|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Quantum Steve wrote:
Without any sort of in game banter/conversation to realize the difference (as characters don't share instantaneous perceptions between themselves). It absolutely is.
Quantum Steve wrote:
If my party was fighting a Drow, and one of us, after having to roll a Will save, announced that the Drow is actually a fair maiden, I think the consensus would be that the party member in question, in fact, failed their Will save.
Sadly a metagame response, but typical to most tables I imagine.
Still, turning someone into an orc, drow, duergar, goblin, or countless other things might work. Its true those interacting would get saves, but commoner might have a tendency to fail it while someone firing arrows at them might not be allowed one. It just seems odd you could radically alter one's appearance without their consent or allowing them the chance to resist.
Don't let them touch you?
And again it is an illusion, which in certain circumstances can be powerful. But it won't hold under scrutiny, even with commoners. It isn't like there is only one chance to save, every interaction will prompt a roll. And once one person makes the roll, the rest can get bonuses to their rolls. It won't last.
I understand disguise other is meant to help your allies blend in in various situations, but couldn't one conceivably use this as a no-save means to make anyone appear as some horrible monster and cause a lynch mob?
No, read the spell, it is a bit more limited.
Basically +/- 1 foot to height. Thin or fat and maintain type (which is the main sticking point in your question). Then multiple and repeated saves for interaction (voice primarily).
Well, the only thing to say is, you would be wrong. The enchantment states it is untyped damage. Not "extra damage" like sneak attack damage is, which incidentally has been specifically called out to act like you are trying to make the property work. It is pretty much the only time an interaction like that happens and is rare/possibly unique in the game for it. This is no different than flaming, additional damage that has nothing at all to do with the weapon. Untyped energy damage (which is not reduced by DR, energy damage is the umbrella of resistances) instead of fire damage (same point about DR vs resist) above and totally separate from weapon damage.
And it only seems powerful until you do 2 points of damage to the enemy but suffer 6 unmitigated damage for the attack. Or you realize that the full attack action will probably drop you, which leaves you in the rather crappy position of being unable to use your 'main' weapon.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It also arbitrarily disallows content written by their own company, effectively removing a portion of sales.
The sales happen because of the rule set and overall quality of content, not because of PFS. Be honest, the people who play PFRPG are those gamers who had no desire at all to play glorified board games (effectively what 4e was), of which there were many. It was great if you were playing with a younger crowd, as it was simplistic. But that grows old fast, and you go looking for something a bit more 'meaty' and fulfilling.
Even if there was no PFS, they would still be making sales, most likely almost as much as if there was. As I mentioned before, all the people I've played with have never played PFS. Not because it isn't around (I can walk into the local gaming store 2 blocks away and find people playing or go to one of several colleges in the area to find a gaming 'society'). But we all buy PFRPG books. 'Gaming' has been a 'thing' looooonnnngg before organized play was. Hell personally speaking, the only reason I even got into PF was the quality and depth of the APs, not the 3.5 house rules published as core rules, to be completely honest. Whatever issues the rules had, the group was perfectly capable of handling, we didn't need PF to 'fix' anything.
PFS maybe the driving force behind errata/FAQs of things after publishing them. But I am quite certain people vastly overrate it as a driving force for sales. Gamers are going to game, organization or not.
I don't know how large PFS is, no one I know plays it, nor have any groups I've played in (the last 26 years of personal gaming) not allowed house rules or 3pp content. I would like to see numbers which make up this 'sizeable' segment, beyond vocal posters on forums. The entire point of pen and paper games was to let the creativity flow, as they say.
That being said, if you choose to play in organized play or in a group that disallows content, you have no complaints. That is your choice. Putting it on Paizo to make a whole new class that was taken to, when all they wanted was a 2 column archetype, is putting your hopes a bit high. Expect to have them crushed.
They don't want to address the problems. That is why they stopped allowing it in PFS after several FAQs/errata on it. What makes you think they want to sink more time into it, to make it a functional full class, than they have already done? By dumping it from PFS they removed the necessity to further support it because they know that any groups that wanted to use it, would rule how it worked at the table without their input.
