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

Skylancer4's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber. 2,827 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,827 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Did you take a look at the Necrocraft rules?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
zanbato13 wrote:
How do variants affect HD cost?

I know certain variants have clauses stating they count as twice as many HD for purposes of being raised (bloody skeletons for example). This is where desecrate (?) can shine as it allows you to raise twice as many HD when you use create undead within the spell area.

We've always played if it is a variant and doesn't state creation rules we weren't allowed to build it as a PC.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Typically in our group, we ask the GM how much of a spell component we can get whenever we get ready for an adventure from the town/city we are in. The players then buy whatever amount they are interested in and that is placed on the character sheet in gp amounts. This way we have a logged amount that is available when we are out on adventure to keep track of. At lower levels we tend to track how much of each and the worth of the individual stones, but at higher levels we tend to worry about it less (when you can teleport back to town to exchange the ten 50gp stones for one 500gp, does it really matter? Is how we look at it).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
PaperAngel wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


You failed to quote the entire passage, the rules don't stand in a vacuum when interacting with multiple other rules or game mechanics.

I cut out the rest since all it would do is fill up space since I'm quoting someone above me, the full rule would be in his post I just cut out what he was emphasizing so you could understand the flow of dialog. Just as I am choosing only the quote one area of your post because I am answering that one area.

My main use of the greater hat of disguise would be to allow the cat to climb a ladder without problems, and I wanted to preemptively figure out a question that is likely to come up.

If there is an easier way to make it able to climb ladders, ropes, ect., I'd really like to know. I'd like to not leave it behind every time a ladder ends up in my way as a ranger. Currently I can carry him since he only weighs 60 pounds, but once he hits medium I'm going to have some trouble once he hits 120 pounds.

The hat would be convenient since I could wear until we need to travel by rope or ladder, then put it on his furry little head and let him climb down.

I personally wouldn't want to have to buy weapons for me, and my little pet cat, nor do I want to really buy anything other then probably bracers of armor for it.

Skylancer4 wrote:


Now if you look at the definitions of Natural Armor and of Extraordinary abilities... It should be obvious that it is based on form and that natural armor does follow the definitions and guidelines/rules of EX abilities.
Also it doesn't seem that obvious to me, since a kobold has a natural armor that isn't listed as Extraordinary or the like.

Are you the GM? If so make the call.

If not ask the GM as it isn't obvious to you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I'd disagree that the named part breaks the alignment limitation of the spell. It would just allow you to call Mr/Mrs XYZ (which you have worked with before, probably the last time you called a creature using the spell) instead of some random generic creature which is normally the case. Nothing indicates that the alignment limitation is lifted regardless.

I believe the calling for a specific creature is due to the spells function. You are bargaining with a creature for services, if the agreement was beneficial for both, would you not try to gain the aid of that creature again if you were in need of help again? Would it not make sense to try and gain the aid of someone who knows what your predicament is, as well as how you work together, instead of having to explain everything to a new creature? Normally you don't have the option when summoning a creature, you gain a generic version. This spell allows you to gain the same creature repeated if you know it's name. It is making an exception to the rule of "generic creature" NOT the alignment restrictions of the spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
PaperAngel wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
So the important part is
Polymorph subschool wrote:
you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision)
Natural armor is probably based on form.
Though It isn't a extraordinary or supernatural ability, is it? That's the main part I was wondering.

You failed to quote the entire passage, the rules don't stand in a vacuum when interacting with multiple other rules or game mechanics. It is up to the GM in such a case where it isn't obvious what should be done. Now if you look at the definitions of Natural Armor and of Extraordinary abilities... It should be obvious that it is based on form and that natural armor does follow the definitions and guidelines/rules of EX abilities. Also the last line of the paragraph you partially quoted, it states you could gain back an ability if lost and the form had it. Along with the other rules of the polymorph spells I would say that would mean, when you have a +4 natural armor "normally" then use a spell to change shape into a creature that grants natural armor you would gain whatever bonus the spell granted as natural armor during its duration.

Transmutation/Polymorph wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.
Natural Armor wrote:
A natural armor bonus improves armor class resulting from a creature's naturally tough hide.
Extraordinary wrote:
Extraordinary abilities are non-magical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.

TL;DR: Ask your GM, while the rules don't say X marks the spot, all the supporting rules point to it not working that way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Players won't ever be playing an undead antipaladin. I would say to keep it as an exception for these purposes only. The idea of a foe whose charisma boosts his HP and all his saves should strike terror into the hearts of mortal men.
What is way of the wicked

A third party adventure path in which the players are actually the "evil ones" (literally).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Drake Brimstone wrote:
So Skylancer, I'm going to ignore you from now on until you actually provide proof it doesn't work that way. I have provided plenty of proof suggesting it DOES. It seems to me you just don't want it to work that way.

