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

Robb Smith's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 395 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 395 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Mogloth wrote:

Well, my goal is to use them during book 3 of Wrath of the Righteous, where the estimated total downtime is roughly 3 months or so. So, no Kingmaker. But long enough to see if we can find some enjoyment with them. And to see if Kingmaker is a possibility for our group at some point.

3 in-game months is, from my limited exposure to Kingmaker's kingdom building rules, and more exhaustive experience with Ultimate Campaigns, is barely sufficient to get the ball rolling on either.

I also would say you're creating a potential conflict with players needing to go do stuff in the world, and at the same time wanting/needing to manage/protect their precious new buildings that they just spent a ton of wealth on they need to recuperate.

If you're doing Ultimate Campaign, and have ANY Math People, Engineers, Spreadsheet Gurus, etc etc... you HAVE to, HAVE to either limit them to a fixed amount of space or limit them to a SINGLE building. UC Downtime Buildings are absolutely broken without some bound in place.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, a player says "I want to play a fat Halfling", and the DM says "Well, F**K YOU! You roll your damn weight, and you like what you get, you rollplaying little S**t.", "HAH! Look like you're a skinny Halfing. TOO BAD MOTHERF**KER!". Player cries.

Yeah. Totally awesome.

Oh no, I'm not advocating people roll. More just saying that I'd ask a player to come up with a roleplaying reason choosing something more or less than the minimum or maximum of the chart range, just so it's not for powergaming reasons. "I want to play an overweight halfling" is significantly different than "I want to play a 20lb halfling with a Roc animal companion at first level so I can carry a full compliment of gear and not push it to medium encumbrance so it can't fly." So to me, the minimum weight of a female halfling is 27 lbs and a male 32 lbs, anything less and I'm going to eye you funny as to why.

In short: Height and weight matter when they matter. If you're deviating from the chart for roleplay, it's probably fine. If you're trying to get some sort of advantage out of it, you need to stick to the chart. Otherwise, my answer will be "pick what you want."


Serisan wrote:
Your answer is in the FAQ.

Well than, I stand corrected. Seems odd to me, but I accept the FAQ.


Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

I'm looking at the alchemical creation Clear Ear and it says:

"For 6 hours, the user gains a +2 alchemical bonus on Perception and Knowledge checks and a –2 penalty on all Charisma-based checks."

I have the student of philosophy trait which says:

"You can use your Intelligence modifier in place of your Charisma modifier on Diplomacy checks to persuade others and on Bluff checks to convince others that a lie is true."

are these two things intelligence based checks or charisma based checks? I'm trying to get around taking a -2 penalty to diplomacy.

A 'Charisma-based check" is any skill or ability check that normally adds Charisma as a modifier to the roll.

As far as I am concerned, the ability to use your intelligence modifier in place of charisma does not alter the nature of what type of check it is.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I am having a difficult time expressing how inane I find this, and still be board appropriate.

Weight matters... to an extent. It would be silly if every character declared themselves to weigh 30 lbs, as such would enable many things (Small characters on flying mounts at level 1 with more than bare-bones gear, etc).

I kind of view the tables as "min-maxes"


Dazz wrote:

Seems to me everyone's in agreement because of past discussions on this--give us a FAQ that says:

"Spells can be noticed being cast, and thus identified with Spellcraft, even if the spell has no somatic, verbal, material, or other components."

You can let the reasons be up to our imaginations, just put the rule somewhere official. Please and thank you~!

That being said, I agree - but I would expect penalties to the roll based on the lack of normal components. It should be harder to identify a spell that normally contains somatic components affected by the Still Spell feat, because you are expecting components that do not exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also supported the assertion that differing "Sources", in the forms of differing rules elements, granting the same stat bonus to a functional ability (in an untyped form) stacked, so it was not cut and dry. It required Errata.

*Edited: Clarification.


Perhaps with activate blindly, instead of use wand? It could wave it around and cluck and try to get it to go off?

I'd allow it just because it's hilarious.


