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

Serisan's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,577 posts (2,585 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 14 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,577 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look at all these ambiguous rules questions we're answering!

**

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Given the semi-recent thread about Blackblade whip legality, it's probably more likely than you think. We can all be hopeful about GM behavior, but it's always worth remembering that Pathfinder is an evolving game with roughly 7 years of its own material and many more of its predecessor. As a result, there is likely no single person who completely understands every rule decision that has been made over that time, devs/designers included. Misunderstandings are bound to occur.

Ultimately, the question comes down to how people choose to present information and how people choose to receive it. Most people are pretty chill about it on either side. Others have issues. That being the case, the ambiguity is simply an enabler of a type of behavior and it's fair to question whether there can be a satisfying resolution via campaign ruling.

Not sure why anyone would think a blackblade can be a whip. The archtype specifically states which types of weapons can be a blackblade. I'll give a hint, they're all swords. I'll give another hint, none of them were sword-whips. Which makes sense. How can a weapon be a blackblade if it's not a bladed weapon?

Black Blade derail:
You have not parsed the actual Black Blades ability fully.
Quote:
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane.

A whip is a one-handed slashing weapon. Similarly, you could have a battleaxe, klar, or terbutje black blade.

**

Given the semi-recent thread about Blackblade whip legality, it's probably more likely than you think. We can all be hopeful about GM behavior, but it's always worth remembering that Pathfinder is an evolving game with roughly 7 years of its own material and many more of its predecessor. As a result, there is likely no single person who completely understands every rule decision that has been made over that time, devs/designers included. Misunderstandings are bound to occur.

Ultimately, the question comes down to how people choose to present information and how people choose to receive it. Most people are pretty chill about it on either side. Others have issues. That being the case, the ambiguity is simply an enabler of a type of behavior and it's fair to question whether there can be a satisfying resolution via campaign ruling.


It's worth remembering, as well, that the Pure Legionnaire prestige class has a prerequisite of the Godless Healing feat. Their elite can heal themselves, even if they're martial.

If we assume some degree of Occult class presence, the Spiritualist, Kineticist, and Occultist all have access to healing without divine magic.

**

Muser wrote:
The dungeon itself also has a...cosmetic effect. My nagaji became red, all shiny and chrom(atic).

There's definitely a purple human fighter and electric blue Riddywhipple in the group I run through ES.

**

Nefreet wrote:
kinevon wrote:
3) Nope, 3 could be argued, one for casting, and one for each ranged attack, like an archer provokes for each shot of a full attack.
^ this is how I'd rule it, and for the stated reason.

Ditto.


To make sure I'm getting this right, are you inquiring about adding spells known via Improved Eldritch Heritage (Arcane), selecting New Arcana? If so, is there a reason you wouldn't be doing this through Expanded Arcana (from APG) instead?

My snap judgment on this is that your example of a Bard adding Heroism would be able to cast it as it would both be a spell known and on the Bard's spell list. I would even be inclined to say that the Bard learns Heroism as a 2nd level spell because, for Bards, it is a 2nd level spell. The fact that you're adding it from the Sorc/Wiz list is irrelevant other than it being a shared spell rather than two different spells.


Weirdo wrote:

Note that if you use Aasimar, Suli, or Nagaji, you get racial features other than stat bonuses.

Oread and oni-blood tiefling serve similar purposes here. Nagaji is a clear win for the paladin due to being always available in PFS and capitalizing on a planned Int dump (WOO 5 INT!), but I will always advocate tiefling over aasimar in this sort of setting - better alt racials.

**

As someone who has made adjustments mid-game on numerous items because of GM interpretation (I tend not to argue at the table unless I have a clear citation immediately available, but I won't hesitate to disagree and prove my case if I have one), I will say that my first response would be to use a different legal character if able to address the challenge. In some cases, I've had weird interpretations sprung on me by reputable sources, which has resulted in me making on-the-fly adjustments to playstyle until I could research it later. For example, I was once told that my hunter with a dead companion could not switch the "permanent" Animal Focus after the companion died and, because I wasn't prepared to deal with that ruling, the GM ruled that I had to use whatever the last Animal Focus was from my companion. For that scenario, I did. I then researched it and found that this interpretation is not correct, so I'm now prepared to rebut this claim if it's made again as I know exactly what sentence in the Animal Focus ability to reference.

