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

Skylancer4's page

3,947 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
Goddity wrote:

Step 1. Learn high level mind control spells.

Step 2. Find a dragon.

Step 3. Profit.

Step 4. Dragon blows will save out of the water.

Step 5. Dragon incinerates you.

A large red dragon's will save is +10. If you can't beat that your caster was built poorly and chose all the wrong spells. They don't even have SR at that point. Not saying it should be that easy, but if you are a caster who regularly deals with spells that allow saves, +10 isn't a particularly high bar. Especially if you are preparing for the encounter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:

I already quoted numerous lines saying you turn into the creature.

"Turning into the creature" would obviously grant you everything about the creature since you ARE ONE, except anything excluded explicitly. (Which many things are. All of the text that excludes things being according to you, pointless, by the way, and a mysterious waste of text?)

In other words the rules ARE dictating I gain everything about it and lose everything not about it, by default, because that's the only reasonable thing that "change into" means in English.

Changing into a creature does not equate to gaining its attacks, type, or anything else unless the rules state it does.
That is absurd. Go walk up to any person on the street and say "Imagine you turn into a cat. Can you scratch things? Are you a feline?" EVERYONE will say yes. Please.

No you quoted things that say you get to to turn into the shape of a creature of that type. That is ALL it said. You are inferring the type despite the fact it is never mentioned to explicitly happen.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Usually niche stuff that isn't covered by the core rules.

So mostly classes & rule sets, only occasionally adventures (though I did buy Way of the Wicked and contributed to the Snow White KS that should be finishing up soon). We run in a homebrew world/campaign so usually it is just mining other material for things to be brought in or maybe as a basis for something we are working on, to be ripped apart and take the bits and pieces we find useful or like.

As for balance, it is in the eye of the beholder. A good GM can make anything work really. Some 3PP items are better balanced than Paizo products at times. But the reality is, even for Paizo. The more material you make, the more power creep will occur. It is the nature of the game. And the whole reason these people are in business is to sell more material.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Jutzi wrote:

I understand a -4 penalty throwing a alchemist fire into a swarm engaged with a friendly. However, when is the swarm considered engaged? It has a reach of 0 so doesn't engagement mean the swarm has to be in the same square as the friendly to give a -4 penalty?

The rule says creatures are considered engaged if EITHER of them threaten the other? Does this mean a -4 penalty for throwing an alchemist fire into a swarm with a reach of 0 NOT in a friendly's square but the friendly threatening the swarm with a 5 foot reach?

Can anyone explain the rash of 4+ year old necro's lately?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berti Blackfoot wrote:

It can be dispelled? Oh... i guess I better track how many times I used this on one of the PCs. He doesn't even know I did it (insert evil laugh).

I was going to have it come up in dreams, but I guess I need to remember this too.

Does that mean .. if someone casts dispell... all these Modify Memory are competing with buff spells? So he has 10 modify memory, and one 4th level buff spell, there is a 1 in 11 chance the buff will be dispelled but otherwise one of his memories will come back?

Depends on the type of Dispel used. It could be used to target one specific use of Memory Modification or just target the subject and attempt to dispel one of the effects on them. Something like a Detect magic would let the dispel'er know how many effects were on the target and what school they are.

The blanket Dispel would possibly cause the other modifications to "fail" if they were chained together as they don't make sense anymore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

Oddly enough, you can dispel the effect...

I would have thought it to be an instantaneous duration spell.


Not particularly, there are numerous storylines where memories are altered just to have the person find out later on after the effect was dispelled/removed they were deceived to whatever ends.