Feel free, you haven't given "proof" suggesting it does. You haven't provided a published item showing it works the way you say it does when the specific ability write up mentions nothing of the sort.

Proof would indicate you had something more than "It works this way because two disparate rules relying on the tangential term natural attack can tie them together" as a suggestion they worked together the way you suggest they do.

The specific ability states the abilities damage output which is in conflict with what the general rules states the damage output should be. Specific vs general. You haven't provided "proof" that isn't the case. The onus of proof isn't on me to show it works OTHER than what the specific ability STATES it does. If you want to suggest that it works in a way other than the SPECIFIC write up STATES it does, that more statistics are added to the equation than it STATES are added, YOU need to provide PROOF that the ability works the way you are suggesting it does. Proof would be such things as published examples, or FAQ or errata that changes what the ability STATES as an error.

Feel free to ignore me because you cannot find that, as I asked you to do earlier in the thread, I'm okay with that. It doesn't bother me at all to keep posting to point out that you are stating it works a way without any actual support besides, again, disparate rules with a specific ability write up and the normal general rules from the PRD only tied together by a term.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
zanbato13 wrote:

A friend of mine is playing a Reanimator Alchemist and just got his zombies... He also spent every scenario collecting body parts and healing people if they signed a contract to donate their bodies when they die.

I think necromancy is incredibly controversial and that the jury is still out on the subject. For this, let's say necromancers are allowed in Society.

Ah so you are playing at one of the more lenient tables, lucky.

The bump from desecrate on your minions when you create them inside the area is nice. For that reason alone clerics are probably my favored necromancer option, though it is also on an oracles spell list.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Has it actually been confirmed that the intent is to allow you to move above ground? 'cos that's the main thing I'm hoping to discover. If not, I'll need to hope it gets added to the errata/faq 'cos the hovercraft-movement is the main thing I'm hoping to get out of this ability - cos it'd look uber-cool! XD

To leave tracks you would have to move right? >.>;

Implication being, effects of the ability are when you move.

If you are allowed 3pp look into the elocator from dreamscarred press as well for some flavorful floaty coolness.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Drake Brimstone wrote:

Dorian, no, not 1d4 + 1.5 int, it says 1d4 + int.

You should also be getting your strength to damage, and if it is your only natural attack (usualy the case) then it is 1.5 strength.

So, assuming it is your only natural attack the damage would be

1d4 + Int + 1.5 x Str

As for the feat Final Embrace, you need it to qualify for Final Embrace Horror.

Assuming you are correct, which still remains to be seen or proven with a rules citation or actual PFRPG published material showing it works that way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Drake Brimstone wrote:

So I'll take that is a No, you can't find once instance where when an ability is switched instead of adding they don't explicitly state it is switched.

So here, have another example, this one is one of not stating it replaces and therefore adds.

Fury's Fall = When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB.

Basically, if it doesn't add, there will need to be a FAQ or Errata saying such. As apparently there isn't one (and that is what I was looking for) so for now, it is RAW stacking.

Why would it deal 1d4 + INT + STR, when the ability states 1d4 + INT?

I would need to see an errata, FAQ or precedent (which I asked you to furnish further up thread, and you haven't, only apples when we i asked for oranges like this specific ability working like you say it does) before allowing such a situation to occur because.... well the specific rules of the ability doesn't say it gets STR and INT. And again, the specific rule of the ability trumps the general write up of natural attacks, or are you denying/ignoring that because it doesn't suit your position?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
It doesn't say that it acts like feather fall, so you would still take damage from falling. You would also end up on the ground from trips and the like. What it would do, is allow travel over liquid (say a river) or walk over trapped squares that had pressure plates without tripping them and maybe most importantly, not have to deal with difficult terrain when moving or charging in combat if you were melee oriented.
I'm not sure about that. Flying creatures cannot be tripped so it would depend on if this 6 inch levitation is a type of flight or not. It's weird that the ability gave no rules for how to handle it so the whole thing seems to be GM interpretation.

As has been mentioned, intent is to allow you to move above the ground. It isn't flying (so no immunity to trip) and in general you cannot do anything on someone else's turn (like them bull rushing you off a ledge) so that isn't 'your movement' it is something else causing loss of control that you normally have. Feather fall only works because it specifically calls out a situation that allows its use.

If we want to be really specific, the ability states you can levitate, and levitation doesn't allow for horizontal movement AND requires you to take mounting penalties on attacks while using it. It states nothing about being immune to trips or falling damage.

Granted my inference is going with the intent of the ability, that it allows you to move horizontally but if we are doing that we need to also concede that it is 'intentional' movement. Combat maneuvers are unintentional movement due to outside forces, and no where in RAW does it say they are immune to certain attacks (trips) or falling or able to use the ability when it isn't your turn (as with feather fall).

