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

Talonhawke's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,205 posts (4,289 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So is the one on the PRD up to date or not.


Thanks


So just Have another question Just finished the 3rd scenario of the base set last night. What is a 0 class ship feat?


How I run it at home.....Note this is based on my choices not off of anything seen or said by Dev Team.

1) Does it function with Whip feats, such as Whip Mastery, or Weapon Focus(Whip)? Yes Its a whip.

2) Can you deal nonlethal, without penalty? No I treat it at home similar to how the whips the one guy in underworld used.

3) Does it threaten? I believe yes but can't find any specifics in my notes. Functions as a whip would on this.

4) Does it provoke when used? No

5) Is it finessable? Yes

6) Can it be enchanted, as a whip? Yes

I'll add a couple more:

7) Does it have reach? How much? Does it threaten within all of it's reach? 15Ft like a whip.

8) What special materials can it be made out of? Home game ones are metal so metal ones.

9) Which feats that apply to Whips can apply to Scorpion Whips? (Whip Mastery line of feats, Weapon Focus, etc.) Any.


My issue with that is of course i'm not proficient with that weapon type just that one weapon.


Don't know about society play but for non-PFS Signature Moves is much better than Heirloom. Which is laughable since Heirloom used to be closer to how signaure moves works.


Just taking a look at the OP should show the weapon to have a lot of running issues I will probably post my own rulings on it later.


Then Bi-Monthly


Wait reading your post do you mean Bi-monthly as in twice a month or are you meaning once every 2 months?


Yeah this is a long running issue especially with the multiple changes in how Scorpion whips read.


Diekssus wrote:


It really depends on the archetype in question. As a GM, I generally don't allow players to multiclass into archetypes of classes that they don't have a cultural or religious tie with (if it is one of those). Multiclassing into the more "generic" archetypes (or base classes) is generally fine if there is a reasonable explaintion for it.

This is what we are responding to, the assumption that archetypes are somehow tied to areas and groups in a world and that outside of that area apparently no one knows these variations in abilities. So the question follows do you let your players know up front and how do you determine that they can be for instance a ninja.


I think that about Covers it.


I think it would have to be just the first though i can see counting something glued on.


Diekssus at the table how would you determine eligibility? Does a character have to be from a set location? Do you keep logs of everywhere a master of a Archetype might have moved to and settled at? And most importantly do you make this clear upfront with you players?


I'm wondering if another thread with a better starting post detailing the issue better so the Dev team will no exactly what they need to clarify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rest in peace and know that you will touch the hearts of generations to come with your works.


It's one of those weird things that happens with sizing..


Everything can be negotiated with in my games..... if you can talk to it and have a good offer or line of reasoning.


If he isn't making weapon attacks then he should be able to make his attacks unarmed the FAQS are citing using the 2H Weapon not simply holding it. So yes even i'm holding a great-sword if i choose to TWF with unarmed strikes for the round instead of swinging it i'm good.


Lune wrote:

Lets do it.

...but should we start a new thread?

Maybe this hasn't been flagged as not having been answered or no answer needed but it also only has 9 total hits. Which means it isn't high on the list from how i understand it works. Either method would require a large enough number of people FAQing to have the devs feel the question is actually a question.


Imbicatus wrote:

Let's forget about the lack of descriptors, the spell contradicts itself in it's effect and text.

It's a personal range 20 ft spread. But that spread is useless, as it attacks a single target once per round with a 15 ft range.

Not to mention whats the Fort save for?


Well that De-escalated quickly!


Not sure how much but your spending prestige and your looking at stats a single classed build might not have considered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Level 2 is the point that you can't rebuild under the rules your traits your stats your feats are locked in. If I picked stats for 2 casting classes and feats and traits to complement then I'm fairly set on that path.


Should we try for 100 faq hits on this?


Andrew Christian wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
They are asking for characters level 2 and up who were already on the path to be allowed to progress as if early entry still existed. No new or level one characters allowed. Basically no one could rush a bunch of characters in to suddenly be good for the future and realistically very few people would suddenly jump on the chance to head for the PrC early if they weren't already headed that way.

So let me tell you what I'm going to do.

Someone write me a post without emotional reason or passion in it, that logically explains the problem. Don't say why its good or bad. Just logically explain the problem.

Then logically explain what the ramifications are to the characters affected. Please, no impassioned pleas or hyperbole about how your character is ruined. Just a logical explanation of the ramifications to that character. If played to completion, what are its long term prognosis and at what point is it difficult to have fun playing because of lack of early entry. why can this character just not wait for another 2 levels to get the prestige class? How would this tangibly hurt the character or make it unfun to play.

