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

HangarFlying's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,689 posts (2,692 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
WRoy wrote:
Sorry, that wasn't the clearest... I was trying to point out two things at once and they got jumbled together. PRD states a character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way, which the fly spell says nothing about superceding. Secondly, a creature with Str 0 has an effective max load of 0, so it could not carry anything aloft with fly.

WAIT!

WRoy just won the thread.

I'm not kidding. I was just reading this and decided to look for those three key words: "in any way", just to see if (s)he was being... creative. Not important, but WRoy was quoting what written but didn't complete the quote.

I present... THE ANSWER:

"A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious."

And. Is. Unconscious.

Sorry, no purely mental actions allowed; you're unconscious.

It's an oversight in the conversion from 3.5e to Pathfinder. In 3.5e, the details for Strength 0 were: "A character with Strength 0 falls to the ground and is helpless." That didn't include unconscious, so the paralyzed condition made sense as written: "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can’t swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares."

So there we have it. Since Jason rewrote what happens when your Strength drops to 0, he negated a portion of the paralyzed condition, which moots the entire discussion. The text that permits purely mental actions should be stricken from the rules as it cannot possibly apply, with the possible exception of any rare creature that cannot be made unconscious.

Can you fly while...

One thing to keep in mind: paralyzed gives you an effective strength score of 0; it doesn't actually change your strength score to 0. Nor has your strength been drained or damaged to 0. So, no, you are not unconscious.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:

FWIW, I've been using this as my reference for "Paralysis": http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#_paralysis

Upon looking again, it looks like there are separate sections for "Paralysis" and "Paralyzed", and I grant that "paralyzed" doesn't contain language about becoming "immobilized." Does the "Paralysis" entry in the Glossary only reference the Universal Monster Ability? If so, that's somewhat confusing.

It doesn't change anything. The UMA "Paralysis" is effectually no different than the CRB "Paralyzed" in that it is in reference to the target creature unable to affect himself. It is not a literal "roots grow and bind the paralyzed character to a specific spot", it is a colloquial "the character is unable to move his own limbs and therefore cannot move himself from that spot". There is still no implication that another character may not pick up said paralyzed character and move him elsewhere.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Remind the rest of the group that it is a group effort. Maybe have the shadow encounter happen quite a bit earlier than written if they insist on proceeding without the cleric.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I know the Summoner Spell List is a major point of contention for the class. While some complain that it gives the summoner spells like haste one level before a wizard gets it, the bigger issue is that spells like baleful polymorph or teleport can be made into wands.

So, I redid the summoner spell list, placing the various spells at the appropriate spell level. I also moved restore eidolon to 4th Level, and created a greater restore eidolon spell and placed it in the 6th Level list (essentially, the rejuvinate spells are odd-levels and the restore spells are even-levels).

Anyone see any issues with the adjusted lists? Any spells that you can think of that could be added?

0-Level Spells:
acid splash, arcane mark, daze, detect magic, guidance, light, mage hand, mending, message, open/close, read magic, resistance

1st Level Spells:
alarm, ant haul*, corrosive touch**, endure elements, enlarge person, expeditious retreat, feather fall, grease, icicle dagger**, identify, jump, mage armor, magic fang, magic mouth, mount, protection from evil/good/chaos/law, ray of sickening**, reduce person, rejuvenate eidolon (lesser)*, shield, summon minor monster**, summon monster I, unfetter*, unseen servant, ventriloquism

2nd Level Spells:
alter self, barkskin, bear's endurance, blur, bull's strength, cat's grace, create pit*, cushioning bands**, daze monster, detect thoughts, eagle's splendor, evolution surge (lesser)*, fox's cunning, glide*, glitterdust, invisibility, levitate, misdirection, owl's wisdom, protection from arrows, resist energy, restore eidolon (lesser)**, spider climb, summon eidolon*, summon monster II, summon swarm, wind wall, web shelter**

