|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Are there rules about what happens with a permanent, continuous effect (such as a Leonal's Protective Aura) when the creature involved is asleep, or knocked unconscious?
Do creatures that possess (or are granted) these continuous Su effects have control over them or are they always active no matter what? (ie: Could the Leonal from the above example choose to suppress it's Protective Aura, like you can do with SR, or is it stuck with it always active?)
Tried searching but I can't seem to find any general rules surrounding Continuous effects.
No, you're being paid to "defend and/or protect the town from the orc raiding parties."(Unless the request is literally something like, "Hey, adventurers, there is a settlement of orcs up in them there hills that keep raiding our town. Go up there and slaughter the buggers for us? There's money in it for you." Yeah, that'd be evil.)
Killing can be a consequence without making you evil. When killing is the goal, you are evil.
Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.
The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.
Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)
I'm actually in agreement with you that the intention behind earth glide was very likely not to allow those creatures to ignore earthen projectiles.
However, quoting a bit of flavor text from the ability is hardly stating hard RAW.
Someone said RAW says no. I don't see that to be the case. If it is the case, I was asking where that RAW existed (and what, specifically, it said.) Otherwise, it's entirely GM fiat.
Even if nobody had found any rules to use "the book does not say I can't" does not mean you can.
This is true, but it doesn't mean you can't either. If it doesn't exist as a rule, it's up to either a FAQ or your GM to answer individually.
Byakko, neutrinos are subatomic particles. Earth Elementals, Oreads, etc. are hardly in the same category.
wraithstrike, I have my personal opinion, but I posted this in the rules forum because there are no rules on it. I think there should be. If my interpretation is wrong, that's fine. But it's too "up in the air" based on ability wording to assume one way or the other.
The thing is, nothing about Earth Glide says you become incorporeal or some other status that would allow you to just ignore matter.
The only difference between Burrow and Earth Glide is that one leaves a tunnel and visibly (key word, visibly) disturbs the ground traveled through, and the other doesn't.
See, this is why I'm asking! lol
If we go with the assumption that you can't take a person with you, for logical reasons, then logic also holds that you can't take your stuff with you either, for identical logical reasons.
If we go with the assumption that you can take a person and/or stuff with you, then suddenly people will cry foul because of the potential "abuse."
Nathanael Love wrote:
The second they print pathfinder 2.0 I'm out and Paizo will never get another dime out of me-- and I am sure that represents a pretty big contingent of customers. New editions bring in new customers, and push out old ones.
Man, I'm so tired of this warn-out chest thumping.Unless you started your gaming experience with Pathfinder, then you know this isn't true. 2nd Edition D&D is still around, but people still bought 3.0. 3.0 is still around and yet people still massively upgraded to 3.5. 3.5 is still everywhere too, yet PF is strong. Etc. And so on. And so fourth.
Face the facts - you'll upgrade to whatever game is doing well, because if you don't, you lose out on people to game with. End of story.
This.Eidolons weren't broken - classes that couldn't get pounce are.
Early access spells aren't a problem - a GM feeling like they're not allowed to say "no, you can't find that particular version of that magic item" is.
Oh no, how unfortunate that the Summoner only gets a class feature instead of an entire other character now.
Sorry, but this is just a bad comparison.It speaks MUCH more to the weakness of the Fighter than it does to the strengths of the Eidolon.
I mean, no one says that the Eidolon is better than a Barb/Pally/Ranger. Only better than the Fighter.
I've read several guides on divine spells. Offense is just not that spell list's forte. Granted, when I was describing Harm, I was talking in terms of direct-damage. (I mean, what else do they have? Flame Strike? Weak sauce!)
Yes, Divine can be good at debuffing, but almost all the good offensive debuffs are touch range, and being in melee combat isn't where I want my spellcaster to be.
Look at the area covered in a 10ft radius centered on a grid intersection. It covers 12 squares total.
Now look at the area covered in a 10ft radius centered on a square (treated as reach because how else would you measure it?). It covers 21 squares.
Almost. Freaking. Double.
This question NEEDS an answer. The fact that it's been 4 years since it was asked and it has gone totally ignored is obscene.
What I find interesting though is that the spells you list for the Divine casters really aren't all that impressive.
Antilife Shell is a pretty impressive defense (when it works), but it does nothing to help you actually defeat your foe. And since hit-and-run tactics are incredibly expensive (feat-intensive) and not very good for the cost, most people won't take them, which makes dashing in, hitting someone on the other side of the shield, and retreating a non-option in most games.
Planar Ally is always touted as a great spell. And it is a great spell. But no one ever mentions the totally unreliable, up-to-the-GM, cost. Yes, maybe that outsider COULD help in this situation, but maybe you can't afford them.
Harm is, basically, the only really good offensive spell on the entire Divine list, and it definitely has it's drawbacks: It cannot kill your target and it must be used in melee.
Greater Dispel Magic is an amazing spell, but is not Divine only (which is relevant to this particular discussion).
Spellcrash is an awful spell. You're using your action, and a spell slot, in order to stop their spell. It's just like you counterspelled (which is an awful strategy in this ruleset), except you're guaranteed to remove only your foe's weakest spell option, because the spell lost is chosen by the target, not picked at random.
