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 Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 863 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 863 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:


You're the second person to ask that in this thread. Does the existence of their separate entries in the CRB not mean the same thing to you as it does for me?

I see them as two clearly distinct items. Separate, with their own cost, and their own weight.

I can't be wrong on that, right? It's just people not cracking open their Core book and looking for themselves, right?

I see them as separate parts of the same item. Much like the a sword's hilt and a sword's blade. But I can indeed read that section of the core rulebook. Even under the shield spike heading on page 153, it says the 'spiked shield' can be made into a magic weapon, nothing to me implies that you enchant only the spikes independently from the shield.

Irregardless, what I can't do is find professionally published (preferably WotC/Paizo) material with stat blocks with character having +1 flaming (or anything weapon) enchant on their shield spikes particularly when the shield has a separate shield enchantment on it.

What I want is examples to work with. For example, if I wanted to state that the bashing property the the shield spike modification stack (argued at length on these boards), I could back it up by saying look at the Scarred Barbarian (NPC Codex, p. 25). The scarred barbarian NPC, by being a useable Paizo printed example amply demonstrates that the Bashing shield property and spike shield property both do seems to stack becoming a weapon that's base damage is 2d6. (Unfortunately the fact that the stat blocks appears to ignore that shield master eliminates the two-weapon fighting penalties and that it seems to treat the dwarven waraxe as a light weapon discredit this particular stat block a fair bit as well.)

I would be most appreciative if you happen to know where I could find some NPC stat blocks in published material with shield spikes enchanted as weapons I'd like to know where they are located. I do realize that the core rulebook does state that 'shields' and 'spiked shields' can be I would like to see stat blocks where it has been done. I think this will require more effort than just cracking the core rulebook.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mojorat wrote:
Does anyone have a book example of a shield being enchsnted seperate as a weapon? Usually its shield spikes that get enchanted.

I think the shield (spiked or otherwise) enchanted as a weapon is something authors avoid like the plague. I've tried to keep my eye out for a shield having both concurrent weapon and armor enchant (again spiked or normal) and never seen one in Wotc or Paizo print. That said I am curious as to where you have seen shields spikes enchanted separate from the shield.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In general, when using dimensional travel and arriving in solid object (ala Dimension Door, Blink) you a shunted to an available free space and take a minor amount of damage. I think this would qualify as a reasonable expectation as to what would occur, though I fully expect significant variance from GM to GM.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1. No, its a musket with the battered quality. All the archetype does is eliminate your option to select a pistol or blunderbuss.

2. No. Early firearms explicitly state that you must reload each barrel individually. This remains true whether its a one handed firearm or two.

3. I don't see a question here.

4. In general if it says muskets it means musket in the same way longswords refers to a longsword. ie rapid reload (muskets) is different and non-inclusive of rapid reload (double-barrel muskets). If they want to be inclusive of all types of two-weapon firearms they will state such. Or if a particular weapon should benefit from abilities of a similar weapon (like longbows and composite longbows) it would state such in the weapon description.

I doubt you see a PFS specific ruling as this doesn't appear to a be a society specific question rather they appear to be general questions about game rules.


33 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Please tell me how you can do anything and have it not be offensive to someone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SlimGauge wrote:

I disagree. Figure the cost of your barding as if it was regular armor, all inclusive. Then multiply. Otherwise you can buy mithral Mammoth armor and dismantle it for a profit just from the weight of mithral.

If you could dismantle for profit, then a medium sized mithril chain shirt dismantles profit just as well. The chain shirt 12.5 lbs mithril, you have 6250 gp worth of mithril for 1100. If dismantling for profit is your concern, then mithril would have to have it cost tied to weight irregardless of size, shape, or classification of the armor.

The cost should be generally be balanced against the in game benefit. So in general I'd just add mithril as a flat cost. That said it does get debated and several related threads were linked.