What it says is that when you move you can do so up to 6" above certain surfaces. I'm obviously not any Paizo Dev/rules person, but we cannot extrapolate further than what it tells us it allows a character to do when it comes to rules conflicts.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
zanbato13 wrote:

I want to create a necromancer for Society play, but I'm unsure on what the best/better options are.

What are good classes and archetypes to use?

What are the spells I want to use and how do they work?

I plan to use False Focus and Blood Money to cover most costs.

You are going to have no luck doing so. If I recall correctly, in Golarion (the default world for PFS) use of animate dead and raising corpses to fight for you is an innately evil act. PFS from what I've heard does not allow you to play evil characters (probably to lessen any chances of inter party conflicts).

There was at one point a single solitary way to do so that wasn't "evil" (the old Juju oracle) but is has since been replaced with a newer version that removed that ability from PFS play. I'd suggest coming up with another concept sadly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

It doesn't say that it acts like feather fall, so you would still take damage from falling. You would also end up on the ground from trips and the like. What it would do, is allow travel over liquid (say a river) or walk over trapped squares that had pressure plates without tripping them and maybe most importantly, not have to deal with difficult terrain when moving or charging in combat if you were melee oriented.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Drake Brimstone wrote:

The General Rule is you Add Strength (It is not add a singe attribute, the fact that Strength is a single attribute is coincidence.)

Natural Attack wrote:


Primary attacks are made using the
creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s
full Strength bonus on damage rolls.

Additionally, the hair would be on the table under "Other"

Find me instances of where anything changes the stat used for something where it doesn't explicitly state not to use the original stat and I will find you a dozen where it explicitly states that you don't because the General Rule is explicitly stating a change, not implying a change vs. adding.

Weapon Finesse = "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier"

Agile Weapon = "can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier."

WHW Grappling = "using her Intelligence modifier in place of her Strength modifier when making the combat maneuver check."

Wisdom in the Flesh = "Select any Strength-, Constitution-, or Dexterity-based skill. You may make checks with that skill using your Wisdom modifier instead of the skill's normal ability score."

Now find one relevant to your question, where an attack states it is dX+ INT mod AND keeps getting STR mod as well to damage without wording to indicate such is the case. The point of the question wasn't if there existed cases where stats were switched, but that there is wording involved to indicated when such abnormal cases occurred. Thus we can compare what is said in the WHW ability to those existing situations where what you say happens here without such wording, to the wording where it does in fact happen due to o the wording.

I have yet to see wording, errata or FAQs supplied by you to indicate it would happen in this situation.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I'd probably go sorcerer or oracle to capitalize on the whole charisma focus. Then head into Souleater PrC. This is mostly thematic, not optimized though. You'd be a highly charismatic caster with the ability to inflict negative levels once a round with a touch attack. And able to collect soul shards for use in crafting or powering your own abilities. Focus on spells to control/incapacitate opponents and drain them. On single tougher creatures you are slowly debuffing saves, BAB and such with every hit. Softening them up for yourself and allies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Deathhydrax wrote:
The build could instead use the Infiltrator path, which gains Minor Meta without the use of a feat. However, I don't think what you have laid out here works. Unless I am mistaked, doesn't expanded knowledge only grant you a power one level below what you can already manifest at the time you take it? At level 9, a PsyWar has 3rd level powers, of which Meta also is, and only gains the ability to manifest 4th level at 10?

On bugger, chaulk it up to late night posting and a bunch of alt tabs where I didn't read it all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Psywar 1: Open feat
Psywar 3: Expanded Knowledge (Minor meta)
Psywar 6: Improved Meta
Psywar 9: Expanded Knowledge (Meta)
Psywar 9/Metamorph 1 (10th level)

All things considered, rather feat intensive and probably not worth it. A single feat open before 12th level is rough for a martial character.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I guess my "stumbling block" is that the lack of conjuration magic is so localized that it wouldn't have a huge impact on the world. There isn't going to be some huge influx of spells to replace the normal ones because some wizards were being silly and a tiny area doesn't let conjuration magic work. The "wheel" doesn't work in a 20 mile diameter hemisphere/column, big deal? (Not in response to your idea, just that is how the rest of the world would look at that tiny portion where the limitation occurred.) Travel a day to where it works and get what you need done.

