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. 3,231 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Spoiler:
You could easily have the new PC waiting for the knot when they arrive (a certain someone is well informed about the PCs and has minions capable of depositing necessary reinforcements). Just make sure they are properly equipped I comparison to the rest of the party if you have them do any more encounters. Or just skip the ones left and forward to the encampment.

Regardless any new PC should be built with the same restrictions/boons as the rest of the party. They tend to be safeguards to ensure cohesive teamwork as well as background. There are multiple knots, plenty of places new PCs could be from.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Your counter argument isn't valid. Familiars are a class ability for player characters (core rules). Same as animal companions and eidolons. Animal companions/Eidolons follow their [i]own[/] rules, which also happen to coincide with the table at times. The times they do are calculated and predetermined for mechanical balance.
The familiar is a class ability that uses stats gained from the Bestiary. Unless you are suggesting I can find the stats for my rat familiar from the core rulebook. And since the stats are determined from the Bestiary, so might the ways in which those stats increase.

Those "stats" aren't 100% taken from the book though, they are a skeleton used for the player characters ability which alters them quite significantly. Unless you are arguing the familiar is completely limited to the statistics taken from the bestiary? Because that isn't the case is it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Claxon wrote:


That's why this problem arises. You have one part that says it kicks in only on a failed save, and you have another that has an established precedent of working based on not knowing whether your original roll succeeded or failed.

No, it says you cannot know the result of the spell, meaning you don't get to find out what will happen then decide to use the ability after you know.

1)You get hit with a spell.
2)You make a saving throw.
A) Roll the die add number, give total to the GM.
B) GM tells you that you failed.
---UH OH DECISION TIME---
You decide to use your ability! Go to 2.
You decide not to use your ability! Go to 3.
---
OR
C) GM tells you you made it. Go to 3.
3) GM tells you the results of your saving throw.
---You are unable to use your ability as you know the result---


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Feel free to disagree, but it does do that. If you roll a 2, yeah you know you probably failed. If you roll a 12... You won't know unless combat has been going on and you've seen other saves rolled to metagame the numbers you are looking at. Chances are if someone doesn't understand or is confused by that line, they don't have a particularly solid grasp of the mechanics of the game and will be confounded by numerous other rules as well. Best to explain how and why things work so they learn.

I am not confounded by the rules, but the rules of that power are internally inconsistent. Or at least ambiguous depending on the meaning of "before the results are revealed".

You can't know that you've failed and not know what the result of the roll, unless the line is about not knowing what the effect cast was. Which honestly just sounds ridiculous to me. Why would you care what the effect is, as long as you know you've failed it.

I guess I find it ridiculous that you find it ridiculous then. We play a game in which characters have access to abilities which interrupt the normal flow of things. Where you can as an immediate action, or free action, completely negate or alter statistics to the point where events are changed from what they would have ended up as.

A character charges an opponent, an invisible ally of the opponent takes the AoO afforded to them and trips the charging character. All the sudden the charge is ruined and doesn't happen. We never know what is going to happen until actions actually resolve because of actions that interrupt exist. There is an order to things, it is broken up for reasons, not the least of which is so things can occur mechanically in the game. If you want to ignore that, feel free, but again that is the way things are in this rule set.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Trekkie90909 wrote:
Sky -- how do you explain the ability interacting with spells the results of which are already known to the player/character? I.e. baddie goes 'color spray' (to use a level inappropriate example) hitting half the party, and you see them crumple. He then turns to our character with a reroll, and goes 'color spray.' Since the character knows the spell knocks people out he can't use the re-roll? And what about casters who make their spellcraft check to identify the spell as it is being cast?

Knowing the result of a spell is mechanically different from knowing the resolution of said spell for a particular instance of the spell used on you. If a spell is cast on you, and you made your spellcraft, you know the potential outcome of the spell. When you make your saving throw, and fail the GM tells you the resulting effects. Between rolling the save and the GM telling you the effect, you have the capacity to reroll as the result of that particular casting of the spell hasn't been revealed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Well there are risks involved. If the construct is destroyed all that money is gone. Constructs don't scale up after creation so at some point they are outdated as you level, as well as being expensive to create initially at the points they become available.

As for magic items, I would probably let constantly active/use activated ones work. But as the construct typically doesn't have any will of its own (it follows instructions of the creator and even that is relatively limited), the golem probably isn't capable of the "mental" aspect of activating other items. Even a command word activation requires some sort of "willing" the item to work as well as speaking the appropriate word, as part of the standard action to activate.

