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

Fozbek's page

958 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 958 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Darkwing Duck wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:


I don't think that anything new will add to the game. Sometimes, new stuff makes the game worse (the rules bloat that happened with 3.X is a good example of that).
Only if you're not picky. I am. If you're in one of those "anything published goes" games I can see it as a problem.
GMs playing PFS don't have the option to pick and choose.

PFS is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. PFS hard stops at level 12. We're talking about rules for characters of levels 21 and above.


It's much, much harder to defend two cities than it is to defend one city. Especially since you're only intended by the rules to be able to have one army.


Alch wrote:
What remains, is an inconsistency

An inconsistency that only you believe exists...

There are plenty of slashing weapons that are excellent at crushing through heavy armor. Any axe and most two-handed slashing weapons will do quite well against heavy armor. Scythes might be an exception, but then the classic farmer's scythe is a really bad weapon.


Impact weapons (hammers, maces, flails, picks, and axes) are far more effective against armor than thrusting weapons, and with the exception of the flail are no less accurate than them. It's far, far easier to axe a guy in the kidneys through his full plate than it is to stiletto him in his kidneys. In fact, given equal material quality, it's impossible to do so with a stiletto, while being easy for the axe.

Impact weapons are designed specifically to negate the advantage granted by armor. Armor is generally very, very poor at absorbing and distributing heavy localized impacts. It's generally pretty good at deflecting less-heavy localized impacts (daggers and other thrusting weapons) and slashing wounds.

For the record, Piercing, Slashing, and Bludgeoning is a very poor trio of damage types. Better is slashing, thrusting, and impact. Axes and picks do their damage more from the impact of their heavy heads being swung than by a slashing/drawing motion (for axes) or being thrust (for picks, which is basically impossible with them anyway). Arrows, bolts, and bullets are all also impact weapons.


TOZ wrote:
You can change into anything you want, but I'm going to hold you to the recharge roll regardless of what form you're in.

OK. The red dragon's breath weapon recharges in 1d4 rounds. Next round, the blue dragon's breath weapon will be used.


The wizard isn't helpless at all unless you remove his spellbook when he's out of prepared spells. He can use spells he has prepared to make a new spellbook, or just to kill you and take yours. Also, you can't destroy his spellbook without him getting a chance to prevent it.

And, again:

Fozbek wrote:
If you were a PC party facing a powerful NPC Summoner, wouldn't you just love the chance to destroy its Eidolon separately, at a time of your choosing, in a place of your choosing, without having to fight the BBEG or any of his pals at the same time, knowing that when you kill the Eidolon, it stays dead forever?


Aspects, by definition, aren't the actual creature. When the Aspect of Orcus is summoned by demon cultists, it is not Orcus himself. It's just a fragment of his power given temporary independence by magic.

The conditions thing is in the FAQ somewhere, I believe.


John Spalding wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
They'd almost have to include larger-than-Medium bases. I don't think there are that many Medium and smaller monsters in the Bestiary.
The picture has what appears to be a large figure on a medium base.

Point.


Set wrote:

Back in playtest, IIRC, several people (including myself) pondered what would happen if an Eidolon was dismissed (or died) while under the effect of a bleed condition, poison effect, disease or the dying condition (below 0 hp, not stabilized). Would the eidolon, in it's native plane, go on taking damage, and then die *forever?*

It wasn't deemed worth worrying about then, so I imagine it's not worth worrying about now. It's a class feature. It shouldn't be harder than calling up a new Animal Companion to replace a permanantly slain Eidolon. It wasn't worth writing a rule to cover, so the GM can just make something up.

They did write a rule to cover it. According to the APG, Eidolons are only aspects of a greater creature. They don't exist as separate, fully functioning entities. Also, they covered the condition thing with the rules anyway.

Sorry, your post is founded on incorrect assertions.


They'd almost have to include larger-than-Medium bases. I don't think there are that many Medium and smaller monsters in the Bestiary.


TarkXT wrote:
But really at its own CR people are already taking it apart at round 1.

You can say that about any monster in the book (except the ones above CR 20 or below CR 1/2, naturally).

TarkXT wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
High charisma master summoners are specifically designed to make mince meat of demiliches?
I was thinking the same thing.

I was mostly referring to the original character, not the Master Summoner. Although I don't think I've ever seen a Master Summoner with enough ranks in K:Religion to reliably identify a demilich (DC 29 unless the DM is quite generous or demiliches are way too common in the campaign world).


Sold.


moon glum wrote:
Oh yeah. True! Characters designed specifically to do so make mince meat of the demilich!

FTFY. News at 11.


moon glum wrote:
He gets +19/+19/+19/+14 attacks, His first attack is this the +14 one to which he adds +20 for true strike and so hits.

Can't do that, for the record. You always attack with your highest iterative first.


