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

Maezer's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,103 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

While the monk AC perk is nice. I think you'll find the biggest reason people splash a monk level is to be able to take multiple attacks with a big natural weapon when you would normal only get one attack with.

The other reason is to pile your BABs worth of martial attacks without flurrying (generally as unarmed strikes) on top of your natural attacks (as secondaries) so you get a goodly number of extra swings in.

As those don't seem to be your goals. And you seem to be investing heavily in casting, you may well be right that the monk splash isn't for you.


No. A 2d8 weapon increased in size by one category goes to 3d8.

Example:

1d10 Medium Bastard Sword
2d8 Large Bastard Sword
3d8 Huge Bastard Sword
4d8 Gargantuan Bastard Sword
6d8 Colossal Bastard Sword


RedDogMT wrote:

Common sense kind of trumps all this, so rule 0 should apply. Two people riding a horse is not unreasonable, although it will encumber the horse further.

I find the idea that 2 people can ride and fight from a horse without any difficulty similarly unbelievable. I think you'll find a reason most calvary units throughout history have gone with 1 rider per horse. Once they start carrying their dismounted comrades their fighting ability was considerably diminished.

The idea that having 2 human sized creatures on horseback fighting with less penalties than 2 human sized creatures fighting within a 5 foot square I find beyond the pale. If a military wanted multiple fighting men per horse, they almost invariably went with vehicles.


By RAW the non mounted person can't end his movement sharing a square with another creature.

If the non mounted person somehow ends up in the sharing a space with a large (and another medium creature) then the squeezing penalty very much seems to be the correct effect.

If this is a particularly spacious mount (capable of fitting extra passengers without penalty) then you should probably treat it as a vehicle instead of mount.


No you can't. Its also explicitly covered in the FAQ:


http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qfz


Clebsch RoW wrote:

This makes sense, although it really just pushes the question over to whether or not maintaining a grapple on an invisible opponent would incur the usual 50% miss chance.

Becoming invisibile while in a grapple is addressed directly in the grappling rules. And quoted in bold in the original post.


I think this is the relevant rules excerpt:

"If an archetype replaces a class feature that is part of a series of improvements or additions to a base ability (such as a fighter’s weapon training or a ranger’s favored enemy), the next time the character would gain that ability, it counts as the lower-level ability that was replaced by the archetype. In effect, all abilities in that series are delayed until the next time the class improves that ability. For example, if an archetype replaces a rogue’s +2d6 sneak attack bonus at 3rd level, when she reaches 5th level and gains a sneak attack bonus, her sneak attack doesn’t jump from +1d6 to +3d6—it improves to +2d6, just as if she had finally gained the increase at 3rd level. This adjustment continues for every level at which her sneak attack would improve, until at 19th level she has +9d6 instead of the +10d6 of a standard rogue."


Looks like it works too me, so long as you are adjacent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He wont never miss. He'll miss 5% of the time at a minimum. But even if he did never miss would it hurt your game? How much damage is he doing a round assuming he never misses? How does that compare to other players?

I don't think a summoner using a gun will be game breaking. Maybe more effective than a crossbow... but unless he invest an awful lot into it shooting the gun (even if he hits nearly all the time) wont be a very effective use of his actions.


Pretty sure it's in the core faq as both spiked shields and the bashing property are presented there.


The magus arcana natural spell combat very much imply you cannot use natural attacks during spell combat without it.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/magus-arcana/paizo-magus -arcana/natural-spell-combat-ex/


You aren't really defining the situation well. But I am sure there are problems here.

If you maxed out (18) strength and are using a 2 handed weapon. You probably have +6 to damage from strength. Power attack with a 2 handed weapon should be netting you +3 damage at level 1. So you are at weapon damage + 9 before any other buffs.


The obvious wand of mage armor.

Cloak of the Hedgewizard for 1/day shield spell.

Barkskin as qinggong ki power.

Crane style, while nerfed terribly from what it once was, still is a reasonable bonus to your AC.

Unhindered shield, has a ton of frustrating requirements for a monk, but once you get it its a pretty good defensive AC investment.


No it doesn't have to be in a straight line.


Generally you only apply weapon damage bonus once per spell per this FAQ and others.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9uxg


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/environmental-rules/#Fall ing_Objects


Diablo2970 wrote:


*EDIT* 2. How much time does he need to take to find a new mount ? Is there any penalty for him losing his trusty steed ? I found the answer to the first bit (1 week)

I have another question, which is similar but around the other way, what happens to the players mount if the PC dies ? does it ride off into the sunset ? hang around ? hope and pray that party has a resurrection spell ?

2) Presumably it takes a 1 day long ritual after the mourning period just like the druid's animal companion. The new mount will only have his 'free' tricks any trained tricks will have to be taught again, likely taking a few additional weeks.