There might be one or two people who do invest the time and money (and in comparison to what NPCs normally see, it is A LOT of money to sink into new forms of healing for little return) to research new spells and capitalize on it, just to gouge the healing market. They wouldn't share their "secret" because it would cut into their profits though. All told in general, it wouldn't change a thing as 99.999999% of the world can do without. People would make due without and if needed travel to where the cheap normal healing and such were available as needed, if they resided in the zone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

CE is definitely the swords alignment if you read the fluff. All Blackrazor cared about was absorbing the souls of those it killed. It was pretty voracious, so the ego increase should be per day not week if you are trying to remake the original.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Drake Brimstone wrote:

By your "logic" Monks don't get their Dex to their AC because they get their Wisdom to their AC.

If it was to only be +Int then shouldn't it also be Int in place of Strength for the To Hit as well?

Specific Trumps General doesn't apply unless the Specific is actually saying it is REPLACING, CHANGING or CONTRADICTING the General Rule. In this case they aren't conflicting at all, but being additive. (As worded.) General is you don't use your Int, specific is you use your Int. Specific is not saying don't use your Str.

I only asked about it because I could see where the Devs "might" have intended it to be Int only and hoped someone had a Dev Post or FAQ to reference.

The general "rule" is an attack's damage roll has a single attribute added to it, correct?

Please sort through all the types of attacks and then compare rules wording to those we have here. When an exception is made to breaking the general rule of one attribute added (typically STR mod) there is wording pointing to that fact. Like a class ability adding a mod to damage rolls. Or a weapon ability adding a different mod to damage rolls. Or a subtype indicating that a creature doesn't have the normal score so use another. There is wording in place, and typically it tells you you get to add more than one attribute if that is the case. Those words are missing, so you cannot assume they are what the ability does no?

In an exception based rule set, the ability tells you what you can do. Natural attacks typically get STR to damage, they also have other restrictions (like not being a valid target for some spells, or being a valid attack for feats to be used with). We have an ability that states a new kind of attack that ISN'T listed on the table of natural attacks is in fact that type. That same ability write up states the modifier used to determine the damage is DIFFERENT than what normal natural attacks use, INT. It is specific rule trumping the general written up natural attack rules.

Monks AC is a completely different situation. Apples to oranges. There are normally multiple types of bonuses added to AC. The write up allows an additional bonus with a value equal to your WIS mod to be added when it normally isnt.

You cannot compare the two. One is a damage roll which "normally" has a single attribute added to it, the other is a score which has numerous possible additions, one of which happpens to be an attribute.

TL;DR by your "logic" everything in the game is additive, and that is most certainly NOT the case. Also the OP hasn't been back so apparently their questions have been answered satisfactorily so there is no real reason to keep this thread alive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

A church or several, or another town that could offer said services even, probably would develop on the outskirts of said area. Chances are there would be a very well kept road to these places.

It would be no different living in a suburb present day and having to commute to the city to get hospital assistance. The heal skill provides the emergency treatment "in zone" to keep someone alive for the trip to where they can get more serious treatment. 10 miles is just outside the normal travel amount a humanoid in game. Toss them on a horse or use any of the other magical schools (transmutation for example) to get access to more mobile options (friendly druid with a super strong fast flying companion for example) and it becomes a day trip.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I remember ErrantX mentioning something about the Stalker's saves not being listed correctly. Is there a list anywhere of the stuff like that?

How long ago? Many times things like that (items which don't require adjustment of page text, etc) can be changed in the master documents and then pushed out to each of the distributors so the next time someone downloads it, it is correct.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

As a general rule, an effect only influences a target once per use barring special rules or explanation. So even if you were to overlap areas the effect wouldn't hit repeatedly. You essentially are "wasting" the effect if you overlap them.
There are rules about spell stacking in the core book that might shed some light on it for you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Drake Brimstone wrote:
But it is NOT overwriting unless it SAYS you don't use it.

When an ability states it is a natural attack and then further states the damage is something other than what a "normal" natural attack does, it just "SAID" you don't use the normal rules...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Drake Brimstone wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
It also doesn't say in addition to STR, or as well as or anything indicating the two stats are both added. 1d4+ Int is exactly what you do, no more no less without any other rules being added into the mix.
Except it states it is a Primary Natural Attack, and Natural Attacks get the Strength Bonus to Damage. It does NOT say you don't get it or that it Replaces it like it does with the Strength Bonus on your CMB to Grapple.

Specific rule trumps general rule, as always. The specific rules of the attack overwrite and take place of, the general rule of natural attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Take the Book of 9 Swords. Bring it to "Pathfinder", with all the nice things and warts from Bo9S.

You mean like what Paizo did with 3.5 when developing PFRPG. Yah it was pretty ugly... /pointed yet playful sarcasm


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

The main problem is you end up trying to do "too much" and don't have a solid base of abilities. You have to compare to what the other characters are going to be doing at those same levels. As is, the Oradin kinda doesn't start to shiny until mid levels anyways if I remember correctly.

