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

James Risner's page

RPG Superstar 2014 Marathon Voter. Paizo Superscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 4,167 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 9 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Oscar Mild wrote:
Well, most agree that Weird Words is unbalanced, at least as most have been interpreting it.

Fun times! I play a PVP competition every year at GenCon and this year I played a Sound Striker Bard using the "all on one" interpretation as set out by the GM of the competition. I won.

I never took a single point of damage and never failed a save (AC 40 Touch AC 34, saves Fort +28, Ref +38, Will +33) due to Cha to AC/CMD/all saves (Nerid's Grace/Bestow Grace.)

From what I could tell of the other 11 entrances, the only one that out did me in damage is a Named Bullet Gunslinger and that was only by a small margin.

10x 1d8+18 attacks is devastation. Strips 10 mirror images quickly and outright kills pretty much every person who entered whether or not they made their save. For reference, I missed only one attack when attacking. Touch AC is hard to optimize and I had +18 to hit.

If there was any doubt the ability needs changed, then I can demonstrate to you how there should be. ;-)

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
"Mark Seifter, Mark Seifter, Mark Seifter!"

+1

Yes please help us stop the insanity ;-(

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Backbreaker Mail. It should be a piece of cake but you keep avoiding answering it, almost like it isn't clear cut like you want it to be.

I'll give it a shot.

Mechanically it transmutations into a generic maw to constrict. The form of the maw is covered up with more elaborate illusion effects.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Also, I don't think you understanding what "adding" words means. I added no words to reach my conclusion. Literally 0. Which is important.

You don't know what it means.

You want a certain interpretation, you add words (default words) to the meaning to get your desired outcome.

When called out on it you say it means whatever you like and you can't show proof but point at ambiguous text and claim proof provided.

When given an FAQ illustrating how you do this you claim it supports your interpretation.

Nice job.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:
You don't need to add "from any list" to get that interpretation

You absolutely do, and there is a FAQ that agrees with me.

This is where you are adding words based on your interpretation of RAW.

Just the same as you adding words to the Cracked Orange Ioun Stone, you are adding words to the Sleeves of Many Garments such as "and you gain the mechanical benefits of the illusion taken".

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:
My position doesn't try to add words to the interpretation. Hence, RAW.

You are adding words. Just like the position on the Cracked Orange Ioun Stone that allows any spell from any spell list.

Cracked Orange: wrote:
Wearer adds one cantrip or orison (determined when the stone is created) to his list of spells known or spells prepared. Price: 1,000 gp.

To get any spell from any list you must add "from any spell list" to this ability. Why? Because those words don't exist and without them you are limited to your class spell list. This is backed up by the recent FAQ on adding spells to your spell list. This has been the way all of Pathfinder and 3.5 handled extra spells (look at the feat Extra Spell in 3.5 one of the "Complete" books for another example of an ability that didn't say "from any spell list" and was interpreted to be from any spell list until a FAQ came along to clarify.)

You also wouldn't assert your logic on Enlarge Person. It says "Target one humanoid creature" so by this logic it is RAW that it works on anything that has the general shape of biped with two arms standing upright.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:
I am willing to presume that they are arguing in good faith, despite my growing suspicions to the contrary.

With your "entitled to be wrong" comments, I no longer think you are debating in good faith.

Pretty much everyone in here is willing to accept "there are two or more interpretations, expect table variance until the FAQ is answered."

You seem the be the only one who is saying "I'm right, you all are wrong".

Osirion

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:
There really isn't two interpretations.

You don't get the option to tell other people what they believe, understand or interpret.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber

Another way to look at this:

If this allows you to gain mechanical benefit by transforming into Cold Weather or Swarmsuits then why can't you gain mechanical benefits like immunity to mind-affecting by transforming into a plant with Plant Shape. You actually take the form of the plant. Why don't you also get the immunities.

The same reason this item doesn't grant you the "immunities" (aka protection from swarms) of the swarmsuit.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:
I've actually listed rules that explain why my interpretation is correct.

The problem is that we don't agree those rules say what you say they do. We differ on the RAW of those rules.

You can't accept that there might be two interpretations, so you assert that your way is the one true RAW and when shown that you are doing so you belittle those that can't read the "plain facts" as you put it.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Just because it is an archetype doesn't necessarily mean it isn't also a bloodline, and thus legal for selection by Eldritch Heritage.

Has there been any official statement regarding your interpretation?

Yes there have been comments by devs on this point.

