Quandary's page

Playtest Feedback: Perhaps the new Stealth has become too strong if nobody can tell if it exists or not for over 6 months...

Re: the Spell-Like Ability thing, since Immediate Actions are pretty much Swift Actions, I think the rule 'Casting a spell as a swift action doesn't incur an attack of opportunity.' applies here(PRD:Combat:Actions:Swift Actions).

To my knowledge, there haven't really been any clarifactions,
although I beleive that SKR for one has recognized the ambiguity of the current rules.
Definitely is Rules Revision Blog material, by my book...
(though the last attempt at that, re: Stealth/Perception, seems to have dropped off the radar mysteriously...)

I think it's easy enough to just say that worship of Tsukiyo (in Avistan/Garund) has just caught on like wild fire after being 'imported' from Tian, either from local travellers returning from Tian lands, or Tian travellers bringing his worship to the West. His travellers don't have to get into all aspects of the god, they will likely focus on a few and carry their own agenda along with them in other regards... Nobody really has to get into ALL aspects of a God they worship in the first place, as long as they have some point of connection and don't stray too far from what the God is about. Alot of real-world Westerners are into Tibetan Buddhism, or Zen, or any other religion, in ways that those who originally followed those religions where they came from honestly just weren't like, so I would see the situation similarly... Plenty of room to imagine how Avistani/Garundi worshippers of him may differ from his original worshippers in Tian.

you can CERTAINLY fail to confirm crits.
ESPECIALLY lower iterative attacks, so if you full attack alot, this concept should work.
still, trading +1 att/dmg for ALL attacks to get +2 to att for CONFIRMS only definitely is weak.
+2 should be the minimum here, and more like +3 or +4 is where it is worthwhile.
eventually, some huge bonus would just be AUTO CONFIRM on 99% of all crits, which I think is too strong for a +1 effect.
you can get +4 to confirm for a feat, so +3 or +4 seems about right...
i don't see many effects that give +3 to something, so let's say +4...???

right, if you use the current Stealth rules, stealth doesn't actually do much.
the blog post of proposed revision to it actually makes Stealth conform to how the rest of the rules are written,
i.e. actually specify what conditions it applies/negates/etc, and just the Blog rules as-is is 100% clearer to use.
I mention a few things like how Uncanny Dodge has wording issues in both PRD and Blog versions of Stealth,
which if you want you can hit the FAQ button to bring to attention of Paizo for Errata love... :-)

I agree with the above... If the ally is declaring they want to fail, then it isn't really a valid attack to trigger the ability. That said, a normal Unarmed Strike attack doing Non-Lethal damage should be valid to trigger the ability.

Still, non-lethal damage still has an effect, and your buddy is probably using Power Attack (while you are FulL Defensing, etc) in order to maximize the chance of triggering the ability, so if it hits it should hit hard :-)

Almost certainly not the intent PER SE, but I don't see why not based on the rules,
or even why it really conflicts with the game-universe 'why' of the ability,
i.e. using it vs. a monster who REALLY IS trying to kill you while you are trapped in a cage (and ending up on other sides of bars) doesn't seem AT ALL unreasonable to me... Triggering 'when you are attacked' abilities via Ally's 'attacking you' for just that effect is always going to feel a little cheesy no matter what, but I don't see any specific problem in this case.

Barring such usage, another useful usage of the ability is Shifting to a square with concealment,
in which you can (as part of the Shifting action) make a Stealth check to be Hidden.

-- If your Stealth beats their Perception, you get the drop on them and your SA applies. Snipe/move/stealth/rinse/recycle/repeat.

Well, the current rules aren't that exact in their wording, but given that UD explicitly applies vs. Invisibility, even though UD negates being Flat-Footed and Invisibility (+Stealth by association) doesn't make the target Flat-Footed... It seems reasonable to believe that that sentence exists for a reason, and UD DOES in fact negate something that Invisibility (+Stealth by assoociation) do, i.e. the Denial of Dexterity, even if there is problems if we apply the wording literally. In any game I play, UD's application vs. Invisibility also applies vs. Stealthers, and works regardless of Perception checks (or relative level, which isn't invoked regarding that function, only re: Flanking).

.

