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

4,176 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:




1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about this. If they meant blind, why didn't they use that term?

It is a game mechanic. It is in the glossary (and has been through 3.x).

They didn't use it though now did they?

They used sightless, which has connotation beyond "effectively blind" and has definitions (which I pulled from a Google search) that show context and meaning beyond the "simple" blind you keep pointing to. It want just one, but two and three of those "definitions" which emphasize a meaning beyond simply "effectively blind" to actually being unable or totally lacking the ability to see. Physical inability (lacking eyes or pathologically inability from disease) is what the several definitions I provided stated.

They didn't use blind or blinded, it being a mechanic that was easily available to reference in the same book, they used sightless. That should tell you something.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The vast majority of rules tell you what is allowed/what you can do. When the rules are silent on things, it is because they aren't allowed unless an exception is stated (as in using a standard action to make a move action). This is what an exception based rule set is. If they were to do it the other way (telling you what you cannot do) the game rules would literally be a collection like an encyclopedia set. Obviously that isn't a good idea for a game, for numerous reasons.

In order for an "action" or "event" to be allowed, you need to provide a rule to show you can do it. There is no such rule for using move to free or swift as a blanket statement (there might be a class ability or such that does in very narrow circumstances, I haven't looked as it isn't pertinent to the OPs question).

Basically if you want to do something you need to find the rule that allows you to do it. That is just the way the rules set is made/set up. And it is why the argument of " the rules don't tell me I can't " is so obnoxious, because once someone gets to that point you have to realize that the person saying that doesn't really understand the core fundamentals of the game mechanics/rules.

It absolutely isn't that the rules are "unclear" it is that people want something from the rules for whatever reason, and the rules don't allow it. And because there are no rules regarding it, they try to work in the action they want either with "it doesn't say I can't" or "they obviously meant to allow it and didn't say anything", when it is plain as day that the rules don't have any way to allow the action/event.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Skylancer4: Having one person be able to reload and another not should rub EVERYONE the wrong way. There should be no reason someone shouldn't ask the question when a new ruling leads to an illogical result.

And to the point, I don't find the current set up "running well". Not being able to fix every problem/issue is no excuse for not trying to fix them or have the game make as much sense as possible.

As to "There are other games that do what you want better", I'd like rule to be as sensible as possible and that's something every game can improve on. A nauseated person forgetting or being able to drop an item or fall prone makes NO sense from a logical, gameplay, or balance perspective because they are limited to a more complex action.

And to be clear, the FAQ is a reversal of the standing rule in the core rules, combat section.

"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below)."

Any other time the rules say restricted/limited to a single move action or single standard action that also included the normal free/swift action. For some reason nauseated is the MOST powerful action limiting effect in the game... And to use your logic above, leaving nauseated use the above quote would have been the best way to make the game "simplified to make the game run more smoothly". Making an exception to existing rules doesn't make things rule smoother...

You obviously aren't playing the same game I am, because my PFRPG core rule book is definitely an exception based rule set, where general rules are stated and just about every spell, the majority of feats and class abilities, and pretty much every magic item is an exception to the general rules outlined in the game.

Is that the same game you are playing? Because my game runs pretty damn smooth with what we have in the book. It would take effort to not from what I've seen.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Do you have a quote, errata or FAQ about falling being typed? I've never seen it mentioned. It has always been "untyped environmental damage" from anything I've read.

Of course he doesn't, he was using common sense. There's not much difference between a large blunt object striking you and you striking a large blunt object. They're both going to hurt due to the force of the impact and it is a hard argument to rationalise that you have DR one way round but not the other. Unless the entirety of your argument is raw, Raw, RAW RAW!!!!!.

No the argument is it states it protects against combat effects. As it certainly reads as that is the implication.

Saying it protects against things beyond that is just taking the " well it makes sense to me" or thankfully not in this case, " it doesn't say it can't work that way".

There are NUMEROUS things that could make sense one way or another, but aren't intended to happen in the game.

