|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Threads
One of my Pathfinder Society characters (#2198-2) is not displaying as an alias under my account, though his name (Aedran Witherbark) does show up in my list of sessions. I would like to be able to click his name and view the sessions that only he has credit for like I can with my other characters. Can you fix this please? Thank you!
So I'm working on a druid with the Blight Druid archetype and I really want to play up the whole "pestilence and decay" aspect of the class, while still making it mechanically sound (this is for Pathfinder Society play). The best thing I've thought of at this point is to suffer through being largely useless until level 5 when I get miasma and wild shape, at which point I can shift into a combat animal, get in melee, and subject enemies to my miasma ability for free while I chew on them. The problem is, I've never actually done a "combat druid" before. Obviously I want high WIS for the ability and spell save DCs, but wild shape is a lot less powerful than it was in 3.5 and charging into melee with only 10-12 CON and not a lot of armor seems like a really bad idea, miasma or not. Getting more CON means sacrificing other physical stats more than I would like to, and I'd really like to avoid a negative CHA (since I intend to make use of Vermin Empathy whenever possible). I'm soliciting advice here, for a build that will help me stay relevant and functional in the early levels and still accomplish my objective of being a plaguebringer/debuff expert throughout. Much appreciated.
Reading the description of the cleric orison bleed, I noticed that it does not inflict actual bleed damage to a dying target, it merely forces a creature below 0 hit points to resume dying. This means that a creature who successfully stabilizes himself by way of a CON check (as per the normal rules for dying) could be subjected to the bleed spell and then succeed on the CON check again next round, stabilizing once more without any outside help. I realize that orisons are not supposed to be terribly powerful, but if this is genuinely how the spell actually works, I really can't think of any reason to use it.... ever. Now, if the spell actively prevented "self-stabilization" and essentially forced the target to receive a Heal check/magical healing or face inevitable death, I think it would be a lot more practical. There is a little bit of ambiguity in the verbiage for the spell, though. It states that the creature does, in fact, take 1 point of damage each round, but it says "That creature begins dying, taking 1 point of damage per round." Does this mean it gains the 'dying' condition, taking the damage as part of that condition (and allowing self-stabilization as noted previously) or is 'dying' in this case simply a descriptor and the spell actually deals 1 point of damage to the creature each round until stabilized by an outside force?
This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius, and increasing the light level for an additional 20 feet by one step, up to normal light (darkness becomes dim light, and dim light becomes normal light). In an area of normal or bright light, this spell has no effect. The effect is immobile, but it can be cast on a movable object. If a caster were to cast light on an object like, say, a 50' length of rope and then that rope were unfurled to it's full length and laid out along a dark hallway or dropped down into a darkened shaft, would it illuminate everything within 20' of any part of the rope? Meaning you essentially get a line 40' wide and 90' long of illumination from one cantrip cast on a 50' rope? What limitation is there? What if you cast it on a cavern wall? Does the entire wall glow? Only 1 5' x 5' section? I ask because the idea of using a "glow rope" seems pretty damn useful to me and I wonder if it's legal.
As a counterpoint to this thread, let's talk about which classes you just don't care for. I'll start! #1 - Summoner: I hate casters that summon stuff. It's an absolute nightmare to have all the various summonable monsters' statblocks available and, moreover, even more annoying to have the summoner's player spend half an hour declaring the movements and attacks of his upteen-thousand summoned minions. This is doubly problematic with the eidolon, as it has a mutable statblock and can be altered on the fly with evolution surge and similar spells. Ugh. #2 - Alchemist: I just don't get this class. You hurl bombs at stuff. Okay, that's cool. And you maybe cast some primarily self-only buffs on the side. Yeah, you might make some helpful infusions for the party, but this class mostly buffs itself and blows things up. Mostly I see people taking a dip in this class for the extra tentacle attack it allows and then being a fighter and/or barbarian the rest of the way... which is a ridiculous visual, IMO. #3 - Cavalier: For the same reason I don't like summoners, I don't like classes that rely heavily on an animal companion/mount to "do their thing." Sure, you don't NEED a mount to be a cavalier, but that seems to be a big part of their schtick. Without the mount around, cavaliers are just really weird fighters.