If you play PFS, you know you cannot play one, that is on you. You choose to play 'there'.
Don't get me wrong it would be nice if they did, but I highly doubt it is in the works. Aegis is available right now, is significantly better balanced and infinitely less convoluted (and functional without errata/FAQ) than what we do have from Paizo. I won't be replying to this discussion any more as it does nothing to further or help the OP.
Something is better than nothing, especially when it is better thought out and more balanced than the original, which isn't an option.
If you are talking PFS, it is a moot point as it isn't an option and the likelihood of it being redone is... slim to say the least. Which is more a problem with agreeing to play 'organized play' and the restrictions that come with that type of game. You cannot realistically complain when something is banned, as you signed up fully aware those restrictions were possible. Nothing anyone does outside of Paizo can "help" that "segment" of gamers, and as a business sinking man hours and money into something that was a problem doesn't make much sense.
The class exists for people who want to use it, those it can help. And it doesn't sound like the OP is in a restrictive PFS scenario from what they have said, so it is definitely something they should at least look at.
Well, as my post indicated, that has been done.
As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.
That being said, you may want to look at d20pfsrd. There is a psionic class that isn't really 'psionic-dependant' and allows you to do the same concept. The Aegis' mechanics are less problematic and more defined as it is a whole class, not a tack on to an existing one. There are maybe 3-4 abilities that even reference the psionic point rules so it is very very easy to transplant into a non-psionic game.
That all being said, RAW your GM has the right of it, it is a bonus feat and the write up makes it clear the eidolon doesn't get those. You (the summoner) could take the feat normally, but would only have it when "suited up" like many other feats that are taken using temporary class abilities as prerequisites.
It also sounds like it doesn't have a slot so should have a price increase.
The basic premise of soulbolt is to shoot things with magic (a weapon in it's case). Core class wise, you are looking at some sort of caster who specializes in ranged spells essentially. Either that or some martial who focuses on ranged weapons. You just need to decide on which mechanics you want, smaller consistent damage (magic weapons with ammunition) or larger spike damage (spells with limited uses). After that it is really "fluff" or flavor that you apply with description. Just about any GM who doesn't hate an idea will happily let you describe things any way you want as long as it doesn't alter the mechanics (and therefore change the balance).
As for the kineticist it uses a "pool" system with 'burn' to function. It isn't really like any other system in core. Magus has a ranged archetype as well. Magus would probably be my choice in your situation.
I actually pushed to use the cards in our home games because the games devolved into rocket tag. We have decent to good optimization in the party so when using modules/APs it was pretty bad, crit weapons with multiple attacks would decimate enemies. The deck was a move to reduce damage output and make the game a bit less lopsided. Our normal GM wasn't 100% sure about it in the start (everyone likes big numbers) but has since implemented it in every game he runs since so even he has come to "like" it and understand what it did for the game.
As for the DC, there are a few cards that are brutal, and that is intentional. The vast majority of the cards are effects or hindrances that don't end the combat. But they did add one card for each attack type that is just nasty, and that is the one that you are hoping to get, that makes investment in to crit feats worthwhile (pulling 3 cards and getting to choose decap? Sign me up, those feats are paying off).
Think about this way, crit damage isn't typically avoidable, decapitation is. If you were playing without the crit deck there would be no save, just "poof" fine red mist. A harsh DC is better than "oh that roll was high, you are unconscious/dead now".
I'll take the save over being mushed with no recourse the vast majority of time (crit cards typically don't kill unless the PC is being stupid), where as that spike from crit damage will catch you unawares and do you in way more often than not.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Presumably doesn't cut it when the answer depends on the situation.
Hand crossbows would limit you to two attacks, as you need a hand to reload 'core'. And that is assuming it was preloaded and in hand ready to shoot.
Thrown weapons limit you to how many you have (effectively needing multiple enchanted weapons to work effectively), again 'core'.