I think you'd probably end up unhappy with what you would consider an underpowered character. Also in my experience unless you are running a small character and medium mount. Mounts tend to be excluded from many game play "areas" (depending highly on the adventure obviously).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

It also doesn't say in addition to STR, or as well as or anything indicating the two stats are both added. 1d4+ Int is exactly what you do, no more no less without any other rules being added into the mix.

I'm fairly certain the normal grapple rules cover that. The fact that the WHW isn't "grappled" is essentially a "buff" or way to allow them to not be impeded when grappling, which is their main form of combat. It opens up their possible actions to not be limited in the way a "grappled" creature is. Most notably for me, casting spells. Witches are primarily spell slingers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

I believe you both are correct. So, under RAW, the Diabolist could switch alignments and still keep the class benefits. In fact, I think that under RAW he could continue to advance as a Diabolist! (Does anyone know otherwise?)

Now, this would lead to some complications. For one, if you become good-aligned, conjuring evil outsiders becomes morally problematic. (Conjuring evil creatures adds the "evil" descriptor to the conjuration spell.) For another, you're still Damned to Hell when you die; that doesn't change. And for a third, I think we can reasonably assume that Hell has some pretty strict in-game checks against apostates. If you've sworn allegiance in blood and fire to mighty Asmodeus by and through his servant, the pit fiend Lord Humongus, Baron of the Seventh Circle and Second Deputy Minister for Internal Infernal Affairs? And then you change your mind and start dancing with butterflies by starlight? You gotta figure Lord H. is going to notice and take firm and decisive action. I wouldn't start any long books.

That said, a White Diabolist could be a cool NPC character concept.

Doug M.

Playability wise, hug the Neutral axis. Devils love to twist things, they can't really be mad at you for playing sides against each other :3

Desna was mentioned earlier, but Calistria is where you can get away with it much more realistically, CN.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

@Skylancer, Divine Protection is a great feat, but it's not specifically wonderful for a Diabolist. If I were to list every really good feat, the Guide would become rather inconveniently long.

Doug M.

I'm going to disagree just a little. People in organized play actually take feats to get bonuses to a single save to shore up defenses. A single feat that gives your CHA mod to ALL saves, is REALLY good even if you are sitting at +2 mod. For any of the classes that would make "good" Diabolists and focus on CHA... well it just became purple or whatever your top rating is.

Put another way, it requires 2 levels in a class with no synergy to your focus build to get what you what you get with a single feat.

If we were talking casters who have no use for CHA at all yeah, it is nice. But we are talking about characters who want CHA for opposed checks, so we're talking about +1 or +2 mods "regularly." That means this feat is worth at least 2 feats mechanically (extra traits to get a +1 to each save and random trait) or 3 (+2 Will/Fort/Ref) as a starting off point. As soon as you buff for opposed rolls, ALL your saves just jumped 2 more as well in case things go badly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

@the rest... Well that is what I get for posting after being up all night after work. Bleh.

Using Diabolist as a dip class, you could still get some mileage out of Calistria with alignment change and going into one of the other PrCs that feature Obediences. But at that point you are leaving the scope of a guide on this class.

Apparently you don't lose access to PrC class abilities if you lose the prereq alignment after you've gained it. I know it was the case in 3.5 due to the Ask the Sage (or whatever it was that officially made that the case back then), no rules in PFRPG enforce that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Only thing you missed was the Divine Protection feat for CHA based characters:

Divine Protection:

Your deity protects you against deadly attacks. Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains, or mystery class feature. Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Gilarius wrote:
Oracle does work, but Planar Infusion doesn’t help a diabolist much. One of the class requirements is having an alignment of LN, LE, or NE. Therefore you can't infuse an area with anything detrimental to Devils. It's useful against other creatures, though.

That is exactly the point, it opens up your choices. The entire reason for Planar Binding being better than Planar Ally is being able to pull the right creature for the job. Being able to pin a -4 penalty onto a LG creature when you make that opposed CHA check, possibly as high as -8 (at 11th level) makes things much more likely to go your way. The class is stacking the deck vs Devils already, this just opens up your repertoire. I'd say that helps immensely.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I think you are missing a class/choice that is VERY good for the PrC. Divine CHA caster.

Oracle, Outer Rifts Mystery, Skills, Spells and notable Revelations wrote:

Skills: An oracle with the Outer Rifts mystery adds Fly, Intimidate, Knowledge (arcana), and Survival to her list of class skills.

Bonus Spells: endure elements (2nd), resist energy (4th), vermin shape I (6th), confusion (8th), lesser planar binding (10th), planar binding (12th), insanity (14th), greater planar binding (16th), imprisonment (18th).

Dread Resilience (Ex): You have been hardened by exposure to the otherworldly energies of the Outer Rifts, and you just keep getting tougher. You gain a +1 inherent bonus to Constitution upon taking this revelation and another for every four oracle levels gained thereafter. You must be at least 9th level to select this revelation.