Of course, many many Barbarians no longer HAVE Uncanny Dodge since there are so many awesome archetypes that give it up, so in all honesty most Barb-hunting Rogues don't even have to worry about Uncanny Dodge, IMHO.

This is due to the current/old Stealth wording.
There was two Blog posts around the end of this last summer indicating a serious intent at Paizo to go in and over-haul the Stealth rules, to fix things such as they don't actually state major things like this, but that didn't show up in the last Errata/Printing.

To follow up on Joana's point (which similar wording is extended to the Hidden condition per the mooted Blog Stealth revision), BlindSIGHT says 'This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures). ' while BlindSENSE merely 'notices and locates' (i.e. pinpointed, although it doesn't use that terminology) along with the wording confirming that the Blindsenser is still Denied their Dexterity vs. the Invisible opponent (i.e. subject to Sneak Attack). Only BlindSIGHT is immune to Sneak Attack enabled by invisibility/concealment/stealth, since the invisible/concealed/hidden condition is 'irrelevant' to the Blindsighter, i.e. the condition and everything it does is negated for them.

The current rules are some-what unclear whether Uncanny Dodge should prevent Sneak Attack against a succesful Stealther. UD says 'She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible.' THe only problem there is that Invisibility doesn't make the target flat-footed, it just Denies Dexterity bonus to AC. Of course, since UD is explicitly mentioning applying vs. Invisibility, I would assume the INTENT is for it to counter Invisibility's Denial of DEX bonus to AC, and thus prevent Sneak Attack. Hopefully they fix that whenever they put the rest of the Stealth fix into print/Errata/PRD.

What DID happen to this?
It didn't seem to make it into the 5th Printing Errata from November.

There was probably a few loose ends to fit this into the existing rules,
like Uncanny Dodge's usage of Flat-Footed vs. Hidden's saying the attacker ignores the target's DEX bonus to AC (but not other Dodge bonuses?) ...Which is the EFFECT of Flat-Footed (along with no AoOs) but Hidden doesn't actually say that the target is Flat-Footed to them (which is the only thing that Uncanny Dodge cares about, it stops you from being Flat-Footed). That is actually not very different from the state of the current (PRD) rules, which are unclear whether Uncanny Dodge should prevent Sneak Attack against a succesful Stealther, as mentioned in this thread. Of course, since UD is explicitly mentioning applying vs. Invisibility (and Hidden?), I would assume the INTENT is for it to counter Invisibility's Denial of DEX bonus to AC (i.e. apply to something that Invisibility, and/or Hidden, actually DOES), and thus prevent Sneak Attack...

This was a rules update I was actually seroiusly impressed with, in terms of fixing the rules so you can actually use RAW without argument, but it seems to have disappeared into never-never land...???

EDIT: the other abilities that are like Blindsight/sense (Life Sense, etc) could probably uses updates for Hidden, though that would be Errata for other books.

Why would Iron Cobra ever require a hand to use?
Do you mean re-loading it's contents?
Apart from that, it acts on command, which would be verbal in all likelihood,
or in any case, not require a hand to wield...
You can have as many of these as you want crawling around your body, or in your Haversack, etc,
waiting for your command to do what you commanded them to do, i.e. bite/inject the target you designate
(which may well likely be yourself if you've noticed their extreme utility in self-buffing via Potions)

I second that they probably wouldn't just arrest a character for having even an aura of a cleric of Chaotic Goodness (much less simply having that alignment as a non-Cleric), but if they have a hunch somebody in the area was somehow involved with X activity they don't like, and CG Cleric mysteriously shows up on their alignment detection radar amongst the crowd, they probably WOULD give them extra attention... Main question to me is why they would be using alignment detection to begin with if it only works against low level characters with auras, only reason to use would be if they suspect Chaotic CLERICS or high level Chaotic beings, random Chaotic(Good) NPCs wouldn't give them a reason to use it IMHO.

Tetori replaces flurry of blows (the signature ability of monks)

with something I already get from brutal pugilist. I'd be giving it up for nothing.

Nothing...

and Grab, Constrict, Counter-Grapple, Break Free, Inescapable Grasp, Form Lock, and Iron Body.

