Well I did overgeneralize a bit because I considered the issue done, but you quote mined me as well. I don't think the person should be able to peak out, but if he does I would consider the vision equal both ways. Like I said above, if he did some funky body bending while trying to imagine what the enemy probably sees in an attempt to only expose a little of his head for a fraction of a second while keeping his body back, I would think that would incur a penalty to hit as well (possibly worse than just having clouded vision). My argument from the start is that the guy in the mist should be penalized.
Here is the 3.5 variant several have mentioned. I ran a game a while back that was not very LG friendly, it was the only paladin I allowed.
This is for PFS so at the end of the day RAW is all that matters. My issue with the logic is the same that others have stated earlier in the thread, if the person is sticking the head out of the mist but keeping the body back, the enemy can target the head. Additionally I would think such contortions would put the balance of the character (AC and Attack) in jeopardy.
But like I said at the start, this is PFS so it doesn't have to make real life sense for me. If I were running a home game, I would probably just do it the way that has always felt intuitive for me and apparently most of the people I have played with.
31: At work (I'm a Bartender in a Nightclub) you inform the drinkers of the Fort save DC of the cocktail that they are gulping back, as well as calling out effect...'Dazed for 3 rounds. Ouch, that one hurt.'
286: You have to read this sentence 3 times before the letters of "barbarian" turn into "bartender" and it finally makes sense.
james maissen wrote:
I have considered it, but fail to accept it from a logic point of view. But I do think you make a very strong case for RAW. Thank you.
My wife has this build without all the intimidate stuff, she uses Living Monolith to grow.
I am not sure your intimidation combos will work. You need a standard action to antagonize and a full action to combat patrol, I know you could extend antagonize one round to get this to go off every other round. Even still, I don't think you still get more than one AoO against any single opponent in a single round for movement. We were pretty disappointed when we first read this.
combat reflexes and attacks of opportunity wrote:
Does combat patrol undo this language? I am not 100% convinced.
I have always operated under the assumption that if you have two people standing on the edge of an obscuring mist (one inside and one outside) both get a 20% miss chance.
I have run into two GMs lately that interpret it that the person standing in the mist gets a 20% miss chance when attacked, but they can see out of the mist just fine and attack with no penalty.
I have read the spell a few times and logically this doesn't make much sense to me, and I am really on the fence as to whether or not RAW supports it. Is there anything official on this.
I tried to do a quick search but didn't find anything remotely official, in agreement, or even focused on this case.
This is not an underpowered class by any means. There are more options at every level than I already know what to do with, I don't see this limit on bombs as a problem. Additionally, I have seen these guys at high levels with fast bombs turn boss fights into jokes. I am not there, but I am not looking forward to the day my character stops being powerful and starts being boring. From what I have seen in another players fast bombs, that is a step in the so good it is boring path.
Why not go over to the engineering forums and ask if they know how you can get a copy of the anarchist's cookbook without your name going onto a watch list? When they give you hell, tell them it is all in the name of construction.
I am not convinced this guy is for real. If he is, I have a hard time imagining this level of intellect posing the level of risk that others are seeing.
I too didn't like the idea of arms on my quad so I fluffed it as a 6 legged wolf. Mechanically the front appendages are arms, but there is nothing stopping him from walking around on all six. He still gets a lot of claw attacks this way, but admittedly this wouldn't work if you are planning to wield weapons.
I admit as to only reading the first page so something to this effect may have been mentioned.
After reading in another thread about a "must kill all evil" paladin, I have been wanting to run across one with my CN sorcerer. I want to slap a random person with an infernal healing and then point the paladin in his direction to watch the comedy. Imagine the paladin's horror when he found out what happened.
If your ninja has UMD, you can go this route for the low price of a 750 gp wand.
Cold Napalm wrote:
Well I did pancea him (sleep for 1 hour) instead of skinsend him. I can't remember how many minutes my party was paralyzed for, but if I had just ripped his skin he would have been able to still kill us all, as I couldn't have killed him even with him losing a round, half life, and going prone. But I think the principle still applies. Both spells are being used in a way that was not anticipated and they work much more effectively than anything remotely close in level.
Also it really isn't that hard to build to this combo, all it really requires is the infusion extract discovery. An alchemist can add spells to his spellbook almost as easily as a wizard. My character is built to be a bomber-controller, but saw this combo and thought it well worth the price of a discovery that also does other cool stuff.
I have to admit that I think that both touch injection with skin-send and polypurpose pancea is pretty cheesy and probably should be removed. I have a character that preps these as rainy day options but I do feel dirty even saying that I am prepping them. The no save part is simply overpowered. I personally think that pancea is more powerful than skin send, even if it doesn't look as cool.
For example, a couple of weeks ago I got talked into playing up into a 7-9 with my 5th level character that had no business being in that scenario with that party. In the last fight the Big Bad came out and did an AoE that shut everyone down except for me; I was hiding way in the back. I charged in with a perfect strike, touch injection and shut down the BBEG single handedly. I don't think anyone could argue that this is balanced. In a world with touch injection infusions, all personal spells should have saves.