Making it instant would mean there was no recourse to "fix" important memories and someone ends up completely screwed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

You started by stating that you "fully understand" but then you misrepresented the rule later in your post. Here it is:

SRD, Negative Levels wrote:
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.
Note: I hope you have a good CON or you rolled well. If not these negative levels might kill you immediately. If you have a 10 CON, started as a Gunslinger, and had perfectly average rolls, you have 8 + (4 x 4.5) + (20 x 3.5) = 8 + 18 + 70 = 96 HP, but you will be losing 100 HP from the negative levels, so you are at -4 HP, fully healed. I don't know if there is a rule for what happens when your MAXIMUM HP is a negative number. You're either dead or stabilized at -4 with no way to get back to a non-negative HP value so either way, you're not doing anything useful anymore.

Comatose characters FTW.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
InVinoVeritas wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

You mean the rules that state there is a 75% chance of having an item up to the amount listed on table 15-1? As well as other assorted items the GM should roll for?

They don't say every location has a "Magic-mart" shining sign and all, but they absolutely state items are very likely (3 out of 4 times) to be available if under the cost limit of any given location. The CRB state this is the case, page 460, purchasing magic items. That is unless the GM arbitrarily decided they don't like it for some reason. Or are running a low magic campaign (which is not the basic premise of high fantasy rules assumed under the campaign setting the game is written under).

I'm curious.

Let's say you reached a town, tried to buy your magic item, and that 1 chance in 4 comes up, and it's not available.

Do you accept it and move on, or do you go from town to town, refusing to adventure until you find that item?

And what if the GM throws an encounter at you before you find the item anyway?

I typically say "Cr@p" and keep the money saved up until the next time we can try (either by traveling on or by killing time until we can attempt again) if it is something that is important. If it is a luxury item that I can do without I may try something else that could fit the bill, typically potions or consumables that are cheap and won't dent the savings to the point I won't be able to afford the initial item when I can try again.

I play a game, part of it is "chance." The rules are typically stacked in the PC's favor, I have no problem rolling the dice and them coming up not in my favor. I actually have a notebook of characters who are dead because of crappy rolls and a GM who feels bad that I've lost so many characters to them. I'm not the type to cry over an unfortunate roll, I look at it like an unexpected challenge, which is part of I play the game in the first place.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
InVinoVeritas wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Being able to "shop" for items you want or need (ie prepare for an encounter your spent time researching) is not a bad thing.

As a player, if I had to hope and pray you were going to give me the items I wanted or needed... I'd cut out the middle man and play a video game honestly.

It just promotes frustration when half the party wants the same item and there is only one to be had. It isn't any fun and does nothing for the game besides promote crafting feats on the casters, which then removes choices for doing "other things" which is bad as well.

See, that's only true if a very specific subset of items must be generally available in order to meet the challenges the party will face.

A good GM makes sure that doesn't happen. Admittedly, the game for itself would recommend challenges assuming the party owns specific gear. But this isn't a video game. It's managed by someone who has to see and know and understand the party's capabilities at all times. The GM can adjust the challenges to fit the party.

Well then, I dislike Rule 0.

It gives crappy GMs justification for ignoring rules that are part of the basic assumptions that the game is written and balanced on, then forcing it down other people's throats in guise of a more "enjoyable" game or some such.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love when people complain about "errata disguised as FAQ" or the like. Why? Because you ran it incorrectly for so long, as it never dawned upon you that you were wrong until they stated it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do people actually not read store bought APs in advance so they know is what it is going on before running them?

Most of the "complaints" seem to be of the "oh crap, I read that out loud" type. Which would be a non issue if you took any sort of preparation prior to running, and read ahead a few pages. Given the depth of character and plot involved with APs, there is so much more information you need to have a handle on versus "normal" module.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daniel Myhre wrote:
Sammy T wrote:
Daniel, an experienced PFS player asked this question during the playtest to avoid table variation. Smart player.
Why wasn't that dev post cited earlier when I asked for verification? You know, instead of just "it's been told to us".