Planar Infusion (Su): As a standard action once per day, you can cause a 20-foot-spread to gain either the mildly chaotic-aligned or mildly evil-aligned planar trait for a number of rounds equal to your oracle level. Lawful creatures in a chaotic-aligned area take a –2 circumstance penalty on all Charisma-based checks, as do good creatures in an evil-aligned area. At 11th level, the infusion makes the area strongly aligned, which causes the –2 circumstance penalty to apply on all Intelligence-, Wisdom-, and Charisma-based checks made by any creature that lacks the matching alignment component (these penalties stack with those from the lower-level effect). You must be chaotic or evil to select this revelation, and you can only infuse an area with an alignment that matches a component of your own alignment.

Rift Magic (Su): Your spells gain a +4 bonus on caster level checks made to overcome the spell resistance of chaotic outsiders and evil outsiders.

Telepathy (Su): You can mentally communicate with any other creature within 100 feet that has a language, as per the telepathy power of demons and angels. You must be at least 11th level before selecting this revelation.

As a dip class of 4 levels, this would allow the Oracle to still grab up the Greater Planar Binding spell as well as save some feats on Spell Penetration for working on the creatures you call.

Also, one of those feats saved would get you Divine Protection, +CHA to all your saving throws.

One more thing to look into, if you are going CHA caster, Deific Obedience for Calistria. Eventually gets your CHA mod to AC as well as your DEX mod.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

First off, there was a change in design philosophy from then to now. They'd probably be artifacts as they were. Not something your 8th level should probably have their (soon to be very short lived) hands on.

That being said, the main reason they were so cool back then is "balance" didn't really exist, it was more about story and cool toys. The change to 3.0 put a fairly radical spin on things to get the game more widely accepted/played via enforcing a more balanced approach to the gaming system. If you are okay with handing out artifacts to the players, by all means do so, but realize that means all other items they get will be let downs from that point, unless you tailor everything from that point on. "Raising the bar" like that isn't for every group and can be detrimental.

If you don't plan on playing to 20th level, I could see the disappointment in the rewrites Wiz did for the now current rule set. If you do plan on running a long game, I'd suggest using the rewrites and maybe consolidate the level span from 20 to 15, that way to the characters get the shiny toys to play with for a few levels but they still maintain a semblance of "balance" at the lower to mid levels where each + counts and special abilities really shine.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Kei Fox wrote:
What is that clover-leaf symbol in the Equipment column? It's not quantity because there's already a QTY column to the left.

If they are the ones I'm thinking of, I believe they are also where your "containers" are so you can define what is in which container. So you know how much weight each is or what exactly is in which sack... Or if your gold is all gone cause a pickpocket stole your pouch.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Rules no, there was a post from JJ awhile back:

Paizo Employee James Jacobs Creative Director Feb 7, 2011, 01:00 PM wrote:

I have a player in my Serpent's Skull game who regularly harvests monster poison. I let him do it because I don't have a problem with it—I generally let him roll a Survival check to extract the poison (another person in the group uses Survival to take trophies in a similar way), with a DC of 10 + the defeated creature's CR for minor poisons, or 20 + the defeated creature's CR for major poisons. (What makes the difference between minor and major is a judgement call I make on the spot). Once its extracted, I let it do its thing—no need for spoilage or anything like that. Too much clutter to track. I might change my tune later, though, if I realize this character's been carrying around gallons of poison for a year or so, but he's also an alchemist, so I assume that he's doing SOMETHING alchemical to keep the poison fresh.

The reason we don't have rules like this hardcoded into the game is because the game's economy doesn't allow for it. Poison has a real GP value, and if you allow PCs to harvest poison, you technically need to adjust treasure values in the campaign to allow for this new source of income. And that can get weird when you have some monsters that have really expensive poison that already have or NEED a lot of treasure.

In my own campaigns, I'm not nearly so much of a stickler for treasure volumes as the core book (and I suspect most campaigns); I don't mind if the PCs accumulate a lot of wealth. I've been gaming with the same folks for over a decade, of course, so I also know the players very well and that makes it easier to keep in mind ways that they might overload the economy...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I'd probably start with a teleport to someplace safe as well as a breath of life when "killed" other than that, it would depend on the type of character and campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
Spell Combat wrote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
FAQ wrote:

When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.

A hand-associated natural weapon is considered "wielded in the hand."

No the FAQ states you can use the natural weapon for this class ability. The two are not interchangeable nor does a FAQ specifically for the Magus class mean that it is a blanket rule sadly. It means for this specific instance it can be considered to be that way. Extrapolating anything beyond what it says leads to debate on RAI.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

Just for completion, Mark Seifter opinion.

