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 Society Member. 3,344 posts (3,350 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

Up to 41 people that have clicked FAQ!

Keep em coming!

I hope they respond with "previously answered", or something like that, because I just want to watch the world burn.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe one of the reasons stated as to why they don't do this is due to the limitations of the page count and the six-month release schedule. Essentially, the information required just for the high level stat blocks takes up so much space that they wouldn't have enough room left over for the adventure, considering all of the other stuff that is included in one book (page count limitation). They would have to have a seventh installment in the series, which obviously messes with the 6-installment cycle (release schedule limitation).

But you did say "experimental", so perhaps they could try making the AP without including the stat blocks, and provide the stat blocks as a separate free "GM AP guide" download—if you're willing to alienate the small minority of gamers who don't have access to the Internet and/or a printer.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One page of errata for a book that's 300+ pages long? That's pretty darned good!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
the condition and the term "no actions" strongly suggest no movement
No walking long distances, but not 'no movement' as in paralysis. That you don't lose Dex to AC says that in your mentally confused state you can't make any planned or complicated actions, but you can still respond instinctively - or reflexively - to danger.

So, would you say that if you are making a Reflex save, that you are in a Zone of Danger? Or, more concisely, that you are in the DANGER ZONE!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You all do realize that this entire thread is irrelevant unless Tacticslion favorites all of his own posts, don't you?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Power of Imagination
Ironically, soon the people who watch the show will be in position to spoil it for the book readers.
And do you think the people who watch the show will do as good a job of keeping the secrets?
I hope so. And by that I mean I hope they bombard book-only forums and take utter glee in spoiling the books. Much as many of the book readers have done through the entire series run (admittedly, with a lot more vehemence in the first couple of seasons).

You know nothing...

Fortunately, I don't frequent those sites. Though, I'll probably have to avoid Facebook, YouTube, TV, and people.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:

This thread has got me to think and write. Here lies the result.

Linkified

Made the link a link.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Kudaku Sometimes the truth needs to be said.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In reality, the answer is "it depends on where the large creature is standing in relation to the corner and the target".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnF wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
You can't take 10 if the DC is greater than 10 and you don't have any ranks in it.

Why not?

You aren't going to succeed at the check, but nothing says that "Take 10" guarantees success!

There may be times when you actually want to do this. If the check has a DC of 12, and there's a penalty for missing the check by 5 or more, then taking 10 means you aren't going to succeed, but you guarantee you aren't going to fail catastrophically.

Because knowledge checks are trained, if you don't have any ranks in it, if the DC is greater than 10, you can't make the check in the first place.

A crafty GM would still allow a character to take 10 in order to not give away the DC, but it would be an auto fail.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkbridger wrote:

So even though Paizo has said they will be steering clear of kickstarter in the future, here is your substitute...

Buy out one (or more) physical copy of existing APs you want to see re-issued. You'll still have to buy the re-issue of course, and there's no guarantee it will even happen, but it's the next best thing (to direct feedback) to try and help along the chances of a particular re-issue happening.

In fact, the blog has a convenient list of potential purchase targets. ;)

Fortunately, I've already done my part and own both APs. Have you done your part? ;-)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The beauty of this discussion is a) that Paizo hedged their answer to this question a few years ago in such a way that there is a possibility that they would do another hardcover (however improbable that possibility may be), and b) if we fans raise up enough stink, Paizo will put out another AP hardcover.

So, really, the tone of this discussion needs to steer away from fantasy to reality.

Crimson Throne is the most logical choice (almost universally praised, 3.5, many volumes out of print).

Second Darkness is a good choice as well, though I think less as likely due to there being more available stock.

I don't know much about Legacy of Fire.

While there would be some good PFRPG AP candidates, they likely wouldn't even think about those until the 3.5 ones have been updated.

My 2 CP.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
barry lyndon wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Quick question about the Skull Ripper and the order of operation with grapples and the behead ability.

So:

Round 1) Hit with claw, do claw damage, make grapple check, success, do constrict damage.

Round 2) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, apply pinned condition, do constrict damage and claw damage.

Round 3) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, continue pin, do constrict and claw damage, do behead special ability.

Does this sound right?

Does the attacker get to do constrict damage straight away on a successful grapple?

