|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
How much is Celestial Armor made of Steel?
wanted to save this for another thread but meh whatever
we all know Mike Brock said there is no path to upgrade to Celestial Armor back in 2012 ... which I still Ascribe to
Ultimate Equipment pg. 125 wrote:
This +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
CRB pg. 465 wrote:
This bright silver or gold +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
now while Im not saying its legit, Right or should override what Mike said in 2012 but a discussion can happen on it once again because the "Silvery Gold" description was removed
the issue the Necro is having is that "upgrading isn't the same thing as Creating or Visa Versa"
I spent several hours last night Trying to correct him that the Process of creating a Magic Item IS a series of Upgrades
Base Item is a MW <Insert Item Here> THEN you apply the enchantment
as soon as the Base Item is of a Material that the Named Item is not it is no longer an option to create
the end result was "its Too Risky to sell a GM on anyways"
I gave up
there was a silver lining to the conversation tho but thats a discussion for another thread
I agree that there seems to be incomplete information but there are defiantly some things to consider
I'm kinda surprised that they didn't go with 1st come 1st serve but like has been stated there may have been some extenuating circumstances
but on the flip side 8 players and a GM is very doable ... you break into tables of 3 and 4 with 2 GM's and a a pregen at one table - I know that when I coordinated with and ended up with 8 players and a GM this is what we did and this is something that the VC in attendance should have thought of
but on that note it is very possible that none of those players wanted to GM - or noone had anything prepped (even though there are always evergreens)
again without complete information its hard to make a judgment
Most of what I am stating is a Observation of whats going on from being in PFSOP for 5 years now
but if I had a say ... things need to be banned at onset not allowed to settle for Months (or in the case of the Ioun stone or Lore Warden years) before getting hit ... however the biggest issue is that this would hit their bottom line as PFS is one of the biggest drivers of sales - weve seen that with the recent paths of the rightous book which IIRC Very little to None of it was legal in PFS causing sales of that particular book to be less than its counterparts
the problem is that the nerfs and table variations are hurting PFS as a whole
of my group of 7 players I am now the only one that still even regards PFS as fun
DM Beckett put it perfectly with regards to his wife
we get invested in our characters and then have them nerfed out from under us
I realize that 6 players is a relatively small number of people compared to the grand scheme of things ... but look at all the contention on the forums as a whole ... this thread alone is 529 posts long ... others crack into the thousands
BNW also stated it well ... "if the day ends in a Y someone will argue about it"
there are people that I know that refuse to come onto the forums because its so toxic ... all of these things hurt the health of PFS as we know it ....
Pathfinder and Specifically PFS have always been very heavy handed when it comes to "Must buy Items"
here are a few that come from the top of my head (Pre nerf obviously)
just based on the track record Im not suprised to se this nerf
math looks right aside from the Onyx cost with reguards to desecrate .... tho there are some mechanical concerns
the amount of Onyx isn't Set by the spell its set by the HD your animating
Scrolls are always assumed to be bought at Min CL ... which you've taken into account ...
I dunno this is above my pay grade, tho Id expect a lot of GM's (if not Most) would go by the minimum's in play
also Desecrate doesn't Reduce the cost of the Onyx it only Doubles the Limit of Undead you can animate ... 20 HD still = 500gp of Onyx
Society field guide was a $20 Book - which most people have had for 3 years
I am personally against a $40 "Tax" to be able to Continue playing a character that is Legal at the time of this Posting and has been for 3 years... but Will not be legal in 1-3 Months Time and on top of that Removes the entire reason for (at least me) taking the Archtype (for me it was the Skill point bonus and not loosing the 2nd level bonus feat - I could care less about expertise)
this Marketing Strategy is getting Dangerously Close to an EA Style Cash Grab or Micro-transaction for my Liking
Notice Im not arguing the Clear Spindle ... it was a 100% Necessary Item to buy ... Im just a little annoyed that it took 7 years for the nerf hammer to come down ... that's a Relatively absurd amount of time to let something go before Nerfing it ...
Im not 100% but I think it may be the Longest period of time for an Item to be Nerfed ...
Lots of people went 2 level Dip into Lore Warden for Totally different reasons ....
