Killian Paltreth

Katapesh Fried Chicken's page

26 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


OP has the right order, everyone who disagrees is inferring randomness from somewhere I couldn't begin to imagine. For the record, in 2e reactions are designed to specifically interrupt actions, as the only one that specifically states to occur after the triggering action is using move action that does not move you out of the square (i.e. standing up from prone).

HumbleGamer wrote:

1) A monk is next to a creature and decides to use its flurry of blows.

2) He rolls the first strike, which hits.
3) The Paladin uses its reaction to deal with the monk, giving its friend damage reduction and striking the monk as well.
4) The paladin has a Polearm or Club weapon and scores a critical hit, so he decides to move ( or shove, if the weapon was a club ) the enemy far from his friend.

Flurry of Blows:

Make two unarmed Strikes[/u]. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.

"Make two unarmed Strikes" - this is two separate strikes that must be unarmed attacks or monk weapons, pure and simple. It's very simple math, 2 is more than 1.

If both hit the same creature - implies that each strike can hit different creatures if you want and since they are two separate strikes, you decide when you specifically roll for them.

combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses - states that if they both hit the same creature you only combine their damage for the purposes of resistances and weaknesses and NOTHING else. It's still 2 separate strikes that when used together help bypass resistances or boost weaknesses.


Tender Tendrils wrote:
Katapesh Fried Chicken wrote:

I find the idea of a critical failure on a resurrection to be a rather dumb idea (just my opinion, it's ok if you disagree). The character is dead, which is punishment enough for whatever they did that caused them to die.

Now if the party wants to resurrect them they need to spend the not so cheap resources to do so. Then if the party totally fails in their 1 roll to restore the character, you want to punish the dead character again by making them role-play their character a certain way and suffer significant ability penalties too?
Doesn't really sound all that fun to me and isn't that the point of these games... to have fun? Now if the affected character is interested in that by all means go ahead but, forcing all that on a character is the makings of a s~*!ty GM.

Who says death or failed resurrection is a punishment for the players? A bad thing happening to a character is not necessarily a bad thing to the players. The whole "my character dying is always bad, and hardship experienced by a character is a hardship to the player" mindset is something that I have found is very limiting in rpgs, and players who learn to move past that and enjoy the story and the challenge and the downs as much as the ups tend to get a lot more out of the game.

The risk of death makes the challenge and consequences meaningful - and when a character dies, that can actually be a really interesting and fun experience where the impact and stakes feel so much bigger. A guaranteed resurrection isn't as tense and dramatic and interesting as one that has risks (and a guaranteed resurrection undercuts the good things about the death thing in the first place).

I know players (and this includes myself) who secretly hope that a 1 is rolled, because the party having to deal with the soulless husk of their dead friend trying to murder them has so much inherent weight and drama and can be really fun (especially if I get to creepily roleplay an off-putting wrong version of my character...

That's great that you all had great experiences doing that, that's literally the point of these games. I too once had a NG Lv. 15 Ranger die and upon his resurrection with the GM's knowledge played him as a N/NE sociopath because a part of him didn't come back. "I" as the character pursued that story line because "I" thought it could be cool and fun.

What I'm trying to say is that a critical failure of a resurrection spell will essentially force that outcome possibly without the player's want or desire. I personally would rather just start a new character then be forced to play a character the way someone else wants. Basically, the GM and player should talk and agree about this development before applying it. That was the moral argument I was trying to make.


