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

Skylancer4's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber. 2,872 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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

There are some examples in PFS scenarios of using bluff to disguise spells casting as "singing and dancing," though as others have said it's not technically 'in the rules.'

Unless you're in PFS your GM can just make up a simple system for it though. Bluff, Sleight of Hand, maybe even disguise are skills that could be useful, depending on how you're trying to do it. Silent/still spell metamagic feats and eschew materials may also prove useful.

I think arcane tricksters get an ability to hide spellcasting a few times per day.

There's a feat called Spellsong that lets bards hide their spells with a perform check. Another feat called Secret Signs lets you hide the somatic components of a spell with sleight of hand.

edit- you could also simply turn invisible and use silent spell.

Casting an offensive spell is still an attack and would break the invisibility I believe.


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

Do a search for Oradin, it can be a very effective tank/healer combination. Probably more so than what you are looking at. Essentially using life links you "soak" up the party members damage every round and use swift action Lay on hands to heal yourself as needed, leaving your full actions/standard+movement actions free to do as you wish.


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

Sorry, but you do indeed provoke twice for casting a ranged touch spell while threatened; once for the casting, followed by another for the ranged attack with the spell.

See FAQ

Eh, it's official I guess, but still doesn't make sense. I could see it working that way if the caster held the spell and fired it off in a round after he cast it.

At any rate hopefully if I ever play a caster in a group that runs that way, the foe doesn't have combat reflexes.

Moving on, an attacker disarming while unarmed already prompts an AoO unless you have the Improved Disarm feat and the disarm attempt is done at a -4 penalty. It says that if you successfully disarm the foe, that you can automatically take the weapon. It seems the intent is that the attacker automatically snatches the weapon straight from the defender without excess issues, not that he stoops down to pick it up and prompt AoO's after the fact.

It's been "official" for almost two years now... And it sometimes surprises me how many people arguing rules questions aren't very well versed in what the rules actually are. Not to say we don't all make mistakes, but I would like to think that people are trying to be helpful instead of just argue what they think it should be in the Rules forum. This isn't an attack, I'm just trying to point out a good portion of this thread was unnecessary back and forth due to erroneous information.

No we don't know what the intent is, you would LIKE the intent to be that. None of us having this discussion helped hash out the rules when they implemented changes from 3.5. Intent is completely lost to any of us, what we do have are the written words in the rules book and FAQs on same type situations. You may not like the rules we have but that doesn't change what they say.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

The more I think about it, a good portion of that fluff could probably be packaged into a nice little book. Similar to the PFRPG Companions. Mix in the characters with story/backgrounds tied to plot hooks with places of power and NPCs with ties to the various traditions. Depending on how involved it is, do it in 16-32 pages.

It would be a good avenue to publish more fluff/setting material with sprinklings of crunch to entice those of us interested in such things ;)

For a book like PoW:E, I'm shopping for more options, more classes, more maneuvers and feats. More of what I got from the original book, lots of crunch for the players to pour over and tweak their existing characters/concepts. The expectation (or at least from my perspective it is) of expanding on the rules we got from the first book.

That isn't to say your "fluff" isn't good (what I have read is good and enjoyable), but most of it isn't going to mesh with what is going on in a currently running homebrew/home game. Thus it doesn't have much marketing value in such a scenario. Giving a page of tradition background and a page of crunch for it, means I am probably going to have to rewrite or disregard a page of the book to fit it into the game we run. It isn't that it is "bad" it just isn't "useful" for my game. As the world has been in play since 2nd edition, it isn't very often something comes out and can be transplanted right out of a book fluff intact, into our games. Way more often, it gets tweaked and placed in an appropriate place that has preexisting background. I would imagine that would be the case in games that haven't been running as long as ours as well.

