|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Andrew Roberts wrote:
Andrew please reread the conversation I was not referring to true dragon's or serpents rise ....I was only referring to what John said about bonekeep 2 being a 4 star exclusive
What I said is 100% acurate as it pertains to the standard
True dragon's and serpents rise are the exception
Francis Webb wrote:
4 star exclusive is just that .... it can now be run by any of the Following
4 star GM
Let the bodies hit the floor
examples of previous 4 star exclusives are
Midnight mauler in Season 2
Encounter 1 -During Combat:
The gnolls initially try to avoid permanentlydamaging any of their slaves, but the more damage the
gnolls sustain, the more lethal they become.
Same text at both tiers
Encounter 2 -During Combat:
Farug uses lethal force to quell any serious
slave uprising, and he switches to nonlethal attacks if it
seems clear that he’s winning the fiht. He barks commands
at his subordinates and tends to get frustrated when they
can’t match his tactical cunning
The gnolls follow Farug’s lead and deal
Same text at both tiers
leaves quite a lot to gm interpretation IMHO tho if you were getting rolled as hard as it sounds then - yes I agree
having just played this on thursday and running out of time my guess is stagnation on the 1st encounter spot or simply saying "Ive had it with the treatment"
I know when we went on the offensive things sped up SIGNIFIGANTLY
IMHO if a GM makes a mistake its on the GM to fix it if possible
I have 2 different examples from personal experience both times I was a GM
1st was Legacy of the stonelords at paizocon last year, a PC Died at my table and even I wasnt 100% Comfortable with how it happened, I decided to research things over the next several hours even into the next day
2nd was during a Bonekeep game - I had killed a PC in 1 particular encounter, later while discussing it with some people a friend of mine reminded me of how the mechanic that killed the player actually worked,
I do agree that weeks later on a public forum is probably a bit late to the party
tho I would beg for more details ... what was the option presented to you from the HQ Table ? I dont think Ive seen that listed
so I dont mean to shamlessly bump this .. but is there any update on this as of yet ?
also is there any word on if / when bonekeep 2 will become open to 4 and 5 star GM's .. I have a group in another city still waiting on word about this - they played part 1 under me and have characters on hold for part 2
BNW no offense but I never said you hated them ... I Paraphrased what you said
its ok if its a low level Monk (or 8 and lower)
thats about the most hypocritical stance Ive ever seen
and what do you call it by allowing it for 8 and lower Monks but not for 9+ if not punative
you also Chose to avoid answering the situaion I presented to you
7th lvl Monk Aborts Flurry - by your interpretation your going to let it slide
what happens when they are both at your table
its really odd I cannot reply to your entire post
Ok, so what logic reason and rules basis make many shot works the way that they clarified?
I'm at a loss as to what difference in wording you're getting here.
When Making a Full Attack Actionvs.
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action
very different Wording ... one IS .. the other happens WHEN
we have provided Raw for you - numerous timesyou have to make a full attack in order to get multiple attacks, but can abort the rest of your attacks based on the result of the 1st Regardless of the method by which you get multiple attacks
and its your interpretation because you dont like it .... and regardless of saying your not trying to punish anyone for being outside of that ... by using this Stance that IS in-fact exactly what your doing what are you gonna tell the table of 2 monks (7 and 9) having the lvl 7 abort an attack but when the 9 tries you say "Nope you get a benifit to attack from flurry" that wont go over well at all
Allow me to rearrange this for organizational stuff
IF those are the only rules you look at then yes. But you cannot call other positions ridiculous when you only look at rules that agree with you and not the rules that agree with the other position
Manyshot had Wording that forced it to only be useable as part of full attack action, Rather than it being its own Full attack action (such as FoB, Rapid, TWF, Iteratives) and as far as I was concerned Manyshot Locked you into a full attack action (and the FAQ Clarified this). While other full attack actions (FoB, TWF, Iteratives, Spell Combat, Rapid Shot) were convertable to a standard after the 1st attack - As per the Rules
Im sorry but as much as you would like to think I am ignoring "Rules that agree with other positions" (Like you are) Im not ... Manyshot is an exception to the standard , not the standard itself
So now the burden of proof is on you ... Find me some RAW with source that States if you gain a bonus from a full attack you cannot abort and take a move, find me Raw that says "Manyshot is the standard not the exception" because others are looking and not finding it.. As far as I know there is no RAW supporting the "Bonus no move" Thought process ...as far as I can tell this is a fabricated rule
Is ANYONE arguing against being able to stop after the first iterative attack? No, so this isn't a genuine counter argument.