3rd Level Spells:
agonize**, aqueous orb*, charm monster, control summoned creature**, devolution*, dispel magic, displacement, evolution surge*, fly, haste, heroism, mad monkeys**, magic circle against chaos/evil/good/law, magic fang (greater), marionette possession**, nondetection, phantom steed, protection from energy, rage, rain of frogs**, rejuvenate eidolon*, see invisibility, seek thoughts*, slow, spiked pit*, summon monster III, tongues, water breathing

4th Level Spells:
acid pit*, black tentacles, daze (mass)**, dimension door, dimensional anchor, dismissal, enlarge person (mass), evolution surge (greater)*, fire shield, hold monster, invisibility (greater), locate creature, minor creation, purified calling*, reduce person (mass), restore eidolon**, sending, stoneskin, summon monster IV, transmogrify*, vitriolic mist**, wall of fire, wall of ice

5th Level Spells:
baleful polymorph, conjure black pudding**, contact other plane, create demiplane (lesser)**, dispel magic (greater), heroism (greater), hungry pit*, ice crystal teleport**, insect plague, mage's faithful hound, magic jar, major creation, overland flight, planar adaptation*, planar binding (lesser), plane shift, rejuvenate eidolon (greater)*, summon monster V, teleport, true seeing, wall of stone

6th Level Spells:
banishment, bear's endurance (mass), bull's strength (mass), cat's grace (mass), charm monster (mass), create demiplane**, eagle aerie**, eagle's splendor (mass), fox's cunning (mass), owl's wisdom (mass), planar adaptation (mass)*, planar binding, repulsion, restore eidolon (greater), summon monster VI, wall of iron

Restore Eidolon, Greater:

School conjuration (healing); Level summoner 6
Casting Time 1 minute
Components V, S, M (diamond dust worth 5,000 gp)
Range touch
Target eidolon touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

This spell functions as greater restoration, except it only affects an eidolon.

EDIT: Spells marked with * are found in the APG. Spells marked with ** are found in UM.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:

That use of the Ride skill doesn't do what you think it does. Read it again.

"If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action".'
This use of the skill allows you to make an attack, if your mount has been commanded to attack. Failing the check means that you cannot attack in a round your mount makes an attack. How do you command your mount to attack? You use the Handle Animal skill, which is a move action.

There's been some argument that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill (despite the fact that there's nothing that says it does), because of this usage of the Ride skill:
"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Here's the thing. If you look at the consequences of failing the check, neither you, nor your mount can take any actions. This doesn't mean you get to skip giving your mount commands, it just means that you get the opportunity to give your mount commands. You still use the normal rules for giving a mount commands, which is making the appropriate Handle Animal checks.
Even if you ignore that and assume that this use of the Ride skill does more than it says it does, it still leaves the Dragoon, Roughrider, and Sohei out in the cold, because it is always a move action to use this use of the Ride skill. Giving your mount combat training (which is just a packet of Handle Animal commands) allows you to skip the roll but does not negate the move action requirement.

Everyone in this thread is blind to the obvious.

The only classes that could have both the mount and the character attack on a charge are druids, rangers, cavaliers or any other class that allows the handle animal check as a free action. This is how it has ALWAYS been. This FAQ didn't all of a sudden take something away from the Dragoon archetype or the Roughrider archetype, because they never had that ability in the first place.

The Dragoon and Roughrider can still ride a mount and charge; the rider is the only one making an attack, the mount CAN NOT make an attack...the mount NEVER COULD make an attack, even before the FAQ. The FAQ has broken nothing.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The only thing I hate about my current job is that I'm waiting for the Federal Government to get off it's ass and process my paperwork so I can do my job. It's incredibly disheartening to know that you can't do your job because someone else hasn't done theirs.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Off to watch some Walking Dead with the lady.

So that's what the kids are calling it these days...

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok sure, but do any of those apply to traps? If not, then no, there is no significant difference in this context.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think it is a fair adjudication to let traps attack against flat-footed AC.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sub_Zero wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:


The thing is, you're proving my point. To arrive at this conclusion you picked your favorite definition of the word and are going with it. What if your definition doesn't match someone else's? Are you going to argue over the "correct" definition? How do you come to a conclusion?