As a GM, my first question would be "how do you think it works?" If I deem that it's both (a) a reasonable reading and (b) not disruptive to the table, I'm more than willing to run with that. The best course of action is to inform me before the table starts, mind you, because I would VERY MUCH like to look into questionable things before I have to make a table ruling. It is my opinion that part of GMing is ensuring the least amount of disruption possible. If I'm concerned afterwards, I'm likely to discuss the character with the player or recommend a VO audit. This almost never happens at my tables, mind you.

There are obvious examples of "go get a pregen" out there - a new guy comes with a character that had "killer stat rolls" or there's a blatantly illegal character choice. It sucks to be the bearer of bad news to those folks, but it's unfair to the table to ignore that responsibility.

IUS on snakes derail:
In the specific example brought up in the OP, a reasonable response would be "explain how a snake is not capable of performing a headbutt if trained." If the answer is "But realism!," there's no argument to be had and you may as well say that a snake is definitely lacking arms (PUNS!). The snake won't prefer it (as the FAQ indicates, he'd still prefer his natural weapons), but just like training an unintuitive Handle Animal trick like Perform, the snake could perform a headbutt on command if it had the IUS feat.

**

Nefreet wrote:
I ran into that recently during an AP that had a lead-lined container for the sole purpose of hiding its contents. If such a container would stand out as NULL! when detecting magic then it wouldn't be all that desirable as a hiding place.

It's quite desirable for against other forms of divination, such as Locate Object, where the location of the container might not be known. Additionally, it's quite useful simply to reward the players with such a container in some campaigns.

Not so hot in PFS, of course.


Weirdo wrote:
Serisan wrote:
I would totally love to see the combination GURPS/Ponyfinder/Cthulu/Conan/Palladium/Cyberpunk table, though, where this question wasn't addressed in advance.
Combined at the same time?

Well, in terms of the "we didn't specify a system, so everybody came with characters from different systems" scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are systems where a dedicated Session 0 are important, but Pathfinder really isn't one of them. Compare with Numenera, which requires you to coordinate hooks with each others' characters that have mechanical impact and also requires that no two people have the same specialty (not just a gentle nudge, it's actually not legal), and you'll find that the requirements of a Pathfinder group are significantly less stringent.

I did find it funny that the blog post mentions "What system are we playing?" as a Session 0 question. I would have thought that question would be answered when the prospective GM says "Hey, I think I'm going to run a Pathfinder game..."

I would totally love to see the combination GURPS/Ponyfinder/Cthulu/Conan/Palladium/Cyberpunk table, though, where this question wasn't addressed in advance.

**

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Serisan wrote:
My favorite kill as a GM remains something where the player successfully saved, but showed the glory of that d6 hit die. maximized fireball, quickened magic missile. Yes, he made the save vs the fireball. He was level 11 or 12, I think. That was earlier this month.

This sounds very disturbing. Was this in Society play, campaign mode, or a module?

PFS sanctioned module.

** spoiler omitted **

It's been warned several times that that module and Bonekeep, are MEANT to be PC grinding machines. Much more so than the average PFS scenario or sanctioned module.

Spoiler:
That particular floor of ES certainly is a grind, but many other floors are cakewalk easy.
**

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Serisan wrote:
My favorite kill as a GM remains something where the player successfully saved, but showed the glory of that d6 hit die. maximized fireball, quickened magic missile. Yes, he made the save vs the fireball. He was level 11 or 12, I think. That was earlier this month.

This sounds very disturbing. Was this in Society play, campaign mode, or a module?

PFS sanctioned module.

where this happened:
Emerald Spire 14

**

My favorite kill as a GM remains something where the player successfully saved, but showed the glory of that d6 hit die. maximized fireball, quickened magic missile. Yes, he made the save vs the fireball. He was level 11 or 12, I think. That was earlier this month.

#2 was terrible tactics and allowing a spellcasting enemy to buff for 5 rounds, then open the door and deal with SO MUCH LIGHTNING BOLT. It didn't defensively cast because it had 32 AC and Displacement up vs a level 7 party, along with decent HP and Expeditious Retreat up to allow for strategic movement.