However, the creator could make traps with magical items or spells that the golem could trigger due to its immunities. Explosive runes on a wall, hidden behind a tapestry which the golem could rip off. Symbols of XZY as well. A Fire Trap. Contingency. There are many ways to get creative with spells and effects if you can trigger them with something that is either immune or will get a benefit from the effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Your counter argument isn't valid. Familiars are a class ability for player characters (core rules). Same as animal companions and eidolons. Animal companions/Eidolons follow their [i]own[/] rules, which also happen to coincide with the table at times. The times they do are calculated and predetermined for mechanical balance.


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

I think the easiest way is to ignore the first sentence.

"This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The barbarian must take the second result, even if it is worse."

Without the first line the ability makes complete sense. It's not impossible the first line was written more as flavor text than actual rules text.

The first line keeps you from wasting it on a successful save though. Like a safety net to preserve a limited use ability. If the save is successful, you can't use the ability. If the save is failed, you can before the GM tells you the result. It makes sense in a logic scenario, because face it, there are GMs who would look at you and say "are you going to re roll?" Before telling you if you made the save or not if they didn't put that clause in.
Disagreed. You can see you initial die result and have a good idea of whether or not you saved. Sure, the first line theoretically keeps you from wasting the ability. However, the first line is what causes problems with the rest of the ability's rules text.

Feel free to disagree, but it does do that. If you roll a 2, yeah you know you probably failed. If you roll a 12... You won't know unless combat has been going on and you've seen other saves rolled to metagame the numbers you are looking at. Chances are if someone doesn't understand or is confused by that line, they don't have a particularly solid grasp of the mechanics of the game and will be confounded by numerous other rules as well. Best to explain how and why things work so they learn.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:

That's the age we live in though. A lot of tables don't even have the books. People use apps and reference documents these days.

But even if you have the books, a guy who mostly plays fighters isn't likely to read that deeply in the magic section. Your average person isn't going to memorize the entire rule set. Most people don't have that kind of free time to read rules they don't need on the spot. The people in this forum are exceptional in rules knowledge, and even us regulars misremember or misinterpret rules from time to time.

But you are missing or still not addressing the point. PC abilities don't act like the chart you are referencing basically ever, so what makes you think that this particular PC ability should?

Using admittantly useful tools, like the PRD or apps is fine. Suggesting that the rules be changed because people use tools like that as crutches and remain ignorant of things that aren't hand fed to them/don't pop up first on a search... Doesn't make sense to me. It's there if you decide to spend a little time reading and comprehend what the game is doing. I mean if you don't have time to read, you probably shouldn't be upset when your character is audited or you are told you might be incorrect. But chances are, the people who do this are going to be upset because the rules say the thing is less powerful than the table they "found" and was the incorrect one, then spend as much time arguing as they could have spent researching the rules and coming up with the "correct" answer.

The table has big numbers, that aren't typically granted to PCs, so that alone is often enough for people to "stop looking" instead of digging to see what is down there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

No, being unwilling doesn't mean having to use any and all resources to make the save. It just means you need to make the save in the scenario detailed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
The Human Diversion wrote:
Bradley Mickle wrote:
For AoO, forced movement never draws attacks of opportunity.
Like all Pathfinder, unless otherwise specified, of course. In this case, Improved Awesome Blow does provoke from forced movement.

The OP never mentioned anything regarding Improved Awesome Blow, so the general rule is no AoO. If they had the feat you brought up, I don't think they would be asking said question do you?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

I think the easiest way is to ignore the first sentence.

"This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The barbarian must take the second result, even if it is worse."

Without the first line the ability makes complete sense. It's not impossible the first line was written more as flavor text than actual rules text.

The first line keeps you from wasting it on a successful save though. Like a safety net to preserve a limited use ability. If the save is successful, you can't use the ability. If the save is failed, you can before the GM tells you the result. It makes sense in a logic scenario, because face it, there are GMs who would look at you and say "are you going to re roll?" Before telling you if you made the save or not if they didn't put that clause in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Just look at spells like Enlarge Person or Alter Person. They never follow the "Monster Advancement Size Chart". I don't think until later (5th level or so) that spells give anything comparable (Righteous Might). It is only confusing if you think that PCs should use the monster advancement for some reason. As a player you are better off forgetting that table existed, as it isn't for you.

Enlarge person doesn't seem to use either chart. It isn't a polymorph effect anyway. I can't find an alter person spell. You may have meant alter self, but again the chart wouldn't factor into that since most characters are small/medium already, but the spell lists what bonuses it gives.