Yeah, there's some minor overlap in the stuff Graceful Grappler grants at low levels, but everything else is generally unattainable by Barbs. Grapple as AoO via Grab is huge, as well is being able to use Counter Grapple REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN REACH vs. an high Reach opponent (the wording is a bit obtuse there, but that seems the intent there even if they don't spell it out that you threaten the attacker no matter your normal threat range).

BUT, since he started out as Barbarian (rather than starting Monk and switching into Barb, where most any Monk archetype is workable), Martial Artist would PROBABLY be the way to go, since you can't Rage if you are Lawful, which conflicts with non-Martial Artist Monks. You would still get other Class Abilities, including the ones from Brutal Pugilist which don't specify they only work while Raging, but for most people not being able to use Rage at all would be a deal breaker... That said, still having Full BAB, d12 HD, and Brutal Pugilist CMB bonuses, I don't think it's at all UNWORKABLE if it really matches your character concept the best.

You're playing a Paizo AP with 25 point buy.... aka EZ mode vs. normal CR opposition.
So it doesn't matter if this is underpowered or something, you should still be doing just fine.
you are also a full caster as it happens.

I don't really get your complaint anyways...
'most of them only have one attack'... yeah, except for the ones that have a bunch of attacks.
hint: use THOSE ONES if you like lots of attacks. some of these forms even have Pounce.
if you use Ultimate Combat there are even more options, though they aren't necessary to play the game A-OK.

Not to harsh on you, but allowing a resource - the ARG PLAYTEST - that you yourself don't even have access to, nor have read apparently, just is not a good idea for ANY GM. Would you think GM'ing a PRPG game when you don't even know the Core Rules is a good idea? Same reason why you need to have a handle on all the material in the game. A plain Vanilla PRPG game is more than enjoyable, so if that's what you're comfortable with, that's probably what should be allowed in your game.

And just tell your players to erase Alignment from their charsheets.
The rules explicitly say how the GM tracks alignment, which means whenever you think it has changed, it has changed. Unless they use Alignment Detection spells/abilities, the players shouldn't have a way to know their current Alignment, that's what those spells/abilities are for, after all. Nice GMs, who play with nice players, will usually give a heads up to players when things look like they may shift (and/or that shift may affect the PCs class ability's) but that doesn't change that tracking Alignment is totally in the GM's hands. What the PCs do is totally in the player's hands (within what is possible by the rules), but the consequences of those actions are in the GMs hands.

And try playing with just the Core Rules, or explicitly limiting what else you allow.
If you are not 100% on top of the rules, that is just common sense.

I can do a Kung-Fu T-Rex, you'll just have a natural attack with -5 on a full-round attack, or with which you'll be able to flurry if you have spent at least two feats to do it.

Wrong, you can't use Natural Attacks PERIOD when Flurrying:

A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

If you spend the Feats to Flurry with a Natural Attack, it would be making the Iteratives, NOT doing additional attacks at -5.

--------------------------

These players are obviously immature children. Ditch them... Don't apologize for it.
No reasonable person yells at somebody to force them to submit to a questionable rule interpretation,
ESPECIALLY when that person is playing a crucial role in making the game run in the first place.
Find new players for your games. Wish your ex-players luck in maturing and creating sustainable relationships.

That said, for the case at hand, excuse me if I sound rude, but don't you think you are being a bit over controlling? I mean, does it really hurt your game that much if your players dip to have more powers? The point of the game is to have fun, and it seem they get their fun in playing near superheroes. . If not... well then you need to change group for a more fitting one.

She's not having fun because these players are yelling at her about the rules, winning by 'yelling louder' even though their reading of the rules is not supported by anybody else in this thread. Pretty much the definition of bullying behavior. So her issue is finding players who aren't bullies. It seems like the rules issues, when properly read (not by her yelling bullying rules-cheat players) aren't an issue, and can probably be allowed.

There's some forums here for players looking to connect. Look for people in your area, or post a note there yourself... Offering availability as player OR GM.

Stabbing a half dozen NPCs in a non-combat situation should probably result in the PCs in the town dungeon with anti-casting gags and manacles on casters, or bloodied and on the run thru sewers (if they are lucky). As GM, you have every armed combatant in the WORLD under your control, after all. NOWHERE is there written any limit of encounters per day, even if you feel restricted to follow CR:APL 'suggestions' as the rules give.