I find the idea of a critical failure on a resurrection to be a rather dumb idea (just my opinion, it's ok if you disagree). The character is dead, which is punishment enough for whatever they did that caused them to die.
Now if the party wants to resurrect them they need to spend the not so cheap resources to do so. Then if the party totally fails in their 1 roll to restore the character, you want to punish the dead character again by making them role-play their character a certain way and suffer significant ability penalties too?
Doesn't really sound all that fun to me and isn't that the point of these games... to have fun? Now if the affected character is interested in that by all means go ahead but, forcing all that on a character is the makings of a s!!~ty GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I print out my sheets, specifically the Dyslexic custom sheets. It's a 4 page character sheet that I put into clear plastic sleeves. That helps with temp bonuses for which I just write on the plastic sleeve in wet erase markers. For a more "permanent" change I pull the sheet out and write on it in pencil. I also use post-it notes for any side notes that I want to keep track of such as HP or the number of rounds something lasts... etc. All of this is bound in one of those basic school folders. Which keeps everything together.

We had a couple of people try laptops but space on the table is at a premium (Group of 7, 6 PC's 1 DM) so they stopped. I'm also the only one in my group that has a tablet (Surface Pro) which I sometimes use as more a backup then anything else.


shroudb wrote:


shouldn't then work the opposite way?

like an action taken by the one trying to actively come into your field of view that you're trying to avert the gaze from?

I mean, it could simply be a glyph on the wall, i don't see how you will have to keep spending actions each and every round to not look towards the wall.

If it was something actively trying to get into your field of view, then it should be IT'S actions spent trying to do so, not something that happens automatically regardless of you "looking at your feet" (as an example)

In Pathfinder, D&D and virtually every other tabletop RPG that uses a grid based map for combat; Monsters, PC's and NPC's are all assumed to be looking in every direction at the same time. So it kinda makes sense that's it's your action to say you're not going to look at something.

It sounds kinda dumb but it's easier to deal with then the alternative of having the GM monitor the facing direction of all Monsters and PCs. Not to mention opening the door on sorts of shenanigans (possibly backstabbing or something like it) that would likely have to have a whole chapter in the CRB devoted to specifically ruling out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand all this complaining... as long as it's not over-powered or under-powered, I'll never say no to MORE options. Who really cares if it's an archetype or class. Does it actually matter? I think it being a class probably allows more customization so you can build the character you want without making too many sacrifices. For those of you who say you can already build a "swashbuckler", guess what, those options aren't going away. Though at what level would that Swashbuckler come online? 5? 7? 11? 15? Maybe some people wanna play one at level 1...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Game mechanics aside, why is there even a Bastard Sword in the game? It's literally a Longsword IRL. They're the same weapon...


In my understanding of outsiders in pathfinder is that they don't have the "Dual Nature" of humanoids (i.e. a body and a soul). I take this to mean that their body is their soul. This is why they need a wish or miracle or some other similarly powerful method to be resurrected. There are some caveats to this though, outsider natives do not follow this rule.

It really depends on how they got to the material plane, were they "called" or were they "summoned". If they were "called" then they'll outright die if killed but if they were summoned then like all things summoned they'll reform after 24 hours in their native plane.

EDIT: the spells that can resurrect an outsider are: Limited Wish, Wish, Miracle and True Resurrection.


As far as I know you can't stack long arm with enlarge person. Since both are magical effects that affect size. Enlarge Person spells that out in it's spell description.

Enlarge Person


Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Spell Combat is a full-round action that requires a free hand.

Spells are casts and all attacks are made as a part of this full-round actions.

You cannot use a free action to two-hand your weapon while taking the full-round Spell Combat action, though you could do so after casting all spells and completing all attacks.

The Mind-Blade has specific exemptions that allow his to THF/TWF while performing the Spell Combat action.

Yeah, my bad. I confused spell strike with spell combat. Volkard is right, since it calls it out as a full round action that requires a free hand, no two-handing anything during that turn.


Trish Megistos wrote:
By the same logic you could dual wield one weapon and hit twice by attacking once with the right hand (but actually holding it with both) and then attacking with the left hand (but again holding it with both).

