|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
New FAQ wrote:
"Also"? In addition to what? In addition to initiating/advancing the sorcerer abilities? Meaning that a Bloodrager5/DragonDiscipleX is advancing his bloodrager abilities while also gaining the (delayed) abilities of the sorcerer bloodline?
If you have those two levels of ninja and use a swift action to vanish, there could be an argument about whether you can do that in the middle of your Spring Attack...
Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Actions in Combat, Swift Actions wrote:
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Actions in Combat, Action Types, Free Action wrote:
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
You can take free actions while taking other actions, and you can take swift actions any time you can take free actions. Ergo, you can take your swift action while taking another action.
Therefore, by definition, you can use Vanishing Trick (swift action) while using Spring Attack (full-round action). There is no argument that it works differently than what it plainly says (at least, no argument that's appropriate for the Rules Questions forum, if we have any respect for how Paizo organizes their messageboards).
Even so, as you mention, the disappearance would have to be either before the Steal (which is pointless, because you're already Stealthed and it'll break when you Steal anyway) or after the Steal (in which case they see you in between Stealing and disappearing, if only for a moment).
The newish player, Theresa, is not actually complaining about it.
If you came to my home to play some game you'd never tried before with a group of total strangers, and my old friend of 20 years was kind of annoying you but everybody else took the behavior as normal, would YOU speak up right away?
A lot of people would feel like they were the troublemaker if they said something in a group like that, and so instead they'll either just stop showing up, or suffer in silence for a while in hopes it goes away and THEN just stop showing up.
Remember, every time Josh does something and you don't intervene, you are announcing to everyone (including both Josh and Theresa) that the behavior is normal and acceptable. Speaking out to say that you're bothered by behavior that the group you're in is labeling as normal and acceptable is not something most people will do.
Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Actions in Combat, Full-Round Actions, Full Attack wrote:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Two 3rd-level evil clerics, each with Selective Channel, spamming negative channels. That is a CR 4 encounter. Against APL 1, it should be "epic", but it's more like "everyone's dead in round 1". Against APL 2, it should be "hard", but it's still very deadly.
A single wight is CR 3, which should be "hard" for 1st-level PCs, but any attack it lands will auto-kill a PC. (Remember, the listed Fort save on energy drain is to keep the negative level from becoming permanent the next day, not to keep you from getting it in the first place.)
A Cleric3 and a Ninja3 is a CR 4 encounter. The ninja goes invisible as a swift action, then gets into position. Then, the cleric casts hold person at DC 17 (with Spell Focus and Greater). They coordinate their actions via Delay/Ready so that the ninja acts before the affected PC gets another save, and uses CdG. Dead PC. Then, the ninja goes invisible again as a swift, and takes a 5ft step. Repeat this process twice.
Two 4th-level alchemists: a CR 5 encounter. They both use DEX-mutagen and drink up some levitate and blur. They stand in the air above the PCs, dropping bombs down on them (penalty to hit from levitate, but they're touch attacks and still splash on a miss). Direct hit damage is 2d6+3, and the PCs can't get into melee and face 20% concealment for their ranged options.
Unless I misunderstood, if you move past someone, as long as you start and end with cover or conealment, you get a stealth check to not get notcied. That being said, in this case there would be no penalty for distance to notice it coming.
Using the Stealth skill can help, but be aware that Combat Maneuver checks are explicitly a type of attack roll, and making an attack roll auto-breaks your Stealth.
EDIT: Though if memory serves, a mere two levels of ninja would let him go invisible as a swift action afterwards...
I'm sure that happens too but, well, my examples were not hypothetical. :/
But anyway, still a useful site for other purposes than referencing rules. :)
Daring Dodo wrote:
Yeah, d20pfsrd.com is a third-party site that's good at aggregating resources, but has a tendency to be a little loose with the rules: I've seen them rewrite abilities to favor a given interpretation of how they work, chop up a sentence into half a dozen pieces and reassemble the pieces in a different order to produce two different sentences so that they could label pieces of the text as "flavor text" even though they were originally printed all mixed-in with the rest of it, and I've even seen them write entire paragraphs of "rules" out of their own heads and then present it as being part of the CRB.
Use d20pfsrd.com to find cool stuff and see what book it's in. Don't use d20pfsrd.com to look up rules.
Alternatively, what about this? You could alter the concept to say that your character desperately WANTS to be a Red Mantis Assassin, and has all the aptitude and skill for it, but suffers from a handicap: one of her arms/hands bears a permanent injury or birth defect, such that she can't get any combat-grade mobility out of it. Now, she's desperately trying to prove her worth in spite of her disadvantage, by becoming the best sawtooth-duelist in town.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Yes, but if it's possible to do these things without magic, using magic is just showing off / wasting spells per day / skipping adventure content.