What happens to the mount.... well in general I find it hangs around a few days/weeks to see if its companion somehow revives himself (resurrection etc.) but it should probably lose its conferred abilities until the bond is reestablished in the mean time.

Though I'd put a nice healthy grace period before the abilities are lost. It'd be frustrating to see a companion die to losing all those extra hit dice only to have the druid/cavalier revived by breath of life 6 seconds later.


...it really matter how technical you want to be. I am aware of a few creatures (gate archon) in the bestiaries that wear medium/heavy armor and appear to use winged flight. If you are just referencing the rules. It only effects "barding" and "mounts". And the rules in encumbrance only counts only as "armor" not barding so has no relevance. And over 20 years of errata/faqs neither 3.x nor Pathfinder have really seen fit to clarify these rules to my knowledge. So by a RAW standard yeah an animal can fly just fine wearing heavy armor and/or carrying a heavy load.

But from my perspective of RAI. If something is wearing enough armor/carrying so much that its movement speed is reduced. Then winged flight should be restricted. The vast majority of winged creatures seem to hold to this, having only light or no physical armor. (Even those utilizing mechanical weapons.)

I'd expect to encounter table variation and want to clear a heavily armored flying companion with my GM before investing too much in the concept.


I really like summon monster, to deal with a variety of encounters especially swarms. Air elementals are generally very good vacuuming up swarms. Trample can crush them relatively well. And if nothing else they are nice stack of hit points that mindless swarms are likely to actually want to chew through.


Because Spell Perfection stats that the metamagic feat you apply does not alter the casting time. In generally you assume that means spontaneous casters don't increase the casting time from using a metamagic feat. But it does technically prevent a metamagic feat from shortening the casting time as well as quicken would normally do.

That said in actual play I have seen most GMs do allowing quicken to work as one would expect.


You can't order someone to act normally. Then tell them to not do things they might normally do, and expect there to be no change in whatever 'normal' is.

Your best bet would be to cast dominate X, then issue no orders at all. The character should continue to act normally and be under the effects of domination. And if the person is sufficiently ignorant you very well might achieve you result. (Cast on unconscious person, or person who can't make spellcraft check and bluff it off, combo with memory lapse, etc.)

But as always expect huge table variation on dominate/charm effects.


Globetrotter wrote:

You having a bad day or something? No need to be rude or purposely unhelpful. If you have nothing to add, please do not add nothing.

You're always going to get this kind of response when asking about realistic load balancing in pathfinder. Whether its carrying multiple polearms/two handed weapons. How many arrows can an archer carry. Etc.

What do I think is reasonable? Honestly I don't think he'll ever have so many scrolls it matters. There is a real limited factor of cost involved. So realistically he's not going to have an infinite numbers of scrolls.

If you really don't feel that is limited enough. Well compare it to how much your are limited your other characters.

If your really focused on weight with all your players, Try giving scrolls a weight. .5 lbs per spell per scroll or something. If you want to be really anal, restrict weight allowances for all easily accessible items (weapons, potions, ammunition, etc.) to some fraction of their maximum load.

Or if you focus on bulk limitations, restrict them to one scroll per arrow (or two) you allow the archer.

But really... I have an amazingly hard time believing this isn't going to be grossly excessive bookkeeping in the long run and you are 10x better off just hand waving it.


By RAW its going to only be the weapons listed. So it would have no effect on similar weapons like the repeating crossbow. I imagine you could convince most GM to let it go, but the rules don't have that flexibility built in.


Square 1 flanks with square 9.
Square 2 flanks with square 8.


If your trying to follow the formula, quickened enlarge person would be a 5th level spell. So 5 (spell level) * 9 (caster level) * 2000 * 3/5 (charges per day) so 48,600. That's probably not anywhere near the ball park of useful for the price though.

Honestly I'd ballpark it off the cost of permanency 2500. Now being on an item is better large because it gives you the easy option to change size and is not dispellable.

I'd probably price your item at 2,500 per charge with standard action activation (12.5k for unlimited). Triple the price for swift action activation. And it should probably take the belt slot. (I'd probably slide a free caster level increase to 5 or so in there, as there isn't really much benefit to CL in my opinion and I hate the 1*1 pricing as a general rule.)

Or as an alternative, give them access to the plant growth domain Enlarge (Su) at about 1,000 a charge (as a swift action for 1 round duration). I'd be hesitant about making this unlimited though.


From the description I would say it should. But from the rules text it doesn't. As the 'stone shield' appears in your square it doesn't actually impede the attackers movement in any way so it doesn't interfere with their ability to charge anymore than a normal shield would.