TBH Im Really hoping that old style Lore wardens are grandfathered in ... the Retroactive changes because of this are gonna be steep Especially for high level PC's
Yuri Sarreth wrote:
minimum level create an Ioun Stone is CL 12
OGC because its easier to quote wrote:
caster level of Continual flame is 3 (Minimum) .. vs Dispel magic you would check vs the CL of the Spell not the Ioun stone... and dispelling the Ioun Stone would only make it stop floating for 1d4 Rounds
Michael Clarke wrote:
Michael Clarke wrote:
I would assume so but the Everburning torch is an Item in the Core book so maybe it plays differently
Michael Clarke wrote:
2. Is there any official spell level for the Continual Flame? Do you assume it is cast by a wizard, similar to potions, scrolls and wands, or do you specify when you buy it as one or the other? Does the price change if you want a higher level version?
Official level is 2 and buying a higher level is not an optionhowever IF you adventure with a PC that has the Highten Feat you can get a Higher level Version
Michael Clarke wrote:
3. Is the spell level different between the two items? Does the increased cost of the Everburning Torch indicate a higher level of spell, and therefore a higher caster level
by the way it reads its a standard Continual flame and the cost doesnt add up to higher level[3(Spell level) X 5 (Caster Level)x10] = 150
[4(Spell Level) x 7 (Caster level)x10] = 280
TBH Im not sure why an Everburning Torch is more expensive than an Ioun Torch asidse from the fact that the Ioun Torch is in Seeker of Secrets IIRC
having now run it .. these mechanics make Mass battles Look Normal
a bit upthred I asked for some assistance in interpreting the Rules - and I have to say that when noone wants to assist with these rules and instead debate the merits and flaws of adhocing the rules as they are presented .. thats sort of indicative of a REAL problem
- note Im not complaining .. after seeing this in action I wouldn't want to touch them either ... in fact I wonder who signed off on this going live .. this is hands down the worst scenario I have ever run and so bad that I would honestly suggest removing this from circulation
not only are the rules in the scenario fuzzy ...but they dont fit into the one on one Verbal duel Rules OR the Team Duel Rules
were supposed to build debate as if it were a 1 on 1 ... but PC's can be targeted ? so is this really a 1 on 1 ... or is this a 1 on 4-6 where each PC assigns their own skills to a worksheet but share a determination pool .... scenario doesn't say or even hint at an answer
this is the only scenario I have felt physically angry at prepping .. and that is not a good thing
as far as everyone not running it as written ...
so yes ... PFS does Log these Actions and keeps note of them if they catch wind about it
As Such my only statement is - Dont Do it ... but with these rules as presented and how much of a charlie foxtrot they are especially with all the changes to the base Rules ... I cannot Blame the ones who are changing things for trying to clean it up ...
its an impossible situation and your Damned if you do Damned if you dont
this is so confusing
so for Determination ...
is this for 1 PC or all PC's?
Skills - is this made for each PC or as a group ?
and what effect does the fact that they are supposed to loose have on determination
one reason I see is that it Nullifies the Polearm fighter Archtype
I backed up on that after I read the entries
and digging deeper I Found the Relevant part on skill checks .. and I believe it is something we veteran players take for granted and simply look at and move on from
When you make a skill check, you roll 1d20 and then add your ranks and the appropriate ability score modifier to the result of this check.
the reason it doesn't work is the Simple "Progression of math"
d20 + ability + ranks + Bonus.... Rather than the
Skill = Ranks + ability (+ d20 + Bonus)
tho this thread has defintly brought up something else for me in a home game
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
there aren't other classes that get sneak attack at level 1 I believe.
there are several Prc's that do ... but I know thats not what your looking at
with Sap Master and all the PRC's at 11th I think I got up to 16d6 sneak - all theorycraft tho and not sure how effective this type of character would actually be
the main issue is the depth of feats that need to be selected to make all this work
1 - Refers to EX and SU (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form - Not Feats and Unarmed strike not an EX, SU, Movement type, or Natural attack
2 - No opposable Thumbs Needed to Use IUS ... I could Cut my thumbs off and still Punch - this is also from the monkey see monkey do Blog which handles Animal companions and familiars ... NOT polymorphed PC's
3 - not a Game Rule ... but RL Physics and even so .. they have feet and knees as well
then I ask you 1 last time ... and until you do I consider this conversation done ... Provide Source that says you can't
sorry I went out to have some fun this evening
yes your position is exactly where my argument against it lies ... however if you read the archetype it does not state anywhere a requirement to worship Irori - other than the in the Name of the Archtype itself and the fluff text - it Just lacks the Words "Must Worship Irori"
Animal - yes .... but we aren't talking about an animal here are we ?we are talking about someone intentionally wild shaping into an animal ...
