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

Gauss's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 8,066 posts (8,074 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 673 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ckdragons wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ckdragons wrote:

What is the target was in the middle of an fog cloud, and you were on the outside of it? Could you target a specific square that is concealed to you even though you have "line of effect?"

If you can't see it, you can't target it.

Could a spellcaster target a square/intersection within the fog cloud he can't see with an AOE spell (fireball)?

Yes

CRB p215 wrote:
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It’s like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it’s not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

The rule (below) that requires line of sight for targeted spells does not apply to area spells unless the area spell also has a target line.

CRB p213 wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravensgray wrote:

Hi all,

That's great thanks for your assistance.

I'm going to take it that I can cast it against the back of his head. If I wanted to cast it in front of his eyes then I'd need to move so I can see the front of his face. A simple 5 ft step may infact achieve this for me.

Thanks again for all your help. Appreciated.

Ravensgray,

You are misunderstanding things.

There is no facing.

Do you see the creature?
If yes: cast the spell on it.

The creature's facing has zero bearing. What direction he is looking has zero bearing.

Heck, there are not even rules regarding 'I put it in front of him' because such rules are not necessary.

The only rule relevant to your issue here is: can you see him, then you can target him.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
or a magic item (muleback cords) to increase your effective strength for carrying capacity.
It's not worth to dump Str to miss out on Cloak of Resistance.

Muleback Cords do not require you to miss out on a Cloak of Resistance.

Cloak of Resistance added to Muleback Cords raises the price of the Muleback Cords by 500gp (CRB p553 Adding New Abilities).
(Note: Not legal in PFS but the OP didn't say he was playing PFS.)
And before a GM says 'but I don't allow custom items' this isn't custom, it is combining items, which is something very different. After all, that is how they priced out a Belt of +2 Strength and +2 Constitution (4000gp +4000gp*1.5 = 10000gp).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Core Rulebook is correct regarding ethereal creatures but incorrect in that it provides ghosts as an example of one.
Back in 3.5 incorporeal creatures (such as ghosts) were often ethereal but this is no longer the case. They decided to separate incorporeal from ethereal.

My guess is that that section of the CRB was written before they decided to change how incorporeal creatures were designed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is your 'positive proof statement':

Pathfinder Conversion Guide p7 wrote:
Note that the rogue sneak attack ability now functions against most constructs, plants, and undead. It does not function against oozes, elementals, and incorporeal undead.
Pathfinder Conversion Guide p17 wrote:
Constructs, plants, and most undead are no longer immune to sneak attacks or critical hits. Elementals, incorporeal undead, and oozes are still immune to such attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

d20pfsrd is not an official source.

I think you are operating under a misconception. Oracle spells are generally not stated as such in the books. Even the book Oracles were introduced in, the APG, does not have oracles in the list of classes able to cast the spell unless it is an 'Oracle only' spell.

Any spell that states "Cleric" is able to be cast by an Oracle unless stated otherwise.

APG p42 wrote:
Spells: An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists (see pages 226–229 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).

Here is an example of a "Cleric 7" spell that does not state "Oracle 7". In that spell is a reference to Oracles using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they have the human subtype then the answer should be yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
That's highly subjective, Lady-J. Some groups use 10-point for a more challenging game, some use it to encourage SAD classes over MAD ones, some don't know that the game is mostly balanced around 15-points, and yes, some because the GM is being a jerk. But that's not the only reason.
people don't really need a reason to play a wizard or a cleric over a monk or paladin though low point buy is just there to punish classes that aren't as strong as the tier one sadest of sad casters altho if you want to go back to 3.5's party dynamic of 2 clerics and every one else is wizards you hardly need 10 point buy to do that just ban every other class but clerics and wizards

That is your opinion Lady-J. There are a number of reasons to run low point buy. You don't know the GM's reason in this case, you don't know what style of game they are playing nor what options and restrictions they are playing under.

Yes, if you try to do a 10point buy in a standard game there would be a number of issues, but we don't know that this is a standard game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I heard a good argument once that the mounts strength should be added to the lance damage.

Level 8 Order of the Sword does exactly that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oliver Veyrac wrote:
nah, this damage is just a basic amount of damage with no optimization what so ever. This is just basic stuff. Not even touching anything in the d20pfsrd. As far as high levels, martial characters are the best at higher levels. Especially ranged martial characters.

