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

Rogue Eidolon's page

3,383 posts. Alias of Mark Seifter (Designer).


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If more than my Fighter Guide are down, then it has only been expanding. I contacted Google about the Fighter Guide and they told me the link didn't work (? isn't that due to their taking it down) so they couldn't investigate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Oh look, gorbacz is active in that thread too.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Confirmed Today: Gorbacz is actually Obsidian in disguise!

***** Designer

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Paz wrote:


If anyone isn't aware, there's also the GM Star Reward Chronicle Sheets.

They're a little meh.

Rolling a check with only a +2-4 isn't all that likely to succeed anyway.

The one use Filigree *drinks* item activates when you go below 0, not when you die, and you can't chose to activate it or not. At best, you're probably going to go into the negatives and it will save a team mate from having to stabalize you. At worst, you will drop to -5, be put back up to 5 and then be hit again, this time to death.

A little elemental resist is ok.

Having the fame score for an item isn't an issue at level 7, You can get some good partially charged wands by playing/dming the right scenarios.

Star 5 almost has a convention requirement anyway, and if you really like one of those spells you could just play that race anyway (since the boon is limited to the core races)

There's actually two more pages in that file. Personally I think the other two are cooler.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I think Joe M.'s interpretation makes more sense. Of course, 30ft reach is nothing to sneeze at either.

Yeah, 30 ft reach is really awesome regardless. That's the range of Point-Blank Shot and several special abilities, plus in dungeon environments with a lot of twists and corridors, you often are as good as a ranged character at attacking distant enemies.

I am also with Joe on this one (I guess obviously, but might as well say it directly). If an ogre with a spear was a bloodrager with those two abilities, I'd think they would still get two +5 increases, like the abilities say. Has this come up for ogres with Lunge and the like?


Ravingdork wrote:
I just made a 4th-level character with 40-foot reach

Nice! That's actually almost identical to my PFS playtest bloodrager in basic build (I used a dorn dergar though for one-handed reach and the other hand for the closer squares). Shouldn't it be 30 ft reach, though (20 ft. for a Large creature's reach weapon +5 aberrant +5 spell), or was I missing something when I played him?


Lifat wrote:
It seems that the link to the guide is broken. It says that it was in violation with the "terms of service" by google.

It's not even in my Drive any more. Does Google sometimes just pull things out of your drive completely if some person claims it violates the terms of service? I just checked the ToS and there's none that it comes even close to violating. I hope Google can recover it, as unfortunately I may not have another copy of that file.


darkwarriorkarg wrote:

Simple, if it's such an issue for you: It's a Crimson Throne campaign trait.

You're not running Crimson Throne.

It's actually a feat from the Crimson Throne Player's Guide. Anyway, it's from 3.5.


Odraude wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I've seen a paladin of Shelyn do really well with a compelling backstory.

Why limit people on what they can play just because it doesn't fit your taste? Easier to have options that you can ban, rather than less options.

Heck, our Council of Thieves party had two paladins of Shelyn. They eventually converted my character to Shelyn as well.
Off topic, but congrats on being hired by Paizo. Living the dream!

Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:

I've seen a paladin of Shelyn do really well with a compelling backstory.

Why limit people on what they can play just because it doesn't fit your taste? Easier to have options that you can ban, rather than less options.

Heck, our Council of Thieves party had two paladins of Shelyn. They eventually converted my character to Shelyn as well.

Designer

Orthos wrote:

The mask is, as far as I can tell, not a physical object but rather a metaphor for the collection of evolutions associated with it. It is "worn" as part of activating your rage/masquerade, and takes effect in that same action, and can be dismissed by dismissing the rage/masquerade; forcing someone to spend an action on top of activating rage isn't something included nor intended in the writeup of the archetype.

There's a class ability that allows you to change masks mid-masquerade, but I forget where it's gained and don't have the book in front of me.

