Gods, p. 317).

As that is a setting book it isn't in the PRD, not in d20PFSRD. If you don't have the book you can find it in the Archives of Nethys.

EDIT: LOL, I am replying to a post that was visible for maybe 2 minutes and then was deleted. But I think the question and answer have some interest, so it stay.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alni wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In other words, the only reason for a GM to implement those restrictions either A. doesn't adhere or enforce the FAQs, or B. houserules things to oblivion. In either case, you're screwed because of the table, not because of the rules.
Given that last session the magus was using the wizard spell list and the GM didn't even notice, I think I won't be asking about how many times I can grip my spear, since from what you guys are saying it's allowed.

If he spend the resources a magus can learn a few spells from the wizard list.

If he hasn't done that it is a big change in power level.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alni wrote:
As I understand it any caster can let one hand off the weapon, cast, put hand back on and make AoO or threaten. But you can't put your hand on the weapon if you're holding a charge unless you're a magus.

There is some limit to what you can do based on an unwritten and badly defined "hands of effort" rule used by the developers.

There is a FAQ saying that if you attack with a two handed weapon you can't get extra attacks using a spiked armor or improved unarmed strike and kicks.
Some GM take it further and say that if you have used your and some way you can't use it to attack. What I am saying is that it is best to check with your GM to be sure how he rule that.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
longspear has 10ft reach. On your turn you can hold the spear in one hand and use your now free hand to cast. Then at the end of turn you put that free hand back onto the spear and are ready to provide flanking. This way you never have to be next to an enemy on your turn.

A percentage of the GMs wouldn't allow you to use the longspear if you have cast a spell that turn as you have already "used" one of your arms.

Even if your GM allow that, if you have a held charge, as soon as you grip the spear you held charge discharge.

faq that says it's the rule that you threaten after casting the spell and changing grips as a free action before and after the spell

FAQ say that a magus with spellstrike can change grip after casting a touch spell and while holding the spell. Not any caster.

FAQ wrote:
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.

Changing grip after you have cast a spell fall in the "hand of effort" argument. Some GM don't allow it.

Liberty's Edge

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


And if you miss you can't hold the charge with a reach spell.

Can I otherwise?

Holding a charge

Yes.

Liberty's Edge

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

Found the old wording:

"Vulnerabilities Of Swarms
Swarms are extremely difficult to fight with physical attacks. However, they have a few special vulnerabilities, as follows:

A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon deals 1d3 points of fire damage per hit.

A weapon with a special ability such as flaming or frost deals its full energy damage with each hit, even if the weapon’s normal damage can’t affect the swarm.

A lit lantern can be used as a thrown weapon, dealing 1d4 points of fire damage to all creatures in squares adjacent to where it breaks."

Edit: I think Paizo just forgot to carry over the above wording. I'm just going to assume it's still valid...

That line is missing from the D20 open source license, so Paizo couldn't port it over, and they didn't put in some text replacing that, probably to avoid problems with copyrights.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:


I think it's silly to even argue rays do something to swarms as they are specifically excluded in the definition of swarms.

I also think it's silly not to recognize that an alchemist bomb that explodes in a square and extends to nearby squares would not deal its full damage on a swarm.

Not quite. If you'll reread the spell description of disintegrate, it, alone out of ray spells, says it only affects one target per casting. It's this absence that I say is why other rays do affect swarms.

That is because disintegrate has a specific area effect that other rays lack: "When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter.", so it need a part that say that it only affect 1 object or creature in that volume.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PRD wrote:
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
PRD wrote:

A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not.

....
[b]A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate),[/] with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind. A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells.

I don't know where you get the idea that a ray target an area. It target a creature or a specific number of creatures if you can fire more than 1 ray at a time.

The example spell in the swarm subtype, disintegrate, is a ray.

Liberty's Edge

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

About the clothing commend (and even the mundane equipment):

PRD wrote:
The eidolon takes a form shaped by the summoner's desires.

For me that includes the apparent clothing and equipment of the eidolon.

I.e. your eidolon aspect can be that of a steel warhorse with bindle and saddle, or angelic figure in white robes, but those are actually part of the creature, like the wings of the angelic creature.
As long as the eidolon do his standard slam damage the angelic figure can even wield what seem to be a sword.
But, if you want to have it actually wield a sword, you need to give it a real one, and that is no part of the creature and is left behind when it is unsummoned.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Blackvial wrote:
also how is being lustful being chaotic?
exactly.

Depend on how he express it.