You obviously don't like it, but that is the way it is, like so many other things people don't like about the rules. Someone not liking something isn't really a reason for the rules to all the sudden start working differently than written.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:

Command word activated:

first: (spell level x caster level x 1,800)

then: divide by (5/uses per day)

So: (5 * 9 * 1800)/(5) = 16,200gp

However, the rules also say to compare it to other magic items that do similar things to see if it's fair. The Broom of Flying also provides Overland Flight for 9 hours per day, with a couple of other abilities for 17,000. Since the proposed ring is slotted (and thus less valuable) I'd say that around 16K probably is priced right.

Being less valuable is subjective. They can sunder your broom, they have to kill you to get rid of the ring, etc.

Also the broom is a bad comparison.

A better comparison is Wings of Flying. Slotted, command word activated,60' average maneuverability. 54k gold.

So the ring should at least be around there. Flying is powerful and can trivialize a good portion of encounters. It tends to be very expensive if not counting against the character's daily resources pool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
At this point the question is contentious enough to need a FAQ. I believe the wording of the mythic version is enough to convey the intent of one designer, but it's not explicit enough for some, and may not be the ruling of the entire design team.

I'd rather the PDT didn't waste their time with something as silly as this. There are definitely things more important to sus through.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

The critical threat range of scimitars is specified under the description of scimitars.

Which is great if you were actually using a scimitar, instead of something that allows you to add bonuses and abilities that work with scimitars.

Again, something wielded is not the same as being that something in all ways.

It is a spell, those normally have a 20/x2 unless specifically detailed otherwise. All the spell description does is state [b]wielded[/i] as. It doesn't say "treat this spell effect as a scimitar for all purposes" there is a distinct difference between those two. And there are spells and effects that do that unlike this one.

When I "wield" a defending weapon, it means I attack with it to gain the bonus. That is the games "definition" of wielding. It has nothing at all to do with the statistics of the weapon.

By stating it is "wielded" as a scimitar that means the spell effect has possible drawback of non proficiency penalties, as well as being able to benefit from spells/feats/abilities that would provide bonuses to said weapon.The game rules haven't told us to use the weapon specifications of a scimitar, and as it is an exception based rule set, we just do the bare minimum of what they tell us to. And as we have Dev explanation of what "wielded" means in context of the game, suggesting that the spell has stats of the weapon is actually going far beyond what the spell states it does.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

A taser would be a touch attack.

The tip of the taser is what produces the effect.

You wouldn't parry a taser by jamming your hand into the contacts on the tip of the taser.


You can parry 'touch' attacks.

We've long since gotten past that, we are now on the "my shield should help vs touch attacks, it makes no sense it doesn't help" argument.

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

Where this is relevant?

Secondary natural weapon =/= off hand weapon

Of course it's not an off-hand weapon. I'm definitely not arguing that you can use natural weapons for two-weapon fighting.

I'm just pointing out that Pirahna Strike only works with light weapons, and it states that its bonus decreases when using secondary natural weapons. This only makes sense at all if you acknowledge that natural weapons are light weapons, at least according to the designer who wrote the feat.

PRD wrote:
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

That is why secondary natural attacks deal less damage when used with Pirahna Strike, not because they are light weapon.

If you are a werewolf in hybrid and use a weapon, your damage is:
"Melee longsword +6 (1d8+6/19–20), bite +1 (1d6+1 plus trip and curse of lycanthropy)" as the bite is a secondary weapon.

if you drop the sword and oly use your bite it become a primary weapon, and applies 1.5 x you strength bonus in damage, the new damage is "bite +6 (1d6+6 plus trip and curse of lycanthropy)".
His secondary weapon hasn't suddenly become a 2 handed weapon, simply it has become a primary on on a creature with only 1 natural attack.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

My point is that Piranha Strike only works with light weapons. And we know that it works with natural weapons, because it talks about the bonus being lowered for secondary natural weapons. So we know that the designer(s) who wrote that feat, at least, did so under the knowledge that natural weapons are light weapons. Otherwise, a line about what happens with natural weapons would serve no purpose at all, because the...