and again ... as has been stated - you don't need thumbs for unarmed strike
As per Monk the following forms are listed "fist, elbows, knees, and feet." granted Head is not mentioned but in truth it doesn't need to be because by Following your Logic we have to ask -
1) do Songbirds have ANY of the above mentioned Body parts
A) by Using Anatomy we know that they have 3 of the 4 ... Feet, Elbow, and Knees ... so whats the problem ? they have the bodyparts required by Monk to make unarmed strikes
the Feat Improved unarmed strike is even more vague
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Like I said ... Lots of people Hate this build and the Idea (myself included) but it is legal and when you say "you cant make unarmed strikes while in bird form" (even after weve proven that you can time and time again) you are then just targeting the PC
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
or what about Flying with magic ? since that is impossible and Physics say that we as humans dont have the ability to fly as a species (our bones arent hollow, no feathers etc.) I suppose if I find that unreasonable I can just disallow it from my table
*Sarcasam off* no ... we have the rules ... they are what they are .... we have Venture officers and agents to adjudicate these matters when GM's take hard line stances on things that are Clearly within the rules
we may not like it ... but we play by the rules and if we dont want to play by the rules of PFS then we dont have to play PFS
I personally HATE this Ring and the Fox form Mouser cheese build that nearly Solo'd bonekeep 2 -
oh and your entire Argument breaks if they have a Feral Combat Training
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.
your only reason against a "headbutt" is Real world Physics
we have quoted many reasons why it works - citing Rules and Items
Natural attacks are not (Ex) ... Unarmed attacks are not (Ex)
and dragons dont exist.... people cant Conjure Beings from other planes ... Create Balls of explody fire from their fingertips ... instantaneous heal others with a touch .... this is a fantasy game .. we play by the rules we are given, and as PFS we do not Deviate from those rules ... as soon as you begin saying "you cant do that because of X" when the rules directly support things like this happening ... you are no longer playing PFS .. you are playing Homebrew ..
you know what I meant BNWsince were talking about Speech lets relegate it to speech requirements
Sure Silence metamagic would get past lots ... and while Psychics are considered Spell-casters ... I don't think of them as such ....
Spellcasting is a class feature that requires Speech - Druids get around this with Wild Spell so yes - I would say that Spell casting (Being a class feature requiring a verbal component) would be Nullified by The Ring(there is a debate if wild spell would work with the ring since its not "Wild Shaping" but that's beyond the scope here)
SLA's would not be invalidated because those are not dependant on form (no verbal / Somatic or Material)
I digress because I used the wrong terminology... loosing access was incorrect (this is what I get for writing a post in the middle of a fleet battle on eve) I should have said "Loose the ability to use the feats"
and technically if you Polymorph into a tiny bird ... I could see the bird flying around with a tiny Bastard sword clutched in its claws (tho even SoS Pads wont scrub that image from my brain)
polymorphing doesn't cause you to loose the feat but Improved unarmed strike doesnt require specific body parts ... you have a head and feet (balled up claws)
why I said technically and TBH I would say it is horridly overpriced it has more power than the old bracers of falcons aim (permenant 1st level spell) which was banned until it was changed to 1 min / day of a level 1 spell... this is 70 min a day of a watered down 6th level spell
The Only Star wrote:
Most Feats do not list (EX) after them so your statement is incorrect (Im having a hard time picking any out that do but that doesnt mean they dont exist)By RAW the only way you can Say that a polymorphed PC Looses access to feats is if they list (Ex) AND if they require an original form
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function
Natural attacks and unarmed Strikes are Entirely different things because they can be combined into a single attack routine...
they have also said you can flurry with 1 weapon so your "1 attack" can be flurried with if you have the Feat (Feral combat training IIRC)
anything else is GM Arbitration based on not liking something ....
Yes this ring Should be banned .. but until it is - legal is legal ...
and yes I know the history of this build Very well ... I also know the level of people that have gone over it in an attempt to prove it that it was illegal, and the only thing that was questionable was an aparent diety specific prestige class (Or archtype) with a Deity specific Trait (Different Dietys / pantheons)
as has been suggested .. its not about the mechanics ... but about the Item which is Grossly under-priced.. Fox form does 80% of the build fine .... but the beast shape 4(Technically) 7x a day, and +1 deflection bonus for4k ... is absurd
improved unarmed strike is a feat (in this case granted by a class) ...Not a Class Feature ...
so sure ... a Thrush does 1d2-5 Based on its strength
again ... polymorphed Creatures do NOT Loose their feats
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
my guess is "Play by Proxy" its the same Idea as Magic Jar only less powerful
Kevin Willis wrote:
Like I say I don't play alchemists but unless your playing a rapid bomb alchemist I am starting to wonder why I ever would
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.