Orthos is right about the masks being metaphorical. As to Melusine, I'm impressed by your attention to detail What's In the Box. Thefortier asked me the same question, and the answer is: Melusine is using one of the feats from Convergent Paths: Fey Archetypes. In order to provide maximum value in this new book, I wrote all new feats and didn't just reprint any of the old ones, but since Melusine appeared in CP:FA and was concepted with them, she has feats from there too.

The level 20 ability actually lets you literally switch an old mask for a brand new mask you didn't even have 1/day. It's a crazy awesome power!


As far as I can tell, the bag is destroyed instantly by the swallow whole damage.


deuxhero wrote:
Wonder how the einherjar song works with Harmonic Spell

I can see the possibility of the wording of the feat potentially indicating that it saves you 1 round each time, since it says "one of your rounds". Can't say for certain though.


Aleron wrote:

Funny this got bumped.

I actually just purchased it a couple days ago and have since suggested it to the others in my group. While I admit I was worried, what is presented is very cool and from my theory-crafting thus far, something very decent balance-wise. If there is worry of that, it's easy to just put limitations on custom masks or taking the more powerful ones...though even they seem fine (the Tane ones taking a feat and 3 rounds of rage per round seems excellent to me).

In summary, I'm a big fan of this one. Good balance, awesome themes, and just fantastic execution. Myself and several others in my group are excited to try one, hopefully soon.

Thanks for making this!

You're welcome! Consider putting your thoughts over on the other tab there as a review (really no more than what you've posted is necessary, and people tend to notice reviews more than posts in the product thread).

I think it isn't coincidence that this was bumped recently--Steve actually put it on sale for a bit now because of my new position at Paizo, so we'll likely see even more people picking this up!


Even as the author, I agree that this archetype is not correct for every player. It's easy to say "Yeah, this is great for everyone!" but it isn't, and this book is part of my way of opening the archetype up to more players than before (since before you had to make all your masks on your own, which cuts off another section of players). I think that knowing your players and deciding from there is a wise idea--just the fact that you're thinking about that is a good sign that things will go well for your game.


Darling_Rabbit wrote:

I have a player proposing this class for an upcoming Jade Regent campaign I'm GMing. We're in the early planning stages, and I feel very hesitant for both mechanical and RP/Flavor reasons to permit the class in the campaign, despite how delicious it looks (so yummy). I've asked my player to submit a more robust outline of how he sees this PC evolving, and also what his in/out of combat roles would be, for both party balance and "do you actually know what you're getting into?" type of reasons. As a GM, I tend to be cautious about when I allow someone to play "Probable Psychopath" in the context of an AP (as opposed to a homebrew). So far, I'm not seeing too many connections in the Jade Regent AP for fey involvement

If anyone has run/played Jade Regent and looked at the Masquerade Reveler in detail, please hit me up with your thoughts?
Perpetually Grateful!
Rabbit

I am running Jade Regent, and I put a masquerade reveler NPC into the game who has worked nicely so far. I admit that there isn't really any good reason for a reveler to be involved with the initial hook of a goblin hunt, but this NPC joined the caravan in between part 1 and part 2 (in a settlement in Grungnir Forest, she joined the caravan to escape a witch hunt). I also added some ice fey to Part 3 as additional potential encounters, and a reveler could easily see eye to eye with the mysterious kami (and Miyaro--I gave her the Realistic Likeness feat, so she also wears many masks) in Part 4.


TheCSpider wrote:

Anyone know if this has or will be getting the Hero Lab treatment?

I love the class, but it seems a lot to keep track of on just paper.

If I recall, the usual Rite Herolab coder asked about coding this class in Herolab on the Herolab forums, and they basically told him he was out of luck. If you use prebuilt masks, I imagine it shouldn't take up too much space on your character sheet. One piece of advice is to write your masks on your character sheet, just the mask names (even if they're your own inventions) and then have a notecard for each mask with a quick rundown of the evolutions. It seems like it would make it a lot less messy on the sheet itself.

