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

4,227 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It is because some abilities are deemed more powerful under the PCs control.

Think of it the other way, a CR 5 monster is supposed to be a challenge for four characters. Adding that CR 5 to the party isn't just an incremental boost, so the level/CR is near impossible to trade one for one into leadership. That is why the table has such an inflated "cost" for monstrous type creatures in comparison to CR.

Also, if the creature has such a high intelligence, chances are it wouldn't want anything to do with you even if it were thankful for the spell being cast. You are an adventurer and will probably get it killed. It is smart enough to know how to live in relative luxury no danger involved, as it is vastly more intelligent than anyone else in the party if not the entire geographical area.


Sometimes going without your mount for a week isn't really an option...

(Edit: was in reply to a post saying it shouldn't as it makes passing on the spell and getting a new mount more attractive than the spell.)


Nothing in the spell indicates it wouldn't.


Air0r wrote:
their forum presence on their own forums is severely lacking, but I'll be their at the very least.

Oddly I've never found their presence lacking, more they don't drop in and answer every little question (especially when it is stated how it works in the book). Not to mention there were people who are very knowledgeable on the rules (psionics have a little bit of a following) who generally pointed people in the right direction.

That being said I know the the kick starter was exhausting for them and more than a few of the people have had real life issues cropping up regularly (not the good kind) several months ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Air0r wrote:
if you gained access to a discipline through the Martial Training feats, then you will have a non-standard initiating stat.

Also archtypes for core classes that grant initiator abilities. And multiclassing (which is much more effective as you gain 1/2 of other class levels). Lastly, school/discipline swapping.

The long answer is, they learned from Paizo's mistakes and didn't publish abilities with hard coded stat dependencies. You can search the forums for posts about spells that state they use the "normal" classes attribute despite the caster's class using a different attribute. There is an FAQ stating that they don't get to use their class attribute making the spell far worse (as they typically don't have that stat) despite it being a "class spell".

PoW's wording prevents possible issues like that by just stating to use the class that grants the ability's stated attribute. You can have multiple initiator attributes via multiclassing, just like you can have multiple casting stats (wizard/cleric multiclassing for example).

@OP: There are numerous reasons to word it like that and they have nothing at all to do with "changing the initiator attribute".


Amosine wrote:
Does that mean that the other bonuses are also permanent? If not, why is one but not the other?

Because it states that is what happens:

Desecrate wrote:

This spell imbues an area with negative energy. The DC to resist negative channeled energy within this area gains a +3 profane bonus. Every undead creature entering a desecrated area gains a +1 profane bonus on all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws. An undead creature created within or summoned into such an area gains +1 hit points per HD.

If the desecrated area contains an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture dedicated to your deity or aligned higher power, the modifiers given above are doubled (+6 profane bonus to negative channeled energy DCs, +2 profane bonus and +2 hit points per HD for undead created in the area).

Furthermore, anyone who casts animate dead within this area may create as many as double the normal amount of undead (that is, 4 HD per caster level rather than 2 HD per caster level).

The other abilities are conditional on being in the area. Hit points are not gained when they go into the area, only if "created" or "summoned" into the area. You have two beneficial statements with totally different clauses/triggers.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

Well, the point of origin is a floating city about 12 miles over a floating continent, so....

The shock thing might work. The party has a brontomancer and a Tempest cleric, plus some typically incautious players (swashbuckler and warlock), for added chaos.

Dragons might be a bit intense. Maybe bow and fire arrows from pterodactyl back?

You do understand that 12 miles is equivalent to about 60,000 feet of altitude?

Seeing as it is a floating city OVER a floating continent I'm pretty sure we are WAY out of conventional earth atmosphere issues.


Air0r wrote:
I thought 3 was the minimum ability scores for PCs?

Generally because it is "unplayable" but normally you are unable to play any race smaller than "small".

AKA GM discretion. We obviously aren't talking society play here...


Finlanderboy wrote:

I am fine with DMs not letting me do combat actions out of combat, but they must allow me to enter combat when I ask to do these items.

If my character has reason to think something is on the other side of a door, and i want to take full defense and open the door. Well Then let s roll initiative.

Although I agree someone saying they are always in total defense is silly.

Technically they don't have to start combat just because you ask. They are the final arbitrator on any in game actions regardless of how you feel about it. You telling the GM they need to roll initiative deserves a "screw off" response. Believing anything else is being an entitled player. The GM tells you when to roll initiative, because they actually know everything that is happening and your character does not, not the other way around.


Third Mind wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
MageHunter wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Beware of well made doors (seriously). You will be unable to provide enough force to open just about any sort of door with a 2 strength, let alone work it's handle/bar/latch/etc at that size.

A room without a window or chimney and a well made door might as well be a prison cell for you.

Could you actually just fit under[/b] the door?

