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

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,190 posts (2,193 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 2,190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Faelyn wrote:

Just as the title implies. The Kinetic Chirurgeons (KG) replaces Infusions with this ability...

Kinetic Chirurgery (Su): wrote:
A kinetic chirurgeon must select either aether or water as her primary element. She gains kinetic healer as a bonus wild talent at 1st level. At 3rd level and every 2 levels thereafter, the kinetic chirurgeon can select any one paladin mercy that a paladin of that level could select. Each time she uses kinetic healer, she can apply one of these mercies to the target of the healing. A kinetic chirurgeon can never use infusions. This ability replaces infusions.

Does that mean Infusions are completely off the table for a KG? Or would they be able to select an Infusion by using the Extra Wild Talent feat? I am inclined to say that that ability would completely remove Infusions from the table, but... perhaps there is something I'm unaware of that has been dealt with prior to during the playtest.

Any rulings that you guys are aware of would be greatly appreciated! Or even just incites from folks who were heavily involved in the Occult Playtest.

From the wiki dictionary


at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever.

Never means exactly that. A Kinetic chirugeon is essentially a Healer.

You can still use simple and composite blasts, along with water having some of the best utility WTs in the class. I agree with you that infusions are off the table.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Paladin/Oracle gives you a lot of synergy and both short and long-term play advantage. Given that some of the revelations available are equivalent to 3 feats, they're pretty handy to have around. I'd push towards Battle as your mystery. You would certainly have the ability to go ranged or melee as desired with a 25 pt buy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Morphling wrote:
I would be totally into the flavor of a PFS House-Rule that says that due to the large conflux of adventurers and legendary heroes, Pathfinder Lodges all count as any of the six kinds of locations.

I like that rule, right up until I remember some adventures that start you in a boat, sometimes several days or weeks into a journey, and the entire adventure is on said boat.

example scenario:
Murder on the Throaty Mermaid

Otherwise, yes, it's a great plan.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, not so much. The action economy on WoP is already strong. No need to make it stronger.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes on all fronts here. I actually confirmed that in with Mark in his OT thread last week, when he was on a deleting spree for any spoilers in the rules forum. I had the exact same question.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bear in mind that the Relic Channeler gets past this problem VERY easily. Your seance is focusing on a relic you possess for each spirit. Maybe you have a shield for Guardian, a falcata for Champion, a holy symbol for Hierophant, etc. Things you would literally be carrying and would probably want to have for those different legends.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Felyndiira wrote:
Redelia wrote:
Well, if 51% of your actions are putting the needs of others first (including basic self care to enable you to meet the needs of others), you are of good alignment. If 51% or more are selfish, you are of evil alignment. To truly be neutral, it would have to be 50% of each.

Neutral is as much a gradient as Good and Evil are. It's not this fine balance that can be tipped by the smallest actions.

Usually, Good and Evil are defined by a strong commitment. If you occasionally donate to charity/the homeless to make yourself happier, that doesn't automatically make you good. Similarly, a bit of selfishness doesn't make you evil.

This extends to Pathfinder characters, as well, or you'll get ridiculous stuff like this:

Druid: After getting out of that prison, I take a moment to appreciate my freedom and lie down under the gentle embrace of nature.
GM: You expressed a love for freedom, which is chaotic. Shift your alignment from NG to CG. You fall as a druid.
Druid: What?

I truly want to see that play out sometime in an actual game.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scarletrose wrote:
Even Way of the Wicked that is supposed to be a campaign for Evil characters says "Ok, you can be evil, but not chaotic evil"

Point of note, the reason you can't be CE in Way of the Wicked is that you devote yourselves to Asmodeus. There are 4 allowed alignments for the campaign because you cannot be opposed to Asmodeus on either the Good/Evil spectrum or the Lawful/Chaotic spectrum.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
"Dragonfly" wrote:

I made my Aerokineticist a social character with a high Int for Skill points and a low Con because I never liked the Burn mechanic and never planned on using it.

I feel the Overwhelming Soul archetype is perfect for her, but my Charisma is only 12.

Can I reassign my stats?

That depends on whether you think the Roleplaying Guild Guide's section on Playtest and Errata rebuilds applies. Specifically:

RGG S7, pg 29 wrote:

If an ability-score-dependent feature of a class, prestige

class, or archetype is altered: You may rebuild your
character to its current XP. Keep the same equipment, but
you can resell any equipment that augments the changed
ability score at its full market price.

Since Form Infusions used CON in the playtest and DEX in release for their DCs, it's clear that an ability-score-dependent class feature has changed. With that being the case, you could make the case for a full rebuild, including changes to your ability scores.