Hope that helps!


rknop wrote:

OK, here's an FAQ I have about reading scrolls that are of a higher caster level than the person reading them. The text reads:

Quote:


If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell’s caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll’s caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers.

Two questions.

First: "A natural roll of 1 always fails." On which roll? The caster level check, or the Wisdom check to avoid a mishap? Or both? A straight reading of the text seems to me that it's referring to the latter, not to the caster level check. However, I can also see somebody reading it the other way. It would nice to have this explicitly clarified so that if a GM reads it differently from me there won't be ambiguity and confusion. (I'm thinking PFS, where GMs use RAW and don't get to houserule whatever they want. In any event, though, it would be nice if this were clear enough that it wouldn't so readily lend itself to being misread.)

(And, yes, I can think of a situation where one could pass the caster level check on a natural roll of 1. One could have some magic items or other things enhancing your CL; rare as they are, they exist. But, there's an even more wacky edge case. Consider a sixth-level wizard reading "Remove Curse" scroll. In PFS, at least, we consider there to be no difference bewteen arcane and divine scrolls; scrolls are purchased at the lowest CL available amongst Wizard, Druid, Cleric. Remove curse is a 4th-level wizard spell, but a 3rd level cleric spell. So, the CL for a "Remove Curse" scroll would be 5. The putative 6th level wizard couldn't cast that spell (since it's a 4th level wizard spell), but would have a +6 to their CL and would auto-make the DC6 caster level check... unless the sentence about "a natural 1 always fails" is...

Just my take here, nothing official, but the first one seems clear-cut:

The natural 1 applies to the Wisdom check only, and if you look closely, it says if your caster level is lower than the scroll's you roll the check, not if your caster level is lower than what you need to cast the spell, so actually you don't have to roll if you have a caster level boost or are a wizard 6 casting a 5th-level scroll of remove curse in PFS.

For 2, your mileage will vary depending upon the GM. If I was your GM, I would say that the energy surging forth from the scroll and threatening to cause a mishap changes the situation and counts as a stressful or unexpected occurrence that prevents the use of Take 10, but if the GM rules otherwise, then yeah, even a character with 1 Wisdom will auto-succeed that check on a Take 10 unless they are also shaken or sickened or something.

I'm more than happy to answer questions like these with my personal take, but maybe we should migrate them to an "Ask Mark Seifter Questions" thread and save this space for FAQ links to topics that are already known to be contentious or desired from previous threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Franko a wrote:

I dont know if this has been answered....

How DO you make a cursed item on purpose?
If at first you don't fail, try, try again?

I had a friend who actually tried exactly this tactic. He really really liked the item helm of opposite alignment, so he commissioned the least-competent of his followers from the Leadership feat to become the "creator" of some new hats of disguise. If he ever succeeded, he sold them immediately back for half (the cost of trying again), and if he failed by 5 or more, he prayed to Nethys that the d100 chart of curses produced a specific cursed item so he had a chance at the helm he wanted. So he only lost money when he failed by less than 5 and when his cursed item was cursed in an uninteresting way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's an interesting one. Again, nothing official yet, but I would say that even if something like Weapon Focus was allowed, it probably wouldn't apply to all improvised weapons, just to "waffle irons" (they make mithral versions of these--take that lycanthropes!) or "barrels" (Donkey Kong!) or one kind of improvised weapon, in the same way you don't get to have Weapon Focus in all simple weapons after having Simple Weapon Proficiency and taking Weapon Focus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
I don't think Rogues should be able to use Disable Device to heal deadly wounds, but I do think they should be able to become so talented with Escape Artist that they can escape nearly any prison, even one that's essentially a pocket plane of nothingness designed to hold powerful outsiders that couldn't conceivably have a lock to pick.