I've always been one of the opinion that spells do have some sort of visual stimuli as they are cast. Probably just my long term exposure to video games, movies, television shows, descriptions in fantasy literature, and nearly everything else relating to "Magic."

While I'd like to see something FAQ'd regarding spells having visual stimuli, I'd prefer they not be defined - that seems to kind of trample on character creation for no reason (Aesthetic vs. Functional), and also kind of creates the same situation as monsters - Where you read the description, and everyone immediately knows what it is and what it does, even though their characters don't... Most of my groups, fortunately, don't immediately turn to fire and acid every time they freshly come across a troll, but it does momentarily break immersion when it happens.


I would say it boils down to your intent in how to mix the rules. Expanding the players to being in control of multiple buildings inside of multiple towns spread all across a kingdom would yield two results:

1) Exceptionally overpowered and wealthy PCs as they create magic capital out of every orifice on their body, and

2) Change the game from "Pathfinder" to "Formulaic Spreadsheet Adventures in Excel-land."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never heard of anyone forcing anyone to roll, and it also kind of defeats the sidebar section in Blood of Angels where it talks about non-human aasimar and says an Aasimar can just choose to be Small if they want to, (subject to GM Fiat of course.) It also kinda seems like a fundamental waste of time, because it would basically boil down to a "I tore up sheets and rerolled height/weight till I got numbers that I liked" situation


ShieldLawrence wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
How are you striking something without making use of an attack roll?

Sound strikes things just fine. blasts of fire strike things. Light strikes surfaces, etc. Does it define "strike" anywhere as being necessarily part of an attack roll? If not it just means some sort of usually violent contact with something.

Yes, the rules say specifically that strikes are represented by attack rolls. I quoted the relevant section below the question you quoted me on. I'll post it again:

Combat Section wrote:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Simply stating that anything strikes anything is not in the rules and is not backed up by rules text. You can only strike things with an attack roll. You therefore need attack rolls to sneak attack, since a sneak attack is indeed a strike.

Even though I take the opposite side of Crimeo, this is just silly. You are saying "look, this says attack rolls are strikes!", and asserting that is all "strikes" are therefore attack rolls. Magic Missile also says it "strikes" the target, and "strikes" the target unerringly. Last I checked, people weren't rolling d20s for it.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Yes but there is also a highly distinct difference between the primary target of a splash weapon and the "splash" component of it, on the order that the splash damage is generally completely negligable.

Agreed. But so what? That can just be a second reason why it might not vital strike splash victims (not being "targets")

Several of the spells I listed above however DO have targets as well as being bursts or emanations (that you can place at range no less). Like Aura of the Unremarkable.

Sure, but that just goes back to the core question. Why would they feel the need to exclude splash weapons from sneak attack?

Because they require an attack roll.

It is inherantly implied by this example that AoE effects, and effects that don't require an attack roll, do not benefit from Sneak Attack. I believe this has never been "clarified" because I have *never* played at a table where people did not inherantly understand how this rule is intended to work. It is just one of those things that is intuitive. Splash weapons needed this clarification because they were exceptions to that intuition and it affected the predecessor game in a negative manner, so it was fixed.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
How is throwing a vial of acid at someone "less able to strike a vital area" than a spell, just because the residual liquid might extend to extra squares?

That's not why. The reason why is a specific rules-related mechanical one: splash weapons do not exclude people behind cover or obstacles or anything blocking line of effect. It just hits everything within 5 feet, full stop.

So imagine I have a tower shield deployed, and you throw a splash weapon at some other guy in the target directly in front of me on the opposite side of the edge the shield is deployed on. By RAW, I still get splashed with splash weapon stuff, despite no line of sight or effect (total cover). At least as far as I can tell. Because I'm within 5 feet, and it doesn't mention any such exceptions.

Thus, splash weapons must go around corners, and touch everything that is exposed to air within 5 feet, regardless of angle, similar to a spreading spell like fireball or fog cloud. Therefore, they are necessarily already hitting all vital areas, and there is thus no way to make them hit MORE vital areas.

