|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If you cast, say POWER WORD KILL on a troll, does it die?
Or is it immune as "A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). "
So, a troll is immune to Power word kill, symbol of death and similar spells?
How about a failed Fort save from CdG?
OK, I love back-up characters. In one of my current campaigns, everyone but me is running a spellcaster- and since I am running a inquisitor, that's sorta a 'caster too.
DM has allowed and suggests one of the less common races, and a generous 30 pt buy. We get two traits. 10th level now. 90K gps.
I cant play without some decent skillpoints, so there's that.
So I wanna PC I can have fun with and let the other players shine with all their fancy spells. (one of theplayers is a flying spellcasting archer, so melee guy). All the spellcasting bases are covered.
A couple PCs are "ethically challenged" so a paladin wont work.
So far, I have done up a halfling cavalier on a wardog, a tengu unchained rogue, a hobgoblin brawler and a Fetchling slayer/shadowdancer. Fun ideas, but I want more!
Oh and everyone has darkvision.
So, throw some ideas at me!
This article by the well known author Brynn Tannehill should finalize the debate on the use of "cisgender":
It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us....The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative. ...Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a "cisgender lesbian" or "cis gay man" by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of "cis" or "cisgender" is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don't, can't, or won't ever understand transgender issues.
...However, using the word "cis" or "cisgender" is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me "tranny" and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called "cis" or "cisgender" in a way that wasn't accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally.....As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse."
I agree with the author "The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative." and I think it's time the Paizo boards joined this movement.
ElyasRavenwood's interesting thread go me thinking. Many people here talk about the Martial/Caster disparity as if it is a obvious thing, and ask 'why can't martial have nice things?"
But I have played in three PF campaigns now, going to 7th, 11th and 15th level. No sign of the Martial/Caster disparity- except at the very lowest levels where martials win out. Hmm. Also playing in a number of PFS games. Not there either (but all rather low level, 7th is highest).
True, I did play in a 3.5 campaign where once we hit the point where the two casters could toss around 9th level spells (Shapechange!) my martial did feel rather useless. So, I saw it myself, but at a very high level.
Reading what the devs say, they also say that in their games there is little or no Martial/Caster disparity.
But clearly some others have experienced it, commonly.
So, I'd like to know that at your actual IRL gaming table, in a real Pathfinder campaign- did you actually experience Martial/Caster disparity, and if so (or if NOT) why? Not theorycrafting, please. Nothing wrong with theorycrafting but let us stick to actual played games for this, please.
Now, we didn't experience it, and once reason might be is that we always had at least one PC that was a Buffer. At a certain level, Bardsong and/or Haste was a given. Both boost martials more. Could that be the reason? Teamwork?
We did have two dedicated optimizers, but one ALWAYS played spellcasters, the other ALWAYS martials (for this I am counting a Magus as a martial, but yes, they can cast spells, but other big killer PC was a straight fighter).
So, if you have or have not experienced Martial/Caster disparity at your table, let us hear why (or why not).
Real Life. Not Theory. Please.
OK, Designers and Dragons just published their Platinum appendix, and the Aurania gang is a major part of it, including how we invented the Thief class, published the first 3PP D&D supplement, and more.
Hugh K. Singh
"Misfortune (Ex): At 1st level, as an immediate action, you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day."
But there's nothing that seems to give the oracle more uses per day, even tho the last line clearly implies it can happen.
The other ability sez "You can use this ability once per day at 5th level, and one additional time per day for every six oracle levels beyond 5th."
I want to suggest a few minor fixes to the Rogue class, ones that can be done without rewriting the class, a new edition, FAQ's, and so forth. In other words, just a few new talents, or maybe feats that will help the rogue out a bit.
Let us keep this to constructive ideas only, please. There are many threads where the utility of the rogue has been discussed.
Ok, my biggest issue is the "once per day talents' . It's rough spending one of your precious class features on something which can only be used once a day, especially when so many similar spell caster features are "3X= Int/Wis/ or Cha bonus"
So, Rogue Talent "Do it one more time!: This talent allows a rogue to use any and all limited use rogue talents (such as "Resiliency") more time per day. If the rogue has more than one of these, he gets to use all of them one additional time. This talent can only be taken when available thru a level of Rogue, it is not available when taking other class levels that get access to rogue talents."
Advanced Talent: "More, more More!" This Advanced talent allows a rogue to use any and all limited use rogue talents (such as "Resiliency") three more times per day. If the rogue has more than one of these, he gets to use all of them three more additional times. This talent can only be taken when available thru a level of Rogue, it is not available when taking other class levels that get access to rogue talents. This stacks with ""Do it one more time!", if both talents are taken, each and every limited use talent is usable four more times per day."
"Thanks Buddy": When a Rogue takes this talent, he can designate a 'flanking buddy". When engaged in melee combat when both are flanking, the rogue can have one melee hit per round go against his "buddy' instead. The buddy must be willing."
Wish is a std action.
BUT- nowhere does it say it reduces the casting time of spells . In fact it says it Duplicates the SPELL- not the spells' effect.