The NPC wrote:

Considering that we haven't seen the Unfettered Eidolon we don't know the mechanics or the history of the creature. So the method you suggest could work or it could not.

Maybe the U.E. only becomes a separate entity after it consumes or receives something from the Summoner? Like his soul maybe?

That's the hope, but RD didn't say anything like that, and neither did SKR. It would have been much more productive for SKR to say, "the Unfettered Eidolon is a special exception" or similar than, essentially, "meh, so what?".


NeverNever wrote:
So... you make sure your eidolons neutral then?

Doesn't work. The inwards-focused version is an exclusive rather than an inclusive list. In other words, an inward-focused magic circle against evil contains any non-good creature, whereas an outwards-focused one only affects evil creatures.


Rathendar wrote:
Nowhere does it say anything like "only when summoned by the 1 minute ritual" (which is actually only mentioned in the following paragraph)

Also nowhere does it say that it can move through a magic circle. A calling diagram would also trump the Eidolon rules anyway.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Rathendar wrote:
For starters,(assuming it works like you say) you would need its truename to summon it specifically.

Not really a big deal if the Eidolon is a separate entity. It'd be no harder to find an Eidolon's true name than any other Outsider's true name for the purpose of planar binding.

Quote:
It also is uneffected by the protection from evil/whatever alignment binding so can move out of it.

False. That only applies when the Summoner summons it using the 1 minute ritual.

Quote:
The summoner can himself just use a spell to summon it again as a standard action the round after you try to bind it anyways.

Assuming the Summoner isn't asleep, of course. Time zones are fairly trivial to figure out.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

How is one 3rd level spell (magic circle) and one 5th level spell (planar binding) "a lot of effort" when it can be done from anywhere at all? It's like an interplanar WoW Death Grip.

Everyone who's ever PvP'd in WoW knows that Death Grip is ten times as powerful as Charge. Why? Because instead of sending one person into the middle of the enemy team, you bring one person into the middle of your team.

That can't be done to Summoners, or any other PC, or any other PC class ability. And it shouldn't have been able to be done to Eidolons, either, since the rules already said Eidolons didn't exist separate from their Summoners. Now that rule's overturned and the flood gates are open.

If you were a PC party facing a powerful NPC Summoner, wouldn't you just love the chance to destroy its Eidolon separately, at a time of your choosing, in a place of your choosing, without having to fight the BBEG or any of his pals at the same time, knowing that when you kill the Eidolon, it stays dead forever?


How would it not?

Eidolons are Outsiders. If they are a separate entity, rather than an aspect of an entity (as the APG says they are), they can be Called. Called creatures actually die when they are slain (Summoned creatures just return from whence they came). Outsiders cannot be revived by anything short of true resurrection. You cannot summon a creature that no longer exists. The Summoner's inherent ability to heal its Eidolon from death only covers what happens when the Eidolon is summoned by the Summoner (which would immediately end when it's planar bound because it would be out of range of its Summoner).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Fozbek wrote:

Ugh. Just what we need. Another stupid, pointless Summoner nerf.

Now anyone with a high enough level Calling subschool spell can completely eliminate the primary class ability of a Summoner.
Yeah, because calling an eidolon automatically gives you all of the other summoner class features like life link, shield ally, master's call, and so on...

Not at all what I meant. I didn't say they could copy the Summoner's primary class ability, I said they could eliminate it.

By planar binding and killing a Summoner's Eidolon, that Eidolon is permanently dead and the Summoner completely loses his Eidolon class feature for basically the rest of the character's existence. Outsiders can only be resurrected with 9th level spells (true resurrection), and a Called outsider that is slain is slain permanently. The Summoner has no recompense against this.

No other class has anything even remotely resembling this kind of weakness. With no other class in the game can the BBEG be half a world away, hell, even on a private demiplane, cast a 5th level spell, and completely remove one of the PC's This Is The Reason I Play This Class abilities essentially irrevocably.


Ugh. Just what we need. Another stupid, pointless Summoner nerf.

Now anyone with a high enough level Calling subschool spell can completely eliminate the primary class ability of a Summoner.


It was previously ruled that anyone who had access to a domain could choose sub-domains. It seems logical to extend that to allowing access to wild bloodlines for anyone with access to normal bloodlines, although technically the two aren't directly comparable.


TOZ wrote:
Depends on what your spellbook looks like.

Yep. I played a Wizard once who inscribed his spells onto his staff.


Cheapy wrote:
How is rogue a personality? I'll tell you. By being a dishonest or unprincipled person.

Nothing in the Rogue class requires being a dishonest or unprincipled person.

Quote:
By sneaking about and being able to pick locks.

Neither of those have anything to do with personality.

Quote:
By swindling people.

Nothing in the Rogue class requires swindling people.