Burst/emanation spells, though (not just all spells, only these certain type of straight line of effect ones) do not go around corners, and thus are not already hitting all parts of you. So by repositioning that burst, you could now hit a vital spot that wasn't getting hit before, fitting the rules text of sneak attack's requirements: intentional striking of vital spots that otherwise might not have occurred without the same training.

Yes but there is also a highly distinct difference between the primary target of a splash weapon and the "splash" component of it, on the order that the splash damage is generally completely negligable.


Ahh, ok. You are highlighting kind of one of the main reasons I hate spells like this, and don't generally allow them at my table. So, I am afraid I lack the experience to comment. That reason being they tend to disrupt with great effectiveness the normal "order" which so many rules rely apon, and create awkward and unaddressed interactions.


Crimeo wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:
Anyone wishing to put forth an argument for this must first, in my eyes, put forth a satisfactory explanation why splash weapons (which do require an attack roll) are explicitly denied sneak attack damage.
Because they have a spread-shape, not a burst-like or emanation-like shape. So they're already coating all sides of you and could not reasonably be any further focused or have any way of hitting vital areas more proportionally.

Your argument seems to be, "because it affects an area, unlike these other things which also affect an area". I find this to be not tremendously satisfactory. How is throwing a vial of acid at someone "less able to strike a vital area" than a spell, just because the residual liquid might extend to extra squares? The implication is that this wording is necessary specifically because these items require an attack roll (and bluntly, because being able to sneak attack with them in 3.5e D&D was broken beyond belief)


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
I would most likely rule immediately on declaring an action that prevents you from being able.

I could agree and see it be on TAKING that action that first makes it impossible to concentrate, yes.

DECLARING only would imply that the spell "knows the future" or that it is sitting at the game table listening to the players OOC action economy comments.

So for double moving, I may say "double move" as a player, but in-universe, the character hasn't committed to not concentrating until starting his second move action, so the coin should fall in between the two moves, I would say, not before both.

But then it can get weird... What if I have a contingent action prepared that says "Concentrate on ongoing mage hand spell if anybody casts feather fall"? Does the coin now fall only at the end of the turn, since it doesn't "know" whether feather fall may still be cast at the end in response to, say, a free action, thus still making it possible to concentrate on my turn?

That doesn't seem right at all... which makes me inclined to just say "it always falls at the end" as the only way to make this not matter.

Quote:
A spell with a duration of rounds or minuets end as soon as your turn begin. So the decision if you are maintaining concentration or not is made at the start of your round. Then the standard action can be done when you want during the round.
I'm not following your logic here on why round or minute duration spells imply anything about concentration duration spells. Or does it say somewhere that you have to declare this at the start?

It is a similar level of abstraction to being able to 5 foot step in the middle of a full attack, etc.

In regards to the two questions:
1) You can't really ready this action... The process of doing so would cause the spell to immediately fail, thus immediately trigger the action, makng it functionally a "waste of words" to declare in such a manner in my eyes. Either that or I am not understanding what you are describing,
2) I am unaware of any such rule requiring you to declare this decision immediately on your turn beginning.


Anyone wishing to put forth an argument for this must first, in my eyes, put forth a satisfactory explanation why splash weapons (which do require an attack roll) are explicitly denied sneak attack damage.


It falls as soon as you neglect to concentrate. I would most likely rule immediately on declaring an action that prevents you from being able.

As for when specifically during your set of actions, I do not believe the rules go into this level of detail, and as a GM I must confess as to be suspect of why that level of specificity woukd be pertinent.


Claxon wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:

Yup, 1C exists in case they make their save. You just wash, rinse, repeat till they don't. Only need to do it once. It won't work if the target is immune to mind affecting abilities, but that wasn't stipulated. Even then it's doable, just a bit harder... most humanoids have little to no chance against a level 20 sorcerer repeatedly casting spells on them over and over.

While true, it's also rare that a sorcerer will have someone so completely at their mercy that they can repeatedly cast spells and fail to successfully affect the enemy without being in some sort of danger.