If the rebuild rules in the AR for Occult Adventures is exclusive and limiting, then the answer is no. I would contend that the rebuild rules are not exclusive and limiting. That would also allow all Mediums to get a full rebuild (makes sense given that the entire class completely changed).

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dallium wrote:

For those of you with at least one foot in reality, here's what the mount spell does:

1)summons a light horse or pony

2)the light horse or pony is trained to accept a rider

3)the light horse or pony is under magical compulsion to obey you commands willingly and well

4)the light horse or pony has riding tack

and of course, most important :

5) a whole slew of specific restrictions that say the mount can't ever attack, charge, be used in combat, sold to an unsuspecting horse dealer, or enter (and win) a beauty pagent with the help of an extremely talented bard.

so as you can see.... what? #5 isn't in the spell listing? Just 1 to 4? oh my mistake, I thought you could just invent s#&@. This IS the rules forum, I thought, since I'm so awesome, I could just invent rules.

Next BBEG for a level 1 game: a swindler with Bluff and Mount selling to horse dealers.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's ok, they haven't banned Dragon Style on mounts yet.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Serum wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Regarding selection types - You cannot trade a horse for a bearded devil. A horse is neutral. The new creature must match alignment. Moreover, using ASM on a horse would require you to select an animal. Have fun with your T-Rex.

ASM wrote:
Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target.
Why does the alignment of alter summon monster need to match the alignment of the creature you are changing? This line just states that if you convert the target into an angel, it is a spell with the [good] descriptor.

Posting-While-Tired™ strikes again. You are correct.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Casual Viking wrote:

I'm usually the guy who says "F@!# your painstaking discussion of the interpretation of the words, reading takes context, interpret for consistency". But the wording of this spell is completely crystal clear, and absolutely, no doubt about it, allows you to Heighten Mount and trade the horse for a Bearded Devil.

The Bearded Devil might not automatically attack your opponent, though; it might stand around waiting to be saddled. That's less clear. But I notice that the Mount spell doesn't say anything about not going into combat, just " serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well." It doesn't have the passus from Summon Monster about "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability", but if you can communicate with it, I see no reason it wouldn't do what you tell it. As a conjuration(summoning) effect, it obeys orders unless otherwise specified.

I want to address a couple things you bring up here. I agree that this combo works, but there are things people are missing from ASM's text that are causing misinterpretations and your post shows a couple of them.

Regarding "conditions" - this applies to what the CRB glossary defines as conditions, such as Bleed, Blind, Confused, Dead, etc., not limitations of the spell. ASM clearly states this in the spell description.

ASM wrote:
The new creature has the same conditions and amount of damage as the target creature, and remains affected by all curses, diseases, poisons, and penalties that affected the target, but no other spells or effects carry over.

Regarding selection types - You cannot trade a horse for a bearded devil. A horse is neutral. The new creature must match alignment. Moreover, using ASM on a horse would require you to select an animal. Have fun with your T-Rex.

ASM wrote:
Alter summoned monster is a spell of the same alignment type or types as the creature for which you exchange the target.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One quick point about disallowing because characters are in initiative: this should not apply to characters that are unaware that they are in initiative. If you're not aware of combat, you shouldn't be distracted by it.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Spectral Smoke? You call that an ink defense?

One of my local Venture Officers just finished Eyes of the Ten with a playtest Mesmerist. He'll tell you that the tricks are, in fact, quite potent.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Two part question, RDN: (1) does your GM credit blob have enough gold to purchase a +1 longbow and (2) if not, why don't you have Magic Weapon on your spell list? The real punch of the Occultist is being able to set up the appropriate Bane on your weapon with Legacy Weapon. It's MUCH better than any blasting you'd be able to do with Evocation, even if you can't get down to Precise Shot until 3rd or 5th. Without PBS or Precise, you'd still be looking at longbow +7 (1d8+2d6+2) with your 9 STR penalizing the damage slightly.

I have a preference for a Necromancy for implement selection early on, as well. Your worst case scenario here is only investing one point of MF into it, meaning you can only raise one skeleton or zombie as a standard action and it's going to have half your HP (8 in your case at level 2). That's pretty useful.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PFS Additional Resources wrote:
Feats: All feats on pages 128-141 are legal for play, except Alter Binary Mindscape, Lucid Dreamer, Psychic Combatant, Psychic Defender, Shatter Mental Mask, and Third Eye.

Guess what's legal in PFS!

If you've ever wanted to be "that guy" who "unintentionally" PvPs, here's your chance. Just make sure you're a half-orc so you can chase the other players.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It has a robust organized play campaign. Guess what makes a group-based game easy to play - other people that are available to play. When you're in the "everybody has kids or other commitments" stage of life like me, it's nice when you're not dependent on Joe Clubbintime or Sara Sickchild showing up consistently to play the game.