Depending on how obnoxious he is it can violate this part of his code of conduct:
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

He importune married women? Chaotic and no honor.

He leave sons and daughters in his wake, without caring for them? The same.

He leave broken hearts and don't care? Again the same.

He don't take "No." as a response? Same.

If he limits his lust to persons that are willing and interested there is no problem, but then he wouldn't be "lustful in every situation".

Liberty's Edge

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


At mid-high levels you can make most concentration checks auto-successes for casting defensively, but damage taken can be really high, so you always want to cast defensively.
How could I do that? I'm starting with wis 19 at lvl 1. By my calculation I'll have auto-success on lvl 1 spell concentration when I reach lvl 11.

You wisdom and level will increase. With wisdom 20 (you probably will rise it with your first ability increase at level 4) you have a +5 as your casting stat. With a 22, a reasonable value for a level 8 character with a Headband of Inspired Wisdom +2 you have a +6 and only need to be level 10 to auto succeed at DC 17 concentration check.

Then there are traits that increase your concentration by one or 2 points and the Combat casting feat that give you a bonus of +4, but only for casting defensively.
It all depend on how much you want to spend to be able to do it.

Note a very important thing: with all the spells that require a standard action to cast you can cast, move up to your full movement and then deliver the touch. And, barring difficult terrain or other obstacles, you can always make a 5' step after casting a spell.
Even if you are hit in the process, you don't need to make any check to retain the spell once it is cast.

Alni wrote:


I cast defensively? How would that work?
PRD wrote:
Casting on the Defensive: Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a concentration check (DC 15 + double the spell's level) to successfully cast the spell. Failure means that you lose the spell.

I hope that will help.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
It seems I've created a monster (again). ;P

Several, actually, there are at least a couple of daughter threads about arrowlits.

:D

Liberty's Edge

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

RAW and no common sense? They work both ways.

With common sense they give full benefit (+8 AC etc.) only to those adjacent and on the right side of the arrowlit. I would give some level of cover to people hugging the wall on the wrong side as they somewhat limit the field of view and the ability to aim of the guy behind them.

Liberty's Edge

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


The cannon attacks are weapons attacks, running off of iteratives. The 3rd and 4th I presume are left off because, as stated, it couldn't reload after the second shot due to action economy.
PRD wrote:
Cannon (Ex) The golem's cannon has a range increment of 100 feet and deals 6d6 points of bludgeoning and piercing damage on a hit with a ×4 critical modifier. The cannon's magazine can hold up to 20 cannonballs at a time—reloading a single cannonball into this magazine is a standard action for the golem, while loading a cannonball into the cannon itself to fire it is a swift action; this allows the golem to take two shots per round with the cannon.

It has a internal magazine. It can fire, reload the cannon as a swift action, fire again, reload from the magazine. That allow it to fire 40 times before it empty the magazine.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
The border with the arrow slit provides cover. Therefore, the target of the archer also gets cover from the arrow slit. There's nothing in the rules that subdivides a border into open and closed areas with regard to cover, except that a solid barrier provides total cover. According to the rules, if the arrow slit provides cover for the attacker, then it provides cover for the defender.

There is some rule that say that an arrow slit should be drawn in the center of a square?

You can draw it so that it start on the corner of a square, so that the archer can fire trough it without problems.

That absolutely doesn't matter. The cover rules say nothing about passing or not passing through an 'opening' in a boundary, but merely whether a boundary provides cover or not. The boundary with an arrow slit provides cover, no matter if the arrow slit is drawn in the center or starting at a corner.

And really, do you think the rules should change depending on how gridlines are arbitrarily aligned with the arrow slit construction?

The rules about cover say a lot about passing on not passing through covering terrain and the effect of how the arrowslit is drawn. .

PRD wrote:
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

1) You select the corner near the arrowslit.

2) it it is drawn as a straight line it almost sure the target benefit from cover, if instead is drawn in a way that show some width, the lines you draw to the corners of the target creature will probably connect all the creature square corners without touching the border of the arrowslit. If that is true the target has no cover.
Without cover he don't get the benefit of improved cover from the arrowslit.

Or more simply, you can assume that they are made to do their work, they restrict somewhat your field of fire, but don't give the targets cover.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
The border with the arrow slit provides cover. Therefore, the target of the archer also gets cover from the arrow slit. There's nothing in the rules that subdivides a border into open and closed areas with regard to cover, except that a solid barrier provides total cover. According to the rules, if the arrow slit provides cover for the attacker, then it provides cover for the defender.

