Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sunlord Thalachos

Quintain's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 1,035 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,035 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Since a full round action is not allowed in the surprise round, would it not be advantageous for a "full round attack" based character to hold his action in the surprise round until the start of the regular round and take his full round of actions then?

Can you hold your action from the surprise round in this manner?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, if all 3 of your allies have Broken Wing gambit and use it on thier attacks of opportunity, not only would you gain attacks of opportunity from your own and allies crits, you would gain attacks of opportunity from your enemies attacks as well.

Especially if you use something like Great Cleave and reach weapons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you have all the feats you mentioned above, and you and your allies always confirmed your critical hits, you would indeed to chain provocations and you would get attacks of opportunity up to the point that your dexterity bonus allows.

Grab Broken Wing Gambit and you wouldn't even need to confirm criticals for chain AoO provocation fun and games.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are there any method for bypassing an undead's normal immunity to physical ability damage?

From my read, Thanatropic metamagic only applies to death effects, negative energy (not specifically ability damage). -- This is the closest I've been able to find so far.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
Quintain wrote:


Calcific touch does not have the caveat that it can be used to touch multiple targets for it's entire duration like Chill Touch. It is a one target only spell.

One target per round.

You could touch a different opponent each round.
Probably not a good idea unless you are in a room full of oozes.

You know, somehow I just completely missed the "target" line in the spell. I need to stop just glancing at things. Geez.

This is correct. One target per round for the duration of the spell, and you can apply the spell each round to the same target for the 1d4 dex damage and slow effect.

I do not know what I was reading in my earlier responses. :/

However, I'm still not sold on the "if you cast another spell", Calcific Touch dissipates or not. That is questionable.

I'm not sure there is precedent in Pathfinder for being able to apply multiple spells that are applied via touch at the same time.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:


Except, in the case of Calcific Touch, the spell is still in effect. The spell is based on duration, not number of creatures touched (with the limitation of 1/round.)
You cannot target more creatures than you have rounds of duration, but successfully touching a creature is not what brings the spell to an end.

It doesn't bring the spell to an end, it applies it to the target (discharges). And at that point, you are no longer holding the spell. You don't get to apply the spell with successful touch attacks for the entire duration of the spell.

That is what is meant by "You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged".

Calcific touch does not have the caveat that it can be used to touch multiple targets for it's entire duration like Chill Touch. It is a one target only spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:


Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

At the time of the casting of the spell, the Magus is holding the charge, and once he touches his target, the spell is applied to the target and the spell is no longer being held by the magus ("discharged"). If you cast another spell prior to this discharge of the spell, it dissipates.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Spell level x Caster level x 2000 for the base price, divide by 5 (1x per day). = 26,400gp

Arbitrary cost reduction due to difference between spell duration and item effect duration(hour to 10min to 1 min to rounds) = x.25 = 6,600

Being able to target someone outside the web is different than the description of the base spell. What about those outside targeting the item wearer? You'll want to add that part.

I'd say that maintaining total cover while simultaneously allowing attacks due to the "morphing" nature of the item might be a bit much -- especially with it's hardness and hit points.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can't have spell like ability running at the same time the eidolon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Variant Multiclassing from Pathfinder Unchained.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Summoners are one class that I'm not 100% familiar with, so I'm looking for optimization options to improve his capabilities:

I came up with this potential idea: Adding VMC cleric to Unchained Summoner (with suitable extreme alignment)

Is this combo worth it (aside from gaining the VMC cleric abilities) to get Sacred Summoning feat to change full round summoning spells into standard action summoning spells?

Would gaining the Summon Good/Neutral/Evil monster feat help expand the quantity/quality of the list of monsters able to be summoned by Sacred Summoning?

What other options should a summoner have to optimize things?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's funny. I was just thinking of this thread last night when my brain wouldn't shut down either (I blame you).

Anyway. A beam and a ray are largely synonymous in actual parlance, a "beam" is a an emIssion of something, whereas a ray is an stream that radiates out from something.

So, essentially the same thing. So, your beam could be any type of weapon that emits a stream of energy. And leave it at that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oddly, our alternate campaign is one that is chaotic evil -- and we tend to not kill. It's harder to sell someone into slavery if they are dead. It spoils the profit margin.