This is what I meant when I said that there should be an objective definition of it in the CRB. Now I think that this is what Elbedor is assuming when he reads the trip section (it's the way I read it as well), but I can see how you might see it as "the effect" and not the "definition". If this is the case, though were in a messy messy, situation.

Ah, since death is not clearly defined within the rules, my character shall continue to attack after aquiring the dead condition.

Move isn't defined either. I guess my character can't change positions.

Cast isn't clearly defined, I guess that leaves spells out.

Attack isn't actually clearly defined, either, just that in order to attack you must roll a d20. But what does attack mean? Are our characters manipulating a disembodied hand to roll a d20 towards their enemies?

Air isn't objectively defined, so I guess all of our characters asphyxiate and die, but that's ok because there is no objective definition of death.

Food and water aren't objectively defined either, so all that stuff that requires food or water is right out.

See, the writers don't provide objective, concrete definitions for these things because because the developers know we aren't stupid and expect us to bring some fundamental knowledge with us when we sit down to play the game.

So look up the word trip in the dictionary and use some common sense.

... not sure if you missed the point, or are being purposefully obtuse.

No, my point apparently went over your head.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
This issue popped up again when I was messing around with some character builds the other day. Anybody have anything new to add or know if a Developer has made any relevant comments in the last few months?

If it's a build for one of my campaigns, then I provide an emphatic "NO". If someone else's, then I'm certainly agreeable to it.

Andoran

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Any weapon used for which it was not designed is treated as an improvised weapon. It would be reasonable to treat the butt end of the spear much like a quarterstaff: 1d6 to damage, crit on a natural 20/x2, and a -4 non-proficiency penalty to attack.

Why is this 560-post thread even in existence? That is the real FAQ question.

Andoran

23 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

When using the Trip combat maneuver with the Greater Trip feat, does the Attack of Opportunity occur before the prone condition is applied to the target or after?

While correlated to this FAQ request, it is a wholly separate and unique question. It is derived from discussions from this thread, and this thread, as well as every other "Trip" thread that has occurred over the past month.

Andoran

25 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can you use the Trip combat maneuver against prone opponents in order to gain additional effects that require the use of the Trip combat maneuver (such as an AoO from Greater Trip, or a drag from a Meteor Hammer)?

Derived from the various other trip threads that have been posted, though I felt that none have asked the question in a clear and thorough manner. I believe that this question is the core of what this thread, and this thread are trying to ask.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

These are my initial gut reactions:

1) there is no limitation on being able to mix melee attacks with ranged attacks for normal iterative attacks.

2) for feats such as Manyshot or Rapid Shot, once you commit yourself, you are stuck with making the remaining attacks with that particular ranged weapon. So, as far as the OP is concerned, I would say no.

3) the intent of Rapid Shot is to be used with projectile weapons; thrown weapons make use of two-weapon fighting.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
That was a lot of words that somehow managed to not include an apology for acting abusively and rudely.

As I said previously, you need a break from the keyboard in order to gains fresh perspective. I've read the entire thread, and SKR isn't the one who needs to issue an applology.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
However, it reminded me of a short exchange I had with a Paizo staffer the other day. I feel that Mr. Reynolds's comments towards me were abusive and disrespectful. That thread was eventually locked, but for unrelated reasons.

Just because someone properly uses periods to end their sentences instead of exclamation points, smiley emoticons, or "lol" doesn't mean that they're being abusive or disrespectful.

Seriously, if you took SKR's response to be abusive or disrespectful, you need some time away from the keyboard in order to get a fresh perspective.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tirisfal wrote:

Also:

Steve Geddes wrote:
There's a trailer for episode one to download, for those interested.

Hmmm...I'm...the trailer doesn't impress me.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm going to need to get more bookshelves.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Beard wrote:
That is the official ruling, yes. You get the bulk of 3 HP when you first take the feat, assuming level 1. You will then not gain more HP until 4th level and up at 1 per level. Essentially you should never have more HP from toughness than you have hit dice unless you are level one or two. That's how it works.