But that aside, I still contend that many people aren't aware the polymorph table even exists, because I didn't until recently. It's at the tail end of a chapter that you only want to read if you are a heavy polymorph caster. And if you google "pathfinder size change" or "prd size change", the first link is for monster advancement. And a link to a polymorph page isn't even listed. So, people thinking the mauler uses the monster advancement table makes sense. And I expect that's the way many tables rule, just because they don't know better.

I'd actually say that is more an issue of people googling things to find builds as opposed to actually reading the rules, being familiar with them and understanding how the game works to make their own. Searching for relevant strings of characters, opposed to relevant content pertaining to your question.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

As is pure natural attack builds are strong at low levels and weak at high levels. Nerfing them at low levels would mean they are never strong. So the only way they would be used would be in addition to two-handed attacks. And that is the point at which they are already good, because they just add dpr at no or little cost.

As not all kinds of natural attacks CAN be combined with two-handed weapons it would make those who can't near useless. Like claws and some kinds of slams.

First, I'm not a fan of linear-quadratic balance. If something's strong at low levels and weak at high levels, or vice-versa, that's two separate bugs. I'd rather come up with a second fix to boost natural attacks at high levels than leave them as-is.

Second, my current party is at level 8 and natural weapons guy is still at least holding his own against sword and board guy, depending on whether the enemy has DR and haste is active. When are natural attacks supposed to fall behind? Like many, we usually end campaigns in the level 10-15 range.

As soon as enemies have access to flight (and you don't play them like morons) melee has issues. No full round attacks barring pounce builds (who can fly). Material DR will hurt natural attack builds because they rely on AoMF to get enhancement bonuses, this in turn drains gold because the amulet is twice as expensive as increasing a single weapon and can't be done separately. DR 5 isn't that big of a deal, properly built and itemized they will still be doing damage. Once you start seeing 10's they will be hurting a lot when attacks might be completely negated.

Basically if you aren't seeing an issue right now (which is midly surprising, you should have been dealing at least with casters occasionally), your GM is being nice probably, assuming home game. You should expect to see them slowing doing/getting shut down relatively soon. If it is a PFS game where encounters are pre-built, honestly the encounters are typically on the "easy" side. They can't tell who is going to play what and so some parties might struggle with it (low team work, or they don't complement each other well) others might have no issue (high levels of team work, characters do complement each other) and faceroll the scenario. This even happens in the APs, there was maybe one or two memorable encounters in each book because our group tends to be fairly optimized. The encounters we had issues with were mostly due to party composition versus a truly "difficult" fight.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I doubt many people are even aware of the polymorph chart's existence and just use the advancement chart for everything. It's honestly really confusing that there are two different charts. Maybe it's a balance thing but life would be simpler if everything used the same size chart.

Well, there are multiple reasons for the polymorph chart.

The tiny fairy that used a power to turn human? It would not be very convincing if it only had 3 str after transforming.

And it is sometimes in your favor as a player- if you baleful polymorph a dragon into a small dog, then you kind of want it to have less strength, no?

I'm thinking you may have misunderstood. I'm saying that all size changes should have used the same chart. Right now there is a separate chart for creature size changes and for polymorph effects. Those charts should have been consolidated.

The size chart isn't ever really used by the PCs. It is there for the GM when they want to create or modify creatures.

Just look at spells like Enlarge Person or Alter Person. They never follow the "Monster Advancement Size Chart". I don't think until later (5th level or so) that spells give anything comparable (Righteous Might). It is only confusing if you think that PCs should use the monster advancement for some reason. As a player you are better off forgetting that table existed, as it isn't for you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

They are talking about the results of the spell. Meaning you can't decide to re roll the save after you know what the effect is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I don't believe that that much has changed. Some powers got tweaked, as well as classes. But really, most were "buffed" and more options given. PFRPG promotes single class progression, instead of multiclassing out.

The basics of the guides are still useful, you would just have to check the powers you choose (most of which would still function as they did) that would have been save or die/suck/lose and metamorphosis/transmutation type, because those were the types most likely to be redone. The theory behind builds is still the same.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Mighty Squash wrote:
Animal companion: Animal Feats wrote:
Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/faq#v5748eaic9osa wrote:

Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?

No. An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy), or activate magic devices.

I'm not sure how clearly PFS should be read as an indication of RAI. This PFS FAQ seems to contradict the Animal Feats rule in the CRB. There are a few animal companion types, especially apes, where it would be very hard to argue that they were not physically capable of using some such feats and as such the PFS FAQ must be seen as a PFS-specific alteration of the rule rather than a general clarification of how the rules should work.

