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. 2,786 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,786 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
cheechako wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
That makes absolutely NO sense as you would never need to make a touch attack against your friends...
PRD wrote:
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge.

Where does it say touch attack against friends? This text is about holding the charge.

You can hold the charge indefinitely. You can touch friends. Alternatively, you can make a touch attack.

Holding the charge starts off about making a touch attack. It details the aggressive action of a touch attack. It then goes to talk about how it can discharged on a friendly unit with a standard action or multiple friendlies with a full round action. It then says alternatively you can make another different aggressive action.

In any literary class I've taken, that word would not be needed if it didn't mean the first and the last actions weren't different. It isn't needed to differentiate the last from the preceding statement about friendlies at all.

Diego is stating touch attacks are interchangeable with melee attacks, if that were the case, the word "alternatively" would not be needed. He is using the fact that the rules don't say you are limited from doing so, so it can be done. The issue with that is, the rules default to attacks being standard actions. Multiple attacks in a full attack action is an exception to the norm. When an attack action is capable of being interchanged into those exceptions, they state they can be (sunder, trip, disarm, etc).


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

@Skylancer4

Can you clarify to what post you are replying?

Skylancer4 wrote:


If you aren't holding the charge on a limb, well every time you step it is getting discharged... I guess that makes more sense.

A leg is a limb. The Magus FAQ actually say hand.

My cat familiar has no hand and all its limbs touch the ground when he move.
It is unable to deliver any spell?
This ability do nothing unless your familiar is a monkey or something with hands?

PRD wrote:
Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.

Touching the ground while moving has always been disregarded as a way to discharge touch spells. Like having something in one of your hands while casting the spell.

Wand of CLW, use wand, you are touching the wand, the spell is discharged on the wand .......
Doesn't compute.

Not strictly RAW but it has always been read as "if you touch something that you weren't touching before".

The one where you say that holding a charge doesn't require you to decide which limb you are holding it in. Even though the official FAQ for the magus implies that it does. Not all natural attacks are bites and as of the rules being published no PC had a natural bite attack that it would have made a difference or required it to be spelled out.

We're basically at the point where you argue that the rules don't explicitly state you can't do it, so you say you can, despite the rules pointing in the direction of it not working that way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
cheechako wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Prd wrote:
You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge.
Not sure why they would state this and use the word alternatively

Change the bold to show why.

First, you can touch a friend or friends - this would apply to spells like teleport. (You can't hold that charge into the next round to touch more friends.) Alternatively, you can touch enemies - that's an attack.

That makes absolutely NO sense as you would never need to make a touch attack against your friends... Alternatively was a modifier to how the normal attack mechanic would work. Normally you make your touch attack or alternatively you can discharge it using a non-touch attack attack.

An attack action is normally a standard action, as in the default action to do so is a standard action. You can make multiple attacks if your BAB is high enough but that doesn't mean you can mix and match things how you like or that all attacks are interchangeable. Case in point combat maneuvers, they have wording to allow them to be used in a full attack action. This was because the default attack action was a standard action and that limited them to being used once per round.
Touch attacks from spells have no such wording.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

You should have probably have read further.

Prd wrote:


Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

First italics. If you aren't holding the charge on a limb, it is just randomly floating around all over your body, well every time you step it is getting discharged as your foot hits the ground... I guess that makes more sense.

Second bold. Not sure why they would state this and use the word alternatively if it was already working that way. As stated up thread an attack action is normally a standard action. The rules for holding the charge give an alternative to that standard action touch attack on rounds after the initial casting by granting the ability to make the charge a rider effect on unarmed strikes or natural attacks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
As Diego said the round you cast you will only get 1 attack because the casting only comes with one free touch attack. On subsequent rounds you can make attacks based on your BAB and the number of available attacks you have. If you have BAB 6 you can make two attacks, both as touch atatcks. Conversely if you have 3 natural attacks you could make 3 attacks (against normal AC). Though either of these would be a full-round action.

All of this should be qualified with the "limb holding the charge" as well. 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.