To correct the original poster. The fauchard came from a much more obscure source than the adventurer's armory. To my knowledge its only ever appeared in Classic Horrors Revisted. A book which I believe pre-dates the official release of the core rulebook (but my timeline might be a bit fuzzy) and thus designed more in conjunction with 3.x rules that Pathfinder.

Is it balanced? Compared to what? Its clearly above average (ie not balanced) in terms of damage. Its probably one of a relatively few weapons actually worth an exotic weapon proficiency in my opinion. But I doubt it will break your game even if its leverage extensively.


Generally speaking. I think potions are for creatures and oils are for objects as such I am not away of any rule based method to convert from one to the other.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I very much enjoy and appreciate the current FAQ, Errata and Dev online feedback provided to the community.

Nowhere have I seen an RPG so well administered, and staff that care so much.

Wow. I've always viewed the FAQ/Errata system as a train wreck. They intentionally fragment the system between the forums, the blogs, the faq, and errata system. Its virtually unsearchable unless you are already aware of the rule in question. The FAQ/Errata system largely ignores the non-hardback material (because they don't reprint it). They used large swaths of 3.x rules language. And didn't bothered to address the already existing errata's/faq for that content for years. And it takes multiple years from product release to the issue of corrections.

I did laugh at the original poster saying he came from 3.x and though Paizo was over the top with errata's/faqs. I think Paizo intentionally tries to steer clear of the minefield the errata/faq world. It really is a no win world and you make very few people happy when you issue them. They would much rather push new content, and I believe that is the reason that rulings come out so sporadically and disjointedly.

Where as WotC was releasing them regularly monthly (via Paizo's Dungeon/Dragon magazines for quite a while) and occasionally before the book had even hit store shelves. I think there are some serious rose-tinted glasses going on (or he didn't handle the 3.x material until years after WotC abandoned the edition.)

I think Paizo puts out a good product with Pathfinder. But I find its errata/faq system is a total lost cause.


Fleshwarped scorpian's tail gets you a sting attack.


.... You came from 3.5 and think Pathfinder has incessant erratas. What did you think of WotC's FAQs/Erratas? Essential 3.0 to 3.5 was one really big errata, except you actually had to buy new books to get the updated material.

Now I'm not exactly thrilled with how slowly Paizo rulings trickle out from Paizo, or how Paizo try to organize them... but I think they've made a concerted effort to have fewer erratas than their predecessor.

Of course if you mean WotC isn't still issuing erratas for 3.x era material now that they are two editions and a decade down the road. Well I guess that's understandable.


Infiniteidk wrote:
What is the radius of a 20 foot spread? A player and I were discussing the area of a Dust of Sneezing and Choking, which is described as having a 20 foot spread. I interpret this to mean an area with a ten foot radius, like the Dust of Appearing; but the player said that a 20 foot spread effects only 4 squares (a 5 foot radius) in total because that represents a 20 foot total movement (5 feet in each direction).

Without intervening terrian. A 20' spread is the same as a 20' radius. Where a spread is different then a burst or emanation is that you can count the distance from the origin point around walls and other objects that would block line of effect.


...The immunity to a critical (particularly if you can wait till you see that natural 20 roll) is what I always though the best part of the spell was.


I would treat each individual natural weapon as a furyborn weapon in its own right. So you would need to track consecutive hits with each individual natural weapon.


Alter Self or Monstrous Physique could also do the task.


Honestly I wouldn't get too hung up on CR. CR paints with a very broad brush.

Instead look at your party and determine what kind of difference do you think the change will make to the encounter. For the most part regeneration is just a few extra hit points. Once a creature is unconscious its generally pretty trivial to keep unconscious for long periods of time.

Can the creature act while below 0 hp? If yes, then regeneration can be very significant.

Is the regeneration vulnerable to something the party has easy access too? Regeneration (fire) you can generally expect your party to have. Where as regeneration (Sonic) might be harder to cancel.

Does the creation have a valid escape mechanic? If it can teleport, go invisible, or fly etc. then its ability regeneration is much more likely to come into play.

Try to guess how much adding regeneration will change the encounter and adjust the CR based on that. Rather than looking for a universal regeneration is worth CR +x


No. They would have given it the reach property if it did... and I believe it unlikely to retained the ability to be thrown if it had been intended as a reach weapon.


August 2015 is when the errata'd improved snap shot.


Actually the cauldron is pretty close to right on what the chart says.

They did fudged the material component by changing that in herbs every time you use it, but that's always really tricky when the component is so variable. And it does seem strange that the controllable undead is only 12hd, when I'd expect 20hd at CL 5.

But's right at Spell Level (3) * Caster Level (5) * Use Activated 2,000gp = 30,000gp.