You do realize that this (bolded) statement is nonsensical right?

The CRB rules are in the d20pfsrd. Ergo, your statement is the same thing as saying: "Not even touching anything in the Core Rulebook." :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grumbaki wrote:


(3) Fight golems and other monsters you can't backstab (ie: use precise strike)
- Ruins a swashbuckler's day

Golems are not immune to sneak attack or precise strike ("backstab"). You are thinking of a previous version.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashton Blaze wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
So many questions, so few answers.

Well the general consensus was that there is no limit on how many sneak attack a rogue can make per round.

But that is so unbelievably broken I cannot believe that even the Unchained Rogue can do it. For example: A flanking level 10 rogue with Improved two weapon fighting: A possibility of 20d6 on top of the 4 attacks. That's as much as some spells from a level 20 caster on the sneak attack alone not counting talents for re-rolling and extra effects.
So yeah that's horribly broken, so I'm personally house ruling that you can only get one sneak attack per turn, on any successful hit so it can happen most turns, but only one. It seems much more balanced.

First, nice necro.

Second, it isn't broken.

Assume that a Level 10 Unchained Rogue has a Dex of 23 (15+2race+2lvl+4belt).
Also assume that the level 10 unchained rogue has two +2 light weapons and Weapon Focus, TWF, Imp.TWF, and Double Slice)
(Total price so far: 32,000gp out of 62,000gp leaving 30,000gp for armor, saves, and other equipment.)
attack = 16/16/11/11 (7BAB+6dex+1WF+2enh-2TWF+2flank)
damage = 1d6+8+5d6SA (1d6rapier+6dex+2enh+5d6sneak attack)
Average per hit: 11.5+17.5 per hit

Now lets look at a Fighter of the same level:
Assume a Level 10 fighter has a Str of 23 (15+2race+2lvl+4belt).
Also assume that the fighter has a +3 great sword, Power Attack (-3att/+9dam), Weapon Focus (1), Weapon Specialization (2), Weapon Training (2), Improved Critical.
attack = +19/14 (10+6str+1WF+2WT+3Enh-3PA)
damage = 2d6+25 (+9str+2WS+2WT+3Enh+9PA)
Average per hit: 32

Sure, the rogue is doing 116 per round vs the Fighter's 64 BUT, the rogue is not likely to hit.

Against the average CR10 AC of 24 the DPR is:
Rogue: (0.65*(11.5+17.5)+0.15*2*0.65*11.5)*2+ (0.40*(11.5+17.5)+0.15*2*0.40*11.5)*2 = 68.145damage per round
Fighter: (0.8*(32)+0.2*2*0.8*32)+(0.55*(32)+0.2*2*0.55*32) = 60.48damage per round

Summary: The rogue is barely out-damaging the Fighter and is spending a whole bunch of feats to do it, has to get into a flanking position, AND the monster has to hold still long enough to suffer a full-attack sequence.
If the AC of the monster increases (for example, a CR12 monster with an average AC of 27) the Rogue's damage drops even farther while the Fighter's damage drops just a bit.

BTW, this isn't even the best fighter build I could come up with. This was an off-the cuff build (for example, I could have given the Fighter mutagen and increased his attack bonus by +2 and damage by +3). Better yet, @level 10 my Halfling Cavalier averages over 80damage (110+ with a challenge) per round with a single almost never-miss hit!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wrong forum, this is not a rule question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

I'll also toss in the question of HOW he's considered OP?

I'm enjoying my Swashbuckler... and admittedly have not played him very long, with more of a fun build than optimized build... but still??? I've found he's very competent in some situations... and utterly useless in others.

For example.. in the 2 nights I started playing him... We fought skeletal undead which he could do nothing against with his rapier. His strength absolutely sucked, so any ranged attacks had to be dealt with by others... His strength sucked badly, so when we came across shadow creatures at level 3 with just my rapier... I had to actively flee the battle. And he was nearly killed by something else... but that adventure was a bloodbath.... probably not related to the class ;)

Against corporeal enemies who could be stabbed, he did pretty well. He was operating at about +9 to hit and D4+7 damage with crit range18-20 so he was a lot of fun... but I certainly haven't seen anything that is truly abusable...

