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

3,628 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,628 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
A few people have attempted to explain it to you and you don't get it. Okay, no worries. I don't think further discussion on the matter will go anywhere, so I'm going to agree to disagree.

I'm definitely not worried about it. Self righteous types who get so inflamed over a game, that they take it personally and feel that the company who produced it are trying to screw them over somehow... You're right. We won't ever see eye to eye.


Rynjin wrote:
You're confusing two different conversations. You are the only person talking about authority.

The mob of people with virtual pitchforks and fanatical zeal banding against "the man/establishment/whatever" that is Paizo's Dev team seems to state otherwise. They apparently are outraged about the fact that the team would dare change "their" game without notification. Something only someone who believed they had authority would believe and state out loud.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Lets break this down.

The original ruling was set in stone. That is the only purpose and function of a FAQ/Errata. To make a ruling on something.

It was later revised, down the road to then include the "we might change our minds" part. Again, that was not included in the original ruling (which was also the exact opposite of the current one, with no new data).

Years later, it was out of nowhere reversed.

I'm simply devil's advocating here. I didn't have any Mystic Theurges, and I was not affected at all. So no horse in this race.

It is bad faith when they change a ruling that had already been established for a pretty good bit of time as the way things work. It was also set as an example about how other rules should be ruled. It's also been made pretty clear, at least unofficially, that the reasoning given for the reversal was not because anyone found it to be broken or too powerful, but because some people didn't like it.

Lets put this a different way. They made a rule. Any rule, doesn't matter. It's in the Core Book, so we can Assume, "on good faith" that the rule is there for a reason, and intended to be used in the game when it comes up. If, however, we are told to simply ignore that, the put it in, but it was never intended to do anything but take up page space, that would not be in good faith. This is what happened with the SLA FAQ. It was strongly and reasonably implied _____, but then later changed to the exact opposite.

They also did not create the D20 System.

But they absolutely adapted it to their way of playing. There are numerous instances of it not working the way "d20" did with no rules rewrites. Pathfinder is based off d20, but is most definitely NOT the game as written when d20 was originally made. You can play d20, but you absolutely will not be playing Pathfinder, feel free to imply otherwise if it makes you feel better.

Complaints about it changing all the "sudden" are ignorant. Everything can change as needed, you don't have to like it or play they way they say they intend for it to be played, but it is their game and the can change the rules as needed, as new rules are published, as they decide would be best for their game.

Things change, things come to light, things get changed. Get over it already :-/

If they changed the rules AND then said you needed to pay for them, that your book was no longer valid, that would be "bad faith". And that is quite obviously NOT the case. The book you have is fine, the rules errata/FAQs which detail the changes are free. There is no "bad faith" anywhere in the equation. Just people not liking the change and attempting to justify their outrage about it. Those are two completely different things.


DM Beckett wrote:

Bad Faith can also mean it does not account for facts or choices on the matter or that a decision is made with for two unrelated purposes, or arbitrarily.

These all do fit the SLA FAQ, which originally did not contain the "we may reverse this" clause.

As the designers and those in charge of making sure PFS runs as they want it, they also have full "authority" to make changes for the betterment of their game, as they decide, whenever they decide. It isn't "your" game, people would do well to remember that fact, because they definitely are complaining like it is.

It still isn't "bad faith" no matter how you try to shoehorn the term in there, sorry. That they are monitoring the game, making freely available FAQ/errata regularly (despite the apparently moronic controversy it ends up spurring), and are in contact with particularly obnoxious and vocal forum goers who make mountains out of mole hills, are all-in-all "good faith" efforts.


Have you looked up the DPR Olympics?

They pretty much cover what you are looking for I would imagine.


Ssalarn wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
@Ssalarn - What's the new mounted charge definition?
When making a mounted charge, both you and your mount are charging. It limits some options pretty severely.
"Is less abusable" I think are the words you are looking for ;)
Yeah, because allowing Barbarians to Pounce while mounted and get triple damage on their first attack in a complete full attack sequence is sooo much less abusable and better balanced than a cavalier getting an extra 3d8 damage if he takes all three Vital Strike feats. Archers can full attack while their mount performs a mounted charge at no penalty without spending a single feat, spellcasters can cast a spell during a mounted charge with a simple Concentration check using a lower DC than casting defensively, but heavens forfend that a Cavalier should be able to get 3d8 extra damage by 16th level if he spends three feats, or that anyone without an animal companion should be able to perform a mounted charge ever. It can't even be claimed that it was a simple clarification to match RAI either, because the FAQ requires you to delete an entire paragraph of text from the CRB.