Technically it seems really easy to drop it to Spell Level (2) * Caster Level (3) * 2,000gp = 12,000gp, for your lesser Animate Dead ring.

But I tend to think your ring is actually still fairly close the cauldron. So I would more likely go something like:

1) Unlimited to 5 uses per day. No discount. Why, because if I discount this you are going to want the same discount on every item you craft when in terms of power level 5/day is a lot of uses.

2) Does not grant you control over any animated dead. Okay something to that, so -10% discount.
3) Limited to small/medium untemplated undead. Even more significant -20%.
4) Thematically appropriate cauldron to easily concealable/removable ring. +5%.

For a total of 25% off the standard price. Or 30% if you leave it as a cauldron which I would prefer.

But that's more art then science. And I am going to try to have a really firm grasp of what you are trying to accomplish before I go even that far.


The "Charged (50 Charges) 1/2 unlimited use base price" is for items with a finite number of charges (ie Wand like). Since you aren't making an item with a finite number of charges you don't get the discount.

Instead you get the Divide by (5 divided by charges per day) which you accounted for.

I think most GMs will nix the discount for class restrictions but you are right in that it exists.

But first and foremost the price guideline for magic items is find a similar item and price it comparatively. So depending on what spell you pick you could see some pretty drastic fluctuation in pricing.


Its the ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anger Nogar wrote:

but my problem with the high stat requirements is that crossbows and firearms were pretty easy for your average Joe to use and it was part of their appeal.

Some options:

1st change. Make them simple weapons rather than exotic. This makes them much easier for average Joe to wield effectively. Which is effectively a +4 to hit (in addition to being a touch attack at close range) for anyone not automatically proficient with firearms.

2nd change, give guns free vital strike feats at BAB 6/11/16. So the damage isn't totally irrelevant.

3rd change, give guns a dex (or maybe int) to damage cost modifier akin to a mighty bows strength for an extra 100gp per point.


If the party members don't (want to) feel any respect for the flag. They probably shouldn't get the bonus (or penalty). But if they do want the bonus they should be able to get it.

If it has your personal device on it, then perhaps they respect you. It could bear your group identity in which case they are loyal to the group. Honestly if the group has 0 respect for you or the group as whole, I would not expect your party to hold together for very long and the GM probably has bigger problems to worry about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Askdal Aleheart wrote:


Doesn't that mean, essentially, he has seen a lot of people "Doing it Wrong"?

He might have meant silver weapon blanch. Which is slightly cheaper, has no drawbacks, and is sourced from the same book as the blunt arrow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My theory:

1st, 3.x carryover. 3.x didn't allow templates because you became that actual creature with stats. Since a lot of template add raw stats without a HD increase it would have dramatically upgraded polymorph power levels (which were very high anyhow).

2nd, Stupidity of templates. There is no limit to the number of templates you can apply to a creature as CR has no relevance with regard to polymorph. While you put forth marginally realistic templates as examples. You could just as easily had an Abomination, acid creature, aggregate, alacritous, alchemically invisible, amphibious, angelic vessel, arboreal, artic....(continue on) bear . So that your templates creature has only minimal resemblance of the baseline creature which isn't really the ideal of what they wanted for the polymorph spell.


The fighter archetype: Archer has the trickshot ability which allows an arrow to grapple.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fig hter-archetypes/archer


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:


The devs intentionally release errata this way so it coincides with a second printing, which I assume is because of workflow reasons and such. I suspect a lot of these corrections are things that they realized within a year of printing, not something they decided on a lark last month.

Yes I know its their policy. I get that they don't like to publish rule books that are out of date and with incorrect information mere hours after they send them to the printers. I still think its a terrible policy.

If its so broken it warrants the magnitudes of changes brought forth in the errata, then its worth the effort to publish that fact (via FAQ or whatever) when you reach that decision. Waiting years to tell anyone, letting customers invest hundreds to thousands of hours into it, so that you might push a extra copies of your new printing is not a good policy in my opinion.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:


I loved many of those items.
I also understood they were broken.

I tentatively agree. If these changes had come out 90 days after ultimate equipment was release I'd probably be fine saying the nerfs were gross overkill but yes the items were too good as written. But I have a really hard time swallowing the fact that it took them nearly 4 years to realize these items were broken enough to warrant a change.

I despise Paizo policy of ignoring balancing until the arbitrary point in time that they decide reprinting is necessary. If the item needs a change, change it. Don't let everyone assume its fine for YEARS then spring the change on them unless you can point to something recent that changed that made them go from being acceptable to unacceptable.


Seems valid too me. Incredibly feat intensive but it does seem to work.


It functions as a weapon enhancement bonus, so would get all the properties normally associated with a weapon enhancement bonus including the ability to pierce some DRs.

1 to 50 of 1,103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.