True. Though, this is a contingency. In the event that this was the situation, there's many things that can be done to make them substantially weaker beforehand. The implication that they're a prisoner to me carries the implication that at some point, at least at the beginning, they are at your mercy. Some Blindness/Deafness action, some Greater Bestow Curses... if they're immune to the EZ-Mode dominate route, you will just have to make them weak as a kitten before putting them in their cage.


Claxon wrote:

Robb Smith, there is a fair amount of variability in whether or not you can order them to fail saves against you without it violating the "any subject forced to take actions against its nature" clause. I would say it's against everything's nature to purposefully fail saves against someone that would otherwise be an enemy.

Though, you may be accounting for that in step 1c, just wanted to point that out.

Yup, 1C exists in case they make their save. You just wash, rinse, repeat till they don't. Only need to do it once. It won't work if the target is immune to mind affecting abilities, but that wasn't stipulated. Even then it's doable, just a bit harder... most humanoids have little to no chance against a level 20 sorcerer repeatedly casting spells on them over and over.


1) Dominate Monster.
1b) Order them to voluntarily fail all saves against spells you cast.
1c) Go to step 1 if they break dominate.

2) Use Metamagic Rod - Cast Mind Blank on Yourself
3) Use Metamagic Rod - Cast Mind Blank on the creature.

4) Use Greater Teleport to teleport to a random inhospitable location.

5) Use Metamagic Rod - Cast Imprisonment

6) Teleport Away.

7) Every day, approximately 10 to 15 minutes shorter than the previous day, Greater Teleport to the location, Cast Freedom, Refresh Mind Blank, Cast Imprisonment again.

8) Every 19 Days, Re-cast Dominate Monster

Since you both have Mind Blank, you are protected from all means to detect you, even Miracle and Wish. It is functionally impossible for them to ever find you or the prisoner through magical means.

The extend rods are primarily utilized to give a "buffer" of overlap time in case something interferes with the planned routine.

If they play the "Deific Intervention" card, then they just want to win anyway.

One COULD even make the argument that the refreshing is unnecessary based on the wording of Temporal Stasis, but this way leaves no GM Fiat.

Edited (Accidentally thought of 24 Hours instead of Days, fixed Dominate Monster recast time.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's my opinion.

DC 32 is a considered a pretty absurd knowledge check.

The PC should have known "something" about it. Maybe an esoteric legend. Maybe the information isn't even absolutely correct. But... SOMETHING.

When you tell a PC they know "nothing about it", you make them feel like the investment they have made into their character is pointless. This, to me, feels like a squandered opportunity for a plot hook and a devaluing of where a character has chosen to focus (or maybe even just had a bit of luck)

Allow me to illustrate the point, using your own words.

DC30: "You once heard a story about a gifted Elven cleric who once, having provided someone with materials and tons of supplies to craft a magical creation when requested, encountered an object that teleported away from him."

DC35: "He has been seeking that object ever since, and no one left alive truly knows its properties. This object seems to match the Cleric's description of that very object."

DC40: "The object sounds like it was designed to fulfill the bearer's wishes, without restriction or limitation."

DC45: "You know that such magic is rarely fulfilled as desired, and most likely would come with an unexpected or terrible cost."


Outside of highly intelligent creatures, this one falls into "DBAD" territory for me.


Tindalen wrote:
My understanding is that once an undead is killed, again, it is in a state of destroyed, it is not dead, it is for all intents and purposes an object. It's why you can not raise dead on an undead. I would rule that an intellect devoured can not subsume an undead. I know no RAW to back me up though.

All we really have in this sort of situation is anecdotal... references to "destruction" representing "disruption of the magic animating it", and other fluff descriptions. The challenge is that to fit it into the rules, "Undead" is a creature type, when in reality it is more of a state of existence for an animated corpse.

I think this one really just requires GM Adjudication... and really, with the other issues going on I don't think it warrants a FAQ given how many other outstanding, more pertinent and common issues, exist.... so I definitely won't be flagging it such.


I guess I would say it ceases to be an Undead the moment you kill it (again) and just becomes a corpse of the appropriate type.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

gplayle:

You're welcome for the insight. Glad to hear that it sounds like you and your GM came to what sounds like, at least from my perspective, the correct decision.