10 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
An interesting question came up recently in a PFS scenario I as playing at the local convention last weekend. Our cleric was trying to use his heavy shield to bash an enemy because it was more effective than using his scimitar (the enemy had DR/bludgeoning). Clerics gain Shield Proficiency as a feat, but not Martial Weapon Proficiency (shields). Using a shield to bash is specifically listed as a martial bludgeoning weapon. The question is: Does the Shield Proficiency feat grant the ability to bash with said shield without the usual non-proficiency penalty? Or must a character possess Martial Weapon Proficiency in order to bash without penalty? Here's why there is confusion: Improved Shield Bash lists ONLY Shield Proficiency as a prerequisite and makes no mention of Martial Weapon Proficiency. This means that a cleric could take Improved Shield Bash and STILL be swinging at a -4 penalty when using the bash. In a similar vein, it would be possible for a character to take Martial Weapon Proficiency (shield) and NOT have Shield Proficiency, meaning the shield's armor check penalty would apply to his attack rolls.
So, the Crossbow Mastery feat is pretty cool (if you like crossbows) but the prerequisites are pretty steep. Granted, just about any archery concept is going to want Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot, so those aren't really a "tax" but then you add Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery itself to the mix, which basically don't do anything except allow you to fire a crossbow just like a regular bow (but only one specific KIND of crossbow). I have a character with relatively low STR (13), so I thought it would be kind of cool to go the crossbow route (I have no intention of investing more points into STR going forward) since the damage die on a heavy crossbow is a tiny bit better than a longbow, and the 19-20 crit range is pretty decent. However, said character is not a fighter, nor a ranger, and so that 2-feat tax is hurting pretty bad. My question essentially boils down to this: How badly am I hurting myself by going this route instead of settling for a mighty (+1) composite longbow? Are there any unique functions of a crossbow that I can exploit (other than the fact that they can be fired from prone with no penalty)? Any cool feat trees that might help me out? I like the idea of this concept, but I'm worried it's going to end up so weak as to be nigh-unplayable, particularly at higher levels. For the record, the character is an inquisitor, currently level 3, and is human. Our GM also let us sacrifice the two starting traits for a bonus feat at 1st level, so I've got Crossbow Mastery at level 3... and nothing else (feat wise) except the prereqs for same. Any insight is appreciated. :)
Fellow board lurker Karelzarath and I are back in the saddle of EVE. Well, okay, he never left, but *I* am back and the two of us are engaged in quite starkly different activities while simultaneously engaged in common ones. For those of you unfamiliar, EVE Online has launched the Incarna expansion, enabling players to control physical avatars of their characters in the station environments now and, while no "common areas" exist where avatars can interact with each other yet, the experience is quite novel and exciting nonetheless. Coming into the game (or re-joining, for those of you who have been before), you are of course welcome to apply to one of our two corporations. If running missions, mining, marketeering, and industry are your preferred activities, then look into signing up with Karelzarath's "Endrian Enterprises." The corp is currently looking to increase its numbers for the purposes of anchoring and maintaining a station in high security space for the use of research and development and we need your expertise to keep things running! On the other hand, if you prefer to take a walk on the Dark Side, you can sign up with my corporation, the "Angellis Ater." Based in zero-security space, we are a (still young) pirate corporation with intent on running missions for the Angel Cartel and eventually becoming predators in our own right. The risk is much greater, and you WILL lose ships coming out to play with us, but the long-term rewards are potentially staggering. It's your choice. Fame and fortune or guts and glory? You can find both of us online in the "Paizo" public channel.
Scenario: Rogue with the Shadow Strike feat, Major Magic rogue talent (obscuring mist), and the Stealth skill. Round 1) He drops an obscuring mist as a standard action, getting both himself and his opponent in the area of effect. With his move action, he uses stealth to hide in the mist and move into a square adjacent to the opponent. Round 2) He makes a full attack action on his enemy, gaining the advantage of sneak attack on his attacks (thanks to Shadow Strike) and then 5' steps away, gaining total concealment in the mist, and makes another Stealth check (which is listed as requiring no action since it is done as part of movement - in this case, a 5' step). Enemy moves into the square the rogue previously occupied, but must make a Perception check to find which square the rogue is now in due to the Stealth. Round 3) Repeat until enemy dies or gets smart enough to leave the mist. Is this legal? I will admit it's not exactly a game-breaking combo, since the enemy could very well leave the mist, dispel it, use scent or some other ability to pinpoint the rogue's square, etc. I just want to know if it is legal to 5' step into a square that gives total concealment and make a stealth check as part of that step.