I love this example because oddly, in an old home game of mine, a high level rogue did basically exactly this, using ridiculously high skills. It was in the Great Wheel cosmology, and the party cleric imprisoned him on a prison demiplane run by inevitable wardens that had no escape (this rogue was played on and off by a guest player who only showed up to the game pretty rarely, and he was a bit of an recurring foil to the party, but the cleric decided she wanted to use her spells to eliminate him nonlethally and permanently). But as is the case in Planescape, belief is power. He began to spread rumors throughout the prison of a very secret and obscure time that happened every 100 years when a planar convergence occurred due to the demiplane's drifting through the ethereal, allowing a prisoner who performed a very tricky set of actions to make an Escape Artist check to slip through a crack in the demiplane and into another demiplane that is easier to leave. Because of the rogue's high skills, eventually the rumor became so pervasive that even the inevitables began to consider a remote possibility that this escape was a reality, and they mustered guards to defend against it. This increased the belief among the now-convinced inmates to feverish levels, which pulled the demiplane into just such a convergence. While the wardens were busy dealing with the more brutish or spell-slinging inmates, the clever thief slipped out and escaped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Distant Scholar wrote:
Did the Sensei Monk archetype ever get updated so that it's actually possible to take it? (It gives up a bonus feat at a level where the monk doesn't get a bonus feat.)

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I was just reminded of another one: energy resistance and environmental conditions. There seems to be a general consensus that anyone with cold/fire resistance should be immune to corresponding environmental hazards, but to my knowledge that's not actually in the rules/FAQ anywhere.

For this one, ideally right now without a FAQ, our best bet is to look at the fact that extreme heat mentions 1d6 points of fire damage each round whereas extreme cold just says "1d6 points of lethal damage" each round, then look at brown mold to see that nonlethal cold damage is definitely a real type of damage in the game, then finally conclude that the lack of parallelism between extreme heat and extreme cold indicates an assumption that the energy type was implied.

Designer

Cross-posted from elsewhere!

137ben wrote:

I just read through the Fey Archetypes Mark wrote.

The cavalier archetype is very flavorful, and the introduction is amusing. The crunch is rather bland, though. It's main feature is that its mount gets the fey-creature template. While approrpriate and potentially useful, it 'outsources' the most interesting mechanics to an already-published template from the Bestiary 3.

The monk archetype is better--it gets a bunch of abilities to bluff and diplomacize others (Flurry of Words :) ). I'm not sure why its called Laughing Man, though, there seems to be a disconnect between the name, the fluff, and the crunch. It's a really well-written archetype, it just needs a different name.

The barbarian archetype is by far the best part of the supplement. It wears masks which give unique abilities, including eidelon evolutions, to the barbarian. It also has strong fluff which fits with the crunch but is not overly restrictive. Secrets of the Masquerading Reveler significantly expands this archetype.

Yep, parents shouldn't favor one child, but the reveler is definitely the best one. There's a reason Melusine got her own book more than twice as long as the original book, even though the original included all three archetypes and a new fey. That archetype was the seed behind the whole project (I had been sitting on it since writing it for RPG Superstar the year the APG came out in case I made Top 32 that year, so when I was approached to write three archetypes with a common theme, that seemed perfect).

I'd love to talk about it more with you, but let's continue in either my welcome blog or one of the two product threads for those two products!


137ben wrote:

I just read through the Fey Archetypes Mark wrote.

The cavalier archetype is very flavorful, and the introduction is amusing. The crunch is rather bland, though. It's main feature is that its mount gets the fey-creature template. While approrpriate and potentially useful, it 'outsources' the most interesting mechanics to an already-published template from the Bestiary 3.

The monk archetype is better--it gets a bunch of abilities to bluff and diplomacize others (Flurry of Words :) ). I'm not sure why its called Laughing Man, though, there seems to be a disconnect between the name, the fluff, and the crunch. It's a really well-written archetype, it just needs a different name.