As a player, I've managed to avoid death with my handy-dandy Talisman of Life's Breath multiple times. It is an excellent investment. The other part of my defense is to not be near the danger. My level 6 archer (hunter 5/medium 1) escaped near-certain death by use of Planar Focus: Earth and 5' burrowing when playing up in a Season 5.

Ultimately, survival is a choice. After taking a few lessons from the school of hard knocks in that season 5, I spent most of my gold upgrading AC pieces so I'm less likely to get wrecked in the future. I see a few folks who haven't quite learned that lesson. They're kind of silly and I love seeing the gymnastics that people go to protecting these party members right up until the gold costs kick in.


Davor wrote:
Alex Mack wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Are you afraid that you'll see a table with 6 of this build? I'd be afraid as a GM. :-p

TBF, I think most everybody sees this build option as soon as they read the archetype. Now the trick will be if it gets sanctioned for PFS.

But is this build better than Rogue 1/Wizard 3/Arcane Trickster X?

The 9 level casting easily surpasses casting from Eldritch Scoundrel despite the missed level.

And I'm not sure if the improved marital capacities of the eldritch Scoundrel will actually be utilized by an AT build as it's so super fluffy...

This ^

I keep people saying: "Oh, it's the perfect lead into Arcane Trickster because..." and then listing reason that doesn't make it better than Rogue/Wizard because that combo gets 9th level spellcasting. All you're doing is making a worse version of something that already exists.

Start espousing the merits of the archetype itself. With unchained, you get easier access to debilitating injury (with touch/ranged touch spells), you get access to long-duration illusion magic, skill unlocks combined with magical boosts you can give yourself, plus, as mentioned above, stacking with certain other rogue archetypes as needed. It's like an Arcane Trickster that works from level 1, and is less spell dependent, whereas the Trickster is a spellcaster with rogue-ish tricks.

The archetype opens up a trait slot (since Magical Knack would be a common selection otherwise), provides Debilitating Injury, and opens up Rogue Talents, along with providing a smoother entry overall by streamlining BAB and spellcasting. I agree that you end up with superior spellcasting starting at level 6 (though it levels off at 7 temporarily) using Rogue 1/Wiz 3/AT X, but there's a degree of suffering on the way up as you have fewer spell slots on the way up.

In the PFS environment, roughly half of your character life is improved by going Eldritch Scoundrel 4/AT X and you end up with a more martial-capable character. While you firmly trail from 8-11 for spellcasting, you'd also be trailing a straight Wizard most of your levels, too.


Tindalen wrote:
Serisan wrote:
IMO, the archetype is perfect as a stepping stone into Arcane Trickster and subpar if you plan to go past Debilitating Injury. Using the SA feat from Dirty Tactics lets you enter AT at 5, which is perfect.
Stop taking my ideas and making them sound great!

Are you afraid that you'll see a table with 6 of this build? I'd be afraid as a GM. :-p

TBF, I think most everybody sees this build option as soon as they read the archetype. Now the trick will be if it gets sanctioned for PFS.


IMO, the archetype is perfect as a stepping stone into Arcane Trickster and subpar if you plan to go past Debilitating Injury. Using the SA feat from Dirty Tactics lets you enter AT at 5, which is perfect.


RaizielDragon wrote:
I just pictured the character being crushed to death by a blanket when they try to sleep at night :D

It's ok, he'd just Power Attack it with a dirt tuna.


Tindalen wrote:
RaizielDragon wrote:
A light load for you is 12 lbs. How do you deal with that?

Hehe, very very carefully! Pathfinder pouch instead of handy haversack, because the haversack is too heavy. Mithril chain shirt 6.25lbs, peasant's outfit .25lbs, belt of constitution 1lbs, cloak of resistance 1 lbs, corset of vishkanya 1lbs = 10.5 lbs. rings are negligible, as are ioun stones. my wands, maps, and any tool are in the pouch.

I like having something like this define my character though. Needing to be very careful about something most people take for granted.

As someone who has both GM'd for and played with this character, one of my favorite things to hear is "This letter is too heavy, someone else needs to carry it."