I find your arguments lacking.


moon glum wrote:
Nicos wrote:
an easy target for a good archer, a very dificult oponent for everyone else
The archer has to beat DR 20/- with each arrow.

No, they don't. Clustered Shots means the DR only applies once over the entire full attack.


Talonhawke wrote:
So your saying that the deflect feats should be negated if the bad guys start using contact poison fozbek usually we agree but this is one time that i humbly disagree with your reading of the rules as far as when i run.

No, I don't think the feats should be negated by contact poison. The vast majority of the time, miss and deals no damage are functionally the same; contact poison is one of the few where it matters. However, it would have been much easier and much more effective for them to have written miss if that was their intent. I have to assume they took the route they did for a reason.


Again, common sense is on the side of the general category, not the ultra-confined "only items with 'amulet' in the name" that doesn't jive with any of the other choices.

When you're given a choice of four general categories and one thing that can be thought of as either a general category or a very narrowly defined subcategory, the logical and sensible choice is to go with general category.


Or are you going to look at the fact that every other type of item listed by Arcane Bond is a general category, and thus use common sense and apply that to amulets as well?

There is no category they can refer to for items worn in the neck slot, especially since the bonded object doesn't have to be a pre-defined magic item. Thus, they can't even say "or wondrous item worn in the neck slot". There does not exist in the PF rules a way to refer to a magical item worn around the neck without using half a dozen words each time, or using shorthand. "Amulet" is clearly the latter.


Cheapy wrote:
Well, you can cast true resurrection on a corpse to bring it back from not-creatureness.

You could, but petrified creatures are explicitly not dead. That means no revivification magic will work on them. I suppose a wish + true resurrection would work.

Trikk wrote:
This comes up so often in campaigns, I'm surprised there's not an official answer yet.

Really? I wasn't aware people hit level 20 in a class with an automatic self-rez and then got petrified very often.


If the tornado was magical (eg, a control winds spell), then yes, FoM would work.

Technically, however, FoM only protects against grapples, magical impediments, and being slowed by being underwater. Non-magical environmental effects (with the exception of underwater movement) aren't covered.

As to the intent of the ability? Anyone's guess.


Talonhawke wrote:
However that can as i pointed out earlier lead to the weirdness of picking my right fist as my bonded object as per RAW it is in fact a weapon.

You don't even have to be as specific as that. The entry in the chart is unarmed strike, which can be made with any part of the body (or, at the most literal, are not specifically tied to any single part of the body).


drumlord wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
By that logic, any item not spelled w-e-a-p-o-n is not a weapon.
Agreed. You showed him! Except that all weapons in fact show up under a section called "Weapons" so I'm not sure where you're going with this point.

That doesn't matter. Mike's assertion is that only items with "amulet" in their name are considered amulets for Arcane Bond. Thus, by the same logic, only items with "weapon" in their name are considered weapons for Arcane Bond.

By your/i] logic, even items [i]with "amulet" in their name aren't viable choices, as there is no "Amulets" section.


What TOZ said. Even if you smash the statue to dust, they still aren't dead; theoretically, you could gather every particle of dust, cast make whole/mending, and then stone to flesh to restore the original creature.


Belafon wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
Trap the soul or any other soul-capture spell will prevent reincarnation, as would completely destroying the body (such as with disintegrate). Killing him with a death effect (wail of the banshee, power word kill, and so on) or raising his corpse as an undead would also work.
Trap the soul would work, the other examples probably wouldn't. Unlike the spell reincarnate the monk ability does not appear to require a part of the body. Although not explicitly stated: since the monk can reincarnate anywhere within 20 miles, he doesn't appear to need a piece of his body.

The ability functions exactly like reincarnation, except that it's automatic and he chooses where he revives. That means it still needs a fragment of the body. Even if that didn't work, the others would, because reincarnation is explicitly prevented from working on creatures who have been raised as undead or who were slain by death effects.


At low levels you can't afford UMD for offensive purposes. Scrolls are basically impossible to pull off early (DC 21 at the lowest, with a possible additional DC 26+ if you don't have a high enough spellcasting stat), and wands are expensive even for first level spells (and even then it's still a DC 20 check).

The most you can possibly have in UMD at level 1 is (as far as I know) +14 (1 rank, 3 class skill, 5 charisma, 3 skill focus, 2 magical aptitude). That still leaves you with a 25% chance to fail any wand activation and a 30% or higher chance to fail any scroll activation. Also, that's a hyper-specialized build. Realistically, you're looking at +10 or so at the high end, which is a 45% wand failure rate or a 50%+ scroll failure rate.

High failure rates are OK for happy sticks because you're not using them in combat, so failures don't usually have negative consequences. When you're pulling out that sleep scroll in combat, though, there are very heavy consequences for failing the check.


