|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ability: "When another character attempts any check, you may display any number of blessings or weapons; for each card displayed, add 1 to the check. Return the displayed cards to your hand before you reset it."
I understand "before attempting a check" or "after attempting a check". With the above wording, we're wondering: can Oloch use his ability after a check is attempted? Is that still part of "when the character attempts it?"
We're starting S&S soon and a couple of us are playing heroes from S&S, a couple are playing heroes from the class decks. We figured we'd just play the heroes from the class decks without mixing any of the other cards in, since all that seemed like it would do is water things down (lots of extra copies of cards that already seemed to be in the base).
Is there a real reason to shuffle in some of the extra cards from a class deck being used? Right now it's just the Alchemist, Warpriest (both from S&S) and one of the Sorcerers (from the Class Deck). Does the Sorcerer need all his class deck cards shuffled in, or would the Spells and such that come with S&S already be enough?
(Note: We are not playing using any Society Guild rules or anything, just using the class deck characters as extra options atm)
Hmm. Fair enough. I think that's an unfortunate choice of wording, and senseless extra restricting. Feats already include a "requirements" clause after all, which often includes race. Why a feat would be okay for a non-orc in normal campaign games but restricted in PFS is beyond me.
Well, I maintain that the feat is displayed correctly on AoN. As far as I'm concerned, if designers wish a feat to be restricted to a certain race, they need to include that in the requirements. That's what it's there for. :)
Sure. Half-orcs and orcs *do* have access to all the below. That does not mean other races do not, however.
It's like saying "here is a park. ducks can access it." It doesn't say dogs aren't allowed to. It might be implied, but that's what the feat text is for.
In this case, the rule of thumb is to go with what the actual feat says instead of header/flavor/etc. text, as that can often be misconstrued. All the feats in that section list half-orc/orc as a requirement *except* for Surprise Follow Through and it's improved version. I would take that to mean that they were recommended for half-orc/orc races, but by no means are those races a requirement. There are a number of other feats throughout the book though that also have this trend, so it's not a singular error. Some sections will list feats that have the header race as a requirement, along with some that don't.
I would certainly rule this way in PFS as well.
PFS did pretty recently scythe a fair swath of materials out, so it might just be that AoN isn't aware of the change.
This. I check the PFS Legal page about once a month when I do updates, but unfortunately the page does not have the... greatest change log. Whenever I go there, it shows the latest changes in red, but this does not mean they are the latest ones I've seen. It may be that they changed things at -3 weeks, -1.5 weeks, and -2 days. I'll only see the -2 days ones. I don't have the time or desire to go back and re-evaluate every legal item whenever I do a check. :)
In these cases, I generally rely on the community to email me and let me know when something is in error. I may need to make a more prominent button on each page to email me specific errors...
Surprise Follow Through is not an orc-only feat, it's tagged correctly at AoN. You can see the feat on Paizo's PRD here as well. Note that, unlike a number of other feats that require you to be a half-orc or orc, this one does not.
While the header of "these feats are available to half-orcs and orcs" seems to imply restriction, the presence of the "half-orc or orc" requirement in some and not others makes it clear that while all of those feats *are* available to half-orcs and orcs, only some of them are restricted to such.
What do you mean as a dead link? The site looks up to me.
Diego or graystone, would one of you (with both of these books) mind shooting me an email? I didn't have a Module subscription until recently, and while I *should* have had both of those items in my DB, they must have been missed when my helper relayed those modules to me.
nethys at archivesofnethys dot com :)
My main picks:
2. Isometric view. Just a standard really.
3. Leave out Mass Effect style "choices", put in D:OS style choices. Mass Effect made it very clear which path would be "good" and which was "bad". D:OS (and a few other games) are a lot less clear about what personality you're ending up with.
4. Some kind of upgradeable/customizable "home base". Those are always fun.
5. The ability to customize more than just a single character. Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 were great, but I missed being able to customize out more than just my main. TOEE did this right, letting you customize your entire party right off the bat.
I'm with OP, TOEE (at least after the patches) was an amazing example of what a Pathfinder CRPG should go for. TOEE+D:OS would be the golden great of CRPGs.