The Crossblooded and Wildblooded FAQ may also touch on this point.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Ya, sometimes the RAW is unclear. Sometimes it is ambiguous. Sometimes. This is not one of those times.

According to you. But you don't get to dictate how others read words.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Quote:
replacing any animal companion or mount gained from another class

So you can't choose anything but what is listed by the Mammoth Rider class. At least that is my view.

There are three views a GM could take:

  • Mammoth Rider restriction remains because the Mammoth Rider replaces all other options and the feat only adds options to the base class providing the AC modified by Mammoth Rider.
  • You get a Medium/Large Griffon because the feat replaces the mount options (and restrictions) from Mammoth Rider.
  • You get a Huge Griffon because the feat adds Griffon to the Mammoth Rider's options list and Mammoth Rider makes it Huge.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
ajulieinajar wrote:

The "if, then" statement under benefits does add a prerequisite to the feat. My issue is that either the bloodline requirement should have been incorporated into the prerequisites, or the benefits should have been broader.

Furthermore, I don't understand how a Rakshasa or Shadow bloodline even meets the prereqs... the ARG clearly distinguishes Infernal and Abyssal bloodlines as the only possessors of Fiendish Sorcery.

You miss the case of a Tiefling that has Fiendish Sorcery and his bloodline is not Abyssal or Infernal. This feat allows him to gain the +2 CHA with other bloodlines. You can take the feat but if you are not "using" it you gain no benefit. For example: You can take Power Attack and never make an attack using it.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
graystone wrote:

They aren't though. They are under gnome equipment and NOT 'in clothing'. It's described as "clothes" that "consist of sturdy boots, a pair of stout linen pants or skirt, a cloth shirt, leather gloves, a hat and cloak, and numerous belts, straps, and accessories (such as scarves, a vest, bits of rope or twine, and bandoleers).

Comparing that with the swarmsuit that is "overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat" and I'm not seeing any difference.

The Sleeves are designed for clothing, all the clothing in the Core and UE follow a similar format. The gnome clothing follows this same format. The Swarmsuit does not.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
graystone wrote:
So Dilettante's Outfit's aren't clothes? They aren't on page 88 to 91 of UE...

They are in clothing in the ARG. Since they use the same format and language as the clothing in the Core.

Anzyr wrote:
If you don't like the RAW, then perhaps organized play is not for you.

The problem is we differ on what the RAW is. There is no one true RAW. You don't get to dictate the interpretation of rules that don't have ironclad rules. This is a case of non-iron clad rules. I'm very happy saying you are welcome to use your interpretation of RAW and I won't object. I'm objecting to the notion that you can say the other interpretation isn't RAW and is invalid.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Malthirian wrote:
However, I was wondering about basic abilities that seem normal for the form such as echolocation for a bat. If they don't get it then she would be blind in a cave. What are your thoughts?

You retain normal vision at all times. You only lose Low Light and Darkvision if the form doesn't have them.

The spells provide Blindsense or Blindsight (depending on spell) if the form you take has them.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Redneckdevil wrote:

Id rule the swarm set is a set a of gear and not a set of clothing due to where its located at.

u parse words then like the poster above stated with "key words" u get into crazy scenarios of rules being misterpreted with enlarge spell and humanoids.

If it isn't on page 88 to 91 of UE and resembles a garment, I wouldn't allow the sleeves to change the appearance.

Diego Rossi wrote:
I think it is only a illusory effect, so all the other questions are moot but the item description, the spell used in crafting it and the magic school of its aura clash and there is a basis for both opinions.

I also firmly believe it is an illusion.

Obviously there are two sides to this. Some believe anything that mentions clothing even if not in the clothing section works and some believe it isn't an illusion.

There isn't anything we can use to prove who is right, there is enough ambiguity in the rules text to go either way. If we do choose some of the liberal interpretations then non-humanoid creatures that have the shape of humanoid should be able to Enlarge Person. I don't believe anyone in here thinks that is true.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
You might want to report this as a possible bug to Hero Lab. There seems to be nothing in the actual rules to support that implementation.

I played a fighter for over a year from 1st to 12th without it ever occurring to me that I could split the choice each level.

So who ever is right (locked in or change each level), there are people who interpret it each way.

Having this answered would help a lot of situation. Specifically, the HeroLab folks don't change their rules interpretations without a FAQ or errata. If they did they would be changing things and changing them back every day. Since there are so many things subject to interpretation in the game that are unanswered in the rules.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Zhayne wrote:
It says 'as a swift action', so I would say no, it is not an attack action.

+1

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber

Spell Combat uses your offhand to cast the spell.