Trap the soul or any other soul-capture spell will prevent reincarnation, as would completely destroying the body (such as with disintegrate). Killing him with a death effect (wail of the banshee, power word kill, and so on) or raising his corpse as an undead would also work.


fictionfan wrote:
If any class can become immortal I guess the question is which class would have the easiest time faking being a god?

Any full spellcaster. Or, if you want to be true to the villain in the first Mistborn book and really challenge your party:

Spoiler:
Make him a gestalt spellcaster, or an epic-level multi-class spellcaster. Gestalt will be significantly less powerful and easier to do since Pathfinder doesn't have epic rules.


Counterfeiting currency was an automatic death sentence in pre-modern times. It was the second most heinous crime against the state (the first being direct betrayal of the leader) because the entirety of the state's ability to function relied upon its currency being valid.


Give 'em an Escape Artist check. The skill exists for a reason.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Wizards,Alchemists, some oracles and druids as well as some witches off the top of my head.

But, if this is for a villain or NPc for a home setting. Well anyone you want. How or way they are as they are is up to you, Artifact, drunk the blood of an ageless dragon, the gods like him, son of something ageless or whatever feels right for the story.

Yep, to both those. For a BBEG, it really doesn't matter. He has Plot on his side. But if you want to do it completely by the book, most spellcasters have ways to do it, as do (IIRC) Monks.

Incidentally, the Mistborn books are awesome. I love Sanderson's writing.


Unearthed Arcana's flaws suck, because it's way too easy to choose one that simply doesn't affect your character.

What our group has found that works is the Arcanas from AEG's 3.0 Swashbuckling Adventures campaign setting. They're flaws, but instead of giving a constant numerical disadvantage, they allow other players or the DM to screw you over in certain circumstances once per day. For example, there's the Hot-Headed flaw: once per day, another player or the DM can force your character to lose your temper. Another example is Inattentive: 1/day, you automatically fail a Perception check.

I havn't found any that can really be marginalized the same way the Unearthed Arcana flaws can be. For example, -2 to melee attack rolls doesn't matter at all for a wizard; meanwhile, any of the Hubrises from Swashbuckling Adventures will apply at least some of the time, because the DM can force them to apply in a situation where it really does hurt you.


gatherer818 wrote:
given the official FAQ answer, I can't see any way that using whatever combination of one-handed weapons you wanted wouldn't be ok with TWF.

The context of the question was adding more attacks with bombs, not adding additional weapons into the activation of a supernatural ability.

Again, there is a valid argument that it is OK, and honestly any weapon you choose to add is going to be less powerful than another bomb, I just want to point out that there is a viable argument otherwise as well.


Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Not necessarily. It could be for balance or distraction.

You could balance or distract with a hand that's holding something. Or havn't you seen tightrope walkers that carry a pole in both hands to balance with?


I'll agree that there are good arguments for allowing TWF to work with Fast Bombs, especially in light of that FAQ. I still think the intent was to just allow extra bombs when using TWF with Fast Bombs, but there's definitely a solid argument otherwise.

Normal Bombs are clearly out, however.


Most, not all. And you'll note that I already said injury poison wouldn't affect someone who takes no damage from an attack. Contact poison would, however.


The Bomb class feature is a supernatural ability that requires a standard action to use. Part of that standard action is making a ranged attack, but you are not using the attack action. Bombs are mechanically the same as a dragon using its breath weapon; you wouldn't ask if a dragon could two-weapon fight with its breath weapon and a ballista, would you?

Fast bombs still modifies the original Bomb class feature, which is still a supernatural ability and thus requires a separate action. The "this functions as a full attack with a ranged weapon" is there to tell you that your attack bonus decreases and so on as if you were making a full attack. It doesn't allow you to mix other attacks with bombs.


Stubs McKenzie wrote:
Maybe they meant to leave open those vulnerabilities... I don't know and neither do you...

No one knows the intent aside from Paizo themselves, of course. However, the rules are clear that those vulnerabilities are left open.

Quote:
to suggest that your interpretation means you aren't calling the developers morons would suggest those who disagree with you are doing such... which is pretty rude, and a childish way to have a discussion. I would suggest staying away from such statements in the future.

You're right about this, however. I apologize, and I've amended my previous post.


Gorbacz wrote:
So, Flumph monks can't take the feat? :)

They can take it, but they can't use it. Hands aren't a requirement to take the feat, but you must have one free hand to use it.

Of course, I'd rule that to be "one free dextrous appendage" for non-humanoid creatures with the feat, as that's the obvious intent, but technically speaking, no, flumphs can't use Crane Wing (or Deflect Arrows, which has the same restriction).


Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Actually, there is nothing in the feat that says you're using your hands or any part of your body really.
PRD wrote:
Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free

You must have a hand free to use Crane Wing. Why? Because you're using that hand to use the feat.

1 to 50 of 958 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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