Oh, and welcome to the rules forum. Most people here won't stop until you are utterly humiliated. I accept your most gracious acceptance of what at least appears to be fact.

Have a good night.


That's a bit more of a grey area. I don't think I've ever had a PC stick around in a Stinking Cloud long enough to ever have to make a ruling on that personally.

I'd say personally yes. The cloud dissipating counts as involuntarily leaving the cloud.


gplayle wrote:


Now I'll go with you that the onus is on me with context to my GM and the campaign I'm playing, but not for proving something about a rule I didn't write and that is, at least, somewhat debatable. Saying the onus is on me is very close to the "Begging the question" fallacy.

Affirmanti incumbit probatio... The burden is on the person who affirms. You must provide proof that the wording gives you the permission to bypass the normal rule.

Quote:
Select one type of magic item (potions, wondrous items, and so on). You create items of this type 25% faster than normal

The "normal" creation time for an item for someone who lacks the feat is "It cannot be done.". 25% faster than "it cannot be done" is still "it cannot be done".

The onus is on you to provide proof or evidence that, somehow, this discovery grants you the ability to create in addition to creating 25% faster.

Let it go. You know you're wrong.


Kalindlara wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:
jonhl1986 wrote:
yeah and i need str+int since im building a warpriest whw natural attacker

STR and INT are polar opposites. You will either need to rethink your concept or accept the fact you are likely not getting a racial bonus to one of the stats. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

As I noted earlier, there are actually two races with Str/Int. They're just super-obscure. ^_^
While I agree that such technically exist, I regard reaching to Blood of the Night and Inner Sea Bestiary as legal sourcebooks for PC character creation... a little tenuous. My max level of comfort with that would be stating "They exist, but absolutely require DM permission."
Lashunta are now in People of the Stars as well. At least that's an actual players' book. And shouldn't tieflings require just as much GM permission as dhampir? ^_^

We generally regard "core" and "featured" races (and equivalent options) from ARG as "fine, no permission required", and variant heritages for any of them as "DM permision required." YMMV.


Kalindlara wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:
jonhl1986 wrote:
yeah and i need str+int since im building a warpriest whw natural attacker

STR and INT are polar opposites. You will either need to rethink your concept or accept the fact you are likely not getting a racial bonus to one of the stats. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

As I noted earlier, there are actually two races with Str/Int. They're just super-obscure. ^_^

While I agree that such technically exist, I regard reaching to Blood of the Night and Inner Sea Bestiary as legal sourcebooks for PC character creation... a little tenuous. My max level of comfort with that would be stating "They exist, but absolutely require DM permission."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:

Not in my eyes. That feat is legacy, 3.5 material. Nothing in Blood of Fiends requires a feat to take an alternate heritage. In addition, the chart is gone.

SUPER-pedantic correction. That feat comes from the first-ever Pathfinder Adventure Path supplement, The Bastards of Erebus.

That said, they were still disentangling themselves from 3.5 at the time, and it's an exceedingly common mistake. ^_^

Yeah, I always forget that Bastards was ... "Super-technically Pathfinder."


jonhl1986 wrote:
yeah and i need str+int since im building a warpriest whw natural attacker

STR and INT are polar opposites. You will either need to rethink your concept or accept the fact you are likely not getting a racial bonus to one of the stats. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


DM_Blake wrote:

No, not correct.

The cloud fills the area. The cloud lasts for the duration of the spell. If you enter the area of the cloud (or you're in it when it is cast on you) then you are nauseated. If you leave the area, you remain nauseated for 1d4+1 rounds - note that for this to be true you are not in the cloud anymore because you left it. Which means the existence of the cloud SOMEWHERE ELSE has no effect on the 1d4+1 rounds you remain nauseated, and this includes the cloud dissipating at the end of its duration (in other words, it doesn't matter if the cloud exists or not because you are not in it anyway, but you're still nauseated until your 1d4+1 rounds run out).

^- Agree 100%. The continued existence of the cloud and/or duration of the spell itself does not impact your affect time whatsoever.


jonhl1986 wrote:
so i can't have a str int tiefling ?