the Slippery slope argument - as you call it - Started as Sarcasam -however your Cherry Picking of the paragraph has given the Sarcastic comments Legitimacy
Specifically - no, no one is arguing the abortion of iterative attacks, tho you are Cherry picking the Paragraph and applying Raw to one of Several listed ways of gaining multiple attacks, - Which the Rule doesn't care how you get them, only if you have them - not the Whole if it therefore by your interpretation becoming punative to anyone gaining multiple attacks through means other than BAB.
Once you look at the Rule as a whole(Rather than only the parts you dont like) this is indeed a genuine counter argument - I would prefer to not have to Legitimatly go down this path TBH - but this Debate is Trollbait and has been from the start
Will you be applying the same penalties to TWF, Iterative, FoB, Rapid Shot because if you don't then you are applying rules you like / dont like because likely as claudekennilol said "I think it might be too powerful so I'm saying no"?
I dont see any other legitimate interpretation of this
--------All 4 Allow multiple attacks "because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason."
Also Note the above Rule Does not Differentiate between the source of multiple attacks ...
--------All 4 are Full attack actions
the entirety of this is stated under "Full attack" in the combat section.This is RAW, and any change to this would only be because we do not like it or disagree with it
Is the position that you can't break off if your action requires you to full attack or gain a bonus from full attacking stopping iteratives? No.
as I mentioned above there is no differentiation on the Source of the attacks ... only "do you gain multiple attacks"
and as far as the "bonus no move" what about power attack, expertise, Critical Focus, deadly aim, .. if you use those are used in a full attack are you specifically precluded from breaking off and taking a move action - you ARE gaining a bonus... your Logic Not mine
the FAQ is based on Logic, Reason and basis....to Manyshot which noone is arguing how it works anymore.The FAQ doesnt even Touch FoB, Rapid Shot, TWF (or Spell combat) nor does it even pretend to
this is splitting hairs over a +1 at 9,13,and 17 - and since I know this argument started from PFS its basically a +1 at 9 and MAYBE at 13
Sorry BNW ... there was a lot of Sarcasam involved because of the ridiculousness of this
Flurry is Termed as
so by those Rules listed in Monk and whats listed above ... you SHOULD be able to Cancel the remainder. particuarly since we only have 1 instance of something saying you Can't cancel it (Manyshot)
and if you look again ... even iterave attacks are called out as well so its not as slippery a slope as you may think - the slippery part is NOT allowing cancellation because it then becomes punitive decisions to Monks, TWF, Magus and anyone else that gain multiple attacks through Truthfully - anything
also under the logic of "Bonus no move" come power attack, Expertise, Deadly aim, fight defensivly, full defense, Critical focus feats, etc..