From this link, it seems like the attacker's turn is over after the grapple until next round

Linkified

Yes, because the constrict special ability states that a creature does constrict damage on a successful grapple check.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quick question about the Skull Ripper and the order of operation with grapples and the behead ability.

So:

Round 1) Hit with claw, do claw damage, make grapple check, success, do constrict damage.

Round 2) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, apply pinned condition, do constrict damage and claw damage.

Round 3) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, continue pin, do constrict and claw damage, do behead special ability.

Does this sound right?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sweet! This works! Though, I do say that I think my chart looks cooler. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The bigger question is: is everyone having fun? If yes, then I'd say everything is perfect.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The real question is "was this ever a question before the APG, UC, ACG, etc came out"? Because, to me, people are using things from these sources to muddy perfectly clear waters.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know s%$! is about to get real when people start to do sentence diagrams.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:


and that is the portion about the bonus, sneak attack doesn't care if your qualify for the bonus or if the attack qualifies for the flank, just that the ROGUE, WHOM THE CLASS FEATURE IS TIED TO, is flanking or not and if the attack hit. Then add damage to it, it makes no reference to flanking other than the character "flanks" a target, not that the attack be melee or receive the bonus.

Well there is the catch, because when you are making an attack, flanking IS the bonus. You only get to add the sneak attack damage when you are making an attack, so all of this argument about "qualifying for flanking when not attacking" is a bit of a straw man argument—not "whether or not your target is flanked by two other allies", not "you're in a position to flank, but are not attacking", and certainly not "you're adjacent to an ally who is being flanked by enemies". No, it's "are YOU flanking your target when YOU attack".

So, when you are attacking, and you are flanking someone, you get a +2 to your attack. If something prevents you from getting a +2 to your attack (either an ally is not positioned properly, your ally is not threatening your target, and/or you are not making a melee attack), then YOU ARE NOT FLANKING YOUR TARGET. If you are a rogue and you are not flanking, you do not get to add your sneak attack damage.

EDIT: stupid iPad spacing issues.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When you make an attack, do you receive the benefits of flanking (of which, a rogue's sneak attack is certainly a benefit of flanking. As is the +2 to your attack)?

First, are you attacking with a melee weapon?
Second, do you have an ally that threatens your target (or, more precisely, does your target have another enemy which threatens it)?
Third, is your ally standing directly opposite of you from your target*?

If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you do not receive the benefits of flanking.

* There are feats and/or class abilities which might alter the square you or your ally can be in to satisfy this requirement.

Certainly, there may be exceptions, but I can garuntee with absolute certainty that every "scenario" that has been mentioned so far in this thread can be properly adjudicated by applying these three questions.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
In my RotRL game, I declared that for the summoner in my group the symbol was the same symbol that keeps popping up in the adventure, and everyone is like WTF.
For added fun, if you're tracking Sin points, having the summoner's rune transform over the course of the campaign would freak them out even more.

Darn, Darn, Darnity, Darn! This is a great idea, and I wish I had been paying closer attention to "sin" from the beginning.

Unfortunately, our group only gets together to play maybe twice a year, so it's a bit difficult to go back and remember stuff like that. :-(

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my RotRL game, I declared that for the summoner in my group the symbol was the same symbol that keeps popping up in the adventure, and everyone is like WTF.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its a trap. You design the trap to force you to stab yourself with a vicious dagger with the intent of it applying 3d6. Set the CR appropriately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
He has nowhere to look to. He knows absolutely nothing about where I am. He still takes full sneak attack damage from me, but this level damage suddenly goes away?
He has a freakin' arrow protruding from his chest that literally points directly at you. I'm pretty sure he has some idea where you are.

Nah. All you have to do is stay hidden for a little while longer until the eye icon is closed, then you're good.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been flip-flopping in my mind and have thought about a few scenarios. I've come to rest on the "you can't change the action" side. Though, in the example of being tripped before moving, I would allow the character to crawl 5 feet. In this case, I don't look at crawling as a separate move action from moving, rather its costing you your entire movement rate to crawl those 5 feet.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
I meant that the chart needs to go up to +7 size, to cover colossal creature with INA and strong jaw.

Don't need to, it's already there in the INA list.

