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

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 17,284 posts (18,821 including aliases). 17 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 17,284 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Arutema wrote:
Well, I already have a Str-based arcane duelist bard. I was thinking Dex for a change of pace.

Fair enough.

Quote:
Also, disable device keys off dex and I am planning on being the trap-handling guy.

On the other hand, Clever Explorer adds half your level do Disable Device, which makes the difference between (say) 14 and 18 DEX kinda small, you know? Side note: Don't forget to take a trait to make that a class skill! :)

Anyway, if you stick with the DEX plan, then yeah, Weapon Finesse is definitely your first feat. After that... well, what are your trait plans? If you take Fate's Favored, the luck bonus will be +2 from the get-go, which means I'd recommend Lingering Performance at 3rd and then DDance at 5th. Getting +2 to attack and damage (and saves and skills!) for 3 rounds at a time seems juicier (to me) than getting... what, +3 to damage (if you have 12 STR and 18 DEX)?

Also, remember that Weapon Finesse does not apply to scimitars on its own, so if the concept is about a scimitar, you don't get to play your concept until you have DDance.

Another option would be a 1-level dip in fighter. This gets you your weapon proficiency and a bonus feat. So you could (for instance) start with bard at level 1 as a human and get both Finesse (using something other than a scimitar) and Lingering Performance, then at 2nd level dip fighter to take DDance.

Hope that helps!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Detoxifier wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
"You can put the same investment into UMD that anyone else could" =/= "Rogues are great for self buffing".
UMD is not a class skill for every class, and for most classes CHA is the dump stat, so no, not everyone else can get the same return on investment.

You know that in Pathfinder anyone can put ranks in any skill, right? The class skill bonus is a static +3. I'm not sure a 3-point difference in UMD is enough to justify "rogues are great for self buffing".

As for CHA usually being a dump stat, the same is true for rogues. There's no built-in reason for the rogue class to invest in CHA; the only reason to do so is for CHA-based skills, which is also true for all the other CHA-dump classes.

You cite higher CHA as a reason that rogues are good at UMD, but what's the reason for a rogue to have a higher CHA in the first place? To invest in UMD. I really really really hope you can see the circularity there.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Jayson MF Kip wrote:
Maybe that's the dissonance- -I GM in a way that rewards players that play the way I like to play.

Bingo! Most (all?) GMs do this. Unfortunately, I sometimes get the impression that people like you who are AWARE of doing this (and therefore poised to take helpful action) are a tiny minority.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Is it central to your concept to be a DEX build? My wife's running a STR-based archaeologist in a non-PFS game (with the heroic NPC stat array!) and doing fine. If being DEX-based isn't set in stone, going STR could save you a couple of feats.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

rknop wrote:

Yeah, and I have a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around that personally.

I know this is not a universal opinion, but I sort of think that in a game as social as an RPG that the fun of one should be the fun of all and vice versa. If you're in it to "win" or if you have a form of fun that is not the same as (or, worse, at odds with) the players having fun, then you're playing the wrong game.

And yet, I've seen posts from so many GMs stating that they only have fun if they can make the players experience X in every scenario. Like you, I have trouble fathoming a GM whose manner of enjoying an allegedly social game is to enforce a specific experience regardless of whether anyone else at the table would enjoy it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

"You can put the same investment into UMD that anyone else could" =/= "Rogues are great for self buffing".

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ElterAgo wrote:
I have seen a lot of players wine and complain about how it is too hard, they can't accomplish anything, they're always on the verge of death and aren't having any fun.

And yet so many GMs actively seek to create this verge-of-death situation, and complain that they don't have fun if they can't make it happen.

EDIT: Or, what NN959 said.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

deusvult wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
It's amazing how many GMs seem to think that (A) the only time a combat ends in 1-2 rounds is at the hands of a flooglewhump, and that (B) the only player that will ever enjoy such a combat is a flooglewhump.
You said it earlier, I agree but didn't happen to quote it.