That also brings up another issue when using natural attacks to hold charges. Charges are held on a limb, when that limb is used for "things" it will discharge the spell. That means don't use limbs that will be needed for locomotion if you want to be mobile though the fight. When you use the limb to move, you'll be forced to touch the ground and discharge the spell.

Also, are you 100% sure you can make 2 touch attacks as part of a full attack? I was under the impression last this came up that making the touch attack was a standard action. If you decided to make multiple attacks using your BAB you'd be choosing to go against the full AC on normal attack resolution. I have been absent from the boards for awhile so if this is a new-ish ruling I've not run into it yet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
nighttree wrote:
What I'm running is an Android/Synthesist, with the "eidolon skin" fluffed as advanced (by the Technic league) nanites. The intent of using evolution surge, is to allow for his nanites to adapt his defenses and attacks to fit the situation. I'm just trying to understand if(or more accurately to what extent) he can do this with evolution surge ???

Ask your GM. You're not playing PFS as the synthesist is no longer allowed, so you don't need anything more official than your GMs ruling. Let them know there is no official FAQ, point them to this post (and they can search for at least one other thread that I know of covering this topic as well), and they can read it and make their ruling for the game you are playing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

The stacking rules for magic might (read: probably) prevent it.

Typically when multiple versions of the same spell are on the same target only the most powerful one (biggest bonus) is in effect. If they are all the same "strength" the most recent one cast is dominant.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
GhanjRho wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
GhanjRho wrote:
GhanjRho wrote:
Just got the final. Love the look and feel of it. As of right now, the only change I'd make is in the stance progression, specifically moving the 4th stance back one level (to IL 9). This gives the 5th-level stances some better play space, avoiding lumping them in with the 6th level stances. And if the initiator doesn't have access to 5ths, they just take another 3rd
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Specifically moving the stances gained at 8th (and possibly 11th) back one level?

Stances tend to be pretty potent always on, or at least renewable abilities. I'm not sure introducing them earlier is necessarily a good idea. It promotes even more early level dipping/cherry picking of abilities.

Also from previous posts I believe they were attempting to makes stances more attractive for use over a character's career. Meaning that even though a stance might be gained and another stance shortly after, the one isn't being so much replaced by a better version, as the newer stance probably offers a different ability in the same theme. That 5th level stance would retain relevance in comparison to the 6th level as well. They would still both have their uses, though maybe in different situations.

First off, this wouldn't give you a stance earlier. At least, not any earlier than your IL would allow. The problem is that you have some disciplines with stances at 5th level, some with stances at 6th level, and some with stances at both. What shifting the 4th stance back a level would do is open it up. If you have a discipline that gives a 5th level stance, you don't need to wait two levels to get it, and you don't need to give up a feat or a 6th level stance for it.

I never said it gave them to you "early," I did say it promotes more dipping into the classes if the stances are moved to earlier levels.

Having them at points not on the "immediately available" level promotes staying in the class. Also it isn't like these levels are "dead" because you aren't getting a stance, you are still being class abilities, maneuvers known and or readied, etc. Maybe even all of those.

Again stances tend to be persistent effects, sometimes quite powerful. As a martial class you'll be gaining several of them, more than enough to fulfill whatever themed character you want. If you want more of them, having to invest a feat or two isn't a horrible or unheard of "thing" in this game. Psionic characters have to use feats to gain extra known powers, casters have to do the same to research spells or gain spells known. I'm not quite sure why the martial classes shouldn't have to make a few "hard" (and I use that term very loosely, almost jokingly due to the following point) choices every once in awhile. As has been mentioned before, these classes don't require much system mastery to be rather potent. I don't believe your suggested change is either warranted or even necessarily positive to the overall system. It is already quite powerful as it stands.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
GhanjRho wrote:
GhanjRho wrote:
Just got the final. Love the look and feel of it. As of right now, the only change I'd make is in the stance progression, specifically moving the 4th stance back one level (to IL 9). This gives the 5th-level stances some better play space, avoiding lumping them in with the 6th level stances. And if the initiator doesn't have access to 5ths, they just take another 3rd
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Specifically moving the stances gained at 8th (and possibly 11th) back one level?