Skeletons are not immune to piercing damage, they just have DR5/Bludgeoning. So you should have been doing something to them.

They are not immune to critical hits either so your Precise Strike should have been hurting them.

Ranged attacks: use crossbow

Rapier: use dex to damage (Fencing Grace @level 3)

By level 12 a Swashbuckler can easily do 1d4+3enhancement +7 dex +12 precise +2 Weapon Spec +2 Gr. Weapon Spec. +2 Weapon Training +8 Power Attack = 1d4+36

A level 12 Fighter trying to do the same thing (poor choice?) would have:
1d4+3enhancement+7Dex+2WS +2Gr. WS + 4 Weapon Training +8 Power Attack = 1d4+26


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depending on level he may be immune to disarm/sunder/steal while wielding his weapon.

Swashbucklers are really not OP. A number of classes/builds can easily pump out the kind of damage Swashbucklers put out.

The problem is that many of those builds require intent to do so while Swashbucklers do it without trying.

Without taking away the sword there are ways to remove his main source of damage (Precise Strike) without nerfing the character entirely. Anything that negates precision damage negates precise strike.

Examples include creatures immune to critical hits and darkness/blindness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As currently written, Tiger Pounce applies to all attacks using power attack. There are no rules stating otherwise.

RAI may or may not be that it is intended to work only with unarmed strikes. We simply do not have that information and anyone declaring that the RAI is that it only works with unarmed strikes is making an assumption unless there is a corresponding statement from the Devs.

Chess Pwn is correct here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
Can't agree, using a move action to actually move is relevant, regardless of the mode of movement, AFAICT... barring an actual FAQ to the contrary.

Please show the rule that states the action type is in any way relevant to a 5' step. You can't because it is not there.

What is there is the phrase 'movement' which is not an action type and as I have shown, 'movement' almost always references 'modes of movement'.

Additionally, you have failed to show where it states that a teleportation effect is movement. If movement was not explained in the CRB then you might be right, but it is explained and so you are not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
I'd agree when it's spellcasters using their main action to move via spellcasting, but in the case of a monk using abundant step, it is using a movement action to change position... ergo, a move, albeit a non conventional one. In such a case, the teleport is not part of a normal action, but replaces a normal move action, and thus voids the 5ft step that is allowed when you haven't actually moved.

Klorox, you are conflating move action and movement.

Abundant Step being a move action has absolutely NO bearing on this discussion.

Now, the question is, do teleportation effects such as Abundant Step qualify as movement?
If the answer is yes be prepared for a Pandora's Box of problems as a number of things are applied to teleportation effects that shouldn't be just because you deemed it 'movement'.

The answer here is no, teleportation effects do not qualify as movement because that is not only not the intent, it is absolutely clear it is not the intent when you look at the context of 'movement' in the rules.

If you really want, you can read the various threads where people have already debated this for the last 6+ years. The general consensus is that no, teleportation effects are not the movement that the 5' step is referencing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
In the present case, using abundant step is both a move action and a movement (since it uses a movement action to, say, actually move), thus it precludes the use of a 5 ft step.

No, it doesn't, because you are not performing movement. Again, movement is pretty well defined here, teleporting doesn't qualify.

I suggest doing a word search in the CRB for the phrase "movement" and you will find that 99% of the references are referencing movement that has to do with modes of movement. Ie: normal (walking), climbing, swimming, burrowing, and flying.

Alternately, try to find the word "movement" in either the chapter on conjuration, the Abundant Step ability, or the spell Dimension Door. You won't.

Really folks, you need to read the rules in context.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it is legal. Abundant Step is not the type of movement that the 5' step is referencing. It is referencing the type of movement that is defined/explained on CRB p170 while Abundant Step is a teleportation effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Numarak,

There is nothing in the Spring Attack text that states you have to declare who you are attacking before you begin moving. This isn't a charge attack.

So, assuming a 30' move speed, we wind up with these possibilities:
1) Spend full-round action, move up to 30', attack a target, finish moving with remaining movement (not to exceed the remainder of the 30' movement available), full-round action is completed (still can use free/swift actions).
2) Spend full-round action, move up to 30', no target is available, full-round action is completed (still can use free/swift actions).