You are ignoring that things can be subsets or "act" like something without being completely and totally the same. It happens constantly in the books, reference to something that is preexisting to save word count. That doesn't mean they are interchangeable.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Hyperion wrote:

@The Sword: Well as you already says everyone is entiteled to their opinion. But some (more) empty promises and a(nother) piece of art is not "an update" to me.

I already knew that the artist does his job and I already know that the project is waaaaaaaay behind. So what exactly am I updated about?

"An update" for me would be if I was finally told exactly where the project stands and some educated guess when it will be finished (or even when interim targets will be reached). There is no need to whitewash this time either.

I´m absolutely with Steve here. I (and many many others) have given this man a lot of money. Even the money I personally have given him (over 300$) is a lot of money. At least it´s for me. Don´t know about you, maybe you are rich and don´t care. I need to work hard for my money. So what gives this man the right to treat me and all his other financiers (yeah.....we are his financiers and gave him money so he needs not pay interest to the bank) with disrespect, contempt and scorn?

And even if the "product will speak for itself" (imo it will probably say "Welcome to 2022, too bad for you that Pathfinder (in it´s current form) doesn´t exist anymore) why is that an excuse for the complete disregard this......person.....shows people who reached out and gave him their hard earned cash in good faith.

Give him more of your money if you like; if enough others do too he´ll just treat you like s**t again cause he´ll reckon that it´s ok to do so. I´ll never ever shoot him another dime meself.

And please do not compare this to Razor Coast. Yes, Razor Coast was very much delayed also and that was s$&&ty. But at least Logue had the guts, the decency and the manners to come clear with his funders. McBride has neither.

As I recall it took quite some time before anything was said about Razor Coast. And it basically changed ownership to come out. I wasn't part of it, but I had kept an eye on it because our GM's wife loved pirate campaigns and we considering getting it as a gift.

Not getting the updates you want isn't treating you with "scorn and contempt" and disrespectful might even be a stretch. It is a kickstarter after all and the vast majority of them fail. Welcome to investing in a failed business opportunity that you thought was a great idea. It happens. It doesn't mean the person was out to get your money or being malicious, like you seem to be portraying them.

If it is a lot of money, you probably shouldn't have put it into a risky endeavour. Most anyone in business would tell you the same.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not every warrior knows every move in the history of fighting.

Choosing maneuvers lets you customize how you fight, what your "style" is.

You are pretty much stating, the system is "rigid" because it makes you choose. News Flash: The game is all about making choices, quite literally everything you do every time you advance is a systematic choice, which in turn leads to more choices (feat chains, class abilities, you name it).

I can only imagine what your concept of "balanced" is if NOT having every option available and usable whenever you want it is, is unacceptable...

I can just state that it seems you are unwilling to see the benefits of the system, how it is balanced within itself (if not the core martial classes) and how your reasoning is rather flawed. Because making it the way you seem to want it would leave any semblance of "balance" weeping in the corner.

I'm by no means a fanboi of the system, I've been vocal about how it pushes too far past what the core rules have and so becomes a "bandaid" for a perceiced problem the writers see instead of a nice system that plays well in the game it was made for. But what you want is just... You are better off in another system honestly.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaunt wrote:

I'm a huge fan of realism in non-caster characters from a narrative standpoint. I imagine that a large part of it is that, like you said, martial players' conceptions of martial heroes includes Arthurian knights, samurai, Conan the Barbarian, perhaps Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. The kind of characters whose heroism comes from the fact that they go up against the arcane and the occult with nothing but years of training and an iron will. Characters who weren't special, having been born with the spark of magic innate to sorcerers, or the kind of privilege that lets you spend thirty years reading tomes and practicing spells before you kill your first giant rat. If they have to coexist with "mundane" heroes who can balance on clouds, bounce a throwing knife off 6 enemies' skulls, and stop your heart by poking your forehead with their pinky, well, then Conan stops being a hero and starts being a doofus who's good at swords. Tome of Battle/Path of War characters stand for the proposition that if you practice hard enough, you can basically do magic, even if you can't do magic.