I <3 99% of the ACG. Only thing I had a knee-jerk-ban reaction to (which, after much though, I did ban in my own games) was Divine Protection. Even if the Cleric only has a 14 CHA (average it seems for all the clerics in my games), that's still a +2 to every save for one feat. Effectively three feats in one right there. For Oracles, it's even crazier. Absolutely must have.
Glad PFS already banned it. I don't know a single Oracle player that wouldn't want their CHA as a boost to every save.
Don't forget any spontaneous caster spell that has a metamagic feat applied to it. Those become "full round actions". Not "1 round" casting times, but "full round actions".
As I illustrated above, there is a very note-worthy difference. The former happens on your turn without a chance for the enemy to interrupt, the other requires you to be undisturbed for a round until your turn comes around again.
If a spell's normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard (except for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat, which take 1 swift action to cast). Note that this isn't the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you are not required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn.
Joe M. wrote:
If there are any spells with a "full round" casting time that's not the "1 round" cast, I'm not aware of them.
Well, I'm the guy to find out. :)
As it turns out, there aren't a lot of "full-round action" spells, and lots of "1 round" spells. As far as I know, the difference was:
Full Round Action: Starts on your turn, ends on your turn. Take a full round action, it finishes before the next person in initiative goes.
So, it is a worthwhile difference to note.
1 Full-Round Action:
Aura of the Unremarkable
Crown of Glory
Dirge of the Victorious Knights
Blessing of the Mole
Blood Crow Strike
Call Lightning Storm
Cloak of Dreams
Conjure Black Pudding
Create Soul Gem
Curse of Magic Negation
Enlarge Person, Mass
Infernal Healing, Greater
Pesh Addiction, Lesser
Rain of Frogs
Reduce Person, Mass
Spell Absorption, Greater
Storm of Vengeance
Summon Cacodaemon, Greater
Summon Elder Worm
Summon Flight of Eagles
Summon Genie, Greater
Summon Genie, Lesser
Summon Greater Demon
Summon Infernal Host
Summon Lesser Demon
Summon Lesser Psychopomp
Summon Minor Ally
Summon Minor Monster
Summon Monster I
Summon Monster II
Summon Monster III
Summon Monster IV
Summon Monster V
Summon Monster VI
Summon Monster VII
Summon Monster VIII
Summon Monster IX
Summon Nature's Ally I
Summon Nature's Ally II
Summon Nature's Ally III
Summon Nature's Ally IV
Summon Nature's Ally V
Summon Nature's Ally VI
Summon Nature's Ally VII
Summon Nature's Ally VIII
Summon Nature's Ally IX
Zone of Silence
Is it? That's the only reason I commented. His response says it's "full-round" which *is* different from "1 round". It's nit-picky, I know. I'm sure he meant that it's 1 round, as the spell. Just wanted to clarify. :)
And yeah, I agree. Makes it a bit harder to use those summons in combat. Guess the key is to do it early before teleporting in? haha.
Joe M. wrote:
That actually just seems to complicate the issue. The summon monster spell is "1 round", not "full round action". I've actually wondered about this myself, being in the middle of Wrath of the Righteous. :)
As I use VTT's, I'm interested in this. Is it at all possible to provide, maybe with the PDFs, maybe as a separate purchase, the original higher resolution map files for any individual AP? You, presumably, already have them before compressing them into an AP, and those higher resolution files would be worth a lot to those of us on VTT. Then you wouldn't need to increase the space in a PDF. :)
I'd love that, personally.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I think most people using VTTs on MapTools/Roll20 generally go with 50-70 pixels per 5 inch square, which may not be too far from what you have available pre-pdf packaging. Even if it's smaller then that, anything higher resolution then what's in the AP would be fantastic.
I think the question is: what if? I thought this thread was interesting and read through a lot of the earlier bits. I carry some PDFs on a flash drive here and there too. It sounds like people were worried about being banned from products because one or more of their PDFs surfaced on a pirate/torrent/whatever site.
If someone lost their flash drive and some of those files re-surfaced, would they be banned? What if they had reported losing it before hand, would that be taken into consideration?
Genuinely curious here. The rest of the discussion is fascinating, but I'm more interested in real world application :D Let's assume that I password protected the flash drive too and it got broken into still (which isn't *that* hard). In the end, it's all my word that's what happened, so what is Paizo's response?