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM:

  • Maps I can draw easily and don't require excessive diagonal movement. There have been many scenarios where I have unleashed a swarm of expletives about the cartographers due to hallways on 45 degree angles, excessive circular features, etc. If I can draw it easily, that's more time to prep the more important stuff.
  • Accessible story for the players. I HATE having the story completely hidden from the players when it comes to monsters, traps, etc. One of the most satisfying moments in Emerald Spire is discovering a note in floor 2 because it explains everything to the players about the floor. Hats off to you, Addington.
  • NPCs with rational and compelling personalities. "He's got nothing to lose, so he fights to the death" is very common morale in scenarios, which is unfortunate. Hellknight's Feast has some excellent writing on this front.
  • Planning for the inevitable derailing written in. My post in the To Scale The Dragon GM thread covers this in full spoilery detail, but the short version is that not every party stays on the railroad tracks and sometimes that negatively impacts later parts of the scenario (i.e. scene 5 shouldn't happen if scene 3 doesn't occur as planned because reasons). Tell us what should happen, then.

As a player:

  • Actual moral dilemmas, which we've seen a lot more of recently than in older scenarios. Twisted Circle was AMAZING here. These moral dilemmas are a fantastic source of roleplaying opportunities.
  • Combats that make sense for the locale.
  • NPCs that are interesting enough to merit learning their ridiculous names. Seriously.
  • Puzzles designed for characters instead of players. I get really annoyed if the expectation is that I do a cipher on the side or the color puzzle is obviously ROYGBIV.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
While you're there, something that makes genie-kin (especially sylphs) better kineticists would be nice.
This.

Yes. Yes indeed.

**

Fromper wrote:

Seeker of Secrets isn't that obscure.

And it's not just the resonant powers of ioun stones that you'll want the book for. There are actually a TON of ioun stone options introduced in that book, which are useful for all kinds of PCs.

I have around 16 of Paizo's soft cover "splat" books, and SoS is the one that I've used options from on more of my PFS characters than any other. I highly recommend it.

Agreed. The +1 initiative ioun stone is always a popular sale.


TOZ wrote:
Damn this NDA.

Did you break the NDA by acknowledging the NDA? That's a thing, you know.

**

The Morphling wrote:
Landon Hatfield wrote:
Modules count as 2 tables each for determining GM stars.
Really? Well, that explains why I got my 4th star slightly earlier than I expected to, from counting scenarios. Neat.

I just finished gming Emerald Spire 15 in standard and I've done up through 8 in Core. It racks up quickly.


If they publish it elsewhere, it won't be PFS legal. :-(

I get that there's a lot to the publishing process (art assets, formatting, distribution, etc.) that make this potentially unrealistic, but the playtest version was definitely more compelling to me. I kind of wish there was an option to just publish it as a blog, but again, dat PFS legality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My default extra question is "Reproductive habits?"

You would be surprised how often this is a useful piece of information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Linda is still playing one in Skull and Shackles to great effect. Granted, she has all 54 spirits available, and the updated spirits, but I think she has mostly ones from the playtest anyway, except the Peacock, which I think was not.
Making any headway on getting the harrowed medium published? I know you had talked about it around the time that OA released and I would love to pay for that, especially if it ends up being PFS legal.
I would be equally thrilled to get it out there some day! No progress so far on the getting-it-onto-the-schedule front.

I know I'm a small market, but I've kind of got an open-wallet policy for that version of the class. The "just dip Relic Channeler" version that was published has been somewhat heartbreaking to consider playing compared to my playtest experience. I've got a regular Medium statted up to try out in PFS, but that's more of a test to see how much the location bit affects actual play and not near as exciting/interesting as what we could do with the playtest.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Linda is still playing one in Skull and Shackles to great effect. Granted, she has all 54 spirits available, and the updated spirits, but I think she has mostly ones from the playtest anyway, except the Peacock, which I think was not.

Making any headway on getting the harrowed medium published? I know you had talked about it around the time that OA released and I would love to pay for that, especially if it ends up being PFS legal.

**

Well, there's a PDF I'll have to get. That's why I didn't know about it!