I have a hard time understanding how one could come to a different conclusion.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Well, the attack action is well defined in the rules. You have to do one of the things defined in the attack action section to qualify using the attack action. To the best of my knowledge, "not attacking" isn't an attack action option.

It would be inferred as an insulting gesture in the direction of your enemy, spitting at him, a flourish of shadow-boxing readiness, or something similar.

==Aelryinth

Ehhhhhh...no. I suggest you actually look up "Standard Actions: Attack" or "Full-Round Actions: Full Attack" in the combat chapter of the CRB. Fortunately, Paizo has provided the information for free on the internet in case you don't have access to a hardcover or PDF copy.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

yes and no.

He was very explicit that it's when you do an attack action...you don't actually have to roll a die. Expend the action and actually roll no die, it still activates. It then continues on until you stop being in the mode. So you don't actually have to attack something to activate defensive fighting. You have to expend the action. Ditto Expertise.

For the full attack, same thing, you take the action...which probably means rolling dice, since I can't think of any other reason you'd do a full attack and give up the movement.

So actually attacking something isn't necessary. Expending the attack action is.

==Aelryinth

Well, the attack action is well defined in the rules. You have to do one of the things defined in the attack action section to qualify using the attack action. To the best of my knowledge, "not attacking" isn't an attack action option.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Correction: You can choose to expend it without completing, or complete it. It's not like you can choose to take ANOTHER action. You still began it.

it's the way it's always been played. (sighs) RAW can be sooooo annoying.

==Aelryinth

No, that's always been the way that you have played it. There are a whole bunch of people who have been playing with the correct interpretation.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Threadnecronomnomnomicon.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That was actually going to be what I was going to talk about in the second half of my post before I decided to delete it.

Essentially, in most cases, it's pretty obvious what the correct interpretation is. There are a number of cases in which the wording isn't necessarily clear, but taken in context, it becomes obvious what the intended interpretation is supposed to be. There are also a number of cases in which there are two or more legitimate interpretations, to which the devs provide clarification.

Then, there are those situations to which DrDeth alluded to that, while yes it could be interpreted that way, to arrive at that interpretation requires some strained and creative thinking. If you have to work that hard to arrive at that conclusion, it is most likely not the correct interpretation.

Finally, there are a number of situations to which the rules don't provide guidance either way, but you can make a pretty good educated guess based on how other rules are interpreted.

EDIT: punctuation and formatting.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's important to remember that RAW and RAI are nothing more than an interpretations of the rules. People will say in an argument "this is RAW" or "this is what RAW says". No, it is just an interpretation of the rules. It may be the correct interpretation of the rules, but it is still an interpretation. There are numerous examples where two people arguing different sides both claim RAW. Ultimately, both sides are presenting an interpretation of the rules which could be valid. The developers (Devs, PDT, etc) will eventually tell us which interpretation is the correct interpretation.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Did you see any rules requiring you to make an attack roll to be defensive fighting (okay, I swing at the air)?

There are none. There's one line that says you have to commit to the attack action, i.e. not spellcast. That's it. What you do with your attack action is your own business. You can attack. You can not attack. You're in the attack action regardless of what you do.

==Aelryinth

The rule says "[y]ou can choose to fight defensively when attacking" (emphasis mine). If you are "attacking", that means you are making an attack roll. If you do not make an attack roll, you are not attacking anything. If you are not attacking something, you do not satisfy the "when attacking" requirement for fighting defensively.

"When attacking" is not passive, you must actively do it in order to trigger the fighting defensively option.

EDIT: Damn you, bird! You ninja'd me!

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There isn't a problem with the new Crane Wing. People just don't like it because it isn't the old Crane Wing.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Daemons exist so PCs can kill them.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Apparently the OP didn't read the thread which showcased extreme immaturity on the part of the players.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I can think of one thread, the Overland Round thread, that had this stupid notion of a thread being locked if it's inactive after a year, would not have been brought to my attention.