First, the usual disclaimer:

Mark Seifter wrote:


Also, as always, these are my own personal interpretations I use in my own games, not official. Also, I have heard a rumor that if I post that disclaimer 1001 times, a genie will appear. Fortunately, I'm working on it!
Mark Seifter wrote:
So you get one touch as a free action in the round you cast. But other than that, you can touch one person as a standard action, touch six buddies as a full-round action, or start swinging against regular AC with unarmed attacks or natural weapons that are holding the charge, which follows the normal actions for that.

So, Mark reading is that:

- you can make 1 touch attack;
- as many armed (with the spell) attacks as you can depending on your BAB.

I disagree for the above mentioned reasons, but this is a developer opinion.

Personally, if that is how it is meant to work, I would want more clear rules, especially for the AoOs, as mark interpretation would limit you to make AoO only with the Armed attack vs. normal AC, not with the touch attack.

Then you should probably write up a post asking the specific questions to be FAQ'd. None of the posts to now have been yet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Diego wrote:
If we follow your interpretation that they are standard action the part about it threatening and being usable for AoO as an armed attack don't work, as we can't use standard actions off turn.

Using the held charge as a touch attack is the standard action. Using it as a rider effect on an unarmed strike would still allow you to make the AoO with it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Deathhydrax wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Slayer PrC allows you to maintain a very good manifest level and get a better BAB and HD. I believe that was what I did for my elan melee caster.
I'm not familiar with whatever that is, can you link to it?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-prestige-classes/phrenic -slayer

Full BAB, d10 hit die, 9/10 ml maintained


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


If I'm making things up, please point me to where I am incorrect. This is the rules forum, I'm here to gain a better grasp of the rules. If am am incorrect due to missing something I would truly appreciate being pointed to it.

Does it explicitly say the charge is held in a hand? No, but all the rules surrounding the subject point to that being the case including the official FAQ for the magus. The system is built on he 3.5 framework, it worked this way previously. And the recent FAQ implies it still does. Just because any number of rules have been changed doesn't mean any and all rules are different now. If that were the case there would be NO backwards compatibility at all with 3.5. And to be completely honest "3.5 has no bearing on PFRPG" is typically the "reason" people give when they have nothing to back them up rules wise in many such arguments that have occurred in the past years.

What do you have to indicate to prove that I'm "indeed making s+~@ up" as you so intelligently, politely and "eloquently" put it? Bedsides your well informed opinion?

How about this:

Skylancer4 wrote:
If you want to prove that a held charge is "distributed" on the character amorphously please show me the rules saying so. Right now we have rules stating accidental discharged can occur and a FAQ stating that there is an exception to the rule for the magus and his/her weapon preventing discharge if they pick said weapon with their charge holding hand.

Inserting words that do not appear in the text is making stuff up. The words "charge holding hand" do not appear anywhere in the FAQ. So there is a direct quote from you as evidence that you are just making stuff up.

Again you rely on 3.5 which is irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't matter how it worked in 3.5 the PFRPG says that when you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge it discharges the spell. Nothing in the rules for non-magus casters implies it doesn't.

So we're going to nit pick the wording I used discussing the FAQ? Misquoting an FAQ would be changing the wording and posting it as official quoted material. That is something I didn't do. at worst my reference to the FAQ was badly written. But that is fine as I'm sure you will ignore the fact that if the hand wasn't holding a charge, it wouldn't need to be mentioned and if the whole body was holding the charge they wouldn't have needed to single out that it was being picked up with a hand. They could have made it less detailed and restrictive.

And again 3.5 isn't as completely irrelevant as you keep saying. There are things that have been copied/pasted and work the same as they did. PFRPG isn't in a vacuum. Until Paizo decides to chime in and say one way or another we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Pupsocket wrote:

Rereading this thread and the Magus FAQ, I see that Skylancer is indeed making s+~@ up. Also, the non-Magus rules for holding charges strongly suggest that your entire body is holding the charge.

If I'm making things up, please point me to where I am incorrect. This is the rules forum, I'm here to gain a better grasp of the rules. If am am incorrect due to missing something I would truly appreciate being pointed to it.

Does it explicitly say the charge is held in a hand? No, but all the rules surrounding the subject point to that being the case including the official FAQ for the magus. The system is built on he 3.5 framework, it worked this way previously. And the recent FAQ implies it still does. Just because any number of rules have been changed doesn't mean any and all rules are different now. If that were the case there would be NO backwards compatibility at all with 3.5. And to be completely honest "3.5 has no bearing on PFRPG" is typically the "reason" people give when they have nothing to back them up rules wise in many such arguments that have occurred in the past years.

What do you have to indicate to prove that I'm "indeed making s+~@ up" as you so intelligently, politely and "eloquently" put it? Bedsides your well informed opinion?