Stances tend to be pretty potent always on, or at least renewable abilities. I'm not sure introducing them earlier is necessarily a good idea. It promotes even more early level dipping/cherry picking of abilities.

Also from previous posts I believe they were attempting to makes stances more attractive for use over a character's career. Meaning that even though a stance might be gained and another stance shortly after, the one isn't being so much replaced by a better version, as the newer stance probably offers a different ability in the same theme. That 5th level stance would retain relevance in comparison to the 6th level as well. They would still both have their uses, though maybe in different situations.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Don't forget the psionic items. The crystal mantles that can be used to increase the enhancement bonus and point pools for your aegis suit. Maybe toss on the glamoured armor ability to that?

Personally the way I'd run it, if the suit provides the equivalent to face protection/helmet then the face cannot be seen normally, just as if they had a normal helmet on. If not, then the character would have to take precautions as they would normally. No mechanical benefit for free but still able to do what the character wanted if they make the choice to use the appropriate suit.

That being said my aegis in a friends game does have a glamoured mantle for the specific reason of not looking like a walking crystal tin can at all times ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
FrozenLaughs wrote:
Quote:

Implant (Ex)

As a standard action, a xill can lay 2d6 eggs in a helpless creature. A xill's eggs hatch in 24 hours, at which point the young consume the host from within, inflicting 1 point of Con damage per hour per young until the host dies. The young then emerge and planewalk to the Ethereal Plane, if possible, to mature. A remove disease spell (or similar effect) rids a victim of all implanted eggs or active young , or they can be cut out one at a time with DC 20 Heal checks (each attempt takes 10 minutes). If a check fails, the healer can try again, but each attempt (successful or not) deals 1d4 points of damage to the patient.

Divine Health (Ex)
At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases, including mummy rot.

Does a Paladins Divine Health prevent the Implant ability, or at least the incubation of the eggs? It doesn't state that the eggs are a disease, but are removed with Remove Disease?

I ask because I have a story revolving around an NPC Paladin that was captured and tortured by an Incubus and his Xill bodyguards. For purposes of the story I'm having Divine Health protect her (while she was forced to watch her comrades die, now she's haunted by it, etc etc) but would like to know what the ruling should be.

RAW would be a no, as it isn't a disease but instead a creature's ability causing damage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Onyxlion wrote:

Also this is from the feats section.

Prerequisites

Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.

A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.

No where does it say I can't use what the feat gives me to maintain it's prerequisites. Final embrace is a special feat in that it gives you everything it wants as a prerequisite. It's poorly written and maybe that wasn't the intention but like I said before that's my opinion.

Actually you quoted the place where it says you need to have the prereq. You also quoted to place where it states if you lose the prereq you lose access to the benefit of the feat. Ergo, you cannot use the feat to sustain itself.

As soon as you lose the prereq you lose use of the feat, the feat having been lost for use, no longer provides the prereq you need. It doesn't have to say you cannot use the feat to qualify for itself because the order of operations in the logic prevent that from ever occurring.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
I smell PF's version of 3e's 'Unearthed Arcana', aka 'the big book of house rules'.

To be fair Pathfinder *IS* the big book of house rules already... They made numerous changes to the d20 ruleset many due to how they played the game in thier own groups, and there are even some rules that we've found out don't actually work the way they did in the previous ruleset despite the wording being copied and pasted.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

The same could be said for the normalization of stats today, what is the point besides hand holding and or babying of the players? Many would argue that to be more BS I'd imagine.

Point being, play styles vary. Your opinion isn't any more valid than others, saying rolled stats is BS very poor form. Normalization makes sense in an organized play scenario to keep the board even, it can help new or inexperienced players warm up to the game as well so all the characters are balanced. But "even" and balanced are very very subjective in a pen and paper role playing game. More than a few games I've heard of don't even rely on stats heavily due to the amount of role playing involved.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Prince of Knives wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Elricaltovilla wrote:

Eh, I don't think it warrants a feat, why would anyone want a feat to be able to put their hands in their pockets? It's probably errata worthy though.