Then logically explain one or two solutions that would solve the problems addressed above.

If the post meets these prerequisites, I will personally email Mike and point him to the post. I will let you know the time and date that I pointed Mike to the post.

With the understanding that:

A) He most likely will still say no.

B) He may not respond at all, because he's already said no twice. He has already assured me last week that he's read every post in this thread (and probably still is reading).

If he does not respond within a week, assume that his previous responses still hold and he chooses not to repeat himself for the 3rd time. Understand that any lack of response directly from Mike at this point is not disrespect, but rather an unwillingness to continue arguing a point he's already made a decision on twice.

But if you want someone to hear...

Andrew I'll see what I can work up in the meantime however keep end mind that this kind of post from you may not come across great. I'm not in PFS its not really availble down here however you post comes across like your the only one Mike could possibly listen to, and maybe you are I don't know. But what I do know is that people might question you objectiveness after you already argued with a player about how effective and fun his own actually played through was. It sends the message that you know whats better for a player and his character than he does.


They are asking for characters level 2 and up who were already on the path to be allowed to progress as if early entry still existed. No new or level one characters allowed. Basically no one could rush a bunch of characters in to suddenly be good for the future and realistically very few people would suddenly jump on the chance to head for the PrC early if they weren't already headed that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:

That's somewhat of a technicality, don't you think? You can certainly narrowly look at the PrC rules and the SLA rules as two completely separate entities, but ultimately they were at one time very closely coupled because of the old FAQ. SLAs were at one time (and technically still are at the moment) a valid method of meeting the prerequisites of a PrC.

The fact of the matter is that with the FAQ, PrCs were more accessible. Now they are not. Period. Saying that this FAQ didn't change PrCs is disingenuous at best.

That being said, I don't think we need a grace period for this. I know that people would abuse it to get as many early entry PrC characters as possible while the opportunity was available.

What does need to change though is that the design team needs to be more aware of the ripple effects of their FAQs.

To reiterate no one is asking for a grace period. None at all, people are asking for extended grandfathering but not for a grace period.


And most of us I feel would agree Walter. So far I would like to think for the most part that we have stuck to how it's being implemented and is there anything that can/will be done to help implement these changes for characters who devoted resources to reaching these classes and getting a fuller use of their abilities, but who didn't get in before this drop just happened.


Well i have my doubts about unchained making it into PFS to begin with. Though i haven't done alot of reading on the subject so i can't say for sure if it will or won't. But it would seem that a dramatic shift in capability for classes that would affect newly made characters but not ones out before the books would cause issues itself.

Unless in addition to Core we were to get PFS Unchained.


deusvult wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?

Stuff I could to at 4th level

Quote:
What are the requirements for that same PrC after the revision to the FAQ?

Stuff I can't do till 6th level.

Quote:
Are both of those the same?

Nope

On the other hand, PrCs weren't built with the expectation of being able to qualify for them before 5th level. (going back to 3.x)

Paizo said that via SLAs yes, yes you can qualify before 5th level.

Then they decided no, that was a mistake. *yoink* "No more!"

This is just like arguing at city hall about a stretch of road that had its speed limit reduced to what it originally was.

A better example would be the city changing a no through trucks road to allow big rigs and saying that if noise or traffic are an issue we will revisit it. 18 months later without any real notice the city changes the law and lets all trucks on the road finish using it but stop any trucks not on it even if they are in the lane with the signal on to turn down it.


Seth if thats the case your fixed version is still wrong. It required the ability to cast 3rd level spells no mention of how.


Actually the we're done here wasn't in response to a finality of arguments but to overall tone of the previous pages and the rising vitriol.

EDIT: Alot of the rehashing is coming from the constant bringing up of how rebuilds or grace periods are bad and will be bad because they have been bad in the past. While for the most part the side in favor or more leniancy is asking for only an extension of the current grandfathering to be applicable to characters headed for those PrC based off of the rules at the time of creation.


Okay 2 more questions came up last night.

1. Shark reef (or whatever its called not at home.) Could someone explain closing it and how it interacts with the summoned shark at the start of turn. We weren't sure if beating that shark let you close it of if you had to fight another shark when you closed it.

2 Jinx Eater If you use its second ability do you still take damage?


I will say I think the majority of people aren't asking for rebuilds but a further extension of the current grandfathering rules.


Here is another way to look at it possibly. Does a fighter have prof with bastard sword in 2H use before he takes feats? I think it does due to him not taking a non-prof penalty. Now lets say we had a new PrC that stated that to get in you need to be prof with Bastard swords, not the feat mind you just prof.. I would assume that we would have rules questions surrounding a character will all martial prof. could qualify.

