|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The Alchemical allocation extract allows you to gain the benefit of one potion without actually using it up.
Example: A level 9 alchemist or investigator with a potion of barkskin +2 (300gp +2 nat armor 30minutes) uses alchemical allocation, then uses the potion and activates both discoveries/talents. He would then get a +5 natural armor bonus that lasts 180 minutes.
Same with resist energy 10 which now gives +20 and lasts 180 minutes instead of 30.
Is there anything I'm missing why this doesn't work?
I took part in several PF games with old friends via Skype. The others gathered around the table and my place was the TV screen with the webcam on top.
So that might be an option, too. For a whole game Skype was too bad. But a good TS or mumble server might do. I do not know roll d20 but that sounds like it is something similar?
And +1 for many Germans being here.
Your point was that there is no time to do whatsoever between targeting an instantaneous spell and the spell hitting its target. The feat proves you wrong. I never said the feat would help with the fireball. Only that it works on instantaneous spells.
How about this reason:
The more I think about the topic the more I come to this conclusion:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thanks. Few parents (at least few I know) realize that.
Southeast Jerome wrote:
If a 12 year old wants to spend time socializing with grown ups, that's a good thing to be encouraged. He might even need some hand-holding, just like you would with an apprentice in real life. Historically, 12 years old is when a "child" would go to work with a master to learn a profession. Work that into the story. If your friends are willing to quit a game that's about killing goblins because a kid wants to learn and without giving him a chance, they're not acting like adults.
That answer is rather short sighted.Most adults have little time for gaming. And if a player wants to use his precious little time having fun without burdening themselves with teaching someone I can understand that. For some people that might be fun. For others it is depriving them of what they started the game for.
And really, what is the best for the child:
- Tell him that the grown ups want to be on their own
I believe if the player believes his son is mature enough to play in the game then he deserves the reason they do not wish to play with him be told to his face.
To his face or his son's face? Because doing the latter might lead to kid's tears and by that a destroyed friendship between OP and player. Most parents are not mature enough to be able to face someone criticizing their children.
I've been in a game where dad was the gm and mom, two kids and two others (one of them being me) were the players. I gave it a try and left.
In more detail:
We had to fight something like an imp with regeneration and the little bugger offered to become my or the wizard's familiar in our heads. He would then stop attacking us. Turned out we could not defeat it and it was about to slaughter the party when I agreed to accept it as my familiar.
Later the, instigated by mom, the daughter and mom ambushed me and banished the imp, permanently crippling my pc because there it has permanent consequences when you lose your familiar.
The reasoning was: Is was evil it had to go. Sux to be you.
Better no playing than bad playing just because mom is being an A**hole to other players in order to teach the daughter black and white thinking.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Not in mine. Giving out mercy like candy makes you weak and dead, not good. And redemption seldom works, really.In the real world we have few options but to try. In PF we can kill them all and let Pharasma sort them out.
The paladin in this case should not fall.
In about 99.9% of "should the paladin fall?" threads the answer is: No! And in about 50% of those cases the longer answer should be: No! And get a new GM.
other story about someone wanting to make a paladin fall:
I had a case where it was discussed if the paladin should fall for killing an unconscious rust monster after it destroyed the party's only magical armor (we were level 6 but VERY low on cash and equip. And the reason some thought the paladin should fall was because the party wizard had said he's like to keep it but lacked any way to secure it in a way that it could not attack us again. The paladin in question was a dwarf with the deep warrior alternate trait (used to battle aberrations) and a campaign trait giving him a bonus vs aberrations who saw aberrations as his racial enemy.
So really? Killing a monster of animal intellect that severely damaged the party makes a paladin fall just because the wizard wants to keep it as his pet?
If falling was that easy for a paladin there would not be any left.
I guess you are missing a "at 20th level" somewhere around here. Because at 20th level it would be 2000lbs and that's really a ton.
Would be interesting how many kineticists you would need to carry the ship they are on and how fast they could make it go. But right now I don't have the time to look up ship weights and so on. And I'm not sure if there is anything stated about how careful the force a kineticist used is to the stuff he lifts. Ships tend to be rather fragile when it comes to lifting them.
It would not be stolen if he played his eidolon. While perhaps not as strong a s a full fighter an eidolon, especially a hasted one, is a force on its own and could well get something done.
TL;DR He has 2 move actions, 2 standard actions, 2 swift actions and all but one standard action benefits from haste, if he so chooses.
Yes. And initiative checks for PCs with noble scion (war)
The point is that the monk's attacks that deal +1-1/2 str to damage should count as primary natural attacks because they clearly are NOT secondary. At least something good out of the whole collateral.