To take advantage of bonuses or abilities of course. It isn't a feat to put your hands in your pockets, it is a feat to allow you to use a weapon in a way it "normally" isn't or cannot be used. Unarmed strikes are always ready/available (unless bound/helpless/etc). They "normally" are completely incapable of being sheathed, just like they are impossible to disarm. So they are unable to be used in certain ways mechanically in game. The feat would allow them to be used in such a way they gain benefits like those in question when they aren't capable of used that way normally. Pretty much exactly what feats were designed to do.
The thing is, the benefit isn't worth spending a feat on. Feats are expensive, and one that only does that? Not worth the expense when you could take just about anything else.

Whether or not it is "worth" it completely depends on what the build does with it. Some feats are sub optimal to say the least, yet they still exist to allow you to do things that you normally cannot. They are what fuel the exception based rule set. It is an option, if you don't like it, you don't take it. If you don't think it is worth it, you don't take it. It still allows something to happen that cannot normally be done.

"Worth" is completely subjective. A +2 to one of your saves in organized play could be completely worth it, yet in your home game that feat would probably never see play unless it was a prerequisite. "Worth" can completely and totally change between groups and probably the players in that same group.

A feat that allowed you to make range attacks with a weapon that cannot be disarmed, stolen or rendered unusable unless your character is rendered ineffective... Well let's say that has "worth" to some people. Whether 90% of the players thinks that it is worth it is irrelevant. It'll be worth it for the few that make use of it.

*wanders off to download the PDF*


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Elricaltovilla wrote:
ErrantX wrote:
Elricaltovilla wrote:
DragGon7601 wrote:

If I take the "Weapon Group Adaptation" feet I can use Mithral Current moves with my fists... Now I just got to work out how to sheath my fist so I can punch people from 30 ft away.

Maybe if I cover it with something, like my pocket... Or my other hand... What do you guys think? Is there a way of using "Iron wave" (2nd level strike) to full effect with your fists?

As the guy who wrote Mithral Current, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to sheathe your fists by putting your hands in your pocket. But it's probably a good idea to take it up with your DM just in case.

For the record, I think its a really cool idea.

You may want to address this in the rules perhaps? Or make a feat that specifically goes with the idea of doing that and gives bonuses of some variety?

-X

Eh, I don't think it warrants a feat, why would anyone want a feat to be able to put their hands in their pockets? It's probably errata worthy though.

To take advantage of bonuses or abilities of course. It isn't a feat to put your hands in your pockets, it is a feat to allow you to use a weapon in a way it "normally" isn't or cannot be used. Unarmed strikes are always ready/available (unless bound/helpless/etc). They "normally" are completely incapable of being sheathed, just like they are impossible to disarm. So they are unable to be used in certain ways mechanically in game. The feat would allow them to be used in such a way they gain benefits like those in question when they aren't capable of used that way normally. Pretty much exactly what feats were designed to do.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Is this for society play? That makes a difference (I only ask because you put in 4pp which I believe means prestige points). And if that is the case, no evil alignment for you! Organized play has more strict rules so you have to take them into consideration as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Look up necrocraft(?) from one of the recent bestiaries(4 iirc). The guidelines for conglomerate type undead are written up there. Mind you it is not something for PCs really, more for GMs looking for some custom monsters to toss at the players.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

You'll be looking for some way to get pounce.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Not with out some way to make multiple attacks during full attack action (what it takes to get a charge off).


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

its not a house-rule btw

http://paizo.com/prd/magicItems/magicItemCreation.html

in the big chart, its under the special tab thing

Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5

it doesn't even need DM approval

that's like saying you have to ask the dm if your allowed to craft an INT item

it doesn't add any power to the items, it just allows you to get the items you want, even if two of them share the same slot

EDIT alright, if yall say so ill go with the DM approval thing
its simply not worth discussing

Those are guidelines for GMs who are interested in creating other magical items. They even say that prices resulting from the charts should be compared to existing items before deciding on a final price. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
CommandoDude wrote:

I thought the main draw was getting to bypass DR/Adamantine

You need a +5 weapon to do so otherwise.