If I know the answer, I'm not of the opinion I should do the leg work for someone who hasn't got the time or can't be bothered to actually research themselves unless they continue to be adamant about it for several days. At which point it becomes apparent they truly don't get it and won't do it themselves and it becomes more time efficient to just prove them wrong than argue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Daniel Myhre wrote:

If the ability specifically cites that it's a "deflection" bonus, then it's deflection. If it doesn't list a specific type of bonus but cites an attribute bonus, that becomes the type. Why do I assume this? Because Untyped bonuses stack with everything, including each other. But an 'untyped' ability or feat that gives an attribute bonus to a statistic doesn't stack with another 'untyped' ability or feat that gives the same attribute bonus to that statistic.

Thus those must actually be a typed bonus.

EDIT: At least this is how in retrospect the rules were intended to work.

Well it's not how they were intended since

1) the FAQ means it was always meant to be this way and was this way
2) They are clearly untyped, and ability scores never have been types and seems like they never will.

Thus they should have stacked, and that's why stat blocks had them stack, until this FAQ changed the rules.

And the PDT has yet to issue errata for all of the stat blocks which have changed due to this ruling. So apparently they are okay with the bad guys doing it, just not the PCs.

I am 100% "okay" with them spending time making material that keeps them in business opposed to fixing old stats blocks because people don't like an FAQ and want to call them "inconsistent"(to put it politely) for not doing so. It isn't like it would help, the people would just find something else to complain about once they did, all the way up until it was reversed. That is what people are like.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually suggest Oracle as well. There was a build using the Diefic Obediances, Mystery Cultist and Nature mystery IIRC. Push CHA for defenses and spell casting. Use spells for combat/utility as needed (spell pages).

The original build was maybe from Walter's Guide to Deific Obediances?

My build (a reconstruction of a 2E character for 3.x) was an Angelkin Aasimir 7 Nature Oracle/10 Mystery cultist/3 Oracle. (1) Noble Scion [War, CHA to Int], (3) Celestial Obedience [Arshea], (5) Power Attack, (7) Furious Focus, (9) Blessed (11+) open feats.

Nature's Whispers (CHA instead of DEX to AC), Natural Divination (CHA to saves or +4 intiative roll or +10 skill check, few times per day), Spirit of Nature (stabilize in natural areas, Fast healing 1 1d4 rounds when reduced to negatives).

Mystery Cultist:
Glorious Aura (+4 Sacred bonus to CHA, 10' aura save or frightned, rounds per day), Arshea's Charmer (Mirror Image 2/day or Charm Monster 1/day), Brand of Healing (Heal 1/day), Summon Celestial (Summon specific from Summon VI and VIII 1/day), Fervor (+2 Sacred to hit/damage, DR 5/Evil, +10 movement, +2 caster level, rounds per day), Flawless Form (CHA to AC as armor bonus), Incorruptible (+2 vs Poison and Disease, perma Gentle Repose on death, indefinite time to Raise Dead when dead, immune to becoming undead), Liberation (Freedom 1/day), Sacred Haven (Teleport/Plane Shift 10 allies to save place, then back 1/day; essentially a save point).

Medium BAB from both classes (14/9/4), 9/10 casting from Mystery Cultist (19th caster at 20), 6/6/12 saves. CHA to casting, initiative, CMD, as DEX and Armor to AC.

Divine Favor(1)/Might(4), Blessing of Fervor(4), Bestow Grace of the Champion(7) for more difficult opponents. Otherwise spells for utility as wanted/needed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:

Skylancer4: I hoped you would stop by. :)

I think you also had some items you were unsure about. If I recall correctly it was ioun stones, was it not?

Did you have an opinion on the gloves?

I know this is a topic you have weighed in on several times. Mind hitting FAQ?

Ioun Stones weren't something I was unsure of, more we had people stating they would merge when polymorphed and continue to provide effects. I'm of the opinion they would still provide effects but would not merge into your form, just stay floating over your head. You aren't touching them, they aren't taking up a slot on your body, but flying willy nilly around your head.