(Obviously not a PFS campaign).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While your example is compelling, if the forums are any indication, it suffers from the same "you are your own ally" ambiguity insofar as application is concerned there too.

Though butterfly's sting's passing a crit to yourself is a bit more imagination stretching than the giving yourself an attack of opportunity (which happens with other non-teamwork feats quite readily).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Marc,

The reason why is for flexibility. If I have already used my swift action on a different activity, I can't use channel energy that round if I'm restricted to only a swift action. Same applies to all other action types.

There isn't a rule in Pathfinder that allows for transferring action types.

Excellent point (now that I have had more coffee :)

Like I said, my take is that the priest (or bard, in the case of Bardic Performance) can do use their class ability as a move or swift once they reach the appropriate level, but that doesn't mean they are forced to (I.e., they can still opt to do so as a standard or move if they wanted, as the case may be)

Here's what James Jacobs had to say on the question "Can a bard still use the 'lesser' action type if he wants? I.e., can a 13th level bard still start a bardic performance as a standard or move action instead of as a swift, or *must* he use the swift action?"

Yes. Nothing in the description of the bard class says anything about losing previous powers and options. You don't lose the ability to cast 3rd level spells just because you gain the ability to cast 4th level spells, for example.

Furthermore, it's illogical that gaining levels should reduce your options.

A 13th level bard can start a bardic performance as a standard, move, or swift action. (He can't start multiple performances in a round though.)

If James says it, it's good enough for me! So, much like the bard, a 14th level priest gains the ability to channel energy as a swift action, but he can still opt to do so as a move or standard instead if he wishes.

Fantastic find on the quote, Marc. Don't suppose you have a link to the original post do you?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Marc,

The reason why is for flexibility. If I have already used my swift action on a different activity, I can't use channel energy that round if I'm restricted to only a swift action. Same applies to all other action types.

There isn't a rule in Pathfinder that allows for transferring action types.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Question on the priests channel energy progression from standard to move to swift actions. When gaining the next level that changes the action type, does the priest retain the prior tier ability?

As in, when he changes from a standard action to a move action, can he still use a standard action to channel as before. The same applies to changing from move action to swift.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:
Quintain wrote:


I'm not making a judgement call when I am saying that I count as my own ally -- that is plainly stated in the faq.

The judgement call your making is that, given a whole series of feats explicitly designed around allies who are not you, these 1 or 2 don't fit that model. Your making the judgement call based not on them telling you they don't fit the model, but based on them not explicitly saying they are part of the model group.

The model expressly states there are exceptions, and these two have different text than other teamwork feats that are much more explicit in their need for additional individuals to work.

So, yes. Based on the text, that is what I am doing. That is pretty much the role of anyone that plays a rule based game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cavall wrote:

Once again you're taking something that is usually one way and assuming it is by de facto the only way to look at it. That is not the case.

What is "plainly stated" in the FAQ is you almost always count as your own ally. This feat doesn't seem to be the case of that "always" to me and others. It is an exception.

However, what is going to happen is there will be an FAQ, and I believe it will be a teamwork feat in that it needs others to work and people will complain about the paizo team nerfing things instead of what's actually happening, a clarification.

I'd suggest hitting the FAQ button and moving on. And agreeing to not complain about the result.

Nope, I'm not stating anything of the kind -- I'm more or less playing devil's advocate in my stance that both Broken Wing and Broken Paw only require one individual.

I can easily understand the other viewpoint here. It is very plausible, and quite frankly more than likely the case.

See my first post: the text is ambiguous -- but as a GM, I, personally wouldn't have a problem with a solo actor having this feat and using it. And I also showed my reasoning behind my decision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:


As such you are making an arbitrary judgement call when saying broken wing gambit qualifies yourself as your ally.

Now in fairness, I am likewise making an arbitrary judgement call, but I'm basing it on the context of teamwork feats - and the idea that things that are the same, are indeed the same, unless they tell us differently. It's a teamwork feat, it is therefore, I believe, intended to work like all other teamwork feats.