The only thing that might be "contradictory" out of the entire AC section, is intelligent apes possibly using a weapon (when commanded to, because they would still want to use slam attacks) - paraphrased. And quite frankly that is if the GM allows it to happen. Animal companions are still lumped into the "non sentient" group further above in the write up (d20pfsrd - animal companions).

If you GM allows you to do it, because it is hard to justify making it smarter, more intuitive, more self aware. They can run it however they want. That doesn't mean it was intended to be that way, just that the rules do allow for something beyond what they intended to happen. As always Rule 0.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Jeff Merola wrote:
I believe the official answer in this case is "GM discretion", actually.

Unless it is PFS (which is also a great indication of RAI), in which case it is a No. The FAQ fairly plainly states Animal Companions weren't intended to have the capacity.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I just went onto d20pfsrd and went through a couple of CR 11-12 monsters and their Fort saves were +12 to +14. Fort saves tend to be "good" for most monsters you will be facing, reflex is often less than that.

One of the bad things about those abilities is they are based off BAB, which is not real something you can "buff" unlike other abilities that are based off attributes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Mohs Freidricson wrote:
When will I be able to spend money on this.

Didn't they say something about still being able to buy into it after the kick starter was done? Or was that only for people who funded the KS and wanted to purchase other goals/addons?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
The only downside I can think of is how likely you are to fight stuff smaller than you. Dazing Assualt may be a good choice if you're only doing one attack a round.
Half-giant counts as one size larger any time it's convenient. So for this purpose you're considered Large all the time, and it works for every Medium opponent you face. Then there's expansion so you can smack around (actual) giants.

I'm 100% sure Powerful Build doesn't do everything you think it does. Because it definitely doesn't make you considered large all the time.

Powerful Build wrote:
Powerful Build: The physical stature of half-giants lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger. Whenever a half-giant is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for a Combat Maneuver Bonus or Combat Maneuver Defense (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the half-giant is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him. A half-giant is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature's special attacks based on size (such as grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefts of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject's size category.

You are considered large for CMB/CMD, and if other creatures can affect you with their special abilities. There is nothing in there that makes you large for the purposes of the feats the OP listed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Honestly while it might seem like a cool idea... It's going to be a headache. For you and the GM. Really.

Why?

Getting a paladin and antipaladin to "work" in a group... Ugh.
No matter what your background, its messy and annoying and someone is going to get screwed over. They are mechanically oil and water, they don't mix.

Also, one of you is going to be rendered partial useless. If you are fighting evil creatures, YOU can't smite. If you are fighting good creatures, the paladin can't smite. If you are fighting good creatures, the paladin is probably falling too... Back to "UGH". If your GM makes everything "neutral", neither of you can smite...

I'd seriously suggest you change your class to something more "party friendly" as what it seems like is, you are just playing the black sheep of the family. And that can be done with any other class basically. Something like the Slayer, or Warpriest, or Unchained Rogue could let you play the sneaky type martial.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Well first off, what is the concept/bet? Need to know what you are looking for to help. What is the end "goal"? A "stealthy antipaladin" is pretty broad.

That being said, an archer paladin could have potential. Sneak within range of the weapon. Smite, 5' step out and blow it up. Run off to hide again, repeat until dead. Find a way to slow/pin down to truly frustrate the opponent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Archae wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Archae wrote:
bump

^

Is frowned upon on these boards, to the point of moderators posting saying to not do it (for future reference).

Your damage will be rather low as you'll never get the Dex to damage, or if you do go that far, you are sacrificing so many caster levels you wreck your casting ability.

i post on the boards quite alot and have never had anyone tell me anything about it. but moving on.

i only plan a level or two at most, if the multiclassing can be avoided id prefer that.

I'm guessing that is because they've never seen you do it and you don't post here as often as you seem to think you do if you haven't ever heard of it. Friendly advice is all, but as you said moving on..

If you don't want multi class, you don't have many useful options to make it effective. Your best bet would be looking for an archetype that grants gun use or helps the concept, but I can't think of any off the top of my head that do so from Paizo. Maybe 3pp material or is that not an option?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

PoK - this seems as good a place to ask as anywhere else, outside of Dreamscarred Forums...

Is the PoW hard copy updated with errata? I do remember reading that there were some amount of typos, irregularities and problems here and there. I love the concept, and would like to get a hard copy, but I also want to make sure I get a…more "working correctly" version...

I always hate seeing people say this, especially to a smaller company. "I am interested in the product but don't want to buy it unless it is perfected." So instead of purchasing the product, providing incentive and showing demand for the product, you don't buy it, lessening the income of the company and making a next run less likely or impossible...