Thread title pretty much says it. Here's the description of the 'grappled' condition from the PRD:
Now, the fact that the creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and CM checks except those made to grapple or escape a grapple suggests to me that a grappled creature can still make attacks against creatures outside of the grapple (albeit at the aforementioned penalty). Since grappling no longer forces creatures to share a square in Pathfinder, can a character who is engaged in a grapple still provide a flanking bonus to allies? Of particular interest is whether or not the grappler counts as a flank against the target he is grappling. The combination of a grapple-specialist monk or fighter combined with a rogue could be especially devastating, as the DEX penalty reduces the grappled target's AC in addition to the flank bonuses. In fact, the only thing that suggests a grappling character might not provide a flank is this line: "Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity." Is being able to make an AoO against a target a factor in determining whether or not you are "threatening" it? Or is the ability to make a normal attack against the target adequate enough to establish threat?
Okay, flipping through Ultimate Magic I came across this spell called forbid action. Here it is:
Okay, that's all fine and good, but my question is, what can it do that command doesn't already do better?
Same level, same caster lists, same school, same descriptors, same EVERYTHING in the top section. Now, pay particular attention to the use of command under "Halt." It says "The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any actions but is not considered helpless." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pretty much like forbid action "everything" all rolled into one? The only difference I can see is that forbid action could prevent someone from moving (while still allowing them to attack or cast spells) or forbid them from casting (while still allowing them to move). But... why would you want to do that? If you're impairing someone's ability to act, why not impair it all the way? I'm just trying to figure out the purpose of this spell. It seems like a lesser version of command, but its the same spell level and on the same lists... am I missing something? EDIT: On closer inspection, I notice that forbid action is "one creature" while command is "one LIVING creature." However, as forbid action still bears the mind-affecting descriptor, the only things this opens up is intelligent undead, which is a pretty narrow group. Still, its something.
Okay, I have a bit of confusion about the spell confusion. The table shows the results of the d% roll and what actions the confused character is forced to take. However, in the last line it stipulates this: "Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes." So, if a confused character is attacked, they automatically attack the attacker? Meaning that you no longer check against the confusion table at all? Or you automatically attack your attacker only if a result of "attack the nearest creature" comes up? Also, as a side note, how do you dictate the entry "deal 1d8+STR damage to self with item in hand" if the character in question isn't holding anything? Do they deal more damage to themselves with their fist than they would otherwise be capable of inflicting? Is it non-lethal damage in this case?
Excoriate School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 6, magus 6, witch 6 Casting Time 1 standard action Components V, S, M (an onion peel) Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target one creature or see text Duration instantaneous Saving Throw Fortitude partial; Spell Resistance yes This spell disrupts the membranes beneath the skin of a creature, causing its flesh to slough off. If used on a living creature, this spell deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage plus 1 point for every three caster levels (maximum +5) and reduces the creature's natural armor (if any) by the same amount. A successful Fortitude save halves the ability damage and negates the natural armor reduction. Creatures who do not possess a Constitution score but still have flesh suffer only the natural armor reduction. Any creature slain by this spell has its flesh completely removed from its body. Corpses are also valid targets for this spell, in which case the spell completely strips the flesh from the target with no save (often useful for harvesting dragon scales and the like). 
May 1st, 2011 The day was not so unusual for Chicago. It had rained the evening before and the streets were still damp as the morning sun made its way lazily across the cloudy sky, emerging perhaps once an hour to remind the world of its existence before disappearing once again. It was Sunday, and the churchfolk of the Windy City were emerging from their morning services and filling the dirty streets, as they had done every week before. For the millions who called the city home, this was just another day. For a select group, however, the specter of death had cast its shadow upon them. When you saw the obituary last Friday, you could hardly believe your eyes. Professor Lucas Stampf, the very same professor who had taught some of your obligatory sociology classes, had passed away at the age of 49. Professor Stampf was not like most teachers, however. You remembered his lectures on modern hate cults, religious fanaticism, and the nature of human conflict. He had such passion, such devotion to his field of study. For a time perhaps you considered a change of major because of his influence. Some of the students mocked him for his extremism but for some reason, it stuck with you. Now, even years later, the images of a KKK rally splayed across the massive lecture hall projection screen or the image of a Palestinian woman kneeling over the body of her child in the streets of modern Jerusalem haunt your dreams when you think too much about them. You had spent time with the professor outsider of class at least a few times, as he made a point of getting to know his students better and engage them in conversation whenever the opportunity presented itself. He was an avid patron of local bars (particularly ones with live entertainment), though nothing suggested any alcoholism or similar maladies. He simply loved to be in the element of his study: society. Rumors persisted of the professor taking some students aside after hours or otherwise making contact with them beyond the realm of school, but these rumors were never confirmed nor did anyone think twice about such things if they were true. He was personable, friendly, and fiendishly intelligent. Regardless of the impact he had upon you, news of his death was shocking not because you recognized the name, nor because of his relatively young age. You all received a personal invitation, delivered by Certified Mail, to the funeral, held today at the Muzyka & Son Funeral Home on Lawrence Avenue. The return address of the sender was simply a P.O. Box assigned to the University you had all attended. There was no name or other indication. Compelled by either respect, morbid curiosity, or a healthy serving of both, you have decided to attend. Arriving at the parking lot adjacent to the funeral home, you notice that there are a number of other people here. Perhaps for another funeral service, perhaps not. As you exit your conveyance of choice, a chill wind sweeps through the lot from the south. Errant pieces of litter from the street are carried on the breeze, finding lodging in the short row of bushes that separated this lot from the alley. The sound of organ music can faintly be heard emanating from within as another group of mourners enters ahead.
