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 Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 490 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


So then fog cloud does force a concentration check on anybody inside it casting? "Saving throw: none"

Does the effect that Fog cloud creates describe as one of it's effects that you are required to make a concentration check?

Nope, ergo...no concentration check required. None of the conditions that force a concentration check are being applied by fog cloud, regardless of whether they are affected by the spell or not.

Why don't you get to your actual question?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Scout's Charge, as written is assumed to have only a single attack at the end of the charge. However, there are multiple abilities that allow for more than 1 attack at the end of a charge. These are relatively common.

If these apply, then the attacks would be resolved as if the target were flat-footed, as there is no text stating anything hinting about the target not being flat footed after the attack (unlike skirmisher or hellcat pounce).

One cannot assume the intent through the absence of text, when that text is present elsewhere.

But this does deserve a FAQ. Although I dread the answer.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Check the saving throw for the spell or whatever is you are evaluating:

If it is a "negates", and you make your save, then it does not affect you.

If it is partial, it always at least partially affects you.

If it is none, it will always affect you fully.

How are you coming to the idea that silent image forces a concentration check of any kind?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
I'd like to see a blade skill that allows for custom weapons, instead of just emulating existing ones.

I just realized that the "transformative" special ability will likely cover this idea.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grammar Cop wrote:
Quintain wrote:


Omnicide in the face of an apocalyptic event where having live victims be eaten by an escaped God that would use their souls to power his freedom from the planet to threaten the greater multiverse is a mercy.

The word 'god' should only be capitalized when referencing a monotheistic religion as in that case it is then interchangeable with their name.

I know it's a common mistake - but it's a pet peeve of mine.

Yeah, I usually use the term deity, but my muscle memory failed me.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:

It's kind of scary that there are people who would consider omnicide to be a potentially Good act.

I would think that a true Paladin would refuse his god's order to commit said omnicide regardless of whether he would fall or not. A true Paladin wouldn't care if he fell for refusing, because executing that order would be an atrocity, and obeying just for the purpose of keeping his status and power would be selfish. It would be against the code he swore to uphold. He would instead find out what happened to corrupt his deity to desire such a thing and put a stop to it, lest it corrupt further and cause more evil. THAT is a Paladin.

Omnicide in the face of an apocalyptic event where having live victims be eaten by an escaped God that would use their souls to power his freedom from the planet to threaten the greater multiverse is a mercy. The same can be said for killing someone who is infected with a zombie virus that is about to die themselves.

Everyone seems to be balking at the act of killing someone (which is interesting given the game that is being played and how experience points are awarded), whereas they are all ok with something like Rapture. The end result is really the same -- the soul travels to the afterlife.

So, as an alternative, could the paladin's god alter one of his mercy abilities to be a "Rapture" mercy that would kill a willing subject similar to a coup de grace with a voluntarily waived saving throw?

Quote:


To say ALL murder is evil pretty much stops anything but a non lethal paladin to be in a party against anything other than evil outsiders or something.

Yep.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, in terms of "hard science" I was initially referring to the construction of ships requiring them to be sealed against the void vs open air ships like Spelljammer.

I like the idea of melding tech with magic being the solution for interstellar travel, but not having things like spelljammer helms, but instead having AI for the pilot (intelligent weapon/item analogy).

There could be arcane/divine fuel cells that power interstellar engines as well. Along with powering ship-to-ship weapons.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
@ KC - While the question's clearly rhetorical, witches patrons are so vague that there's really nothing to conflict with unless the GM makes the patron someone in specific.

Really?

PRD wrote:
This patron is a vague and mysterious force, granting the witch power for reasons that she might not entirely understand. While these forces need not be named, they typically hold influence over one of the following forces.

I always interpreted this to indicate an unknown but specific entity. Something that easily could come up, but very rarely does because the Patron's goals are unknowable.

But it's up to interpretation, of course.

Could a witch's patron have paladins?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


Your OP deviates in numerous ways from Golarion lore and the rules(both RAI and RAW), but you in no way indicated as such .