There is some rule that say that an arrow slit should be drawn in the center of a square?

You can draw it so that it start on the corner of a square, so that the archer can fire trough it without problems.

PRD wrote:
Archers behind arrow slits have improved cover that gives them a +8 bonus to Armor Class, a +4 bonus on Reflex saves, and the benefits of the improved evasion class feature.

Now we can spend the next 2 hundred post discussing what is the meaning of behind in that phrase. You should be adjacent, or the guy on the other side of the arrowslit and 100' away is behind it?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
That's not how the ranged cover rules work, and if it was handled your way, the field of view for an arrow slit would be close to 0 degrees. Saying 'don't worry about the grid' is in direct contradiction to the cover rules which explicitly tell you to use the corners of your square.

Depend on how it is drawn on the map. If it is drawn as a straight hole through a 5' wall, sure. But that isn't the shape of a real arrowslit. Look the Wikipedia page I linked for the real shape.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
Now the question becomes, if the door is destroyed, does the fireball effect the jailers on the other side.
As has been said, the answer to that is pretty clear cut. The real question is, if the cover is destroyed, do the people behind it retain cover bonuses to their Reflex saves versus the fireball's spread?
No, because the cover has been blown away/destroyed by the blast. They should be happy that the rules don't call for additional shrapnel damage from the blown apart door.

A Fireball isn't explosive it burn or melt away things. Burned or melted things don't generate shrapnel.

Liberty's Edge

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

Using spellstrike don't change the spell damage of frostbite to weapon damage.

PRD wrote:

Spellstrike (Su): ....

If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.

so Rysky is right. You can't use frostbite to activate enforcer.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Trekkie90909 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Guess that's to be expected from the rules forum. ;P

:P Well to put it another way, where would you draw the line of 'well I can just fit my arm around it?'

A character can use a tower shield as a standard action to grant cover against a direction (for example) so if a spell caster walks up and casts (for example) fireball, and loops their arm around the shield, then the shield user's ability to affect the game is negated.

Furthermore, the caster still has cover relative to the shield-bearer and (presumably) his allies sitting behind them, so now the caster can cast in melee, and no one can make attacks of opportunity against them; essentially turning the enemy shield-bearer into their own minion without even using magic. In fact, in such a system all wizards should pay shield-bearer hirelings to sell themselves to any adventurers attempting to assail their towers.

In neither case the caster get full cover. If he can cast behind the obstacle, the people on the other side of the obstacle can cast/shoot at him.

Essentially we are in a situation where someone that has full cover peek over/around the obstacle to cast/shoot. When he do that he trade away his full cover, getting partial cover in exchange for the ability to cast/shoot.
Partial cover give a bonus to AC, but not total protection.

Unless we give him the ability to expose himself, cast/shoot and then hide again (essentially giving him the bonus of the Shot on the run feat) he don't benefit from immunity to retaliation.

If instead you are arguing that we are allowing him to stich a limb behind the obstacle without exposing himself, sure it is possible, but then he his casting or shooting blindly at a square he can't see. Very few spells or weapons allow that, and generally they suffer from a 50% miss chance.
It can be done with a fireball as it throw a small bead, but not with any precision.

BTW, fireball has spread AoE. If you cast it on the other side of a tower shield sticking your arm around it, you are within the area of effect and get hit by it, even if with a good bonus to the save.
It is way more efficiente to stay back and cast the spell above the square and the tower shield. That way the enemies get no benefit from the shield and the full effect of the spell, without risk for the caster.
Air burst for the win.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Pretty much. In the advice forum the "rule of cool" is good. In the rules forum it is an abomination most of the time. :)

The problem is that the rules work badly when applied to firing out of arrow slits.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You'd think that people knowing how the laws of physics work in their universe would specifically remember to make the slits too small for that sort of thing.
Ahhh, the myth of super abundant casters. One in a thousand are characters. One in a thousand characters can be casters. That's why they all go to the inn. The only reason a party contains both a paladin and a necromancer is because they were the only spellcaster who was available.

How big is your usual army? More than a thousand?

If one vehicle in a thousand is a tank, you don't defend your palace against the Volkswagen beetle.

And the "one in a thousand" fallacy. If we go with the old books that defined those percentage (1st or 2nd edition), 1 of 100 persons can have class levels and 1of 10 of those persons work on raising those class levels. So 1/1000 of the populations was made by people with several class levels. In those books there was no way to have NPC class levels.