So yes, you can declare a full-round action spring attack, go around a wall and attack what is on the other side, or finding nothing, not.

Frankly, I really don't understand your problem. They are spending a full-round action to make a single move on the hopes there will be something to attack. Pretty bad choice if you ask me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The odds of the 4d6 method rolling 3x 18's is not the same as the odds of winning the lottery.

The odds of winning the powerball lottery is 1:292,201,338 or 0.000000342%. powerball link
The odds of rolling 3x 18's via 4d6 is 1:10,000 or 0.01%. 4d6 statistics link

Rolling just ONE 18 in a 6x 4d6 array has a 9.34% chance. That is a lot higher than most people give credit for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Before there is a huge argument as to what is what here you go.

I have played every edition of D&D/AD&D except for the following: OD&D, 4th edition, and 5th edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Gauss wrote:
*Thelith wrote:
So? If you suicide you're either out of the game for x amount of time, or re roll and you're a lower level or you inherit the NPC healer or whatever the case may be in your situation, and you could possibly have a character 1 level lower with insane stats. The rare gem of rolling stats outweighs the possible lumps of coal for me... and is far better than the guaranteed turquoise of point buy.

Again, your reaction is not the common one. Most people are not interested in playing a useless character in a group of decent to super-powered characters.

Even the idea of playing an 'average' character adjacent to super-powered characters is anathema to most people. Point buy solves this problem.

Point buy doesn't solve the problem, it moves the super-powered to SAD classes, particularly caster based ones and average to useless to any class that requires more than 2 different stats to function well.

And I have disputed that several times and shown it, to which other people have shown counter-examples.

PB isn't perfect, but it is a far cry better than rolling up garbage stats while your fellow gamers have god-like stats.

At least with PB, assuming we go with the disparity that people say exists between MAD and SAD, the disparity is very small.

Again, personally, I think such disparity is pretty minor and the smaller number of weaknesses in a MAD character outweighs the SAD character's higher ability in one area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
*Thelith wrote:
So? If you suicide you're either out of the game for x amount of time, or re roll and you're a lower level or you inherit the NPC healer or whatever the case may be in your situation, and you could possibly have a character 1 level lower with insane stats. The rare gem of rolling stats outweighs the possible lumps of coal for me... and is far better than the guaranteed turquoise of point buy.

Again, your reaction is not the common one. Most people are not interested in playing a useless character in a group of decent to super-powered characters.

Even the idea of playing an 'average' character adjacent to super-powered characters is anathema to most people. Point buy solves this problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
*Thelith wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:

The thing why I prefer rolling the dice is that it brings me out of my comfort zone. With PB, I intuitively tend to optimize a bit which means that if I build two characters of the same class, they tend to share more similarities as I probably intended beforhand. If I roll, I have to make with what I get, so I use the dice more as an inspiration help than as anything else.

This is what I was saying earlier, using dice for stats inspires you to build a character that you may not otherwise build, and reinforces the roleplay feeling that this person wasn't born with exactly the right stats to become exactly this class... you're born with the body you have.. some people are born with 18 int, some have 18 str, some have 2 Cha... why should heroes be any different?

Because this is not the common reaction. Many players would rather suicide a character and roll up a new character than play a character they feel is gimped. This was such a prevalent issue that many GMs had rules to penalize players for dying and coming in with a new character.

Example: 1 level behind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
*Thelith wrote:
Until building a pfs character I have always used 3 columns of 4d6 drop lowest. I have always had at least one good column. I very much dislike point buying in general, I know it's necessary for pfs or online games, but part of making a PC, to me, is rolling stats. The first reason being that until I see what stats I have available to me I don't know what class or race or archetype etc. that I am going to play, which feels more real to me. You don't pick what you're going to grow up to be and then suddenly have the ability to do so, you grow up to be what you're able to be. I'd you end up with 3 Cha that's the hand you were dealt (or rolled). If you end up with 18 in 4 stats, huzzah! Rolling stats gives a much larger and truer to reality variety of heroes.

This is the exact reason to avoid rolled stats. So you have awesome stats, how do you think that makes your fellow players feel when they have garbage stats?