I mean I'm not going to lie, I'm going to buy the book one way or another. And any others for the PoW that come out "fluffy" or "crunchy", but I know that isn't necessarily an option for everyone. Just like I subscribe to the companions, adventure paths and modules. I've supported DSP for a long time, our group enjoyed ToB and we will enjoy PoW. I'm just the type of consumer who would prefer my crunch and my fluff in mostly separate books. It is kind of like when you had to haul around books, I would have my rule books all the time, and extras as needed. It is much easier to flip through a crunchy book (in PDF form using search as well) looking for what I need than to read through a book with them both interspersed when we need questions answered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

You also don't seem too enthusiastic about Paizo's choices on this book, which has been stated already a few times, meant to be "psychic" ala SP abilities and following the typical spell slot that is already used in game. AKA magic.

You can view it as a missed opportunity, but the reality is a long time ago they was discussion about psionics and they kept quiet about it as they knew no matter what the answer was, it wasn't going to be well receipted by a good portion of the players. Psionics tends to have two very distinct camps, either pro or against. They decided they weren't going to implement a new rule set that would further complicate the game and DSP stepped up to take advantage of it.

What makes you think if they weren't going to do that, that they would complicate the game with an all new rule set for alternate psychic abilities and Psychic Resistance that doesn't mesh with the current in game Spell Resistance? But does mesh with the spell slots and SP abilities? It makes absolutely no sense to do so.

The reality is, what you want isn't going to happen no matter what you say or lobby with. Accept it and move on. I honestly don't even know why this discussion is still going on (not even trying to be a jerk about that).

Also, it is your loss if you don't want to use DSP's material. Ultimate Psionics rivals pretty much anything Paizo puts out in terms of quality and balance (if not MORE balanced in some cases). If the material fits the bill for what you are looking for, you should at least take a look at it. And seeing as it is free to do so at d20srd... Well no reason not to right?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Gwiber wrote:

Not everything is about balance. Or SHOULD be about Balance.

Sometimes the world is "sh*t" and bad stuff happens. Sometimes there are things you just can;t deal with under a normal circumstance.

Psychic power, ISN'T spell power. That's kinda the point.

You make it rare, and unique.

It needs to be different from Magic. Removing Spell Resistance from the equation goes a long way to doing that. Showing that it is, not, magic.

It is psychic.

Seconded that it is a bad idea to remove SR. This is still a game, and some choices should be better than others on some ways. Despite how YOU think about it, mechanically balance is a "thing" as they need to consider how it works in organized play and such.

Removing SR makes it vastly superior to spells. Not in a "sometimes you are unlucky way" but in a "every instance of this is better way" and that isn't good for the game as a whole. "Rare" is meaningless in a vacuum, in each setting this can be as rare or common as the setting makes it. That isn't a "mechanical" system limitation, like you are proposing. ANY "special" ability can be fluffed as "rare" or "unique" be it spells or psychic abilities or what have you. The mechanics don't make it "rare", your desire to see it that way in your game does. The mechanics still need to be balanced in regards to other existing abilities for when they aren't "rare" for other people's games who don't share your opinion on the subject.

Fluff or description of an ability makes it what it is. You could use two differing mechanics and call them both spells or psychic abilities. It doesn't matter as long as one isn't significantly better than the other so it is always "the" choice to make. The new mechanics are still "special powers" above and beyond normal physical damage such as smacking you over the head with a club. That is what "spell resistance" protects against, the supernatural, not the mundane (in the general sense not system mechanical). Whether it be spells or psychic ability, SR is the defense versus "caster" types as a whole.

The "fluff" makes it different than magic, it doesn't need this mechanical change to make that obvious distinction more obvious.


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

Feral combat training with a natural weapon having an 18-20 threat range is theoretical possible.

FCT will allow the natural attack to be used in place of the unarmed strikes effectively.

If you can find a natural attack with 19-20 and then use the keen power from DSP for natural weapons you can push it to 18-20 (or improved crit feat, but that might take a bit longer due to prerequisites). Getting a natural attack to 15-20 might be difficult to say the least.