My questions were generic with the presumption of a paladin getting his power from a deity (which in my curmudgeonly self is how I believe they should be played -- always), I was simply using terms and characters common to Golarion for flavor -- not as any sort of restriction on "how it should be played" -- this is the general discussion forum, not the rules forum.

It's a standard apocalyptic scenario -- it happens a lot in things like "The Walking dead" wherein everyone is infected, there is no possibility of alternative action due to time constraints (everyone is going to die and soon) -- or lack of capacity, and after they die, they become part of the problem (feeding of the "elder evil/rovagug) which allows for the further spread of evil.

Would you kill someone before they died if they would turn into a zombie. What if they wanted you to do it? What if they didn't...does that distinction matter. If so, why? The end result is the same.

Quote:


Quintain, you raise a valid point. I'm gonna actually answer your questions one by one rather than criticize stuff:

1. How should paladins of that deity react?

-- They should obey their deity. He's the bloke in charge -- when one has faith in a deity enough to be a paladin, then one does what one is tasked to do, without question. See Abraham.

Quote:
2. Accepting the order, would paladins keep their status and alignment?

Given the Paladin worships a deity and not a "philosophy", yes, they should maintain their paladinhood.

Alignment is a different sort of question, and that entirely depends on how you play alignment. Personally, I believe he would maintain both Lawful and Good alignment -- he is being lawful -- following the dictates of his deity...and a regardless of mortal law, a deity's dictates are to be followed -- see above. Good, well, therein lies much of the rub. And how the details of the scenario flesh out. The Why of the "end of the world" was never determined.

Quote:
3. If some paladins refuse, can they still be paladin?

No. They refused the dictates of their deity. At the very least, they would temporarily lose their paladinhood until they atoned -- which may never have the possibility of happening depending on the timescale of the apocalypse. The best they could do would be to lose their paladinhood, switch to a new deity and then possibly regain their status under the strictures of the new deity...but that would take a monumental effort given the level of faith needed to be a paladin in the first place.

Quote:
4. If paladins refusing loose their status, what should be their new alignment?

Still Lawful Good, I would suspect. It takes a lot more consistency of action to change alignment than to lose paladinhood. Generically speaking.

Quote:
1. ...No quest to prevent the apocalypse? No escape for anyone on the plane?

The death prior to the end of the world *is* their escape from the plane, it's also the most expedient method. That's the odd thing that I'm seeing from people on this forum. Individuals of strong faith do not mourn (or minimizing the mourning) of loved ones when they pass -- they are being rewarded for living their faith. They are now co-existing with the being that they loved above all others even those left behind. This is a good thing in the eyes of the faithful not evil. Normally this is a natural passing, but in the case of an Apocalypse...as they say...desperate times come desperate measures.

Here's the thing..maybe there is no quest to prevent the apocalypse. It very well could be that this deity searched the future and found that this timeline is doomed and attempted to reduce as much "collateral damage" as possible by giving the dictates that he did. We don't really know.

Quote:
2. Absolutely not, they would become evil and no longer be Paladins. Mass murder is evil and illegal.

I believe you are defining murder overly broadly.

Quote:
3. Sure, but they would need to worship a Good god, not an insane/evil one.

See above. We agree here. Lost of status, switching deities, then regaining of status.

4. Lawful Good. Mass murder is wrong AND illegal. Most lawful good characters would refuse an order like this.

Quote:

I might be willing to debate number 4, if your setting has murder as not being illegal.

Sorry.

MASS murder.

Here are my questions for you when it comes to murder: who establishes what is defined as murder? If it is some mortal agent, it is meaningless in this context -- as a god just passed down direction -- mortals < deities in legal standing.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I believe the instant you started casting, you would "exit stealth" and your casting would prompt attacks of opportunity -- I do not believe that spells without metamagic modification while remaining hidden.