Edit: I haven't quoted the FAQ, I read what was shown as quoted in Diego's post that can be seen clearly further up thread. Well if it works they way I'm saying it does, they don't need to mention picking things up with a hand (aka limb) that isn't holding a charge as nothing happens. They only would need to mention it if the hand(aka limb) they are using to hold the charge is used to pick it up as then, it would NORMALLY discharge. If it works as "distributed" charge why would they go into detail about it being a single hand? They could have just as easily saved word count and detail by stating "a magus can pickup and use their weapon without discharging a held charge" period.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.

Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?

The FAQ as posted shows that it would work as it did in 3.5. Magus just have exceptions due to their weapon augmented casting abilities. They get a pass on touching their weapon but need to worry about everything else like a "normal" caster does.

It isn't flavor text... It is rules crunch. Don't touch things with your hand if you want to keep your charges. That also means, charges are held in certain body part for use. For just as many copied and pasted rules that have undergone change, there are rules that haven't been changed from 3.5. It would seem that is the case here would it not?

No it just means that a Magus can touch a weapon with his hand and not discharge the spell. Nothing more and nothing less. It has no implications for where the charge is held. There are several explanations besides that a magus chooses where to hold the charge for why they can touch a weapon but debating those is pure speculation. The rules say nothing and imply nothing about choosing a limb. In any case it applies to the Magus only and is irrelevant to other spell casters.

The rules for touch spells in combat say that if you touch anyone or anything you discharge the spell. If you grab a door knob you touched another object and the spell discharges. If you stub your toe on a chair leg you touched another object and the spell discharges. If a pigeon lands on your head you have touched another creature and the spell discharges.

Rules were based on 3.5 where the core assumption was biped humanoid so you had a left and right limb used on combat. You held the charge on the limb of your choice. Pfrpg is written with those same assumptions in core, even so far as "unwritten" rules indicating you are unable to use both 2 handed weapons and an off hand attack due to that being a way to "game" the system and get more benefit than was intended. If you want to prove that a held charge is "distributed" on the character amorphously please show me the rules saying so. Right now we have rules stating accidental discharged can occur and a FAQ stating that there is an exception to the rule for the magus and his/her weapon preventing discharge if they pick said weapon with their charge holding hand.

Is there another FAQ that I'm missing? Or a rule in the prd that I've missed indicating your notion of "distributed" charge?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.

Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?

No the common sense approach is to regard the Magus FAQ as an example of a specific rule trumping a general rule. The Magus FAQ only applies to the Magus and has absolutely zero implications for anyone else. A Magus and a Magus alone can pick up a weapon without discharging his spell. The FAQ itself even differentiates between the Magus and "normal casters" implying that this ability is not the norm.

So Magus, and Magus alone, can hold the charge while picking up a weapon everyone else just uses the regular rules for touch spells in combat which specifically state that if you touch anyone or anything the spell discharges.

How are you going to apply that to a wizard with a weapon as their bonded item? Does the wizard blow up his bonded item every time he casts a touch spell?

Wizard holds bonded weapon in left hand.

Wizard casts spell and holds charge in right hand.
Where is the issue?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
Does anyone have a source on "charges are held on one limb"? That was the case in 3.5, but PF seems to be going with "distributed" charges.

No disrespect intended, but I believe Skylancer4 is just making it up. There's nowhere in the rules (that I've ever come across) that supports his/her statement about being able to decide which natural attack you deliver the charge with.

(referencing this "If you have 7 natural attacks because you have 7 limbs, only one of them (that you choose) is holding the charge. They might all be tentacles but only one tentacle has the charge on it, so only the attack that has the charge can deliver/use the charge." --it's just not in the rules).

Yet the FAQ states normal casters are limited from picking up a weapon or using the limb to grab a potion so as to not discharge the spell. A floating charge that is miraculously where you want it when you make an attack yet not limiting in any way despite rules stating it gets discharged if it accidentally comes into contact with something, sounds more like a "made up" opinion, no disrespect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:

The only common sense is to disregard the text that says "you can accidentally discharge a spell" as flavor fluff that doesn't work RAW.

Also, where in the rules are you (Skylancer 4) reading that you can hold a charge in a specific limb?

The FAQ as posted shows that it would work as it did in 3.5. Magus just have exceptions due to their weapon augmented casting abilities. They get a pass on touching their weapon but need to worry about everything else like a "normal" caster does.

It isn't flavor text... It is rules crunch. Don't touch things with your hand if you want to keep your charges. That also means, charges are held in certain body part for use. For just as many copied and pasted rules that have undergone change, there are rules that haven't been changed from 3.5. It would seem that is the case here would it not?

1 to 50 of 2,827 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.