**

Illeist wrote:
I suspect that the OP wants a more weight-effective method of using a portable consecrate target.

Portable medium "location," but yes. :-)

**

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Is there an in-game benefit from it being Darkwood? Or is it more a flavor thing?

The portable altar would go from 40 lbs to 20 lbs.

**

Many of the special materials, particularly metals, have charts that indicate cost based on item type. Darkwood, however, uses the following pricing, which doesn't delineate whether it can be used for non-weapon/armor gear:

UE wrote:
To determine the price of a darkwood item, use the original weight but add 10 gp per pound to the price of a masterwork version of that item.

Would it be PFS legal to get a darkwood portable altar, for example? There is no masterwork version of this item, in part because I think it's assumed to just be masterwork for all intents and purposes.

UE wrote:


PORTABLE ALTAR
Price 250 gp; Weight 40 lbs.
Portable altars are typically made of wood and are ornately carved and decorated with the religious iconography of a specific religion. The top of the altar lifts up, and items such as candles, incense, and oil can be stored within. These altars are modest, but give traveling priests a center from which to say their daily prayers, perform minor rituals, or preach to an assembled crowd.

**

UndeadMitch wrote:
Quadstriker wrote:
I'm just hopeful that the new ruling takes into account the current contradiction that Brock put into place by allowing a tablet of official pdfs to be fine to hand to a GM to read up on the rules for your character, but handing it to the GM as a character sheet? OMG DEVICE WORTH HUNDREDS OF DOLLARZZZZ WAT IF DROP?

Sorry, guess you didn't get the memo. This thread is now about ConProMise (I thought if I capitalized it like that it would look less like Con Promise, whoch sounds like an entirely different con). We're reclaiming this thread.

No more bad feels in this thread. I'm putting my beer foot down.

If there's anything that I've learned about the MN lodge, there's no such thing as putting one's beer down until it's drained. I frequently wonder if I'm the only sober one in the lodge. >.>

Tindalen, if you need another GM, lemme know when things are gonna go down. I could probably run something of whatever flavor is desired.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The sane, rational, and germane part of my first post was removed with the inflammatory quote of another user, so I'll reiterate the part that bears repeating:

I've had to inform several players of the "paper copy required" rule, up to and including VOs, and I've yet to have a bad response once I explain why the rule is in place and that it can be found in the forums. I haven't kicked anyone from the table over it because most hadn't heard about it and the next time I saw them, they were in compliance. Every one of them still ran the character electronically, but they had a paper copy for reference purposes, which I've even asked for on occasion (looking at spell lists, non-wearable gear, languages, etc. that were relevant to the scenario). It has never been a disruption at any of my tables while GMing or playing.

I think it's reasonable for audit purposes and balances liability concerns well.

**

Jared Thaler wrote:

If their dice always roll high, would you make them use a dice roller? :)

(Just want to point out that the power of the human brains ability to find patterns in random numbers is surpassed only by its inaccuracy.)

12 17s in a row with a 17-20 weapon is sure to rouse suspicions.

ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
though I would prefer no electronic dice rollers.

We've had issues with a number of dice rolling programs locally and being not-at-all random. I've offered dice to players, as have some other local GMs. I've also requested that players go to random.org to handle rolls if they insist on digital rolling for some reason. I get really suspicious of players who insist on digital and won't let people see their screens, though.

**

I have seen only a few folios outside their original plastic. They're a great investment for a reroll.


An alternative: Elemental Annihilator Kineticists create their weapons as they attack, get a default attack in melee option, can full attack with the weapon, and it disappears as they finish the attack. If you want to have hand-flourishes that look like you're drawing and sheathing each full-round attack, those are free actions.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:


(2) It would bring the requirements of chronicle sheets closer to the reality. Right now, the PFS Guide says that the GM is only supposed to sign off on a fully filled-out chronicle sheet. I've never seen any GM but myself do that, and I stopped doing that two years ago. Everybody else fills out the GM sections and the name at the top, signs it, and hands it out to players. They let the players fill in the accounting on the right (including gold spent buying stuff) on their own time. Since this is (as far as I can tell) near-universal practice, let's just codify it as the way it should be done. Accountability can now be in one place, on the ITS. Audit whenever. Games don't have time for GMs to do partial audits every time, it's annoying, players and GMs don't like to do it, and nobody actually does it.