The barbarian archetype is by far the best part of the supplement. It wears masks which give unique abilities, including eidelon evolutions, to the barbarian. It also has strong fluff which fits with the crunch but is not overly restrictive. Secrets of the Masquerading Reveler significantly expands this archetype.

Yep, parents shouldn't favor one child, but the reveler is definitely the best one. There's a reason Melusine got her own book more than twice as long as the original book, even though the original included all three archetypes and a new fey. That archetype was the seed behind the whole project (I had been sitting on it since writing it for RPG Superstar the year the APG came out in case I made Top 32 that year, so when I was approached to write three archetypes with a common theme, that seemed perfect).

I'd love to talk about it more with you, but let's continue in either my welcome blog or one of the two product threads for those two products!

EDIT: It's a quick but solid review of all three archetypes in CP:FA, so I've cross-posted it in that product thread here. Happy to chat about it a bit there too!


137ben wrote:

AFAIK, he has worked on two pathfinder books, Convergent Paths: Fey Archetypes, which has three new archetypes, and Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler, which expands on one of those archetypes.

I've heard good things about the Masquerade Reveler, which is a barbarian archetype that looks really interesting, although I haven't gotten a chance to use it yet (hmm, maybe I'll give it to my next martial melee npc...)
I haven't really looked at his other two archetypes yet.

I think Rite actually has the relevant pdfs on sale for half off to celebrate my new position.


Rynjin wrote:

The problem I have with that is that it's been stated numerous times that the PDT* does not want to use FAQs as a tool to introduce "incremental change via errata", often as an excuse for why they don't fix many balance issues people complain about.

The problem is...they already do this.

Perhaps on a smaller scale, there's a big difference between "clarifying" an option to be something it was not before (the SLA rule) and changing a class as a whole/adding new class features to an existing class, but it seems to be skirting the edges of the truth at best to say rules change via errata is not something they do, as you point out.

** spoiler omitted **

That's a good point, Rynjin. I think in this case, what they meant was that they don't want to have a 100-page long FAQ full of errata that serves as an additional barrier to entry, but that they would instead prefer to limit the changes to those that are pressing (like the hypothetical example of the +11 to hit). If I'm right, then "incremental" is the key word. However, this is simply my understanding of those statements from before I joined on and is not based on any additional information I have as a designer, so I'm posting this as Rogue Eidolon without the Designer tag on it.


dragonhunterq wrote:

Noob here, but why would you not want to bull rush? You always have the choice whether to follow up or not.

"You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn."

There is nothing that says(either in the feat or under bullrush)that if you don't follow up they aren't pushed back. Once you hit the bad guy they are stumbling backwards whether you follow up or not.

Also if you don't want to push someone back I don't recall there being any requirement to use a feat. Can't you simply choose not to use the feat?

I can't see anyway to interpret the feat such that you get free movement.

The reason is that if you can't follow after them, it might break up your full attack.


Joe M. wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I'm with Joe on both points--that it should be optional, and that it is meant to be a reminder on the usual text of Bull Rush in terms of movement. However, since that stance is not strict RAW, I would expect table variation. That said, I've not yet seen a GM try to force a Shield Slam character to bull rush if they didn't want to, and I've seen a few Shield Slam characters in PFS.
Woo! Thanks for the input. :-)

I have a big advantage in terms of not confusing my personal opinion with an official pronouncement--I'll be using this account to make it clear that something is just my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Joe on both points--that it should be optional, and that it is meant to be a reminder on the usual text of Bull Rush in terms of movement. However, since that stance is not strict RAW, I would expect table variation. That said, I've not yet seen a GM try to force a Shield Slam character to bull rush if they didn't want to, and I've seen a few Shield Slam characters in PFS.

*****

I don't think the current PFS rules cover alchemist infusions, and honestly, given that those things actually don't expire at midnight, so if you died in there without drinking it, that alchemist could never prepare anything in that 2nd level slot ever again, the alchemist would have to be crazy to let you walk off with it.