Both make horrible options as written in the core rules (if not impossible), for the ability. If you have two hand crossbows you end up unable to make 4 attacks (2+2) as you cannot reload. It effectively isn't an option. The only effective way to make work is firearms as they come with a capacity beyond 1 (which is why I put revolver), as a basic weapon.
Sure there are splat books that expand on options, but that doesn't mean the designer knew of them and took them into consideration when writing the archtype, and actually assuming the designer knew of everything is a really stupid thing to do. But that is more an issue of "power creep" and splats vs anything else. Which again reinforces the whole "if I need this thing from this book, and this thing from that book, and use this from this book, I can make this work because it is a grey area", aka twisting/stretching things beyond the expectations/assumptions they were written under.
Ranged combat is generally not mixed with two weapon fighting, as evidenced by the whole Rapid shot, muli shot, etc feats. There is little to no reason to assume it would be a default option when designing something for ranged combat despite your objection or finding it odd. Which is just another of many 'red flags' about the concept.
Find appropriate items in the books allowed and forget anything outside of them, strictly speaking. This often leads to "re-flavoring" the flavor text (not mechanics) to fit desired taste, but it still comes down to 'if it isn't in one of those books you don't get it'.
Why don't you have line of sight?
1) Eldritch Archer, ranged weapons typically require 2 hands to use thus all the hoop-la about stating you don't need a free hand when using your (singular) bonded weapon. Using a weapon that circumvents this (a revolver for example) doesn't follow the design assumptions. Guns are a part of the game, yes. The vast majority of material isn't actually written with them being assumed as implemented however. Things get hinky when you put them into the mix on a good day.
2) You are pushing into the grey area of intent as well. Magus are all about using that one weapon meshed with magical skill. Not a multiple weapon blur of destruction with magic. Do the rules outright say it? No. But absolutely everything thing published for them follows that design, what you are doing is basically looking for loop holes/justification for the idea because it doesn't explicitly say you cannot do it.
With those two things in mind, I would have to say no you cannot do it.
I am 100% certain the free hand requirement isn't being removed for you to have a free hand available to do whatever you want with it. It is there because the archetype would be unusable in the core rules for the intended weapons without it. You are effectively "stretching" the rules beyond the intent to get your desired effect. Context is an important part of the game, just like a conversation, take it out of it's context and things can be drastically different.
If you want to punch things and have the damage go through DR adamantine, yeah.
The game already has a precedent for something that is both armor and weapon, shields. You don't get a discount or to ignore the costs associated with using it one way or the other. You have to "pay" for your advantages gained. A +2 shield isn't a +2 weapon, unless you invested into making it that way (either through buying the effect or investing in class features which facilitate it functioning that way).
6002gp would cover being able to TWF with gauntlets. Tack on whatever magical enhancements you wanted per gauntlet as written now (barring an FAQ/errata).
For me it comes down to:
1) Objects of a particular material aren't 100% that material. The rules for special materials state that they need to be majority of said material. That means the "business" parts for it's function have to be, but nothing else. Can you take your gauntlets off and still maintain your AC? Not integral to the armor's operation then. It follows that parts that aren't integral to the operation of the object would not be of the expensive material.
2) Did you pay the appropriate "cost" for the advantage provided by it?
Those two points, hit on both the pertinent "rule" (special materials don't mean 100% construction of that materia) and intent (free stuff because it doesn't say it doesn't work that way and makes "sense").
If it mattered enough to make a difference for s build I was planning, I would just make sure to toss the extra gold value onto the armor for both gauntlets to be of the particular material when I bought it. No questions at all on that case.
To be fair, if 3PP is allowed it isn't PFS and so it works the way the DM wants it to. It is actually a fairly powerful ability in a low power game (15 pt buy and the like) so I definitely could see a DM limiting it to keep someone from wiping the board every fight.