I think you should find better approaches to find better players... I guess your own friends aren't much into it?
I would say it's worth checking out this board for players in your area looking for games.
It's probably easiest to find other player with you joining them as a player, since that's less work/investment on your part. Most players are happy to find somebody else willing to GM, so once you know more players (and you have sussed them out as to how they like to play/interact with each other) if you offer to GM a campaign you will 99% likely have a new set of players.

As for the flurry of blows thing, I was soundly beaten in the rules argument we had over that. They can yell longer and louder than I can.

Well, it sounds like your players are idiots or bulliers without compunctions, since everybody in this thread is just repeating how those rules don't work that way. If your players are yelling at you about rules (in game/out of game?), you shouldn't be playing with them... That issue is WAY before anything else, and trying to fix it passive-aggressive-style will NOT help you, believe me.

re: Arcane Archer, they can't fire more than 1 spell arrow per round unless they can pay for Quicken themselves (rods can't be wielded at the same time as bow) which of course massively cuts against multiclass characters who can't cast as high of spell levels. If you use all Paizo rules, a Full Caster is better off just using Reach spell (I don't use most of those new Metamagic Feats, personally).

Well, sounds like you should try re-reading the actual rules.
As it happens, there is no 'unarmed damage bonus', Monks change (swap out) their UAS damage.
Normally, you can't use Natural Weapons when Flurrying PERIOD, as several posters already mentioned before.
There is a Feat somewhere that lets you use Nat Weapons, I'm not sure what the Pre-Reqs are, I'm not sure if it lets you use UAS damage for those: if it doesn't say so, you only use normal listed damage for that Nat Weapon. This is just the basic rules.

OK, so what is this most horrid flurry of blows ever?
You can't Flurry with Natural Weapons. I think there is a Feat that allows using Nat Weapons to deliver Flurry attacks, but it isn't combined Iteratives + Nat Weapns (@-5), it's just the number of Flurry attacks at their normal BAB (so, mostly useful for earlier damage increases depending on the natural weapon, or special abilities like wolf trip). So I don't see what's so horrid here except horridly BAD. They aren't progressing stunning fist usage or anything else.

You lose WIS to AC if you wear Armor, including melded Wild Armor, not to mention additional Monk boosts to AC.

I'm not married to the idea, and I don't have an issue with multiclassing. The issue is with taking only a couple levels of a class to get the abilities, because my players always use it to make overpowered stuff (the Monk dipped Druid and Sorcerer were absolutely terrifying).

Well, what is the difference between dipping a few levels and broader multiclassing?
Because at some point, even a Fighter10/Wizard10 will just have 1 level in either of those classes.
What is the conceptual problem with a dude who is at one with nature, cultivates his ki,
and studies martial arts as well as the ways of animals and plants?
As it happens, you can make very overpowered stuff staying single classed...
A Monk/Druid/Sorceror who has lowered casting in all those classes (probably meaning no effects which can't be achieved in cheap potions/UMD-able scrolls, not to mention low level slots of allied casters), can't cast in Wildshape without a Feat, can't Flurry with Natural Attacks (a Feat lets you Flurry using the Nat Attacks, but not in addition to), gets WIS to AC but can't use armor when doing so (bye bye Wild Armor) just doesn't seem too far off... Especially considering PRPG's single-class abilities that they would be getting around this time.

One other thing to consider: lower point buy. I get the impression that lots of groups play with high point buy. 15 point buy is more than enough. You can play with 10 or 13 if you want. This is way more of a pain for such multi-stat dependent characters, although it also means the typical INT-maxed Wizard will actually have other stats in the dump, rather than being fairly well above average.

Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers.

Wait... WHY shouldn't players really have that stuff?

Because it's from minor level dipping? That's circular logic there.
Paizo in fact designed their system to work like this, and all class abilities are gained at levels with the possibility of multiclassing as a backdrop. This is just how the game is supposed to work, even if you don't beleive that.

Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?

Because he dropped out of the monastery and didn't pursue further training with high level Monks? That's a pretty obvious one right there. Sorceror Bloodlines are the type of thing that can be discovered at any point... After 10 levels of Expert:Librarian, or 10 levels of Paladin.