Well, that's often a pretty big "if", which is the problem that I tried to demonstrate in my post. Obstacles other than a locked door, willing-but-hesitant NPC or a ledge within throwing distance of a grappling hook tend to be (nearly, or sometimes literally) impossible to engage nonmagically. Other times it's doable nonmagically, but it's so much more dangerous or otherwise impractical that the caster would get dirty looks for NOT bypassing it with a scroll of obstacle removal.
Should I start listing all the real-actual-gameplay examples I've seen of obstacles that were unable or infeasible to engage nonmagically, where using magic was very far from "showing off" or "skipping adventure content"?
Personally, I've just houseruled the detect magic spell to be Touch range. I find that it puts a bit of the mystery and danger back into basic exploration and interaction with the world. It also has the side effect of making illusions and traps more difficult to deal with, which sort of multiplies the additional mystery and danger. This may not be for every group of players, but I like it a lot.
I like how 5E handled this and other similar "utility" spells: it's a 1st-level spell, but has the "ritual" tag, which lets a caster with the "Ritual Caster" class feature extend the casting time by 10 minutes in order to make it not cost a slot.
Spend a slot to find out now? Spend some time to save your resources? Decision! Depth! I like it! :D
Dave Justus wrote:
I would expect anyone who goes to the expense of a serious magical trap (permanent, self resetting etc.) would make sure to cover it with a thin sheet of lead.
More likely, magic aura; a sheet of lead could potentially interfere with the trap itself.
In fact, in my own lair, I'd probably scatter trapless magic aura effects all over the place, with false auras of evocation and necromancy and all sorts of fun stuff. Then the actual traps would be magic aura'd into auralessness or, just to screw with intruders, weird crap like divination or conjuration (healing).
But I'm evil like that. >:D
The text says that it can penetrate barriers, but what defines a barrier in the rules?
The same freaking sentence that says it penetrates barriers wrote:
The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.
The spell can detect magical auras in the next damn room.
Detect Magic wrote:
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each.
The only thing that's contingent on line of sight is ID'ing the school. But you've already determined the strength and location, even without line of sight.
You can literally walk up to the outside of a brick house and, after three rounds, know how many magical auras are in the living room, where they are, and how strong they each are.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Well, let's take a look (using actual play experience, as the OP requested):
• Go to place.
• Talk to some people.
• Go to other place.
• Kill a series of enemies.
• Collect loot.
What part of that involved "going out of my way to short-circuit the story with planar shenanigans"?
So, anyway, there's a reason I was careful to point out the happiness and camraderie surrounding my cleric: he was played as a team member, and I treated my tablemates as friends. Like I said (did you read the whole post?) people were HAPPY to have me at the table with that character. Yet, the disparity was still there.
My first Pathfinder character to get as high as 9th level was a fighter. And not even the basic 2HPA guy, but an intelligent fighter who could trip and disarm very well, and therefore had more options than is standard for a fighter. Once he got Greater Trip and Combat Reflexes, he could declare a full-attack, replace the first with a trip, then do a disarm on the AoO, and then spend his iterative whacking the prone guy. Then if he stands up or grabs his weapon, I whack him with another AoO. If he does both, then the first AoO whacks him and the second undoes whatever he did with the first action. (That is, if he grabs his weapon then stands up, I go whack/disarm. If he stands up then grabs his weapon, I go whack/trip.)
Unfortunately, more and more enemies either weren't affected by trip/disarm (such as monsters) or didn't care about being tripped/disarmed (casters don't have a weapon, don't care about the AC penalty because it doesn't affect mirror image/displacement, and don't care about the attack penalty because magic), so I was still usually relegated to session after session of "I full attack it; is it dead yet?" Meanwhile, I was surrounded by casters who could do entirely different tactics every fight if they wanted.
And that's just combat. Out of combat, I had all these extra skill ranks (at least, compared to the INT-dump stereotype) and couldn't accomplish a damn thing with them. If there was an obstacle, there was usually a (fairly high) DC to overcome it. If I didn't have the skill, or if I did but didn't roll high enough, then a caster just goes "I pull out my 25gp scroll of bypass obstacle" and that's that, typically auto-succeeding.
So my intelligent and talented fighter with a nice backstory and everything was irrelevant out of combat and boring in combat. It got so frustrating that I quit playing him at 9th and decided my next character would have magic.