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

A church or several, or another town that could offer said services even, probably would develop on the outskirts of said area. Chances are there would be a very well kept road to these places.

It would be no different living in a suburb present day and having to commute to the city to get hospital assistance. The heal skill provides the emergency treatment "in zone" to keep someone alive for the trip to where they can get more serious treatment. 10 miles is just outside the normal travel amount a humanoid in game. Toss them on a horse or use any of the other magical schools (transmutation for example) to get access to more mobile options (friendly druid with a super strong fast flying companion for example) and it becomes a day trip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Take the Book of 9 Swords. Bring it to "Pathfinder", with all the nice things and warts from Bo9S.

You mean like what Paizo did with 3.5 when developing PFRPG. Yah it was pretty ugly... /pointed yet playful sarcasm


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
Spell Combat wrote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
FAQ wrote:

When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.

A hand-associated natural weapon is considered "wielded in the hand."

No the FAQ states you can use the natural weapon for this class ability. The two are not interchangeable nor does a FAQ specifically for the Magus class mean that it is a blanket rule sadly. It means for this specific instance it can be considered to be that way. Extrapolating anything beyond what it says leads to debate on RAI.


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

its not a house-rule btw

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

in the big chart, its under the special tab thing

Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5

it doesn't even need DM approval

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

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

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

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


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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Prince of Knives wrote:
Dualistic is back to +1 because that sets it as being essentially equivalent to what the Soulknife pays for the ability. The ability to pass the weapon around is being addressed, and we very definitely appreciate the catch.

That is a very very bad reason to price it so low, you are looking at it in a vacuum which isn't good design practice. The soulknife's weapon is what the entire class is based around. When all your class abilities revolve around a weapon, you should get a break. It is essentially what you "do" after all. Giving that to every other class, cheapens what the soulknife has going for it, especially when you make it available so cheaply. A simple "+1" isn't what a soulknife "pays" for the ability, lack of feats, spells, and various other class abilities that it DOESN'T get are what the soulknife pays for that benefit. All those things that another class will get and then some, by making this class ability available for an inexpensive item enhancement. A soulknife doesn't get to cherry pick weapon enhancements, it has a list of available choices, there are restrictions. A soulknife doesn't get to add enhancements that cost a flat gold rate, they aren't on the list.

Your reasoning for the price is flawed, the cost of the ability really needs to be higher, you honestly cannot expect a comparison of class levels invested to equal out to a +1 ability. Not to mention the "fragile" drawback is essentially not a drawback (how many DMs actually sunder weapons on PCs regularly?).

The closest prices I can suggest for comparison would be the crystalline focus items and the one legendary weapon that DSP has published that grants the ability to create a mindblade.

D20srd wrote:

Crystal Hilt

Aura faint psychokinesis; ML 3rd (+1), 6th (+2), 9th (+3)
Slot weapon; Price 11,200 gp (+1), 44,800 gp (+2), 100,800 gp (+3); Weight 2 lbs.
DESCRIPTION

A crystal hilt looks like a crystalline sword with no blade and comes in light, one-handed, and two-handed varieties. A soulknife, or anyone else with the ability to manifest a mind blade, channels their mind blade through the crystal hilt when summoning it. This does not otherwise alter the action needed to summon a mind blade, the summoner must simply be wielding the crystal hilt and choose to manifest the mind blade through the hilt.

Crystal hilts have 45 hit points and a hardness of 15.

When a mind blade is manifested in this fashion, the enhancement bonus and the maximum enhancement bonus of the mind blade is increased by the enhancement bonus of the crystal hilt, although any enhancement bonus above +5 is lost.

Characters wielding two mind blades only gain the benefit on the mind blade channeled through the crystal hilt. Multiple crystal hilts would be needed to affect multiple mind blades.

Throwing a mind blade while wielding a crystal hilt does not require the crystal hilt be thrown. If forming your mind blade into two blades, only one is altered by the crystal hilt unless you are wielding two crystal hilts.