You can't "dual" wield a single weapon. Dual means two ...period and you can't apply Two-Weapon Fighting to a single weapons since it specifically calls out both "two weapons" and a "second" weapon. No matter what mumbo jumbo you do with your hands it's still only one weapon. However with iterative attacks you can sure can do as you describe. I imagine monks or lighter fighters like swashbuckler doing things like that to disorient opponents could work as fluff.

As for the OP, I don't see any reason why you can't release a hand to cast a spell and place it back on your weapon to two-hand it. If I'm not mistaken Paladins can do it when they lay on hands. It makes thematic sense too since the magus charges his hand with the spell and transfers it to his weapon to be delivered.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Where does it say that you can curve the spell? Typically you need things like that spelled out in the rules, which is why spells that allow shape-able areas specifically call it out.

Where does it say you can't? Typically rules only specify things you can't do, especially for a game that takes place in your mind and is really only limited by your imagination and the rules. The fireball spell states that a glowing pea-sized bead forms at your fingertip and streaks from your pointing digit to the place you specified (height, distance). Now a streak could be defined as a line (not necessarily a straight one as not all lines are in fact straight), or another definition is moving very fast in a specified direction. Since it moves >450 FT near instantaneously I'd say the that both fit. It also lacks any form of a descriptor word like "straight" or any mention that you can't have it change it's direction. Only that it will blossom at that point you specified when you cast the spell. It even mentions what to do if you want it to go through small holes which implies that you can send it places you can't see.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
some people put lots of value in swashbuckler but i for one see very little that the class actually brings to the table over other classes
opportune parry and riposte is amazing with enough panache. Not only is it an extra attack (action economy is god) , but with an answering sword you almost don't need armor.

Except when you roll that "1" since your riposte is an attack roll. If I'm fighting one on one, I prefer Dodging Panache to buff armor for my Swashbuckler though he has at this point a +5 CHA. Though if I'm fighting something that can still hit me at that point relatively easily then Parry and Riposte all the way!


_Ozy_ wrote:
You need a line of effect. In pathfinder, lines are straight.
Quote:
You need line of effect to the point of origin, and line of effect is defined as a straight, unobstructed line from you to the point of origin.

I may have gone about it the wrong way (magic rules are kinda poorly worded) but I still believe it can curve. The spell originates at your fingertip (per the spell description) then travels to the "spreads" point of origin in an unspecified manner. Is there a straight line from you to your fingertip? Your line of effect is then established. Now if you want to it to do barrel rolls while on it's way there or turn left down a hallway then I can't see why not. Plus it's cooler that way.


Quote:

Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

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).

An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

Quote:
You can't cast a fireball "out the door and down the hall". You must have line of effect to the origin point,...

Show me where in the spell description of Fireball that it defines it as a "line of effect". Because what I read was 20 FT Radius SPREAD.

Fireball

Here's a link to where you can find rules for casting an SPREAD Area of Effect spell (Fireball is an Area of Effect Spell) scroll down to the part effect under "Aiming a Spell" where it describes casting a Spread spell.

Aiming a Spell

You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.

A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.

The rules do not say that the pea sized fireball cannot turn nor do they specify that it has to move from point A to point B in a straight line. Thus it does not have to do those things. Please stop making up rules unless you're the GM in your house game.


David knott 242 wrote:

Well, we do know that the pea hitting a solid but transparent barrier between the caster and the target point will make the fireball go off at the point where it hits that barrier instead of at the target point, so that would suggest that the pea is a physical object that actually travels through the air from one point to another.

Yes I agree, that's the whole ranged touch attack portion to go though an arrow slit hole in the wall or traverse a narrow pathway, but when you cast the spell you define the target point if you can't see it. Thus you could say that your target point is out the door and 20 ft down the hallway to the left. Your fireball would travel out the door and 20 ft down the hallway to the left and burst. That is RAW allowed.


John Murdock, it seems you like making up rules. So this might be in vain but I'll try this again.

For aiming an effect: You must designate the location where these things are to appear, EITHER BY SEEING OR DEFINING IT.