If your ideal of martial heroism is Crouching Tiger, or Neo, that works out perfectly fine for you. If your concept of a martial hero is Inigo Montoya, or Conan, or King Arthur, that's not going to be a good feeling.

Mechanically, I could sit here and argue all day both ways, but I think for most people it's a thematic and narrative issue. Knights don't have spells for the same reason that the king doesn't have a Ferrari. It's the same reason that Crouching Tiger doesn't have demon-conjuring wizards or alien spaceships: it's a perfectly fine story or game, but it's not the one that we signed up for. If you need further proof, just look at the number of people saying "I never allow gunslingers, they ruin the story/are totally overpowered/are provably, objectively horrible people" in various places over the forums. People get defensive when others try to redefine the boundaries of "their" games.

But not all initiators are doing "magic." For each discipline that is "magical" there is another that is basically "hit stuff do damage," so it doesn't have to be all crouching tiger hiddden matrix. You CAN make a character that is basically just "good with sword" like Conan out of PoW. And that is where the system is I guess "better", not just pure mechanically, but thematically.

Now, that isn't to say it isn't heads and shoulders better than core martials, as the second book started to introduce stuff that just plain makes core martials into NPC classes (the fighter basically becomes a dip class if you allow PoW). But by no means does it force martials into "poor man's casters" as you can still keep the flavor of "plain" swordsman by choosing the appropriate disciplines or even just particular maneuvers even in some of the more showy disciplines.

Saying PoW = wuxia campaign is taking and presenting the worst case scenario as the only option. And it isn't the only option. Conan is possible, knights of the round table are possible, and "basic" hero is possible. The options are there, but anyone complaining about the showy stuff isn't going to talk about that, because it doesn't help make their point. My only real complaints of the books have been 1) marked amount of power increase from the first book to the second and 2) it wasn't balanced against what exists in core rules, but what the writers believe martials should be like (AKA house rules so "martials don't suck like they do in core" to paraphrase the discussion). I believe that was something that should have been on the "label" so to speak.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
It's a method to provide easy moral justification to kill without any other reason than their existence. If you're running a simplistic game where the good guys wear white and the bad guys are ostentatious and puppy kicking evil, then undead are always evil works great. If you want to tell a more complex story, ignore any "always evil" undead or otherwise, in favour of characters that have depth and personality instead of just a (stereo)type.

Complex stories can be told with those "restrictions" easily enough. Case in point, the entirety of Golorian with removal of any and all plots with exceptions in them. There is a HUGE amount of material out there, hardly any of it is "simplistic" due to not having the special snowflakes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are pretty much making an artifact, just to put things in perspective.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:

I think a small financial penalty is fine, especially for repeat offenders. Why? Well, story time:

I am playing in a 5 player game where we've suffered relatively high casualties(but the DM allows a free raise when you die at the end of the encounter if it's your first death to offset this) and honestly I'm happy when another player dies(their 2nd time) because it's a massive influx of GP to the party. We're currently 6th level nearing 7th, so when someone dies we suddenly have roughly 20k gp go to upgrading allies gear or upgrading ships, donating to the nearest church, etc. However, when 2 characters die in a relatively short time span, it's a lot of gold to inject into the party, even if you can only sell some of it for 1/2 value. And being better geared effectively raises the apl and then encounters get harder and more people die. It's a vicious cycle, potentially.

Long story short, penalties like this are needed. Level, xp, and other penalties? No, those ARE punishing the party. GP values though are an attempt to prevent WBL getting out of hand.

1) A GM should have a handle on the party, if the amount of gold gathered is going to be a "problem," adjust it. This is nothing new, and why it only happens at lower levels in our group (and less of an issue as we tend to use the gold gathered for the party, not an individual).

2) If wealth is going to break the game, the GM is probably not the person who should be running the game. A certain amount of system mastery is necessary and expected if you are to perform that role. Wealth is something that the GM pretty much has complete and total control of, there is no excuse to let it ruin the game.