Crystal hilts may only be made with a +1, +2, or +3 enhancement bonus.

Just adding a +1 to a single weapon is priced at 11k, up to +3 being 100k. You're granting another whole weapon mimicking the first weapon for what? 42k at the most?

I would suggest asking Jeremy what they did for the "formula" for those and see what he says about pricing the soulknife ability as a weapon enhancement. I know he is busy with Ult Psi and all (I contributed to the DSP kickstarter and he sends out updates religiously), but it can't hurt to have some feedback from a person who consistently puts out quality material.


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

I'm not sure that you get to "stack" the penalties from one into another. If you make a successful attack, you spend two uses of the Touch of Corruption so both the poisoned greatsword and the cruelty go through. Those three would go "off" at the same time, weapon damage, poison (save) and touch of corruption (save). Then as you have met the requirements for the feat (damage being dealt with power attack), you can make an intimidate check (with possible modifiers from the weapon damage result).

At best, there is an "attack resolution phase" and a "damage phase" to deal with. I've not seen an example where damage is split up and one type of damage cascades into the next in a favorable manner like you are asking about. The attack happens, damage is applied and after that point penalties are taken into account.


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

@Extra question: nothing says you cannot, in a core rule book game no PC has a natural attack innately to gain the feat. Obviously the game has expanded since then so RAW as long as you can fulfill the requirements you can take the feat. In the end it is up to the GM as always though.


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

I second the Green Ronin skill based psychic class even if it was 3.5 (it was easy enough to convert over), it was based on the abilities doing non lethal damage when you used them. It was found in both the Advanced Players Handbook and the Psychic Handbook (I believe?).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Ken Pawlik wrote:

@Ssalarn: I'm still watching the Magic of Incarna playtest, don't worry! I think a noble Vizier will be bedeviling (be-angeling in this case?)our villains in my Way of the Wicked campaign this weekend. Hopefully I'll have some useful playtest data for you.

@Prince of Knives: I don't envy ErrantX his work on the Path of War or yours on the project you've been hired for. The Tome of Battle is both reviled and beloved; working to keep fans of the Bo9S happy as well as drawing in new fans is more stress than I would want to take on. In it's current incarnation, PoW isn't working for me, but hopefully I'm in the minority. I generally remain silent about things I don't like, but I really want to like the PoW. The author clearly loves the subject. The concept is great. The writing is tight. Some of the maneuvers are awesome and evocative. It addresses the caster/non-caster disparity and gives martial characters some much needed fun stuff to do. But... I want a rules module to work relatively seamlessly within the PFRPG core rules without having to either convert the rules module to fit my game table or explain to my players why we're rolling opposing rolls to cause an opponent to fall prone, as a general example, rather than using CMB vs CMD as we usually would. I don't want to belabor my point, I can concede that this nitpick may just be me, so I won't clutter the thread further about this particular subject.

@Anguish: I will respond to your PM. I thought it was sweet that someone that goes by "Anguish" was concerned about my distress :-)

I just want to point out, using a skill in an "opposed roll" in combat is something that exists in PFRPG. Escape Artist in a Grapple.

The PoW crew has essentially expanded on that, an existing mechanic. It isn't a "3.0/3.5'ism"... It is a PFRPG'ism at this point if we're going to be honest about it. A CMB roll is still an attack roll, it just has a handful more modifiers that will possibly be added. PoW still uses the fundamental mechanics of the current Pathfinder rule set, AC, attack rolls, saving throws and skill rolls. A handful of the maneuvers use them in abnormal ways, just like the Pathfinder core/expanded rule set occasionally does.

If you take issue with that, well you are also taking issue with the system we are playing with. That isn't something another publisher can do anything about, all they can do is take a look at the existing mechanics and say "What else can we do with it?", "What rules are interesting, thematic, and can be expanded on?", "What roles in a party can be better defined and/or improved on that hasn't been done before?", etc.