The components are verbal and somantic. So if you modify the spell using the silent and still metamagic feats, I'd say you could still remain hidden and cast the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Moreover, Paladin status is determined by the deity. You cannot lose Paladin status if you are following the dictates of your deity. A paladin is first and foremost a warrior of his deity.

That's a houserule. A common houserule, but a houserule nonetheless.

CRB Divine Magic Section wrote:
Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.
In Golarion, most paladins worship a deity but they don't have to. Their powers are "fueled" by their faith, and that doesn't have to be faith in a deity. It could be faith in an idea, a philosophy, a cause, or whatever. They need something to believe in. And if that belief isn't lawful good, it'd better be lawful neutral for the paladin to focus harder on the law than the good, or neutral good for the paladin to focus harder on the good instead of the law. The paladin herself remains lawful good, so in a way, its her ALIGNMENT that is the source of her power.

I'm not a big fan of the "philosophical" paladin idea. If this were actually the case, there is no sentience behind the power of the paladin, it's just his ego. You could have divine spells powered by "faith in self" and as long as said paladin didn't have any fleeting moment of self-doubt, it's impossible for him to actually fall, as as we know with extreme narcissists, any act can be justified by self-delusion.

The whole "divine power of law and good" came about due to peoples desire not to have to declare that they worship a deity (as I recall my D&D history).

If there is a "divine power of law and good", why isn't there a divine power of "neutral and evil" and why aren't there any paladins of those alignments? Why is law and good so special.

IMO, it's a ludicrous idea.

Besides, the OP states that we are talking about a Paladin with a deity.

Quote:


ow for the debate between Quintain and the other whose name I didn't nother remembering. Quintain is not a troll, otherwise the whole thread is a troll thread, since he A) answered what he believed would happen and B) try and help define a bit more what was going on, because indeed the original premise is kinda iffy. And the other, well I think he flunked philosophy. Because instead of debatting the question at hand he kept b+&#+ing about said question making no sense within a set of strict parameters. (Make sure he doesn't watch Death Battles or I think he will die of yelling at the screen too much).

No, actually, I aced philosophy. I just have a love of debate. What people on this "general discussion" forum are trying to do is fall back on the "rules forum" paradigm of quoting game material and shutting down the discussion instead of actually debating the idea -- mainly because they don't like the question.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Malwing,

How close to real-world science are you going to cling when it comes to the construction of space-faring vessels?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
I think that, from the amount of oblivious, stubborn, objectively incorrect crap coming from Quintain, we can likely all come to the conclusion that he is a troll poster and should be ignored so that the real discussion may continue.

You can continue as you like. Feel free.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Knitifine wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Moreover, Paladin status is determined by the deity. You cannot lose Paladin status if you are following the dictates of your deity. A paladin is first and foremost a warrior of his deity.

Your "you cannot do this as a paladin" when that "cannot" is directly contradictory to the dictates of the deity is the ludicrous part of your definition of paladin.

Murder and killing are not synonymous. Killing of an innocent is not necessarily murder. Murder is a legal definition. A deity transcends mortal legalities.

As a paladin, if your deity orders it, you do it. All else be damned

Paladin status is not determined by deity. You are mistake.

You can lose your Paladin status if you ever commit an evil act, period. I already cited the Core Rulebook, you are wrong.

Your idea a Paladin is first and foremost a warrior of their deity is wrong. Try 4e DnD if you want to see a Paladin of that nature.

My "ludicrous" definition of a Paladin is rules compliant, yours is not.

Murder is not a legal definition, there is a legal definition for murder but it is also a word. A deity's status of transcending mortal laws is not a truth in the source material of the deities in Pathfinder and DnD (read: Primarily Greek and Norse mythology where the gods were just as flawed as mortals).

Murder is very much a legal definition. Killing != murder. Murder is killing contrary to the current laws. There are plenty of examples of killing that aren't murder. Killing of enemy combatants in War happens to be an easy one.

Paladins gain their power through worship of a "deity" which is manifestation of a particular belief-set (some of them even have names).