Use point buy, everyone is equal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

bitter lily the cone diagrams were in the 3.5 DMG on page 307. Neither the 15' nor the 30' cone diagrams have changed since 3.5.

Even the rules on how to count the distance haven't changed substantially.

3.5 PHB p175 wrote:
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection. You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
CRB p214 wrote:

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.

You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.

Origination point: intersection for both 3.5 and PF.

Distance: count intersection to intersection instead of square to square for both 3.5 and PF.
What square is affected?: If the spell reaches the far edge for both 3.5 and PF.

As for there being a difference in the line examples? They are not strictly comparable. The PF 3rd example is a truncated version of the 3.5 example on PHB p176.

In short, nothing has changed since 3.5. Not the way the spell area is calculated, and not the provided templates for 15' and 30' cones so if they are wrong (which is still debatable) in PF then they have been wrong since 3.X.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quantum Steve,

The 15' cone counts from the intersection and then counts along the sides of the squares (or diagonally through a square in some cases).

In this image I show how you can count from the intersection.
The 5/10/15 are counting each step of the line, the white "L" is to show that that far edge is legal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Byakko, there is no rule stating that the corners are the determining factor when deciding if the square is in the area or not.
The rule is that it is the far edge of the square, not the corners.

Second, probably to prevent strange directions, there is this text: "A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you".
While this is regularly debated many take this to be 'you cannot have it crossing back towards you (from the origination intersection) and should basically be in a line away from your square'.

A number of cone shapes that various people have tried to propose as legal don't work when looking at the 'shoots away from you' criteria.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Canthin and bitter lily, the problem you two are having is that you are counting squares using the standard method rather than the method as defined by the rules on CRB p214.

CRB p214 wrote:

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.

You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.

The bolded passages are what makes all of their spell area examples legal.

Even the 15' cone pointing 'north' is legal using those bolded passages. Link to image showing how it works

In the image, just one possible legal path, the yellow line starts at the intersection and then traces out 15' (split into two directions at the end to determine if far edges are covered).

Since the line reaches both of the far sides to the corner square it meets the second criteria, That being that the far edge(s) of the square are within the spells area.

For the same reason all of the lines are also legal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The player is correct, only the recipient of the spell gets a save. Creatures in the area of that spell (whether on another creature, an object, or a point in space) do not get a save.

Silence is a very effective spell for shutting down verbal spells but it takes a full round to cast it and the radius usually can be avoided by walking out of it and then casting your desired spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Garbage-Tier Waifu,

MAD 15pb: 14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8
MAD 20pb: 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8
MAD 25pb: 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8

We are talking about a +1 in one or two stats over 15 PB. This is not 2nd edition where you needed very high ability scores to qualify for certain MAD classes.

I think the problem here is that people are expecting that +4 or +5 is a minimum ability score modifier for a successful 1st level character when in fact the system is not based on that.

A Paladin with an array of 14(16 w/race)STR, 12DEX, 14CON, 10INT, 8WIS, and 14CHA is very functional.

Frankly, I doubt that there is a MAD character that wouldn't do just fine in any Pathfinder AP using that array.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point is...you don't need high PB to deal with the majority of the problems that are thrown at you. Adequate preparation will also suffice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Every single encounter has to be adjusted for.

Why?

Do you feel compelled to "adjust" for encounters they talk their way past, or sneak by, or teleport around?

Just punch up the important ones. The odd one-sided shellacking isn't going to break anything.

It isn't the "odd one-sided shellacking". When I first started running PF I allowed the players 25PB in a PF AP and nothing was a challenge for them. I had to adjust everything to bring it up to the challenge level it was supposed to be at. Could I have left it in easy mode? Sure, but then my group wouldn't have had a challenge.

So where I say "punch up the important encounters," you somehow read "leave them all as-is."

There's your problem right there.

Let 'em have a walkover if they just bump into a guard patrol or some goblins hiding in the sewers. Save your effort for the encounters that are actually crucial to the story you're trying to tell.

You know, the ones you should be giving extra attention anyway, regardless of party power level.

If you bump only the hard encounters but not the easy ones then the PCs will have too many resources when they hit the hard encounters. You might as well switch to 1 encounter days since that has a similar effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Why would you have to babysit them? TPKs is why.