I mean, I understand the desire but it just makes no sense to me. Even the best products tend to have some issues, it is part of the dealing with "smaller" companies doing this type of work. If people did this, these companies would make no money and so wouldn't exist :(


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Archae wrote:
bump

^

Is frowned upon on these boards, to the point of moderators posting saying to not do it (for future reference).

Your damage will be rather low as you'll never get the Dex to damage, or if you do go that far, you are sacrificing so many caster levels you wreck your casting ability.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Oh, looks like a typo. They must've meant harmless on a successful save.
That's what I'm thinking, but I've asked about the Unbreakable Gambit in two threads and gotten two wildly different answers. It'd be really nice to have a clarification if possible. :)

Offensive spells are save or negate, so it doesn't work assuming a "typo".

Spells that don't inflict damage (aka harmless) are what they were trying to get at I believe.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:

By changing that one word, the ability makes a lot more sense to me. The warlord is emboldened because he's unbreakable, by completely negating the effects of the spell. He's unable to use Unbreakable on any ability that has an effect even when the warlord succeeds on his save, because even though he made the save he's still been affected by the ability. IE you could use Unbreakable on a wight's energy drain or a Stinking Cloud spell, but not on a Finger of Death spell or an Ice Tomb hex. Does that make sense?

As it stands right now we've basically just agreed not to use the Unbreakable gambit, which I think is a shame since it's really one of the most interesting gambits.

Unfortunately that change makes no sense either, no "offensive" type spell has "harmless" as a result. They are save or negate (Save: Negates). So it remains useless even with your suggestion.

I still maintain that it is for spells that inflict no physical damage (aka harmless), as opposed to Harmless game term. At this point it is the only thing that makes sense barring completely rewriting the ability. "Harm" in this game is is determined by damage, be it hit point, ability or the like. So a spell like Charm Person does not actually "harm" a character mechanically. I won't argue that a charm could be "harmful" in certain ways, but it does not actually inflict "harm" on the character who it is cast on. Feel free to disagree but I'm a fan of K.I.S.S and this makes sense and allows the ability to actually work like is seems to be written to.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

"Harmless" is also an English word that sums up "without damage" which is what the gambit calls for. It also is what "makes sense" given that there aren't spells cast by opponents (mentioned in the gambit as what triggers the ability) that are what the game term would be. If the mechanic game term doesn't fit, the real English term does so use that.

As for stat stacking, PFRPG has made the decision that is a no-no, which is okay. You should read the FAQ to explain what does and doesn't stack in such cases. Basically, there are A LOT of options in this game and not all options mesh or will work well together. Some choices are redundant or sub par, which is why you should plan a little before making choices that are "lasting" for your characters career.

If you need more clarification you can go to Dreamscarred Press' website and ask those last three there. They are usually pretty active, but have been very busy since the kick starter (which has been more of a pain than they initially expected).


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

1) Adjacent to you.
2) Charging is an untyped bonus, no reason they don't stack.
3) I believe the intent to be enemies adjacent to each other, as that is where the qualifier is mentioned.
4) You are your own ally.
5) I believe harmless means, it inflicts no damage, so you are looking at effects such as charms etc that do no damage when you fail.
5B) d20prsrd shows you as gaining temp HP, not getting additional saves. But yes in your example, a gambit that provided saves based on CHA would be a poor choice.
6) You must use a move action to activated it, though as an "encounter" isn't strictly combat it would be possible to have it active before combat starts in some cases (up to the GM).
7) Gambits and maneuvers are class features so I would imagine they would follow that process. The problem is, maneuvers are balanced based on having limited access to high level ones. Retraining allows you to bypass this and gain all maneuvers you qualify for at current, so every manuever could be highest available. This is definitely a balance issue and should not be allowed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

+1 with adaptive would be where I would start (so you can take advantage of strength buffs, potions etc).

Then I would buy some Bracers of Falcon's Aim (they are cheaper than the cost of an item to increase your perception skill, get a +1 to hit and keen your bow).

After that is almost situational. If you are fighting a lot of a certain type of creatures bane is always a good buy. After that one of the elementals for extra damage isn't ever a bad thing either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Byakko wrote:

Actually, Aspect of the Beast does work with Fox Shape. The claws you grow aren't part of your Kitsune form, but an additional feature added by a feat. Further, "Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form." I think it's reasonable to assume that a fox shape is well suited to using claw attacks.

Again, that definition is only relevant to melee attacks. For other purposes, it's undefined.