Paladins can lose their paladinhood through two methods, the first is disobidience to the deity ("belief-set")...the second is change of alignment. You seem to think that killing in this scenario is murder and thus he is committing an evil act.

I do not see it that way. Your definition is a massive straight-jacket of ridiculous morality that pretty much ensures that there will never be paladins that do not fall.

Mine, at least, gives them some room to make proper moral decisions that aren't based on situation-less absolutes.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Quintain wrote:


Last I checked this is an RPG -- ludicrous scenarios happen all the time.
Mostly because people such as yourself make up silly & contrived situations in an attempt to hose paladins.

If you look at my original response, I answered that not only would the Paladin retain his paladinhood, he would also stay lawful good in my view.

So how is that "hosing" said paladin? I'm not the one using contrived absolutes like "Paladins can't murder" to hose paladins.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Knitifine wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


"Let's destroy the world and abscond all of my followers to heaven." is a classic evil cult leader plan, it's also completely bonkers.

Not all of my followers, *everyone*. And that is to prevent them from becoming food to a creature that at a certain point can't be stopped.

You're nitpicking, the scenario doesn't change no matter how many people you desire to abscond with. You are murdering innocent people, consigning them to a horrible afterlife (with varying levels of horrible depending on alignment).

And again, your scenario does not make sense. "Rovugug has been starved for years, but now the souls of the world will make him strong enough to beat all those people who beat him before, plus the new upstarts, also he now has the power to beat them long enough to consume those souls, after being starved, because starving makes you stronger..?"

Again, no. Killing the innocent puts them in their heavenly reward on the upper planes. This is a good result of a life well lived.

While I'm not going back to re-read everything I wrote previously, I don't recall stating that Rovagug has been "starved" all these years. He's just been trapped. His followers sacrifices could have easily been feeding him in captivity, which allowed his escape, and now the millions of souls that populate the planet (not including the various co-existant planes) will further strengthen him.

I stated that by killing the populace of Golarion would starve him of the soul power to further threaten the multiverse. This is analogous to cutting off a limb that has gangrene. Sacrifice the limb to save the body.

Once he consumes all these souls -- which requires the vessels of said souls to be alive, that will allow him to further threaten the multiverse.

Your only chance at this point is to slam the door and prevent him from growing more powerful -- you can only evacuate so many people, the rest will become power for Rovagug.

Edit: If you don't want to discuss the scenario, simply don't respond to my posts. No need to get upset about it. I'm well within the subject matter. I'm simply fleshing out the details, while you are trying to refute the premise.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


"Let's destroy the world and abscond all of my followers to heaven." is a classic evil cult leader plan, it's also completely bonkers.

Not all of my followers, *everyone*. And that is to prevent them from becoming food to a creature that at a certain point can't be stopped.

Quote:


You have ignored literally everyone correcting you about Rovagug, and that's the first problem. You continually attempt to contrive even more ludicrous scenarios in order to fulfill this "Unstoppable end of the world" premise.

Last I checked this is an RPG -- ludicrous scenarios happen all the time. If you want to not accept the premise, you have to disprove the premise. I have yet to see that premise being debated.

I'm looking for a larger discussion of in-game morals -- is dying by whatever means a preferable fate if your life allows greater evil to grow?

Moreover, Paladin status is determined by the deity. You cannot lose Paladin status if you are following the dictates of your deity. A paladin is first and foremost a warrior of his deity.

Your "you cannot do this as a paladin" when that "cannot" is directly contradictory to the dictates of the deity is the ludicrous part of your definition of paladin.

Murder and killing are not synonymous. Killing of an innocent is not necessarily murder. Murder is a legal definition. A deity transcends mortal legalities.

As a paladin, if your deity orders it, you do it. All else be damned.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


The deity has clearly gone mad..

Has he? How do you know?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Moreover, in the case of the ambulatory deceased and you fail to eliminate the infected before they convert (so to speak), your lack of "pragmatic action" actually increases the amount of "evil" that must ultimately be fought.