Hi I and my girl friend is new to pathfinder we are looking for a local group to game with, I hope you can help us out. We live in Peoria Az.
It will tell you when events are happening near you, but there is always more tables than listed here. Basically the main group alternates between a place about 5-10 minutes from you and Mesa every other week. I believe there are some people that are at the store next to you weekly, but a lot of people will travel to the farther distance on off weeks. Take that for what it is worth. PM me and if you need more information.
If you want to get a feel for the rules ahead of time http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ is pretty awesome. Piazo has their own similar site but everything is grouped by book instead of by category and missing all the hyperlinks.
Edit: I just noticed that this site doesn't really specify locations very well. IOG is Imperial Outpost Games, which is close to you. Samurai comics is out in Mesa.
While this idea might have potential after some tweaking +/-1 might be still too restrictive. Off the top of my head I can think of three people I really enjoy playing with that play less often than I do, one of which is my wife, that will need to play up more often than me to play at my table (I do have an alternative I enjoy that is catching up to them creating the reverse problem. I know the suggestion of get more characters has been said but I have seven, only two of which i care to still play and it was enough work to convince my wife play a second one).
Additionally, if a person plays down at low level and up at higher levels, or vice versa, it isn't exactly a wash anyway.
I think it runs the risk of getting complicated, but perhaps combine this idea with the previous one of max wealth but only track over and under amounts on a chronicle. You play up GM notes +500 gold on a box you play down, similar note. Your net difference can only be level times X or socialism kicks in and your personal gains are adjusted to keep you in range.
I think most anyone who reads these boards regularly would agree that Mike does a great job, but I don't think an appeal to authority is a good reason for people to silence their opinions. Let's also not forget that player feedback, like what is happening here, is also a source of data piazo has historically valued.
Todd Morgan wrote:
Why would it curb the incentive to play up? Get high tier gold AND 2 XP? It's every power gamers dream!
I don't know that the desire was to curb the incentive to play up, it was to fix the wealth disparity. And as you said in an earlier post, some people don't want to lose the ability play their characters as much as possible.
Todd Morgan wrote:
If you start giving out 2 XP in a scenario, you are preventing yourself from one extra scenario you could be playing every time it occurs. The scenarios are great little stories, and frankly, I want to play as many of them as possible with one character, especially if I like that character. I also want to play in my subtier so that I know I can handle the situation and that I don't need to be 'protected' by higher levels.
Agreed, but I also think this is more of a problem at higher levels than low, coming up with another low level character to play a scenario isn't that tough. In my experience high level tables are not as prone to the need to play up or down (not to say it never happens). But getting everyone in the same subtier for level 7 down is probably more uncommon than it is common.
Half progression also allows a way for the player to savor any level they like, something several people in my area take advantage of.
Todd Morgan wrote:
I have played a pre-gen a few times, it doesn't even feel like I am playing a role playing game. I couldn't care less about the role of party pre-gen cleric; I am a tag along mechanical device. There is a big plus to being able to play a character you designed and feel attached to.
What's the problem with extra exp tied to your extra gold?
I understand the desire to limit wealth disparity, but I agree that removing the incentive to play up is a bit heavy handed in my opinion. It seems that it will force more tables to play down or not at all.
I also do not think this will be a "fringe case" as Mark referred to it. When playing at a store, the decision to play up or down happens fairly often. I was faced with the decision 4 days ago. The fact that there was a gold incentive to play up led me playing along and completing a table. I was on the fence, but if there was no extra gold at the end of the rainbow, I would have without a doubt dipped out and the table wouldn't have happened.
I think I saw someone earlier suggest an out of tier gold amount, like getting paid half for playing up. As of right now that would be my suggestion to address the wealth disparity without completely removing all mechanical incentive of playing up.
Another possibility would be something like a luxury tax. A table that would have each level listed and the max gold you could spend at one time without incurring a tax on the item. This tax could mitigate the wealth difference a bit while feeling much more indirect.
To OP, this is where knowing your group helps. If you play with the same people you know you can depend on, it is less of an external push and more of an internal one. "We have a X,Y, Z and Billy Bob can bring either an C or a D, we should be able to play up." If someone comes up with a good reason not, "All of these characters have horrible will saves, one batch of Harpies and we die," then the situation gets reevaluated. Just like in real life, friends should push each other to be better. If it is with strangers, personal space should be respected a bit more.
To Mark's questions,money is a good driving force. If you plan out what you want in advance, there is never enough cash. But also some scenarios can just be too easy. A week or so ago we had four people playing a game at tier and there was almost a TPK in one fight and two people went unconscious in another. Last night, four people (three of which were in the previous game) walked through an at tier game in a bout 2.5 hours and when the GM asked at the end what was the hardest part, we all laughed "crawling down the rope, we had two people fall and take damage." When you optimize to get through the rough games, others just aren't challenging. Luckily we had a great GM that was very graphic, but the mechanics simply weren't challenging.
I don't think that untyped bonus actually counts as ranks. If it did, PrC entry just got a whole lot faster.