You find it weak because the Divine spell list is very unexciting, and because even though everyone and their mother is on the, "It gets 9th level spells!" bandwagon, everyone and their mother is also ignoring that a HUGE majority of PF players will never reach levels capable of 8th or 9th level casting.
You're not entirely right, OP, but you're not wrong either.
But really if you think about it, without investment, how many combat maneuvers are actually better then this? Trip can be resolved with a move action (getting up), so can reposition or drag. Bullrush is only of greater consequence if there is something bad to bullrush the enemy into or off of. Disarm can potentially have greater consequences, but the default, disarmed weapon falling near them, again is resolved with a move action to pick it up (or draw a new weapon). Really only grapple has a greater potential consequence then dirty trick. And most people shy away from it because of how complicated it can be and how much it can slow things down.
All of them are inherently better, actually.Trip - Standing provokes.
Disarm - Retrieving provokes.
Bull Rush - Only happens when there's a reason, like you said.
Grappling is just flat out superior of a combat maneuver.
But the recovery from a Dirty Trick doesn't mention anything about provoking, so the default assumption is clearly that it doesn't. :/
Edit to add: I am at least seeing usefulness in specific builds now though, so thanks all for that. :)
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Now I didn't play D&D until 3.0, but Malachi's got a pretty hard-to-ignore point right here.
"I can only assume the enemy arcanist has a stoneskin spell in effect, so as I move in to attack her, I'm going to kick a bunch of debris, a chunk of grass, a pebble or two, and some hard dirt right at her, stripping her of at least 3 or 4 layers, right? And Then I'll attack as if she never cast the stoneskin in the first place."
No way the spell should be that pathetically weak. That's dumb. D-U-Double M, dumb!
(Also, where are you fighting? Pebble Beach? "I lean down and grab a handful of rocks." "Uh, you come up with a handful of dirt - this isn't very rocky terrain. Do you want to spend a few actions looking for enough pebbles to make a handful?" "Ugh, no.")
Black Tentacles is a great spell, but it's hardly an insta-win.
I really still fail to see the problem here. Yes, with a handful of good spells you have an edge. You pay for that edge by having a very strict spell list.
More classes should be designed this way, honestly.
Because let's be real - When the Bard has early access to a thing, no one cares. Because Illusion and Enchantment are weak schools.
Lava Child wrote:
They get haste at level 4 instead of level 5. Not a huge deal.THey get Black Tentacles at level 7, the same level a Wizard would be getting it. I fail to see how early access has helped here at all (cheaper wand? you aren't buying level 3 wands at this level anyway).
This is the perfect example of why I feel like people overreact over this spell list.
But that breaks the game how exactly? Yes, you can afford some stuff slightly earlier than normal. Yes, a few things that otherwise wouldn't be a wand option become a wand option. It's still easy to control the market on these things, considering most caster's can't make them - So either said Summoner needs to be taking crafting feats (because you can *easily* justify saying, "Sorry, the wand merchant has heard rumors of said wands, but she's never actually seen one.") or you just won't see them.
The argument about Bards spells was a bad one. Let me just apologize for pushing that one. (It really just stemmed from the, "Summoners get Haste as a 2, Bards get it as a 3," and I didn't think before posting. >_<).
I do still think spell lists are screwy (mostly from school assignments) and I do still support the idea that the Summoner is fine, power-wise.
And, generally speaking, the OP is on the right page.
I won't disagree that most classes do, in fact, work fine. But you don't see another Fighter/Monk/Rogue in Adv Players Guide, do you?Also, compare Ranger (a perfectly fine class) and Inquisitor (a spin on the same playstyle); Inquisitor is arguably the better designed class.
As for "screwy spell lists," what I mean is that classes like Bard share spells from other classes' spell lists, they should have the same sort of early access that Summoners do but for the most part they don't because they didn't in 3.5.
The class is fine. It's the Core material that's screwed up (weak classes due to backwards compatibility, screwy spell lists, etc).
Just imagine if they redesigned the Core rules with the same ingenuity they used with the Advanced Players rules.
But, I do have a question! Imagine this hypothetical if you would:
(Or, tl;dr - If you live in a world where the existence of multiple gods is simply a fact of life, how do you totally devote yourself to just a single one without constantly stepping on the toes of the others? How does a Cleric cope with this?)
When you say, "that actually works," what are you looking for?
Just a class that can do good damage? Paladin and Ranger/Slayer would be your best bet.
A class that can actually TWF and isn't just an essentially reskinned 2H character? Anything that will let you get more than a single attack even after a move: Mobile Fighter, Two Weapon Warrior, Battle Oracle if you can make it to lvl 20, anything that will get you Pounce such as Barbarian, etc. This way is more fun, but does less damage because of being reliant on a high Dex.
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
8) Taking control of characters away from players.
7) "Required items."
6) The perception skill.
5) Stuff you can't fix.
4) Required magic items.
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
2)"Save or suck"/1) Save or die.
Look, no one likes getting one-shot (and I will agree with the idea that SoL are much preferable to SoD), so let's at least be honest about the argument yeah? The problem isn't SoS/D, the problem is one shot mechanics. And in that vein- Pouncing Barbarians, Charging Cavaliers, Smiting Paladins, etc. are all also equally part of the problem.