Given the Rovagug scenario I posited above, any creature left alive on the planet feeds the beast until such time as he is able to escape Golarion and thus threaten the rest of the multiverse.

Perhaps this deity that is deciding to end the world and thus instructs his Paladin to ensure that Rovagug does not consume their souls, but ensures their heavenly reward is not only a pragmatic path, but a righteous one.

All presumtions of "murder" and "sanctity of life" are thrown out the window in apocalyptic scenarios.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


And stepping off a cliff isn't suicide, gravity is doing the killing, you just don't feel like stopping it.

The transference of kinetic energy between you and the object you hit kills you, not gravity. Gravity just gets you there.

The act and actor, in this picture, however, are the same.

+1 Ashiel. Agree wholeheartedly.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
So, in a world where the afterlife is a verifiable fact, why is murder evil? In such a world how is killing an innocent any different than a vaccination shot in our world. Both hurt but give proven benefits to the recipient.

Bingo. The larger question is that is it really evil to kill something ahead of what would be it's inevitable death, if you can deny an evil being the power that that soul would provide if it was consume?

This isn't black and white morality but a question of short term vs. long term.

All of the people who are saying it's evil are only thinking short term. The sanctity of life presumes that life will continue...that presumption is incorrect in this scenario.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


So what's the difference between slitting your own throat and handing someone else the knife and letting them do it for you? There is none. If you want to die, then willingly put yourself in a deadly situation and die, you committed suicide. The method isn't important, it's the intent.

The actor. One performs the killing and one is the killed.

Suicide is when the actor and the acted are the same individual.

Quote:


Let's say that same man instead decides to run into a busy intersection, gets hit by a car, and dies. Would you argue it was murder because he wasn't the one driving the car that killed him? No, it's still suicide.

I wouldn't argue that it is murder. But it isn't suicide either.

It's putting yourself at great personal risk with the desire to die.

Let's give another example. There is a home invasion, and a burglar is about to shoot the woman of the house, and the husband steps in the line of fire knowing that he is very likely to die but might save his wife?

No one calls this a suicide. (This is no different than the death by car crash scenario that you described -- the only difference is intent of consequences that the one that puts themselves in harms way desires.)


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


Could you expand on that please? I'm curious.

Well, one of the cool things about a mind blade is that it is formed from the mental energies of the soulknife.

So what is preventing the soulknife from "just making stuff up".

Emulate weapon makes the mind blade a known weapon type with known mechanics.

Why wouldn't a soulknife have the imagination to mix and match?

Example: a two-bladed sword is essentially two longswords attached at the hilt. The longsword is a one handed melee weapon. So why couldn't the soulknife transform and use the mechanics of a different one-handed melee weapon as each blade of his two bladed sword?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:

Wouldn't be the first time the Big Damn Heroes of a story manage to kill an evil entity that was only sealed the first time.

Paladins find another way. They certainly don't force the sacrifice of others. Familiar with the Culling of Stratholme?

This is a fantastic question:

Let's flip the scenario -- let's say you (as a paladin) are thrown back in time, and are pivotal in the events where in a fellow paladin became a great evil, but there are events in the scenario where your intervention could prevent that fall.

Here are your options: prevent the fall, thus changing the timeline and all it's inherent unknowns coming into play, possibly bringing an even greater evil to the fore,

or

allow the fall, knowing full well that you strengthen evil in the short run and thus ensure that all the atrocities said anti-paladin commits will come into place.

What do you do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quintain wrote:
havoc xiii wrote:
Kill Rovagug.

Not possible.

Paladin.

You do it anyway.

No, you just die trying.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FireberdGNOME wrote:

Also, this is only one world of an infinite number. Even if *ALL* of the souls went to the Abyss, it's less than a drop in the bucket.

True, but even a small amount of lead in the heart of a star leads to a supernova.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


The question said the LG(CE) god decided to end the world not that the world was already ending.

Yes, but the question is why? If the LG deity had a vision showing the release of Rovagug and the ensuing end of the multiverse, what are the options.