The gloves I believe are use activated so wouldn't continue to function after polymorphed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
M1k31 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
The problem is 3rd edition in general kept the same cure scaling as 1st & 2nd edition, but massively buffed HPs. The cure spells were not likewise increased in compensation.
It could be better to just change how much higher level spells cure... like instead of healing hit points, the higher level spells heal portions or full hit die based on what you roll, which would then also scale on the targets Con. That way Clw is still often useful for squishy builds while Cmw and higher would be better for tanks

1) It removes part of the "fun" of the game (rolling dice).

2) it involves more calculations (which Paizo said they wanted to remove to streamline the game).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
Adagna wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Adagna wrote:
Just have the dungeon collapse on their heads after they cut through a structural load baring wall. Maybe give them a knowledge:engineering check to be sporting about it. Nip it in the bud. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done....
Don't do this.
Or do it. You'll kill off all your players and they wouldn't need to play with a GM that would do this anymore.
Why because then your characters would realize that actions have consequences?
Because "rocks falling on your heads killing everyone because you did something I don't like" is the exact, word-for-word definition of the absolute worst type of GM.

Who would probably be justified in doing it, to the type of players who try to weasel absolutely every advantage out of the rules and get anything they can for "nothing."

It is a two way street, sorry.

There is a reason the vast majority of people don't GM, if players had to deal with themselves in a game they were running... they'd probably be tempted to do such things too.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Metal Sonic wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:

Adamantine, getting duller.


I second that. Your adamantine weapon don't get dull by fighting a adamantine golem, why punish martials any further?

Really.. . is there any where people won't bring up the martial caster disparity debate?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Is paying an additional 3000gp for your weapon, justification for bypassing and trivializing numerous encounters, plot points and various other situations in the game?

I submit that if "numerous" encounters/plots can be bypassed/trivialized by the ability to cut things, the ability to cut things is not the problem.

My gut is saying no.
Guts are no less prone to error than heads are.

It's also as good an argument as bringing up minutia to prove a point, in a game that typically has to ignore such details in order to function even remotely well.

"I have all these real world possibilities to show how could maybe do it in game!!!"

"Damn shame the game doesn't work like the real world isn't it?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Thought experiment for those discussing the "ineffective weapons" thing:

Okay, so let's suppose that an adamantine dagger is an "ineffective weapon" against a stone dungeon wall, because daggers aren't designed to destroy walls. Thus, the adamantine dagger can't damage the stone wall.

Now, suppose I cast stone shape, replacing a segment of wall with a 3ft-high stone box. It's open on top, with inch-thick sides. The box's sides are still stone walls, but they're thinner than the length of the blade and I can cut down from the top instead of chiseling in from the side. Can the adamantine dagger damage these stone walls, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed for destroying stone walls?

Suppose I cast stone shape again. The box now turns into humanoid figure; basically, a stone scarecrow/training dummy. It's not a wall now, but it's still an object, and made of the same material. Can the adamantine dagger damage it, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed to destroy stone statues?

Now suppose I animate this statue I just made, turning it into some kind of stone golem. It's still made of the same stuff as the stone wall my dagger couldn't scratch, but now it's a creature who happens to have hardness. Can the dagger harm it now, since daggers are designed to hurt creatures?

Let us take the discussion where it really is headed.

Is paying an additional 3000gp for your weapon, justification for bypassing and trivializing numerous encounters, plot points and various other situations in the game?

My gut is saying no.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Misroi wrote:
I would argue that an adamantine dagger is not "most melee weapons."

It is a super expensive and hard to destroy melee weapon.

It wasn't designed to be used on stone walls or the like no matter what materials it is made out of, that doesn't change because of being adamantine.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter, as the game deals with mechanics.

The fact that it is possibly a mental action, isn't enough to pass the Paralyze's exclusion requirement of purely mental. For it to work, it NEEDS to be a purely mental action. As it is not defined as a purely mental action, it cannot be used.