pretty straightforward IMHO .... tho I suppose if you want to follow this logic down its ultimate path any of the above mentioned situations (particuarly since they are lumped together in the description of Full attack) "because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason" you would be excluded from taking a move action after the 1st attack - you know whats good for the goose is good for the gander and all
and you could even take it farther and argue that iterive attacks fall into this as well and makes the Rule about canceling the rest of your attacks a worthless rule that doesn't do anything
edit - quote is from srd due to ease of copy paste
Bottom Line - unless they are an aasimar with Scion of humanity ... they are outsiders(Native) and target humanoid doesnt work on themand no Faq is required for that ... just look at the entry in the beastiary
are you the GM or player
if your the GM then the burden of Proof is on them
is this Rule actually affecting you as a character in a negative way ? if so then I would say leave or contact a VO in your area .. not much they can do about it other than say "Hey- do your research"
if not - meh let it slide ... or better yet point them to this thread .. IIRC the ONLY thing Mike brock commented on was FCB Stuff but its been over a year
but the "Scion of Humanity is useless and does nothing" that just shows a lack if intelligence IMHO
#1 is Correct
Aasimars have an alternate Racial Trait called Scion of Humanity that makes THEM subject to the spells listed above (it specifically makes them count as humanoid)
however they are the only ones with that option
so as Scion of humanity says Humanoid(Human) - YES .. Bane / favored enemy Human does work on them - but ONLY them (not Tiefling or the elemental races) and ONLY if they have that Trait
Furthermore - only Aasimars with that trait may take Human Favored class bonuses as well
ran into this thing while playing Iron gods tonight ...
whats the deal with the DC on the aura ... DC 27 what (Fort reflex will)
and what does the save for the aura actually do ... since the ability tied to the aura seems to indicate that the save listed in the aura
Clear Spidle Ioun Stone
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
its a 5 foot radius so using the apex you COULD cover 4 PC's
I do this all the time in Iron gods
so I ran this at APcon ... and over the last 24 hours I have been scouring this scenario Hoping I did something Wrong
Reguarding the 2nd PA point
am I correct that the ONLY Hint about the Loyalist Propaganda is dutring the Argument with Olandil and Poppo when poppo Says The Following ?
Poppo says, “One word of warning! Once you leave here, the
I have scoured this from 1 end to the other and the above is the ONLY mention that something Might happen ... and whats sad is even the Summary seems to support it
If the PCs succeed, every faction except the Loyalists also agrees to help the PCs counteract the loyalist’s anti-Pathfider propaganda, while the Loyalists assure the PCs that they will not produce such propaganda in the fist place, and give the PCs a chance to question Olandil.
Nothing is mentioned at the start in the briefing or knowledge checks... Nothing is mentioned (or available) from
The information broker
am I missing something ?
Looks like I ran past the edit mark
in conclusion IF retraining is done in Bulk then Class for Class is the safest way to go - as long as there IS Synergy and CAN be done in bulk- but if you've missed more than 1 PA / level it becomes impossible - and Synergy as we have seen is subject to individual GM interpretation
by the Numbers - if you can justify Uncanny, imp uncanny and sneak attack dont have a retrain cost (More than likely)
either way I believe there is too much left open to interpretation of the individual GM's to not get a hard Ruling on this
Andrew Christian wrote:
Ugh you had to say that ... ok
Archtype Theory- Following the example given in Ultimate campaign you would only need to pay the cost once to Drop any given ability (thank god or this gets ugly)
Max PA / level is 6
1st - 0-5PA
so following that ... a Straight class Ninja COULD Retrain at 11th (0PA Spent)or 12th level if they only ever spent 1 PA over their entire career
if this excersise had been done at the projected average of 4PA/ level it would be impossible - but then so would class even with Synergy
an Argument could be made for the Following
This Thought IMHO Holds more water than the Following
Ninja Trick and Master Trick really puts us in the same boat either way we look at it - its either multiple entries or 1 entry with class feature retraining (since its different lists) - this is further supported via the following statment
SRD Sidebar wrote:
yes I realize this is quoting PRC's - but the ninja trick / master trick and Rogue talent / Advanced Talent are separate lists even tho the other side of the coin is that you can take the other classes Trick ability multiple times
and a combination of Uncanny dodge / improved Uncanny dodge / Sneak attack totals to 15PA Saved by level 8 which doesnt help much but does make it possible (40PA of 42PA possible total)
Tricks being removed from the calculation totals to an additional 30PA(5 at 2,4,6,8,10 and 12 Respectively) Saved at level 12 which would make this work - but an awful lot of YMMV and GM interpretation would have to go your way
there are a lot of other factors to consider as well - via the example on archtype retraining its concievable that you would have to pay for evasion, trapfinding, Trap Sense, and improved evasion Personally I dont think you would have to since the assumption with the Arctype theory is that Ninja is an archtype of Rogue so your only "Dropping alternate abilities"
but still the math doesnt add up when it comes to full Ninja Retrain without the stars aligning properly and the gods of GM'dom are completely on your side
Dips and partials builds is a different discussion - but this one as Ive said falls back into the question of - are you retraining in bulk or 1 at a time supported by the following
Example: Mark is playing a ranger 5/rogue 2, and has decided he'd like to retrain one of his ranger levels into a rogue level (so he has to find a 3rd-level rogue). When he completes the training, he immediately loses all benefits from taking ranger level 5 (base attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, Hit Dice, hit points, skill ranks, and class features), then gains 1 level in rogue, immediately gaining all the benefits of rogue level 3. Mark's character is now a ranger 4/rogue 3. This retraining did not change Mark's 7th-level feat.