This comes down to a question of perspective. If you liken golarion to a limb on the human body and that limb has gangrene, is it not better (aka more Lawful and Good) to sever the limb so that the rest of the body can survive?

Kill millions so that untold trillions may live? That is the scenario.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
havoc xiii wrote:
Kill Rovagug.

Not possible. Look at how he was trapped in the first place. He wasn't able to be killed then, and he has overcome the one result of that deity-conflict.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


Wrong premise. A diety that orders mass infanticide is NOT Good, but Evil, and a Paladin would fall for obeying such an order.

Wrong.

What happens if Rovagug is released and all those whom he devours further strengthens him to the point the rest of the multiverse will be threatened by his increase in power? And innocent souls strengthen him further exponentially.

You can't stop his release, and you can't stop him from devouring others, thus consuming their souls. And there is no way to do a mass exodus of all the people on golarion.

What do you do? The only alternative is to prevent the food from being present upon his release, thus starving him and preventing that threat from endangering the rest of the multiverse.

Now, suicide also prevents the souls from travelling to the upper planes, but instead damns them to the lower, further strengthening a different evil.

Your presumtion in your "objective good and evil" is that all killing is wrong. This is wrong on it's face.

What's the alternative?

Quote:


Allowing someone to kill you is technically suicide, so they'd be breaking their own ethos.

Allowing others to kill you is not suicide. Suicide is killing yourself.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think you guys missed the premise of the question:

It's "the end of the world". Everyone is going to die, regardless of circumstances.

The only question at this point is how and what happens after.

1) If all souls at the time of the end of the world are damned to the abyss and the deity in question can't stop it, it is both lawful and good to prevent as many pure souls from going to the abyss as possible.

That means killing the innocent in as many droves as possible. Thus radically reducing the soul harvest by Evil.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1) Paladins should go on a killing spree, first identifying the innocent and killing them first.

2) Yes, presuming the souls of the innocent at the moment of the "end of the world" are not able to travel to their heavenly reward.

3) No.

4) No. Refusing the dictates of your deity will result in the loss of paladinhood, but refusing the dictates of your deity is not overtly committing an evil act, so there would be no change in alignment.

Quote:


Paladins who follow the order fall. Period. No ambiguity on this one - direct murder of an acknowledged innocent is a deliberate evil act, regardless of reasons. That's the one rule ALL Paladins have to follow

Incorrect. See my presumption above. Not all killing is murder even of the innocent. Murder is a legal definition, and the dictates of his god supercede the dictates of non-heavenly laws.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd like to see a blade skill that allows for custom weapons, instead of just emulating existing ones.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Avoron,

Awesome, thanks for the analysis.

What happens on damage for weapons that have multiple die when it applies to each individual die:

Say the estoc, which is 2d4, or the greatsword which is 2d6?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ok, let's say there is an ability that allows you to roll an additional die -1 when you roll the maximum of any particular die, for weapon damage purposes.

So, if you roll 4 on a d4, you get to roll an additional d4-1 and add it to the original roll and that is your damage for the strike.

What would be the equivalent direct bonus enchantment (+1 to +5) that would work out to the same damage range?

Extended, what would be the equivalent direct bonus enchantment if the second d4 roll (modified by -1) rolls the max on the die resulting in +3 to damage) is able to be rolled as many times as is possible (basically until you don't roll the maximum on a die). What would be the equivalent enchantment bonus on this "greater" version of this ability?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Have you looked into options that expand more upon psychic strike. I think that is the red-headed stepchild of the soulknife. It could use some love.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:


@Quintain
Ahh ok, so we aren't debating RAW when we debate. In that case this discussion with you has no bearing on the playtest. We don't use "feelings" or "intent" when discussing published content and how it interacts.

You can argue intent all you want when stuff is still in playtest, but all the stuff I've quoted is from published content.

@Skylancer
Can you link that? I've never heard of Paizo allowing manyshot to work with crossbows and they have had something like 6 CRB reprinting with errata to fix it.

