|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I concur, the statement in the rules could be written as:
Swarms are immune to mind affecting effects that target a single or a specific number of creatures unless they have a hive mind.
They are not immune to mind affecting effects that do not target a single or specifc number of creatures, which color spray is, unless of course it's a vermin or undead swarm.
Just goes to show you even very experienced players/GMs (which Nefreet certainly is) can read a rule incorrectly.
Actually, there's a way to get Weapon Focus as a bonus feat at first level:
Adoptive Parentage: Humans are sometimes orphaned and adopted by other races. Choose one humanoid race without the human subtype. You start play with that race's languages and gain that race's weapon familiarity racial trait (if any). If the race does not have weapon familiarity, you gain either Skill Focus or Weapon Focus as a bonus feat that is appropriate for that race instead. This racial trait replaces the bonus feat trait.
As the GM, you'd have to agree on this usage, of course, but this would allow it. Plus the only race I can think of that would be associated with the whip would be Hobgoblins, or (kind of a stretch) Nagaji.
Go for it. If he takes weapon finesse, dex mod applies to trip, disarm, and other maneuvers made by the whip. So does the whip enhancement bonus, the bard's performance or luck bonus (Archeologist would be an excellent archetype), weapon focus if he has it. He could do pretty well starting at level 3 with a human, taking weapon focus and weapon finesse at level 1 and then either Slashing Grace (to get Dex-to-damage) or Whip Mastery (to avoid AoOs and be able to deal lethal damage).
DM Barcas, I get what you're arguing -- that the actual legal effect of the law is determined by its language and that it is difficult to find where in the law it actually gives permission to discriminate.
On the other hand, I think it's become pretty clear from the way people have been championing these laws and laws like them that they are intended to appear as if they are protecting those who would like to discriminate against LGBT people. It may be that the lawmakers who are putting these laws to paper are writing laws that don't actually do that, but are giving their supporters the appearance of protection if they choose to discriminate.
After all, there's a reason why all these laws have been proposed in the last couple years. That reason is marriage equality and the success we've had in bringing it through legislation, judicial decisions, and via popular referenda. That isn't a coincidence. To propose that these laws have nothing to do with a reaction against the LGBT civil rights movement's success requires that one explain why all these laws are being pushed for now.
Those concerned about the laws in the legislatures that passed them tried to add amendments that would prevent the laws from overriding local anti-discrimination ordinances, add specific anti-discrimination wording to the laws, or define protecting children as a compelling government interest. These amendments were defeated. What would be the point in this, if the purpose of the law were not (or at least, was not meant to appear as) to override local anti-discrimination ordinances, to allow discrimination, to prevent protecting children when it would conflict with religious views, and so forth? (Citation)
When asked whether the law would make it legal for a business to refuse to serve gay customers, the governor who signed it refused to answer six times. If it wasn't intended to make this legal, why wouldn't he say so? (Citation)
DM Barcas wrote:
As I've noted before, the proponents of the law have explicitly claimed it will give them license to discriminate -- except of course they say it's not discrimination to refuse service to those filthy gays, it's just protecting their religious beliefs. So if the law doesn't actually do this, you certainly can't tell from what the people who've written it and champion it are trying to say.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Well, if you're not paying attention, you wonder. Those who are paying attention don't have to, as the people in question are all but explicit about it.
Yes, but only those Rogue archetypes that swap out the abilities that the Ninja shares with the core rogue: uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and sneak attack.
The Scout archetype is a common one, as is the bandit. Not many others fail to replace either a rogue talent, trapfinding, trap sense, or evasion.
Religion is already protected. You can't be refused service on the basis of your religion. What these people are doing are claiming a religious justification for refusing service to someone else.
This was explicitly the purpose of the law. All the supporters were saying it was necessary specifically in order to allow, for example, a bakery to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple without falling afoul of the law. You're not fooling anyone by claiming that wasn't its purpose.
The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.
All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.
If you treat the situation as a game, like mass iterative Prisoner's Dilemma, where there are two groups, systematic discrimination can be stable. If members of group A always defect against group B and usually cooperate with other As, and Bs always defect against group A and usually cooperate with Bs, anyone who tries to change things will do worse than the players who discriminate, because most of the time if a liberal A tries to cooperate with a B, the B defects and he loses.