I'm not making a judgement call when I am saying that I count as my own ally -- that is plainly stated in the faq.

Yes, it is a teamwork feat, however that is just a category of feat, like combat feats, which allows certain classes to pick up as bonus feats, much like fighters have special availability to combat feats. Moreover the description of the category makes explicit that there are exceptions to the general rule that more than one person has to be involved, and that those allies positioning doesn't necessarily matter.

With Broken wing gambit, If you qualify to attack as an attack of opportunity, you can take that attack with whatever weapon you choose. (Ranged weapons with snapshot, etc). All that needs to happen is that you or your allies threaten them -- which is an attack of opportunity requirement.

The Broken Paw Gambit even allows for attacks as an immediate action which allows ranged weapons to attack when they can't normally make an attack of opportunity. It also doesn't expressly infer that it's only other allies only that can attack...it is "each ally"...of which you are one.

With those exceptions expressly stated in the description of the feat category, that leads me to the determination that there is enough textual differentiation with Broken Wing/Paw Gambit feats to conclude that with the FAQ of you are your own ally, you can use these feats solo.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:
Derklord wrote:


*) "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield." In most cases explicitly makes exceptions possible.
But the sentence is not "In most cases you must have an ally with the feat". It is "ally who also possesses the feat to be carefully positioned on the battlefield." The important point of the sentence (IMO) is the positioning. In some cases, there is no battlefield positioning requirement. That is the complete sentence. Suggesting in most cases applies to the "ally possesses" portion only is an erroneous reading of the sentence.

There are feats that simulate the requirement for teamwork via solo operators, so to diminish the presence of the ally and increase the importance of positioning is a bit self-serving.

There are actually 3 conditions that must be fulfilled, either virtually or otherwise: ally, position, and feat. All three are equally important, and exceptions exist in the rules for all three. And even in some cases, you don't even need one or more of those conditions at all, or one comes with the other (most common is ally and position).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:


Watching you argue with someone who agrees with you is amusing :).

He may agree with me overall, which amounts to "exceptions exist".

However, at least as I read his point, we didn't agree on the specifics of the broken wing gambit, and whether that qualifies as one of the exceptions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Derklord wrote:

Per the FAQ, to be an exception, something needs to fulfill one of three conditions:

a) otherwise stated
b) doing so would make no sense
c) doing so would be impossible

a) is obviously false because there is no such text in the feat, b) is false if you look at how many examples are where of people using the tactic and then attack the target themself and c) is false because the text explicitly says that you feign weakness, that doesn't make you helpless. It also doesn't say that you can't take offensive actions while using the feat.

To go through your response:

a) is not obviously false, because there is text in the feat -- the lack of the "also", that is common to the other teamwork feats. As I have stated previously. What you are trying to say is that there is no "express statement" stating otherwise. This requirement is impossible to meet for any feats published prior to the FAQ.

b) There are plenty of instances where a single person feigns weakness only to attack his attacker with an advantage -- which is exactly what this feat does. Making this a teamwork feat vs. an individual combat feat is Paizo attempting to sell the cooperative advantage of teamwork feats (which is a large part of Ultimate Combat). You will not that there is no express statement that says that the false victim here *cannot* gain the attack of opportunity. It just says that allies gain them (and with the faq, you are your ally, so you are included in that group).

c) As both myself and Wraithstrike have described in great detail, there is quite a few examples of single combatants feigning weakness to gain an advantage. It works quite well as a single-user combat feat conceptually as well as mechanically.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:
But there are already dozens (hundreds?) of known instances where it does count. Refer to any spell that calls out allies. Prayer, bless, haste, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, that is the general rule. However, as with all generalizations, there are exceptions. It is my belief that the Broken Wing Gambit feat *could be* an exception, given it's wording.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cavall wrote:

The issue from this stems from the fact the FAQ says you almost always count.as your own ally. Almost =/= always.

It's a teamwork feat. It requires a team mate. The FAQ was for things like bards songs and spells with ally as targets. Not to pretend you are 2 people.

You don't count as an ally for this setup.

Almost != Always. It also != Never as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:
I'm glad to see though that you understand that when the text in the general description of teamwork feats, and combat medic specifically, that says "also" necessitates someone other than yourself.