Feel free to take things out of context, use worst case scenarios, and ignore my other post regarding effort and bringing rules more in line with each other....

Oh wait you did.


Rynjin wrote:
No, that's not what "bad faith" means. It simply means being misleading with their language, at best, or that they said something they then acted contrary to. Which they did, whether it was detrimental or not.

Bad faith means intent to decieve. So for that to be true, they had to intend to change the entire FAQ at the point they put it out. I highly doubt that is the case. It is significantly more likely that after letting it go, they saw a trend they didn't like for the game, and made their minds up then.

Or do you have proof that they planned to change it when they first put out the FAQ? I'm guessing not, so please stop spouting (or supporting) inappropriate and misleading catch phrases.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:

@Psyren - As I posted previously, "In another thread, Mark Seifter suggested that the new combat trick for Crane Wing might involve allowing you to regain the +4 AC bonus for 5 Stamina points after it has been used." Mark also mentioned the idea of this giving you another chance to get an AoO from Crane Riposte, which I guess would make it like a very limited use Snake Fang. We also agreed that using the Crane Wing trick shouldn't count as an action.

@Ssalarn - What's the new mounted charge definition?

When making a mounted charge, both you and your mount are charging. It limits some options pretty severely.
"Is less abusable" I think are the words you are looking for ;)
I'm pretty sure RageLancePounce is more "abusive" then Vital Strike on a charge. But go right ahead ranting that anayone who doesn't agree with you is a subhuman monster.

Whoa whoa whoa, where are you even getting insults from?

Aren't you being a TAD bit overly dramatic?

Or do you just suffer from a persecution complex normally?


graystone wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow

Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.

Here is the exact wording of what might be revisited. It is SUPER, SUPER clear/obvious what they are talking about.

"If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."

NOTHING about Arcane Strike or Crafting Feats. At all. Zero. Zip. Nada. I'm pretty sure they where aware of the content they LINKED to...

To be honest I don't recall any "in-play evidence" of "too powerful" prestige class characters, and THAT was the trigger for revisiting the SLA for PrC part.

EDIT: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=3?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#147

They obviously disagreed with your assessment, and with the FAQ in general after a rather lengthy test run of it.
For whatever the reason they didn't follow their own Edit to the FAQ. At best I'd call it bad faith on their part. It was super clear what they said and what they told us might change.

As it is their game that they published, and you are deciding to play it, I don't quite believe it is "bad faith". They don't need your permission or even for you to like the change, as long as they change is what they deem over all beneficial to the game they want being played. " Bad faith" is something to describe doing something detrimental as a whole, not something you chose to dislike.

If you don't like it, don't play it that way in your games. It is as simple as that.


There are numerous graduations of "abuse" just like there are varying degrees of breaking the law. Just because it might be mild, doesn't change the fact that it is still crossing said line, even if it barely is.

I have no horse in the " charge race" as I don't play PFS, but it still shows a consolidation of rules and intent, which is very good for organized play as a whole. Consistent rulings makes everyone's life easier.

But I'm sure some yahoo out there will argue that fact. If for no other reason than "they don't like it".


graystone wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow

Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.

Here is the exact wording of what might be revisited. It is SUPER, SUPER clear/obvious what they are talking about.

"If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."

NOTHING about Arcane Strike or Crafting Feats. At all. Zero. Zip. Nada. I'm pretty sure they where aware of the content they LINKED to...

To be honest I don't recall any "in-play evidence" of "too powerful" prestige class characters, and THAT was the trigger for revisiting the SLA for PrC part.

EDIT: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=3?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#147

They obviously disagreed with your assessment, and with the FAQ in general after a rather lengthy test run of it.