It seems like your 'anti cheese' intuition is actually just blocking off story possibilities besides 'loyal, hardworking singleclass' types. If being a Monk is hard, yet you retain most of the abilities after you drop it, why wouldn't you expect that alot of high level characters with Monk abilities in fact don't have most of their levels in Monk? If 1 level of Fighter represents minimal training with a broad set of weapons and armor, why can somebody only do that at 1st level, not after ditching their Monk Monastery's vows of Unarmed Combat and right before discovering that the gods have messed with their mojo enough to Curse them and give them Oracular spellcasting?

I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?

Well, starting characters should have a good backstory, whether or not they are multiclassed (if starting above 1st) or will later multiclass doesn't really change that IMHO. As to gaining levels in new classes during the game, different GMs run it differently, I think it's appropriate to have some sort of explanation for things, although as mentioned some class abilities can just 'emerge'. For classes that represent some specific training (wizard, monk) I think it's more than reasonable to have that happen in-game, but you should warn the players of this so that can do reasonable things like 'my character wants to be a wizard like he always did before his family forced him into the military where he became a fighter, so he seeks out a master wizard willing to teach him, faster than any normal wizard school according to the rumours'.... That sort of thing. This shouldn't be seen as a penalty, but rather a role-playing introduction to a society with traditions and lore.

You kind of can't, within the rules. The game is meant to allow cross classing.

How? The game doesn't break if he doesn't allow multi/classing, or just banning specific combos he doesn't like... Because players can just happen to not do this things, and the game continues normally, so having an out-of-game restriction like this doesn't impact game play, any more than an out-of-game restriction like 'nobody plays elves'.

I don't want it. Imagine a Wisdom Sorcerer (there is an arcana that allows this) with a level of Monk. Imagine a Druid with a level of Monk, for that matter. Imagine a Wizard with a level of Crossblooded Sorcerer. I want none of these things. So, how do I ban this in a way that does not overstep my bonds as GM?

Well, just ban it from the start and nobody should care, anymore than if you are playing Star Wars D6 and there just isn't any of those options to begin with. Personally, I am pretty loose with banning stuff that doesn't fit the flavor of the game, but I'm not exactly sure what your problem is in the first place... Wisdom Sorceror + Monk... Gee, that sounds pretty much like a Wu Xia SLA Monk variant who's getting further into the spell effects. The WIS/Celestial Sorceror variant is probably better than a CHA/base if you look solely at Stats, because the Monk is already so multi-stat dependent that adding CHA to the mix is kind of just sadism. If you DON'T look at just Stats, you realize that the player is giving up all the other 'better' Bloodlines for the priviledge of using WIS for Sorceror casting. Somebody who gets a +2 CHA item to cast spells, then multiclasses into Sorceror with something like Arcane Bloodline: Familiar is not really going to look that much worse. And this whole excercise is gimping the character's BAB and monk ability progression, all for some spells which they can probably use via potions or scrolls, etc. Especially for the Monk class, which is already supernatural, I don't see how adding some Sorceror levels to the mix, Monks already do stuff on par with what some Sorceror/Martial multiclass should do, right?

Cross-Blooded Sorceror? Well, that Archetype is kind of broken anyways, s%%&ty for single class Sorcerors, great for ANYBODY else (caster or martial). I don't see the problem with Druid/Monk... AT ALL.

If you think that the players are getting advantageous out of doing this, compared to what you as a GM can do with the NPCs you design, I can see your issue, but be aware that single classing is MORE than viable as optimization in PRPG, so you aren't really getting rid of any disparity (to your designed in 2 minutes NPCs) by just banning multiclassing. If your players are powerful, simplest thing is to ramp up the challenges, or throw Elite Array on all NPCs, that sort of thing.

It's not clear per RAW, but IMHO the same rules that apply for natural attacks should also apply to any other attacks: if you used the limb to make an attack, it can't be used to make other attacks on your turn (with your actions).

I would rule that there is a limit to this based on the wording 'you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a free action'...
so that you can do one of things with a free action in a given round, but not the other.
if you spend your normal actions to do the reverse (not allowing full-round actions)
you could possibly repeat the same action with another free action,
but splicing unlimited paired remove/don free actions into a full-attack isn't really going to happen.
I do wish Paizo had just written the feat a bit more rigorously in that regard though, so it wasn't solely up to GM fiat...

That said, anybody playing in PFS should certainly expect GMs to enforce their prerogative re: the number of free actions in a round.