Just so we're all on the same page here, this is the complete entry of the spell antimagic field in the PRD:
Of particular note is this line: "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it." Does this mean that a spellcaster who stands within an antimagic field can still cast spells that target creatures/areas OUTSIDE the field normally? Is antimagic field effectively a nigh-impenetrable bulwark against magical attacks that enables an encapsulated mage to launch his arcane assaults from within with impunity? Obviously creatures within the field are immune to the mage's close-range attacks, and the mage effectively cuts himself off from most escape mechanism spells (dimension door, invisibility, fly, teleport, and the like), but it still seems like a pretty good deal, especially when dealing with enemy casters.
Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage). This is the description of bleed straight from the PRD, verbatim. It actually specifies that only a spell which cures hit point damage can stop bleed damage (or a Heal check, but that's not the point of this discussion). Ergo, the following means of restoring hit points, by RAW, do not effectively stop bleed damage from continuing:
Now, mind you, in the description for the rogue class's Bleeding Attack talent it says "any effect that heals hit point damage." With the Bleeding Critical feat, it says that any magical healing stops the effect. So that still leaves out Fast Healing and Regeneration, but channel and LoH will do the trick there. But for bleed damage that comes from sources other than these, without specific caveats? According to RAW, you need an actual cure spell to be laid on you or make that Heal check to stop the arterial spray. :)
Bought this game on a Steam sale over the weekend and I must say, I am impressed. It's like a Russian hybrid of Doom 3 and Fallout 3, a post-apocalyptic horror/sci-fi. The world (what you see of it) is beautifully detailed and the writers and designers really drive the bleak reality of the situation home in the conversations of the NPCs at stations. There's also a bit of Hellgate: London influence, in that you spend the vast majority of your time moving from subway station to subway station by way of underground tunnels, though you do foray onto the surface a few times. While most of the criticism I've seen for the game focuses on the over-emphasis of "realism" in the game, I find that the realism drives home the sense of desperation that pervades the game. Your flashlight must be manually recharged via a hand crank, various crude weapons are pneumatic and must be pumped like a glorified pellet gun in order to be functional, quality ammunition is such a rarity that it is actually used as CURRENCY in the game, etc. Anyone who like post-apoc games or who really liked Doom 3 and would like to see a "newer" version of it is encouraged to check this one out!
This is just a placeholder thread while I wrap up the "auditions" in Gamer Connection. This is also the official avatar I'll be using as the Storyteller in the game. (This is Fatespinner, in case it weren't obvious.) I also wanted to take the opportunity to lay out some posting guidelines to help establish some style unity for the game thread when we go live. As I said before, I'm very picky about my games and some might call me anal-retentive. Call it what you will, but I guarantee that if you can make yourself stick with the guidelines, we'll all have a lot of fun together. :) I'll be selecting the players hopefully by the end of the week, though I'm busy at work with several deadlines currently and may not get to it until Monday. I've already selected Rocketmail, however, and am looking to add up to 4 more to the roster. Character creation details will be covered in the future. 
You had been hearing the strange chanting upstairs for some time, but paid no particular attention to it. Tonight was football night, after all, and after 3 Budweisers you didn't particularly care what your weird upstairs neighbors were up to as long as it didn't interfere with the game. In the 4th quarter, your team's quarterback throws a long bomb deep into the backfield and it looks to be a surefire winning touchdown if the defending safety can't intercept. The ball soars through the air and you lean forward in anticipation.... just as the power in your apartment building cuts out abruptly. In that instant, the murmuring upstairs goes silent and you hear what sounds like a woman's scream abruptly cut off... and the sound of something heavy slumping to the floor above. The building remains eerily quiet afterwards. You are alone in the darkness. What do you do?