Said what earlier? I don't understand this sentence as a reply to the quote it follows.

deusvult wrote:
Doen't get the point wrote:


My satisfaction comes from seeing the players enjoy themselves. If that means they barely make it out alive but found it thrilling, great! If instead it means they roflstomp everything, then that's great too because it'll make the next near-death experience actually mean something.
That being said, just because fights end quickly doesn't mean it's a bad thing. And that's not what I said.

Then it's a good thing I wasn't claiming it was what you said.

deusvult wrote:
like oil and water...

Use eggs.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

GM Lamplighter wrote:
To me, that is the essence of PFS

I wonder if perhaps our community could benefit from a thread where people describe what is, to them, the essence of PFS. Probably risky, as lots of folks can't seem to say "I prefer X" instead of "X is right and not-X is wrong", but if we can manage to avoid that, I see some possible benefit.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Snapleaf.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

It's amazing how many GMs seem to think that (A) the only time a combat ends in 1-2 rounds is at the hands of a flooglewhump, and that (B) the only player that will ever enjoy such a combat is a flooglewhump.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Taldanrebel, are you posting under two different aliases just to make it look like there are two people on your side instead of just you?

Anyway, are you familiar with "specific trumps general"? You are correct that the general rule is that the only movement you can use during a full-attack is a 5ft step. But the specific rule of Spell Combat plus bladed dash provides an exception. Specific trumps general.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

My satisfaction comes from seeing the players enjoy themselves. If that means they barely make it out alive but found it thrilling, great! If instead it means they roflstomp everything, then that's great too because it'll make the next near-death experience actually mean something.

EDIT: By the way, who's starting the "Player Fulfillment" thread?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sorvin wrote:

spell combat was erratad and faqd be a full attack action.

srd says you can't take ANY MOVEMENT during a full attack except 5 ft step.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

The rules also say that you can't take a full-round action (like a full-attack) in the same round that you take a standard action (like casting a spell).

The whole point of special abilities like Spell Combat is to let you do something you normally couldn't (like cast a spell and full-attack in the same turn).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Thread title wrote:
Bladed dash cheese

Isn't that kind of a "fighty" way to ask a question?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ToshiroKurita wrote:

Jiggy, I was referring directly to the tack taken in the article. The stance implied is rigid, and bad tactics in itself. The Forge of Combat is a flawed concept, and regardless of how you feel about tactics discussion, starting from a bad footing (the article directly linked by the OP) gives you an uneven footing.

The concepts of the roles are inherently flawed, and gives you a bad place to work your characters strategy from. Honestly this article reminds me of some of the worst problems facing sucessfully teaching tactics in a real world situation as well as in Pathfinder.

First, the OP didn't link anything. He mentioned an article as being the background for the terms he used, but that's it. It seems to me that anything in said article beyond merely defining the terms (arm, hammer, and anvil) is outside the scope of this thread. This thread is (or at least, was originally) just about those three roles in PFS.

So, take whatever posts of mine that riled you up, and read them in that context. Perhaps they'll seem less offensive to you then. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ascalaphus wrote:
In the case of the Unarmed Fighter, all it needs is to say that you can only take the first part of a style chain without prerequisites.

That is already how it works. The Unarmed Fighter only lets you skip prereqs on style feats, and only the first feat in the path is a style feat.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Chris Mortika wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Well, I'm glad you're upfront about your rules. I would walk immediately.

As would be your right. Go find a table where the GM is more to your liking. Everybody'll be happier.

Quote:
Those are not how the rules are laid out in the Core book for wands as weapons and being drawn like weapons.

I'm up-to-date on the arguments on either side. It's a gray area. See "Quick Draw".

Quote:
Also, you never answered how you would address improvised weapons.
Sure about that? I see my response upthread.

...Chris, I think what you're ACTUALLY saying about wands is only that you don't allow the on-the-move draw, but earlier you said that you don't count them as weapon-like objects (presumably, AT ALL), and THAT is in explicit contradiction to the rules, as the CRB uses wands as an example of a weapon-like object that uses the "draw a weapon" action.

So if I'm following right, your WORDS were provably wrong, but what I think you MEANT is a more readily-debated topic. I think Tarantula believes your meaning matches your words, and is chafing against your words' contradiction of the text.

Hope that helps. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dhjika wrote:
Derek Weil wrote:

Wild speculation due to another post I saw awhile back.