A barn door, sure. Not a well made door. You know those that aren't drafty or easily bypassed, that you would find in any half decent inn, merchant house, or secure location. Not every door has 2+ inch gaps or is made out of ill fitting warped wooden planks.

Diminutive is still rat sized, and Atomie stand a foot tall and thus are much BIGGER than a rat. Even at "fine" for a "young" one you are looking at least 6-9 inches tall, you aren't as small as you may think (ignoring the fact you might not even be smaller as fey don't necessarily breed and age like most mortal creatures and are "created" 'as is' because the GM already OK'd the idea).

OT a little bit, but I kinda laughed when I looked up the strength score

Strength Attribute description: 2 wrote:
Needs help to stand, can be knocked over by strong breezes

I figured I wouldn't be standing when trying to get under a door, I would think a crawling fine creature might be able to get under a lot of standard doors (maybe not all, but a decent amount).

That said, point made. I will be focusing on getting things to pump the STR attribute immediately.

Unfortunately that is a perception based on movies and the like where it is helpful to explain or create drama/tension. Trying to squeeze a 9" tall humanoid with wings through a three quarter to half inch gap isn't going to work well. They just aren't designed for it. Hell even something like a rat probably couldn't do it and would have to chew through the corner of the door to make make a large enough gap for it to manage.

Think of it this way, if humans had to actually cope with intelligent tiny creatures do you think doors would ever have gaps? If your GM is willing to let you play this type of character you better believe they will happily play on your false assumptions as well ;)

That all being said, the greater hat of disguise mentioned above will probably need to be a "must have" item. And the 2 Str will be a killer. .75 light/1.62 medium loads. Even with equipment being lighter for smaller size, you will barely be able to carry anything besides clothes. And medium encumbrance means a maximum Dex mod of +3, -3 to skill checks and reduced speed.


avr wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
avr wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
... and the Jingasa of the fortunate soldier for a luck bonus. ...
Not any more, it's been nerfed into the ground.
Compared to what it was maybe. Still 5k for +1 deflection and a get out of jail (ignore death by crit/SA) isn't horrible.
A ring of protection is 2K for +1 deflection and is more easily upgraded. Valuing the one use ever, immediate action required fortification property at 3K seems quite high.

It is still cheaper and more convenient than a raise dead...

It is one of those items that when it is useful it saves your bacon and you are glad to have had it.

I didn't say it should be at the top of your murder hobo shopping list, I said it wasn't badly priced for what it does.


MageHunter wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Beware of well made doors (seriously). You will be unable to provide enough force to open just about any sort of door with a 2 strength, let alone work it's handle/bar/latch/etc at that size.

A room without a window or chimney and a well made door might as well be a prison cell for you.

Could you actually just fit under[/b] the door?

A barn door, sure. Not a well made door. You know those that aren't drafty or easily bypassed, that you would find in any half decent inn, merchant house, or secure location. Not every door has 2+ inch gaps or is made out of ill fitting warped wooden planks.

Diminutive is still rat sized, and Atomie stand a foot tall and thus are much BIGGER than a rat. Even at "fine" for a "young" one you are looking at least 6-9 inches tall, you aren't as small as you may think (ignoring the fact you might not even be smaller as fey don't necessarily breed and age like most mortal creatures and are "created" 'as is' because the GM already OK'd the idea).

OT a little bit, but I kinda laughed when I looked up the strength score

Strength Attribute description: 2 wrote:
Needs help to stand, can be knocked over by strong breezes


Beware of well made doors (seriously). You will be unable to provide enough force to open just about any sort of door with a 2 strength, let alone work it's handle/bar/latch/etc at that size.

A room without a window or chimney and a well made door might as well be a prison cell for you.


TomG wrote:
A quick necro (in case this thread is used for rules clarification later) to point out that the Unchained Monk is specifically proficient in weapons with the Monk special property.

Specific over general. Unchained monk has specific wording to add those, monk does not. Two separate cases as Unchained Monk isn't the same as CRB Monk. Two completely different cases and is quite obvious as such, no "clarification" would reasonably be needed as it is spelled out if you read the two.


TomG wrote:

I'm going to necro this thread (landed here on a rules search), and point out that the FAQ entry seemingly applies only to Monks. The Unchained Monk specifically has proficiency in all weapons with the Monk special quality.

Perhaps the FAQ entry could be clarified?

Unchained is effectively "optional rules" and as such does what it says in it's little bubble of existence. I'm not sure I see the upside or any benefit to mentioning optional rules in a FAQ for the core rules.

The core rules follow the design of "general rules in effect, barring specific rules making an exception." Unchained follows that, they are specific rules which have no bearing on the core rules beyond the explicit exceptions mentioned. With that in mind, what does altering the FAQ clear up or clarify? It seems very obvious what it does.


avr wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
... and the Jingasa of the fortunate soldier for a luck bonus. ...
Not any more, it's been nerfed into the ground.

Compared to what it was maybe. Still 5k for +1 deflection and a get out of jail (ignore death by crit/SA) isn't horrible.