Chances are if you are running into something that has adamantine DR at low levels, you're in for a seriously rough ride. At the point you can first afford an adamantine weapon it is essentially a "master key" (if you don't mind not being able to secure the area you are entering again.) I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had a character with an adamantine great sword they hardly ever used on combat...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Prince of Knives wrote:

Archetypes Beta is now on a GDoc, sorry about the delay in getting it there.

Notable changes:

- Countess damage progression slowed by 2 levels across the board
- Sacrifice has a save
- Pool no longer lets you attack. Want to fight as a pool, better have psionics or stilled spells.

- Ravenlord's Unwanted Missive cleaned up.

Changes will now happen live on the doc.

Crimson claim still not limited in any way? At will swift action, no save, no SR, no attack roll, recurring damage that allows me to gain back a choice manuever makes the game's action economy weep...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
FangDragon wrote:
Wouldn't an oath of vengeance paladin be a better undead slayer?

Possibly, one serious drawback is the number of smites you'd have even with the oath. Ranger is an always available buff, the more numerous the enemy undead the better it is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Justin Sane wrote:
Jeremy Smith wrote:
It may be made of energy, but just as the mind blade is a "semi-solid weapon composed of psychic energy", so too is the mind armor - it's semi-solid.
Yet, the Mind Blade has no listed weight :P

There is a difference between weightless and negligible weight, there are several things in the game that have some weight but no appreciable weight in terms of game mechanics. Others have a weight in various quantities but not individually.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

When you get the time you should let us know what they ended up doing ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Prince of Knives wrote:

I now present the very first archetype I've ever designed, our first Path of War 2 archetype, and the first-ever archetype for the Harbinger class, the Crimson Countess!

** spoiler omitted **...

Crimson Claim...

Damage is high for what is eventually a rather potent and long lasting damage over time effect. Don't get me wrong the damage isnt bonkers high, the problem is that it is a swift action SU (so no SR) and with no save or attack roll. It is pretty much unavoidable, and that is bad as an effectively at will ability.

Acid arrow is probably to closest comparison, that requires a ranged attack and deals 2d4 (acid so subject to resistances) for at most 6 rounds (@18th level) AND costs a spell slot to use. Sure you might have 12+x 2nd level slots at 18th (assuming you spend a precious ring slot on it) but it still costs the caster something from its daily allotments. Compare that to this ability which you can basically cycle on up to let's say very conservatively, 5-6 creatures, at 16th level which lasts 8 rounds and inflicts 2.5 times the damage for no resource drain at all, no worry about hitting (no attack roll or save), resistances or spell resistance. And doesnt claiming give back maneuvers? The harbinger is already efficient on getting back manuevers, this makes it ridiculous. The ability is entirely too good.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Nomad Sage wrote:

I've been a silent lurker on this thread for a while now, but want to throw in a vote of support and confidence! I was a big fan of ToB when it came out, and this project has totally resparked my interest in the maneuver system. I don't have the time to playtest or proofread, but I wish I could help out! Either way, this is on my *must buy* list for when it gets the green light...

Question for DSP (apologies if this got answered already), but does the Work in Progress bundle include the POW2 items?

The current item on the DSP store is for PoW1 only. PoW2 will be a separate purchase.


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

I'm a little surprised no on mentioned the Oradin. Granted it multi classes into oracle but it is very effective at what it does. Basically you "tank" by absorbing the other party members damage through the life link from life oracle. You use your swift action to LoH yourself which allows you your full round actions still.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

After reading the names I recognized them... Entirely too late to be allowing myself to post, apparently the brain and was not functioning! Thanks for the "reminder"!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

3 more base classes really? I've definitely seen the harby and a few archetypes to go with it, a few new schools/disciplines, as well as a probably a few PrCs (When I asked about a Martial/Psionic PRC, it was mentioned it wouldn't make it into the first book). I haven't seen anything about another class recently. I'd be interested to know what the others would be too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Any information on this with the pushed back date coming up?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

If there was only the "limit" of only being able to use IUS to make an attack, use as a delivery system of an effect or perform an action/effect. It could act as a "delimiter" here. If there was only that one contradiction to deal with I'd agree it works.