EDIT: But it wouldn't be too difficult to put in a +7 column.

EDIT2: Ask, and ye shall receive!

EDIT3: You mentioned in an earlier post an example about a Terrasque with the young template getting enlarged. Using the chart, you know that the young template means that it is one size smaller than the base size, so go down the -1 column until you get to 1d8, and then you know that it should be 1d10 when enlarged.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
You can use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
If you're using it in a manner for which it is not designed.
Like, as an improvised weapon?

This is the only viable way a gauntlet can be used as an improvised weapon. Merely saying that you're using it in an improvised manner while you're wearing it doesn't cut it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Quotable words.

You heard it from the talking dinosaur, folks. If it ain't nailed down, sell it!

And they say that a Pathfinder doesn't provide that old-school feel.

Hmmm, now if we could only modify it to the "GP for XP" paradigm.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like real life:

"Must eat healthy, must eat healthy, must eat healthy...oooo, I'll order the double cheeseburger and the chocolate cake".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Yes, and they are okay. But the ability we are discussing does not fall into that category.

This is not one of those occasions.

Only because you don't want them to. They are exactly the same.

Or perhaps your applying a rule that shouldn't be applied in this instance.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:


If you mean that I don't enjoy and praise every FAQ then you'd be right. Most of the latest FAQ have not made me happy though I'm not sure what that has to do with a damage dice chart though.

For instance, point out a post on my complaining about the 10' reach FAQ. Or the 1/2 elf/orc FAQ. Or the SLA counting as spells/spellcasting FAQ. I only complain when I don't like/agree with a FAQ. You know, like everyone else.

It's not that you disagree, it's the manner in how you disagree and the tone that you use that is a problem.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't know, but even if the PDT puts out a chart, your posting history indicates that you'll still complain about it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

MATH!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What is so important about this ability that you need to argue for 300+ posts about it?

Dude, internet.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

If he gives you two, you got less than half.

If the requirement is that you must get half, then he has to give you three to meet that requirement.

Thanks for defeating your own argument.

Wrong, try again. We're inside Pathfinder here, and Pathfinder tells us exactly how to get half of 5. It's integer math.

How many lightbulbs do you hand me?

3. Because that's the only way you'd be able to get half of 5 light bulbs. Again.

And the analogous question is "give me fewer than half light bulbs" in which case I would hand you 2. Again.

In this case, we don't need to do interger math because we don't need a concrete result to use in further calculations. We just need comparative numbers. Nothing says that we MUST use interger math in this instance.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh. If the people would check their tone before hitting the submit button, there wouldn't be an issue. Of all the threads that I read in which people whined about SKR's tone, they deserved everything they got.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Triphoppenskip wrote:
At what age did you start playing table top RPGs and what was the first system you played? Ever play Mordheim?

I started playing RPGs with the 1977 edition of D&D in 5th grade in 1982; I was 10 years old at the time.

I've never played Mordheim.

My parents had that, although they never played it. Theirs was a later printing that didn't have dice and came with "In Search of the Unknown". I can remember as a kid sitting on the floor for hours just examining the map for that module. When I got around to playing, I was probably around 12 and used that map in our first game.

So, when are you going to start working on that megadungeon AP?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Just a Mort wrote:


Lets assume our shadow has been hiding in the wall. It's up to gm fiat if you're considered denied dex. In which you just wasted a standard action doing nothing.

Perhaps I've misread something, but I'm not seeing what would deny a character's DEX bonus by having a shadow be in a wall. Incorporeal /= invisible.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:

kind of.. scanned over the previous thing but wanted to input.

Order of operations.
You cast a spell. You gain the spell effects "number of rays"(depending on the spell)
you wield the spell's ray, and take a non-action attack with it (typically as part of the spell)
I remember somewhere someone saying that melee touch attacks recieve "free action attacks" but I can't remember where it makes mention of it
EDIT: Found it in Magus's spell strike.

But that would mean that since it's written the same way the same is true of ranged touch attack spells no?

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **
I've always thought it was weird people said you couldn't...