*****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I still have 28 tables of credit, so it's counting something other than Thornkeep. I guess I have the most credits here--I'm actually almost to my second glitch star with two more glitch tables needed!

*****

Michael Brock wrote:

Agreed with the posts above. Outright TPKs are no fun for anyone. Torch is powerful enough that he and his bodyguards would wipe them in a few rounds with no real problems. So, you did fine trying to salvage a game that it sounds like the PCs were intentionally trying to wreck.

Another drastic option as a last resort, is if the PCs refuse to come back to the story and continually snub their nose or threaten VCs, important NPCs, etc... is to have that person just tell them he doesn't think they are the right fit for the mission, and give them a Chronicle with 0s in the XP, pp, and GP boxes.

To add to Mike's drastic option, if they're already halfway through, a chronicle sheet with 1 XP, extremely low gold, and 0 PP is, I think, even worse to receive than the dreaded triple 0!


Hmm, I don't think maximum damage feet would be overpowered for a normal person because unarmed strikes do 1d3, and 3 damage isn't really so much. They might be over the top for a brawler or a monk though.

*****

Eric Brittain wrote:
Patrick F wrote:
You can try to balance different gaming elements at the table the best you can to accommodate everyone, so they can have a good time as well.

This is half of my point. An important half to be sure and something I believe that every GM should strive for in every game they run.

The other part of my point centers around being aware of your bias. You know how you have fun. Making the assumption that anyone else wants the same things without confirmation is a great way to be a very bad, and I would even say selfish, judge.

The worst judges I have ever encountered we're the selfish ones who ran the game only for themselves.

As an addendum to grow off Eric's point here, it's also true that what other people want as players might not only be different from what you need to have fun as the GM but even what you would need to have fun as a player, so sometimes it can be very challenging if you can't see that. For instance, as a player, I don't mind a hard game or an easy game as long as I feel at the end that I've helped overcome a true challenge (even if smart play made it easy this time). But sometimes, an entire table of players legitimately and truly want to godmode through a scenario and make a mockery of everything, feeling that the opposition was useless and that their victory was inevitable, regardless of the dice or strategy. And that's a legitimate way to play too.


It seems the author selected those evolutions specifically to make it simpler to create an unfettered eidolon, so presumably it wouldn't be a problem to choose other ones, but by default it can only use those.

A rogue eidolon, on the other hand, is significantly more powerful, and can select whatever evolutions he pleases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sargonoth wrote:

One thing to add. Our VC's interpretation is similar to this DM.

So unless I can get a ruling from a "rules" person at Paizo (whoever that could be) I will have to decide whether the situation is irritating enough to impact my scenario sign up decisions.

Well, you could always try telling him Rogue Eidolon told you that Group 1 interpretation from your thread is correct. I'm fairly well known around here and pretty rulesy, who knows, maybe he has heard of me.

*****

Boston:

5 tables of Eyes of the Ten reported all the way through and another starting the Saturday after next.

At least one full run-through of Rise of the Runelords and two that are on Part 4 or 5 (so starting to get into the Seeker parts). They are all in campaign mode.

At least one full run-through of Shattered Star in campaign mode.

At least one finished Jade Regent and another on Part 5, in campaign mode.

At least one Skull and Shackles that's at Part 5, in campaign mode.

At least one run of Ruby Phoenix Tournament.

An upcoming run of Tomb of the Iron Medusa.

One post-Eyes table at every Special that can have it (which is two runs of Race and one run of Siege).

*****

Dylos wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
It's probably on their list of things To Do once they find the mythical beast known as "free time", but seeing as how they don't have the APG iconics yet...
We're also missing the Magus pregen, pregens currently only exist of Core and Ultimate Combat for PFS.

Maybe if we hope really hard, Mike and John will make it happen!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
If you move through the web, it's difficult terrain and you might get stuck. If you move over the pit, you fall in and take damage and get stuck in there unless you're flying (and it's a 2nd level spell, so it comes on line long before constant flight is a given). Web provides cover, but you can stick allies in create pit and break line of effect entirely.