That said, the 3.x FAQ more or less says multiple x4 with some stupidity about the mwk cost worked in. So I'd expect so much debate on the issue, I'd suggest playing conservative and pay the full x4 price unless the individual GM you are working with says otherwise.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Belabras wrote:
Anyone know? I think they are both untyped bonuses, but I'm not sure.

Piranha strike explicitly states that it cannot be used in conjunction with power attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When creating a new world you need to ask yourself how many gods am as the GM going to present to my characters. The gods either need to be very simple. Or relatively few. It takes a lot of effort to get an entire pantheon across to your players.

I generally find myself with 4 or 5 primary gods. And then tell my players there are other Gods, but they are comparatively very small, without much organization (ie don't expect to encounter them and if you worship them, don't expect people to know what you are talking about until you tell them and they'll likely think you're a crazy foreigner.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Phosphorus wrote:


Sadly, SKR's interpretation of the rules have flaws that were discussed in the thread. He wrote that he would be lobbying for change after his errors were pointed out but no changes have occurred, and it has been several years since this thread.

Very much in agreement. Its a worth an FAQ (or a charge errata) if you ask me. That is the closest thing to an official answer I've seen on the subject and I think it should be included in any thread on the subject as at least a reference point. It is a different answer than the 3.x WotC ruling as I remember it.

That said, I think SKR's answer works reasonably well mechanically and thus it is what I use at the moment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While this probably needs an official FAQ at some point, this has come up multiple times on the forums.

SKR post on the matter: *note he posts multiple times in the thread so reading the whole thing might be worthwhile.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b9?Mounts-with-attacks-and-the-RideByAttack- Feat#13

Here are some pictures he made on the subject:

http://s248.photobucket.com/user/seankreynolds/media/angled-charges.jpg.htm l


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adam O'Dell wrote:

that takes a standard action to use though. in many ways what I want is weaker since it can only be used for one bow shot and then only once per day. needs to be swift of free action though

This is such a losing proposition. I'd but if I really wanted to put this in the hands of player, I'd go:

standard action +1,000gp. (Slightly more than the old unlimited wand because its much more convenient on on a primary weapon than on a wand)

swift action +10,000gp. (Quicken SLA, require CL+9, so I multiple the effect by new CL 10.)

free action +20,000gp. (Clearly better than a swift action, and has the potentially troublesome mechanic of stacking with itself so I double the price but would probably just deny this outright.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They list the source: Pathfinder Player Companion: Dungeoneer's Handbook at the bottom of the page.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Flanking is an attackers bonus anyhow. Not a defenders penalty. If being aware of the flankers was to be requirement, it should be a requirement of the person making the attack taking advantage of the target having a foe his opposite side, not the defender pretending blissful ignorance.

And in general most groups attacking together can probably coordination something to let each other no when they are in position.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ilja wrote:


This is the interpretation we use, and it works very well. As far as I know, defending is the only thing in the game that can really be abused through "wielding" (though again, it never mentions it). So for me, the weapon property that should be considered as an exceptional case, and potential ramifications from it should not force a sweeping ruling that severely changes how other things function (such as the ominous dagger).

The Guardian weapon ability ability is similarly though written differently.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The DC = critical hit confirmation number after all modifiers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xaratherus wrote:
Would you only grant the Magus that AC bonus if he had made an attack with it during that round? That's not generally how I've applied such abilities.

As a GM (not a rules forum lawyer) I'd probably let it slide. Its not prone to nearly as much abuse as defending or anything that expects you to actually take a penalty to receive a bonus.

I certainly would not want to take it away because you cast a spell, then closed with the enemy. That said I feel you should be making a token effort to use your iconic item it at least occasionally. If you go through encounter after encounter and don't use it ever then I'd start to find it mildly annoying and feel you are going might be overboard to game the system. And if you are a player who is far above the curve in terms of power (if you read these forums and the rest your fellow players don't you probably are above the curve) I'd have no problem tell you to use it or lose it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, take a moment, and imagine the Defending weapon doesn't exist.