Mechanically it screws any person attempting it as well. Standard actions are a combat concept. You are ALWAYS going on a set initiative if you decide to do this, as well as using your most useful action of the round.

Walking down the hall normally? You are going half the speed, anything "normal" is out the window for anyone attempting this. Traveling long distances? Not you. That three day journey just became six. The adventure is going to be over before your super paranoid character gets there. There are just so many ways to mess with some who does this, and they deserve every one of them happening.


HeHateMe wrote:

I think the issue for me is that I'm really not a fan of playing full casters, I prefer melee.

I've been thinking Oracle cause our current campaign may be ending somewhat soonish, and I'll probably have to take the "healer" role in the next campaign.

Some folks on this thread have been saying stuff like "The OP is a powergamer and wants it all; full casting and a melee monster". That's not true. To be clear, I don't like playing full casters, so saying "Full casters are the most powerful thing in the game" may be true, but it's not an incentive for me personally. I need to play a caster next campaign cause I will need to heal people, not cause I enjoy playing a full caster.

Looking at all these responses from people who have alot of experience playing Oracles, I think I'm going to be disappointed with the melee ability of any mystery. Let's try something different: are any Oracle mysteries good at blasting things at range? Flame seemed decent. Has anyone had success playing a blaster Oracle?

Needing a "healer" is a very outdated concept. You can absolutely run a game without a "healer" or a "tank" and have it work. UMD and a wand of Cure Light Wounds works wonders low to mid levels. Anything higher and other items become available. You don't need to play one if you think outside the box.


Heretek wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

I think the issue for me is that I'm really not a fan of playing full casters, I prefer melee.

I've been thinking Oracle cause our current campaign may be ending somewhat soonish, and I'll probably have to take the "healer" role in the next campaign.

One word: Oradin

Yay! Someone who understands that there is not just "one way" to fulfill a concept.

More so because it is one of my favorite builds.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


Because it isn't an MMO or video game and small choices like that make differences. Your choices mean something and not everything needs to be "balanced" with the next class or archetype. The fact that there are all these options is what makes table top gaming so much more interesting. You aren't forced to play clone #65738828383646 of a handful of options. It definitely can be confusing, but like any complicated system (which are all but phased out of present day gaming, MMOs or the like) it just takes using it to aquire familiarity/expertise. There isn't just one way to accomplish something, there are typically several paths to a desired result if you think outside the box.
I'd argue balance is more important here than in a video game. In a video game you can do whatever you want and still be okay most of the time, in a tabletop game if the other character is notably better than your character you could potentially be spending a lot of the game sitting on your ass doing nothing, and there's a good possibility that it wasn't because of your inexperience.

But that isn't a mechanical "balance" issue. You are conflating two or more separate issues. It is like complaining that your ultra social bard build is useless in combat because you didn't make any attempt to make it viable when watching the paladin smite the BBEG down.

Choices matter, again. Deciding to specialize and not getting an opportunity to take advantage of it in game isn't a mechanical issue to be "balanced".

In MMOs the only thing they need to worry about is damage balance. If you spend 90% of your PFRPG time in combat, you might as well be playing a video game as that is definitely not what the system is "all about". That is "roll playing" not "role playing". And a good GM will "balance" the game and give every character a chance to shine. Drastically different situations, as that isn't an option in video games.


Mako Senako wrote:

There is the Dragon Mystery oracle as well, while the polymorphing forms come later in the game, the other revelations like Talon of the Dragon and Tail Swipe, both lend themselves well to a melee oriented Oracle assuming you build yourself around such things. With the feat Extra Use when you finally do get Form of the Dragon revelation that becomes immediately doubles the value of that particular class ability.

I'm curious if Paizo or any 3rd party products have a wilding armor special ability.

Look for "wild" armor property.


swoosh wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


Because it isn't an MMO or video game and small choices like that make differences. Your choices mean something and not everything needs to be "balanced" with the next class or archetype. The fact that there are all these options is what makes table top gaming so much more interesting. You aren't forced to play clone #65738828383646 of a handful of options. It definitely can be confusing, but like any complicated system (which are all but phased out of present day gaming, MMOs or the like) it just takes using it to aquire familiarity/expertise. There isn't just one way to accomplish something, there are typically several paths to a desired result if you think outside the box.
None of this necessitates so many of those options ending up crap though. Which is the reality of it. High minded rationalizations aside, Paizo just isn't that great at balancing things, especially for full casters.

Depends on your definition of "balance." And that is where 99% of the arguments come up. Subjective perception. This post is a prime example, it boils down to "what do you mean I can't have access to everything all the time and have to choose when I use my abilities". Is that really your idea of "balance"? Sure as hell isn't mine or anyone I have ever played with, and we run "high power" adventures regularly (currently in a 27th level campaign). You can poo-poo Paizo's choices all you want, but until you are in the place they are, your "shiny" snowflake ideas are worth about as much as they cost outside the like minded individuals you spend time talking about them with. Nothing. And that is the crux of the issue, what works for you is completely useless for others, because of our perceptions.