Is there any reason why a paladin can't use lay on hands twice in one round? When targeting themselves, paladins can "touch" themselves as a swift action... could they then use their standard action to do it again (assuming they have more uses left)? I don't see anything in the rules to suggest that they couldn't. I have a paladin player in my game using the Warrior of Holy Light archetype from the APG. This archetype gives up all spellcasting in favor of some neat light-flavored abilities and additional uses of lay on hands. She's also taken the Endurance/Diehard feat chain and wants to portray a character that just will not go down. Being able to double-heal in a single round (particularly after dropping below 0 HP) would go a long way towards that goal. Is it legal? If not... why?
Another thread in this forum prompted a bit of thinking on my part about the specifics of the undead type and it's relationship with a couple of well-known "killer" spells, both of which happen to be cleric spells to boot. Undead Traits (Ex) Undead are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, phantasms, and patterns), paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless). Undead are not subject to ability drain, energy drain, or nonlethal damage. Undead are immune to damage or penalties to their physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. Undead are not at risk of death from massive damage. Note the section of the above that I have highlighted in italics. This fact is common knowledge. Undead are immune to spells like finger of death, cloudkill, and the like because, well, they aren't alive. Disintegrate, on the other hand, can vaporize creature and brick wall alike, so it gets a pass on account of the fact that undead are still things and things can be disintegrated. However, there are a couple of spells that require Fortitude saves that are not useable on objects but, by all logical reasoning, SHOULD very well be useable against undead. Namely, destruction and implosion.
This spell openly claims that it obliterates the target with holy (or unholy) fire! If given a list of things that I want to use to battle undead, I'm pretty sure that "holy fire" would be #1 on that list! This spell, however, is both a "death" effect AND a spell that requires a Fortitude save and isn't useable on objects... thus undead are immune.
This spell is an evocation, thus it manipulates or creates energy which, in this case, is used to crush a target in on itself. It requires a Fortitude save and is not useable on objects, thus undead are immune. Why? Why are undead immune to being crushed? If you drop rocks on them, they take damage. If you hit them with a greatclub they take damage. Why is this any different? Yes, I know that "game rules are not necessarily logical" and that "this is a fantasy game, it's magic, that's just how it is." But in this case... seriously? Undead can't be crushed? I think an extra line needs to be added to state that these spells can specifically ignore the usual undead immunity or, at the very least, implosion should get that treatment since it's an evocation and not a death effect. It's also a 9th-level spell, though destruction is 7th-level and no slouch either.
As has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards and others, the two-weapon fighting style is grossly suboptimal from a mechanical standpoint when compared to two-handed weapons. Classes such as the rogue that are able to add significant bonus damage on a per-hit basis CAN make up for some of this discrepancy, but another major factor against two-weapon fighting... it's prohibitively expensive! A +5 greatsword is only 40gp more than a +5 short sword, yet the two-weapon fighter needs TWO of these short swords to even hope to compare to the greatsword in terms of usefulness. Thus, the cost difference is a whopping 50,000+ gp for something that is LESS effective in general. Now, granted, two +5 short swords are actually getting a net benefit of +5 damage since EACH WEAPON is dealing +5 instead of the greatsword's single +5 but hear me out: A mechanic/system should be in place that allows the creation of a weapon "set." A single pairing of weapons that can be enchanted/enhanced/targeted as though they were a single item. There may be an increased initial cost for a "matched" set of items, perhaps an extra 1000gp or something. "The leather wrapped around the grips of these twin short swords comes from the hide of the same demonic beast that rampaged through the village only a few short years ago. The hide serves to tie the weapons together with an otherworldly bond, greatly enhancing the ease with which they may be enchanted." After the initial investment, though, the weapons are treated as one object for the purpose of enhancing. Perhaps one weapon would need to be designated as the "master" and the other the "slave" such that, in the event that the weapons are separated for more than a few minutes, the slave weapon loses all magical properties until brought near the master again. This would also prevent abuse in the form of players buying a "set" of greatswords and then having two separate characters getting their weapons essentially at half cost. Perhaps the "master" weapon also has one of the demon's teeth ensconced in the pommel or adorning the crossguard or something to differentiate them. Thoughts?
Hey folks, I've just been authorized by my employer to sell off a couple of Netgear ProSecure UTM10 devices at substantial discount to anyone who might be interested. Both of them are in near-mint condition and work perfectly fine. I'm looking to sell them for about $250 each, but I would consider a discount to anyone who wants to purchase both at once. Send an e-mail to zhensley (at) bespoke.com and let me know if you have an interest in purchasing. Make sure you mention you're from the Paizo boards in the subject line of the e-mail. Thanks!