Try looking through threads about arcane bond and wielding as well. Here's an SKR post:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n316?Wield#23

The discussions raged quite a bit. There is a lot of information out there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The devs have said wielding for a weapon is attacking with. Generally this is in reference to things like the defending weapon property. And for the actually defending FAQ they state you must attack with it.

They have said they would adjust the text for things like arcane bond as it cannot easily meet this standard of wielding (ie if you bond a weapon and have to attack with it to wield it, it would be very difficult to cast spells) though I don't believe they actually have altered any text.

In regards to this I think you might find some table variation. Its probably not something I'd bring to a convention and spring on an unsuspecting GM.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is no savings.

A +1 weapon is 2,000 + cost of weapon.
A +2 weapon is 8,000 + cost of weapon.

The cost to upgrade a +1 weapon to a +2 weapon is 6,000.
The cost to upgrade a +2 weapon to a +3 weapon (18,000-8,000) = 10,000
The cost to upgrade a +3 weapon to a +4 weapon is (32,000-18,000) = 14,000gp.

Etc. By the time you get to a +10 weapon, you've invested 200,000 gp into the weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The description given makes it seem likely that you left a threaten square via regular movement and that is what provoked. If the monster could not attack your starting position (or any position you left during your movement) then it would not provoke.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

2) You don't get monk bonus feats at level 4 or 8. Also, in general I think you get far more damage out of clustered shot in comparison to hammer the gap.

4) Most of the harping came before the FAQ was released the question is answered in the Paizo FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9qnl


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Trainwreck wrote:


Figuring out the cost for these arrows would use the single-use, use-activated rules for creating wondrous items, but since a composite longbow can deliver arrows to a range of 1100', should there be an additional cost to these items?

They should be very expensive. I'd probably cost them as if they had +7 or 8 metamagic bumps (50*CL*(SL+8)). As you can cast them faster than a quickened spell. 7 fireballs a round, even if the save DC is trivial is likely to kill all non evading party members. Unless they have prebuffed with resistances/immunity.

If it takes a standard action to launch them, then I'd go with standard potion like pricing (50*CL*SL) each.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Some Random Dood wrote:

I'd say prone shooter is still better than crane riposte.

Prone shooter got a healthy buff. Its should now sit comfortably in the feats no one takes pile with oh so many other feats. Rather than in the feat people laugh at as the worst feat ever.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eirikrautha wrote:

I'm sure that Paizo tested this on their own (and got feedback from VOs in PFS) before changing it (which might explain the long wait to fix it).

No as so far as timing goes. They only issue errata's with new printings. For whatever reason they are starting new prints run of UC/GMG so we got errata's for those books. Its a deliberate design decision rather than change the game by frequent errata's ala WotC in 3.x/4.x which leave the books themselves with inaccurate information.

It might good from a business prospective. (I can see some advantages even though I don't like it) But its always really painful that we have to wait around with obviously broken things (ie pistoleer pistol training not replacing gun training) for so long. And then when the errata's do come out, its feel really awkward to make a change because you've been using those rules for years as opposed to weeks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aleron wrote:
I'm curious, where was this found?

http://paizo.com/products/btpy8mcz?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Ultimate-Com bat


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do want to say. I despise the fact they waited 2.5 years to make this change the various other changes. That's an awfully long time for people to settle in and accept things as they are.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, I think its a change for the better. I think it still holds it own as a viable feat. +4 ac to a melee attack per round isn't bad at all. And I very much like that you have to use it before the attack role (which was my house rule fix though it still autodeflected.) That said, I do regret what it does to crane riposte as I don't think that feat has much value at all after this change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Your stats alone will not dominate the party. A well built/played character can dominate, but this largely depends on how well built/played the surrounding characters are compared to yours rather than you initial stats.

Stats might give you head start, but the rest of character devolpment will have a far larger effect on your ability to dominate or fit in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, nothing in the spell description say its negative energy, don't see any reason negative energy resistance would apply. Even if it were, it doesn't deal damage thus resistance would have no effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hendelbolaf wrote:
Not trying to argue with you here as it is not an important point but there was no facing in 3.0 either. If it was, I would be interested to know where it is in the rulebook, because I have not been able to find it.