The boards have been infested by new posters who seemingly all have morality issues with paladins. For some reason- much like the squirrels in the park despite the signs telling you not to- many posters can't stop feeding them. ("But they are sooo cute!!")
They are easy to spot. They have a new ID, they start a thread on something like paladins eating goblin babies- and that's their first thread ever, and they have maybe a handful of posts.
I report them, but?
I do like how some veteran posters are posting silliness instead of morality debates.
As many have discussed the old "sno-cone wish machine" is a way to mis-use the simulacrum spell to have (for example) a half HD Efreet, who then casts three wishes a day for you. This appears to be rather a strained reading of RAW, and is likely not RAI, but the actual wording of the Simulacrum spell is ambiguous.
Can we get a clarification on this spell?
1. Can you get Wish from a Simulacrum?
2. What is meant by "appropriate special abilities" and "a creature of that level or HD" in "It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."
Silly loopholes that are clearly not RAI but many insist are RAW, and that can be fixed with a minor errata:
1. Planar Binding = getting infinite wishes and/or simply slaying the summoned being so he/she can’t get revenge. Yes, I know there are checks involved, but a hyper optimized PC can easily make those checks automatically. (Simple fixes could include a firm limit on the number of wishes gained this way and/or a note that slaying the being will cause other allied beings to seek revenge.)
2. Did you really mean for a one level dip in Crossblooded Sorcerer to apply to Wizard spells?
3. Should there not be a absolute GP limit on Blood Money?
4. Simulacrum: Should this really be a “sno-cone wish machine”?
5. "Scry & Fry." Can we clarify what is meant by '“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying."
This is in some enchanted woods, haunted by odd monsters, such as snarks, etc. There was a mad transmogrifier there, who created many one of a kind monsters.
The pool changes the drinker, in generally a good way with a side effect:
The side effect should make sense, given the benefit, and overall it should be a net gain.
Your attacks are truly devastating.
Exactly what does "the bonus damage from this feat is doubled on a critical hit, before it's multiplied by the weapon's critical multiplier" mean?
So let us say you have a BAB of 12, thus +12 to damage, right? With a two handed weapon it's +16? So that's doubled to 32? But is that doubled again by being a crit?
Figure a str of 18, +3 weapon, Weapon spec.
Ok, folks, you know I am one of your biggest fans. Heck, I am often attacked on these boards just for that very reason. Sure, Pathfinder isn’t perfect, but it’s darn good. I have only a few minor quibbles (like the corner exception for reach weapons).
BUT there are some here who come up with weird rules stretches, stretches that if legit, could cause PF to break down. Now, we all know no sane DM would allow these, we all know they are against RAI, and we all know they are all there because of a strained or over literal wording of the RAW.
But these posters constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY throw these up as to why Pathfinder is broken or how to break PF . Now, we know that they probably don’t actually play that way. Crikies- most of them likely don’t even play Pathfinder at all (in fact a couple of your biggest critics openly brag they don’t play Pathfinder).
So, you think- well, why bother? The devs know these things are silly, savvy PF players know these things are silly, heck, likely the people who post them know they are silly.
But you see- those aren't the only people who read these boards. Newbs, non-PF players, etc also read these boards. And, sometimes these “silly” arguments are posted in a rather convincing manner.
As an example- my 3.5 DM won’t switch to Pathfinder- and one reason is the “silly’ arguments he’s read here on this board. I’ll bet there are many more. Silly or no, it's costing you business.
So, Sean, Jason, James, the design Team, etc- let’s fix these silly loopholes.
Some of these include:
Simulacrum= and the “sno-cone wish machine”. (Just re-write this spell, OK? or dump it. )
Heck, you could even say "A PC has a lifetime limit of wishes".
Blood Money= Limit maximum funds that can be formed/replaced this way. 5000gps? Yes, I know there are Strength issues- again, easily solved by a hyper optimized PC.
There are others, and I know we’ll get a list. Most posters here are also tired of these silly arguments.
It’s time to put an end to some of this foolishness. Just do it.
Folks? Let us focus on what can be fixed with simple errata. Thanks.
"School evocation [air]; Level druid 4, sorcerer/wizard 4
A creature that begins its turn wholly or partially within a river of wind must make a Fortitude save or be pushed 20 feet in the wind's direction of flow, take 2d6 nonlethal damage, and be knocked prone—a successful Fortitude save means the creature merely takes 1d6 nonlethal damage. Creatures under the effect of freedom of movement and creatures with the air subtype are unaffected by a river of wind."
Ok, then, on Round one, it's pretty clear.
But what happens on Round Two if the Wizard moves?
Or move or not? What does "You direct a current of forceful winds where you please" mean vs "the direction of the wind is away from your location when you cast the spell, and remains constant in that direction for the spell duration".
You need not call a bolt of lightning immediately; other actions, even spellcasting, can be performed first. Each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt. You may call a total number of bolts equal to your caster level (maximum 10 bolts)."
Now, there's two ways of reading this spell;
2. One round 1 you cast and R2 -? you can call a bolt, each as a standard action.
Option 2 has you losing a round.
I think it's Option 1, otherwise the spell really sucks.