If you Two Hand a weapon you have already used your offhand.

Osirion

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber

Why do some people point of deliberate restrictions and ask why? Whatever the reason for the restriction, it appears to be an important part of design.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Someone erroneously using Hero Lab as a rules source again?

And James Risner says it never happens.

Turns out this particular rule has a fair number of people on either side of the debate.

I don't know which way it should be ruled, but we don't have direct guidance (to my knowledge) whether or not you can skip ahead to the third in the chain by skipping the first and/or second.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:

The problem comes from a Swarm Suit not being an article of "clothing". It's something you wear over clothing, and it is in a different section of Ultimate Equipment. If it were clothing, it would be listed in the "clothing" section.

But it really isn't all that game-breaking to allow it.

+1

It isn't clothing like the Monk outfit, Explorer outfit, etc.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber

Ultimately this is an "ask your GM" question.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber

Double = add 0.5 more.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
As opposed to the 'attack action' which (in 3rd ed) would be

3.5 had exactly the same language.

The 3.5 Player's Handbook on page 139 said "Standard Actions" ... "Attack - Making an attack is a standard action"

Nothing has changed in the language, the understanding, or use of the attack action since 3.5 to now.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Sage Advice wrote:

Can a warlock use Rapid Shot to fire two eldritch blasts simultaneously?

No. Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an attack action (unlike using a weapon). If something requires a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you can’t use the full attack action to gain extra uses of that ability, even with the Rapid Shot feat.

This definitively shows that 'attack action' is not limited to a standard action: "...requires a standard action

That does no such thing. It shows that attack action isn't a full attack action.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
There is no such think as Sohei Weapon Training, only Weapon Training.

Sohei Weapon Training has Sohei restrictions.

So you couldn't be more wrong wrong wrong.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
the author wants the Sohei to be able to flurry with any weapon in which he has Weapon Training, and even those who don't think that a Sohei can do this until he has 6 Sohei levels must surely realise that he can do it when he does have 6 Sohei levels!

He can't do it until 6th level Sohei and at 6th he can only do it with weapons he has Sohei Weapon Training.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
GM Arkwright wrote:
Is there any actual ruling on whether a spell placed in a Ring of Spell Knowledge is permanent, or whether it can be swapped out for a new one?

My view: Permanent, since there are no rules for changing.

Since there are no rules either way, it is acceptable for some to view it as changeable. So ultimately, ask your GM.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The clause only requires Weapon Training, not 'Sohei Weapon Training', nor any number of Sohei levels

But you only get the clause at 6th level which you refuse to understand.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Black_Lantern wrote:
I'm wondering how I should handle a character going around grave digging for strong skeleton corpses.

Same way any reasonable GM does. When you detect they are doing that, say "You don't find one today, tomorrow or ever. Please stop trying."

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

then you apply the two-weapon fighting penalties only when a weapon is ever wielded as an off-hand with your character.

then just say vestigial arms DO NOT give you an additional off-hand or primary hand, but are still considered a free-hand.

this is how I am ruling it.

I can't say I followed you nor know your conclusion.

But if your conclusion is that you can two hand a weapon and attack with unarmed strike with a humanoid with two base hands, then your conclusion didn't follow the set out logic.

You have a primary hand and a off hand. Pick how you want to use them. If you have non-claw natural weapons then you can also take those attacks. But you can't use claws extra nor can you grow an arm and take another attack (unarmed strike, armor spikes, or whatever.)

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

... armor or a shield

If you can show me anywhere in there it actually says "shield bonus",

Doesn't need to do so. Quit trying to be so pedantic in reading the rules, that is where half the silly RAW interpretations arise.

It works on armor and shields, so you get armor bonuses and shield bonuses depending on whether it is on an armor or a shield.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
Could you two-weapon fight with a two-hander by having your "off-hand" be an unarmed strike?

You can't TWF with a 2 hander and an offhand because that is three hands.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Jiggy wrote:
be absolutely sure that they understood your question and that you understood their answer and this isn't all just a matter of miscommunication.

You wouldn't believe how often this can be an issue. I'd do this via Facebook or email and not "just before a game starts" so they have plenty of time to reply with thought.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Byrhtnoth wrote:
James, Do you know where I can find this post?

No but it was a 3 second search:

JJ Saying you good as a monk wildshaped

Found via going to JJ's post and putting in Wild Monk

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
I don't think Wild actually works for a shield.

It works for shield because it opens with working with shields.