@OP You aren't running an "organizated" play type game where things need to be more stringent rules wise. Be thankful the GM is letting you play PoW (many won't as it is a straight upgrade on all martial classes, core classes are pretty crappy in comparison). Instead of coming here asking how, you should be talking to the GM with the understanding that maybe they just don't want it deal with "free" damage that kills half the encounters with no recourse. It is the type of situation that might end up with you no longer being able to play the class anymore if you really push the subject. Dealing with DR vs one ability or not being able to play the character? I know which one I would choose.
A knowledge check could just as easily provide the information, taking 20 (assuming they have the appropriate skill) would probably be enough. They have both the druid and time (foreshadowing).
@OP: It would probably come down to how you did character creation. There is a world of difference between 15 and 20, even more so with 4d6 drop lowest, etc. An 18 STR makes it much less problematic for the 1st level fighter. Also, never forget the power of Aid Another when it comes to AC at low levels. It would make the hit roll 11+ and basically a straight roll of the damage dice for that same fighter.
are there any classes, none psionic, that can do the same thing, or similar, as the archer mind blade archetype? (I dont recall the archetypes name).
What are you looking for?
The Kensai archetype focuses on one weapon and has access to spells for buffs (to emulate blade skills). It gains max weapon damage a few times a day (to emulate psychic strike).
If you are looking for a free weapon that scales with level, I'm not sure that PFRPG has anything like that.
The same reason they borrow names from everywhere else?
Because the "visible person" has significantly less advantages than the "invisible" person. The "visible" person cannot be adjacent to you and you be unaware, as they are "visible". No check, just seen.
It is a check to prevent "I win" by virtue of invisibility. Less problem, more thought out rules balancing, to prevent abuse.
Doesn't work. As a SU (Supernatural ability) they are strictly standard actions unless stated to be otherwise. General rule vs Specific Exception. As such you are using either the SU or making a full round attack. Touch attacks are pretty potent in that they allow you to ignore significant defenses (armor, natural armor, shield - what most creatures rely on) and being combined is pretty rare. There may be one or two situations in PFRPG where they are, but I cannot honestly think of one off the top of my head (the only thing that comes to mind is 3.5 spell which everyone considered broken).
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
That is pretty much blackmail/borderline enslavement (a whole population of people knowing something like that?), expect to get a smack down from the heavens for thinking you could do such a thing. The planetar has friends, as well as someone to answer to. If they stop answering things they should be doing because of you, expect the person "in charge" to make them more available (and you less problematic for them). Good creatures usually have good relationships, unlike evil creatures who might want to keep this type of thing hush hush lest the information get out that they are vulnerable (and be even more taken advantage of).
Think of it this way, when something "bad" happens do you not commiserate with your friends? And don't your good/close friends offer to help and fix the issue? If you start missing work for mysterious reasons and are on good terms with your boss, wouldn't they pull you aside to find out what is going on? Then offer suggestions, or even bend the rules a little bit to help out if it is potentially serious?
Theliah Strongarm wrote:
These are "those things" that you are better off looking at/playing other systems if they are important to you.
Such a thing still needs to get clarified by a (hopefully soon) upcoming FAQ.
About the only other thing that took that long once it was announced was the damage dice progression. And that was more a, 'how the F do we make all the tables jive." This isn't nearly as complicated, so the amount of time is a bit odd.
Well then, that is get for not being active on the forums for the last several months!
Kind of odd way to handle it I guess. Though that they haven't officially ruled it that way via FAQ is a bit odd if that is supposed to be the case, they may be reconsidering as even their "soon" isn't usually 5 months down the line.
Ferious Thune wrote:
So again, we are at "The rules don't tell me I cannot do this." The rules are full of items that are "like" something yet not interchangeable with. Case in point, Gauntlets. They are equivalent to unarmed strikes for damage and provoke attacked of opportunity like an unarmed strike while doing lethal damage. Yet they are not interchangeable with all abilities that function on unarmed strikes. This literally shows how you cannot "just" decide something is 'equivalent' because it looks like it should be in the rules. It sets the precedent for "this thing is like another, but not equal to" and isn't the first or only rule/item/what have you, that does so. Just because it "seems" like it could be used that way, doesn't mean it is actually allowed to be. It all goes back to, in the game the rules tell you what you can do, those are your only options until a specific rule makes an exception. The game is full of A=B, B=C, but C does not equal A logic. This bothers some people, but that doesn't change the fact it is a "way of life" in this game, you just have to learn to deal with it.