If the design team said yes they did and then later changed it to no you don't since you technically aren't proficient with a bastard sword just a single usage of it then we would be in the same boat.

People were told that X met the Prereqs and so did Y but now Y doesn't. So yes in a way what was required did in fact change.


Dustyboy wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
And thus we enter the dreaded realm of real hands vs. metaphorical hands.

If I have two vestigial arms with flurry of blows, does it automatically become multi weapon fighting?

Does the feat grant the attack?

Can I make all of those attacks with one hand during FOB?

Sorry just trolling you a bit :p

No

What Feat?

Yes


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bustler wrote:
Krodjin wrote:


That's not how it works. Flurry is a special full-attack action. TWF requires a full attack.
You cannot execute two full attacks in the same round.

I agree, one cannot execute all flurries and another 2 attacks from TWF - which clearly would be executing two full-attack actions.

My view is, that Flurry adds extra (attack) actions just like fighting with two weapons, having high BAB, haste, Spell Combat/Strike does.

Standing by for FAQ verification.

Don't hold your breath FAQs are usually written to address issues with rules not being clear enough I doubt you'll get one saying you can't combine a full-attack action that is like TWF with TWF.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Strong Jaw: deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.

Lead Blades: deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are.

So if we normally do 1d6 Strong jaw takes us to 2d6 and lead blades takes us to 1d8. Combined they take us to 2d6, because neither of them modify the base damage or the actual size of the attack. And since the base isn't changed there is nothing to stack between these two spells.

Here is a whole thread dedicated to that issue


Honestly I would say the SA damage from strangler would apply regardless of weapon. Though that might be an FAQ worty question.


If your not really worried about sneak attack and choose to go gunslinger, I would recommend looking at the vital strike tree depending on deed choices. It's not as many dice as sneak attack but it allows you to use a higher damage and rehide round by round at any distance your comfortably hitting at.


Sorry Flashbacks cost your team one run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah if you haven't read that campaign it details exactly what happens if the party doesn't clear an area. Guys move around they get backup and they send guys on ahead to let higher ups know what the party is capable of.


This is why I tended to subject new groups to red hand of doom fairly early when I run for them. Big ever ticking timer with sometimes 5 or 6 encounters a day and enemy groups that replenish if you retreat. Teaches them that full nova and sleep gets innocent ppl killed.


Thanks!


After the Sunder thread I wanna hear the tale of using two weapons without TWF.

EDIT: Why did we get and FAQ hit......Are we trying to make it fully official?


I would say that since bludgeoner calls out that it removes the penalty it still can only be used with melee weapons.


Having followed the thread closely I agree with Jiggy it did seem to be heading to a less hostile more conservative direction when the lock came it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.

The now official thread to hopefully get Jiggy to recap all your favorite debates from old thread.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
David Higaki wrote:
For some reason, I think the addendum you quoted was added after the initial FAQ posting. So the timeline would be, FAQ was posted, some people brought up the early access to PrC's, and then the design team clarified with the addendum. However, I do not have a copy of the FAQ when it was first released, so I'm going off of fuzzy memory from about a year and a half ago.

I followed this when it first happened, so I'll share the timeline:

1) First, the PDT made The FAQ, without the addendum that BigDTBone quoted.
2) Then, those community members most proficient with the rules realized that this meant you could give your fighters Arcane Strike or even get into a PrC early.
3) Those less proficient with the rules said "But those prereqs say 'spells', plural, so an SLA doesn't count."
4) The PDT clarified that no, that pluralization doesn't mean that, and yes, an SLA really does count.
5) That same population said "But SLAs aren't arcane or divine, so they can't fulfill prereqs that require arcane/divine spells."
6) The PDT posted a new FAQ about SLAs being arcane/divine and how to tell which is which. (The exact wording of this FAQ changed a couple of times, but with little effect other than tweaking which SLAs counted for which prereqs.)
7) That same population then said "But the examples you're using [Copycat and Send Senses] aren't exact duplicates of those spells [mirror image and clairvoyance], so they don't count as being those spell levels [2nd and 3rd]."
8) Then-designer Sean K Reynolds clarified that an SLA's spell level is always the level of the spell it emulates; the only time you have to calculate a spell level is when it's not based on a spell at all (like many domain/bloodline powers).
9) After weeks of having every protest countered by the design team, that same population resorted to the old fallback of "But it'll be broken," with many of them adding, "and therefore that's not how it works."
10) Many heated debates ensued, as...

Completely off topic but now I want to have Jiggy recap other rules discussions.

1 to 50 of 4,205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.