As it is, casters are still the most powerful set of classes hands down. The pure amount of options available to them is the single most game breaking capability any class has access to. Enforcing choices and limitations isn't a bad thing, as it promotes thinking about things. If I want to be a mindless sheep I could play numerous other games or activities. Or I could pretend to be a trained monkey and play video games bashing the buttons in the right order. None of that interests me and I would prefer to keep that type of "consistent" and "balanced" mentality out of my table top gaming.


HeHateMe wrote:
I think maybe I'm asking the wrong question. The way these mysteries are designed seems to make sense to everyone but me. Let me try this question instead: has anyone had success making a melee Oracle with the Lunar or Dark Tapestry mysteries? If so, what was your secret for success?

You build the character like a melee combatant and choose long lasting buff spells (as your DCs will be sub par and you will lack bonus spells per day) to make up for the weaknesses of your caster frame. Polymorph used to be a straight up replacement for combat ability (got type, stats were replaced instead of modified, etc). Now it is more utility. If you have crappy physical stats you aren't going to be much better off polymorphed.

If you aren't looking at PFS you should probably take a look at Ultimate Psionics and the psion (psychometabolism) and/or Metamorph PrC. Instead of constant full body swap, some of the options are "gain natural attack(s)" which allows for more werewolf like forms.


James Risner wrote:
Copy in the relevant rules and as your question. I read what you wrote, but without going out of my way to look up the things I don't know your question or the answer.

I think they are questioning the interaction of Dead Shot and two weapon fighting. Seeing as they are both full round actions, there wouldn't be any.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

But if that's the case, then why bother giving the Lunar Oracle shapeshifting powers at all? Who would ever decide to stay in a form where they can't cast spells for 8 hours? And why not make it consistent across the Mysteries? The Wood Oracle can turn into a Treant with Plant Shape and still cast spells. The Flame, Volcano, and Waves Oracles can turn into elementals using Elemental Body and still cast spells.

And then there's Dark Tapestry, which doesn't resemble any of the other Mysteries with their shapeshifting. I just can't figure this out, too many inconsistencies.

Because it isn't an MMO or video game and small choices like that make differences. Your choices mean something and not everything needs to be "balanced" with the next class or archetype. The fact that there are all these options is what makes table top gaming so much more interesting. You aren't forced to play clone #65738828383646 of a handful of options. It definitely can be confusing, but like any complicated system (which are all but phased out of present day gaming, MMOs or the like) it just takes using it to aquire familiarity/expertise. There isn't just one way to accomplish something, there are typically several paths to a desired result if you think outside the box.


Hannah the Irin wrote:
I don't know if Oracles qualify, but Natural Spell is a feat that allows you to cast spells while wildshaped.

Took a quick peek at Lunar and it refers to Beastshape the spell not wildshape the ability (didn't think it works but it has been awhile and wanted to double check).


They do know the rules, and have made changes so they aren't as easily abused as they used to be in previous editions. CoDzilla or mages who were better melee combatants than any martial could ever hope to be.

It was broken. They fixed it. The abilities you are talking about are perks of the class choices not necessarily things to hinge your entire play style on. There are ways to pull off the concept you want, but just not the way you think it should be accomplished. If you understood the rules better you wouldn't have any problem making the character you seem interested in.


Stealth Combat Training, can probably clean/cut word count a bit. "+1 to skills, increases every other class level" or actually "bonus is equal to half your class level" Isn't dependent on when you take it and no need to have a clause about retroactive bonuses. Probably just due to you moving it into the insights.

Trapbreaker, the "shatter the object" is a bit fuzzy I guess? Might want to call out lock/trap as it could be seen as "shatter the chest/wall/door/etc" or odd things like that due to how traps and locks are placed and used.

Corrupt Pattern, is there a reason for the free action re-up? Might as well just make it persistent and ended with a free action/cleanse no? It doesn't seem like you are limited to how many times you can do it (as you can have multiple killer's targets, so if you spend the action your targets would all be refreshed) or is it supposed to be one single target once per day? It is a little ambiguous when used in conjunction with mass murder insight.


@1 Odd, I wonder if the wording I'm used to seeing is from Ult psi or PrCs or PoW. As the one I'm thinking of is definitely more "clear/concise", oh well.

@2 The other side of that is, at some point you should probably accept that an archetype is making so many and so broad of changes it shouldn't be stacking with other archetypes. When you have so many changes to so many things that you need several (3+?) clauses to cover it should work... that should be a clear indication to "check your work" as the whole reason for it NOT to work is to prevent power creep. Sometimes you make choices that lock you out of other choices, this isn't a "bad thing" despite people complaining about it. It is a fundamental truth to the game, no reason to shy away from it. The archetype is busy, it does a LOT and doesn't have many drawbacks for what it changes. That makes it better than the majority of archetypes (which truthfully usually toss a small buff to a specific aspect of the class and add overall drawbacks).