I like some of the game. I like the fiddly bits. I hate the power disparities. I hate the trap options. I like exploring new things.

It's hard, though, to like something where change appears arbitrary. That's where I've been mentally this week.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, first and foremost, thank you for being open to the feedback and trying to address it constructively. Truly appreciated, Chris.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

So, I'm not sure if all of the development/design staff does this, but I know that at least one or two (that sneaky Mark comes to mind!) post with both their official employee identity and their unofficial and/or pre-Paizo employment forum names. I even get why they'd do it if they're posting opinions on rules that aren't official rulings, etc. That said, I'd like to see more visibility from these teams in places other than the playtest and off-topic forums.


- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

Blog post previews of FAQ/errata content would be greatly appreciated. Let the community give some input before these things are finalized. I'm in the software industry and appreciate the importance of thought leadership and prioritization of changes, but it seems like there's a significant disjunct between the dev/design intent and the community desires that could be addressed before release.

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

Just tacking on a note of "Revised in second printing" or similar, but utilizing the most up-to-date version for the PRD seems reasonable.

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Personally, no. I can see the appeal for others, though. If these were added, I would like to see them in a separate section of the assets page.

- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

Polls are tricky. The way they're built into most forums is inadequate for the information you're attempting to gather. If you are considering polls, ensure the prompts and answer options are clear and meaningful. Example, using one of the current issues from the ACG errata that particularly rubbed me the wrong way:

Poll Format Suggestion:
Battle Cry has been identified by the PDT as out of line with our expectations of a feat that can be taken at 5th level. Below is the proposed erratum to the feat, noted in bold:


Battle Cry (Combat)

Your shout heartens your allies and encourages them in the fight.

Prerequisites: Cha 13; base attack bonus +5 or Perform (act, oratory, or sing) 5 ranks.
Benefit: A number of times per day equal to your Charisma bonus, you can let out a battle cry as a swift action. When you do, allies within 30 feet who can hear you gain a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear. This effect lasts for 1 minute.
If an ally is under the effect of this feat and fails a saving throw against a fear effect, she can choose to end the battle cry's effect on her to reroll the failed save. The ally must take the result of the reroll, even if it's lower. Each ally can use this effect only once per use of this feat.

Please indicate your reaction to this proposed erratum.

  • The erratum is reasonable and balanaced.
  • The erratum will cause players to avoid this feat due to its situational nature, but is otherwise reasonable for a 5th level feat.
  • The original feat benefit is reasonable with more stringent prerequisites.
  • The original feat is reasonable and balanced without modification.

What you gain from this is much more insightful than the riotous arglebargle that's been coming out since the errata document was silently published. Yes, it will slow the process down. After the length of this thread and the others like it, I'm sure you'll appreciate the notion that getting it right is better than getting it fast, particularly when you generate community buy-in with the process. While some of the changes may have been teased or discussed in the ACG errors thread, that lacked the visibility of its own dedicated thread. Additionally, not every erratum requires a poll (Ecclesitheurge, for instance) and most of these polls probably don't require discussion.

Again, thank you for inviting dialogue, Chris.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, kind of a tale of two changes here.

A local VL just completed Eyes of the Ten with a playtest Mesmerist last week. They rushed the series so he could complete it before the book was released, knowing that the class would be changed as soon as the Occult Adventures book hit the streets. While he didn't know what would change (and, upon reading the release version, he said that he actually came out ahead), he knew that he didn't want to have to relearn a character in the middle of a level 12 adventure. In that regard, he was probably a singular case in PFS. I doubt any other playtest characters have done EotT before their book dropped.

By comparison, ACG has been out for almost a full year as of today. There are literally thousands of players who use various classes and feats from the book. To them, the changes seemed arbitrary in some cases. There was a significant outcry in the PFS community for rebuilds because entire characters were invalidated with single erratum (Slashing Grace, particularly). In some regards, it sort of felt like playing Calvinball. The changes here have HUGE impacts across the player base in PFS. Pre-errata, I honestly felt that ACG was better balanced than the CRB - an unpopular opinion, I know - and I'm left feeling slightly shaken about my confidence in future releases because of such an extensive errata. Not only that, but it was practically released in silence. Nobody at my local game shop had heard about it until I pulled out a printed copy of the errata and asked if players had ACG features on their characters. That's a tough pill to swallow as a Society GM.

ARG, though, has been out for at least 3 years now. This is the first errata we've seen for it. Were there problems? Sure. Mask of Stony Demeanor was obviously undervalued. Was anyone really complaining about Aasimar FCBs, though? Again, seems pretty arbitrary. At least that got an email out, though.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
technarken wrote:

There is the whole "you are also a vegetable just like your target while you're in there" factor. Makes it a touch more balanced to me.