As opposed to having two creatures gain the effects of the charge while also gaining full round attacks (thereby gaining something for nothing for all intents and purposes). We already know that effort is a "thing" despite being unwritten yet implied. This just requires both creatures to "put in the effort" so to speak, and is completely in line with previous rulings.


Imbicatus wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:

@Psyren - As I posted previously, "In another thread, Mark Seifter suggested that the new combat trick for Crane Wing might involve allowing you to regain the +4 AC bonus for 5 Stamina points after it has been used." Mark also mentioned the idea of this giving you another chance to get an AoO from Crane Riposte, which I guess would make it like a very limited use Snake Fang. We also agreed that using the Crane Wing trick shouldn't count as an action.

@Ssalarn - What's the new mounted charge definition?

When making a mounted charge, both you and your mount are charging. It limits some options pretty severely.

"Is less abusable" I think are the words you are looking for ;)


graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:

When an FAQ says only part of it might get reversed, you get the same kind of reaction when it's ALL reversed.

If the entire FAQ was in question

I'm so confused.

The FAQ basically said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change".

They changed.

How is this a problem? They did what they said they might do? Reverse it.

The FAQ ACTUALLY said that they might revisit early access to PrC in an extra line at the bottom of the FAQ. The FAQ never said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change". Reversing the entire FAQ was beyond the limited scope of what we where told was under review. That was what I pointed out that upset some people. If the entire FAQ was up to be revisited, that should have been said instead of posting that just a limited part was.

If it had really said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change", less people would have been upset at the reversal.

Unlikely, something changed and was "taken away", people were going to be upset regardless. Forum goers are like that.


I'm not the one on a fanatical rampage to right the supposed wrongs and injustices of the Paizo Dev team, to let everyone know ad nauseam how I've been wronged. I just play the game as they write it. I don't have a need to scream and ignore anything. Because playing the game as they intended it is how I have my fun.

I acknowledge I'm playing by someone else's rules, that they can change. Acceptance of that, and not being so selfish or shortsighted to not realize that, makes the game significantly more relaxing and enjoyable.


graystone wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Just like the SLA ruling. And probably others I can't think of right now.
The SLA ruling was specifically called out to be an exception to how they intended it to work. It was allowed to see what would happen. Not the same thing. They were upfront about saying it wasn't intended and so a reversal was always possible. People just got pissy that they did reverse it back to what had originally been intended.
To be clear, they NEVER said the whole FAQ might be reversed. They said early PrC entry might be revisited. THAT is why people "got pissy", because they weren't up front about what might get reversed.

They said they were letting it work NOT as intended per the FAQ. That alone should have been a warning bell. The entire FAQ was in question at that point. Denying that is like putting your hands on your ears and screaming so you don't have to hear anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shiroi wrote:

Perhaps not strictly to speak to this class, but I'd love to see a psychic class of some sort which has powers it can't properly control at first. Basically the powers seem to scale more quickly than reasonable but come with a spotty chance to fizzle if you use the ones outside of your comfort zone. (You can use spell levels 1 higher than normal with a 50% chance to fail, you can use spells two levels higher but only a 10% chance to succeed, things like that)

This would be a neat mechanic that I don't see anywhere else, though the ability to do more than normal for your level at a cost is quite present in the kineticist burn mechanics. I feel that if you looked at the nature of that class and changed the function of the drawback to a failure chance, possibly with a temporary backlash included, it would be reasonably different and offer a neat way to play.

"Alright, time to go big or go home! Have some of THIS!" *nothing happens* "I'm ****ed".

People hate misfires on the guns, most will not be interested in a class based around not working as a "feature" unfortunately. And if the abilities scale better than "normal" you can bet someone will figure out how to break it to take advantage of it.

Wilder has a mechanic that may fit your needs.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Just like the SLA ruling. And probably others I can't think of right now.

The SLA ruling was specifically called out to be an exception to how they intended it to work. It was allowed to see what would happen. Not the same thing. They were upfront about saying it wasn't intended and so a reversal was always possible. People just got pissy that they did reverse it back to what had originally been intended.


James Risner wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
I'd find it hard to believe that it was an "unintended" consequence given how much it was brought up. Not to mention it was called out to work in the old FAQ if I remember correctly.
I was in on all or most of those discussions. I can promise you they never directly answered most of the interaction with unarmed questions. There was to this month much remaining confusion. I take it from this fact that much of the unarmed strike related interactions of FCT were unintended.