The fact you are making assumptions about a RAW mechanic... You know the old saying right? And that points to the main problem you have in this discussion. Don't make assumptions. Don't dismiss the fact that the spell actually references a physical based skill as "convoluted" to make your point some how more important. No mention of mental is mentioned, but you say it is. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It could be all mental, it could be mostly mental, it could be just a tiny bit mental, it could be all physical, mostly physical, or a tiny bit physical. But it is not, by game rules or mechanics, a purely mental action. Other abilities are specifically called out as purely mental, those get to be used. An action that isn't defined, doesn't get past the requirement check, and so doesn't get to be used.

It is a stringent check, in an exception based game. If it isn't quantified, you cannot say it is or isn't. As such, it fails to meet the exception test. As a mechanic, we can ignore or include as needed, as was done in the writing of this spell and the status effect.

By being undefined, it is not a purely mental action and so the Paralyze write up keeps it from functioning. This is a pure logic problem, explicitly categorized "purely mental" actions work. Uncategorized actions don't make the cut unless you assume things, which is what you are doing, by your own admission.

That is what they call "reading into the rules"...

If there is a dress code that requires you to wear a tuxedo, you don't get to go in if you are wearing a T-shirt with the image of a tux on it. They are not the same thing. And that is the argument you are making.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kchaka wrote:

I'd just like to say I too think you can fly with a Fly spell while paralized, that is what sounds most logial to me, anyway.

However, I can also understand if the Devs decide to rule that paralyzing effecst also prevent any sort of movement, including supernatural flying. After all, that seems to be the purpose of such conditions.

However again, if we interpret supernatural flight as a peculiar exception to a paralyzing effect, I don't find that too broken and think this makes the game more interresting.

In what ways does it make the game more "interesting"?

At best it seems to be "creative thinking" on how to avoid legitimate penalties enforced by status effects entirely intended to not allow what people are trying to say they are being allowed to do with no rules backing their opinion.

Also, it isn't supernatural. If we are going to discuss rules, words and terms are important. How they are used in the write ups and wording of effect, doubly so. Broken is doing something that isn't "intended" and or, doing something beyond what it states.

Allowing something to work as a purely mental, when it is not stated to be so explicitly, is at best bending the rules, and quite often "breaking" the rules. It may not be "overpowered", but that doesn't mean it isn't using it in a broken way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
If I fly without making complex moves, I don't do Fly skill checks at all. What happens now?

Logical fallacy.

"Because I don't fly in such a way as to need to make the check, means the check is irrelevant."

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Callum wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

Now, let's look at paralysis:

Paralyzed wrote:
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions...

Based on this information, we have the following rules:

Is a move action using fly speed a purely mental action? No.
Is flying a move action? Yes. It is explicitly stated.
Can a character who is paralyzed move or act? No.

You are taking the statement "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move" to mean "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to take any move actions". That is not the only possible interpretation. It's not how I interpret it. I see it as saying "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move its limbs". I can see how you might have arrived at your interpretation, but I don't agree with it.

Adding extra words or reading into it is also as much of an issue, and part of why people would not agree with your interpretation.

The real crux of the issue is the purely mental aspect. The game doesn't make any mention of the spell being so, and refers to physical checks when using it. To me, this shows it to at least not be purely mental. And yes, while it doesn't say it is physical, it most assuredly doesn't say it is purely mental. And that is what we need (logically and rules wise) to get it to work while under the paralyzed status.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

Take a look at Dominate Person.

Try to convince someone that it won't work while you are paralyzed.

There are spells that you control with your mind, and it takes a move action. Dominate Person is one of them. They exist. It's a thing.

If having the spell actually SAY that all it requires is concentration isn't a good enough reason to think the spell is similar to Dominate Person in this regard... I don't know.

Apparently the most obvious explanation isn't always the most obvious.

As for the argument that somehow the Fly skill controls what the spell can do... well... no.