Ban. Multi-classing.

It would be pretty crazy!

Just ban single level dips

I've never seen a 2nd level cross-blooded sorcerer

I've never seen a crossblooded dip without the orc bloodline. Ban that, solve that whole problem.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...Was the 11th-level rogue shredding the CR 5 bearded devils while the arcanist tried to take on the CR 16 horned devils and/or the CR 18 purrodaemon?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Chaco Rockhammer wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'm also curious what this boss was, and if they had minions, and what the party's level was.
This game is based on the four horsemen of the apocalypses. They fought a Purrodaemon backed with a combination of Bearded Devils and Horned Demons. Basically they were ambushed by and army of Bearded devils and after that, they faced the Purrodaemon with Horned Demons. They were all level 11 with the help of companions, all level 10, which were a Ranger, another Rogue, and Summoner.

You cannot draw any conclusions about inter-party balance issues from that encounter.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I'm also curious what this boss was, and if they had minions, and what the party's level was.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Undone wrote:
I know it has the most deaths of any PFS adventure for sure.
I'd like to see your data on this, because I'd actually hazard a guess that something like The Dalsine Affair has more.

Pffft, gamers don't need data in order to know something. Knowing is something that comes from passion and conviction; I know it!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Joseph Kellogg wrote:
I use clear plastic sleeves for my character sheet, with my chronicles stuck in between. Not only does it keep all of the relevant documentation together, but I can use a dry erase marker on the plastic sleeve to mark off HP and daily uses of abilities in a way that doesn't destroy the character sheet with erasing.

I used to do this, but after a couple years of playing a battle cleric and an eldritch knight and having to constantly adjust for buffs across multiple spaces, I ended up making an Excel spreadsheet on my tablet so I can enter in a buff (or penalty) and have it automatically recalculate all affected stats so all I have to do is read the final number. Super handy. :D

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Is the GM always that precise on the rules? I mean, strictly speaking, the sunder rules talk about "broken" and "destroyed", and say nothing of cutting it in a certain manner. But usually it seems like I hear GMs complaining about players reducing world interaction to explicitly-listed mechanics, not the other way around. Seeing it in this direction feels kind of bizarre.

As a result, it therefore sounds to me like the GM wanted you to listen to a story. Instead, you threatened to help write it. He found a technical escape clause to keep that from happening.

Did he use phrases like "trivializing encounters" or "you can't negate X with just a Y"? Those tend to be red flags.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sect wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you two mean by "feat tax". And the fact that there's no faction missions sadden me: that was one of the things I enjoyed about PFS.

Well, there's no "faction missions" in the sense that you're used to. Most scenarios have content that specifically ties in with one or more factions, which are mentioned on that scenario's product page. Further the goals of your faction in such a scenario, and there's usually some sort of special boon to get.

It's just not ten faction missions in every single scenario to get your 2nd PP.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ToshiroKurita wrote:

I am not anti tactics at all... I came in to roleplaying in Mechwarrior, as a branch in from the tabletop tactics game Battletech. I have and continue to play many tactically diverse games in addition to pathfinder, but I have 2 problems with the Forge of Combat article and similar efforts to distill tactics to a simple 3 pronged discussion.

1. When taken to extremes, it can and will replace roleplaying and damage a community.

If the damage happens when X is taken to extremes, the problem is with people taking things to extremes; the problem is not with X.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

N N 959 wrote:
I blame most of this on the scorn and ostracism people direct at anything that smells like "meta-gaming" e.g. talking OOC tactics. Another chunk of the blame results from the lack of an in-game rules for character vs character knowledge. Does my barbarian know you can cast Bull Strength and why he should Delay so you can cast it? Do I know your Swashbuckler or Gunslinger benefits from getting the npc kill and is it meta-game for me to Delay so that you can attack first?

One time, my party expected possible trouble in a building we had not yet entered. The druid turned into an earth elemental for the earth glide ability. The wizard made said druid invisible. Then my eldritch knight cast telepathy on the party. The druid then invisibly scouts the entire building while silently reporting everything to the party. She returns, and we put up some very specific buffs that dramatically affect the outcome of the encounter.