I'd make the exit method a table with a bowl of red pills and a bowl of blue pills, and Morpheus's spiel on a placard on the wall behind it. Method of escape: consume the correct pill. Best Mesmerist trick ever.

Sadly, unless it's veiled and they fail the save, they automatically know which pill is the right pill.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

So I just found a spell that pretty much ends this.

Hungry Darkness causes no save con damage in a 60ft radius. Only spell resistance can stop it. Wall up all 3 entrances with wall of stone. Stone shape a 1ft by 1ft hole into the wall. Start casting as many as necessary castings of Hungry Darkness. It will last 12 rounds. For 24 points of con damage. If you don't have a con of at least 24, you're just dead. And the wizard/sorcerer can do this with relative impunity behind the stone wall.

Sure, there are counters to this, but it requires dispel or spell sunder. But this is only a single tactic, not the complete limits of the groups capabilities.

If the martial group does not have a Spell Sunder Barbarian handy, they were already screwed.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Based on my reading of the spell, the only save involved is if the caster makes a veiled mindscape and that save is to disbelieve the veil.

Minus the Mesmerist stare option and the Psychic phrenic amp to break through immunity to mind-affecting, this will stop being a valid tactic against a lot of foes around the same time that you're getting the spell. It also allows for spell resistance, so take that for what you will.

My preferred mindscape will be an overt harmless parlor where the target appears at the bottom and I appear at a pedestal near the exit. The exit will involve a set of stairs spanning approximately 500' of distance that requires you to step on every 5th step to open a door to leave. Hopefully I can talk to them while they handle that. If they attack me, they waste spell slots most likely and there's a chance they just get a CdG from my allies.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As the proud owner of a stupid reach Aberrant Bloodrager, I can tell you that 16 dex is enough until you get Greater Trip. I had to make some sacrifices to get there (like 12 con), but it's going well at level 9. Point of note, though, is that I only have 4 levels in Bloodrager.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

All depends on how you plan to play. Like I said, purely a preference thing. I may be jaded for thinking about a dwarven Elemental Devastator with Earth selected. Very different feel, but that emphasizes CON quite a bit more.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And I agree that it's a preference thing. My concern is more about additional available burn than DCs and damage.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
noretoc wrote:

I usually don't complain about archetypes and power levels, but I am having trouble with this one, and hoping I'm missing something.

The mindblade cast psychic spells. That means that the components are now emotion and thought. Thought spells now suffer a -10 to concentration rolls. I assume this applies to casting defensively. You can take a move action to negate the penalty.

So, A magus in combat (Where he should be) has to cast defensively with a -10 penalty or take a move action, which means no spell combat?

I am ok with taking some penalties for flavor, but isn't this just a bit too much. I can't imagine anyone playing this.

As with the other psychics, you're frequently looking at all the different options for increasing your concentration check. There are lots of options here:

Trait for +2
Combat Casting
Uncanny Concentration
Spell Specialization, Varisian Tattoo, and other caster level increases

What's kind of different here, though, is that you're given a few options with this class that don't exist elsewhere. Sure, you're not going to Spell Combat as often, but you're given the option straight away to ignore weapon purchases and select your weapon based on your current needs. Your default option is likely going to be a two handed weapon to preserve your spell slots until later.

Essentially, taking this archetype is acknowledging that you will not be doing the standard Shocking Grasp build of Magus. Maybe you spend more of your spells per day on defensive buffs. Maybe you utilize some of the ridiculous options that you pick up from the Psychic spell list, like Create Mindscape (the ultimate trolling spell!). If you intend to play a Mindblade like a standard Magus, yes, it's a straight downgrade. Read the Psychic spell list and you'll see that it's trolololololtastic once you start picking up your extra spells.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The only glaring thing to me is the choice of a dex belt over a con belt, but I suppose that comes down to personal preference.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shadows_Of_Fall wrote:
You think an Archer Medium is the way to go? Or should someone mix in melee or more casting focus? Battle Host a worthy trade?

I think Battle Host gives up far too much versatility and makes you sunder-bait. The fact that your UMD bonus only applies to weapons/armor/shields is ridiculous, exempting all other issues.

Archery is one valid path. I think it's particularly strong at lower levels. As I said, I think it's kind of terrifying, really, but only if you have the setup time. Once you have your +1 composite longbow with appropriate strength rating, things get a bit easier as you cut it down to 1 standard of buffing instead of 2 and you have more Mental Focus to spread around. It's also totally reasonable to slam all your MF into 2 transmutation implements for double stat boosts, but you have to contend with fewer Banes per day if you split like that. By 4th level, that should be a non-issue, though. The painful bit here is that there's a real need for Extra Mental Focus as a feat, but no space whatsoever in an archery build.