Just to repost it:

FAQ wrote:

Feral Combat Training and Unarmed Strike Damage: Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?

Yes. The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such.

posted October 2013 | back to top

It was called out to work. It no longer does apparently. How is that remotely "unintended"? This is a flat out reversal after calling out that it worked.

Again, I'm okay with it because I was on the side of it not working way back when. But I'd rather call a spade a spade, and unintentional isn't even close to being an accurate description of what we have going on here.


I don't know what to tell you besides, I don't agree with your objections nor so I see any problem with Polymorph spells not being completely form changing.

I can only reiterate there is no burden as a spell can do whatever it says it can do. They are pretty much the entirety of exceptions in this exception based rule set. They give bonuses or abilities on a theme. If the designers didn't want those to get stacked with everything else, making the pertinent ones Poly sub schooled fits the bill.

You don't like it obviously. Doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or is somehow "wrong". It makes sense to me, and apparently to the people who wrote/edited it. To each their own.


So that they cannot be stacked? You are only able to benefit from one Polymorph spell at a time.

There is no "burden" on spells. The Polymorph school is the "general rule", the specific spells are the exceptions. That the Poly school has the built in limitation of one effect, makes it ideal as a balancing point for effects the devs don't want stacked multiple times or with each other. Each of those spells obviously alters the character, presumably in ways that would make the character less itself and more like the named creature/form but not completely. I fail to see how that doesn't "fit" the Transmutation(Polymorph) school quite honestly.


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
If this is true, then the old FAQ should be removed to prevent confusion/issues.

Yep

Driver_325yards wrote:
Nerf

Maybe, but the question of using unarmed damage dice and/or "using unarmed's 3 bump up in dice" to my slam attack was never adequately answered.

I suspect the "as well as things that augment unarmed" was to catch things like "Weapon Focus Unarmed" and not things like Monk unarmed.

So I'd say the language was removed to remove unintended consequences of the language.

Unfortunately, when the original questions were posted about FCT/Unarmed Strikes for the FAQ/Errata, Monk's Unarmed Strike damage was the primary driving force on the majority of the discussions.

I'd find it hard to believe that it was an "unintended" consequence given how much it was brought up. Not to mention it was called out to work in the old FAQ if I remember correctly. Mind you, I didn't agree with the old FAQ, so the new one is more pretty much exactly with what I was arguing back then amusingly enough.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Forseti wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Or did you think concentration is some sort of binary absolute thing, so Barbarians couldn't concentrate enough to speak while raging? They can't do anything other than autonomous nervous system functions? Surely that's not what you're suggesting, is it?

Actually, in common English, concentration in its meaning of "to focus ones mind on something", is a binary thing. You either concentrate on something, or you don't. It's not a quantifiable thing. You can't concentrate "a little". There's no unit of "mental concentration".

The whole phrase "flying takes as much concentration as flying" either means that both walking and flying don't require you to concentrate at all, or they require you to concentrate "full stop". It can't mean you need to concentrate a little, because that's a meaningless phrase. How much would a little be? 15 microbrainwaves? 4.2 nanothoughts? 73 synaptic firings?

In Pathfinder, Concentration has one of two meanings, either referring to the method for avoiding a spell being lost when casting under bad circumstances (the concentration check) or as a way to keep up/control spells as referred to in the Magic>Duration section.

Walking does not require concentration, and neither does flying. That's the point. Meanwhile, Minor Image does require concentration, and that prevents you from attacking or casting normally while Minor Image is active. Fly states that it only requires as much concentration as walking (ie none by the rules), so you can act attack and cast normally. What it says is that Fly doesn't work like Minor Image.

This is completely, 100% separate from questions about move actions using speeds granted by spells (whether fly or elemental body).

The game has mechanical rules called concentration, however those aren't the absolute only times the word "concentration" can, would or have been used (as well as other terms). The game also uses 'general' English, which is where confusion comes in at times.


LilyHaze wrote:

I would absolutely not say its exclusive to Arcane and Divine. The examples are not included in the core sentence, but strictly separate via the us of parentheses.