Now? Where we have some population statistic? Oh, yes, Spellcasting and services. Let's see:

PRD wrote:
In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.
PRD wrote:


Small town 201–2,000

So in a small town (with an average population of about one thousand people) I can find at least one cleric and one wizard capable to cast first level spells. I.e. 1/500 of the population.

For 3rd or 4th level spells? Small city, 5.001 to 10.000 inhabitants.
Hmm, so we have a level 7 spellcaster every 5.000 people or even more as they will cover every possible spell, even those of specialistic spellist.
At least 1 level 7 wizard, 1 level 7 cleric, 1 level 7 druid and 1 level 10 bard to cover for the CRNB spells.
Let's amend that: "at least 1 level 7 wizard, 1 level 7 cleric, 1 level 7 druid and 1 level 10 bard willing to sell his services". No, those rules don't mesh at all with 1 in a million spellcaster.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Ravingdork, roll the ranged touch, please. Or cast a targeted spell that doesn't have a clause about small openings and fiery beads exploding you to a crisp in your jail cell.

I suppose you apply the same modifier to archers firing out of a arrow slit, then, right?

Anguish wrote:


Were this allowed, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and you should expect bad guys to start shooting arrows at you though holes too small to allow you to return fire, and similar shenanigans.

That is exactly the idea behind arrow slits, and those have been around for a few millennia.

Liberty's Edge

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


What I did not read in the description was that the dragon did initiate combat. After warning us not to open the door, which we ignored, the dragon used it's breath weapon on the party. All before the black blade had caused an issue. It was not a non-lethal warning breath weapon. The dragon was playing for keeps. The reason we ignored the warning? Because our Paladin was subject to a Geas spell to clear the temple complex. Why was he geased? He was being summarily punished in trumped up charges by the local city.

It is a temple of Sarenrae, right?

And you where warned by its guardian to stay away?
You were aware beforehand that there was a vampire in it and tried to reason with said guardian or simply refused to listen to it?

If the temple is still consecrated and the vampire live in it, that is a major sign that maybe he isn't evil. If the temple is desecrated that is a major argument to convince the (supposedly) lawful good guardian to let you pass. You tested and tried that?

From my point of view a temple guardian has all the right to use deadly force to stop trespassers that seem bent on robbing and desecrating the temple. And a supposedly good group has very few reasons to think that forcibly entering said temple is a good action.

Liberty's Edge

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

Firing (or spellcasting) through a small opening several meters away or through a small opening adjacent to you (i. e. on the border of your square) is different.

I would allow spellcasting or delivery of effects through a reasonably large hole if you are adjacent to it. 6 inch by 6 inch seem a bit small, BTW, unless you are using spells like eyebite, but 9" for 6" seem reasonable.
The guy on the other side, if not adjacent,would have more problems targeting you.

That is essentially how arrowslits work. Note that medieval arrowslits had an alcove behind them, so that the guy behind them had the space to move a bit and shift his angle of fire and cover more than a very narrow area.

Basic security against spellcasting for a castle:
- never get the guy in the arrowslit/spellslit being back lighted. If he is in a dark area and the guy attacking it is in a bright area he is almost invisible for spell that target creatures/items.
The guy with darkwision will still be able to target him.
- that alcove behind the slit: make it deeper, adding sidewalls behind it. That way a burst or spread spell that get in will not affect the guys behind the adjacent slits.
- crenelations are nice, but get a roof (actually a lot of medieval walls had a wooden structure above and around the crenelations, but it lasted for a short time when the siege machines started firing). There is too much stuff that can attack from the air in D&D/Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

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

Ask him to list his "rules of conduct" for the paladins. In print.
That will give you an "official" guideline and get him to clear up his rules.
I suspect that he hasn't a clear ideas of the rules a paladin should follow, so he is deciding them as he go. Probably the rules is using are based on mutual consensus with his others players over years of gaming. Something that you don't share. That put you in a bad position.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
For the record, I can't bring up the people online. I'm the outsider in the group, and the rest of the party agrees with the GM's decision. Their united opinion is that people online don't know the group or the story the GM is trying to tell.
And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?
I do trust him to come up with an impressive story. We've been going at this campaign a year and this is the first major dispute that's popped up. I just question his rationality behind the fall than his story-telling ability. And the rest of the group has played with him for years and they trust him.

I think that that is part of the problem. They share an opinion of what is the "right" behavior for a paladin, formed by years of gaming together. Something that for them don't need to be explained as it is "self evident".

You don't come from the same background, so you risk this kind of incident.
Personally I don't see any evil or unlawful behavior in what you did, so no reason to fall.