Melee is viable, too, and for the same reasons, but you have a very MAD character if you do that and you'll want at least 1 abjuration implement early on. Battle Host is best with melee, where you can snag a mwk full plate at character creation and stand in front of things with the best of 'em.

Lots of build options on the Occultist that are very viable. I just embrace that 2/3 caster-ness of the class a bit more.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Casual Viking wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Because we already established a few things:

1. There is no realistic way the casters can scry the party. You can't "scry" without having some kind of connection to the party. If you even try it, and have the flimsiest of excuses, then the person you are scrying gets to make a save against the spell with a +10 bonus to resist it.

2. The haversack already got wasted in the opening round so the Wizard cannot get a spare pouch.

3. They have no way to know the PCs have see invisibility active unless they stop, cast detect magic, then want to identify it. Thus they have no way to know.

4. DC 25 will save is easy enough to make at these levels depending on the class and has no effect on the initial ranged barrage.

5. The Zombies never had a chance to be spawned. The casters didn't know that they were there. Unless your casters run around with a bunch of undead for no reason.

1. There's always Clairvoyance and intel from the Earth Gliders.

2. My bad on the Haversack. Then again, you assuming that the wizard hasn't already cast "archery? lol no" before entering.

3. What? I'm saying the casters have see invisibility up. Invisibly approaching them while they listen to the Cavalier is not going to happen.

4. DC 25 will save that's neither enchantment nor mind affecting is going to be a problem for most.

5. A dedicated Necromancer IS running around with a bunch of undead. It's what he does.

For the sake of my sanity, I was not going through the pre-fight buff rituals of 6 full casters in an exercise to determine if the martials had even the slightest chance of victory. You'll also note that my actual dice rolls ended up favoring the martial group, but dice do that sometimes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Erasmus the Medium can be a healer if he seances in the Heirophant spirit. You improve your spells known and spells per day to the Mesmerist's chart and pull in 1 spell from the cleric list for each spell level.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Endoralis wrote:
I thought it was +2 attack and +4 damage?

You are correct. Had to re-read that passage. With that in mind, that puts BFB to 8d6+6 if you're accepting burn to use it.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Occultist is terrifying if given time to buff. It's possible to do some silly things right out the gate, such as using Magic Weapon + Legacy Weapon to have Bane (whatever you're fighting right now) and a respectable set of combat stats. What's the average bugbear got to counter an elf that's shooting for 1d8+2d6+3 with a standard longbow in an opening adventure?

The answer is not bloody much. If you've got a decent stealth bonus, you can pull that off reasonably simply because of how psychic magic is cast - you're not giving up your position like you do with arcane or divine. You might even be able to shoot from the bushes without incident.

The revised Medium is growing on me, but I'm not 100% sold on it at this point. Too many fond remembrances of the harrowed medium from the playtest. That said, the revised Medium is a godsend for PFS tables. You never have to do the "what's everyone else playing today?" dance between characters when you've got one. You just change your focus for the moment. The only downside is the stat dilution problem from being potentially quite MAD.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They are the attack/damage rolls, but there's a series of typos to be corrected. It should be +10 on fire blast and +12 on blue flame blast - +5 BAB +4 DEX +1 size. Elemental Overflow provides +2 attack and damage for blue flame blast because it requires 2 burn to use. Damage should be 8d6+4 for blue flame blast.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I were writing this tomorrow when I could use Occult stuff without it getting deleted, things would be slightly different. We'll see how this pans out. Any die roll mentioned is actually rolled with approximated modifiers.

The party prepares by blocking off the left and right flanks with the available furniture on both sides of the doors, dousing both sides in a mixture of grain and moonshine, as well as lantern oil, to set on fire as needed. The remaining "unsafe" door is left ajar and coat the floor in front of it with a mixture of water and grain so that invisible intruders are promptly noticed. Approximately 2-3 minutes before the expected invasion, our intrepid martial party buffs up and attempts to hide - the Slayer flies into the hall, hovering near the ceiling, while the Barbarian hides inside the hallway wall. The Bloodrager holds 2 bags of flour, one under each arm, while holding onto the wall directly above the door, looking downward for footprints through the mush. The Cavalier boldly stands approximately 20' from the door with the Gunslinger and Fighter 10' in front of him and with his back to a campfire.

