|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Reading up Viking Irishman's Witch Guide and half-elf says swapping out for Arcane Training "is almost a must."
Obviously I'd want Witch to be my chosen Favored Class. Arcane Training lets you "use spell trigger and spell completion items for their favored class as if one level higher," but when does that actually help? Doesn't having just a single level in the class cover all the "trigger and/or completion" requirements you might need?
Cleric spells are Oracle spells.
That's not entirely true. Some Oracle spells are not Cleric spells, and this spell is a Cleric spell without being an Oracle spell.
If Paizo intended you to just "know" that Oracles could have it because they listed Cleric, then they would do the same thing for Wiz/Sor, except they specifically list Sorcerer in addition to Wizard. They chose not to list Oracle with Cleric, and they usually do.
I am always curious why people recommend Aasimar for the life oracle. The half elf loses out on a +2 to a secondary stat but gets to pick the same revelation boosting FCB from Elf, can take Paragon Surge for spontaneous access to whatever removal you might need and can start taking bonus spells with the Human FCB when channelling for HP recovery stops being relevant or effective in the mid to high levels.
Paragon Surge is specifically not an Oracle Spell (for some reason).
Scenario 2 seems far superior. :)
Matthew Downie wrote:
How can that assumption be true when not everything has forelimbs?
Do people feel that the damage from Grab on subsequent grapple checks is supposed to be in addition to any damage that check would normally impose? In other words, would you expect that a lion which grabs you with a Bite would do Bite damage if it pins you? If it selects the Damage action do you think it would do Bite damage twice or perhaps that it could inflict Claw and Bite damage (using the Claw for the Damage action since the Bite is busy maintaining the grapple).
Simply put? Yes.The rules that Matthew Downie just restated are pretty clearly written. When you succeed at a grapple check, you deal damage as if you hit with the attack that initiated the grapple. And since everything involved in a grapple requires succeeding on a grapple check, then everything will allow for getting that extra damage, including the "Damage" grapple option.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Full Attack doesn't inherently use both "hands" though.Claw attacks definitely don't use both "hands".
I think the general idea behind this line of thinking is: "Well if you're holding onto one of it's claws then how is it clawing you with it?"
The Sword wrote:
You say that switching back to Vancian casting isn't evidence of anything other than a switch was made. I disagree. It is strong evidence that Vancian Casting wasn't fundamentally broken - otherwise they wouldn't have made a conscious decision to return to that system.
What's fun about this particular discussion point is that DDN doesn't use Vancian Casting. :)They use something kinda close, where some classes need to prepare their spells ahead of time, but "fire and forget" is a thing of the past and doesn't exist among any of the 5E caster classes.
But even more than that, 5E also offers a class that casts with an entirely different model than anything even resembling Vancian Casting (ie: the Warlock class casts spells with an entirely different system, which means Core 5E already offers more spellcasting styles than PF supports.)
Milo v3 wrote:
•Most things are re-purposed Psionic terms from the 3.X D&D version of Psionics. Examples have already been given above, such as old Psionic Powers being (basically) directly copied over as "Psychic Spells" (Id Insinuation, Mind Thrust, Ego Whip, and so on and so fourth).•A majority of Psychic spells seem to involve mental manipulation in some way or another, and there are much fewer "spiritual" spells. For every single one spell like Object Reading or Possession, there are a handful that are more like Mental Block, Telekinetic spells, Thought Echo, Thought Shield, Divide Mind, Microcosm, etc.
•Anything involving Ectoplasm is a concept from 3.5 Psionics directly ported into PF Psychic rules and options.
•The entire theme of Kineticism is Psionic in nature, rather than Occult-related.
In addition, consider:
Pg 144 wrote:
Psychic magic originates from the distinctive qualities of the caster’s composite being, rather than through arcane formulae or rote supplication to divine entities. Therefore, psychic spells never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components. Psychic spells are purely mental actions, and they can be cast even while the caster is pinned or paralyzed.
Most telling to me personally, however, is that themes of "the occult" are already covered via traditional Arcane (typically) and/or Divine (less typically) magics. There was no "occult" gap to fill. There was, however, a "mind mage" gap to fill, and that's what Psychic Adventures seems to be attempting.
Reading the description of "Psychic Magic" from the Occult Adventures book (pg 144), I would have to totally disagree that "Psychic Magic and Psionics are completely different in theme." They're identical in theme. Completely.
And when I say, "It's just Sorcerer by another name," it's because there are more similarities than differences in how the class is played (even if there are various differences in what each class does).
Where they differ in play-style is minimal:
I was mostly just hoping that Paizo would step away from "more of the same mechanics" when expanding into Psionics, the way WotC did when they introduced it. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case and I'm bummed about it. =/
Let's say I'm playing a level 8 Tetori and want to spend a Ki to gain Grab.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Not quite right:
Combat Rules wrote:
Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
The listed options are Move/Damage/Pin/Tie Up.So the roll to maintain the pin allows you to use the Damage option as well. It might take a while to finish your pinned foe, but it's totally not "useless."