I believe the assumption there is that the full attack mentioned is a normal iterative one, that the bite is being used in addition to... the bite is still primary, but all primary weapons are 'downgraded' to secondary when added to iteratives. if you didn't use the iteratives, the bite would be used as a primary weapon, as it is when NOT full attacking (when you should apply full STR dmg). this is one i've been hoping they fix for a while... maybe next printing. we can FAQ it in the meantime. there's a couple other similar cases, which i can't remember off the top of my head.

yeah, i understand what you are saying.
it also has problems if you want to try and take 2WF feats like 2 weapon rend and combine them with Flurry.

honestly, that whole wording is way more confusing than it is helpful.
i would say you are best off ignoring the no off-hand thing, and just using the 'always use full STR for UAS even if off-hand'.
THe ability is supposed to be a bonus, not restrict you from doing anything (even if Flurry isn't compatable with every option)
Either that, or just apply that ruling to Monk Flurrying, i.e. your Fighter18/Monk2 using 2WF and not flurrying would 2WF like anybody else.

re: the own spells issue, I don't think it works like you think.
You can choose to auto dispel your own spells. If you don't choose that, those spells aren't automatically not dispelled, they just follow the normal dispel rules, I.e. CL check.

The other part also seems a bit off...
The area dispel effect is not also like counter spell, and dispel specifically doesn't work vs. instantaneous spells.
Creatures already In the area explicitly suffer no additional harm frm the Lingering, so even if they have a new spell buff cast on them self, it shouldn't be dispelled even if the # of spells limit wasn't reach when Grt Dispel was cast earlier. Grt Dispel only affects creatures, objects, and AoE spells, so when using Lingering it can't do a Targetted Dispel against the new spell itself that targets a creature already affected.

Only new creatures or objects entering the area would present new targets to dispel. Per RAW, If a spell doesn't effect a creature or object, e.g. Cube of force isn't an object, it wouldn't be affected by the lingering dispel, although since Area Dispel normally can affect such non-object/creature AoE spells, I would allow that as reasonable RAI.

That's correct RD, I think your loose terminology was the confusion... The Errata is not FOR the 5th printing, I.e.to apply to the 5th printing, it is for previous printings to update them to the changes that the 5th printing incorporates. There is currently no official Errata that supersedes anything in the latest, 5th, printing.

I was heartened to see such a significant Errata....
Even if there is still stuff that needs attention, this really shows that they are putting attention into this area. A good number of the updates seem like they are merely for clarity rather than a
change to RAW function per se, but that in itself is also good IMHO because even if I personally find a subject clear enough, the rules should be easily grokable by ALL readers, so updates for clarity, or repetition if need be, are a sign that paizo is addressing that aspect, and I expect they will address that aspect more in future updates.

My favorite: Avalanches are no longer a 1-way trip to rules purgatory, you can now escape them just like Cave-Ins... IMHO avalanches of snow should be easier than digging out of rubble, but at least having clear rules that logically complete the paragraph makes the rules fully functional there.

Sounds good to me. If somebody is blocking you, ask them to move or you have to kill them.

The explicit existence of Weapon Focus: Grapple AND WF: UAS is in line with UAS not delivering Grapple because if that were the case why would you need 'weapon' focus in something that is merely a special effect delivered by UAS? (same reason why there isn't weapon focus trip or sunder, those are delivered by some weapon that you can take wpn focus in itself). 3.5 grapple used to invoke UAS for part of Grapple but PRPG no longer does. IMHO, amulet of might fist and similar effects should also affect grapple and probably non weapon bull rush, etc, but per RAW they don't... Those could also really be in a Fighter Weapon Training group but again they aren't per RAw.

Still, I'm not sure what you're supposed to do (RAI/RAW) if you have Greater Whip Mastery and can Grapple with a whip, and have both Weapon Focus Grapple and Weapon Focus Whip.... Mancatcher is another case, with the weapon doing a touch track first before the grapple check, and I don't know how you would handle all the bonuses there either....