Page 131 in the players hand book. Its wasn't really facing, as there was no action to rotate one's self, but it is where they defined how wide a creature was vs. how long it was. ie a horse was 5'x10'. A bullet was 10'x20'. And the width was used to determine how many could walk side by side through a corridor. So presumably the face was on one end of the width.

There's probably more too it in the DMG. But as there were no rules for turning (beyond those in fight) it didn't play out real well and thus was changed in 3.5 to make every creature a cube and thus have no difference in width and length.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ZomB wrote:
I would guess that when the Blood of the Elements book arrives that at least one of the 5 elemental races in it becomes core for PFS. Similar to what happened with Aasimars and Tieflings. (i.e. it makes business sense)

I would not hold my breath. They haven't made skinwalkers or dhamphir core yet. Though I have seen dhamphir boons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ignore the first line of text, its just flavor text. To actually use its ability you have to be hit by an attack. If your relevant AC is greater than the attack roll, it misses and you cannot trigger your shield ability.

Yes you can do it repeatedly so long as you have an immediate action available.

And yes, if you include allies in the area of effect they would need to make saves as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Typically I apply this wholesale. If you try to fit a large creature through a 5 foot hallway, then its squeezing. If you try to fit a human into a halfling house with 4' ceilings then he's squeezing.

When if something comes up that I have to break it down square by square, I generally go with if more than half the square is covered then you have to squeeze. If more than 3/4 of square is covered then its inaccessible. If this regularly becomes an issue, just move the walls so they fill any questionable space.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Knowing a 1 is a failure, and knowing the results are different things.

If you roll a 1 on a reflex save what happened? Did you take 10 damage, or 1,000. Did you just fall prone or were you teleported to the bottom of the ocean?

Its the results not the failure or success of a save that the GM is suppose to keep hidden, far more than number of the die.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the double barrel pistol deserves a mention even if I wish it didnt exist. Anything the doubles your attacks is pretty potent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The price of material component should be static (ie not reduced in the creation cost) so there is obviously no material component covered in the creation cost.

A scroll of gate for this purpose should cost, 25*9*17+10,000 or 13,825gp. Putting it in the form of a candle that anyone can use should make it more expensive not less. And adding in the 4 hour duration of psuedo mass heroism, and letting the cleric pretend his gained 2 full levels of spell casting should further make it more expensive.

The price doesn't seem remotely high enough to justify covering a 10k material component to a spell. As the GM gave it out as loot, I let a one time slip go by, but as a general rule its not nearly expensive enough for such a thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It should have been paid when the candle is made. However it obviously isn't in the creation costs. As its loot found in the adventure I'd ask the GM and hope for the best.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MechE_ wrote:


Second chance is a trait, not a feat. Makes it much better for the price.

No second chance is a feat from the APG.

Second Chance

Lessons of Chaldira is the trait you are discussing from Faiths of Purity, which d20pfsrd changed the name of.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't know that they can be compared? Second Chance is a combat feat that I've never seen taken. And the improved saving throw feats are nearly never taken. I don't think any of them come off as too good.

*Edit: Ugg. Sorry, didn't realize you meant Lessons of Chaldira. In truth the feats are probably too weak. While Lessons of Chaldira is a strong trait I still don't see it taken too often. It requires the worship of a relatively obscure halfling diety, which is a notable drawback.

And while it does certainly surpass the improved saving throw feats, its probably not one of the most used traits, because there are other traits that mimic much more popular feats even if they don't surpass them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Focusing on the obdiences (not so much the boons) I like.

Arqueros. +4 bonus on str checks. Huge if you like break DCs. And the obedience seems good practice for any shield user.

Falayna. +4 grapple/+4 CMD against grapple (Overpowered if you ask me). The obedience seems really good for any unarmed fighter, particular grapplers/females.