(And you don't even need Grab or Constrict. Having those just gives you extra damage for every Grapple Check.)
If that succeeds, then Yogi-bear did some damage to Boo-Boo-bear AND grappled him. Next turn, Boo-Boo-bear can full attack but he only gets ONE claw, not two, and one bite. So, in effect, Yogi-bear used a free Grab (no action) to prevent Boo-Boo-bear from making one attack next round.
Can you provide a source for this? I don't believe it's correct.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
UNCHAINED FIGHTER ** spoiler omitted **...
Lolwut?This Figher blows every other class out of the water. No martial can even compare, and even spell casters wouldn't be able to stop it with all the immunities and bonuses it's getting.
You would have to rebuild every class to be on-par with this power-monstrosity. ;)
It would only be genocide if you planned on killing all of the knitting groups. :)
Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.
The definition listed "national, racial, political, or cultural." "Knitting" wasn't listed among the acceptable groups for defining genocide. ;)
So technically your group is committing genocide.And we're debating whether this is evil or not? LOLOLOL
Metal Sonic wrote:
My point that I was referencing was that killing for profit (aka: assassination) was always evil.Every. Single. Thing. you just quoted agrees with me.
I am stupefied that you can't see that.
I... I can't even.
Metal Sonic wrote:
Did... did you even freaking read what you quoted? Or did you just cherry pick the words you were looking for?
Read it all again. It doesn't actually support your opinion here.
Backwards compatibility applies here. Pathfinder builds off of what came before, so the default assumption is that if PF didn't specifically change it, then it still applies as it did before.
...and not an indicator of assassination being evil, just that PrC due to its entry qualifications (Kill somebody for essentially no reason).
I wasn't actually talking about the requirement itself. I was referring to this snippet:
Assassin Class wrote:
"Due to its necessary selfishness and callous indifference toward taking lives, the assassin class attracts those with evil alignments more than any others. Because the profession requires a degree of self-discipline, chaotic characters are ill suited to becoming these shadowy killers. Neutral characters sometimes become assassins, frequently thinking of themselves as simple professionals performing a job, yet the nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment."
Bolded for emphasis.If the "nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment," and the nature of their duties is assassination, ipso facto, assassination makes one evil.
I already provided my source, two posts of mine up.
Edit - Okay, I'll do you better:
Should I dig up some more?
It's called "Smite Evil," not "Smite that guy who does bad things sometimes."
And sometimes killing is justified. For example, in self-defense or in the defense of innocents.
As far as Rogues go, nothing about the class says you have to be merciless and lethal.
And finally, the reason the thread has "devolved" is because the question has been asked and answered.
Oh really? Then why were Slayers of Domiel in the Book of Exalted Deeds? The whole purpose of the class is to KILL EVIL THINGS! And do it with underhanded tactics too. They are banned from using poison, but I don't remember very many other restrictions.
There's a lot of really bad, "rule-of-cool trumps logic/continuity" options in D&D over the years. Repentant Evil Outsiders is one.This prestige class is another. :P
But it's easy enough to add justification where WotC didn't. Evil with a capital E is an objective reality in D&D/PF, and the forces of Good oppose it, sometimes through less-than-honorable means. Assassinating the Balor Lord for the overall good is a goodly act because it was objective evil being vanquished and doing it covertly probably saved lives that would otherwise be wasted by a head-on assault.
(Also, for people who like to point out the Slayers of Domiel as a saving grace to their argument, don't forget to include the very first sentence under the prestige heading:
*Edit to add - Their other restriction is that their Death Touch ability only works on Evil targets and is useless against Good/Neutral.
Look at it this way:
Batman is a Good Guy.
If you want your character to be more like Batman, you cannot kill your enemies. Accidents may happen, but it cannot be your main strategy and you should do everything in your power to avoid killing your enemies.
You are right, in that the rules are not perfect. However, the rules DO call out everything that is considered inherently Evil. If CDG isn't called out as inherently Evil, which it is not, then saying it's Evil to kill helpless enemies, as a blanket statement, is unfounded. In which case, there must be some other way to determine whether killing helpless enemies is Evil. How that is determined boils down to one question: Is the alignment system Objective or Subjective?
Animating Undead is always considered Evil with a capital E. Every Paizo employee ever who has commented on it has said as such, and it's why spells like Animate Dead have the [Evil] tag.The Skeleton Crew spell not only animates corpses, it animates many corpses. It does not have the [Evil] tag (never even been errata'd), so it is not an Evil act.
Except it's totally an evil act, right? Which is it?
Again, the rules are not perfect.