As a designer why exactly are you making a "good" archetype even better is the question you need to ask yourself. For me if the answer is "so it plays nice with everything else" or "just because", it's the wrong answer and decision. There should be a more driving reason to do it when all the others don't. I'm not a fan of introducing power creep in anything I wrote up.

But whatever, I know I have different design expectations and and try to follow the core rules more closely than others from previous Discussion about matters like these. It is just my two cents so to speak.

@3 That was actually the question, it reads like you can use it for augmentation which in and of itself means it is unable to be used to manifest it. There are other things out there like that (I forget if it was Zealot or Sleeping Goddess). Does it let you use your PP and Animus at the same time for augmentation? Or do you have to choose to use one or the other (which is typically the situation)? The whole "it doesn't tell me I can't" argument.


Squiggit wrote:
I don't know why you're being so combative Skylancer, asking to figure out how you'd adjudicate something like this seems perfectly reasonable.

There is nothing "combative" about the discussion. I'm 1) fully explaining a very reasonable way to adjudicate the situation within the frame work of the mechanics and 2) having to repeatedly and politely explain why "no it isn't meta gaming" is totally false.


The "rule" is you have no way to know how many hit points any creature has, and even the one spell mentioned of the few (status and maybe one other?) which does allow it doesn't give you more than a (sometimes very narrow) status effectively.

I think you have a different definition of the term "meta game" then what it means. As in using information from outside the sphere of the game world, that you have no way of knowing (hit points), to determine in game actions. This is why I said you were meta gaming and is a dead on explanation of what you were attempting to do, intentional or not, regardless of if you care about the outcome.

It is also why I said it should be dependent on what the character does. Because in the "game world" that is what would determine what response. Think of it this way, the rounds are all happening simultaneously. But because of the head aches and the impossible situations that occur we deal in rounds and initiative orders. So, if we have a character who is essentially dying all the sudden inexplicably not so, at what point does an observer know that? When the not dead person does something to indicate that they are no longer incapable no? Because of how the round/initiative system works unless the character makes a free action to speak (out of turn) or immediate action (out of turn again) or otherwise does something it shouldn't be capable of (lets say using a shield to defend against an attack) there is no real reason to give that information to another entity in the game until the character acts on it's action. Especially as that type of information isn't actually attainable (mid level spells) "normally".


_Ozy_ wrote:

Er, it does feel like cloth if it's changed to look like cloth.

The transformation affects the 'feel', therefore it 'feels' like cloth. Not quite sure where the uncertainty is here.

I agree it does, my comment was more aimed at the OP looking at things with preconceptions and pointing it out as that can cause things to seem more complicated than they are. Sometimes things don't "make sense" in the game and people start looking for other things to justify how they think they should work, instead of accepting they don't make sense. Which was why I used the bikini example, the things can practically fall off when you dive into the water yet glamered plate mail bikini will take you 1d4+1 minutes to remove (half with help).

Does it make sense? No, but that is what happens.


Odd, I'm running a multi class psion/soul knife/aegis who was 24 last time I updated it. So I have a TON of things to put on the sheet. I seem to remember the text scaling down quite a bit when I was typing everything in. Are you copying/pasting in the entire ability description or hand writing things in? I honestly cannot imagine you having more to put in than my character lol. Don't get me wrong I used abbreviations for things (#/day), (B) to indicate bonus feats or (#) to indicate what level the feat was gained, etc. But I still was able to put four feats with those or multiple ability names with uses and such per line.

That all being said, you will probably have to make another sheet if you are unable to fit what you deem necessary in. Excel worked pretty well as I was able to replicate the Mythic table with "empty" areas to fill in depending on choices. Mostly so it was useful for others when printed out.

Edit: Just to give something to compare the following quoted text all fits on one line under Feats & Features on the first page when manually typed in. If you are copy/pasting it might retain size and not scale down, it has been awhile.

Quote:
Blindsight (4), Blindside (3), Improved Stalwart (4), Powerful build (2), Improved Evasion (4)[17/25]


Sanmei Long wrote:
Quote:
You will find the game less complicated and significantly easier to understand once you start accepting things do what they say, no more and no less.

Welllll, that would be a lot easier if things actually said what they do, rather than leaving the description so vague. For example, you've automatically assumed that a glamered armor feels like real cloth, which was one of the things I was asking about -- because the text doesn't say that this is the case. It also doesn't say that it's not the case.

So it's kind of hard to accept the rules as written if there are no rules written.

I never said it felt like cloth, feel free to re read. I said it was a heavy bikini. And because of the armor rules it would take substantial time to remove it (which in turn would probably end the effect). All because of the "keeps properties" clause.