Lymnieris. Healing Spells heal +1*number of dice more. A lot of people like healing. Easy stotic obedience.

Ragathiel. +4 bonus on Saving throws against spells/effect from evil creatures. Crazy good, but the obedience seems nearly impossible to carry out on a daily basis. Though if you live in chelax or the world wound maybe not.

Rowdrosh. Sacred version of mobility. Obedience is fairly simple, works if you want to be an adventure farmboy/herder.

Shei/Vildeis. +4 saves vs ability damage/drain/penalty. Either obedience is easily repeatable and makes since.

**Edit: I really like this book from cover to cover and recommend picking it up if you want to dramatically broader the array of good entities to worship.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1,2,3: Yes.

With the note, I don't know precisely what you mean by luck. Good hope and inspire courage effect all your attack rolls so I don't think there is much doubt there.

I conceptually don't really like the idea of arcane strike enhancing every possible improvised weapon on your body as a house rule I'd probably be tempted to restrict you to items you actually wield at the time you activate it. But that's not really RAW just my knee jerk reaction.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Keydan wrote:


Doesn't this mean a called shot to a helmet-less head is just a 10 in difficulty for a flat-footed opponent?

Assuming you are using the Ultimate Combat Called shot rules, its -5 (tricky shot) penalty to attack the head. Making a called shot is making the attack harder to hit, not easier. If the armor has significant gaps in the area its covering that it represented by a reduced AC bonus the armor grants and is already reflected in the targets AC bonus.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The familiar is itself a creature and should be acting on its own initative (unless the master has be demoted to the limited action set of a mount). That said most forced movement provokes unless the ability causing the forced movement states it does not. And if that forced movement cause multiple creatures to provoke simulataneous you should be able to strike at any or all of them as your AoOs allow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Proley wrote:

I prefer rolling, Point Buy is a min-maxers favourite, so if you want less cheese, go with rolling.

I find this to be largely untrue. MinMaxer are very likely to have the numbers arranged from highest to lowest in the same positions regardless if they point buy or roll. In which case they are min/maxing just as much investing as little as possible in one area, and as much as possible in another.

Or if you meant organic rolling where you roll once for each stat, that's pretty character destroying. As its not a lot of fun to play a wizard with low intelligence, or cleric with low wisdom so what you roll for your stats largely dictates what you play.

Not to mention the discontent of players who roll poorly in comparison to their neighbors. By and large I find point buy or preset arrays to generate happier players.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shadowdweller wrote:
They've got standard reach in -my- bestiary. EDIT: And in the prd as well.

Heh. So they did change it. I appologize, I just read the errata document and assumed nothing had changed. Instead they appear to have eliminated the space/reach the line entirely without mentioning it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Eagle's run into the problem there are relatively few things they can actually attack having 0 reach and being small. Unless this too has been eratta'd and I missed it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I believe it was intentional depowering. They gave it pounce rather than full attack on a standard action as well. They also reduced the fast healing by 10. So I would assume an AoO just gets a single regular attack, like their standard action attack would only give them one attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Boots of Speed are really very good for short bursts of movement (and for melee combat in general) And don't cost the action economy of drinking a potion or two. Combined with air walk you should be reasonably maneuverable.

5'x 5' flying carpets are expensive but they get you unlimited flight time, if you don't believe you GM with obliterate it. The headband of aerial agility isn't terrible either though more expensive.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The rules explicitly state you can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless its helpless.

Trying to leverage the "accidentally ending in an illegal square" rule to get a free teleport and then repeat the "accidental" movement over and over again is a bit much.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I guess conceptually I don't see it. 9 guys should make a 45' foot line making it impossible to trample the entire line with 1 auroch. Even in a 3x3 formation, in a 15' wide hallway, starting immediately in front of the 3x3 formation, it seem to take 35' movement to trample everything and end in a legal space. And since no other auroch would be in as close of a starting position (or even if they were) find a legal position to end in, if the first auroch still existed.

1 to 50 of 863 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.