1)Are there rules that allow you to do this specific "thing"? No.
2)Are there circumstancial/tangential rules that do something similar? Yes (the Bandit archetype). Do those rules allow you to do this "equivalent" thing? No. And as a matter of fact they spell out exactly that it doesn't happen.
When no rules allow it and tangential rules that would do exactly what you think should happen, spell out it doesn't happen, all roads lead to it not being allowed. We are in the "Rules" forum to hash out what the rules say. What we can all agree on is they definitely don't say you can do it, and you actually have to work at trying to get it to happen with things like "obviously they didn't intend for it to not work this way" or "If we look at it like this, and these two things together can be used like that, and ignore the fact the one ability published that would do exactly what I think should happen but states it doesn't occur, we could make a case for this to happen"...
You are jumping through too many hoops to get your desired result. A sure sign you aren't following the rules. That is what this forum is for, to find out what the rules say on the subject, to remove table variation. Not "how I think it should be run" but what the actual rules state/imply (and which occasionally doesn't make sense).
Your main hurdle is, a gauntlet is a weapon. A weapon that allows you to do lethal damage equivalent to what your unarmed strikes do and that provokes, but still a distinct and separate weapon. AoMF wouldn't work on it. It would be a case of either or, a choice between making an attack with a "pure" unarmed strike (which then uses the AoMF) or using the gauntlet (which would then use the weapon enchantment, if any, and gain the style feat benefits).
That is what house rules are for, adding things into the game the developers aren't interested in.
If you had a rule, anything even tangentially implying you could do it, to set a precedent... Maybe you cold argue "it could happen" and even then, your entire stance is based on "it doesn't tell me I can't" and "I doubt it was their intent" which are the two largest red flags you can run into on a rules debate. You aren't the developer, neither am I, we can't know "intent" beyond what the rules state you can or cannot do in any given situation . No rules to state you can add a standard action and move action together to make a full round action, means you cannot do it.
There is absolutely nothing regarding 'building up' your actions into a full round action that I could find. It just isn't "allowed" by the rules, because there are no rules that let you do it nor even exceptions to rules that imply you could. You need something to enable it, and there isn't anything. It is the exact same argument as "my dead character can continue to do xyz because it doesn't say I cannot, so obviously the intent is I can".
If you really truly think it is allowed, make an FAQ thread and link it here. I will happily give it a click.
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
What bothers me is that this means that the surprise round can actually be a disadvantage for some characters. As in, sometimes it's better to have a full round action and have *every* enemy able to react to you than it is for you (and half of your enemies) to have a standard action because that one guy in the corner didn't instantly notice you.
Not really, a surprise round means you gain actions over those not in it. A standard action to be exact. Action economy is a big thing. Flat footed is a denial of defenses or reaction to your actions (minus Dex, no AoO, not being able to act until their initiative, etc). It is strictly beneficial.
The rules state what you can do, exceptions are made and will counter what rules allow. Exception based rule set.
The rules state "normally" (when you have no limitation) during a "normal" round you can decide to take a full round action and a 5' step, a standard action and a movement action. There are no rules for having a standard action and movement action to "build up" to a full action anywhere in the rules that I have seen. Without a rule stating it is possible, it isn't an option.
An unimpeded full round action can be broken down into a standard and move.
There are no rules anywhere (that I've run into since PFRPG came out) that state you can build a standard and move action into a full round action. It isn't even hinted at via tangential rules (IE items that enable the potential possibility don't state you are allowed to). And as those are the "exceptions" that is exactly where they would be mentioned if it were possible.