Superstition Spell Sunder Barbarian: Extended Burrow (Bloodrager)
Archer Fighter: Invisibility (Bloodrager)
Arcane Bloodrager (Unarmed + Reach, Spellbreaker): Spider Climb, Invisibility
Slayer: Extended Fly (Bloodrager), Invisibility (Bloodrager)
Musketmaster Gunslinger: Potion of Invisibility
Luring Cavalier: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The casters approach as a group, minus the Druid, who is tremorsensing around like a smart wildshaper. The Cavalier attempts to engage the enemy diplomatically. The enemy casters, seeing a lone Cavalier, know that he is hardly worth the effort and bother to listen (Bluff 32 vs Sense Motive high of 30 that his companions left him) followed by (Diplomacy 36 vs highest hostile DC of 33). During this time, the Slayer studies the Witch to ready for Assassinate and flies within 5', landing on the ground. The Wizard and the Sorceror are invisible. Combat opens as the Druid gets within tremorsense range of the Fighter, Gunslinger, and Barbarian from a slight side angle and the Slayer attacks the Witch for the Assassinate attempt.

Initiative rolls:
Schrodinger's Wizard (I assumed Diviner): 19
Battle Cleric: 7
Bouda Witch: 13
Wildshape-focused Druid: 21
Summoning-focused Sorcerer: 18
Oracle Necromancer: 16

Barbarian: 8
Archer Fighter: 28
Arcane Bloodrager: 19
Slayer: 15
Gunslinger: 17
Cavalier: 10

So our battle order ends up being:

Things are not looking good initially.

Surprise Round - Slayer + Druid + Wizard only

Druid: Moves out of the ground and free action yells to his compatriots that there are invisible guys near the Cavalier.
Wizard: Greater Dispel (24), dispelling all of the buffs from the Gunslinger and Fighter. Wizard is no longer Invisible, but remains flying above his compatriots.
Slayer: Assassinate the Bouda (Fort save 17 vs DC 20) - Witch dies

Round 1:
Fighter: 5' forward, Trick Shot Sunder Many/Rapid with Adamantine arrows, targeting the Wizard's spell component pouch (36) and Handy Haversack (25, 30, 21). The 36 and 30 connect and both are destroyed.
Druid: Casts Dispel Magic at the Barbarian in the wall (16) and moves adjacent to the Fighter, Gunslinger and Cavalier. The Dispel is not able to break the Burrow spell.
Wizard: Yells for someone to give him their spare spell component pouch, moves to the ground to be near the rest of his group, and readies to take when one of them offers it.
Bloodrager: Sensing that his flour-bombing purpose is over, double-move down into the hallway, drawing his adamantine lucerne hammer while positioning himself within threatening range of as many foes as possible. He bloodrages, selecting Haste and Blur as his active effects.
Sorceror: 5' adjacent to the Wizard, draws a spell component pouch from his Handy Haversack as a move action, and hands it to the waiting Wizard as a standard. The Wizard moves initiative as his readied action goes off.
Gunslinger: Despite being within the reach of a huge earth elemental, he full attacks with Rapid/Deadly, targeting the Cleric. The Druid takes an AoO, but misses (23). The Gunslinger blasts the Cleric to pieces (Crit threat with confirmation of >30, lowest touch attack is 19 in 4 attacks, all of which connect). The Cleric eats dirt, having suffered well over 130 damage. The Gunslinger then 5' steps closer to the Druid, leaving a clear shot path for the Cavalier down the hallway.
Oracle: 5' adjacent to the Cleric to defensively cast Breath of Life (25) due to the threatening Bloodrager. While this would normally be enough, Spellbreaker + Disruptive + the bloodline arcana push it to failure, and the Oracle provokes an AoO from the Bloodrager (39), who deals a paltry 26 damage because he is not yet using Power Attack.
Slayer:Seeing a nearby Wizard and a flanking buddy in the Bloodrager, 5' into position, studies as a swift action, and goes yard with Greater TWF Keen kukris (3 critical threats, 1 confirmed, though 1 hit misses due to Displacement - other 3 miss outright), dealing 43 and 30 damage, respectively, and further reduced by Stoneskin. The Wizard is quite hurt, but still alive and kicking.
Witch:Unlike the Wizard, the Witch is dead.
Cavalier:5' out of melee from the Druid, uses Luring Challenge, and Rapid/Many/Deadly at the Oracle. (5 hits, lowest being 29). With that, the Oracle has eaten in excess of 140 damage total and dies. Luring Challenge ends as the target is dead.
Barbarian:Moves out of the wall, finds no live targets adjacent to him, moves over to the Druid, drawing his greatsword along the way, and starts to rage.

Round ends - This turned into a surprisingly lucky round for our melee host. 3 of the casters are down, including everyone with Breath of Life prepared.