The core sentence, "The spells must be the same type as the spellcasting class you're adding them to," doesn't discriminate.

If they wanted it to be exclusionary, they would need to have used commas, thus including arcane and divine within the actual sentence. They didn't. Grammar dictates that Psychic spells are allowed.

If they wanted them to be included, they could have also re-written "psychic" into the ability.

There was no need to exclude psyhic spells, as they didn't exist at the time the racial ability was written. You cannot make a real argument for them intending it to be included, as they didn't exist.

There was no need to exclude something that wasn't a possibility at the time.

What you are saying basically amounts to "They didn't exclude this completely new set of powers that was written last month in the ability that was made 3 years ago, so it is allowed right?"

As written it only refers to arcane and divine, so I wouldn't attempt to use it with the psychic classes in PFS. We don't have the intent one way or another, as it wasn't even a consideration.


Entryhazard wrote:
The wording isn't that obvious in excluding Psychic spells, you can assume that arcane and divine are used as examples without bending the language at all.

Rules as written, "Psychic spells" aren't included. I can't argue intent as I didn't write it. I can say with 100% certainty that it isn't listed. Anything beyond that is "wriggling" the rules.

You say, they aren't explicitly excluded.

I say, psychic spells didn't exist, so we can't say whether they should or should not be allowed with an ability that explictly references arcane or divine. I'd follow the written rules in such a case.


Avoron wrote:

Even limiting it to spells that your list does not already have, there are still way too many shenanigans available, especially with summoner. Samsaran witches, for example can grab Simulacrum at level 9 or the planar binding line at levels 7, 9, and 11 respectively. That is completely and utterly overpowered, no question about it.

So again I can do nothing but express by incredulity that these exploits were not eliminated by the recent ARG errata - and, for that matter, that PFS allows the mystic past life alternate racial trait despite this lack of a limitation in power.

If you have problem with Simulacrum... You have a problem with ,our players walking all over you anyways. Getting it a few levels early isn't the problem. Same with Planar Binding spells which are even worse, as they are a double edged sword. Getting them early means increased chances of messing up, as you have to build and gear as a specialist to try and make it work in your favor. And a 1 on the CHA roll is a "things hit the fan regardless".


LilyHaze wrote:
James Risner wrote:
LilyHaze wrote:
so why not petition the officials and get a clear answer

I'm sorry. I wasn't saying "don't hope for this." I was more saying, don't play if you don't get an official without being prepared to play a pregen as you say.

There are a very small percentage of issues that get FAQ treatment. We are still waiting for promised errata/faq on Overrun from 2009. Currently from experience, I'd strongly recommend not playing any character that focuses on Overrun. You won't have a good time.

Oh absolutely. My final spell selection will likely be a few cure spells and other helpful Spiritualist spells that aren't on the Psychic list. While an official answer is the best case, a discussion among posters isn't too bad of a worst case.

My own personal opinion is that early access feels wrong, archetypes probably aren't intended to give access but seem like they do, and that caster type determines spell type for all spells on their lists, but only when viewed through the lens of it being that class.

Also I feel like Occultist should grant access to Psychic spells for Samsaran, but that one is almost as contentious as Mindblade due to the way they gain access to spells themselves.

Early access I doubt was ever really an "issue", the Paizo crew is well aware that some spells are given earlier on some spell lists. It isn't like they all the sudden realized after it was published " OMG, we totally missed that the Summoner gets the spell earlier than the wizard..."

As for archtypes granting spells, I don't believe that to be the case. They add spells to your spell list, that doesn't make them part of the core spell list. Just like domains. They add spells to your spell list. The additional spells aren't innately part of the base class spell without extraneous choices above and beyond.

It would be like stating the "extra spells" you get from Mystic Past Life are cleric spells because you are a cleric, even though they were druid spells you cherry picked from that class' spell list. Logically, you cannot use an exception to prove the exception. Archetypes are an exception to the general class, they have a little give and take. If they alter the spell list for the person taking the archtype, that doesn't change the core class, it changes the character.

As written, obviously we are limited to divine and arcane spells, RAW. I guess we'll just have to see if they decide to update MPL to include the new classes. But as was mentioned earlier, I won't be holding my breath.