Of course in real life the As can look at you trying to cooperate with Bs and decide you're a B-lover and burn your store down.
There are two main differences between racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation. First, it's harder to tell what sexual orientation a person is by looking at them. Second, and this is the main reason progress has happened so fast on this front and so slowly on race, sometimes a homophobic family has a gay child and has to deal with it, whereas it's pretty rare for a racist family to have a black child.
Sorry to hear that. It might have been a little aggressive for the GM to have both shadows attack you, but it may be that the tactics of the encounter require that, and objectively speaking, focusing fire on one target is the most logical, optimal tactic for such creatures to use. Did the rest of the party survive?
Did the shadow damage your strength to equal to or more than your actual Strength score? If so, yes, you're dead, and in 1d4 rounds your dead body becomes a shadow itself under the control of the shadow that killed you. This makes you ineligible for most forms of raising from the dead. Shadows are really tough and a GM should use them sparingly unless she and her players are OK with the idea of a tough, gritty game with lots of PC death.
Solutions: Resurrection. True Resurrection. Wish. Miracle. A GM might allow the shadow your PC became to regain free will if the shadow that killed you is destroyed, but having a shadow as a PC is very disruptive to the game and the GM probably wouldn't let you keep the shadow as a PC. Edit: nevermind, the GM is constrained by PFS rules, so won't be able to do that.
A shadow shouldn't be able to kill you in a single shot, unless it was able to confirm a crit, or your Strength was 6 or less to begin with.
That's the rules, dude. If there was no risk of death, the game wouldn't be as fun. If you have the prestige or the funds, get resurrected; otherwise, start a new character, and remember count the shadows.
Hey who turned out the lights?
Making tools as chimpanzees and humans do is clearly not an instinct. It is learned and passed down from individual to individual. That is the very definition of culture in this context.
Isn't the testimony of people who feel harmed by others assigning them a gender and treating them a certain way as a result evidence that there are problems associated with the act of gendering?
Sissyl, there is actually a lot of evidence that when animals get smart enough to have culture, that a lot of activity is culturally driven rather than instinct driven. Chimpanzees learning to make tools from each other, for instance. Birds learning songs from each other. Given how much of human behavior is culturally shaped, asserting that any particular phenomenon in humans is biologically fixed rather than a result of culture requires positive evidence, just as much as asserting that a phenomenon is entirely a result of culture rather than biologically determined. I'm not entirely sure what the null hypothesis should be, but there's plenty of reasons that the default shouldn't be "assume that things are the result of fixed biology until proven otherwise".
What is that supposed to mean? You call the weapon, it teleports to your hand, now you're wielding it.
Wow, the Martial Master is an incredibly good archetype for the Fighter. It also fits the theme of the fighter, which is lots and lots of feats. Feats for every occasion. Any number of combat feats... that's insane. That 20th level fighter is suddenly ready for absolutely anything that comes his way (except for dominate person I suppose).
I believe the Paladin and Ranger would be without their Divine Focus, hindering them a little bit. The Ranger's animal companion should be able to wreck-face, though.
Unless their religion frowns on tattoos, I can't see any reason for a divine caster of any level where 100g is trivial not having a tattooed holy symbol. Leaves your hand free, can't be taken from you without someone being willing to cut your arm off, can't be dropped, doesn't need to be retrieved from a container, is available even if you're naked, etc.
Let's look at this a different way. Which martial characters wouldn't be screwed in this situation?
Brawler, obviously: Uses Martial flexibility to gain the exact combination of feats she needs to win (disarm, grapple, catch off guard, whatever).
Monk: a monk is nearly as well-defended stark naked as with all his gear, although less powerful due to not having his amulet of mighty fists. On the other hand, if said amulet and its chain were made of a metal that can be immersed in water unharmed, such as gold, I might expect him to keep it on in the bath.
A cavalier would be just as bad off as a fighter, except with fewer feats.
A gunslinger is, if anything, even more gear-dependent than a fighter. Against the level 1 warrior, she might have a chance, since the warrior probably wouldn't have proficiency with the firearm and it might misfire.