That answer was already one of the dumbest I've ever read when it came from a Paizo guy. It doesn't get better when repeated.Slings have been weapons of war for quite some time and a deciding factor in a lot of them. comparing them to waterballoons is like calling that comparison intelligent.
In case this was meant sarcastic: The original statement is still dumb as hell.
The question that remains is why it is intended that one can not multiclass lore shaman and inquisitor to get twice wis to knowledge skills while it is possible to multiclass lore oracle and inquisitor to get cha + wis to knowledge skills?*
*wis from inquisitor only applies to checks for monster knowledge.
Why is it ok to get two different stats to something but not twice the same stat? Why not at least give half the bonus for the second time or something. Why is someone getting twice the same stat (that doesn't stack now) far worse than someone getting twice different stats.
The above is just an example. There are several cases where it is hard to understand for some of us WHY it is bad if same stats stack but ok if different stats stack.
Has he reason to believe you are evil?
If something looks, sounds and walks like a duck: Keep an eye open, your duck detector might be wrong with telling you it's no duck.
I call it because posters here keep saying how the rule is stupid where in fact it is not. I don't say rules should incorporate physics. But if people don't understand physics and then yell at a sensible rule I feel inclined to tell them that they are wrong.
If a saving throw is based on cha as ref for some oracles, it should benefit from it.
It should not apply to saves just benefiting from divine grace because that save is still based on its normal stat. Same with the new feat, divine protection or what it is called.
Normally the community keeps saying that tanking is not possible in PF and most of the time people are correct in saying so.
But now I thought about the following:
The archon style allows you to give an AC bonus to your adjacent allies vs one foe and to take hits meant for them.
The question is: How to build it? I'd like to make him a dwarf but then the high diplomacy is hard. MMS monk would give early access to archon style and following, wis to AC and allow me to add in earth child style, as well. But multiclassing would be no problem when it comes in handy (for example for more survivability.
I think there will be others around using teamwork feats so paired opportunists would be nice to have at some point. That way I could retaliate for every attack I take for an ally who has the feat.
A battleaxe or bastard sword being more finessaable than a Dagger is silly.
They are not more finessable. You take weapon finesse and get to use dex to attack with daggers. That's not possible with the other two.
But if you put more work into it you can get dex to damage with those weapons on top of dex to attack. And that is not so much silly because in reality when you want to use your dexterity or agility to inflict more damage with a melee weapon you do that by using the weapon's own weight and momentum. The dagger has neglectable weight and momentum and because of that it is hard to deal more damage with it via dex.
What would make sense is to give every weapon a minimum strength to use it with dex to damage. But that would make it complicated and MAD.
TL;DR You can make forceful chops with an axe or a sword or you can whirl it gracefully. Both ways increase the impact. Way two is impossible with a dagger.
I hope not. Wrath of the righteous was the AP about redemption. Now it's bud-kicking for goodness time.
[minor spoilers ahead]
My party noticed that and skirted around one fight, erected a barrier to block sound and then went back to kill the guys they circumvented earlier.
I'm going to try and adopt that kind of enemy behavior in other games I run.
Flaming, shocking etc. weapon ability. You really require the character to spend a standard action to activate the ability?
You have to use a standard action to activate it once after you obtain the weapon and again after you actively deactivated it.
Edit: Found it:
James Jacobs wrote:
While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.
For a battle vs an iron golem, for example, it could be a good idea to deactivate that flaming effect (having to re-activate it later) but most of the time it can just stay on.
Using a bastard sword or katana might be big enough for some people. And the dancing around part is not necessary. You can easily play a guy wielding a bastard sword who's standing still most of the time until he strikes or someone attacks him. That's when he dodges just far enough to not get hit.
But to OP: I'd play a slayer over a fighter or swashbuckler most of the time. Except maybe for a dip.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
I think this is not about him being too harsh but what kind of campaign the players expected. To send a dedicated assassin with 3 levels higher after a group, using all the tricks he has to offer is about the same as having them be killed by an avalanche when travelling through the mountains. Stuff like that can happen. But should it happen in a RPG campaign?
Depends on the campaign.
Unless the GM decides there is.I've been there several times. And it was very annoying.
But what I really wanted to get at was: Not every player likes monologues. But many GMs assume that the players like them. So the players get annoyed by the constant blather and the GM gets annoyed by the player's interrupting the BBEGs.
Why? Is it the term I used? If so I am very sorry, that was in no way my intend.If it is about the pc being turned into another ethnic group, it could have been another way, too. A tian could have suddenly looked like someone from taldor. I didn't know the ethnic group I was talking about was from mwangi.