My favorite part of your argument is that you feel 100% comfortable with entirely ignoring context.By your logic, if the good and/or neutral party was offered a substantial reward for seeking out and slaying the crying baby that was keeping the King awake at night, they'd happily take it. After all, killing for profit is just what adventurers do (and are expected to do), right?
Regarding brainwashing, it is NOT something found in most campaign settings. And mind control is FAR different and, moreover, a tool that most cultists would not use.
This is entirely, 100%, your subjective opinion, and not at all objective truth.
If the goal is to get converts to give their souls to a dark god, then what is the point int mind-controlling somebody, when a soul cannot be given away under mind control, something clear in past forms of D&D and Pathfinder, presumably also in 5th edition?
Who said that was the goal of this organization? Why are you making such baseless assumptions?
Apart from that, if the GM wanted them to know of any mind-control, would there not have been checks for PCs to determine that? The OP clearly didn't think as much, given the lack of stated information in the first post, so making that assumption is not even close to being a good idea.
Why would you assume that conditioning is visibly obvious? Did they even bother to consider the possibility? By all accounts given, no. Dealing death was step 1.
All in all, I think that people have gotten on way too much of a moral high horse with this issue. Calm down, get off your pedestals, and realize that this situation was likely a 'dirty tactics or TPK' situation. Paladin codes also say to be bold and courageous in the face of evil, but both in 3.X and Pathfinder after it, it states that a paladin may retreat from a foe that is superior to them. Now, if we're being moralists here, we could argue 'oh, well, running is not bold and courageous... you lose your paladin powers'. But who wants to be THAT guy, the one who places PCs in impossible situations where it comes down to death or dishonor?
Again, as already mentioned, no one said being Good was easy. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Good people try to find ways to solve problems without resorting to killing. This party went for killing as option #1. And again, not for a righteous cause - just because it suited their needs.
Why no "Shocking Longsword?" Why MUST it be a "+1 Shocking Longsword?" Etc.
The argument about Magic Weapon/Vestment is simply that I wish it were better.
Except, again, "saving innocent lives by eliminating cultist threat" was never the group's goal.The group's goal was, "oh crap, we're gonna get caught... hey, if we murder these sleeping cultists and make it look like it was an animal attack, we can bluff it off - they're evil anyway, so who cares?"
In fact, fighting the cultists at all was never a goal. Only assassinating their leader was.
You don't get to claim the moral high ground when your goals were purely selfish in nature and your methods were violent for the sake of convenience.
As to brainwashing being "ooc baggage," you've gotta be kidding me, right? Mind Control is DEFINITELY ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY going to be a potential threat in a world with MIND CONTROL MAGIC. And "behavioral conditioning" is a very very old thing. The only thing the D&D world might not have is the same terminology (ie: they might call "brainwashing" something else.)
I know this has been baked into the rules for umpteen years, but seriously, why do you need a +1 magical bonus on your sword before you can put any non-bonus magical enhancement on it?
It feels like all this does is make Divine support casters weaker than they should be.
It seems so wasteful and dumb. Am I the only one?
Who is to say the cultists weren't victims themselves? This IS a cult we're talking about, after all.
Killing them was simply the most convenient thing to do in their situation. And, as Rynjin already defined in a quote, killing simply because it's convenient is Evil.
You don't even need real-world morality to explain that "blanket" statement: The game has defined killing for profit as Evil (hence the Assassin alignment restriction). Assassination is killing for profit.
Except the party's goal, as identified in the original post anyway, is not to stop an evil faction in it's tracks.Their goal is to gain vaguely-defined sky powers.
What I really want to know is why is a Paladin accepting an Assassination job?
5E Paladins are -not- free from the Good alignment; they're simply no longer tied to Lawful, depending on their choice of Oath.
ie: They're still inherently tied to being forces for Good.
Also, all the real-world military comparisons I keep seeing are utterly worthless.
And just like the Combat Rules fail to cover Every. Single. Issue. Of. Combat., the Alignment Rules fail to cover every single issue of alignment.
Hence, "don't be 'that guy.'" Because the Rules are not perfectly written and they will not (and should not) address literally every conceivable thing.
C'mon, don't be "that guy."
Actually, since this situation is entirely in the "GM Fiat" area of the rules, the worst person at the table is the player who keeps arguing with the GM over a ruling.Ceiling collapse is entirely justified. +1
I'm not really sure what you're saying here, as Jinx normally only affects saving throws.
Sluggish Jinx reads:
So if I have Bolster Jinx, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will, the "Jinx penalty on saving throws" is very clearly a -3; if you have none of those 3 extra feats, it is clearly a -1.
That's exactly how that works, yes.Bolster Jinx, however, changes the value of your jinx effect, but not entirely across the board (as it depends on which save-bolstering feats you possess). Your "jinx effect" is no longer always a -1, so which value is correct?