on a Side note while scroling through Retraining I realise I was Wrong about the lack of presence of the Samurai, Ninja or Antipaladin ... it seems they are listed in the "Class Featurs" Section but that is the ONLY mention of Alternate classes
I know Ive said this several times but
Edit - Multiple edits based on fact and rules checking, Formatting and my disclaimer
as you can see 2 diferent people - 2 different opinions on the matter - and with unchained now out and all the ninja's wanting to become unchained rogues I see this question comming up a LOT more -
this is why Im hoping for some kind of official ruling
as I said I went through this months ago but over evasion and trap-finding, I was lucky to find my own way of making it work
Ron Feldman wrote:
no ... Im actually not looking for an exception but rather a ruling, I am well past my bout of retraining (added 2 levels of monk and 1 level of ranger to fix the issues)
but Look at
Mike Stated that its possible to do it - Im just asking how
so before I begin I want to make it clear that while this is NOT a request for any particular retraining .. but more about procedure and clarification on how to do it - I have also asked this question in the past but to no answer
Mike Brock Responded to a thread here
again ... this is NOT questioning this decision and I would have responded there but it seems that the thread was locked before I got to it (at least it seems locked since I cannot respond)
Mike Brock wrote:
cool thats the Ruling .. the last part tho makes me ask the question ------ how is this done
the retraining Rules State - Quoted from SRD due to ease of text copy / paste
Pathfinder SRD wrote:
now when you get deeper into this you have to take a look at how Alternate Classes are worded
Pathfinder SRD wrote:
as far as I can tell Class retraining is done 1 at a time not in bulk and also from Highest level to lowest so the question of procedure becomes important
so a Ninja 6 Wanting to retrain into Rogue would have to go by Steps (theoretically)
so the particular questions are
A) is Retraining done in Bulk Rather than 1 Item at a time
there are probably another few that I could tack onto this but they arent coming to mind
Ferious Thune wrote:
Sadly I think that if I had to put money on it - your statment is the origin of my question - at least where this particular FLGS is concerned ... there are a couple of players and GM's that take a hard line on tactical communication - and I mean a HARD Line - for example Statments like "A Round is 6 seconds your taking longer than that here"
so to Follow the logic down its path
Little Tactical Communication allowed = no time for permission to be given or not given = no AE's on players
yes I realize that this is an entirely different subject - and I am not trying to shift topics - just what you said was a bit of a realization to me
the FLGS I have been playing at recently has started quoting a rule change on AE Spells from players with other players in the Area
the rule they are quoting is that it cannot be done - Period - Regardless of if the other players consent or not -and presumably regardless of weather the attack would actually kill the PC
this also came up last week while spending a standard action to Wake a PC that was under the effect of Deep Slumber I was asked "Would this fall under hurting another PC?"
ok ... sure if such a rule exists Im all for it.
only 1 problem - I cannot Find it in the PFSOPG, the only rule is
In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever.
again if there is a rules change then fine - but Id just like to see a source, I can think of 1 situation off the top of my head where this kind of Ruling would be more harm than good - Swarms
Edit ---edited for format and examples