I know that some people would complain that this would make PFS more like business accounting, that your ITS would turn into a check register. But, think about it: it's actually *less* paperwork than we are nominally supposed to do right now. It would greatly simplify dealing with the actual chronicle sheets, which are the things that interrupt the game (and are often crunched for time because of a cramped time slot).

I agree with this 100%, because I don't necessarily know what I'll be buying after a scenario until I know what the gold totals will be, and even if I did plan around a prospective gold total, consumable costs could wreck that plan - what if there's a Raise Dead in there, or what if I used a potion of fly that I kept in reserve and need to replace it? I mean, the only exception here is big-ticket items that you save for multiple scenarios to afford (here's lookin' at you, Staff of the Master).

When GMing, I would much rather let the players take their time to figure out purchases, as well. In that regard, a "check register" format ITS makes A LOT of sense. Honestly, I'd like if all scenarios in a given subtier had identical gold instead of the minor variances, as well, or major variances in some cases.

Scenario with major gold variance:
#16 To Scale The Dragon has the estimated gold of a 3-7 rather than a 5-9 - 1681 in the 5-6 subtier, 3531 in the 8-9. Compare that to a season 2 5-9, like Rebel's Ransom, which is 2543 and 5462, respectively. Think about how that impacts a purchase plan and the ability to intelligently fill out your chronicle for the GM to sign it.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Oh I agree with all that is being said above. Stinking Cloud is one of my favorite spells, because you can't beat effect; especially against casters since it targets fort. But I worry that I negate the rest of my party for a while; I still think they can be incredibly useful, but I feel like melee characters hate when you do it unless they have special items.

This is the case if you blanket the entire encounter, but if you split an encounter, it's a totally different story.

**

I'm way too sick to be reading things for depth. I mentally inserted Protean in there for some reason.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, in the rough format of Jiggy's unbanning of a certain trait, here are a couple points for consideration:

1. Is it imbalancing the class? There's an argument to be made about the eidolon getting additional effective evolutions and evolution availability (in theory, but not actually in practice: there are no evolutions that Devils get and Proteans do not in the Unchained book itself) in place of Shield Ally at 4, but we're looking at a fairly significant trade-off here. Nothing else is overly impactful.

2. Does it imbalance the table? Not really. The most concerning thing would be alignment detection, but we already have several legal options that create this issue, not least of which is the cleric of an evil deity.

3. Does it negatively impact the campaign? I can't really see why it would. Again, we already have multiple classes that can emulate the main piece of this, which would be the alignment detection.


A Stinking Cloud anecdote for you.

Way of the Wicked:
Party make-up: Arcanist/Rogue, Alchemist, crazy Monk thing, Antipaladin, and Witch (me).

In book 1, there's an assault on a keep. Midway through the assault, the GM informs us that we level to 5 and are "blessed" with the ability to immediately re-prepare spells. We went during the big concert, so most of the encounters thus far had been relatively easy, but we had the concert hall left. Little did we know, there were about 80 NPCs in there, 7 or so of them named. We sealed all but the roof access and the main door, opened the main door, and nearly crapped ourselves as the GM added all the tokens in Roll20.

We split the encounter with a Feather Token boat, which barely fit in the hall. Most of what was on our side was mooks, which we disabled with Web + Stinking Cloud (failed save on the cloud means you can't attempt to escape the Web). This also prevented the named NPC archer fighter from sniping us from on top of the boat. What few enemies were not in some way fastened into the room were quickly dispatched, at which point we started coating the room with flasks of oil. The alchemist then ignited it all with a bomb and we sealed the main door with a Feather Token tree. Only 3 named NPCs escaped the blaze onto the roof, which we dealt with by Ki Throwing them down to the ground while within a Darkness effect after climbing the tree and having a murder party at the bottom.

So yes, with judicious use, there are incredible tactical benefits to the LoS breaks. The key is knowing the right situations for them. Archers are a great one because they have to start guessing squares. With enemy casters, it's less good sometimes because you don't necessarily know what they'll do about it. If you Fog Cloud and they just Fireball through it, you've probably ended up on the short end of that stick. At the same time, maybe you end up disrupting his placement for Summon Monster or cause him to blunder into a bad position while you have Goz Masks.