PFRPG set the precedent to allow skills in combat situations in the current rule set, PoW is just taking that a 5' further.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I think the point being made is that for dealing with numerous characters/NPCs "preallocation" is more work than just marking off points as the character uses their abilities. For one or two characters it isn't bad, but if you are in charge of a handful of wizard characters who aren't just seeing action once off, it is more work than just marking off a few points for a little boom or a bunch of points for a big boom.

That index card might last one encounter for a mid level prepared caster versus weeks of the campaign for a psionic character just tracking points spent (assume ink). Is it hard to track spells? Not really, especially because most of use do it regularly. But I agree tracking PPs is easier than planning out spells, basic napkin math essentially. You'll spend more time pouring over your spell book choosing spells in the long run. The downside is less utility in comparison to the wizard.


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

Debatable.

Polymorph Subschool wrote:
While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
If you just want to use base Pathfinder material to create what an Iron Man analog would probably be in a 'typical' Pathfinder setting: How about a Gun Tank?

In a "normal game" bullet defection is pretty much useless, then you trade away feats (for a class that is normally feat starved) for armor training, in general it is a poor archtype.

If we're talking pathfinder only; Synth would be significantly more useful, have the advantage of being able to do what the concept requires and allow you to spend your wealth on shoring up the loose ends. The Gun Tank would require you to spend all your wealth to get even close to the concept and still fall short in many respects.


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

The write up of the creature says "This armor becomes an icon of its perverse natures, transforming into a monstrous second skin over the husk of desiccated flesh and scarred bone locked within." And the only other references to the armor being off the graveknight are when it has been destroyed. Going with a resounding "No" to being able to take off the armor. Though you can still play with it a little bit, mithril full plate (or celestial) to make it act as a lower class of armor for some builds. Glamored property to make it look as if the graveknight wasn't in full battle mode. Various other properties as well.

It is probably better to think of the armor as the graveknight, the body inside is just a hp pool. Taking the armor off is tantamount to ripping the skin off a creature and in most cases would be inflicting significant damage if not out right killing the creature.


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

Ok now that a couple of years has gone by on this thread & a bunch of archetype/class options are available.

I'm starting up a new campaign & my wife is really interested in playing an Ironman concept. My brain thought some type of archetype of Artificer from Tome of Secrets, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see if anybody had some homerun ideas/concepts?.... It'd really help me out.

Dreamscarred Press, Aegis.

Summoner, Synth archtype.

Those two give the basic character concept of a custom "suit". Aegis is probably more suitable and less difficult to construct and use.


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

This really isn't a thread about a rules question, it's a "I don't think it should work the way it does" thread. Flagged so it can be moved someplace more appropriate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
MrSin wrote:

Oh, they use brainwashing now?

Edit: I should add to my point, doing evil doesn't turn you evil, and a large part of life is finding alternate solutions. Again, this goes back to gripes about alignment requirements. If they really will turn evil, you can just add a bit about how it can be compromising, but as is your just asking for alignment arguments and adding unnecessary restrictions. Leave it to the table, rather than set up an arbitrary restriction.

Any table that takes issue with alignments is already house ruling things about them regardless. They (the authors) are just following in the steps of what already exists and working in the established framework. Not quite sure this is the place or product to start pushing for changing the alignment system of the game.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

So should the title of this post be switched to "Designer actually did their homework and the OP didn't"?


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

This should be in the PFS forum. I've flagged it but maybe someone will be able to answer it before it gets moved.


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

Strict RAW, unless there was some wording regarding a condition ending on the creatures death it would seem to persist through death (unless the spell/ability used to return the creature to life stated it cured/removed something).

As a house rule, we treat corpses as objects. One of the reasons why is it invalidates the targeting of many spells/effects (living creature/humanoid/etc) and so those effects cease to function.