I've never been of the mind that because of the you are your own ally FAQ came about that somehow with teamwork feats suddenly all teamwork feats can be used solo. It always depended on the text of the feat.

It's interesting to note that if this feat can be used solo, then it is actually the least powerful manifestation of the feat given the cumulative nature of the attacks of opportunity if you can get multiple individuals to focus on the right targets and spread out their attacks.

bbangerter wrote:


I can understand how it might be visualized, but being able to visualize how something might work does not make that something the rule.

It not only can be visualized as working with a single person, it can plausibly be read as requiring only a single person as well. :D The lack of "also" is significant in my mind.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You are looking for Dreamscarred Press.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:


Why? Explain the difference.

But lets look at combat medic in particular. Part of the argument being made to claim broken wing gambit can be used solo is the general text of teamwork feats.

Quote:


...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat...

This language is nearly identical to that in combat medic.

Quote:


...or treat poison on an ally who also has this feat...
Please explain why it supports solo broken wing gambit, but not solo combat medic.

The text between broken wing gambit is dissimilar enough to remove the implication that it requires a second person:

Quote:


Benefit: Whenever you use Heal to provide first aid, treat caltrop wounds, or treat poison on an ally who also has this feat, you provoke no attacks of opportunity, and can take 10 on the check.

...on an ally who also has this feat -- this phrase implies that you are cooperating with another who assists you in your heal check -- because he has the same training as you do.

Quote:


...If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

There is no direct reference to "on an ally who also", in this phrase. It simply references allies who have this feat, which, per the FAQ, includes yourself. It is missing the word "also" (which is basically the way a feat references someone else, not just yourself).

If you read the the thread, with the discussion between Wraithstrike and I, we pretty much describe (in non-mechanical terms) how using broken wing gambit can be used as a psuedo-feint/riposte tactic by a single person against a single opponent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:


Back to "Do you count as your own ally for teamwork feats". I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning why you do, or do not, count as your own ally for the following feats:

Each of these as commonly understood implies an additional ally in the mix.

However, the broken wing gambit feat can also be read, and understood, as well as plausibly work with a single individual.

It all depends on the text of the feat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kifaru wrote:
But that would require each opponent to have combat reflexes and a Dex of 28.

Granted, but they would still be maxing out their attacks of opporunity on a single target.

Quote:


'Ha! You fools think you have me surrounded! I will strike all five of you at once!'
*Twenty AoOs ensue*

Not only that, but twenty smite-evil enhanced attacks of opportunity.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

i'm making this a seperate post so it don't get swelled up in whatever the above post makes.

So, if all your allies that threaten this opponent all use the feat, the enemy either decides not to attack and run, or to attack.

It doesn't really give him many options.

The lack of options is why I'm inclined to allow the enemy to attack without the +2, as attack and get destroyed via all threatening allies or not attack -- and if the allies are smart, all of them are using this feat when attacking the opponent, so any attack on the allies as a group triggers AoOs from everyone, regardless of who the enemy attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Based on the wording of the feat, I think that this may indeed allow you to get the Attack of Opportunity.

Quote:
If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

Forget for a second whether your opponent has a choice to attack you with or without the bonus, but instead focus on the second part of the sentence:

it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

As an example, if you have two allies with this feat for a total of 3, if you give your opponent the +2, and he attacks you (with that +2), it provokes attacks of opportunity from all people that have this feat -- all your allies.

If the 'you are your own ally' condition holds, you should also get an attack of opportunity.

However, teamwork feats typically require more than one ally to work -- so that requirement (if it exists in this case) is not waived.

The potential for this feat is quite frankly, astounding. This is haste-in-a-feat. Especially if you have a method for compelling someone to focus on a specific defender.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

I see it as you pretending by actually making yourself easier to hit on purpose, but I can't prove it.

This might be worth an FAQ also. :)

Oh, I agree. This could go either way. Swarming ratfolk rogues with this feat is a pretty awesome combination.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just thinking about the potential exploits of this feat:

If your enemy attacks before you, and you attack him using this feat, granting him the +2, and he doesn't want to suffer the AoO, this pretty much prevents him from attacking you at all. You just have to re-attack him on your turn and grant him the +2 bonus, and he will be required to attack something else or take not only the regular attack(s), but the AoO every round as well.