Note the whole defining it part... lets you say I'm gonna curve this fireball up over the anti-magic field and down the other side to a target location (Point of Origin) also, anti-magic fields are invisible or at least transparent so you can see through them as well.

For a Spread effect: YOU SELECT THE SPELL"S POINT OF ORIGIN.

Fireball is NOT a line of effect spell and does NOT follow those rules. It is a SPREAD area of effect spell. No where in the spell's description or stat block does it say that it follows line of sight or adhere to the line of effect rules. So stop adding faux rules to things unless you're the GM in your house game.

If that isn't enough then here's the part from the spell's description that describes how the spell moves. Show me where it says you can't curve or send it on an unusual course.

"You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."

The mere fact it mentions that a material body or barrier can cause it to explode prematurely implies you can do weird movements with it since if you needed direct line of sight to your target area then a material body or barrier would be in the way, would it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope, the rules do not prevent this:

Aiming a Spell:
For an Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.

You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.

Burst, Emanation, or Spread: Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell's point of origin and measure its effect from that point.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.

A Fireball is a 20 FT Radius Area Spread Effect Spell with a minimum 400 FT range.

It doesn't state anywhere that you can't curve the delivery of the spell in anyway so long as it's in range. Thus curving the spell is allowed. If you want to houserule that in your own game go for it but RAW it is allowed. Think of it this way, if a MLB pitcher can throw a wicked curve ball without the use of any magic then why can't a wizard shoot an epic curve fireball with magic?


I think that the AMF suppresses all aspects of the spell, including it's travel. It will of course continue it's movement once the AMF dissipates. I think it would act as a pseudo-delayed fireball in this case. However why are you hitting the AMF in the first place? There is nothing in the spell description that indicates the fireball must travel in a straight line from your finger to the target area. It only mentions that a ranged touch attack is necessary for precision based movement like sending it through an arrow slit.


Since a Swashbuckler relies on precision based damage to stay inline with the other melee classes. I recommend picking up the Shadow Strike feat. It lets you keep your precision damage against things with concealment, but not total concealment. Also, I'm a big fan of the Step-Up feat chain.


We aren't applying memory, YOUR OWN MATH shows that there's a 40% chance that at least 1 roll out of 10 is a 1.

"On a d20 it's still 5% period. Now if you were to roll 10...

ChessPwn, since you don't seem to understand math I'll spell it out for you.

For a full attack (simplicity's stake only 4 attacks) it'll go like this: Attack 1d20 (5% botch chance) apply result then, next attack 1d20 (5% botch chance) apply result then, next attack 1d20 (5% botch chance) apply result and then final attack 1d20 (5% botch chance). Each attack is still only 5% botch chance because the results of the roll are independent from each other.

You're thinking of a grouped roll which is all 4 attacks at once: 4 Attacks 4d20 (18.55% chance of one die landing on 1).

The difference between these is confusing to people who don't get a kick out of statistics like I do, but it's there. I like to think of them as events. When you make an full attack (in this example) you are both rolling 4d20 and 1d20 4 times, it's where you apply the results, that is the key. Are you applying the results to the group as one event or to a single die roll as multiple events. In the case of attack rolls it goes to a single d20 NOT the group because it's a single event done multiple times. Thus it's always a 5% botch chance on attack rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Katapesh Fried Chicken wrote:
Wultram wrote:

Okay let's see.

Full BAB class 4 attacks, haste/speed weapon +1
Now that is 25% chance EVERY 6 seconds.

Add in TWF +3 attacks, and now we are up to 40%

Why not go all the way monk with haste and uses Ki for extra attack and got attack of opportunity in the round, that is 10 attacks so total of 50% chance of fumble every round. This demigod of martial arts on average seriously screws up in this situation 5 times every minute. I have been doing martial arts for over 2 decades and I have not seen the worst white belt do that badly.

Actually, it's still 5% no matter how many times you roll the dice, since the dice has no memory and each roll is independent of each other.