Because the rules say that ranged touch attacks can't be held:

Combat: Cast a Spell wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

EDIT: Bolded the relevant part to make it easier to see.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's reasonable to adjudicate it in such a way so that if the free or swift action doesn't involve something specifically prohibited by the condition, then it would be allowed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's questions like these that turn members of the PDT into alcoholics. Though, I did hit the FAQ just so I can have the opportunity to say "FIRST"! That, and to be able to drink the tears of sorrow from those who are wrong.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
No, the phrasing implies that the usually is likely limited to command word. If it's not command word, it's continuous. In the rare event that another activation method is relevant, that method will be specified.

Um, yeah, pretty much this. Do we need to bring in the English teacher to do a sentence diagram?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's with all of this "you can't have your cake and eat it" crap?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
You do realize that that the ring of invisibility has always abided by the limitations of the spell invisibility ever since AD&D, don't you?

Yes. Thank you for quoting the description of the 1st ed ring to support my position.

The 1st ed Ring of Invisibility wrote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible, at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell...

It doesn't affect you with the spell in the way some items are really an SLA, it simply grants the state of invisibility, just like that described in the spell.

So the 1st ed spell didn't have a duration? Well the 2nd ed spell did: 24 hours. Yet the 2nd ed ring worked dxactly like the 1st: granted the invisible state as described in the spell.

Once again, 'duration' and 'effect' are different things. If a magic item gives you the same effect as a spell effect, this does not mean it has the duration of that spell.

Well, considering you're placing emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence, I can understand why you're thinking the way you do.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
"Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Good. In that case, use your discretion to make the ring work as always intended: when activated it lasts until you attack, de-activate it or remove the ring. That's a far better use of discretion than choosing to have it end after three minutes or speak out loud every three minutes.

You do realize that that the ring of invisibility has always abided by the limitations of the spell invisibility ever since AD&D, don't you?

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeon Masters Guide (1979; reprint 2012): Ring of Invisibility, page 130 wrote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible, at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell (q.v.), except that 10% of these rings also have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he or she breaks all silence features in order to do so.

The difference is that the 1e AD&D invisibility spell didn't have a timed duration:

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Players Handbook (1978; reprint 2012): Invisibility, Page 70 wrote:
The spell remains in effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, or the magic-user or the other recipient cancels it or until he, she, or it attacks any creature.

The spell lasted indefinitely until one of those conditions ended the spell. Therefore, the effect the ring provided lasted indefinately until one of those conditions ended the spell.

My 2nd edition AD&D books are packed away, but I have a hunch that things were very similar to 1st edition.

My 3rd edition books are also packed away, but according to the the 3rd edition SRD (not 3.5, 3rd edition)—located at www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html, the invisibility spell had a duration of 10 minutes/level. The language for the description of the ring states: "By activating this ring, the wearer can become invisible, as the spell".

The duration of the spell in 3.5 was changed to 1 minute/level.

So, the ring has always been adjudicated as per the spell. It's just that in the beginning, the spell didn't have a duration. The spell, and thus the ring, has had a time limited duration for 14 years now. That you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
De jure is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.

So the 'de jure' rule is that reach weapons don't reach the diagonals, but the 'de facto' is the 3.5 exception.

Quote:
In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where, for example, the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow (de facto) practices to replace (de jure) laws that have fallen out of favor, locally.
...and it's about time that the de facto 3.5 exception replaced the de jure lack of it.

I agree with you completely.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Barker wrote:
Do you like tacos?
I prefer burritos, as veggie burritos tend to have more oomph to them than veggie tacos do. Do you like tacos?

HEY! This isn't the ASK *BARKER* ALL YOUR QUESTIONS HERE! thread. Oh...wait...this isn't the ASK *BARKER* ALL YOUR QUESTIONS HERE! thread?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So I have but a few questions to pose to the party that claims you can use the feat to qualify for the feat to determine how they would run scenarios in comparison to the RAW presented in the book.

1. Say I was an 8th level Fighter who just took Greater Weapon Focus for his 8th level Bonus Feat. I fight a vampire and he level drains me 2 levels. What happens to the feat I just took for being 8th level?

Point of order: when you receive negative levels, you don't actually lose any levels. Nor do you lose any access to class features that are predicated upon that level. Feats that have a class level as a prerequisite are not lost and are still accessible because the prerequisite is still met.

1 to 50 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 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.