"the story the GM is trying to tell" for me is a very bad reason to make a paladin fail. It sound as the GM is imposing his story on the story of the characters.
A GM control the universe, but it isn't his job to impose actions on the PCs.

BretI wrote:


As to his decision, to me "Bros before foes" is a more Chaotic attitude than most paladins should have. Us first, the rest of the world can worry about themselves.

Seconded.

Liberty's Edge

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

Q.E.D. even with the FAQ someone argue that it work as he want it to work, not how the FAQ say it work.
Not surprised.

Liberty's Edge

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

It is sad to have to ask for a FAQ, but supported.

Liberty's Edge

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

The wand require to be successful at a UMD check with a DC of 20. A noticeable expenditure of resources for all the classes with 4 or less skill point/level.

Liberty's Edge

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

I was interested more in a general opinion, not about the specific feat.
You can find the original discussion here.

Lorewalker pointed out several feats that actually change your body, so turning those off wouldn't be reasonable.
I am less convinced for feats that give you a benefit at a cost, like Acadame graduate.

Personally I think that it is a GM call, more than a question of hard rules.

Liberty's Edge

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

Those feat are a problem, on the other hand it is a bit strange to be forced to use a feat that depend on specialized training.

It sound like saying "you know the safety measures to be used when working on a roof, so you can't chose to discount them if you are really in a hurry."
Sorry, I have seen too many construction workers disregard them when in a hurry to think that you are forced to use them by some kind of "natural rule".

I would like a * beside the feat name and a note like "this feat can't be turned off" to mark all the feats that can't be turned off.
As a GM I would allow turning off feats like Acadame graduate.

Liberty's Edge

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

Agreed, a second failure while fatigued will cause exhaustion.

I cannot find anything preventing you from using feats while exhausted,nor can I find anything that imposes any further penalties if you become fatigued or exhausted while exhausted.
I think you are fine to just keep going as long as you are happy with the exhausted penalties.

I would be almost certain to houserule it as unusable while exhausted. I could be persuaded to adopt something similar to Diego's idea though - maybe.

Exhausted already comes with some pretty hefty limitations, and you can't choose to not use the feat. So that would be a VERY hefty limitation thrown on a feat that gives an ability most mainline summoning classes and archetypes get for free.

Of course it is extremely easy to fix fatigued or exhausted... but that is besides the point.

AFAIK you can always choose not to use a feat.

Liberty's Edge

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

Acadame graduate
Yes, I would say that you become exhausted.
It don't say anything about it not working if you are fatigued or exhausted, so you can use it.

As a home rule I would have you make a concentration check with a DC of 15 + spell level to complete the spell if you try to use this feat while exhausted, but that will depend on yur GM.

Liberty's Edge

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

We had this discussion in the forum a few week ago. No consensus was reached.

It is here

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Should edit the OP. Title is Criminal, not Communal. Confusing. Please fix.
Now, now. As a GM I am very interested in these Mass Criminal spells. So what do they do, steal coins from the pockets of everyone in a 30' radius? Ooo, or perhaps they untie the shoelaces of CL people within Long range? No wait, I have it this time - a curse that causes one red sock to appear in every batch of white clothing the subject puts in the dryer! Mwahahaha!
I know, sounds petty, but google search will find this thread under mass criminal pathfinder, instead of mass communal. So we'll likely need an entirely new thread to answer that question. Maybe still petty.

You know, you take a mass to atone for your criminal spells.

Liberty's Edge

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

We had this discussion before, here: Create Pit 'Jump to safty', Opportunity Attack?
and the result was the same, some people feel that a short phrase added to avoid the weird image of someone standing on thin air over a pit because he has made a save and the problem of having him start his round on air, so unable to move away, mean the save was removed and that you provoke a AoO.
Other people think that, like for a lot of other situations, they simply mean that thank to a successful save you are moved to the nearest open space and that the "jump to safety" part is only fluff.

I doubt we will ever agree as long as the text stay this way.
The best option is to make a specific thread with a FAQ.

Something like:

The Create pit spell say that if you make your reflex save you "jump to safety in the nearest open space". Is this a form of movement?
It provoke an AoO?
It require you to be able to jump to make a save (so not paralyzed, bound, a creature that can't jump, etc.)?

A reply to that would resolve the issue.

Liberty's Edge

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

You're only automatically a willing target if you're unconscious. If you're helpless you're still unwilling and therefore get a saving throw, as there isn't anything anywhere saying you don't.