Then there was my cleric. I didn't even focus on his spellcasting that much: he was a melee cleric. He typically (this was in PFS) had the highest AC at the table, the highest attack bonus at the table, enough damage per hit that you couldn't just ignore him, and could do things in combat besides full-attack. Oh, too dangerous to go toe-to-toe with (like a fiendish Titan Centipede, or an ooze that deals CON drain when you hit it)? I can literally just send you to hell. Oh, the guy's in the air? I can just walk up the air to hit you. Oh, you're trying to spam deeper darkness? I can completely negate it (Sun domain). Oh, somebody took a nasty poison/disease/affliction? I can just tell it to go away. Oh, there's harpies? Silence. Oh, someone got trapped behind a wall of stone? Good thing I have stone shape prepped. And that's before we even get to my scrolls. Seriously, I had such an easy time being as good a fighter as a fighter, that I had spell slots left over to carry answers to all kinds of nasty situations we might encounter.
Meanwhile, I could buff any of my or a teammate's social skills through the roof via a domain power, I could ask Iomedae what's coming up today and actually get an answer, I could bypass all those obstacles that made my fighter feel silly. I got to do all the fighting my fighter did without ever being sidelined like I was with the fighter. There was no challenge my cleric couldn't face. (And before you ask, no, I wasn't being a dick and deliberately trying to sideline other people's characters. I always made sure to give other people the chance to do stuff first, then stepped up if they couldn't do it. People liked, requested, and cheered for having this character at the table.)
I could list off more stories of real, actual gameplay, but what's the point? Everyone who says that a caster/martial disparity exists has played and/or GM'd Pathfinder. We're not talking about a group of people who read the CRB but haven't played, and declared that they know what's up better than the actual players. Those who acknowledge the disparity ARE actual players, whether others can accept it or not.
Just a Guess wrote:
...Who? Are we still talking in the context of the whole experience-as-credibility thing? Or did you jump tracks over onto the recent surge in caster/martial disparity discussion? Or am I just derping really hard?
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
Old gamers can bring a lot of experience to the table with stuff that is non-system specific, however. Knowledge of how to run a cohesive table, tell a story that will engage a group, dissolve tension, making NPCs people care about, etc. These things transcend systems, so in those instances and others like them, old gamers with experience from other systems absolutely can soapbox about how long they've been playing (although just for courtesy they probably shouldn't, but at least if they do it has some meaning).
Anecdotally, I've found that those types of situations where decades of experience is relevant tend to be the minority of cases where posters actually do "play the age card".
Ironically, the clearest examples of this tend to get deleted by the mods.
That's always the issue with showing examples of someone being a jerk on the boards: anything that's still there to link to is probably something that doesn't seem all that bad, which of course makes it look like the person must be overreacting.
That's why I usually try to point out when an example I cite in a post is real rather than hypothetical (I've done so in at least two posts in this thread, if I'm not mistaken).
For more examples, I've also had someone flat-out tell me "If you think X, you're obviously under 30" (ironically, I'm not), and I've seen someone respond to a complaint about the ruleset by saying "If you see that problem, but I've been playing since the beginning and I didn't have that problem, and [oldschoolnamedrops] that I played with didn't have that problem, then have you considered that what's actually wrong could be how YOU play?"
Not sure I could find links, though.
On the plus side, this argument is usually a gigantic flashing neon sign that the poster in question
Fixed that for you.
I kid, of course. ;)
Well, for some posters...
Seriously? You're not accusing anybody of lying, you're just saying that people's claims don't match reality? I'm pretty sure that qualifies as accusing people of lying.
If only you knew how much of my GMing style is heavily influenced by trying to NOT do what I've seen some of the elitists do...
Jacob Saltband wrote:
All by itself, no.
However, if it was within the context of a dialogue in which MMOs have been belittled as though they were a lesser game compared to the higher art form that is tabletop roleplaying (as often happens on these forums), then it becomes offensive because you've tagged the other person's playstyle with a term that you've previously established as being in some way inferior.
There might be other contexts that would reveal a negative mindset as well.
Its difficult to say "I don't like the way you play the game, I think it is silly and I have no interest in playing it that way," without coming across with a negative tone.
Well, that's because the part where the speaker says "the way you play the game is silly" is a negative statement. A listener would be quite reasonable to take offense at that.
Now, if you just removed that part about their way being silly, and the speaker just said "I don't like the way you play the game, and I have no interest in playing it that way," then it becomes a little more ambiguous. It could come across as a bit condescending, or not. That's the limitations of text.
But your original version, where the speaker literally name-calls the listener's playstyle? Yeah, that speaker's being a jerk. Nothing to do with misunderstanding text.
...and tried having a civil discussion that centred around facts and game rules rather than defaulting to the ever so human desire to always be right.
Unfortunately, trying to do this is often what triggers an elitist's rant, as they very often are against giving any significant weight to "facts and game rules".
Let me attempt an analogy:
Suppose you were at some kind of hobby store and found a product that said it contained multiple sheets of clear plastic (like the trasparencies for those old overhead projectors) and instructions for painting blotches of different colors on different sheets. Then you would stack the sheets on top of each other in a certain order to discover a picture that you had just painted all by yourself.
