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.
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.
Cleric of Caffeine wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
Can Dabbler have his/her shovel back?
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.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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) 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.
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.
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.
+17/+12/+7/+2 is the normal full attack routine of said Paladin 17/Monk1
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.
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.
Strength modifier to damage, is a modifier. It gets added on after the damage roll of the natural attack and is not part of the natural attack itself even though it gets listed in the stat block for ease of reference.
When they decided to make that character, they took on the penalty as well as the benefit of that creature type. You know walking in that you cannot be brought back, so how are you going to be irritated that the situation comes up? As the DM you can decide to run it differently, but that is always the case.
RAW, specific items are bought "as is." They are priced according to the "balance" of what the item does.
As for adding materials (as it comes up repeatedly on the forums if you do a search - Celestial Armor), it is the same as creating custom items. For example, "Celestial" isn't a property with a cost or enhancement bonus listed on the table, Some named items are even crafted of a particular material already. If you want to make a "named" armor/weapon out of a particular material... Ask your GM/DM, it is up to them if they want to allow/disallow/re-price the item accordingly.
There are too many variances to do a blanket statement like 'feats are effects' for them 'to be defined' and I'm quite sure your know it.
At worst I see this as another way to go about getting something out of the mechanics that was ruled out to not work (I know you were big on threads dealing with race issues) that you think should. Pushing for a ruling in one way to then go back and use that ruling to show contradiction in another ruling.
At best you're asking for a strict definition of something that in reality 'depends' on the context and so cannot be totally defined as you would like it to be. Either way I would prep myself for disappointment if I were in your shoes and were making this some kind of personal crusade :)
With all due respect, making a character to show another character how good a spell is after discussing it with them repeatedly and them not taking it, is a pretty jerk move. It amounts to 'I'm going to show you that you are doing it wrong.' If the DM has completely removed a class due to you.. it just reinforces my suspicion.
It isn't about optimized, its about your playstyle being detrimental to other peoples enjoyment of the game. Your desire to be 'right' and show others you are right is poor gaming ethic.
To clarify, it doesn't matter if the 'ray' is from a SP or SU type ability (as long as it refers back to a spell with the ray descriptor).
Also, if the spell doesn't mention 'ray' it doesn't gain the benefits of WF (Ray) or the likes.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Tell that to the fighter who specs into a weapon and then for no other reason than the DM doesn't like the weapon or doesn't understand the attraction, never sees a magical one.
Tell that to the wizard who never sees a scroll of any spell they would like to get.
Tell that to any magus who had to sac attributes to not be completely useless and would like to get a pearl of power or ring of wizardry.
They are all "great fun" without magic items, but they could be dramatically MORE fun with them.
People like toys, male, female, doesn't matter. New shiny stuff is good.
Now I know some of you might take this 'personally' but it isn't meant as an attack.
ALOT of people who complain about access to magic items at PCs will also complain about DMing those games. Maybe I've been lucky or many of the people who I've gamed with were "skilled" but quite honestly... Hardly any of them have ever had an issue with DMing a group and providing a challenging campaign or had issue with enjoying the game with PCs having access to magic items regularly. I've only once had a DM say at the end of the night that the game hinged on a magic item (dust of sneezing/choking my character carried around for about 4 levels).
As a friendly piece of advice from a fellow gamer, if you find the game that hard to deal with, or that magic items being available requires that you need to put that much more work into running the game... You and your group may be better served by you being on the other side of the screen. If the PCs having a handful of modifiers and items that provide a bonus skew your encounters that much, you might be trying to micromanage too much, especially if the ones and twos are hindering your enjoyment of the game.
As for why the assumption is there? My guess is because people like "toys," they like to spend the treasure on things they want, not what you decide to "grant" them. It's an extra layer of personalization and it is nice to have a level of control over your character, as it is your character not the DMs. Sadly despite the DM doesn't always "know best" for another players enjoyment.
An altar is probably something you could get into a portable hole. Shrine, probably not so much.
But then that is the point. Semi permanent locations to worship instead of easy to move devices you plop down at your whimsy when it is of use to you.
@NobodysHome: That something isn't available at all times is the 75% chance. The 'special order' you mentioned is essentially the same as showing up one day finding they don't have it (but could be available in the settlment) then showing up 3 days later, succeeding on the roll and it being available.
Actually the "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" is a basic assumption of the Core Rules. When a character goes to look for an item there, as long as it is within the gp limit of the settlement size, three quarters of the time it is there.
When dealing with a "little to no magic setting" there may be no items for sale BUT you as the GM should make appropriate steps to make up for that choice.
It's covered on page 460 of the core book (if you decide to stop being lazy and check up on it ;)
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Flat-footed specifically says "dexterity bonus" so RAW you still keep the penalty.
The spell is the beginning of the full round action. If only one ally is a target, they are a free action (as part of casting the spell) or if there are multiple allies (the spell states you can touch multiple) you start it as you cast the spell and finish it on your next round.
Round 1: Cast spell that allows multiple allies to be targets with range of touch (standard action to "cast"; remainder of action to fulfill full round action of touching multiple allies).
No held charge, keeps within RAW. To put it another way, using a spell that allows for multiple allies to be targeted makes it a full round action to get into effect.
@Darksol: I'm not being lazy, I'm well aware of what the possible problems are. I'm coming at it from the view of metamagic'd spontaneous spells. Something that exists already and provides a reasonable explanation that works instead of b*%$hing about how the spells are impossible to use within the rule set. Sorry if thinking "outside the box" instead of going "OMG IT DOESN'T WORK!!11 HOW DID WE MISS IT ALL THIS TIME!!11" annoys you.
FAQ indicates a weapon can be used without the trip property.
The actual rules from Trip still indicate melee weapons only.
I thought a Ninth Level Wizard/Sorc Spell would have that effect, much in the way a 7th Level Wizard/Sorc Spell might have a similar effect. Apparently I was mistaken.
The level of a spell is pretty irrelevant to what it does. Just because a spell is two levels higher doesn't mean it should do/trump something a spell of lower level does, especially when its intended use might be different.
That is one of the core limitations of a spell caster, choosing the right spell for the right situation is imperative for being a useful participant to the group.
RAW and certain peoples sensibilities are quite often at odds. Everyone has different views. I just try to keep the fact we are playing a game based entirely in a world where magic is an everyday thing that drives the world on in mind... and well, my panties don't get in a bunch, and more importantly I can find amusement when others do.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Probably thinking about Sandstorm, they had a "dry lich" and PrC to slowly become one.
@OP, might want to post in the advice/suggestions forum for further help on pursuing this particular endeavor. Making it work is getting outside RAW and into houserules. Just toss a link here so anyone interested can follow there as well ;)