Just because *you're* annoyed that an old thread is revived doesn't mean there should be barriers put into place to prevent those who aren't annoyed from participating. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is why every thread necromancer should have the spell raise thread scribed in their spellbook.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The real question is, is the list a comprehensive list, or is it merely examples?

Are there any undead NPCs published that use CHA to qualify for CON feats?

If there is a lack of published examples, is that proof that it's not allowed, or merely that none have been created yet?

EDIT: FWIW, there are no feats in the CRB that have CON as a pre-req; they don't appear until the APG. How many times have the devs said something to the effect of "at the time the CRB was written, 'xxx' didn't exist yet, and so the CRB doesn't mention 'xxx'".

I'm not necessarily saying that's how it is in this case, but you definitely have to keep that point in mind when proclaiming RAW!

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To further simplify what Archaeik said: the anchoring ability merely prevents an opponent from moving from the space they are currently in.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Christopher Lee as Karzoug? Really? No. Sorry. Hugo Weaving all the way.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I can see the dilemma. If a character is using two speed weapons, that character only gets one extra attack, not one extra attack for each weapon. On the other hand, the defending ability does say that it stacks with all others, meaning it always stacks, no matter what. I think this is a case of "Specific trumps General" and the defending ability from multiple weapons are able to stack.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Play 1e D&D.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Pffft. Careful is for people who care.

Care Bears who stare?

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Who ever said the fight had to be to the death? LG could certainly fight LG, especially if they have different, uncompromisable goals. The fight need not be to the death, subdual would be sufficient.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord_Malkov wrote:

Again, categorically wrong.

The Key phrase, again, is here: "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one."

So, it really doesn't matter if the minotaur 'chooses' not to take its greataxe attack. There are several mechanics here and they are very different.

1. If the creature is question makes an attack with a manufactured weapon, its natural attacks are all secondary (-5 to hit, 1/2 str)

2. If the creature does not make an attack with a manufactured weapon, then its natural attacks revert to their initial categorization of primary or secondary.

3. If the creature has only one type of natural attack, then that attack is considered primary, otherwise refer to the chart.

4. If the creature has only one possible attack... just the one (and there are many examples of this) singular sole attack, then it gets 1-1/2 times strength.

So, a minotaur can attack with its greataxe, and make a secondary gore attack.
Or it can attack with just the Gore as a primary attack.
That does not mean that the minotaur doesn't have multiple attacks available to it.... it does.

And as for the Multiattack druid issue... yes, you do lose the 1-1/2 strength damage when you get multiattack. Evidence is found in the beastiary when a Medium Elemental (1 slam, full BAB, 1-1/2 str) is compared to a large elemental (2 slams, Primary attacks, 1x Str).

The rule for getting 1-1/2 str is very very restrictive. It needs to be your ONLY attack... so if you have the capacity to make another attack, even if that is an unarmed strike... you do not get 1-1/2 strength.

Mr. Fancy Pant's (The Shamrock) response to your post pretty much sums up what I would have to say. Suffice it to say that the "key" phrase that you're quoting is solely in reference to natural attacks. The reason why the phrase you're quoting doesn't again say "natural" attacks is because to do so would be redundant. It is already understood that the sentence is in reference to natural attacks, and to re-reference it would be unnecessary.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This thread isn't a fun thread.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If every single encounter of every single gaming session played out like this, the player might be justified. I doubt this is the case. Sounds like the player needs things put into perspective.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

BBT, to what feats are you referring to. In a technical sense, a longbow is not a two-handed weapon, it is a ranged weapon. I think more detail is required to sufficiently answer your question.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Seraphimpunk wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:
For replacing his spellbook, the PRD says he uses the procedure for learning a new spell. But it says he can just copy it from a borrowed spellbook. It doesn't mention knowing the spell or not.
It absolutely does mention knowing the spell or not - not directly, of course, but by referencing that you can prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook (which requires knowing the spell) and write it down, or by having the spell prepared (which requires knowing the spell also).

and that's where the contradiction lies.

the rules for reconstructing a spellbook say it "uses the procedure for learning a new spell", not preparing a spell from a borrowed book. But it then says that he can "prepare it from a borrowed book" and copy it into the new book. He can't prepare it from a borrowed book, without first knowing the spell and having it in his spellbook. thats the paradox.

its referencing learning a new spell, from a borrowed book. So when your spellbook is gone, the wizard doesn't know any spells anymore, and has to re-learn everything. according to the PRD passages.