This is just like all the magical effects language says spell but we know clearly it refers to magical effects like Sp/Su/etc that interact with spells. Most things come from spells the same as most armor comes from armor bonus. We know it works with them because the section title is spells and magical effects.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
redviiper wrote:
Nothing said it but real world dynamics... a man with a broken glass bottle will not have the same reach as say a man with a ladder.

Guess what? This game doesn't care about real world physics or dynamics. It has elves and fireball.

So unless a rule says "you gain reach with an improvised weapon" then there is absolutely no improvised reach weapon.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
But aren't the abilities altered by the fact that they're now a list of options instead of a hard ability?

Q monk is an exception to the normal archetype rules. It is the only archetype that if taken and you make no choices, it is a no-op. It won't do anything to your Monk if you don't choose to swap out something for options it provides.

So with that knowledge, the FAQ about Q monk, you know that until you swap something out you have not altered anything. Having not altered anything, you do not fall prey to the "replace or alter" rule.

Edit: Crap I didn't see this whole thing was necroed.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
no

+1

I struggle to understand why the question was asked. OP, why? Was there something that said you should get reach?

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Byrhtnoth wrote:
It was my understanding that I would have both my Wild Armor/Shield bonuses, as well as the Monk AC armor bonus while wildshaped, since I would not count as wearing armor while polymorphed for the effects of the Monk AC. Is this true?

Yes true. There is a JJ post explaining this is true and is true because the Wild armor special costs +3 and the cost is because of things like this.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
SiliconDon wrote:

And as I posted the last comment, my VC ruled that it works the way the other GM thought.

Well, s%&+. Can we please mark my post as an FAQ? This is basically going to cripple a character that I have already sunk 4 levels worth of XP into.

Classes are written with single class in mind. Your GM is misreading the BAB rule in FoM. You add your BAB from other classes.

If you can't convince your GM this is true, you need to rebuild your character. Because you are not likely to see a reply to this as a FAQ. It isn't a heavily debated issue (there are not many that think like your GM) and FAQ are not answered quickly.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Black_Lantern wrote:
level 5 cleric ... a high-CR, 18 HD creature under his controls such as the Ice Linnorm?

Why did you give him a corpse?

If he killed the CR 18 in his party, then let him. If you dropped a corpse on him, it is the GM's fault.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
redviiper wrote:
Ok thanks... wasn't sure since one added options.

I don't really understand, but you are not alone. There are a lot of people who don't immediately think that adding options is replacing or altering.

Removing, adding, replacing, and pretty much anything else that mentions the class feature will block two archetypes from working together.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Okay, so the reason for my question is I am thinking about making a Witch with the Fate patron and taking Harrower Prestige class, but I don't want to lose out on the higher level patron spells. SO when do they actually get added to the list? Is it only when they are added to spells known, or does a level 1 Fate witch have Wish on her spell list, even if she's not high enough level to cast it?

Prestige classes don't add Bloodline or Patron spells to your list.

So if you don't take Witch levels you don't get Patron spells.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Sniggevert wrote:

First question, no it would not provoke, as they are considered actual light weapons for game mechanics.

Second, you are correct it would default to the same actions as a normal weapon. Free to drop or move to sheathe/put away/draw.

+1

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Pupsocket wrote:
But by a strict RAW reading, I am right and you are wrong, and let me walk you through it.

That mentality is a problem. It is also something that only happens in a vacuum of online space. It leads to people coming to a game with an expectation of awkward interpretations that as you say "no GM will allow" and when the GM doesn't allow it they feel the GM is being a jerk.

Paizo view (as has been explained multiple times) is that if you are reading the text to get some "too good to be true" meaning then you are reading it wrong.

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Krodjin wrote:
Calth wrote:
Right, I was just saying that a Sohei 6/Fighter 5 has the equivalent of weapon training 2.
I think that's right. But you may find GM's who won't let you flurry with any weapon group that isn't called out specifically in the Sohei description of weapon training...

+1

Osirion

Paizo Superscriber
Pupsocket wrote:

Selling off proficiency bonus feats was a well-known 3.5 hack.

proficiencies you sell of with archetypes come back as bonus feats

We play vastly different games by very different readings of the rules.

I don't agree you could do that in 3.5, in PF, and I also don't agree you can sell them off and they come back.

I get that you think these are facts based on the text, I just have a different interpretation of the text that doesn't come to the same conclusions as you.

Chengar Qordath wrote:
messy attempts to address the issue without actually changing the written text

Mostly it comes down to "you are reading that text wrong, let me help you out it means this ..."

1 to 50 of 4,167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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