Seriously. How can you be on these boards and not see this as one of the most fantastic games of all time? And for only $10? It's a steal. Everyone should own this game. It's amazing. Combine the action-adventure style of Gauntlet with the mana-pooling/element-mixing themes of Magic: The Gathering, then douse the whole thing in Monty Python and you have Magicka.
A summoner can summon his eidolon in a ritual that takes 1 minute to perform. When summoned in this way, the eidolon hit points are unchanged from the last time it was summoned. The only exception to this is if the eidolon was slain, in which case it returns with half its normal hit points. The eidolon does not heal naturally. The eidolon remains until dismissed by the summoner (a standard action). If the eidolon is sent back to its home plane due to death, it cannot be summoned again until the following day. The eidolon cannot be sent back to its home plane by means of dispel magic, but spells such as dismissal and banishment work normally. If the summoner is unconscious, asleep, or killed, his eidolon is immediately banished. I think it's pretty much common knowledge that the summoner's biggest contribution to a party is the power of his eidolon. The class is heavily focused on the use, abuse, and manipulation of this "super familiar." That's all fine and good. Cool. We get that. Note the bolded text, though. If the summoner is killed, yeah, I can understand that the link is broken and the eidolon goes bye-bye. But unconscious or asleep? With a single 1st-level spell (sleep), a spellcaster can drop the summoner, banish his eidolon, and even if a party member wakes the summoner back up the very next round, it's a one minute ritual to bring the eidolon back. That's not going to happen in combat. Plus this eliminates the possibility of the summoner using his eidolon as a "watchdog" while camping. Why is that so bad? The eidolon SHOULD be able to shoulder a burden like this for the party, especially since it could be evolved with all kinds of advanced senses in order to be really good at that kind of thing! And yes, I'm aware that playing an elf or half-elf makes you immune to magical sleep and avoids the first part of this issue, but I'm arguing that the summoner's eidolon should not be that easy to just "do away with" in the first place. Yes, the Summoner class has a high Will save, but Wisdom isn't a prime stat for them, so they're unlikely to have "untouchable" saving throws like a cleric or paladin. I am of the opinion that the bolded text quoted above should be reduced to simply "if the summoner is killed" and leave it at that. This would also allow a summoner reduced below 0 HP to get "saved" by his eidolon, and that's just nifty, IMO.
I don't really see any way to do it by the rules as written, but maybe I'm missing something here. Is there any way to design an Eidolon such that it has a ranged natural attack? My intent is to create something similar to StarCraft's Zerg Hydralisk: A serpentine creature that spits poison spikes at range. Obviously you would start with the "serpentine" base and build it from there. For 2 Evolution points, an Eidolon can gain proficiency with simple weapons, which would include ranged weapons like a crossbow. Another 2 points gives it martial weapons, which would include a longbow. Let's operate on this as a basis and call it 5 evolution points to get, essentially, a built-in longbow with self-regenerating ammunition. Is that fair? Should this be 6 points or more? Or should it be completely impossible? Then I want to add Magic Attacks (1 point) and Energy Attacks (acid) (2 points). Finally, another 2 points for Poison. I now have a serpentine Eidolon that spits magic, poisonous, acid-coated spikes at ranges and rates of fire identical to a longbow for the cost of 10 Evolution points. Is this unbalanced? Is there a way to make it work? I'm interested to hear your feedback.
Let's assume you're playing a Sorcerer and you decide you want to take the following feat from the APG:
The first line of the benefit states: "Choose one 1st-level spell that you know." Let's say you choose mage armor. You're 9th level now and you really don't ever need to cast mage armor more than twice a day, so this works out great. Now, when you hit level 10 and gain access to 5th level spells, you are also eligible to change out one of your spells known for a different one. Now that you have mage armor as a spell-like ability twice a day, you don't really need to have it available to cast from your daily slots, so you opt to drop it for, say, magic missile because it scales nicely with your caster level and all that. My question: Is this legal? Since mage armor is no longer "a 1st-level spell that you know" do you lose the benefits of this feat? Are you required to choose a new spell that it applies to? Or can you continue to use your 2/day mage armor SLA even though you can no longer cast it normally from your slots?