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

Gaining the Celestial Template doesn't change the HD. The magical beast 'rules' you are referring to are the build rules for creating a creature of that type. I imagine there are exceptions, but unless the creature is being rebuilt from the ground up there is nothing indicating the stats should be changed. Animal companion, Familiars and Mounts all have strict stats that they adhere to and redoing the stats makes no sense for at least one of the options. Familiars are treated as having a certain amount of hit dice, but their hit points are figured out in a completely different manner.

The feat does what it says it does. It grants the template and changes the creatures type to magical beast (if it wasn't otherwise, again familiar) to make allowances for what can target/affect it. The feat doesn't say rebuild your familiar/mount/animal companion to have these stats, it just says it becomes a magical beast. The class ability that grants the companion/familiar/mount still dictates the stats. You're altering a preexisting creature to gain a type, not creating a whole new creature using the general rules in the bestiary.


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

RAW, it would, but I'd definitely say that wasn't the intent.


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

A big problem with maneuvers is they are conditional, disarm doesn't work against natural attacks (and LOTS of creatures use those). Taking and investing in them just to not be able to use them... is a let down.

Also many manuevers are more 'risky' to use. You try to grapple and have a worse chance at success than just out right hitting the creature with a weapon for damage? It's a wasted action, no thanks. When they work, it's really cool. But they are less likely to be effective and often are less likely to work unless you specialize in them (feat investment requiring 2-3 feats over several levels). And worse, by the time you do that, many creatures are essentially immune to them. Cannot trip a flying creature, the big bad nasty that you try to grapple is 2-3 sizes larger and has a huge strength score, and of course you cannot disarm that dragonss bite or claws...And sundering the Big Bad Evil Guy's weapon??? Heck no!! That is money down the drain and treasure you are throwing away!

Most people want to roll the dice and see numbers taken off hit point totals. Disarming might be a good idea and a sound tactic but it isn't nearly as exciting as possibly rolling a crit. In that way, manuevers are almost an 'advanced tactic' for someone who doesn't mind playing a 'support' role. When it works, it might do wonders, but it is far from showy. And it takes a certain type of player to enjoy that.


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

Read the transmutation school again. It states if the new form grants a swim or burrow speed you gain the ability to breathe while swimming or burrowing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Driver 325 yards wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

I find the best way to be in these threads is reasonable. Try to never get offended, never insult other posters no matter how obtuse or condescending they are being. If they make a good point, concede it.

[There is great satisfaction in handing a man a shovel and letting him get on with all the digging.

You can give me that concession anytime you want.

Can Dabbler have his/her shovel back?


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

RAW it would seem it is a hit but has been 'deflected' meaning it does no damage. Now we should open another thread in regards to non damaging attacks or status effects, reason being they are not damage and could still be ruled to take effect technically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Driver 325 yards wrote:

If you deflect an attack the attack misses. What type of word games are you guys trying to play. Even when dealing with AC, a sword could hit your armor and be deflected away from you.

I think you guys are just thinking about the result that you want and crafting an argument around that result.

Deflected, dodged, blocked by shield, blocked by armor all equal missed unless you are parsing words to reach some desired end.

If you are going to 'make things' up feel free. RAW the attack HIT, the character in question used a reactive ability to 'DEFLECT' the attack which means (quoted from the source) it 'deals no damage to you.' If you spent half a second to actually look at it, you'll notice the lack of anything referring to the word 'miss' or 'missed' in any of the ability details. It doesn't miss RAW.

Crane Wing wrote:
... you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Incendax74 wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Thanks for your opinion on the subject, I guess. They are both 'official' and there has been nothing stated that invalidates the FAQ or that it should be ignored. Errata means changes to the pre existing books that has been made to new prints. The FAQ still stands regardless of the 'age' difference.
There has absolutely been something stated that invalidates the FAQ. They say limbs. If they meant arms, they would say arms. Anything further is just theorycraft on your part. We can still refer to the FAQ in places where the updated Errata does not overrule it.