At a later date, I relayed this story to a table during post-game chatter about the effectiveness of preparation. The GM's response to the tale was to make a scoffing sound, roll his eyes, and say, "And people wonder why GMs get so fed up."

So yeah, I get your point about the anti-tactics culture that can crop up sometimes.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

So you both want new GMs to not have to be afraid of the rules. One of you wants to accomplish this by offering a helpful tool, while the other wants to accomplish the same thing by allowing a comfortable margin for error.

Maybe, since you both want the same thing, you could help each other refine your methods to be the best they can be, rather than try to convince each other to stop?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Braingamer wrote:
ZanThrax wrote:
Now I just want to know what counts as St Patrick's Day "food".
At my place it's Irish stew and bread pudding with whiskey sauce.

I had two brothers attend the University of Missouri at Rolla, and apparently there it's "all the alcohol you can get your hands on".

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

It boggles my mind that there are people who believe that the only way someone would be interested in commentary about combat strategy is if they ONLY care about combat. These sound like people who have already drawn battle lines in their minds between "those combat-focused optimizers over there" and "we rich-experience-players over here" and have long since lost any ability to see any talk of combat competence as anything other than the chants of the former category.

That kind of divisive, closed-minded, us-and-them mentality is more harmful to the community than any amount of combat optimization.

My experience with this is primarily in non-PFS PbP. There are is a non-trivial segment of PbP'ers who nearly want the entire game to be played without dice (actually, the like dice when it produces bad rolls). They feel that classes are meta-game and that any attempt at actually employing tactics is evidence of trying to "win" at an RPG.

I believe these people are far more prevalent in PbP than in F2F. While I don't enjoy that approach to the game, I can understand why such an approach exists. It's my perception that some people really embrace the immersion that is possible in PbP and they want to cultivate that. The game isn't a game, but truly a story that they are writing. Dice rolling, combat tactics, meta-data, are all things that undermine the immersion. You don't win at combat, combat is something that happens to you.

Now imagine that someone wrote some kind of guide to fitting your character concept into the campaign, maybe with some kind of three-pronged framework like "branch, goals, methods". Then imagine that I came into the discussion thread for said guide and said things like "This might fit better for a zero-combat scenario where it's just hours of roleplaying with no dice or mechanics, but as it stands it misses the point of what PFS is/can be" and that maybe we should make special scenarios for people who want that and the rest of us can keep away from it.

Would it make any sense at all to suggest that a guide to getting your roleplay on was only suited to people who wanted a diceless storytelling session (even though such people exist)? Of course not. Just like it makes no sense to suggest that a guide to coordinated combat is only suited to people who want all combat all the time (even though those people also exist).

Let's not let every mention of Aspect X of the game be an excuse to make war-speeches about the segment of people who overdo Aspect X.

EDIT: Okay, I guess that turned out to not really be a reply to you so much as a reframing of my earlier thoughts, inspired by having read your post. Oh well. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Gilfalas wrote:
Sometimes common sense trumps absolutism and strict adherence to questionable grammar.

Common sense can tell you it probably isn't supposed to be written that way.

Common sense cannot tell you it ISN'T written that way.

Pretty much this.

The grammar is not questionable. Reading "whenever you do X or Y" to mean "whenever you do X or Y" is not absolutism or strictness, it's literacy. It is what the sentence actually says.

Should it have said that? Probably not. But it does, and claiming it says something else is simply wrong.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Blog wrote:
Can you tell where he's from?

*looks at face*

Cloud City?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not what I'm talking about, GM Lamplighter. (Man, that's long and unwieldy; can I just call you Lampy or something?)

I think you and I can agree that a certain type of player/GM exists for whom the goal is to be as powerful in combat as possible. They miss (whether accidentally or as a preference/choice) things like skills, exploration, world immersion, and so forth. For the sake of ease of communication, let's give them a name; let's make that name "flooglewhump".

So we both know flooglewhumps exist. We both know that, unless they're very socially conscientious, flooglewhumps can be disruptive to the game.