You don't need to be flying. If you move over the pit, you get to the other side with an easy DC 10 Acrobatics check--the lowest the Reflex save can be to avoid getting stuck in the web is 13, if it's off a scroll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
In essence, it's a web spell, except it doesn't last as long (which is sort of irrelevant for a combat spell), and also deals damage. Also, adjacent creatures are at risk, whereas for web they're not. And it's harder to get rid of, and doesn't need anchor points. Finally, you can use it to get allies out of the line of fire, etc. So it's essentially an improved web spell. Web is 2nd level, so an improved version, to me, should be higher level than that.

Since web is a 20-foot-radius, I think an "improved web" would be better compared to widened create pit (which is a 5th level spell, although granted, Widen Spell should probably have cost 2 levels instead of 3).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Barachiel Shina wrote:

This spell is such a game-breaker I feel. It ends encounters so quickly. I wish the duration was "Concentration", that would help a lot. Instead I have a wizard PC casting this spell like crazy and ending encounters because most creatures that fall can't get out. Especially with the long drop and the high climb DC.

Plus, those that fall in, are so easy to kill off by throwing fireballs and such down the pit. I wish this spell made creatures hit the bottom for 1 round and then reappear back at the top. I feel this wasn't playtested thoroughly.

Anyone else having the same problems with this spell when they GM as I am?

Remember that to see into the pit you either need to be able to fly (in which case by that level many enemies can also fly) or else stand at the edge and save against your own DC (admittedly with a +2 bonus to the save) or fall into your own pit and be hoisted by your own petard.


Jessica Price wrote:
When Jason gets back in town. :-)

But does Stephen know when Jason will get back in town?


Jim Groves wrote:

*throws darts at the bastards who got in the game in the Lottery this year*

REAL DARTS!

Yes, focus your darts on this year's lottery winners!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks, we've been short staffed here since Sean left and while the FAQ is very important to us, getting our books together is our top priority. That said... we will not be short staffed as of Monday (mind you, it still might take us a bit to get back in the swing of things, but you can expect more updates soon).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Awesome, I can't wait for the announcement!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, let's turn the negative into a positive--why not construct a list of links to top FAQable threads, so that way when they do find that replacement, he or she can have an easy place to look to get caught up. Then we all win!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, we know Szuriel the current horseman of war was a former fallen paladin, so it's certainly possible to get pretty high in Abaddon at least on your own. In Hell, you probably have a snowball's chance (but snowball ignores SR, so a snowball's chance might not necessarily be low, as long as you're not up against a gelugon).


Thanks Sean! I went down the rabbit hole on that one and figured out the difference--back then (v4.2), the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play stated that designer posts were binding in PFS, but the latest version restricts it to just Mike and John. So now I know for my future PFS games!


Simon Legrande wrote:
The description is short, sweet, and right to the point. The target must hear the scream to be harmed by it. If a target can't hear, it's not affected.

I think Goznaz may have been hit by the actual banshee itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell says it kills creatures that hear it, and you don't hear it, so it doesn't kill you. The actual banshee doesn't say it kills people that hear, and deaf people aren't immune to all sonic effects (but they would be immune to some, like harpy's captivating song, that mention you need to hear them), so the GM has to decide whether it kills you or not. Strict RAW the creature's wail doesn't.

*****

The Fox wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Also, I think the first formula may be off by a factor of 2. Wouldn't the sum of the expectation be a/(1-r), or in this case (b+1)/(b+2) / (1-(b+1)/(b+2)) = b+1?

Probably.

I started with E[X] = Σ n q p^n.

Yeah, I ran a few samples before I said anything, just in case. For a simple test case, +0, the expected value should definitely be 1, not 2, since you have an equal chance of successfully activating (nat 20) as you do of rolling a natural 1.

1 to 50 of 3,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.