If you want to argue 'arms' aren't limbs that is fine by me, the rule book now states you must have limbs to cast a spell, the errata makes that the case. The FAQ further clarifies that those limbs need to be arms. They haven't taken down or sticken the FAQ from use two years later even after errata, it still stands as the 'official' opinion on the subject.

Errata and FAQ are theorycrafting in your opinion? Errata and FAQs are not mutually exclusive, errata is something that changes the rulebook and typically limited in what can be changed due to word count and layout changes to the book. FAQs are actual clarifications to the rules so we have the design intent when ambiguous wording is used in the book/rules.

I've got nothing more to say to you on this subject, its rather obvious you won't be changing your mind no matter what proof is given or facts stated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

It wasn't really due to 'balance' issues as it was allowed for quite some time. I believe the real reason was the archtype, while being really great as a concept, was not written as well as it needed to be to not require heavy interpretation. That makes table variance a huge issue for PFS play, especially with the number of rules exceptions/errata/FAQs all over the place that make 'building' the character correctly difficult as well.

Basically great idea, poor implementation and it is easier to disallow it than put the work into a rewrite for the archtype just for PFS play. People who like the archtype 'make it work' for their games, those who don't just ban it outright (from what it seems like on the forums).


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

You're better off going to the Dreamscarred Press forums probably, this isn't really the right place for it.

http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewforum/f=2.html


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

@Secane

I'd give the tiefling a 'circumstance' bonus to the checks, it's totally within RAW to do so as a GM and it doesn't read more into an ability which may cause issues with the rest of the party or push the envelope on table variance.


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

Well let's put it this way, does the familiar have class levels which are granting SA beyond the special ability granting it SA from Carnivalist levels as per the quoted rules?

As a familiar, I'm fairly certain that answer is 'No.'

As such the only 'levels' granting the familiar SA are Carnivalist levels... So dealing SA is in fact reliant on the specific class level instead of 'character levels' for the familiar. Having the quoted rules makes the issue much less 'ambiguous' and rather clear. The familiars only access to SA is the archtype in this particular situation unless you somehow have have familiars with class levels granting SA.


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

I'd actually say the incorporeal goes first, it would be checked on attack. DR wouldn't care about attack resolution, only being checked once damage resolution occurs.


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

The dispel issue is what makes it more 'powerful' in comparisson to what is printed in the book. An item that normally has CL 5 typically costs a great deal less than an item with CL 16. It isn't 'just' about the effect of the item, it also comes down to the reliability of it. If it was 'just' about the check to make the item why wouldn't the game automatically assume it was CL 20 across the board?? It would make the stat blocks easier/shorter and save word count.

The answer is items are priced according to where in the power/wealth curve they become available. They have CLs according to when you would get them so the DCs of dispels are competitive at that point as well as not essentially being immune to dispelling by CR appropriate opponents. There are grades of magical items for a reason. Lesser items are more likely to stop working than greater items when 'dispelled' which makes them more reliable as well as more expensive. That is intended. A ring of prot +1 with a CL of 20 is vastly more useful and reliable than the 'normal' ring of prot +1, which means the price should be changed to make up for it.


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

...no going to mention the elephant in the roooooom..... lolz

Yeh, you would have to use reduce/enlarge spells to change size (after changing?) Enlarge Animal could get you to Gargantuan (from Huge at 8th level, so that would be kinda cool).

Depends, if the wildshape increases your size, enlarge won't work (spell states that multiple spells that increase size don't stack). Animal Growth won't work as your type won't change and so you're not a valid target (unless you are actually an animal)


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

1) No, they gain what the spell/ability that allowed them to change shape states they get. NA is definitely something based on physical form so, the polymorph school states it would be lost when changing to a new form.
2) No they get the attack routine, you need to figure it out for your character (with the new stats from changing shape). It is more simple than having a second book of all different creatures you could change into, less book keeping involved if everything is based on the characters stats.
3) No racial skill bonus is gained. You might gain a modifier from the size change however. If the racial was strictly a 'physical thing' it would be stat'ed up as an ability and listed as something gained in the spell.
4) RAW, no. In your home games feel free to house rule away.
5) See 4.