Lost In Limbo wrote:

By my reading of Freedom of Movement I think it would allow you to move full speed while squeezing, though it wouldn't help if the space was too small for you to move through at all.

The compression ability granted by the Belt of the Weasel from Ultimate Equipment should help, I assume it's PFS legal.

Squeezing is "normal" movement. I'm fairly certain that Freedom of Movement wouldn't help in such a case.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

What's the formula for the ring of telekinesis please? I don't think it follows the normal rules.

I'm asking because I want to scale it up to a 15th level caster. The max for telekinesis.

Many items don't follow pure "pricing guidelines", sometimes they are " off" for the published ones.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
That a non unique non plot magical item was the key to your adventure progressing typically means either 1) It was over powered or 2) the plot mechanic is poorly thought out.
or 3) that the script was fine with having that item accessible to resolve the plot.

And if that were the case, why did the GM raise the price instead of keep it as it were? As a home game, there was no necessity to do so.


That a non unique non plot magical item was the key to your adventure progressing typically means either 1) It was over powered or 2) the plot mechanic is poorly thought out.


Nadlor wrote:

But that's for items activated by command words, right? I was thinking an amulet of mighty fists falls into the use-activated category (because it's something a character wears). Regarding use-activated items, the rules say "However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case."

Neither the description of the amulet of mighty fists nor the description of the merciful weapon ability state anything about needing a commando word. Is "mentally willing the activation" also supposed to be a standard action?

Activating a Flaming weapon takes a standard action (as well as most of the elemental/extra damage types). A weapon may be use activated, extra abilities don't automatically fall under that umbrella.

When the rules are silent on activation, it defaults to standard action as per the magic item rules.


The things people take pride in... I keep arguing with my friends, but modern civilization really is doomed :-(


Buri Reborn wrote:
OK. What thread was it? It sounds interesting.

As I said, I didn't mark it. My guess would be something about PrCs and or archtype requirements. As the video was about why they chose to make archtypes instead of pursue the PrC design. I don't recall it being particularly long, maybe 15 minutes give or take. So probably a podcast or something of the like.


Poink wrote:

There are a lot of good ideas here that I will start implementing next session. I like the idea of incorporating the usage of skills during combat, but should that figure in any way in the XP calculations, especially if they are particularly challenging?

I also have some difficulty with evaluating the intelligence of monsters and whatnot from their Int/WIs scores. There doesn't seem to be a definitive source for how those two scores interact, although they both heavily affect their performance on the battlefield. Are there any handy sources that I am missing, and how do you judge whether a certain level of tactics is appropriate/possible for a creature?

Use your best judgment, that is what you are there for/your role in the game.

I think you might benefit from reading an AP through, to see how the Paizo designers use things like terrain, skills, etc. to make encounters more challenging. They often have tactics for meaningful encounters as well. I don't know that I would run your current party through it, for obvious reasons. But maybe your next attempt at running, it would be a good idea.


poundpuppy30 wrote:
Do you still get the plant traits, since your a plant now?

I think at this point it is very apparent you need to

1) Read the magic school Transmutation (and Polymorph)
2) Read the spell
3) Do what each says, instead of trying to make them do what you think they should.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Would you please link said video?

Don't have it marked anywhere, it was brought up awhile ago in another thread.


Slithery D wrote:
avr wrote:

Self-perfection seems like the most appropriate psychic discipline, and it should work reasonably well for you. Make sure you're good at some physical skill (e.g. acrobatics) and make it come up fairly often.

You only need to do that if you want your regained phrenic pool to also accomplish something useful. Otherwise just complete a minimum DC jump for fun, get a point back. It's essentially free/at will restoration of your pool, and the only discipline that does that.

I half expect that to get "clarified" to not work.


Looks like 7-22-2015, nothing on the websites FAQ/errata page. Just the errata PDF for the book.

But yeah I agree, that is why I lobbied so hard to get it included. And not just oracles, clerics and any CHA based class for that matter (archetypes and the VMC stuff).


Generally speaking, if an ability calls for a target, line of sight is required. Otherwise, like you mentioned, you are attacking an area are which strictly speaking isn't the same.