Yeah... I officially blame the opposed check thing on my using an iPad thingy for the first time and it being weird ;-)

But the main point is really that the CL check isn't an EFFECT of the spell...
CL is obviously invoked all the time to determine effect... Duration, damage dice, or possibly flat damage bonuses... Those are all effects. But the dispel check is not a 'variable numerical effect', if you want to view it as an effect of the spell at all, when it is really on par with Saving Throws or Spell Resistance, it is a binary effect of success or non success.

The number of spells stripped would seem like the number of Magic, Missiles, I.e. not affected by Empower...
Is there some other Metamagic that does affect that kind of stuff?

Thanks... That's how I always thought it worked, but when I read the spell just now, my eyes crossed or something when I was trying to read all the overlapping clauses....

Edit: So of same level spells, they are determined randomly, I guess?, even though it doesnt seem to state that.... although I could be overlooking something again....

Ravingdork wrote:

I'm not certain that would work for the same reason you can't give scorching ray a substantial attack roll bonus with the same feat.

"All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables."

I am assuming that the +20 would be covered under the bonus. at least, that's how i ruled it reading the way the feat is worded.

Caster Level Checks are by definition Opposed Rolls.

Besides explicitly being barred, that check is not an EFFECT of the spell, it determines if the spell's effect takes place or not...

Overall... This works but I have to say that the +5 to CL isn't some uber amount given the opposing rolls, it's less significant than a similar boost to spell DC... And given the single check approach of dispel, you will regularly just have no effect at all.

I have a question. Grt dispel has a limit on the number of spells dispelled.
But the only guide as to which spells are dispelled first is their caster level,
Which if you are entirely self buffed will be the same for all spells, barring school specific caster level boosts, etc.
Does spell level play any roll here? Or is there some other way to determine priority? Or are all spells of the same caster level chosen randomly as to which is dispelled first?

Right. It's not 100%clear to me, but Barbarian Knockback would seem to be using your weapon... It seems to be similar to the Polearm Master ability the blog describes as an exception (although few polearms are finesse weapons so THAT wpn specific bonus wouldn't be in play there) ... I think the whip master feats eventually let you grapple with a whip which is probably also another case... The FAQ was never 100% clarified to my satisfaction... Which is important since it's not really just explaining the raw rules as much as creating new ones. By raw of the text, barb Knockback (with a finesse wpn) and Greater whip mastery Grapple can't use weapon finesse although they seem to be using the weapon just as much as the Polearm ability.

There is also unclear ness about RAW/RAI re Ranged maneuvers... Whether bolas or archer fighters trick shots....

But if there isn't anything in the rules specifically describing how your weapon attack is delivering a non-finesse type maneuver, then you can't use DEX via finesse you will need agile maneuvers... Which you should need for a man catcher grapple since its not a finesse weapon.

Wow. It would seem to work like that...Max your CL check and you debuff their saves while stripping their spells.

It also seems like it wouldn't work with any Monk Archetypes that can mix in a Grapple with their Flurry, since Flurry isn't using Greater Grapple Maintain.

You COULD possibly read Rapid Grapple as saying if you used Greater Grapple on a previous round (and that grapple is still successfully maintained, presumably), you are then free to use Rapid Grapple on subsequent rounds, which WOULD allow combo'ing with Grapple-Flurries or Full Attacks in general... It's not 100% clear by RAW, but it seems the Feat is presuming that you will use Rapid Grapple on the same round as Greater Grapple Maintain (you use it 'whenever', i.e. when you use Greater Grapple, i.e. on the same round). I would possibly consider allowing it if you used Greater Grapple on the previous round, but ONLY if the Grapple hasn't been broken by the time you use Rapid Grapple. I will FAQ this post for those questions.

Yup... Or use your remaining actions for other things.
I'm not sure if Maxximilius' example above works, because Rapid Grapple kicks in after a MAINTAIN via Greater Grapple, not an INITIATION of Grapple, so if you moved up to somebody, then initiated a grapple, you couldn't use Rapid Grapple. So it seems more useful for after the Grapple has already been initiated on previous round, it lets you go all-out Grappling (either same target or new ones) and still have an extra action... To move away (from Tied target, for example) or Standard Action attack/cast/etc.

Anybody can licence Paizo IP from them to create a game.
This company is started and run by several MMO specialists.
Why would they worry about making a non-MMO game when that's what they know and love?
Other companies are good at single player games, those would be better places to start such a project.
Ripping out other players from a MMO is not really going to result in a good single player game.
Which is why nobody does games like that, because if it did work, people would do it all the time since games are expensive to develop and it could get them more money if people bought single player versions.