Well.. more accurately, you can't have a STR/INT... pretty much anything. Those two stats are each other's "mutual exclusive." I don't recall even a single existent, legal for play under non-3.5 material, +STR/+INT race outside of clearly monstrous races.


Not in my eyes. That feat is legacy, 3.5 material. Nothing in Blood of Fiends requires a feat to take an alternate heritage. In addition, the chart is gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have two things to state here in regards to this that are staple, if not underlying, rules for groups I play in -

1) In-combat healing, with the exception of something absolutely necessary to save someone from death, is a wasted action.

The general expectation from groups with any experience level should be that healing happens OUTSIDE of combat, except when necessary to save a life.

Healing in combat is a negative-sum game in almost all circumstances with the exception of extremely potent magic like Heal. If you're healing inside combat, you are wasting actions that would be better spent removing the source of the damage. I always sigh a little bit when I see someone casting Cure Light Wounds in combat instead of bashing the mage's face in with their mace, or providing flanking or threatening support.

2) Purchasing wands of Cure Light Wounds is a PARTY responsibility, not the Cleric's.

Straight up - Wands of CLW come off party treasure straight up before shares are divvy'd up. Just because you are USING it on everyone doesn't mean it's your responsibility to purchase it with your share of the treasure.

Playing a cleric or "healer" as long as these ground rules are established can be a rewarding and fulfilling experience.


Kyaaadaa wrote:
Drimoran wrote:
The template takes away the creature's Charsima

...

Balls.

You are correct on the bludgeoning DR and cold resistance, but I was mainly focusing on the advantages of the Undead type since they are not directly included on the skeleton template entry.


Agree completely with what others have said. The entire advantage of this trait disappears by 2nd level, and if it hasn't, honestly it probably means you aren't giving out enough treasure.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The eternal struggle of RPGs is that there are very few people who want to run, and everyone wants to play.

Maybe, instead of living in frustration, it's time to take on the mantle of GM yourself for a while and show her a different manner of gameplay, more akin to what you feel you and the group would prefer. Life is difficult on the other side of the screen, especially if time and obligations prevent you from being able to build in depth plots and stories.

Barring that, at a minimum it's potentially time for a polite conversation where you express that your expectation for the campaign was slightly different, and that character is primarily focused on interactions with humanoids. She may simply not have realized that fact.

Empathy is the answer. Not frustration.


RAW: I don't think they get any check at all to oppose. From all I can tell, it just "happens".

RAI: Probably intended to function as Animate Object where this situation can't ever occur anyway.


Hello John,

I can understand the confusion, however I would argue that most players intuition would be that the intent of it was not to function as you thought it did.

I would argue the wording, while sloppy, was intended to try to cut off every avenue of attack for players trying to gain unforeseen advantages from Metamagic, and to be "comprehensive" in the case of future publications. It seems this created an "interpretation loophole".

I believe the RAI, and the RAW (presuming D20PFSRD was not updated to be more "errata-friendly" in its wording), supports the entry in the FAQ... but as opposed to most questions on this board, I do actually believe in this case the FAQ was warranted.


The common template. And it's not underpowered. There are very numerous, very substantial advantages to being undead and inherent to the skeleton template that often outweigh the things you lose, like:

D20PFSRD wrote:


Darkvision 60 feet.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
Immunity to bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
Not subject to nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength), as well as to exhaustion and fatigue effects.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).


My ruling has always been that a player can choose to be helpless (Function as Dex 0, and give the attacker a +4 to hit) against an attack, but regardless of that you can't *automatically* hit someone. An eighth of an inch of steel and magical wards don't necessarily care if you want to be hit or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agree with (most) other posters. You cannot cast spells of 3rd level without 13+. A spell "operating at" a level is not the same as the spell *being* that level.

Here's the short answer for you though, for the future: Don't make PFS characters that rely on GM interpretation. Ever. This is a recipe for disappointment and disaster.


Crimeo:

Does your argument boil down to:

If it is a Wolf (It has Invisibility), then it is a Canine (it has Total Concealment).
It is a Canine (it has Total Concealment)
Thus it is a Wolf (it is Invisible).