The caster can do things with the spell that don't involve the Fly skill, so the Fly skill isn't applied (why would it be? We aren't USING IT!)

You don't need ranks in Fly to use the spell. You don't need to roll when you are flying.

The skill ONLY comes into play if you want to attempt a difficult maneuver.

I don't roll Acrobatics while walking through a door, so a penalty to the skill won't affect my ability to walk...

Same for Fly. Impose the biggest penalty in the universe to the skill.

It isn't getting used.

Saying that Fly (the spell) requires a 'physical action' CAN'T mean anything other than saying the caster is literally flapping their arms, or gesturing, or performing some other control method that isn't just concentration (like the spell says).

NOWHERE does it talk about anything even remotely like this.

So look at what the spell actually says, stop pulling stuff out of thin air just because you don't like the idea of someone being able to travel in straight lines while naked and paralyzed.

Gotta say though, this discussion is pretty entertaining. Just imagine all the situations where it's relevant: Zero.

Number of instances you've provided actual rules quotes to back up that Fly is purely mental: ZERO

Number of instances you've provided rules that imply that Fly is purely mental: ZERO

Number of examples from published material that might help to backup your creative interpretation of the rules (admittantly a stretch, but better than nothing): ZERO

Yet here we are going back and forth on the subject for some reason.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
What is the difference between a Demilich casting it and a Paralyzed caster using it?
The Demilich isn't paralyzed.

the demilich has nothing to move. its a floating head. so by your ruleing that magical flight is a physical based effect the demilich as a creature wouldn't work. as would multiple other creatures based around magical flight.

casting paralyze on it wouldn't stop it from doing anything but talking.

Actually, I think the point is, your example is horrible and doesn't work. The demilich is immune.

Hold undead specifically states the undead is immobile. And so, magical flight or not, held in place similar to the effect of Hold Person on a living creature, which should be some more food for thought... But you will probably dismiss that as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
The fly spell doesn't give you magical wings that you use physically.

Nor does it explicitly state it is a purely mental action, but it does refer to (and therefore connect itself with physical action) the Fly skill. The game rules implicate that clearly. More so than the creative thinking of it somehow being a strictly mental action.

It is an exception based rule set. If something is a thing, it is stated to be such OR stated to be an exception of something explicitly. There is no rules support of the Fly spell being a purely mental action at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:


People keep trying to inject complexity into a scenario that has none.
i feel like we are the only two sane people on these forums sometimes

Insanity does that to you, or so I hear.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

The crux of the matter is "what is a mental action".

We have another thread that ask "what is a physical action", BTW.

I think the only reply is: ask your GM.

That's part of the crux. The other part is "does the "you may take mental actions" override the "you are frozen in place and unable to move".
I have a siled Dimension door memorized. Being "frozen in place and unable to move" stop me from casting it and teleporting away?

Some people would argue that it would prevent you from using it.

I'm not one of those people.

Magic moving you around (Teleport, Fly, Dimension Door etc) should not be affected by paralysis.

If the spell explicitly calls out using your appendages to use the spell (Air Walk, Expeditious Retreat etc) then yes, paralysis would affect it.

I'm not sure why people think that Fly (the spell) requires your limbs to work. The fact that you need to make Fly (the skill) checks for doing complex maneuvers does NOT mean that you are flapping your arms to control it, it just means that you need some skill to pull off complex turns and such without risking loss of altitude.

Having experience with magical flight allows you to have the skill, which is based off DEX. Neither the skill nor the spell specify that you are controlling flight through physical means while flying magically.

Fly (the spell) DOES explicitly state that it requires as much concentration as walking. To me, this sentence is talking about control of the spell. Why would it be there otherwise? No other mention of control type is made, so we should use what IS printed-concentration equivalent to that of walking.

Mental action.

But the fact that the rules indicate you need to make checks involving physical attributes at all, it strongly implies that it isn't purely mental. If it were, would it not be based of mental attributes, like every other action that is mental?