I have never seen anyone so quick to 180 in order to avoid criticism. If you despise having your words attacked, it would likely serve you well to curb your impulse to do it to others. Just earlier on the same page you shot out some pretty pointless and unprovoked aggression at MrSin. I haven't seen a lot of your posts to know if that is the norm for you, but when I see posts like the one below, I expect that person to be prepared to defend their own words.
Seems legitimate to me. I would say most every that follows a religion expects something in return.
I had a character take up Abadar for a while because he thought it would help him be more business savvy. When the return on investment didn't pan out, he kicked Abadar to the curb.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
The OP and others here have repeatedly said they don't like that content you are telling them to buy. That is the whole point of this thread and the reason for the statement "throw money at things you don't want in the hopes someone will some day make it the way you want."
As to the numbers speaking, I am sorry I don't have the time or stamina to debate macroeconomics with you, but I would think it obvious that a few people expressing interest in a market gap would be more effective in closing that gap than those same people buying a product similar to the gap. Tipping Point is actually a really good book about the tendency of certain things to reach critical mass;the author's words are far more articulate than mine. If you do have the time I would give it as recommended reading for anyone.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Unless you are a 3PP I can't imagine why you might get offended, unless you just don't like people disagreeing with you. Also, weren't you just trying to advocate a 'suck it up' mentality for others earlier? Regardless, that is a moot point since I said "...substandard products or unusable products...." I really don't know the quality of most 3rd party work because the only GM I have ever played with that allows it was when I ran a game that allowed psionics. I will say the mage PrCs from Piazo are pretty substandard. I have read and reread them more times than I can count trying to make one usable. I like harrower, which I cannont play in PFS, and I almost can like bloodmage, but ultimately it just gives up too much for what it gives on my character. Nothing else seems close to usable.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
The best way to get quality PrCs is to make the suppliers aware of demand, as people are here, not to buy substandard products or unusable products that share the name.
Your advice boils down to "throw money at things you don't want in the hopes someone will some day make it the way you want." I do think this is almost the worst advice I have ever heard.
By this argument you only need the fame to pay the difference between a +1 and +2 weapon for the +2.
The cap doesn't make sense in real life, but then again no cap does. It only makes sense mechanically within the context of a game trying to be balanced. I wouldn't accuse capitalism of being balanced.
The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action.
I think it makes sense that a "full round" can end in the middle of a persons turn, hence letting you cackle so long as you are already in position.
When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.
So I guess it all depends how much weight you put on "usually". The more I read it, the more I think it won't work, and the more I think this hex is not worth taking.
Good question. I haven't played a witch in a very long time but when I did we were under the assumption you could cackle a failed save without really thinking about it; the hex didn't begin at the start of your turn, so ending then isn't technically a full round. I could see decent arguments mounted either way.
I am inclined to think you can cackle it on a fail, otherwise this would never be worth taking. If you can't be sure of the save debuff, just open with the spell that has the same chance of shutting them down.
What criterion are you using to decide if a cheap magic item is added to the list?
I checked into this but came up with a few problems. First, the mount spell just gives you a horse, it says nothing about combat trained. So while most GMs probably wouldn't think twice about it, I have never even seen someone cast this spell, by RAW it should spook in battle.
And unless I was just overlooking it, phantom steed is mysteriously not on the witch list.
I am thinking for PFS, so personally training isn't really an option for me.
I have seen nothing to suggest that matters.
There is a lot of disinformation spread on these boards about charm. Take it from the horse's mouth. It most certainly does not, "just make them your friend".
The charm answer didn't really clear things up for me; the example of tilling a field is still within the vague range of something a friend might do for you. How about ordering a man to murder his wife and children?
Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
While branching out can lead to finding some fun mechanics, and I would support Weables happy go lucky outlook for individuals in real life, I find playing goodies quite boring. Every character I have been connected to has some level of taint, it just makes them more interesting to me.
Plus if you are playing a cleric, negative channel is awesome. Consider an aasimar, they have a few negative channel feats that no one else can get.
If you take Urgathoa as a goddess you can pick up Shatter Resolve, which is pretty awesome.
Prerequisites: Channel negative energy class feature, worshiper of Urgathoa.
Benefit: When you damage a creature by channeling negative energy, you fill it with fear. A creature that is affected by your channel negative energy ability and fails its Will save to halve the damage also becomes shaken for a number of rounds equal to the number of dice used to calculate the damage caused by the channel energy ability (so if you deal 1d6 points of damage, the condition lasts 1 round; if 2d6 points of damage, then 2 rounds, and so on).
I have never played a ranger, but if you do go that route, this is a good read:
It explains your switch hitter options for the ranger quite well.
Sorry link looks like it is putting in a blank I can't remove. I will try to play with it and see if I can get it to go.
If one of my party members gave one of my casters hell for not carrying a rope, I would have to tell them to pull one out their ass; that is where one should be shoved. The barbarian could carry 20 of these easier than I could carry 1.
To the original question, I find a drill and pitons sometimes useful and always cheap. Again not on a caster.
You must consciously choose which requirement to emulate. That is, you must know what you are trying to emulate when you make a Use Magic Device check for that purpose.
I think this, and the lack of speech, is why you only see the improved versions using magic stuff.
I don't see any problems with your manual dexterity tasks.