A swashbuckler at level 20 might have had occasion to invest in unarmed strikes and Snake style to allow his unarmed strikes to work with the class abilities related to piercing weapons, so in that case would be better off than the normal fighter, and also gets bonuses to AC, and could use parry to block attacks.
A slayer is about as disadvantaged as a fighter.
A ranger is either equally screwed as a fighter or has a significant advantage if he's taken the Natural Weapons fighting style and used it to get permanent claws. This might not count since we're talking about pure martial characters, but there are archetypes of ranger that give up spellcasting.
Ninja: Easy. She uses Hidden Master, which does not provoke an AoO because it's an SU ability, and can no longer be seen even if the foes prepared with see invisibility or true seeing. She can then either bug out and get her gear, or use the 20 rounds of un-detectable invisibility to sneak-attack the crap out of her attackers.
Rogue: If she's chosen certain talents (such as the ones that copy Ninja abilities) she might be able to take them out, otherwise acrobatics to get away would be the course of action.
Barbarian: DR would help protect her, and if she took the rage powers that give her natural attacks she would be able to brutally ravage the attackers.
Samurai: Same as cavalier. He ded, liek so ded.
Paladin: If the attackers weren't evil, she'd be in trouble. If they are, smites could help protect the paladin while working out a way to escape or fight back.
I'm seeing a trend here. All the characters who wouldn't be in serious trouble have some kind of supernatural enhancement.
I've noticed that a lot of people who like to think themselves superior to others pretend that their position is the result of pure logic, while their opponents is that of invalid emotional reasoning.
Which is nonsense, of course. Conservative positions are based on emotions just as much as liberal ones are. Emotions are what we humans use to make decisions. We don't generally use logic. Only in some very limited realms is logic used, and even then it's used to make logical inferences based on premises chosen by means other than logic (such as 'human life has inherent value', 'causing harm to others is wrong', 'freedom has inherent value', 'god exists', etc.)
Urguthoa is a legal deity choice in PFS. You'll have to be True Neutral in alignment, as evil characters are not allowed. You can have a character who's a misanthrope and hates everyone but doesn't go out of her way to cause harm to others.
Keep in mind that Alchemical allocation specifies the round AFTER the spell, so if you consume it on the same round, it doesn't technically work. That said, I see the appeal of being able to swift-action drink a buffing extract, standard action drink alchemical allocation, next round swift-action drink a potion, free action spit it back into the container, and still have a full round of actions to take after receiving the benefits of two buffs.
Expect GMs to be very strict about following the rules with this one, though, because it feels like an exploit even when run legally. They will probably demand to see the ISG book or PDF to make sure you're allowed to use it, and to verify the exact wording of the rules.
I want to draw attention to the point that there is a big difference between "Your policy has unintentional racist implications" and "you are a racist". No one is saying the latter, and saying the former does not constitute an accusation of being racist against anyone. "That thing you're doing is racist" and "you're a racist" are not equivalent.
As an opposing view, I present this post.
The argument presented by Cevah is that the text of Skill Mastery makes "she can take 10" conditional on "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so". The rebuttal would be that "even if" isn't usually used to make a conditional statement. The word "if" in place of it would make a conditional, but "even" makes a difference.
I think there's a feat that lets you use one increment of sacred weapon to enhance both parts of a double weapon.
It's called Dual Enhancement, and it allows you to do it as a single action. It looks like it applies any flat +x bonus you apply to both weapons, but special abilities get applied separately -- which is kinda confusing, but wouldn't matter if you're not going above 7, since your sacred weapon ability will never give you more than +1.
You're enhancing it using the bonded item crafting ability, right? You can't sell those. You can't sell items purchased using prestige either. Basically, you're stuck with it, sorry. However, consider that the cost of increasing your strength with the belt could be invested in other things to increase your damage with the bow. Besides, you really want to boost your dex before your strength when you're archery-focused.
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks, this should work great as add-in content for an NC-17 Skulls and Shackles PbP campaign I'm running on another site.
Would you have put Scuttlecove on the mainland, near where Port Peril is located, or one of the major islands, like Mokatu?