I'm much more willing to say that this is a good investment of your spell slots if you're using it on archers, followed by melee, followed by casters. As you noted, casters are the most likely to have the tools to address this issue, while archers typically start sipping coffee and hoping they don't get ganked in the meantime.


My read of this is that the fighter could use his weapon. Paired Opportunists doesn't care about anything other than the monk getting an AoO.

**

Deities this would impact: Irori (IUS), Shizuru (Katana), Imbrex (Dire Flail), Korada (IUS), Lythertida (IUS), Ragathiel (Bastard Sword)...maybe some more Tien deities that I don't have source material handy for in Hero Lab.

In looking up the list, I'm compelled to be against this idea. Paladins already have a lot of great weapon choices from their full martial proficiency and it's completely legit to say "Go take EWP if you want your katana."

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Fromper wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Fromper wrote:

I haven't played the occult classes yet, and only seen them at tables a few times, but I agree that there's a steep learning curve there.

With the ACG and Unchained classes, at least you could look at the older classes and say "It's like X, except...".

With the occult classes, the whole game is redefined, so you really have to spend the time learning all the details before diving in. I've looked through them all briefly, but don't feel like I've really wrapped my head around any of them enough to make a PC.

What are you talking about? Mesmerist is like Bard with a different set of buffing abilities. Spiritualist is like a Summoner. Psychic is pretty much a sorcerer. Occultist is a power point class. Medium is a Binder and the Kineticist is a wonkier version of a Warlock.
What are you talking about? I've been playing Pathfinder for more than 4 years, and I've never heard of a "power point class", "Binder", or "Warlock". Are those terms from another game?

These are references to 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons. ^_^

The "power point classes" are psionics users, who used a pool of power points instead of spell slots to cast spells (or, "manifest powers").

The binder was a slightly obscure class that called up "vestiges" of powerful beings and made pacts with them to gain their power.

The warlock was a hyper-simplified magic-using class. They had an eldritch blast (ranged touch for d6s, same rate as sneak attack) and a small number of spell-like abilities, all usable at will.

(If you were being sarcastic, don't mind me.)

"Power point classes" is a weird term that made me think of a Microsoft product and not a mechanic, as in "You need a Power Point to explain the class."

**

I have a Lamashtan cleric with Profession (Childcare).

Jiggy's idea about Profession (Herald) is kind of funny. I might put a point into it when my Psychic hits 12 or 13. How great would it be to have a post-Eyes VC following around his protege as a herald?

**

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Serisan wrote:


Mesmerist: Tricks are difficult for a lot of players to wrap their heads around. The Stare riders are annoying for GMs.

Tricks are the simplest mechanic out there. They trigger when a specific scenario occurs. Only odd thing that I've had multiple GMs miss and even I didn't know is how swift/immediate actions work but other than that its x happens y occurs. Stare riders aren't really as annoying as you can get compared to some of the other things.

Quote:


Spiritualist: You act as though people thoroughly understand summoners after all these years.

In terms of flavor I meant. Mechanics wise its a Druid and arguably a weak one in terms of that compared the other companion archetype in the book.

Quote:


Occultist: A local player played one to level 11 before people realized he was playing it wrong the whole time. They're tricky.

What did he do? Its really not anything to that class at all. Only unusual thing is spellcasting runs counter to every single other class.

Mesmerist: Tricks end up being the straw that breaks the camel's back most of the time. Most mesmerists that I've seen have managed to finagle everything but that effectively.

Spiritualist: Should be easy in theory, doesn't seem to end up that way in play. Not sure why.

Occultist: Did not understand the Mental Focus mechanic as well as he thought.

**

TriShadow wrote:

Let's say someone had a certain faerie dragon they picked up as a familiar along the way <wink>. If that familiar had caster levels, would that familiar gain access to spells learned and be able to cast them as well?

Kind of need an answer actually.

No. While the faerie dragon casts "as a 3rd level sorceror," this doesn't give any access to the spell it stores for the witch.

1 to 50 of 2,577 << 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.