Round 2:
Fighter: Very concerned with the continued existence of the Wizard, opens fire with Rapid/Many/Deadly (32/32/16/10, both 32s connecting and hitting despite Displacement) for an additional 42 with Clustered Shots, resulting in 32 more damage to the Wizard. The Wizard was well-invested with CON and Toughness, as well as a CON belt, however, and is still standing.
Druid: Concerned about the damage output of the ranged martials, 5' back from all nearby combatants and attempts to defensively cast Wall of Stone (23) as the Barbarian's Step Up triggers. Unfortunately, that doesn't beat the DC 27 needed for the concentration check and the spell is lost.
Bloodrager: Attempts to end the Wizard with a Power Attack and hits (35) while successfully getting past the Displacement. His adamantine weapon crushes the Wizard's skull for an additional 32 damage, putting him down for the count. Continuing to bloodrage, he then moves into the room to get near the Druid and eats an AoO (34) for his troubles. Fortunately, the Blur from his bloodline causes it to miss.
Wizard: dirt nap
Sorceror:Terrified of the current goings-on, double moves into the room to be adjacent to the Druid, hoping to teleport out soon. Still invisible.
Gunslinger: Rapid/Deadly at the Druid, as it appears to be the only live target. (3 hits, lowest of which is a 25 touch vs. the huge Druid. The critical threat does not confirm.) 28, 22, and 24 respectively, but the Druid's Stoneskin absorbs 30 of that.
Slayer: Coup de grace the Wizard, just to be sure.
Cavalier: 5' into a clear line (lol no Imp Precise!) with the Druid, then uses Luring Challenge and unleashes a Rapid/Many/Deadly. Due to poor rolls, however, none of the shots connect (high of 24).
Barbarian: Attempts to Spell Sunder the Druid repeatedly while maintaining the rage. All 3 attempts fail (high of 27).

Round ends - A solid enough performance given the advantages at the start of the round, though not as advantageous a situation as they hoped. The caster team is down to two combatants, but the martial team is completely unaware of one of them.

Round 3:
Fighter: Rapid/Many/Deadly the Druid. Unfortunately, none of the arrows manage to pierce that rocky exterior (high of 29)
Druid: Burrows out of the room. This looks unwinnable at current. The required movement provokes attacks from the Bloodrager and Barbarian, but only the Bloodrager hits (37), dealing 31 damage with his adamantine weapon.
Bloodrager: Frustratedly searches the room for other threats, maintaining his bloodrage this round.
Sorceror: Seeing his companion has fled, the Sorceror safely casts Dimension Door and gets out of dodge.
Gunslinger: n/a
Slayer: n/a
Cavalier: n/a
Barbarian: n/a

Round ends - No substantive changes.

Subsequent rounds - the Druid grabs the corpses of his companions from the hallway while burrowing and leaves, rejoining with the Sorceror. The Druid had prepared Reincarnate just in case of emergency and casts it on the Oracle, who ends up a Halfling for his troubles (71). They also kept enough diamond dust handy for the Oracle to cast Raise Dead once, bringing back the Witch.

In all likelihood, the casters go back same-day and, not falling for their nonsense a second time, slay the martials outright as they originally intended. Having then stripped the martials of their worth, they pawn the gear for enough diamond dust to Raise Dead the Cleric and Wizard.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Greatly appreciated, John.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can confirm (as I literally just read this chapter) that there are things for this purpose and they will be helpful to a wide range of parties.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I believe my post was inelegantly worded. I did not mean that you actually become large, but as others have said, you occupy all of the squares that your mount occupies. Your natural reach in unaffected. You don't get the adjacent ring with a reach weapon, but you would get the reach ring as normal.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If our recent adventures with Mystic Theurge is any indication, I doubt there will be the kind of rebuild you'd like here.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Good thing my magus has fencing grace instead and that'll never be errata'd since it's in a Player Companion.
We could start up a FAQ about it...

Good luck with that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Consider this entry for a moment:

CRB, Combat chapter, "Big and Little Creatures in Combat" wrote:
Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less.

Effectively, while mounted, you are considered to be your mount's size and determine your threatened area based on your normal "natural reach" but based on your new size footprint. Thus, your reach weapon while on the axebeak (which shouldn't matter whether you're small or medium sized) will not reach any square that would be adjacent to the mount. This still adds several threatened squares, mind you, but you don't get the benefit against adjacent targets.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
favored enemy can't touch you.
Good point. Unless you're human, this doesn't come up that often though.

Humans, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs are among the most common race choices out there. In effect, the change to Animal Soul is equivalent to the Neither Elf Nor Human feat from the Half-Elf section of the ARG, which requires 2 other feats and character level 11. Animal Soul can be taken at level 1, if you so desire.

Given when it's useful to have an effect like this, it's nice that it can be taken early.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Re: Kineticist, is Gather Power intended to apply only to Simple/Composite blasts with or without Infusions? It uses an otherwise undefined term ("blast wild talents").

Specific question on that: am I right in assuming that you should not be able to Gather Power for Kinetic Healer?

Oh bother, it looks like both of the threads on this in the rules forum where I deleted the post with quotes of OA and answered the question aren't visible. Somehow I've seen threads with the OP removed that still were visible, but maybe things changed.