But the "effect" of the feat is based off a certain specific list of weapons. We have a second limit in the feat which FCT doesn't bypass or make exception to. I can use my natural attack to use this feat but the feat doesn't function unless I'm using one a specific list of weapons. I can't gain the benefit of the feat due to that, I'm not using the right weapon.

This is an exception based game. The rules tell you what you can do, and when there are exceptions to the general rules. There isn't just one check made for an action to be viable. It has to check true to all involved restrictions. Just because the general rules say you can move 30', doesn't mean that is always allowed. If you are encumbered or wearing medium/heavy armor or any number of any other possible restrictions, you don't get to move 30'. Everything involved needs to be "allowing" the action. Or every restriction needs to be be "delimited" for it to work.

FCT doesn't grant exception to the feats inherent limitations. So we have the potential but once the feat checks the weapon, we fail to have a way bypass the restriction.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

It would probably be a low magic setting. As for the "dying part", I'd run deaths as temporary (maybe a day or two later you come back if you aren't raised by the party before then). On each unassisted recovery impose a permanent -1 penalty to Cha. Once you get to O you go hallow/lose control of your character.

Even if you completely ditch Cha you have a handful of "free" deaths. Also this dovetails nicely with Cha being useful for clerics & paladins who should be more resistant to going hallow.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Yep, if you need access to anything higher might want to look into magic items. Or you know, take levels of the class ;p If you could cherry pick spells/powers just using feats it would degrade the classes that actually get them as class abilities.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Perfect Strike tells you what weapons it functions with, period. FCT doesn't state anywhere it allows you to bypass the restriction in the feat itself. FCT grants the potential to be used with any feat with IUS, but a specific limitation is still a limitation.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Crossbow, gets Dex to hit and no STR penalty on damage. Also at low levels (if you have the money to spare) pellet grenades & tanglefoot bags can be nasty.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I look at it this way. FCT allows exception to the general rules by allowing natural attacks to essentially be used in place of unarmed strikes. The general rules being, to do xyz with such and such ability/feat you are making an unarmed strike (IE stunning fist let's say). So the new general rule becomes NA is essentially IUS.

Now where your Perfect Strike situation falls apart for me is the feat itself. FCT allows the potential to work, it has IUS as a prerequisite. The full stop occurs in Perfect Strike's write up. It doesn't list unarmed strike as a weapon able to access the benefit of the feat. The specifics of the feat state you need to be using one of the following "kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, and siangham." Improved unarmed strike isn't on that list.

Even though FCT gives you the potential, the specifics of the feat keep you from gaining the benefit of the feat unless using a specified weapon. If it had unarmed strike listed, or if the text just applied to "attacks made" in a general sense, FCT could work its magic. But there is a specific list of weapons that the feats benefit can be applied to. Specific > General rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Rhatahema wrote:

This was an issue in 3.5 as well, so it'd be nice to see it settled. You'd have thought they'd have made just one table for all increases/decreases at the start of 3.0, but two revisions later and the rules are still scattered.

I've always leaned towards using the two Improved Natural Attack progressions for all increases and decreases, though it's a bit awkward to expand that progression by having 1d10 reduce to 1d8 (since 1d8 typically increases to 2d6). It's all that d10's fault!

The 3.5 Rules Compendium (pg 152) had a damage progression table that progressed the various damage dice (1d2 up to 2d20) four steps up and down. So they actually did settle the "issue" and put it in one place. Just happens to be a book most people don't own I guess.

1d10 progressed to 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Pc-gen isn't a Paizo product so even if you use it for a "check" it doesn't mean much. I believe it has been mentioned by official Paizo staff that multiple instances of an attribute being applied to any specific stat do not stack. You'd only get it once regardless of it being untyped.

1 to 50 of 2,786 << 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.