That's a bad example, Exocrat, because the Pre-Req for it is Greater Grapple, so Standard Action Maintains aren't the baseline the Feat is modifying, it's adding on to Greater Grapple's MOVE ACTION Grapple Maintain, which already allows 2 Grapple checks per round.

For example, with rapid grapple you could spend a swift action maintaining the grapple and (assuming you succeed) cause damage or pin or whatever, then spend your full round action making a full attack with your free hand.

Unfortunately, you can't Moglun, because the Feat only triggers when you have already used a Move action with Greater Grapple Maintain... So no Full Round Actions.

Because you want to apply the Maintain Grapple effects multiple times in one round to your target> Moving them around the battlefield, Pinning/Tying them up, Damaging them more. Or it also lets you Grapple multiple opponents in one round (it doesn't specify the same opponent... that could be RAI, but it isn't RAW. and since AFAIK multiple creatures CAN be engaged in a grapple with you, like if you were tagged by two Kraken's AoO's, using it vs. multiple targets is pretty useful. All while retaining a Standard Action to use if you need/want to... I could see it being great for Druids who go into Grapple, but might also want to Cast a spell after breaking out of a Kraken's grapple, etc.

If possible I would suggest getting a franchise from some other MMO (like WoW) and just adding the Golarion story / graphic elements as has been suggested elsewhere. I don't honestly believe you're going to win with any sort of fancy programming.

I believe Paizo has posted several times in this thread, as well as the FAQ for this project, that they are LICENCING THE GAME ENGINE.

I could see a PFS tie in if it was really minimal...
Like having an in-game Guild that you need a valid PFS character for who is of that faction.
Of course, this isn't PFS, so not all PFS factions may even make sense in the game, but probably a few could...
That isn't really any mechanical game benefit as much as cosmetic and social - making PFS players able to play together easier, while expressing their aesthetic/morale preferences to boot. That also helps people with more Golarion experience find each other more easily, which can help people 'roleplay' within this game more.

Anything that goes much deeper probably isn't a good idea IMHO.
Since it's a separate company, I don't see why these outside investors would be so keen on tying signfigant game functions to a marketing vehicle of Paizo that they have no control over... Over on the flip side, that Paizo would feel obligated to develop PFS in a direction that is compatable with how this MMO game ties into it.

Krome has it right. Paladins don't need to receive their powers from Gods.
The default Paladin in fact doesn't, even if they respect gods and may worship them like any pious person (Fighter, etc).
(there is an Archetype for Paladins receiving their Powers from Gods, and PrCs that do the same, but that isn't standard)
So if all Gods are no longer granting powers, that really doesn't change anything for Paladins.
Paladins are able to excercise their powers by deign of being so in tune with Cosmic Lawful Goodness.
That doesn't seem like something that has ceased to exist in this game world.
In fact, you can see Paladinhood as an exemplary of ALL sapient souls with free will to most strongly connect with the LG-ness that potentially flows thru all souls, Paladins are just going deeper into this than normal LG people, but it is a latent power of all souls... NOT one 'granted' by outside powers (that can be cut off).
I strongly suggest just going with Deity-less Paladins as is.
You can bar Deity-specific Archetypes, or make them only work with Nature Domains.
I wouldn't change any of the Alignment stuff even in that case, you can connect with Nature while still being LG.

Animal Companion Class Levels stack, so Mounted Fury Barbarian would be a good choice, although at Level-4, you aren't really gaining that many Companion Levels. This comes with the baggage of Rage, so Casting while Raging is a no-no.

You can also go with Roughrider Fighter archetype, which should net you about +2 AC and Saves for the Mount (morale), as well as +1 att/dmg for you AND the mount, and the Mount isn't slowed down by medium load/medium armor (so they can Tumble in it). You also don't suffer Armor Check Penalty on Ride checks, so load up on the Adamantine Fullplate! If you dip back in Fighter, the 7th level ability basically lets your Mount make a Move, then you jump off and Full Attack (and the Mount takes it's Standard).

Either way, Boon Companion would be very good, and if the Dragon Rider Class uses normal Companion rules, it should apply to that.