Which is still leagues away from "it is a polymorph effect (because it seems to do that) because it doesn't say it isn't."

Like I said, it is the heaviest most difficult to get out of bikini you have ever worn. Because that is what it says it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm on my phone so I can't go into full on editing mode but a few things that I saw when scanning the Halo archetype:
1) Wording for the wisdom bonus is "off" it feels like. Might want to get it more in line with what is already published. Something like "gets a shield bonus equal to your Wis mod (max class level)" to make it more uniform.
2) There are too many 'this lets you break the archetype rules' clauses. I understand why you are doing it, to shoe horn your concept into something that is established. But it also makes it even more "I'm a special snowflake" beyond the 3pp "special rules". I've not been keeping up with Pathfinder as of late due to real life "stuff" so I'm not sure if the rules creep has precedent or not. If so ignore that, if not maybe try to find away to make it so it doesn't break the rules every other class and archetype has to follow? We are talking about a psionic class so obviously it is geared at a little more accepting crowd, but things like that are also what make some of the more conservative player base roll their eyes and disallow content.
3)One of the abilities allows you to use animus(?) instead of power points for augmentation. You should clarify that you are unable to mix them with power points as well if it is following the general rules. Drawing from two sources is typically not allowed in the core psionic rules and even the PoW Zealot/Sleeping Goddess stuff makes mention/reinforces that if I remember correctly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanmei Long wrote:

Yes; my question is how thorough an illusion is it, actually? Quoting the section on glamers,

"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear."

I'm wondering, and the text fails to specify, how much of this text applies to the similarly named enhancement.

Naming means nothing. This game is full of things being "similar" yet not identical if not completely opposite. Also of things being shortened and apparently different from what they do (looking at you flavor and table text).

You will find the game less complicated and significantly easier to understand once you start accepting things do what they say, no more and no less. They needed a name for the property, they used glamered, it has nothing at all to do with the game mechanic 'glamer' unless it specifically references it.

The armor retains all properties it had including weight, yet looks and feels like something else entirely. Full stop. It isn't that thing and it isn't a glamer (as it can only been seen through by true sight or the like). It is what it says it is and it does what it says it does, look no further.

It is the heaviest bikini you have ever worn. And if it were a plate mail bikini it would take forever to take off.


I'm surprised no one mentioned anything about the almost 3 year necro...


Jiggy wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
1) Some actions are not "skill checks" but do hinge on the result of a roll involving a skill. Most prevalent would be 3pp Path of War where certain combat maneuvers can instead use skills associated with the school of combat. But I imagine there are some core abilities that swap rolls too. This means there is a distinction between "skill check" and "skill roll". The difference being you are doing something detailed under the skill (skill check) or you are doing something that references a skill (skill roll), Learning a spell could be considered the later quite easily.

A third-party product inventing new mechanics that move stuff around in unconventional ways is not grounds for reimagining what the Core rules mean. And no, there's no such thing in Core as a "skill roll", only "skill checks". Look it up. Any references to a "skill roll" in other products is either a new invention or an error.

Even if there WERE such a distinction, you've clearly not read the ability in question, as it explicitly references a "Spellcraft check".

Quote:
2) Distraction is a HUGE umbrella and the fear of losing the scroll could easily be considered "distracting". Fear of failure is a thing.

Not if you've actually read the take 10 rules:

"In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10)."
(Bolding mine.)
When the mechanic explicitly offers itself as a solution for when you fear failure, the fear of failure can't keep you from using it.

And even if it didn't have that line, there's still the fact that if the possibility of failure prevented taking 10, then you could never take 10 on anything unless you were going to succeed on a 1 anyway. Then the mechanic literally does nothing, which makes it pretty obvious that that's not how it works.

Quote:
Just playing devil's advocate.
No, you're not. When the issues...

"Swapping" is FAR from being that 3pp baby. Paizo has been doing it forever. Feel free to look up the X to Y thread which probably isn't even fully updated. Most pertinent being the CL+ cast mod instead of CMB. Is it a combat roll or is a caster level check? It is a combat roll that uses two different stats, which in turn makes my point and why it would be not as cut and dry as you made it out to be.

Again, "swapping" stats is nothing new or restricted to 3pp. Despite my example not being core, the concept is fully realized in core.


Chess Pwn wrote:

No, I'm just curious if and what it is to notice someone.

And this issue is, someone is going from unconscious to conscious. So it's not like dead and unconscious or how close to unconscious. It seems like you feel that there is no possible way to tell that someone that was unconscious is not conscious without spending a standard action "melee" heal check.

No really, you are trying to meta game.

If you were really that worried about it you would go over and stab the person regardless. What you are trying to do is determine you course of action and are afraid to "waste" a round doing something. Pretty much the definition of meta gaming.

You apparently knew they were "dying" you apparently knew there was some healing. The only in game information you should have is, if they were bleeding out they no longer are. Until they act, how would you know anything other than that? They are breathing and probably in pretty rough shape outwardly, what makes you think you can tell what they are going to do (if anything) next round with a quick glance in combat?