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

Actually you do need to have access to the feat and prereqs or are you just going to ignore that part of RAW? Do you specifically need it? No, but the person doing the enchanting does. The progression of the class ability is set by the table, which is remarkably similar to that of a familiar or are you going to ignore that as well? Is it a familiar exactly, no, just like it isn't exactly a 'magical sword.' It is something different and unique to the archtype. It does what it says it does, nothing less, nothing more. If it was intended to be modified, it would have been errata'd by now. RAW gives progression and ways to enhance the class ability, no where does it say it can be modified further than that.

'Just because it says it can't' isn't a valid arguement on a rule set based on giving the general rules of what you can do and specific exceptions to the general rules. It is a class ability, it acts in some ways like a weapon. It isn't your generic standard run of the mill magic weapon like you are saying it is. There are multiple significant differences, not the least of which is it having a strict progression and limitations to what it does and can have.

If you cannot come up with something more than 'I can because the rules don't say I can't' there isn't much more to be said to you. The rules DON'T say you can add abilities to the Blackblade (which again is at worst a named magical weapon which you seemed to ignore) via feats and spending character wealth. They do say you get a specific enhancement at a particular range of levels and it can be further enhanced with the characters other class ability, arcane pool. Specific rules trump general rules, and there are a whole lot of specifics in regard to this class ability.

JJ may not be the errata guy, but given the rules and reasons I've covered the past few posts backing up that line of RAI, I quite honestly can't see why a FAQ/errata even seem to be neccessary (with everything I've read now). If they do do it, it will just be to shut the people up who are saying it is possible because they don't read anywhere it isn't. That has never been how this rule set worked, ever. A rule set created from lines and lines of what you cannot do would not be a marketable game, it would be huge (As in page count) and near impossible to navigate.

And incidentally from where I'm standing the employee of the company who wrote the book is a heck of a lot more 'official' than some random internet poster saying 'nuh uh, it doesn't say I can't'... But hey, to each their own. If in your head you want to blur or ignore the distinction between a 'standard' custom magical weapon and a specifically defined class ability, go for it. The rules don't cross that line, the rules don't say you can do it so therefore that option is 'off the table' in the most strict (PFS organized play) reading.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Monk doesn't have a 'flurry progression', it has an entry in the class table for easy reference due to its mechanic altering the BAB of the class further modified by a feat chain when used.

Flurry of Blows states you use a full attack action and a gain an extra attack as per the TWF feat.
1) A characters total BAB is what is taken into consideration when performing a 'full attack action' to determing number of attacks possible.
2) TWF feat allows for a single additional attack beyond what is normally possible for penalties across all attacks.

+17/+12/+7/+2 is the normal full attack routine of said Paladin 17/Monk1
Flurry increases monk BAB to +1 (+18/+13/+8/+3)
TWF adds attack and imposes penalty (+16/+11/+6/+1/+16).
New FAQ says FoB attacks can be done with a single weapon and that any attack in the routine can have IUS subbed in instead.


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

Flurry isn't based on BAB, though it happens to raise a monks BAB when being used. The ability states it gives an additional attack as per the TWF feat. When making a full attack action your total BAB is what determines your number of attacks, then you tack on the penalties and the additional attack per the TWF rules following the restrictions/benefits of the Flurry ability.


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

As flurry is based on monk levels, it would be equal to a +18 BAB character using Two Weapon Fighting (assuming monk weapon/IUS)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Fast Healing is the 'source' of the healing regardless of if it comes from a racial or is gained by a spell. As per the stacking rules, when two similar sources provide a benefit/effect, the largest is considered and the others are basically ignored. Fast Healing 5 trumps the Fast Healing 1, and so would be the one to operate. If the Fast Healing 5 were somehow turned off, the spell would kick in for its duration.

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.