Neat! It sounds fun, so you buy it and try it out. You follow the instructions, paint the blotches, stack the sheets, and voila! You have a painting of a jockey riding his horse, jumping it over a hedge. Cool!
So you go and show your friend. You tell him what you bought, and he excitedly exclaims, "Oh yeah! They make those every year or so, they're super fun!"
So you say "Nice! Here's the one I made; I don't have a very steady hand, but I think you can still tell it's a horseman jumping a hedge."
Then your friend replies, "No no no, these things are jungle pictures. Always have been. Started with a tiger in 1985, sometimes the general pose or the exact animal changes, but it's always been a big cat in the jungle."
"Really?" you ask, confused. "I thought I followed the instructions pretty close..."
"Well, that's the problem," your friend says. "Quit being such a rules-lawyer. This is a TOY made to have FUN. Quit trying to 'win' by sticking rigidly to the written instructions. Just because you can do something within the rules, doesn't mean you should."
Bewildered, you stammer, "But it's a horse, the package even said it would be a horse, I—"
Your friend cuts you off: "Sometimes the package and the instructions are ambiguous, and you have to apply common sense. That's why the painting is left for a human to do, instead of having a computer just print the picture for you. Trust me, I've been painting these since they started in 1985, and they were always meant to be jungle animals. I know this probably goes against the MMO mindset, but try not to forget what the point of this is. It's time to grow out of this juvenile 'rules' phase you're in so that animal-painting can finally mature as a hobby."
A week later, you find out that your friend has been using you and this incident as an example of how petulant children can act so entitled these days.
Now, to be clear, not everyone who's been playing a long time is like this. There's some pretty cool folks among the veterans' ranks. Unfortunately, every terrible line in the above story is taken from real experiences, both in person and here on the forums.
I've seen this clash happen a great many times, but the vast majority of the time, the thing being labeled as "RAW rules interpretation that allows for broken chicanery" is just someone reading in good faith and doing what the game plainly tells them they can do (sometimes even backed up with the author and/or Design Team reaffirming that that's exactly what they meant), and the "wise old DM" can't tell the difference between "broken chicanery" and "has a result that doesn't feel like what I played 30 years ago".
For every "smite says all attack rolls so it buffs everyone in the world," there's half a dozen "My player's being cheesy by having a hands-free light source"/"Not wanting to take TWF penalties on iteratives made with different weapons is munchkin nonsense"/"When the rules say that ability damage doesn't actually reduce your score like drain does it really means that it DOES reduce your score and you're a language-twisting rules lawyer for thinking it means what it says"/"If you try to Take 10 at my table I'm going to watch you like a hawk to see what you're trying to get away with"/"The FAQ is wrong, it actually works like this".
(All of the above are real examples, BTW.)
I'm not sure I'd turn down any of them, aside from whatever unrelated logistical concerns might get in the way, plus the fact that Pathfinder really isn't my system of choice anymore. That said, I'm curious about good ol' Rise of the Runelords, as that one seems to be "The One" among the Paizo community, so I'd like to see what it's like if I had the chance. With a sufficiently good GM/group/schedule, I might even play it under Pathfinder rules.
On the contrary, it's noted in more than one place in the Core Rulebook that death means your soul leaves your body. Your soul is welcome to take actions, but might have difficulty having any meaningful impact on the campaign unless there's a lot of planar travel going on. Meanwhile, your soul-less body is an object unless it gets animated as an undead. Objects, unless they get animated, don't get to take actions.
Haven't looked too closely at most of the replies, but I've often wondered what it would be like to reflect some male/female differences mechanically. For instance, females have a higher pain tolerance, so maybe a bonus to saves against pain effects? Like, guy and gal both get impaled, the dude goes "BLAAARRGH!!!" while the chick goes "F*** YOU I MAKE BABIES" and pulls the weapon out and kills the enemy with it.
On the other hand, I could see some members of both sexes getting up in arms about the other sex's benefits, so maybe that's too risky of a move? I dunno. Intriguing question though.
He cannot cast 2nd level spells, can he still move the sphere? Does it drop?
Core Rulebook, Classes chapter, Wizard, Spells wrote:
To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level.
Is it still effective with the DCs of a 22?
Core Rulebook, Ability Score Damage, Penalty and Drain wrote:
In the above scenario, this ability damage doesn't interfere with his ability to cast with a wand.. would casting from a staff be impacted by his current ability score (10 INT) or would it use the minimum required to cast the spell like a wand?
Core Rulebook, Magic Items chapter, Staves wrote:
Staves use the wielder's ability score and relevant feats to set the DC for saves against their spells.