First Question: Check the last sentence of the infusion ability (they add to the blast's cost).

Second Question: :( You could never use gather power on kinetic healer. Followers of my thread and/or the kineticist thread can attest to my overall sadness level about this question (the editors removed the word blast, which I had included, from the playtest document, thus leading to the biggest issues for any of our playtests that has ever been caused by a single word, as most people didn't check the Jason post with all the updates).

Funny enough, I specifically quoted as little as possible to avoid that problem while still conveying the linguistics issue directly. It's rather difficult to talk rules without quotes, after all, particularly when trying to parse that sort of text.

It makes sense from a consistency standpoint why you wouldn't be able to GP for Kinetic Healer given that all other healing is limited in some fashion (except that one fire-related feat that has a campaign errata for PFS, that is). I just wanted to confirm that before we start seeing millions of Kineticists at tables. :-)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Re: Kineticist, is Gather Power intended to apply only to Simple/Composite blasts with or without Infusions? It uses an otherwise undefined term ("blast wild talents").

Specific question on that: am I right in assuming that you should not be able to Gather Power for Kinetic Healer?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Having played at your table this weekend (I was the semi-useless trip guy to your left), a couple of things I noted:

  • Fossegrim encounter was fine, it was just the way we approached it that was substandard. You mentioned surrendering early, but to be fair to the table, we hadn't done much of anything prior to the eidolon's full attack
  • Stairs was fast, but this will be heavily dependent on how many negative levels are applied by the draugr captains before. If you have a party that's badly mauled from the prior encounter, you might want to have the fossegrim suggest that they rest before ascending to force the saves and potentially clear the negative levels.
  • As andreww noted, the forge encounter was very cramped with just the hallway. Other than that, it went fairly fast.
  • You might consider the patrol mechanic to be the optional encounter. We wasted a fair amount of time figuring out who would be the primary for the check when it's clear that it was just a resource soak for the resources provided by the scenario.
  • I'm very unclear about the timing of the last encounter. We got to the door and opened it, got monologued by box text, and the boss had full buffs when we arrived. I wasn't given the impression that we could buff outside the door, so I'm not sure how the boss would have sufficient warning for min/lvl buffs (a.k.a. you might consider skipping a few buffs if the table is running long). There was also a bit of tactical issues on our end that extended the combat, particularly when it came to dealing with the blade barrier. Some parties will have more damage and more optimized spell selection available, as well, so results will vary here. Also bear in mind that only one player beat the boss' initiative, which had a pretty significant impact on the start of the fight.

Thanks again for the table, Jack. It was fun. Hope the Gen Con tables go well!

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Serisan wrote:

I'm kind of surprised that nobody else has mentioned a 1 level dip in Battle Oracle for War Sight:

APG wrote:

War Sight (Su): Whenever you roll for initiative, you can roll twice and take either result. At 7th level, you can always act in the surprise round, but if you fail to notice the ambush, you act last, regardless of your initiative result (you act in the normal order in following rounds). At 11th level, you can roll for initiative three times and take any one of the results.

Diviner 20 OR Divine Tactician Cleric 20

Battle Oracle 1 / take your pick 19
dips are not allowed, must stick with two classes for 20 levels unless A prestige class is taken

Strange little twist on the normal gestalt rules. Despite the redundancy of the class list for spells, DT Cleric + Battle Oracle would be perfectly acceptable for the initiative focus AND you'd have one set of spells for regular use and another set of spells for situationals. That's SUPER handy.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm kind of surprised that nobody else has mentioned a 1 level dip in Battle Oracle for War Sight:

APG wrote:

War Sight (Su): Whenever you roll for initiative, you can roll twice and take either result. At 7th level, you can always act in the surprise round, but if you fail to notice the ambush, you act last, regardless of your initiative result (you act in the normal order in following rounds). At 11th level, you can roll for initiative three times and take any one of the results.

Diviner 20 OR Divine Tactician Cleric 20

Battle Oracle 1 / take your pick 19

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's how I think of it: Unarmed Strike is an exotic weapon when used to do lethal damage, but does not require BAB to take the feat. It looks a little wonky for a couple reasons: first, because of backwards compatibility with 3.5 and second, because it would be one of very few EWPs to also have significant feats with it as a prerequisite.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Every deity provides the opportunity to come in conflict with the party. Pharasma is simply the one that presents the greatest chance. That said, there was an in-character agreement that the necro broke. I don't like that the inquisitor let him die, and I certainly would prefer a better resolution, but it seems a little late for that now.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think this is resolved by the ruling regarding cleric proficiency with bastard swords - namely, that it's treated as exotic proficiency if it is the deity's favored weapon.

1 to 50 of 2,190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.