If you attack last out of all opponents and use something like greater cleave, you could prevent all of them from attacking you in the same way, or you would get an AoO from every one of your opponents, potentially giving you up to 8+ attacks of opportunity, even more with reach, every round.

I'm thinking that this is not the intended effect of the designers of the feat.

If you can stack allies in the same square in some fashion, it gets just as ridiculous. Although this would require some doing (Ratfolk). == Ouch. Two ratfolk rogues with this feat would not only get a massive number of attacks of opportunity, they would be considered flanking as well, automatically. Pack flanking would also allow for this, I think.

Having a bluff check or the option for the enemy to forego the bonus but still attack prevents this exploit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I agree on the analogy, it was a strong one. However, even with the analogy removed, what the feat is doing is not just intentionally making yourself easier to hit, it is "baiting" the enemy to strike you in a way you can predict and riposte (the AoO part). -- Presuming of course that you allow for the single-user-teamwork option for this feat.

I don't see where the enemy is required to take that bait. It could instead attack you in an unpredictable way (foregoing the attack bonus, but still attacking), and not get the resulting riposte.

As a GM, I could see where an opposed bluff check might be in order to see if the enemy takes the bait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think the opponent has the option of not taking the bonus. The bonus is due to you being reckless. It is like if we are fighting and you stick your chin out.

"you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack "

Basically you are giving the bonus out. So if he swings the bonus is in play.

I'd say that's a solid interpretation. But there is this: if you stick your chin out, do I have to target your chin. What if I attack your knee?

Sadly, the wording doesn't specifically state that the opponent has the option of attacking you without the bonus.

It could go either way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:


Here are the questions:

- If you count as your own ally, do you get to make an AoO when you get attacked?

- If you are attacked multiple times and you have Combat Reflexes, do you get multiple AoOs?

- Can the enemy forego the bonus in order to not provoke AoOs?

Do you get to make an AoO when attacked:

Per RAW, it's questionable, RAI is ambiguous. Personally, I do no see a problem with this particular interpretation of the rules, as it isn't particularly outrageous. Or even conceptually unsound: there are quite a few actions that you can make that can cause another to provoke an attack of opportunity.

By the wording of the feat, you do not get an attack of opportunity if they attack you multiple times. The feat states ...until your opponent attacks you... which by my interpretation means until it's first attack, not for all his attacks.

Yes, if the enemy knows of this tactic, it can forego the bonus in order to not provoke.

The text of the feat says: If that opponent attacks you with this bonus,... it does not say that the opponent is required to attack you with that bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

When you have two classes with a collective and you are multiclassing, the levels of one class stack with the levels of the other.

So, your "class level with collective" is a 10 when you are a tactician 5/vitalist 5.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:


(+39 x 16 from number of weapon dmg dice rolled from using Mythic Vital Strike in conjunction with GTR Vital Strike.)

I checked, you only get x4 here, not x16. I built your guy in Hero lab with a half-giant wielding a large nodachi, and was able to get 12d8+232/15-20/x3 + 2d6 (Bane) + 2d6 Holy/axiomatic, etc.

With a 33 strength. But I didn't factor in Righteous might at all. Which would only change the base weapon damage. The multiplier of x4 for Mythic Vital strike stays the same.

So...not so obscene.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
(+39 x 16 from number of weapon dmg dice rolled from using Mythic Vital Strike in conjunction with GTR Vital Strike.)

I might be off here, but the number of damage dice from mythic vital strike is 4, not 16. Your single damage dice is 4d6, and mythic vital strike allows for 4 sets of that 4d6.

Could be wrong though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Saethori wrote:
I have to admit, I'm not sure how useful this change would be. If your allies refuse to drink them, are they going to be more agreeable to having it slathered on them?

The unconscious ones will. It bypasses the old "force it down his throat" house rule.

Pour oil over wound, watch it heal.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Belefauntes wrote:
Tell me I'm wrong.

Shrug. Okay, you're wrong.