I'm not judging or saying it is good or bad, but you are definitely meta gaming here and are looking for rules to justify it. Ask your GM because there aren't any "official" answers for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:

The ARG text, which I wasn't aware of, is definitive. If a race is also a subtype, you only have to have that subtype, not that race for any racial restrictions.

Personally, I think this is a bad design. I think there should be archetypes and feats that only refer to the specific elven race, rather than only all humaniods with the elf subtype, but right now it would be impossible to make such a thing, at least with the standard language.

Doing this would require significantly more word count and be prohibitive. There are several variations of races especially elves, and so you would have to go through and name them all as "allowed" which then in turn means you have to FAQ or Errata any new variations for all past items that have the restriction. This would actually be a horrible design, it makes work long after implemented.

They did it the "smart" way and it is actually "good design" despite your objection. All they need to do to make an item "restricted" is make that item specific to what they want (like they did with the drow archetype). If they want something specifically for wood elves, they can punch in "wood elf" as the prerequisite and "Viola!" It works how they wanted it to, only creatures who are born wood elves can take it.

Simple, effective (aka elegant design).


Jiggy wrote:
THUNDER_Jeffro wrote:
Can a witch take 10 when adding new spells to their familiar?

The take 10 rules are an umbrella mechanic; if you're under its area (skill checks) then you're automatically covered unless there's a specific exception.

Quote:
Does anyone have a rules reference

That'd be the take 10 rules themselves; they're not particularly ambiguous.

Here, from the Skills chapter of the Core Rulebook:
"When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. .... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."
There you go. Unless you've got some other rule saying that the check in question is a special exception, you use the normal take 10 rules.

Quote:
I am the GM in this situation.
What's that got to do with anything?

While I'm not disagreeing that the rules say that there are two things that I would want to also point out.

1) Some actions are not "skill checks" but do hinge on the result of a roll involving a skill. Most prevalent would be 3pp Path of War where certain combat maneuvers can instead use skills associated with the school of combat. But I imagine there are some core abilities that swap rolls too. This means there is a distinction between "skill check" and "skill roll". The difference being you are doing something detailed under the skill (skill check) or you are doing something that references a skill (skill roll), Learning a spell could be considered the later quite easily.

2) Distraction is a HUGE umbrella and the fear of losing the scroll could easily be considered "distracting". Fear of failure is a thing.

Just playing devil's advocate.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Dc 5 heal check, dc 10 perception or sense motive. There are some overlap between skills in this situation.

DC 5 seems a bit low, unless you are actually sitting next to the creature dedicating action to poke and prod (aka making an actual heal check) leaving yourself open to attacks in the middle of combat.

My understanding is, they are in combat and want to be able to determine consciousness by sight only after the target was dealt enough damage to drop them into the negatives.

You are basically saying, you can make a DC 5 heal check to determine internal bleeding on an unresponsive patient across the room in the middle of combat...by looking at them.

The check isn't to see if they are unconscious. It's if they have regained consciousness. You know they are unconscious cause you dropped them, then they receive healing you cannot see, enough to bring them above 0. How can I tell that they are awake again? I'm just wanting to figure out how to know that the guy can act again so I can drop him again before leaving him be.

Same difference in effect.

You want to know information you cannot know without some sort of investment. Until that person does something outwardly to make it completely obvious the only way you can know if they are conscious would be something like a heal check.

Again I'm all for GM call, just because they are no longer bleeding out doesn't mean they jump up and are completely obvious about it. The GM could just as easily say they remain unconscious until it is their turn to act (the whole groggy for a minute after a near death experience or all the sudden they gasp for air after their heart stopped, any of that crap can be used). They aren't pretending to be out of it at that point and no amount of sense motive is going to get you what you want using that rationale if the GM decided to rule it that way. I'm pointing out that the info you want is probably not a simple as a DC5 check. Hit points are the conglomerate of multiple ideas and concepts, just because you get healed doesn't mean there are outward signs that blantently tell you it happened. It could have just as easily been internal injuries that were healed and there would be absolutely no way for you to "see" that. That is why you cannot just look at a creature and tell how many hit points it has, and it requires a spell to get the closest approximation to that action.

Basically you are trying to look for rules that allow you to meta game.


Quandary wrote:

Dave Justus' rationale is pretty solid by my book.

One specific ability specifying what it means in a parenthesis does not become universal paradigm.
As he stated, that cannot function as a general paradigm as shown by Drow archetypes.
Trying to claim precedent for general paradigm, when that expressly is not a 'general' paradigm, seems dubious.

Only if you ignore that it is in fact the general paradigm?

As written out in the rules and further reinforced by a rather long standing FAQ, it does in fact work the way I and others have stated. It isn't just one statement, it is part of the subtype system as well. It just happens that it was restated in the archetype which is why I found it amusing enough to point out.