Dominate Person, Blasphemy, Flesh to Stone, freaking Color Spray.

I run enemies with ruthless tactics and pragmatism without concern for the PCs. 15 pointbuy results in TPKs without handholding. Admittedly the APs are rife with bad tactics, playing them as written 15 point is definitely fine for SAD characters.

43 points is far morw than necessary, but I like that array for providing a strong base under character without 18's preracial while still allowing a few flaws.

Bolding mine.

I think this is the main point here. Many of us are probably talking past each other because some are talking AP while others are not.

APs are written for 15 pointbuy. If you use more, then yes, you will need to alter it.

With that said, I think most of the spells you listed are not as bad for a prepared group regardless of PB.
Dominate Person is ridiculously easy to avoid or negate. Protection from Evil blocks it and Suppress Charms and Compulsions should be on everyone's list of 'must have' scrolls.
Blasphemy is level 7, not something that is going to be common until the final module in an AP.
Flesh to Stone is a thing yes, but so is Stone Salve.
Color Spray is relevant early but decent tactics and proper equipment help (smoked goggles). Frankly, if a spellcaster is using Color Spray then they are really close to the enemy. Seems like a priority target to kill. Because of this I have never been fond of Color Spray, great spell, difficult execution to use effectively.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yondu wrote:

A Hero with 15 point-buy is for me uninterresting, really 15 points is 14 in three stats, a TWF cannot be made without dumping one or two stats, due to the high requirements of feats...

And on AP, you have NPC opponents with 30 PB (Caleb Voltario in Carrion Crown/WOW has 30 PB, Skreed Gorewillow in GiantSlayer BOBH has 28 PB ) and there are not bosses eveak peons you have to face are 15 PB (Cultits in the WOW have a 16 PB), 15 PB is considering the PC as peons, No they are heroes so they should have Heroes PB at least...

You are flat out incorrect.

Level 1 you can easily start with a Dex of 16 using 15point buy (14+2racial).

By level 6 your Dexterity would have been raised by +1 at level 4. This now qualifies you for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.

By level 11 your Dexterity is now naturally an 18 (14+2race+2level). A +2 Belt of Incredible Dexterity will qualify you for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Alternately, you can increase your Dexterity to 19 at level 12 and get the feat at level 13.

In short, 15point buy is completely workable for a TWF build.

Pathfinder APs are based on 15point buy as the standard.
Of course, if you like to power game your way through things then, yes, you will want a higher point buy. But frankly, that just makes life harder for your GM because now he has to ramp up the encounters to match your higher point buy power creep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
Teeeeeeeeechnically, if the giant you assume the form of has regeneration 10, you don't get it. But ANY GM that tries to enforce that is being a jerk, and should give you regen 5.

This is completely contrary to the rules.

CRB p211 wrote:
In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead.

IOW: If the form has Regen 10 and the spell limits you to Regen 5 you get Regen 5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5 had the same rule:

3.5 Player's Handbook p141 wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ravingdork, wraithstrike's quote is found on CRB p112 under Metamagic Feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aranna, there is no missing dimension. We have both dimensions for a cylinder.

Yes, you are in house rule territory because you are adding rules here.

Adjudication is about determining what rule is correct, house rules are about filling in missing pieces. In this case you are using both, not just adjudication.

You are adjudicating adding a house rule to fill in the missing pieces.

The problem is we do not know it is an empty bag. In fact, it very much behaves as if it were not an empty bag because it is quite heavy for an 'empty bag'.

My adjudication avoids adding house rules.
My adjudication is that the bag is presented as having the dimensions of a cylinder and thus I do not have to add a dimension to the bag. I can look at a non-magical example in Ultimate Equipment if I want to see the size and shape of a sack in Pathfinder, it is a cylinder. Thus I do not have to houserule a third dimension in.
My adjudication is that the bag is heavier by an order of magnitude than a nonmagical empty cloth sack and thus does not behave like an empty sack thus avoiding the houserule of compressing a magic item into a smaller space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pope_Lunchbox, excellent necro of an already necro'd thread. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The domain power is already clearly defined. Some other domains have powers that are written in basically the same format. You just have to break it down a bit to understand the parts.