I am also quoting published content, as you will have noticed. It just so happens you are more pedantic regarding your interpretation of the same text than I am, and that pedantic interpretation is making you demand a clarification that isn't needed. For whatever reason.

You do realize we are talking about 3rd party products, right? Here's a clue. There is no such thing as an overarching tribunal that determines RAW vs. RAI with third party products. There is no pathfinder society game play with this material. So it is ALL textual interpretation. End of story.

This isn't a rules forum. And you are derailing the intent of the thread.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Quintain wrote:

The text.. She can also choose her mind bolt for feats requiring a specific weapon choice... covers manyshot.

Bow...is a specific weapon choice.

There is a difference between feats that require a weapon choice, such as weapon focus, and feats that are restricted by weapon choice, such as Thunder & Fang/Manyshot/and more.

Only in an overly pedantic sense. Requiring w weapon choice is simply more focused than being restricted by weapon choice.

They are cut from the same cloth.

I sincerely doubt the developers intended mind bolt to be able to use feats intended for all ranged weapons as well as specific ranged weapons but not specific categories of ranged weapons.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Emulate weapon was intended to provide specific weapon damage and critical range changes. It was not intended to allow for feat qualification.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The text.. She can also choose her mind bolt for feats requiring a specific weapon choice... covers manyshot.

Bow...is a specific weapon choice.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Manyshot can be used with a mind bolt natively.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While we are on the area of improvements, I have some ideas on focus items that you might be interested in.

Edit: Now that I'm re-reading the crystalline focus items, that may not be needed.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ErrantX wrote:

Like a Blade Skill that allows you to take a Combat Feat or a blade skill that includes a suite of combat feats?

-X

A single combat feat per blade skill would put the soulknife on par feat-wise with the fighter, I believe (if I recall my feat progression as compared to the blade skill progression).

But having a blade skill that mimics the martial maneuver class ability would be nice as well.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Personally, I'd like to see blade skill that could be taken so as to allow for fighter-like progression of feats.

One of the things holding back the Soulknife is the lack of the ability to perform activities that an equivalent fighter could perform (the cleave line is particularly feat intensive).


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A conversation is two way, so it does allow you to hear thoughts that the other party wants you to hear, just

Think of telepathy this way: it is a mental "universal translator".


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:


And that's fair enough. But looking on the from the outside, I can't help but see two sets of actions that are happening almost simultaneously. Why not use initiative to resolve this situation?

The way I see it, it is essentially a surprise round, wherein the scry allows for one party to observe another, but prevents knowledge of the specifics by the victim. But the detection of the teleport allows for enough information to react in limited ways (i.e. actually be able to react in the surprise round), but at least it allows for reaction, and if the determination of who goes first is determined by initiative well, that is at least something I can work with.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
rainzax wrote:

That's a Dolly Parton song.

What is the DM's case for allowing them to ready but not you to ready?

If both sides know what's coming, I could make a case for both sides acting first by settling it with an initiative check. Maybe with them gaining a +2 circumstance bonus for being on the offensive.

He does allow for readying an action. Essentially, I'm doing nothing other than looking for the scry and fry to start, in which case I have the ability to act when my 'incarnate' Detect Teleportation to trigger.

As for all the readied action outside of combat rule, it's not a big deal, the rules as they are applied work for both sides of the GM screen, so we roll with it. I, personally, have no objection to being able to perform an action right after something I know will happen happens, logically speaking. As long as that action can be performed "blindly". Which casting a spell on yourself really is.

Quote:


Can you explain how that actually works? I've read the class description, and the 'trap related insights' and I see nothing at all that allows you to apply spells to traps or to have any traps ready and waiting for the arrival of your enemies. I see several abilities where you have to perform either a swift or standard action to throw or set off a trap.

Therefore, you would need to a) detect the scrying sensor; b) ready an action to make your trap do anything; c) beat the initiative of the arriving mage.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - I've never looked at that class before.