So, many of you probably know me by now (and for those who don't, my name is Zack and my life for the last 18 months has been a living Hell) and are probably aware of my roller coaster ride through unemployment, re-employment, lay offs, and more unemployment lately. Well, I've decided that today, I have had enough of this crap. I'm starting my own business, providing technical expertise to the upstate New York capital region. I have no larger circle of friends than all my pals here at Paizo, so I figured I'd drop a line here to drum up a bit of support. Check out my LiveJournal post for more information and to help myself and my family live the American dream! :D Thank you all for reading!
So, spells like blur and displacement give a benefit to their targets that results in a miss chance. Blur specifically states that it grants concealment (and the commensurate 20% miss chance). Displacement on the other hand, states that the target benefits from a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Since displacement states that "unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the subject normally," I am inclined to believe that true strike basically allows the caster to ignore the effects of both blur and displacement, albeit for only a single attack roll, because the text for true strike states that "you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target." Does this seem accurate? Or should it be because displacement is not "actual" concealment, the effects of true strike (at least the negating of miss chance) are nullified?
An immobile, blazing curtain of shimmering violet fire springs into existence. One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet. The wall deals this damage when it appears, and to all creatures in the area on your turn each round. In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it. The wall deals double damage to undead creatures. The text does pretty explicitly say "creatures," but why would a wall of fire not damage objects as well? Also, I noticed that the rules don't seem to say anything about how difficult it is to see through a wall of fire. It claims to be a 20-foot-tall curtain of violet fire... so do creatures on opposite sides of the wall have concealment to each other or not? EDIT: For that matter, wall of ice makes no mention as to whether or not it is opaque either. Is it perfectly clear? Solid white?
When casting spells to be used via another medium (such as with scrolls, rings and weapons of spell storing, etc.) do the wizard's spell-enhancing school powers come into play? For example, let's say I'm playing a 10th level Evoker and the party's rogue wants me to cast a shocking grasp into his +1 spell storing rapier. When he activates the weapon's ability, does the spell deal the base 5d6 points of damage? Or does it deal 5d6+5 as it would if cast directly from my character (per the Intense Spells power)? Similarly, if a Conjurer stores a summon monster III in a ring of spell storing, does it benefit from the increased duration granted by Summoner's Charm even if the Conjurer himself is not the one activating the ring? What about scrolls or wands created by the character? Also, if the character has applicable Spell Focus feats, are spells stored away for future use more difficult to save against as they would be if cast normally?
The spell interposing hand appears to be essentially the same as it was in 3.5, but the wording in both versions appears somewhat vague. Spell Description:
The spell description states that the hand appears between you and an opponent you designate. It then also states that a creature weighing 2,000 lbs. or less that tries to push past the hand is slowed to half its normal speed. My question is: How far out between yourself and the opponent does the hand position itself? Does it appear in a square immediately adjacent to the opponent, meaning that any attempt the opponent makes to lessen the distance between you meets with the movement-impairing effect? Does it appear in a square adjacent to the caster, making the movement-altering effect pretty much useless? Can the caster direct the hand to maintain a certain distance out from himself (even though the spell description suggests the caster can only choose targets for the hand and nothing else)? How the hell does this thing work?!
Just as the title suggests, I'm looking for a compelling MECHANICAL reason for a rogue not to take Two-Weapon Fighting. I can understand all kinds of role-play reasons for it, but I'm looking for something crunchy. Some alternative for rogues to dish out their damage without using TWF and still being somewhat effective in combats. I'm not necessarily looking for something BETTER, but something that at least doesn't horribly suck by comparison.
So, in the PFRPG Core book we have the Assassin, the Duelist, the Mystic Theurge, the Arcane Trickster, the Arcane Archer, the Eldritch Knight, the Loremaster, the Shadowdancer, and the Dragon Disciple as well as a new PrC in the Pathfinder Chronicler. My question is, are we likely to see the other "core" Prestige Classes from the 3.5 DMG re-envisioned for Pathfinder? The Dwarven Defender, the Blackguard, the Thaumaturgist, the Hierophant, and the Archmage? I can understand that the Hierophant and Archmage aren't particularly necessary anymore with the escalation of wizard and cleric abilities at higher levels that was absent in 3.5, but the other ones? I'd *LOVE* to see a Pathfinder Dwarven Defender! It's probably one of my favorite PrCs of all time (though it could certainly use a wee bit of a power boost, especially for PF). The Blackguard is another "must have" PrC because, if we have paladins in the world, who is to champion the darker powers? Let's hear it, Paizo! Will these classes be remade in the not-too-distant future? Or have they been forever relegated to the back burner?