Here is the breakdown:

CRB p48 wrote:
Weapon Master (Su): At 8th level, as a swift action, you gain the use of one combat feat for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive and you can change the feat chosen each time you use this ability. You must meet the prerequisites to use this feat.

"At 8th level, as a swift action, you gain the use of one combat feat for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level."

This sentence has four statements:
1) You get the ability at level 8
2) It is a swift action to activate the ability
3) You gain the use of one combat feat
4) You can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level.

"These rounds do not need to be consecutive and you can change the feat chosen each time you use this ability."
This sentence does two things to modify the first sentence:
1) You do not have to use the rounds per day consecutively.
This means you can use some rounds, stop the ability, then later on start it up again and you can do that until you run out of rounds per day.
2) You can use a different feat each time you activate the ability.

"You must meet the prerequisites to use this feat."
This sentence adds a requirement to which feat you can select.

Here is an example of how this all works:

I have a level 10 cleric with the war domain. This gives me 10 rounds per day of Weapon Master.
Battle 1:
Round 1 I activate Weapon Master using a swift action to give myself Lunge.
Rounds 2 and 3 I continue using it, I do not spend a swift action again because the ability is already activated and continues to operate.
Start of round 4 I shut it down.
I now have 7 rounds remaining.

Battle 2:
Round 1 I activate Weapon Master using a swift action to give myself Cleave (I have Power Attack as a normal feat).
Start of Round 2 I shut it down and then I spend a swift action to activate it again. This time I select Defensive Weapon Training.
Start of round 5 I shut it down.
I now have 3 rounds remaining.

Summary: A normal timed ability would be started and then would run until it is gone without further actions by the user.
By adding the non-consecutive statement it allows someone to start it, use some of the time (without further actions by the user), then stop it and thus save the remaining time for later.

Later it would require you to activate it again since it is no longer in use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically, you start it up (swift), select a feat, and then use that feat until you shut the ability down or you run out of rounds per day.

If you shut it down you can then start it up again with the same or different feat (up to the rounds per day limit).

The point is, you can use it for 1 round, or multiple rounds with one swift action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You shortened my statement. I said 'taken his word as meaning something'. I did not flat out state 'taken his word'. Please, keep my statements in context. :)

Simple, use the water rules because that is what Earth Glide says. The Earth Elemental gets Improved Cover.

As an alternate, house rule, you could use the incorporeal rules which would prevent full attacks (readied actions only) but reduce the cover bonus from +8 to +4.

Personally, I would use the incorporeal rules as they fit more closely.

But in either case, JJ also stated in another post that burrowing rules are really undersupported in Pathfinder. Because of this you really need to look at the RAI rather than the RAW.

Expect massive table variance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, lets look at the various elements here:

1) Is Burrow clearly defined? No
In 3.5 burrow was barely defined, in PF it is even less defined. The major change appears to be the removal of the 'cant charge or run' statement that 3.5 had.

2) Is Earth Glide clearly defined? Also no, but it clearly does indicate that, for at least some purposes it functions as water. Which purposes is the disagreement.

3) Can a creature with burrow attack another creature underground?
If the answer is no then we have a potentially ridiculous situation.
Situation: there is nothing in the rules that states a burrowing creature can create a tunnel thereby opening up space. Yet we know that burrowing creatures create tunnels through many many references in the various adventures etc.
So, if the answer is no then it directly contradicts the logic that burrowing creatures create tunnels thereby allowing themselves to meet other burrowing creatures that create tunnels.

Earth Glide is an extension of burrow but leaves behind no tunnel, so #3 clearly solves both.

4) Can a creature with burrow attack a creature on the surface? If the answer is no then how does the burrowing creature REACH the surface? You have Schrodinger's burrower.

Clearly, burrowing creatures can reach the surface, clearly they create holes to attack from.

Earth glide is, against, an extension of this but they ignore the lack of a hole.

Now, how that gets resolved is not in the rules, but you can look to the incorporeal rules to address it (which btw, wraithstrike suggested a couple years ago in another post on this topic).

In short, there is no RAW on this, you have to look at the RAI.

P.S. Cover is only cover if it is solid to the attack. If you are using something that passes through the material then there is no cover, but it is probably concealment.

1 to 50 of 673 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.