To make a solid and reasonable argument, the onus is on you to show that it is without a doubt a purely mental action. Not by showing there isn't anything saying it isn't, but by showing there are rules indicating it is (the whole system is exception based after all). Even if tangentially. Saying it is purely mental "because" doesn't hold water. The rules point to it being at least somewhat physical due to referring to the fly checks. It may not be flapping your arms, it may just be small body movements and effort exerted. But it still refers back to checks influenced by physical attributes.

That doesn't sound "purely mental" to me... Sorry.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fly isn't movement via using telekinesis on yourself. It is flight (which needs checks at times, which implies something other than mental actions) and flying checks are part of other actions typically (movement).

If we take everything out of context I suppose that we can wiggle around what the rules point to, and say flight is purely mental movement.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are playing to 20th level maybe. But PFS and many home games don't see levels past 12. Hell, I've seen some posters say they don't hit 10th ever...

That means you career is less than 2/3's of the 20 level "cap".

It also means squeezing every possible advantage out of possible combinations to get your character "online" and reasonably functional before 6th level. Because at that point even single class builds are working to their potential. The faster you can get you "schtick" working, the sooner you can enjoy it. Because you might not have the option to do so otherwise.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
All the characters who needed to be rewritten or retired due to the SLA reversal.

They were born and living on borrowed time anyways.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It wasn't really pure tech though. But I agree it probably doesn't need a real update to use.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of those were skating on thin "grey area" rules anyways. It isn't surprising the ice broke and they drowned. Though the wild armor one took long enough to be put out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ascension Game's Path of Shadows was pretty impressive, wouldn't mind seeing more of their stuff.

Up until recently I've always been a fan of Dreamscarred Press. Lately the "martials need fixes/feats are horrible design" being forced down my throat every new product being talked about is getting a bit tiresome. But I love the core Psi stuff.

Necropunk was good, and I've backed the Snow White kickstarter from AAW.

Pactmagic from Radiance House is a favorite of our group as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:

I realize this is the rules forum but i am gonna say it any Way. In my game a AC Will move to flank if it Can do so with out provoking, with out special training. The attack command include this, for me.

Needing a special splat book for this is silly and a example of how the material bloat by creating options actually take option away.

And that is fine, Rule 0 allows you to do what you want in your game. The rules make no mention of ACs automatically flanking for combat, so when you tell one to attack, it would essentially make a bee line go the target to attack. It does what it was told to do in the most basic and simple way possible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is also easily augmented for damage and when you are a larger size you have the capacity to be a "persistent fireball" through reach and things like Whirlwind Attack.

Claws of the Beast is in a position to be fairly easy to abuse being a first level power. It is a prime example of how you want to give martials (psiwar) nice things but have to be conscious of the fact it is is such a low hanging fruit, a caster could cherry pick it so you aren't just helping the martial.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly don't think eidolons had anything to do with it. Druids on the other hand...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nothing in my post was hostile, I even made sure to include the FAQ because of the example. You're welcome.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bandw2, you are just flat out incorrect. That doesn't bypass the "cannot memorize spells cast in the last 8 hours", nor be able to get spells more than once in a 24 hour period.



To prepare his daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, he still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.

Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions

If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.

Interrupting the rest cycle causes them to need another hour, but the main point of doing it is to get the casters to spend the resources so they can't recoup them right away and are now down spell slots.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Please, Oak, don't listen to Walsh. He is wrong.

Unfortunately the way the CR system is based, he really isn't.

Letting the PCs control the pace of the adventure leads to the 15 min adventuring day. That never ends well.

If the challenges aren't causing the PCs to expend the resources they aren't appropriate challenges for the CR.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Langley wrote:
@Dominus: truly, no sarcasm or anything. I just find that there are folks that need things expressly pointed out to avoid offence.