If so, it is an example of fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Just because it may be (as a side of effect of absurdly high DCs to see you) not possible for your opponent to pass the perception DC which grants you total concealment, this does *NOT* render you Invisible (as per the condition). You don't gain a condition unless something explicitly grants it to you in a permission based ruleset like Pathfinder. While it's very easy for us as humans to make the logical jump of "I can't be seen, therefore I am Invisible", it is not true for much the reason described above. I understand the difficulty since it is, from the human experience, the very definition of the word.

Invisibility *DOES* do more than Total Concealment. It grants you the condition "Invisible". I understand, and can even empathize with, the argument of "What's the difference because sound...", but that argument isn't going to gain any traction in the VERY literal Rules Forum. Emotion and Real-life logic carry no sway here, only what's printed on the page.

So that being said, here are the rules:

If you have total concealment, you CAN make stealth checks, and you can't be attacked directly (only your square).

If you are Invisible, you gain a +20 to stealth checks (+40 if you aren't moving), and as above.

If you don't like them, I totally get it. If your group don't play by them, I completely understand your reasoning for it. But, those are the rules as they are printed.


Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
I don't think they've expressed a position publicly, but a number of guides do contain discussion of setting-specific material -- i.e., "this works particularly great if you're a mystery cultist of Desna", etc.

Yeah that's cool. I doubt his would really step on it badly.

Quote:

I would agree that it's a good idea to highlight 3PP content, because a lot of people are fussy about that -- some because 3PP can't be used in organized play, others because they just want a bright line around what's canon and what isn't.

Doug M.

Yup. My group in particular has a really fond appreciation of the work that Paizo has put in making sure that the vast bulk of options are, well, "Different, but not necessarily better." We don't allow 3PP material at all because of what we all observed with 3.0 and 3.5, where publishers determined the fastest way to sell books was to just make them more powerful!

A guide that includes 3PP and doesn't go to extra lengths to point it out is really of limited usefulness to me personally, but YMMV.


Can you provide more detail as to specifically what you're looking for? From my side it actually looks like an exceptionally solid encounter already, and I would be concerned that adding anything more to it would probably detract from the story you're already trying to tell...


I just had a few things to proffer on the more "General Housekeeping" side.. Now, just to begin, I want to of course stress that IANAL, but even given this some of the things I saw made me tweak a little in terms of the "concern" list.

1) If you are going to include information from 3rd Party sources, I would make sure specifically to call out that they are 3rd Party.

2) Your guide includes word-for-word verbatim printings of the mechanics. This is verboten without following the rules of the OGL. Additionally, I would also advise you to check and verify if you are going to include 3rd party materials that you verify that this information is considered Open Gaming Content, and if so you need to include a copy of the OGL at the end of your guide.

The reason you don't see an OGL insert on guides in because, in general , they do not include the word-for-word mechanics, just a review on them. Compare and contrast your guide with the others. Synopsis good, word-for-word printing of rules without OGL data bad.

In your present state, I suspect that you are in violation of the OGL and should remedy ASAP. Citations are good, but not sufficient.

3) Diety names, descriptions and fluff are generally not OGL content... But I don't know what Paizo's stance on stuff like this is for guides. You'll note that all of this fluff is stripped on open gaming sites like the PF SRD, etc.


Gilarius wrote:

Knowledge skills.

If your GM won't allow you to work it out in character, maybe he should offer you the chance to rebuild your character into a non - necromancer?

I would frankly have to agree with this sentiment. This sort of question is not even a question in every game I have ever played in. You either do a little bit of research (off-camera) and get the answer or it's just hand-waived anyway because it's not worth wasting play time on.

If your GM is asking questions like this, or even hinting at the concept that you don't know how close to your controlled limit you are, it's pretty obvious they don't want you playing a necromancer character (and frankly, I don't really blame them for it.)

I am, however, a proud member of both the "Class features are meant to be boons, not banes." and "Class features should not inadvertently kill the party" camps.

1 to 50 of 395 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 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.