It has been debated before, but RAW polymorph school says they are lost. Foxes don't have claws in their stat block, you do not gain something that they don't have without specific exceptions stating you do. The claws from the feat aren't a supernatural or other effect that can be activated in the new form either (like a totem or bloodline ability, etc). Whatever your "base" form is, gains claws when you gain the feat, so polymorphing makes you lose those.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Becoming immune to fatigue allows you to use rage, then drop it and then fire it off again the next round. It is usually used to make use of 1xper rage abilities but for you, it would allow you to pop claws for a few rounds and be able to drop them as you swap opponents and pop them again before the limitation on rage would let you. It wouldn't be needed if you have enough to cover all your encounters but would come in handy if you had limited rounds.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

10 rounds of rage seems a little low for a character who depends on the claws for damage and no way to rage cycle.

Losing a level of two from Unchained Rogue would probably be worth gaining the BAB and rage rounds of barbarian.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

My guess would be Kitsune (fox shape +3 BAB, 13 Cha) and in no particular order (though you could qualify for fox shape at level 3 doing barb2/swash1 right off the bat).

4 Rogue Unchained (vexing):
-Ability to move through opponent's square with no acrobatic check
-Dex to damage on finessable weapon (bite or claws)
-Improved dirty trick
-Debilitating, 2 rogue tricks as well as 2d6 SA

1 Swashbuckler (mouser):
-Because, well, you know why.

2+ Barbarian (urban):
-Beast Totem for claws
-More levels = more rage rounds and Dex bonus

Mix with MoMS/Fighter (unarmed) to get style feats as needed. Rogue can grab a combat feat with combat trick as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Mechanically, every roll is a separate attack. It has to deal with AC, has the possibility to confirm, and has an attack bonus "like" normal when you do a full attack or flurry. Each successful attack adds its damage to the total. A creature defenses would treat the culmination of the attack rolls as a single attack, but it is still the culmination of multiple resolved attacks.

Charging Stag still limits you to one attack when used, even if you can make more. Even if you could make 5 attacks due to pounce, even if you could make 3 attacks due to your Flurry in Pummeling Style, you can make one with Charging Stag. Strictly speaking.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

You make multiple attacks and pool their damage during a Pummeling Strike however. Multiple attacks. Which is what Charging Stag prevents you from doing, no?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Korlos wrote:
I hadn't read the shadows' ability, so I didn't realize death ward would apply. Would death ward have an effect if a shadow hits you before the spell is cast on you?

It is a preventative measure, it doesn't "heal" anything in effect already (except negating the penalties from negative levels while in effect as stated).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Komoda wrote:

The logic of the game forces it to be one attack, or multiple attacks.

If it is one attack, then the OP's combo should work. If it doesn't work because it is multiple attacks, then the previously expressed scenario about a Hungry Ghost Monk gaining multiple Ki points back for critical hits should work.

One way or another, Pummeling Charge is a rather powerful option that probably wasn't the original intent. That said, it cannot be watered down to the least powerful use in all cases. It has to follow some form of logic.

So there are two options. It can count as one single attack in all aspects, and therefore can be stacked with Charging Stag, blocked by Crane Style, and affected once by other mechanics that affect one attack. Or it only counts as one attack for the damage pool to overcome DR and multiple attacks for other game effects such as gaining Ki back, using Enforcer to demoralize more than once per round, or other per hit mechanics.

One way or another, it will work with a mechanic that many people are not going to agree with.

There are more than those two options possible, as they could rule that the multiple attack rolls don't trigger abilities and the like or certain abilities do trigger and others don't etc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Pummeling style is still expressly a single attack, so it should work. Pummeling charge just requires a charge, but doesn't modify or limit that charge. Charging Stag modifies the conditions under which you can charge, but again doesn't alter or limit the charge action itself.

But Charging Stag does limit what the attack option is at the end of the charge. This can preclude options that are available normally, which is the point being made.

Mechanically Pummeling style is multiple attack rolls, it is right in there with it's write up. You cannot argue that. The write up of Charging Stag states you can only make one attack at the end of the charge when you use it, even if you could normally. The strictest reading would prohibit making multiple attacks after you charge, which would be an option normally due to Pummeling Charge, if the feat didn't specifically call out you couldn't do it. If Pummeling Style didn't refer to the rolls as "attack rolls" it wouldn't be an issue, and in the first portion of the write up it didn't and I was going to say it should work until I got to the crit portion.