The trap related insights are a way to make the traps themselves mobile. The craft traps skill allows for creation of mechanical and magical traps (this is what I'm relying on). The Insights are a way to move, set and potentially trigger said traps when needed.

Our party is 17th level, so we have access to pretty much whatever we like given enough time/effort. But we are also going up against a party of equivalent level which is doing the scry and fry tactics against us. However, they have a set base which prevents us from using these same tactics, and we are adventuring in Rappan Athuk and it's area trying to take down the power structure as well as adventure in the dungeon.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gilarius wrote:

Stop derailing the thread! Since the GM in question has decided that the teleporting wizard has readied his action, then any discussion about the rules of that is irrelevant - it is clearly not clear to everyone what the correct rule should be, so take it elsewhere please.

Quintain: what is the nature of your actual trap? You have stated Reverse Gravity and persistent Silence, but nothing about how it is set up or actually triggered.

Readying your own action, when you notice the sensor (and True Seeing will help with that), to counterspell will still work. As will readying to drop a Forcecage around them since AMF doesn't affect Walls of Force. This would still rely on you winning initiative.

I'm playing a 3rd party class (DSP: Cryptic), so I'm using the trap abilities of that class to set up the trap as being mobile and it will essentially be set up anytime that I want where I want.

Now, I don't want to prevent the actual teleport in, I want to deal with them after they arrive, in a manner detrimental to their health and well-being.

One of the issues is that I'm dealing with clerics/mages who happen to have really good will saves. So using a sympathy rock with trap the soul is problematic.

Interesting idea on the walls of force/forcecage. The only issue is having the walls of force actually be able to trigger if they approach outside the trap's initial triggering area with the AMF up and running.

Does anyone know of a non-magical method for inducing nausea?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BretI wrote:

Since it is scry and fry, having someone with a huge perception and good bluff would help the defenders quite a bit.

CRB, pg. 210, Divination magic wrote:
A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.

The person notices the magical sensor, makes a statement to send a hidden message (DC 15 Bluff check to send a simple message). Now everyone in the area knows that the scry and fry is coming. That should negate the surprise round. Assuming that the MO is known, the targets could also take anti-toxin so they get +5 fortitude save vs the poison.

If the GM is allowing readied actions out of combat, you could just ready an action to attack when the people teleport in.

Agreed, and occassionally, I have done this..but there are times when I am otherwise indesposed and can't take any actions to counter their incoming teleport.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gilarius wrote:

Ignoring the 'you can't ready outside of combat' thing (because it already has its own thread and never reached a consensus, plus it's silly to ignore common sense (so whichever stance you have on it is clearly *correct* and everyone else is wrong)).

To get back to the original problem: so far we know what the teleportee intends but not exactly what the trap is or how it triggers. This would be useful to know.

Without that, if i assume it is something like a Symbol spell, which triggers automatically when someone is close, I'd treat both actions as if they were both readied actions. They are both triggered by the same event (the teleporting people arriving), so I'd make it a simple initiative roll between them.

The teleporting wizard would have an advantage because he's probably got some sort of initiative bonus whereas Symbol spells don't.

More information about the trap would help.

The trap will be a combination of a persistent silence spell coupled with a reverse gravity -- although there are several options -- this is the reason for the "does a readied action have to happen if the conditions fire regardless of outside circumstances" question.

So, the basic idea is Hostiles teleport in, prior to the Hostiles readied action, the anti-gravity goes off, and from there, the hostiles are catapulted into the air.

If the readied action goes off prior to the trap, I can make it a physical manifestation which would penetrate the AMF (and they would be weakened by their own casting). Which would be a sleep poisoned dart/dagger throwing trap.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

I would have a trap cast dispel the moment someone attempts to cast AMF. :3 then it WILL interrupt his cast.

then it doesn't matter, then they die, except one, who will be interrogated in turn.

You can't dispel AMF, and (at least in 3.5) you can't counterspell it, either. But it can be used against them.

1 to 50 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.