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. 1,086 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,086 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

...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.


No. Eidolon abilities function as eidolon abilities not what they close resemble.


http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k77n?Summoner-questions#8

*Edit= That comes from the playtest, but I am pretty sure its been answered again since then but my search fu is lacking a bit.


The normal familiar stuff doesn't provide any bonus to initiative. So the total initiative bonus from the familiar is +2.


If you're happy with the mount spell, in PFS, just spend 2PA get a wand of mount and go on your way. It will probably last most if not all of your adventuring career, certainly should cover the lower levels.


Inner Sea Gods (which I think is the most recent God listing) lists it as a heavy crossbow.


1. It needs to be a masterwork weapon before being able to be enchanted. This can be done with the spell Masterwork Transform which a material component of 300gp for weapons. (150 for armor/shields)

2. No. (above)

3. Yes.

4. Yes the costs stack. Going from a +3 equivalent bonus to a +4 equivalent bonus is 14,000 gp. (32,000gp - 18,000gp)


My Self wrote:
Without expending spells or feats, how do you beat reach-based enemies in melee combat?

1. Use ranged attacks.

2. Use acrobatics.
3. Use cannon fodder (animal companions/familiars/trained dogs/allies) to take the AoO then move in afterward.
4. Win initiative and close before they can act.

In all honesty though. If you plan on being a melee character I suggest having an high enough AC/HP that taking an AoO isn't a big deal.


jorunkun wrote:


My impression is, that hp are worth most at first level, and decrease in value from there on out. I'd trade my 1st level hp for four skill points, although wouldnt ever trade it for a wizard or a rogue. I could see something like 3 at 2nd, 2 at 3rd and then one for one work. How about you?

I would judge it very differently. I find skill points are much more valuable at lower levels. So I am much more likely to swap out my 1st-5th fcb for skills than my 6th-20th.

After a given point you get a bigger boost to skills via magic than anything else. And get 1 point in a skill enables you activated the class bonus and allows you to make rolls for that skill so the 1st rank is by far the most valuable.

That said if you can get 1/6th a feat or class feature then that so much better than 6 skill points or 6 hit points its rarely even in the same ballpark.


nicholas storm wrote:
Lucky horseshoe (6800GP) gives a +1 luck bonus on saving throws and can do +4 once per day.

What's the source for the horseshoe?


The Mortonator wrote:


So, with that in mind, what would you give to throwing to make it better? Are there rules that still need clarifying? Does throwing styles need exuberantly good feats above curve to make it good enough? Or does it need more love period?

If I wanted to make throwing good enough to stand on its own:

I'd go with the 4th edition throwing "Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved."

If I wanted to make throwing good enough to work with some investment:

I'd change the +1 returning property to function immediately after an attack resolves (allowing a full attack with it).

But in truth I'll just say screw it. Just leave it as written, and never touch throwing weapons once you get iterative attacks. Because after 20+ years (3.x > present) of inertia its not worth the effort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


Min/max =/= optimized

Min/max focuses on a single character aspect and sacrifices everything else in order to max it out.

Optimization focuses on making the character better overall, and this includes being well rounded and having at least decent defenses against both physical and magical attacks.

Lol. This debate is so pointless. As we are arguing semantics. And the line between acceptable and annoying behavior is personal and going to vary widely from table to table. But I would define those terms very differently.

I see Min/Max as putting the minimum investment to get the maximum return.

I see Optimization as making improvements in order to be the best possible at doing whatever task you are optimizing for.

In character terms I see the min/max character being more balanced. He defines goals and invests the minimum possible to achieve that goal so he has the more resources to invest in the rest of his character.

The optimizer says I want to be absolute best at doing X task. He says things like... I want to be the strongest; or I want to be the fastest; or I want have the biggest damage per hit/round. And if something isn't improving your ability to do task X, then investing in it is optimizing for it.

And of course this ignores the person I least want to see at the table. The I don't want to be a Min/Max, Optimizing, munchkin... so I make all my choices totally at random without any rhyme or reason.


His attack bonus doesn't charge with regards to your class level so the -2 doesn't apply. At level one is your BAB+attribute mod at level 20 its still BAB +attibrute mod.

The -2 is only really go to effect Natural Armor Adjustment, the familiar int score, and what 'specials' he has access to.


Multiweapon Fighting (Beastiary) describes the normal condition for creatures with more 3 or more hands. -6 on the primary, -10 on attacks with each other hand.


Loots effect is not easy to judge. It is also highly dependent on what they purchase with the loot. As there are lots of not very effective yet very expensive items out there.

That said, going from NPC wealth per level, to PC wealth per level is +1 CR. You might try and use that as standard, but mileage will vary significantly.


Yes it is correct.


Mechanically I find small to be generally advantageous to the creature compared to medium. +1 to hit, + ac, +4 stealth, 50% gear weight are more useful than -1 CMB/CMD at 75% capacity. On just about any character not planning on regularly becoming large (or bigger) and/or using combat maneuvers regularly.

But you are tossing out +1 templates, and I tend to think the difference between small is going to be vastly overshadowed by the templates selected which have a much wider power variance in my opinion.

And so, I'd really try to picture his character as a whole and compare it power wise to the other player characters at the table and see where it fits and make any adjustments from that prospective rather than looking at just this one character in isolation.

*Edit: The young template is probably ideal for what you are looking at as well. Don't get hung up on the name, consider it a small size template. Though if designing a character around it, I'd probably reclassify it as a +0 template (rather than a -1) especially with all the dex bonus being tossed around in this example.


I don't think I've seen any text that implies a scizore is a shield. It doesn't show up on any shield tables to my knowledge. It certainly doesn't have the rules text that a shield (or spiked shield) has that allows it to be enchanted as a weapon or shield.

As a GM I'd probably say go for it. But as a question on the rules forum, I don't think it works.


The feat in no way bypasses the eidolons "An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor interferes with the summoner’s connection to the eidolon." bit of rules text.

1 to 50 of 1,086 << 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 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.