But what I'm saying you may have lost sight of is that flooglewhumps aren't the only people who can benefit from a discussion of combat tactics, that people who want to make a character who specializes in combat are not automatically flooglewhumps, and so forth.

Despite the OP making the (IMO, erroneous) assertion that PFS is very combat-focused, the premise of this thread is nothing more than "Here's a framework for discussing combat roles; what are people's thoughts?"

That's a topic that has potential benefit for ANY player, yet your reaction seems to be "What? Discussion of combat? Meh, that's just something for those flooglewhumps over there." You don't even have to see someone do something abusive before you sound the flooglewhump alarm; all it takes is "let's discuss combat" and off you go.

What if instead of responding to the topic of combat with "Careful not to be a flooglewhump!", you just responded with good examples of how to build responsibly? The former just drives a wedge into the rift between player types and makes the division worse; the latter creates an attractive community that someone might adjust their playstyle in order to be a part of.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mark Seifter wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Hey Mark,

What's your favorite holiday food?
What's your favorite holiday tradition?
What's your favorite holiday? (From among those counted in "the holidays", so not like St. Patrick's day or whatever.)

Hmm...if St. Patrick's Day doesn't count, then which are the ones that do?

Let's say November through January.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Adept.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

*ponders this and other thread*

Wraithcannon, did you recently have a frustrating experience as a blaster caster?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

It boggles my mind that there are people who believe that the only way someone would be interested in commentary about combat strategy is if they ONLY care about combat. These sound like people who have already drawn battle lines in their minds between "those combat-focused optimizers over there" and "we rich-experience-players over here" and have long since lost any ability to see any talk of combat competence as anything other than the chants of the former category.

That kind of divisive, closed-minded, us-and-them mentality is more harmful to the community than any amount of combat optimization.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gilfalas wrote:

With that assumption in mind I believe the item was meant to allow you to daze something only when your using it's three times per day power. So you can daze something for only three rounds at best, not forever.

Forever would be silly and absolutely broken. I doubt that was the designers goal.

That's not an interpretation, as it's explicitly contradicted in the text:

Quote:
If a swashbuckler wearing the cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed or uses this cape's ability, the opponent is also dazed until the start of the swashbuckler's next turn.

It explicitly lists two things that can trigger the daze: one of them is using the listed deed, and the other is using the 3/day ability.

The item may be broken, and it's certainly within your rights to modify or ban it in your games, but pretending that the intent of "triggers when you do X or Y" was to actually mean "triggers only when you do Y" is dishonest.

I don't know why so many GMs seem to be so afraid of labeling something a "houserule" that they'll choose to instead pretend that the designers wrote the explicit opposite of what they meant. What is so wrong with acknowledging what the text actually says and then just choosing to change it?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ravingdork wrote:
I've found many PFS judges to be similarly hilarious.

Out of what kind of sample size?

Quote:
If I wasn't so lazy, I might actually consider becoming one just to set a higher standard.

That's actually exactly what started The Legend of Doug Miles. He's now a somewhat famous 5-star GM, and I hope I get the chance to play under him someday. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wraithcannon wrote:
but I do think that a blast of 3 to 6 seconds in length has the capacity to eat through an intervening barrier and continue on.

Why is the blast itself that long? What if part of the time spent is either the dragon taking a deep breath or the spellcaster doing the requisite finger-wiggling? Maybe the blast itself is gone in an instant.

Oh! That actually reminds me of something:

CRB, Environment chapter, Catching On Fire wrote:
Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.

That seems relevant.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wraithcannon wrote:

Soooo, what you're saying is.

Right now.

RAW.

A canvas tent completely shields you from an Elder Red Dragon's fire breath.

For the first shot.

Hmmm, how much does a circular shower curtain cost? I think I just found a new Arcane Eye / Unseen servant spell combo.

Bwahahahaha

You appear to be assuming that canvas would count as cover in the first place. Might just be concealment. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ssalarn wrote:
Except the FAQ says it should say "additional damage" not "bleed damage"

The FAQ does not say this.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So to be clear, question #1 is "When a damaging AoE destroys a constraining barrier, does the AoE extend beyond that point?"

Assuming that's indeed the question, let's do some digging.