The difference I called out is that summons, being magically summoned, seem to have some knowledge of who your enemies are. Otherwise, they would attack your allies, right?
Animals, normal everyday animals like would be used with Handle Animal, don't have a necessary knowledge on who is your friend and who is your foe. If "Attack" also doesn't imply "Don't attack unless I point", then you risk your animal charging at any new person you meet.
Attack party members? Probably not if the AC has spent enough time with them. But Attack *needs* to also infer that they won't attack without your command on a specific target. Can you imagine the druid who can't enter towns or use diplomacy on anyone because his lion keeps charging?
"We were planning on attacking them-"
Just an example.
Again, *I'M NOT HARD SET ON THIS*. Not sure if you guys saw my above responses, but I ruled for my own game that the druid could point at a specific area that he could smell the enemy in, and the spider with tremorsense could attack.
Would I have let him do that with a creature that had no way to sense invisible creatures though? Probably not. :)
I always thought of summons a little differently. They had an innate understanding of your enemies, communication or not, and thus could charge in and fight effectively.
Handle Animal/trained pets, on the other hand, are trained to attack who you direct. Otherwise they'd attack whoever they wanted, like a wild animal. They don't have the "connection" that a summoned animal does.
Personally, I think the text is to indicate that a trained combat animal won't attack something unless you direct it to. That's how it's able to avoid attacking new people you meet, even if they may be threatening. It's trained to hold until you command it.
The pointing at a target thing, as I said earlier, can likely be looked past with certain circumstances (tremorsense, etc.), I only quoted it to explain how this issue first arose, not to get into an argument about "may" and "may not". :)
As before, thanks again for the help.
I'm not sure I agree with that line of reasoning. I interpreted it as you "may" point to a creature to attack, or you "may not" and it won't attack.
Otherwise, if it's just an option, then logic follows that your creature can choose to always attack everything willy-nilly, even without a command. Having it only attack on command and to targets you designate is the entire point of the trick, to prevent it from rampaging around a town.
Again, going by just RAW here. I do agree that the druid in question should be able to (and in fact was able to) designate an area where he knows an enemy is at, one that his spider can sense, and have it work. Just arguing semantics at this point, my main question was answered.
I agree with the intent of most of these responses. The initial confusion, for what it's worth, came from this:
As stated, for the attack trick to work, you need to be able to point at a target. I do agree that some creatures can "see" invisible creatures and a druid who can pinpoint a location should be able to direct it, but by pure RAW (not always the best), you need to be able to point at the creature.
Not saying I agree, just saying why the thread was initially started. :)
Actually, in this case the spider has 1 Int (that's why it has more than a single trick).
I told him that if he could figure out a general region that he was in, then he could direct the spider. Basically option 2 above. So he'll spend a move action to sniff the direction, his other move action to move close enough to pinpoint, then free action to sic spider on him.
The druid in question has a Vermin companion, a giant spider. He knows there is an invisible enemy in the area, though the druid can't see him. The spider has tremorsense 60 ft.
1. As the spider *can* pinpoint the invisible enemy, can the druid order the spider to attack him even without knowing himself where he's at?
My initial thought is no, Handle Animal says the druid needs to point to/specify the target. However...
2. If the druid in question has scent, and was able to pinpoint the target himself (moving close enough), then could he point at the empty square and order the spider to attack that, knowing that the spider could still tell there was an enemy there?
Leaning more towards yes on this one.
Any thoughts would be most helpful :)
I would say that any "building" should be treated as either producing capital or not, flat yes/no. I say building in quotes because I also think that you should be able to break down a building into different parts if you wish them to be treated separately.
Take a shop keeper that also rents out an alchemy lab upstairs. He would likely treat the first floor (his area) as producing capital and one building, and treat the second floor (rented area) as not producing capital and a separate building.
Point being that you should be able to part out rooms in a physical building into sub-buildings that either produce or don't produce capital if it makes sense to do so.
I also agree with Coriat. Some rooms may just contribute to the workers' well being. Not every room needs to be exclusive to producing capital, it could be an indirect production (by keeping the guys who ARE producing capital fed, for example).