A parallel would be attack actions. You can make an attack as a standard action, then decide to make another attack after. Once that is resolved you could move. As soon as you try to move more than 5' however, you are unable. Because the rules say you are limited after taking a full attack action. Just because you started with that standard action doesn't change the fact that your movement is limited after the fact. Doing "things" sometimes prevents options in this game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
ElSilverWind wrote:

I feel ya TC, recently my party (lv3) had a run in with a few Wraithspawn, and the 1d2 Con Drain per hit really sucked. Worst part is that apparently the party (and GM secretly) were expecting my character (An Aasimar Cleric) to be the star of the show this session because of my access to the Daylight spell and Lesser Restoration . . . Well jokes on them because Daylight doesn't actually make daylight and Lesser Restoration can't do anything for Ability Drain. Thus 7 points total of Con Drain to the Fighter and Rogue(Slayer), 5 days March back into town, and pooling together 3,400gp for scrolls later resulted in everybody just feeling looted.

How is a Wraithspawn CR4 when it inflicts a permanent penalty that can't be healed without access to level 5 resources? Just seems silly.

Sorry to go off on a tangent there. With access to a level 12 Cleric, you shouldn't need to worry about shadow's ability damage too much (if he's Good, then he could probably wipe them all out with one use of Channel energy at that level). The structure of your campaign is a bit odd, but generally It's best to not introduce enemies that inflict ability damage until level 3, and enemies that inflict ability drain until about level 8-9.

Assuming the town was big enough (small city), why not get an NPC to cast Restoration? (7x4x10 +100) 380gp per character. CRB, spellcasting services.

As for the CR, it might be "off" a little but wraith spawn are fragile as all get out. Negligible turn resistance, not much in the way of "to hit" bonus (mage armor and/or shield spells, ghost touch, etc will stop the thing in its tracks on average), and barring really bad luck a party will drop it in a round or two if the DM isn't playing it smart and taking advantage of its abilities.

If you read the challenge rating guidelines, it sounds like things worked out they way they should. A CR encounter of higher than your level (so lets call it 'tough') is supposed to drain your resources and possibly KO a character if I remember correctly. Add into that, party composition (which can swing things a huge amount, plus or minus) and some opponents end up "harder" than they could be.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Joesi wrote:
Lune wrote:
The question of the interaction between unarmed and natural attacks isn't one that you have to get very complicated to come up. You don't have to go beyond CORE and it could come up with a Monk 1/Druid 4. Or anyone assuming the form of a creature by any means and then using the Improved Unarmed Strike feat they have in conjunction with natural attacks. Or a Draconic blooded Sorcerer 1 that takes Improved Unarmed Strike and wants to Claw/Claw/Kick.

Are you saying that because people do those builds that they make sense or are balanced, or what? Of course people do them, but the issue at hand is whether or not they are balanced.

The songbird of doom for instance, does not make any sense nor is it balanced. One of it's major sources of it's power comes from gaining extra natural/unarmed attacks.

No, what makes it work so well is the feat line(s) intended to be situationally useful (small characters) and a relatively cheap magic item that makes the feats useful all the time basically. More attacks just makes it "better" but that is no different than any build that relies on multiple attacks. Not to mention as it stands, the original build wasn't actually remotely "legal" as it was based on some assumptions and broke some rules.


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

We're trying to change up some of how we do PrC's for this next book, and I'm developing some errata for the PrCs in the previous book as well. We're going with a more fighting style and aspects of disciplines that match up with that fighting style more this time.

Edit:
Also, wondering where all the traffic went on this thread? I used to get lots of posts from Paizo - did you all just stop wanting martial books over in this bend of the internet? Did we offend you? I know we can be kinda casual at times, but we try to make it so you're talking to friends and not some soulless guy. So... what's up?

-X

I know around here schools have been doing proms and exams are coming up. So depending on the demographic (not trying to stereotype!) you could have lost a good portion there. Also a few of the more popular MMO's have had events going on (SWtoR is doing 12x class story xp, Tera is doing a leveling event as well with their Steam launch and new class release, TSW just put out their issue 11 pack).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
It depends on if pummeling style/charge is one attack or not. If it's one attack, the fact that it allows multiple attack rolls is irrelevant.

But it isn't, because Charging Stag Style limits you to one attack even if you could make multiple after using it. Pummeling Style lets you make multiple attacks and pool the results.


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

I'm asking because there's a new feat in Heroes of the Wild. It's essentially a Style Feat that equates to Wheeling Charge for melee characters (without a mount, obviously)--i.e. it lets you charge through allies and around corners. It has the caveat of only working with a single melee attack and specifically calls out not working with Pounce. Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about not working with Pummeling Style/Charge. I'm at work now and don't have the specific wording of the feat with me (and as far as I can tell the community sites don't have it up yet, either).

So it's pretty clear, to me, that Pummeling Style is one attack. I didn't ask this question in the first post because the entirety of the combination hinges one whether or not Pummeling Style is actually one attack. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll post the actual text of the feat later tonight.