3) Repeat offenders are a completely different and probably unrelated issue. That is an issue of abusing the standing rules vs wealth issue typically.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Goat Lord wrote:

We don't practice any kind of negative consequences for character deaths in my group. Losing a character is hard enough. As GM, I try to ensure, through encounter design, that if a PC has to fall it will happen in a way befitting a hero, therefore, most PC deaths happen at the hands of NPC villains and their cohorts, or if the PCs make a terrible mistake and need to learn from it. Still, bad things can happen. If the PCs are on death's door due to poor rolls versus something that should not be a threat, I try to keep in mind that defeat doesn't always equal death.

When death does occur we perform a little ceremony. We print out a copy of the character sheet and a information page, put them in protective sleeves, and add them to a 3-ring binder we named "Shrine of Fallen Heroes." The information page serves and an epitaph, listing the date of the game session, the name of the campaign, the name of the player, and a funny description of what transpired that lead to the death. We like to take down the binder and flip through it from time to time to laugh and reminisce old adventures. Some PCs pass on, but they are immortalized in story and laughter.

I actually have a graveyard as well. Occasionally people who are GM'ing will grab it to use them as NPC/BBEG's as they tend to be well optimized (and the group generally is as well), so published AP/adventures are pretty "bleh" most of the time and need some "spicing up".

As for out groups "death" ritual, pretty much at lower level if someone dies and we aren't going to be bringing them back, we split their gear up amongst the party. The character comes in at expected WBL, but is behind the group now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cablop wrote:

Wow, there are a lot of ideas here.

I want to look into the monk archetypes and the unchained monk. They sound a reasonable and effortless way to accomplish a few things of the wuxia genre. Maybe the unchained skills would work for it.

Some feats are nice and to check into other game rules compatible with d20 would work also.

To reflavor the magic sounds weird, mostly because PF magic is really western flavored to begin with, and to hide the casting behind kung fu moves is weird, considering that's what they do when switching styles. Buuuuut, all those suggestions made me think of another path, the psionics.

I don't know about psychic magic in PF, so i'd have to see it before considering it an option, but somehow i think it could work also.

Mythic stuff? I have to read it too, it could work, cause wuxia genre is about legendary people doing legendary stuff.

But after all i have to agree that PF don't manage wuxia genre very well and it is a lot of work to make it works to detail... but, someone could come and create some modules for it.

Did you look at the Path of War as suggested above?

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.
Spermy The Cat wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Spermy The Cat wrote:
Mark, could you settle a dispute between me and a friend? Does Rapid Shot and Haste stack? Can I get two extra shots in during a full round attack?
Why wouldn't they 'stack'?
According to my friend, "This effect is not cumulative with similar effects" means absolutely everything that would grant you an extra attack. He wants an errata or Word of God saying, explicitly, what Haste can stack with, Rapid Shot or other.

Similar effects would be things like Boots of Haste, weapons with the Speed property, etc. Basically things that refer to haste in some capacity. Not anything that gives an additional attack "period". I'm sure you've looked it up, it works and has worked like this forever (even in 3.x IIRC). If that isn't enough for the GM, just point out you'd like a list of House Rules made and printed out to refer back to. That way you (and everyone else) can build your characters appropriately and not worry about working towards something to be rudely awakened to the fact they won't be following the actual rules of the game again.

Be nice about it, but make sure they know they are absolutely not playing by the same rules the game is. There should be some accountability for the GM, make them own up to it and make sure everyone at the table is aware of it as well. If they don't want to allow it, you can fight it or play along, but everyone involved should know what to expect. House rules should absolutely be told in advance, before a game is started. It avoids confusion and prevents table issues, as a GM your friend slipped up, make sure they know it and will keep it from happening again.

Asking for Errata for something that works and is in no way confusing... The rules say it won't stack with similar effects (meaning Haste effects) which is a suite of abilities. Other effects can grant those abilities piecemeal and not be Haste effects, and in so doing stacking with Haste (which is the case with your question). The burden of proof should not be on you to prove it works (as it does) but on them to provide something showing it doesn't, or else own up to it "just don't like it".

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 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.