Think of it like this, you can't avoid attacks from an opponent you don't even know is there, and that is exactly why spring attack is so useful.


PFRPG: Construct Armor and Synthesist
3PP: DSP's Aegis class, might be something in Necrotech and the new book being worked on Interface(? I think it is called), that is kinda like cyberpunk for PFRPG from the skim over.

Short of that, lots of house rules


Turin the Mad wrote:
o.O ... that errata makes zero sense to me. *triplefacepalm*

If you ever watched the video about PrC and archetype design, it actually does. It may not be very well liked, but it at least does make sense.


Deadbeat Doom wrote:
Cevah wrote:
Joe Mashuga wrote:
I devoted 9 entire minutes to reading posts in this thread, so forgive me for throwing a compromise out there.

Heresy

/cevah

This thread=

And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax; and left them there, standing un-budged in their tracks.

Self-righteous, know-it-all, and exceeding "useful" comments like yours=

PG


Nevan Oaks wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Dwarf in the Flask wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Dwarf in the Flask wrote:

Thought that was flavor text given their mechanic of them not getting morale bonuses.

If its mechanics based it then Androids should be immune to mind-effects and other effects like that. But they only have a +4 Race bonus to it. So I would argue that they can.

Mind-affecting =/= emotions.
Then they are capable of having emotions because they only have a bonus against mind-effecting spells. So if they are not immune they should be able to produce emotions enough, just not be very emotional.
Uhm... are sure that's what you meant to type because it sounds a little... off.
The fear spell is a mind effect, fear is an emotion. If androids are not immune to mind effects then they can have emotions. They are just not overly emotional (don't display or factor emotion into their life actions).

Actually they could not normally have emotions, but be forced to by the spell.

Kind of like, you don't fly as a human, but you can be levitated or fly with a spell cast on you.

Your logic is flawed.

An undead lich could (and has been noted on several occasions through RPG history) be enraged by actions and act accordingly. They have emotions but are immune to mind effecting. It doesn't mean what you are trying to say it means. It isn't an all or nothing, nor is it inclusive/exclusive like you are trying to state.

Mechanically by the writer and apparently dev team admission, they don't have emotions. The bonus is due to this. However a spell can enforce emotional states on them something that is not possible on their own unless they take the trait/feat.


Quentin Coldwater wrote:

In the description it says that your character needs to present your implement in order to cast anything from it, or use the abilities.

Occultist, Implements subheader wrote:
Whenever an occultist casts a spell, he must have the corresponding implement in his possession and present the implement to the target or toward the area of effect.
Does that mean I need to have one hand free at all times, where I store my book (or any other implement, if I'm a vanilla Occultist)? That seems quite the restriction if you want to wield a two-handed weapon, or go sword and board. Would it be okay to flavour it that I've tied a string to it and it's attached to my waist or something? The image on page 103 seems to suggest something like that is possible, but maybe it's just artistic license. >_>

It is no worse than say a wizard with an arcane bonded item, or a cleric at low levels who can't afford a fancy holy symbol. Sometimes you just need to plan ahead and take appropriate action. Artistic liscence is quite common and should never be taken as "intent" or how the rules play out when there is a question of how it works.


Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

Skylancer, thanks for the tip!

Huh, there do seem to be some minor omissions from the Guide -- a version control problem. Thanks for noticing!

Doug M.

If you still have it in there, don't bother with The feat Divine Protection anymore. Post change it is subpar at best for this build. Immediate action to add your CHA mod to a save once per day...


At lower levels stats make a huge difference for pre made material. Most material is made considering something like a 15 point stat buy.

Not that CR isn't a bit off at times, but chances are you shot yourself in the foot with rolls. Good stats, party buffs via bard, using remote intelligent tactics and some optimization, swing things way wide unfortunately. At this point the only thing you can do is improvise. Each party is different and what works for some, may not do jack all for others. The idea is you know your party, strengths and weaknesses, and so have the best information on how to handle (and challenge) them. CR has never been anything but a guideline for 15 Point Buy, and not a very exact one at that.


alexd1976 wrote:

A side note, to the strict RAW crowd:

Don't play barbarians.

When they rage, they can't do anything requiring concentration, and it has been shown that walking requires concentration, so they can't walk while raging.