Gestalt isn't ever the "basic premise" as a optional rule. As they never make mention of it, I don't believe that is the case lol.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RCM wrote:

2 more questions.

1). Can the Daylight spell power a Solar Generator

2). Will the armor enhancement energy resistance stack with the natural energy resistance of tech armor, like for example the Inssuit?

1) It doesn't work like real daylight versus undead, so I would say no. Daylight doesn't mean it is actual daylight, just a name used on a spell that provides equivalent light to being in daylight.

2) If it doesn't say it stacks, it doesn't as a general rule.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
Azih wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Have you ever played a gunslinger? This means your character is useless for two rounds of a combat -- one if you're lucky enough for the misfire to happen on your first attack. And the more attacks you make in a round, the more likely it will happen. I'm baffled why anyone would ever think this is no big deal.
I'm playing a Pistolero and a Musket Master. I'm not saying it's not a significant thing. My characters would love to be rid of it certainly. All I'm saying is that Quick Clear needs to be a part of the discussion when talking about misfires and it wasn't in this thread until I brought it up.
Have you looked at the weapon proficenies of the gunslinger. All Simple and martial weapons plus firearms. A gunslinger still can bring a long sword, knifes, Bec de Corbin, longbow, sap etc, etc. A gunslinger with a damaged gun can still fight. They just don't have the use of their gun until they quick clear it or get it fixed. Which they can do when the heat is significantly reduced to them. A space to breath is all they need.
That's not really a good argument at all. It still takes some action economy to switch weapons. More importantly, none of this excuses misfires as an antifun fumble mechanic designed to offset the broken touch attacks of Ultimate Combat firearms.

To be fair some people enjoy a game where winning isn't a foregone conclusion. A game where there is actually a chance of things going wrong and activities carry a possibility of failure. It is kind of like gambling, where you roll the dice and something doesn't go as planned. You don't like that something unfortunate could happen, where you might have to change your intended actions.

Mechanics like this aren't "unfun" or "antifun", you just dont like them. Just like so many others, you don't like the way the game was intended to be played. It just means you are looking for a game slightly different than what was published.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malag wrote:

So what basically both of you are saying is that Spellstrike is an ability that ignores such restriction because a grappled character could switch the hand he is using and be unaffected by it? Or at least, that's how my brain registered it. I guess it would make sense. Maybe I am just digging too deep into interpretations.

A follow up question about somatic components, can the person ignore Somatic component requirement if it succeeds on Concentration check or simply put, spells with Somatic components do not function (unless of course caster has means to bypass is via Still Spell or such)? This question kind of always troubled me.


You just can't use spells with somatic components. I guess think of it as every time you try to do the spell you get jostled and interrupted by the person grappling with you.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is constructive criticism. Harsh, maybe, but helpful if you can get past that. Being a GM requires significantly more time and effort than playing. As well as familiarity and knowledge of the rules.

When you come to the boards and say "I'm having a problem" and then get the same 3-4 responses, and your replies amount to, I do want to do that, it isn't a problem because it isn't in my game right now, and completely ignoring what is said because you don't want that to be the answer... There is a larger problem. And it isn't the class.

The reality is, if you don't have time to read and understand the rules that you are allowing into the game that you a running, the game isn't going to go well. Looking for some "other" ways to "fix" the issue, by ignoring suggestions and easy fixes provided because you don't want to hear them...

I didn't imply they were unable to GM, I made the statement that GM'ing requires time and effort to do successfully and well. If the OP can't put in the effort or time, they can only expect more issues.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Even if they are okay with it, it would still be an attended object. If they were okay with you using them, they could drop it during their turn. Problem solved.

2) If you are wearing it, it isn't unattended now is it?

I guess the best way to look at it (from the rules mechanics we have), is if it is on your person, worn/held/attached, or under your control (say from mage hand or telekinesis used to wield a weapon), you should consider it " attended " unless otherwise stated. It isn't a "choice" it is a state being, it either is or it isn't.

1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.