Without full wording of the ability... I'm going to say no they don't work together. The action types are probably incompatible. Pummeling Strike is a full round action, this precludes you from charging or the like as that requires a full round action as well.

Edit: Charging Stag Style, requires you to charge, which keeps you from using pummeling strike. Non-issue/Incompatible.

Pummeling Charge EXPLICITLY states that you perform a Pummeling Style attack at the end of a Charge.

So presume Pummeling Charge + Charging Stag.

Both are style feats so you would have to get both active at the same time (easy enough, MoMS). Charging Stag does say it only allows one attack at the end of the charge so I would say the combo isn't valid (as you are still making more than one attack roll to determine the result of the pummeling strike), and would have to choose one or the other.

The incompatibility comes from Charging Stag Style's limit of one attack. Regardless of the meta of Pummeling Style, you are still rolling more than one attack roll (Pummeling Style : ... If any of the attack rolls are critical threats...). Just because you can charge and Pummeling Style with Pummeling Charge as a full round action doesn't change what Charging Stag Style says: "and can only make a single attack at the end, even if you would normally be able to make multiple attacks (such as with the pounce ability)." Even if you could, once you make the choice to use Charging Stag Style, you are locked into one attack roll it would seem.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Joesi wrote:

Handy haversacks do not look like backpacks. They're like large purses, and I could see all sorts of higher class people wearing them, especially if they were fancier-looking ones (which would probably only cost 50-100g to "fancify", although GM could charge more if he wanted).

They wouldn't wear them to like formal events or anything, but I don't see why they wouldn't wear them in some other cases.

Because that "caste" of society wouldn't ever do such a thing. It being functional or useful or any of that isn't the point. They wouldn't do it because it is beneath them. In a feudal society if you were wealthy enough you were essentially waited on hand and foot. There was someone there, day and night, to do or take care of even the most basic necessities. You probably wouldn't even carry gold on you for business, as it would be unwieldy, so easier (and safer) to use the equivalent of bank notes. That is if "you" even went and didn't have someone else do it.

Not saying there can't be "fancy" bags, but I would certainly say the nobles and such wouldn't be using them, as they had no need typically. So not sure what your definition of "high class" would be, but that would be mine. Also, anything that big could be used to carry dangerous materials or weapons. And if you were wealthy enough, you wouldn't want anything like that around you to help avoid things like assassination attempts or the like.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:

8th or 9th is really just a power thing.

1-3... I thought this was under the purview of the basic intelligent item powers, but oddly at-will isn't an option there either.

At-will with a second action per round can be just as broken. So not so odd it isn't an option.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Cloyes wrote:
while I might agree on wizard and sorcerer, the cleric and Druid are the same BAB progression get to wear better armor and are full casters. in addition the Cleric is every parties "must protect" as he is the source of healing and the Druid by 4th level has a beast companion and animal shape making him the equal of most Melee characters plus a FULL CASTER! The great part about the wizard is if at first you don't get the spells right then you can try, try again. I think I can "tough it out" for 3-4 levels

In PFRPG not all clerics are heal bots (look up "bad touch cleric"). Not all druids go animal companion, they are still limited to non metal armor (so not all that great of an increase normally) and wildshaping means you are MAD if you want to be in melee and effective. You aren't going to be equal to most melee unless you suck at casting.

Sure you can tough it out for 3-4 levels (while your party carries your useless butt), but some peoole actually like to participate more than " sorry guys I have no more spells/need to save spells for the next encounter " and take pot shots with a horrible BAB and crossbow.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:

I'm asking because there's a new feat in Heroes of the Wild. It's essentially a Style Feat that equates to Wheeling Charge for melee characters (without a mount, obviously)--i.e. it lets you charge through allies and around corners. It has the caveat of only working with a single melee attack and specifically calls out not working with Pounce. Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about not working with Pummeling Style/Charge. I'm at work now and don't have the specific wording of the feat with me (and as far as I can tell the community sites don't have it up yet, either).

So it's pretty clear, to me, that Pummeling Style is one attack. I didn't ask this question in the first post because the entirety of the combination hinges one whether or not Pummeling Style is actually one attack. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll post the actual text of the feat later tonight.

Without full wording of the ability... I'm going to say no they don't work together. The action types are probably incompatible. Pummeling Strike is a full round action, this precludes you from charging or the like as that requires a full round action as well.

Edit: Charging Stag Style, requires you to charge, which keeps you from using pummeling strike. Non-issue/Incompatible.

1 to 50 of 3,231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.