Here's a bizarre situation for you: An ancient dragon devours a party member with it's "swallow whole" ability. The next round, whilst the party member is still in it's stomach, fighting to escape, the dragon casts ethereal jaunt. Is the party member who was eaten considered part of the dragon's "gear" for the purposes of this spell and thus goes ethereal with him? Or does he "fall through" the now-immaterial dragon and get a free ticket to freedom?
Under the 'Weapons' section, we have an oft-overlooked exotic weapon called the 'net.' The net has the following explanation of it's use:
So, what kind of action is it to "un-net" something? Once you've entangled a creature, can you simply employ the net against another creature in range by making another ranged touch attack (with the -4 for it being unfolded)? Does it take a full-round action to untangle your net from the corpse of an enemy slain while entangled or something? Also, the statement "If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows" needs a little clarification. Do we assume that this rope allows the creature the full 10' of the net's normal range? Or can the net's wielder "choke up" on the rope to draw the creature closer to him and prevent it from moving away again?
This will be the OOC/discussion thread for my Pathfinderized IK game to be starting in the next two weeks or so. This will also contain my conversion notes for the benefit of my players and anyone else who wants to peruse them. As the primary purpose of this thread is for myself and my players, please refrain from extensive commentary/criticism on my conversions in this thread. I would be happy to address your concerns and questions elsewhere. As I write this post, I am at school. I will be wrapping up my first major conversion and posting it here sometime tonight: The Gun Mage. I would like to note that my conversions have really only just begun and I plan on converting things on an "as needed" basis. The core classes have already been covered (though there are a few IK modifications, especially for the Ranger if anyone decides to play one) but if anyone decides they want to shoot for a particular IK prestige class, I will take a look at it and make the conversion then. Also, as I come across things that do not fit with the altered setting as written, I will modify them accordingly. I will already say that, due to the way healing in IK works, I am going to be modifying the cleric's channel energy ability. I will probably be reverting it to the old turn/rebuke undead (though using the Pathfinder rules for it). Fair warning. Healing is not easy to come by in IK.
Out of a combination of boredom and obsession, I have begun converting critical elements of the Iron Kingdoms setting into Pathfinder RPG. I appear to have some kind of curse in which every PbP game I attempt to run on these boards dies off due to players... just... not posting anymore. I don't want to set myself up for more disappointment this time. If anyone out there is interested in a Pathfinderized IK PbP game, let me know here. Before you sign up, MAKE SURE you can commit to posting at least once a day. I'm not going to kill you if you miss a day or so (especially during roleplay scenes where your character might not necessarily be involved) but when combat happens, I don't want it to take a month to play out. A few stipulations and considerations for you before signing up: 1.) No Arcane Mechaniks. The mechanika rules are mind-numbingly complicated and I would just as soon not have to deal with a PC focused on them.
So, I've been considering a character concept for awhile and have been undecided on whether it should be an elf or half-elf. The concept in question is unimportant, however, as during my considerations I noticed the "Elf Blood" trait and read it more closely. Elf Blood: Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race. At first, this seems like a good thing. Magic items that require the user to be an elf (or human) could be used normally by the half-elf. However... such items are EXCEEDINGLY rare (unless the GM decides to create a bunch of them for plot reasons) and, unless I'm mistaken, this trait makes the half-elf vulnerable to things like Favored Enemy (elf) as well as Favored Enemy (human). He would also be subjected to spells like antipathy directed at EITHER of his two halves. Half-orcs suffer similar penalties. My question is: Is this accurate? Is this "trait" really more of a penalty than a benefit? I don't see anything to suggest that it isn't accurate and thus I believe this trait is a liability (a very conditional one, but one nonetheless). Perhaps the trait should be re-worded to say "count as either an elf OR human for any effect related to race, whichever is more beneficial." Thoughts? EDIT: Whoops. I think this thread technically belongs in the "Rules Questions" forum. My bad.
So, in the Core book, the following is listed under "Energy Immunity and Vulnerability."
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure. Does this mean that sorcerers and wizards, with some of their capstone abilities granting immunity to some energy types, also gain this vulnerability? It seems counter-intuitive, but that is the way the rules appear to be written. 
So, I've just created this character and I had a pertinent question: Do things that amplify the save DCs of Channel Energy also amplify the save DCs of things like Command Undead (since they are a variant use of Channel Energy)? My gut instinct says "Yes" and so I built this character on that assumption (using the Sacred Conduit trait and the Improved Channel feats to amplify my Command Undead) but I wanted to make sure I was right before I actually played him. Thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