"Chance"=1-P(A) where P(A)=(19/20)^1 or simply =1/20

Each roll has a 5% chance, but the chance that at least 1 roll is a 1 when you make 10 rolls (while not the actual 50% listed) is significantly higher than 5%.

No, it's not. You're applying memory to the rolls. The die has NO memory and never will. Each time you roll the die it doesn't matter what the previous roll was, the die much like the honey badger doesn't give a F*&^. If you flip a coin 10 times does that have any impact on the 11th flip? On a d20 it's still 5% period.

Now if you were to roll 10 different d20s 1 time or 1 d20 10 times then you would have a ~40% chance of rolling a 1 because while the dice will still have no memory, the rolls are NO longer independent of one another thus:
%Chance = 1 - (19/20)^10 = ~40.13%
However, that's for one event. Rolling a single d20 for an attack roll is just one event as it's independent of any other rolls. You don't roll 10 d20's or 1 d20 ten times for an attack roll. Thus it's still just 5%.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:

Okay let's see.

Full BAB class 4 attacks, haste/speed weapon +1
Now that is 25% chance EVERY 6 seconds.

Add in TWF +3 attacks, and now we are up to 40%

Why not go all the way monk with haste and uses Ki for extra attack and got attack of opportunity in the round, that is 10 attacks so total of 50% chance of fumble every round. This demigod of martial arts on average seriously screws up in this situation 5 times every minute. I have been doing martial arts for over 2 decades and I have not seen the worst white belt do that badly.

Actually, it's still 5% no matter how many times you roll the dice, since the dice has no memory and each roll is independent of each other.

"Chance"=1-P(A) where P(A)=(19/20)^1 or simply =1/20


Particle_Man wrote:

And Earth is not, to my mind, associated with energy. More like solidity, really. Black dragons, that breath acid, are associated with water, not earth, for an example of another break between earth and acid.

What do you think? Should there be a strong (or weak) tie between acid and earth? Or is such a tie unnecessary?

Earth is actually a form of energy (at least in the real world) it's matter. All that acid does is create a chemical reaction between two forms of matter that convert the one or both of the materials to another form of energy (Heat, Light, Electricty and/or Matter). So it makes sense to me that acid is under the Earth domain. I can understand on the surface why it might not appear to be so though.


Just my 2 cents here, but I don't think you have to worship ONLY one god in Pathfinder. In fact it makes much more sense to worship multiple gods in Golarion since everybody knows the Gods actually exist. Now Clerics and Paladins and any other religious based class will likely focus on the one God that grants them their power but I'd still imagine that they'd tip their hat to the ones that represent like minded ideals.

Does it say anywhere in any of the rulebooks that you can ONLY worship one god?


First Off, is this a PFS game? If so then wait for the errata, FAQ or whatever publication that answers this question to make itself known. Or alternately enter into the swirlpool of randomly quoted things up there that may or may not actually answer your question.

Now that that's done. What's the point of playing RPG's? Is it to rules lawyer everyone that doesn't completely follow the rules to the letter; or is it to have fun? Because, in my experience it can't be both. Rules should be respected for sure but I think they're more guidelines than anything else. Conflict resolution for things that can't be agreed upon if you will.

Does it make any thematic sense that a monk can punch something for 2d6 (7) damage but when he puts on an abnormally hard gauntlet he can only punch for 1d3 (2) damage. Not in my opinion. What benefits does this give the Monk?

He can bypass DR? If he can get adamantine weapons then I assume any other martial in the group could as well.

It's cheaper to enchant? For sure it is but not any cheaper than it would be for any other martial and their weapons.

Let's not forget that it's stupidly difficult the enchant the monk's unarmed attacks, you essentially have two options find a badass Lv.20 spellcaster to permanently enchant you with greater magic fang or pay out the butt for an AOMF and it's +5 limit.