Here's one thing I found:

CRB, Magic chapter, Line of Effect wrote:
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).

That seems to leave out "line" areas, but I also found this:

CRB, Magic chapter, Area wrote:
A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.

The part about lines seems clear that a barrier stops the expanse of the spell, meaning that lightning bolt's ability to keep going is a special exception, at least among line spells.

The first quote, from the definition of line of effect... Well, once you destroy an intervening barrier, do you re-check LoE to determine an adjustment of targets? Seems like maybe it comes down to a question of whether you check LoE once (when the spell goes off) or keep dynamically re-checking every time the scenery changes.

For that, I don't see anything stating one way or the other. However, with lightning bolt apparently being an exception to how line areas work, I'd be inclined to take that as precedent that the default for all types of areas is to determine line of effect (and the resulting area affected) once at the time of casting, and then resolve the effects once.

I'm like, 68% confident on that one.

As for question #2, it sounds like you're basically asking, "What happens when you're hiding behind cover that gets obliterated by the effect?"

Well, let's start with the cover rules:

Cover wrote:

Cover and Reflex Saves: Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus.

...
Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies.

And then of course the LoE rules cited above equate total cover with not having LoE, so you wouldn't be affected at all if you have total cover.

So that's our starting point: if you have cover, you get +2 Reflex; improved cover is +4 Reflex and improved evasion; total cover is effectively not being in the AoE.

Now, you're specifically asking about what happens when a spell like lightning bolt blows through your cover, right? Well, let's look:

Lightning Bolt wrote:
If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue beyond the barrier if the spell's range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Side note: Hey, look at that last line! Shoulda looked there earlier and saved myself some trouble for question #1. "Otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does." So lightning bolt is an exception and it knows it. I guess that settles question #1. But getting back to question #2, let's also check fireball:

Fireball wrote:
If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Okay, so basically the same verbiage as bolt.

So, it seems obvious that after breaking a barrier, the spell continues filling its full range. It seems equally obvious that this could change the binary "in area/not in area" issue with total cover.

In the absence of any rules specifically explaining this exact situation, we need to look at what we do know:

FB and LB explicitly recalculate their area after breaking a barrier. That means that you're not done resolving the spell's effects until you're done breaking barriers. Logically, this means that while you're still resolving the destruction of barriers, you haven't finished determining the final effects of the spell.

This in turn implies that the result of the creature's saving throw can't be fully resolved until all barrier-destruction has finished. This further implies that the results of barrier-destruction would have an impact on the resolution of effects on creatures. The third degree of implication is then that since resolving creature damage happens after barrier damage, creature damage would be resolved using the state of the terrain that's left after resolving barrier damage.

So it looks to me like someone whose cover was completely obliterated would gain no benefit (partial obliteration would recalculate the level of available cover).

But that's after several steps of inference, so I'd hardly call it ironclad. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think I'll go ahead and change up some of the terms, just to be safe.

Your mention of elves makes me think, though: are there legal considerations for using some of the "standard" races? That is, pretty much everybody imagines elves and dwarves as being vaguely Tolkien-esque: the former being agile, smart, elegant, refined, bow-wielding, and tree-affiliated; the latter being gruff, bearded, strong, coarse, tough, axe-wielding, and mountain/cave-affiliated. Heck, there's even a TV Tropes page about the two.

So if I include elves and dwarves in my game, and I write descriptions that are my own original words but still adhere to those general standard tropes... how do I do that "right"?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Hey Mark,

What's your favorite holiday food?
What's your favorite holiday tradition?
What's your favorite holiday? (From among those counted in "the holidays", so not like St. Patrick's day or whatever.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I've started two APs at level 1, and found that aspect of things to be a tad tedious. For my homebrew campaign, I had the PCs start at 2nd level, and it was pretty nice. I could also see maybe starting at 3rd.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every shot is a groin shot.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Have:
Lingering Resonance
Numerian Weapon Training
Oread race boon
Tiefling race boon

Want:
Race boons

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe it's just me, but when I gave the Investigator a read-through, my first thought was "every feat after 3rd is going to be Extra Investigator Talent".

1 to 50 of 17,284 << 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.