Nothing about the drow archetype makes this impossible or breaks the "paradigm". One archetype has a more strict requirement, you need to be a specific type of elf (a drow). This prohibits all elves from being able to take it. Another archetype requires you to be an elf (which include any and all creatures with the elf subtype) and so a drow can take it (having the elf subtype).


Andre Roy wrote:
Kazaan wrote:


Basically, any time you see "Prerequisite: Elf", replace that with "Prerequisite: Humanoid w/ Elf subtype" But, honestly, I think the system would benefit a lot from having a distinction between biological prerequisites based on type/subtype and social/cultural prerequisites based on having experienced and lived in the society. Fantasy stories abound with people having been raised by some race other than their own and sharing their culture. In the case of Elves and Drow, particularly, Drow are still Elves in the sense that they are extremely in tune with their environment, with magic in general, and have keen senses. So Elf racial elements that revolve around those principals should be a perfect fit for a Drow. But Elf racial elements that revolve around being part of the normal, tree-hugging Elven cultural should not be automatically available to Drow; but could be made available to a character of any race that has successfully integrated into Elven society.

As a GM that`s pretty much how I would look at it. Biology VS Culture.

If it is Biology base, I would allow it as Drow have the Elf subtype. If it`s Culture base, probably not as Drow and Surface elves have very distinct culture.

If it were culture based there would be more to the prerequisites. They have done that with the whole traits thing as well as other items in the game. Limits by where they were raised etc.

They didn't, they used Elf, which means any creature with the Elf subtype.


Imbicatus wrote:
Dc 5 heal check, dc 10 perception or sense motive. There are some overlap between skills in this situation.

DC 5 seems a bit low, unless you are actually sitting next to the creature dedicating action to poke and prod (aka making an actual heal check) leaving yourself open to attacks in the middle of combat.

My understanding is, they are in combat and want to be able to determine consciousness by sight only after the target was dealt enough damage to drop them into the negatives.

You are basically saying, you can make a DC 5 heal check to determine internal bleeding on an unresponsive patient across the room in the middle of combat...by looking at them.


Bill Dunn wrote:
For the most part, I'd assume anyone unconscious who is suddenly healed is going to have a VERY hard time starting out playing possum. I'd make it a bluff vs sense motive check with +5 or so on the sense motive.

For something like this you would probably be looking at a heal check (which would require you to get close enough to actually investigate the person) before you could make the sense motive check. If you want to know someone's physical status you need to be in a position to actually able to make the initial check before being able to check if you are being deceived in any way. You don't know how much healing was done so the only thing you can be certain is they are in a less worse condition than they were barring meta gaming.

Just because you are dying, doesn't mean you are automatically a hunk of meat just lying there completely still. And just because you got healed to "not dying" doesn't mean you are instantaneously alert. The combat round is a simplification of what happens in the 6 second time span. Until that person does something to disprove they aren't laying on the ground helpless the only thing you know is.... they are on the ground seemingly helpless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Amusingly enough:

Ancient Lorekeeper archetype ability wrote:
Whenever she makes a Knowledge check of any kind about a question regarding elves (creatures of the elf subtype),

Apparently an elf is a creature with the elf subtype as far as it is concerned.

The games definition of "elf" allows drow to take the archetype, if you want to choose to house rule otherwise, obviously feel free. But you should be willing to defend your arbitrary decision with more than "because".


Selvaxri wrote:
Philo Pharynx wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Wirt wrote:
Other pet types aren't impeded so.

I can't speak to eidolons as I've never been allowed to play one, but let's compare to animal companions:

** spoiler omitted **

Gear: It falls off if they have to walk through a wall or you make them go inside your head (and become un-targetable) while Animal Companions get to continue wearing their gear while they stare at the wall they can't walk through and if they get surrounded and subsequently killed by the enemy.

I'm afraid I don't see the flawed game design.

Animal companions don't disappear for 24 hours for moving too far away from their master.
Phantoms remanifest after 24 hours, whereas you'd have to pay to replace your familiar/animal companion.

You don't have to pay anything to replace your Animal Companion (Not that it is really relevant).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@3. You would not gain your CHA to each attack of the full attack action. The gambit was for the attack you made (the first attack), once that is resolved you are making another attack which has nothing to do with the gambit but could benefit from the initial attack's results (the AC penalty).


I've just used Excel, mythic is basically a rules "add-on" so once you are at the point of multiple page character sheets... you add another sheet to the character. In all honesty it is more overkill than anything though, the only reason I did it was for planning/retraining purposes, knowing at every level what was chosen and would be impacted on changes.

I use a version of the neceros sheet, and there are plenty of blank spaces to type in any of the Mythic abilities mid way on the initial page under "feats and abilities" as well as a "point pool" below the skills with the movement and initiative block. What more are you in need of for the Mythic rules?

1 to 50 of 4,227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.