RAW.

Or should we apply the idea that 'concentration' is really 'Concentration', as has been done in this description of the Fly spell, so they can do anything they like except use spells with a duration of 'Concentration' and the listed restricted skills.

Since patience isn't a mechanical term, the limitations on a barbarian suddenly don't look so bad.

RAW

I've mentioned the death thing, but will do so again:

The only mechanical penalty for being dead is that you don't heal normally, or with magic. But that's okay, because having -1000 hitpoints doesn't affect you. So don't bother keeping track of your hitpoints if it's at anything other than 0 (when you are 'Staggered').

RAW

So please make sure you adhere to the rules above with the same commitment you have shown in trying to convince us that concentration (the english word, as used in the Fly spell) isn't a mental action.

If you think the above examples are ridiculous, poorly written, incomplete or just an outright mistake, I will agree with you completely.

They are ludicrous!

But they are RAW, so make sure you use them as written, just like your interpretation of Fly.

And don't forget, Martial Weapon Proficiency can't be granted by a feat, so keep that in mind when making your character. (Confused? Don't be, all the feat does is remove the penalty to hit, nowhere in the description does it grant you actual proficiency-RAW).

Some of the above examples may not come up often, so pay close attention and make sure to apply the rules correctly when they do.

Your vigilance will be appreciated by your fellow players.

So now that RAW has shown to not back your side, you are attacking it?

Yay for last ditch efforts.


alexd1976 wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Nightwish wrote:
LazarX wrote:


There isn't one. It's a natural consequence of the fact that the rules dont' cover every fiddly bit. It's also a logical conclusion of the paralyzed condition.

To put it simply, I don't consider flying even by magical means as a purely mental act. So paralyzed means you drop like a stone.. period.

I disagree that it is necessarily the logical conclusion. Take, for instance, a paraplegic who is paralyzed from the waste down because of an injury to the spinal column. The injury doesn't necessarily affect the motor centers of the brain, those may well be perfectly intact. Paralysis occurs because the signal from the brain to the extremities is interrupted somewhere along its course, not necessarily at the brain center. An injury to the brain's motor control center could certainly result in total or partial paralysis, but the injury doesn't have to be there.

If you then generalize that reality to the magical fantasy of the game, then you could reasonably conclude that during paralysis, the brain could still attempt to send movement signals to the body, but the signals are simply blocked by the magic (or poison, or whatever caused the paralysis, such as a ghoul's touch). As such, the CONCENTRATION equivalent of walking is still there, and the body under a Fly spell might still be able to move in a limited fashion, since the propulsion is from the magic, not from physical effort. That, of course, is assuming the Fly spell was already active when the paralysis occurred. You would not be able to make a Reflex save, nor would you be able to add you Dex bonus to Fly skill checks, but otherwise, you should be able to move in limited fashion.

I don't know that anyone is saying it isn't a reasonable conclusion.

I know I'm saying it isn't a mechanically sound one. The rules just don't state it is a purely mental action, so it doesn't get a pass on the Paralyze mechanic. That the spell itself refers to a

...

My stance doesn't depend on physical skills, but for the spell to refer back to a skill based on statistic used pretty much exclusively in game for physical actions, shows rather clear intent.

There are spells and abilities that are published and in the same book, as well as others more recently, which are explicitly listed as being controlled or used as mental actions. So I'm not quite sure how you are trying to cast the argument being made as "unpublished" or that I'm making things up. Which is exactly what you are implying me doing, masked in a rather wordy around the way fashion it seems.

We have material listed as mental actions.

Fly doesn't have that explicit designation unlike various other published items.

How can that be confusing?

Or are you legitimately stating that the explicit wording for those items is superfluous and means nothing? If so, I guess that would be why we're having this discussion.


Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Fox Shape is Su rather than Sp, doesn't that mean it is not actually a spell to conflict with Reduce Person? That said, where is the general rule about Polymorph effects stacking? Not doubting you, just curious :) It would actually be a nice side benefit since it would make you immune to things like Baleful Polymorph.

It is still a Polymorph effect, regardless of Ex, SP, Su, whatever. Magic Schools, Transmutation, Polymorph.

1 to 50 of 3,628 << 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.