OK, since the other thread was closed as the question was nebulous let me restate what I think is the question.
A character has X attacks due to whatever combo of claws, weapons, bites, headbutts, etc.
He gains two vestigial arms thru the Alchemist Discovery.
Does he now still have X attacks or X+2 attacks?
In other words, can the vestigial arms discovery give you more attacks than you would have without the discovery? The debate seems to hinge on the term “extra attacks” as in ‘what is EXTRA”?
Clearly the discovery can give you more OPTIONS for your available attacks, yes. And certainly, like if you have TWF but want a shield, since Vestigial arm allows you to use a shield and also TWF there is sort of an 'extra' attack in there.
Or, if you now put claws on your vestigial arms- does that give you two MORE claw attacks or just the option to use claws or weapons?
My thought is that the answer is No, and two devs have weighed in and it seems they agree, but there’s no FAQ. the debate rages hotly. This is truely a FAQ. So, please Pathfinder Design Team – clarify this with a FAQ.
Prestige Class Requirements: If a prestige class requires 5 ranks in a skill and I have 6 ranks in that skill, do I still meet the requirements?
My DM has just decided to go Mythic for one of our campaigns. He is concerned about the various paths (Archmage & Heirophant) that allow extra casting of spells, such as Arcane Surge or Wild Arcana. He is worried that this means 5 or more extra casting of the spellcasters highest level spell. Has this been an issue? Is there anything you suggest to calm his concerns here?
The Nerfbat. When the optimizers here find something is crazy powerful at high levels, let’s have a Nerfbat section. Like “Blood Money” which clearly wasn’t meant to allow casters to spend unlimited cash, even with unlimited wishes. The Dev’s forgot the brilliant/devious minds of some of the posters here, who found that with some serious maxing one can build up a caster “Strength” to something fantastic, then mine it for unlimited cash for material components. Even with JJ’s opinion that it only works on one round spells, we can still get unlimited Wishes.
We could Nerf this to add “can not be cast more than once a day, maximum amount is 1000gps” or something.
Simulacrum also needs the Nerfbat.
This was one of the great things about 4th Ed. The Devs there would watch the lists and boards and when they saw some Power that was out of hand, they’d just recon it on the spot.
What else is so broken that it needs to be fixed, now?
Now, I am not talking about things that are only broken by a strained reading of the rule.
Raise dead :Sean said it best”http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kkid&page=2?Raise-Dead-and-the-Diamon d-Thing#82
And for those DM’s that want to “have death mean something” here’s what I said:Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”
Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?”
So, let’s have some debate here: how do you handle PC death? Ring it up, bring in a new PC, dump the player, or what?
What with the various errata and FAQ going around, I just want to make things clear:
If the spell only requires a Verbal do you still have to make a Conc check beating their CMD?
"A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell."
How about Somatic?
If there is also a material comp, do you need to make two checks, one to grab the stuff , another to cast the spell?
And SKR posted this:
The above is a legacy of the 3E grapple rules. With PFRPG redefining grapple as "I have your arm, not your whole body," the above doesn't make sense, and it was only present in one part of the Core Rulebook (in the Concentration section, I think). So it's being removed in errata: the "no somatic components while you're grappled" rule shouldn't be in the book
Crossbow, Repeating: The repeating crossbow (whether heavy or light) holds 5 crossbow bolts. As long as it holds bolts, you can reload it by pulling the reloading lever (a free action). Loading a new case of 5 bolts is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity."
By this I surmise:
If you have iterative attacks, with a repeating crossbow you can get off that many shots, as long as there is enuf ammo in the clip?
And with Rapid shot, one more shot? So, with a BAB of 6, you'd get 3?
And Rapid reload does nothing?
Any other CB specific feats that would help?
Ok, guys, I am kicking around ideas for a back up for my Dwarf paladin/Hospitaler. We are 8th level, all Dwarves. Core & APG only, with feats from the two Ultimate books, and the Dwarf book. 20 pt buy, dumping CHA is not good.
We lack ranged attacks somewhat. We have a battle oracle, a white witch, a summoner, a inquisitor, myself the paladin, and joining us will be a wizard. Pretty much, duplicates are frowned upon.
Cleric would be nice, as you can see, but they are not much for ranged, and Torag is the deity of choice.
No “ye olde magik shoppe” so altho we have some cool loot, you can’t rely upon buying a particular magic thing.
"Deep Pockets (Ex): A Pathfinder chronicler collects items as well as lore, picking up small amounts of this or that throughout her travels. As a result, she may carry unspecified equipment worth up to 100 gp per class level. "
Does this mean a Bard 10 PfC1 can do 100 or 1100gps?
And how powerful/worthwhile is this PrC?
Now the newest FAQ fixed a good number of small Monk issues.
Keeping within the bounds of balance, where monks should be around the level of barbarians and Paladins, what other changes would you like to see?
If it's a big one, like Full BAB, what would you give up? All good saves? Fast Movement? Slow fall? Ki? Bonus feats? Flurry?
Gang Up (Combat)
It’s clear you don’t get the +2 from flanking, but some have claimed that it still makes your foes lose his DEX for purposes of SA.