Not to mention that the game rarely takes the "two way street" approach. Very often things that are "like" something are not totally interchangeable with that something. It gets used to reference things without the word count of restating the references. So we get things like having a full round action is equal to a standard and move action, yet a standard and move action are not equal to a full round action. The rules tend to be written very "logically" in that sense, but people often argue them because the results don't "make sense" (or they don't like the results, which in turn becomes 'the rules don't say I can't' camp).
The main reason there aren't an abundance of these "options" is they outright stated part of their design goals was to incentivize single class progression through out the entirety of a character's career in the creation of PFRPG. In 3.5 there were so many options that were plain out better or attractive enough that "jumping ship" from one class into another/PRC was pretty much mandatory.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
DSP has 'Linked' armor which allows for telepathic communication but there was no mention of if this is PFS/core only, so I didn't want to bring it up. It is pretty much a staple in our groups once we get mid/high levels and have money to toss at conveniences.
I did actually touch on that with the whole invisible rogue being detected and why initiative isn't "just" a combat construct.
At one spell per instance, unless I know I'm casting that spell every encounter, it is pretty much not worth it. The utility of the rod stays intact and outweighs the feat until you know it will be cast every slot of that level. And the power of casters is their utility in having multiple "answers" for problems.
It also depends on the prepared caster. If you have bond with a staff or other hand-held item, you are kinda screwed with rods. You need to be wielding the staff to not have to worry about the check for casting (last I remember from the FAQ back when it came out). You need a hand free and depending on who you are and what you are doing, that may not be available. Have a wand out? You need your free hand to cast, no rod. The description for rods state "wielding it", having it dangling off your belt or in your pack doesn't cut it (barring an FAQ haven't read up on, been awhile). So rods in combat are significantly more restrictive than people give them credit for. Unless you are the type of caster who doesn't have weapons or held spells or anything in your hands (which means you are probably powerful enough for the rods to be irrelevant).
Being able to cast a spell situationally without feat investment is good for any caster, it favors them both. Spontaneous casters have poorer action economy when using meta feats, yes, you cannot separate that out. It is hard coded into the class. As such it cannot be "figured in" to how an item "favors one class or another", it does what it does regardless of which class is using it. Using the rod to cast a spell doesn't make the spontaneous caster have a longer cast time. Using metamagic does. You need to separate those two concepts. Both classes cast spells in the exact same way they normally would regarding metamagic, with or without the rod.
Oradin is probably one of the few cases multiclassing ends up more powerful than single progression.
Targutai Minyatur wrote:
Everyone else covered the reasons, but let me put it to you another way.
You give every party member the equivalent of Fast Healing 1-5. You are effectively a class that gives an ability no one class doesn't want. And if for some reason they don't want it, they don't have to get stuck with it. There are no drawbacks, it is all "goodness". Not only does it top you off if you don't take lots of damage, it stops bleed effects as well as bleed out deaths, and it requires no action on anyone's part (besides you occasionally to keep yourself alive). And you can still do what you want in a combat round.
If your GM said "Hey, everyone has fast healing 'battery' who wants it" would you say no to it? In just about every core case, you'd be stupid to say no to it.
why do meta magic rods work this way personally I do not think its fun as a caster to take longer just for the increased effect, personally in my groups games meta magic rods do not take up an increased time to cast or a higher spell slot
Because the feats work that way and items shouldn't beat out/be better than the feat, at least that is my guess.
Ferious Thune wrote:
Doesn't work that way. In your example, that surprise round you get a standard and a move, period. You don't get to mix and match and get "creative" when restrictions are imposed. That is why the restrictions exist.
Ignotus Advenium wrote:
They're very pricey (40k gp), but ring gates might do the trick. You could pass notes through them, or stick your head through and talk. Of course, their function goes way beyond just communication, hence the $$.
That is probably better than a crystal ball actually (assuming the 100 mile limit isn't an issue). Definitely cheaper than having to have 2 crystal balls for two way communication.