Quaternion wrote:
I don't think that is correct. You learn a spell from having written it in a spellbook. You can't actually forget spells, can you?
it seems you can forget spells by having your book destroyed. if you have to rebuild your spellbook, you use the process for learning a new spell.

No. There is no contradiction.

The deference between preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook and learning a spell is a subtle difference that is dependant upon context (and whether or not you get the +2 from a specialized school).

If you are preparing from a borrowed spellbook (I.e. You lost your spellbook, you picked one up off the dead NPC, and you need to prepare from that one to get through the rest of the dungeon), the only spells you can cast from the captured spellbook are those spells that you had previously recorded into your now-lost-spellbook.

If you are rebuilding your lost spellbook (plus adding in the new spells from the captured spellbook), prepare the spells that you know and then copy those into the new spellbook. For the new spells, follow the guidelines under "Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook: Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll".

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

WTF, Mikazi! You have to finish the last installment!

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

EDIT: Actually, I don't really know how you're getting your numbers. A character who starts at level 1 and goes all the way to level 20 should have about 880,000 GP in gear (+/- some undetermined amount...it's a ball-park figure).

The WBL table isn't telling you how much gold they should be getting each level, it's telling you how much gold they should be at AT that level. Again, it's a ball-park number, not a hard number.

So, someone who started at 1st level and goes to 20th level should have about the same value in gear as someone who just rolls up a 20th level character...in theory.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also, having someone swear at me doesn't endear me to his cause.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I see a whole bunch of half-truths being written in this thread.

First, the recent FAQ on Temporary vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases has absolutely nothing to do with Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain. They are different headings. The FAQ affects Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain as much as it affects Aflictions, Damage Reduction, or Invisibility.

Just because ability damage can be healed naturally "at a rate of 1 per day" does not mean that you interpret that to be a "temporary" ability bonus from a different glossary entry.

Second, Ability Score Damage is a cumulative penalty to the modifier of any die roll that is associated with that Ability Score. It does not reduce the associated Ability Score in any way. You still have access to feats that require a certain Ability Score. You're carrying capacity is not reduced. You don't lose spell slots or memorized spells. It only affects die rolls.

For those that saw Hero Labs reduce the Ability Score with damage, you're doing it wrong: click on the "Adjust" tab, select "Add New Adjustment" under the "Other Adjustments" heading, select "Ability Score Damage", select the appropriate ability score from the drop-down menu, use the arrows to set the appropriate amount of damage, and make sure the selection box is checked.

Third, when calculating Ability Score Damage, start from "0" and work your way up, don't subtract away from your Ability Score. This is likely where all of the confusion about Ability Score Damage is coming from. For every "2" points of damage, it is a -1 to the associated die roll. In the case of Constitution, every "2" points of damage also imparts -1 hp/level.

So, as far as the OP is concerned, a 10th Level Wizard that takes 1 point of Constitution damage does not lose any hp. He will when he takes another point of Constitution damage (10 hp).

Yes, PF made a change from 3.5 and it can be easily overlooked, but it's actually quite simple in the way it works. Just remember: start at "0" and work up. For every two points of damage, it's a -1 to the associated die roll. That's it. There is nothing more to worry about.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You should be able to use the PDFs. I'm able to pull the maps and save them as jpgs/pngs with no problem. They will be coming out with some stuff soon once their own VTT is finally out.

Spoiler:
Fantasy Grounds, FTW!

1 to 50 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 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.