This :D

Think of it this way: True Seeing strips away the magical impediments that would affect what you see normally.

Can you see a soul? No. Under normal circumstances, you cannot see a soul -- therefore, unless there is some sort of outward manifestation of possession (see the various movies surrounding possession -- the exorcist is my fav), you cannot detect possession.

However, lycanthropy via curse or infection is probably the only potential exception, because the line on transmutation and polymorph also mentions changed. A cursed or infected lycanthrope in their animal form is indeed changed.

An exception to this exception would be a true lycanthrope. All of the true lycanthrope's forms are his own, and would not fall under the polymorphed/transmuted and changed exception because that is his normal state upon being born.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wraith,

I'm referring more to a one time notification type of thing vs. federation like set up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Do you guys have an agreement with DriveThruRPG wherein you notify them of the various items that a customer has purchased through your store, and they would add those same items to the DriveThruRPG library of that same person?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Here's the operative text of the true seeing spell:

1) sees through normal and magical darkness
2) notices secret doors hidden by magic
3) sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects,
4) sees invisible creatures or objects normally,
5) sees through illusions
6) sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things.
7) see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extra-dimensional spaces)

What it does not do:

1) penetrate solid objects.
2) confers X-ray vision or its equivalent.
3) negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like.
4) help the viewer see through mundane disguises,
5) spot creatures who are simply hiding,
6) notice secret doors hidden by mundane means

Now, to your question: In regards to lycanthropy: lycanthropy is not a "transmutation" effect (like polymorph). However, the spell does say that it sees the true form of "changed things". Obviously the animal/hybrid form of a lycanthrope would fall under this category -- ergo, you'd be able to determine that the alternate form is really your companion if you saw her as a lycanthrope. However, what you would not do, is determine that they have an alternate form just by looking at them if they are in their normal state.

Now, with possession, there is no physical manifestation of possession that is being hidden in any fashion as far as I'm aware (like an illusion of some kind). Ergo, true seeing would be useless in detecting possession.

The "sees things as they truely are" is fluff text -- you said it yourself, it is open to a wide variety of interpretations.

But true seeing does have it's limitations: it can't even detect magic auras, or traps not hidden through magic.

The key component of true seeing is that it pierces obfuscation -- it doesn't prevent deception of all kinds.

A rogue or ranger with hide in plain sight (ex) can stand right in front of you and still be hidden even if you have True Sight.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
i like having not read any of this and jumping to post 500 to see it's about i guess getting an entire plane to kill the wizard?

Nope, our wizard as controlled by Bob Bob Bob, committed suicide through bad binding contract that left large enough holes in it to have a Semi-Truck convoy pass through akin to that song from the 70's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5ZLJWQmss


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:


Thank you for giving up. But I'll pretend you're serious: What if the Wizard makes a custom made item that instantly kills level 20 Rogues with no save who approach within 1,000 miles? As long as we're making stuff up.

It isn't made up. It's a spell published in a Paizo Hardback book. Very recently in fact.

It doesn't prevent control per-se, but more as a side effect. I mentioned this effect up thread.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

Protection Against (Alignment) only works if the caster is of that alignment. If you're true neutral you're golden against all versions.

Outsiders don't have unlimited ability to engage in planar travel. If they somehow do, the Wizard sees them and leaves.

Wrong spell.

Quote:


According to SKR when asked about the subject, the wayfinder will give no protection from a non-evil caster.

Wrong item. This would be a custom-made ioun stone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Sorry, got an update, that initial report was false. The Wizard cast Demand to send a Suggestion to the Rogue that they meet alone in a neutral spot to settle their differences peacefully. He was compelled to show up, where he was easily killed by the Wizard striking first from Greater Invisibility with Time Stop summons for assistance and mopup.

Too bad a a single 1st level spell prevents this little tactic (made quasi-permenant via ioun stone).

So, you show up at a neutral site, thinking you have the upper hand, the rogue uses this to his advantage by telling your unbound horned devils where you are so they can show up with friends.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Firewarrior44 wrote:
the Full pouch spell, in conjunction with heighten spell can make alchemical item saves scale

Nice find!

1 to 50 of 1,035 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.