This does mean somebody who is hit with a Hold Person then a Create Pit dropped underneath them still gets a save, just as if their Dexterity modifier was a -5 (don't forget to calculate as if Dex was -5, removing the existing Dex mod then subtracting 5 instead of just subtracting 5. I've known a lot of people who forget that and just subtract 5 from their normal Reflex).

Basically, the logic is that while you may not be able to actively dodge things there's still a chance of dumb luck saving you.

Note that the part in the rules about a unconscious creature being a willing target is relevant for spells that require a willing target (like teleport), it has nothing to do with saving throws. You still get all your saves even if are unconscious.

You can voluntarily fail a save, but that is a different matter and require a conscious decision.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Empathy
Is a terrible feat. First, the prereq is very high, as androids have a penalty to charisma. Second, the feat takes away at least as much as it gives, where a good feat should always give a little more than it takes.
Yeah, Empathy should have been an alternate racial trait or something.

Actually you can do some interesting trick if it is a feat that you can't do if it is a racial trait and still require cha 13.

To get the feat you need cha 13, but that can be achieved trough a headband of alluring charisma. And if you get it by using a magic item you can deactivate it by removing it. Taht should remove both the benefit and penalty.

Liberty's Edge

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

As the title say, some people think it is not necessary to maintain a grapple to be able to rake or use other abilities that require you to have a grapple to use them if they are a free action.

There are a few example in that thread.

Who agree with that?

Liberty's Edge

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

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

Always singular, like the text in the ability description.

FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).

"That weapon", not weapons.

Conclusive evidence? Not at all, but that is a problem of the description of the kasatha race, not of the magus. Simply the rules are written for a race with 2 hands, and the kasatha don't change that.

Note that the first FAQ seem to rule out natural weapons, too, so I would say that it limit you to only 1 weapon, regardless of the number of limbs you can use to attack.

Derek Dalton wrote:

Had this argument in another thread. Kasatha have an archtype where they can with hefty minus use two Longbows at once. It supports the theory they can use melee weapons in all four arms with the multiweapon feat. Our group ruled it but a lot of discussion on this site say otherwise. I as a GM allow a Kasatha to use all four arms since the design and intent of the race supports that concept.

An archetype allow you to do something outside the normal rules =/= the normal rule is what the archetype do.

What an archetype get as a special ability isn't an indication of what a character can normally do.

Honestly the kasatha race description is too short to be really clear on how it work. the bestiary example don't make multiple attacks, multy armed say "Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands." and that can be read both ways.

And for the hundredth time, please, read what the multiweapon feat do. It don't grant attacks, it only reduce the penalties.
Maybe Multi-Armed grant them, but having or lacking the multiweapon feat don't change that.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
Calth wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Rake is a free action, and all are primary attacks, so technically you can rake (free action), release the grapple (free action, and then full attack (full round action). Some GMs may be offended by this, however.

Eh, while I see where you are getting that reading, that's most likely not what the rule means.

The relevant passage: In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe.

The "in addition to" is referring to the actions you can make when maintaining a grapple, so I would read it as the rakes occurring as a free action as part of the maintaining action.

Free actions are discrete actions, not part of another action unless explicitly so stated. Drawing a weapon while moving is the only example I can think of that has a free action that is part of another action. Since neither rake nor grapple have such limiting language those free action rakes are not part of the grapple action; they are discrete.

Before you can rake you need to maintain the grapple.

If you don't maintain the grapple the target is released at the start of the turn.
You can't say "I will later try to maintain the grapple, so now I can rake", you need a confirmed grapple.
Similarly you can't move and move your target with you and then confirm the grapple. For that kind of actions you need to have already confirmed the grapple for that turn.

Liberty's Edge

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

Yes, you can make diamonds if you can make the appropriate skill check.
Now the problem is what is the appropriate check and the DC.

Probably it is something like a 400 DC profession Engineer skill check.
The appropriate tools add that +390 to the check that a good engineer need to make it in RL. But when you use magic you don't get the equipment bonus, so the skill check is almost impossible unless you have some huge bonus from some source.

Then there is what The Sideromancer said. Diamonds are hardness 10 on the Mhoss scale, but that only mean that they can scratch less hard materials, but that don't mean that they are hard to break.
To use common materials, glass has a hardness of 5.5, iron a hardness of 4. But if you use a hammer of glass on a piece of iron the glass hammer will probably shatter and the iron will surely suffer no damage.

A glass chain, while harder on the Mhos scale would be easy to break, a iron chain work way better.

1 to 50 of 803 << 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.