Last night, Katina (girlfriend, in coop) shot an arrow at a zombie and the poison blood in its veins exploded onto me and gave me poison. I wasn't even mad.
An undead caster made a pool of acid, so we smashed a water barrel onto it and washed it off.
She summoned a giant spider next to an exploding enemy, who detonated and took out half the troops.
I WANT GOLARION PLUS THIS SO BAD.
As much as I love NWN2, I've always had a preference for the isometric view of other games like Baldur's, and I love the turn-based combat.
Played some more Divinity last night, it's amazing how close the game already is to Pathfinder (at least with combat). Attacks of Opportunity, a take on flanking, prone bonuses, etc. If there were some modding tools for it you'd bet I'd already be on top of some kind of AP adaptation.
The reason I marked them as legal is because of this line:
In the book, those feats are preceded by:
No, they don't require being a member of a specific race exactly, but the wording here was kind of vague. In the case of vagueness, I usually err on the side of marking them legal instead of illegal.
If someone finds out for sure if these are meant to be legal or illegal, please let me know via email and I'll update them accordingly. :)
Gorbacz wrote "To small an IP aka not nearly well known enough for an AAA studio to be interested in the license.
My point was that they don't necessarily need a AAA company. The group that did D:OS did an amazing job, and I wouldn't consider them one of the bigger AAA companies (most of their funding on Divinity was from Kickstarter).
Earthpig: Oh man, yes. I loved the TOEE game (especially after the giant bug-fixing patch came out). That + Pathfinder also would be a thrill.
Too small? You kidding me? Neverwinter Nights was focused on just a small part of their world, and it did great. Same with Baldur's Gate. I think about a Divinity-style game based in Varisia around Curse of the Crimson Throne, and all of the happy in me lights up like fireworks.
Divinity did a kickstarter to get their game going and did fantastic. Paizo did a kickstarter for their own MMO. I see no reason why they couldn't do a CRPG in the glorious turn-based style of Divinity.
I hadn't honestly thought about it much recently, but D:OS just re-ignited my love for that style of game and made me realize what I really want out of a Pathfinder digital game.
While Pathfinder Online seems to be progressing nicely, I find myself drifting more and more away from MMOs these days. Guild Wars 2 has been the best I've played recently, and it introduced some pretty unique mechanics that I have yet to see other MMOs really match.
That said, what I would really love to see Pathfinder do is a game more like this: Divinity Original Sin.
This is one of the most amazing PC RPGs I've played in years, maybe even a decade. It hearkens back to some of the greats like Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment, and I would easily rank it up there with those greats. The framework to it, however, is what makes me want more and more for there to be a Pathfinder version.
It has a Class system, Traits (basically Feats) every other level, ability increases, various skills like Perception and Barter. It manages to be turn based without feeling overly complex. It incorporates cooperative play so you and a friend can control multiple characters.
Every time I play it, I keep thinking that it would be *so* great if Paizo ever made a Pathfinder game like this. MMOs are nice, but they don't really capture the feeling of you and a few friends on an epic adventure. You kind of share your heroism with a thousand others in an MMO.
In short: I'd love to see a Pathfinder C-RPG. Turn based, cooperative play, covering one of the adventure paths perhaps. To any of the Paizo staff that enjoyed those older games I mentioned above, I highly encourage you to check out Divinity, and just think about what it would feel like with a Golarion skin and some mechanics changes over it.
A player of mine is interested on taking Deific Obedience for Milani, who currently doesn't have any official rules. I was thinking about just stealing the entry for Vildeis, though the Obedience is a bit more... zealous then I think Milani would go for.
Anyone have suggestions on a boon setup for Milani? Assume no prestige class, so I only need one set of three boons (don't need Exalted/Evangelist/Sentinel, just one).
Ooooh. I kind of like this idea. Play up the new PC as a local hero of sorts (in so much as the actual PCs are), just the same as the other swashbuckler. Succubus impersonates her instead, group might actually be willing to trust her more because metagaming new PC (haha). After the succubus reveals herself/betrays them, they find the real swashbuckler later being tortured in the lower levels.
Still a bit fuzzy on why mythic, though I kind of wanted to tie it to the martyr-angle that her empyreal lord provides.