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

Xexyz's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. 998 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 998 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
ConfusedPeon wrote:

By RAW it doesn't work. Since you're creating beams to bar the door, you'd be affecting the door, not the people breaking it down. Thus it's the door that should be making the will save.

Unfortunately, objects always succeed on their save against shadow conjuration (as per the last line of the spell text), so the spell shouldn't have any effect on someone trying to break the door down.

Except for the fact that even if the save is made, the object is still 60% real. So it would seem then you have a metal bar that's 60% as strong as a real metal bar. The DC to bend an iron bar is 24, so in this case the DC to bend the shadow bar would be 14 then? Hmmm...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Secane wrote:

"Shadow conjurations are only one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things"

So I guess it would be a metal beam with only 1/5 a real metal beam's hp, hardness...etc?

Hmm, I guess that would be correct (although 60% in this case per GSC). So what about question #2 then? Do the people on the other side of the door who are trying to get in automatically count as disbelieving? Or if they realize the door is barred to they count as believing until they get a chance to interact with the bar, per the normal illusion rules?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Consider the following scenario: A an arcane caster is fleeing from enemies and runs through a pair of doors. She looks to bar the doors behind her but has nothing to bar them with. Thinking quickly, she casts greater shadow conjuration to create a metal beam via the spell major creation. What happens?

1. Can she even pick up the metal beam she created, or - since she cast the spell and knows the beam isn't completely real - only have a 60% chance of actually interacting with it?

2. Suppose instead she conjures the beam right into the door's baring mounts (the doors open inward and there are a pair of mounts on either side for a baring beam). Does this actually work when the enemies try to get through the door? The enemies on the other side have no idea there's even an effect in place since it's on the other side of the door. Does the shadow beam keep the door shut, does it fail, or does it have a 60% chance of working?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Nonononono see the core rogue sucks because—

*Last bit of oxygen is used up by arguing*
*Dies*

*Loots KC's corpse.*

Anyone want some free stuff? It's not in the best condition.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I haven't thought of doing anything mechanically to improve the bastard sword (one of my favorite weapons aesthetically) but in my homebrew game you can pick up proficiency with it from a trait.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

But with no training, you can't add that kind of story even if you want to.

Which basically cuts free a whole genre of adventures. Being able to find a master who can teach you in a great secret is at the heart of SO many stories.

Irrelevant in PF.

==Aelryinth

That's the point. If I wanted to tell that kind of story I'd have training requirements. I don't want to tell that story, so they're not there. And if I at some point decide I do want to incorporate those types of stories, training will then become a thing. See how simple that was?

Sorry if I'm not playing the game the way you think I should be playing, but I'm not going to change it just because in your view I'm having wrongbadfun with my existing game.

Aelryinth wrote:

Those arguments come down to DM Fiat and changing existing rules.

===Aelryinth

So what? You speak as though GM fiat is some horrible thing to be avoided at all costs. You seem way too hung up on this notion that for training to be a legitimate thing it has to be officially supported by some Paizo product or supplement. Either that or you think because you like training that it should be codified in the rules as a way of saying that your preferred playstyle is the correct one and people who prefer something else are playing the game wrong.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

And yet, the whole idea that you've mastered basic skills enough that you can finally learn more advanced stuff is part and parcel of the whole heroic journey, student to master paradigm that has been used in stories basically forever.

Finding great masters to teach you, while fighting on the way to them to 'level up' and get the xp to finally learn from them, is a time honored trope in literature and film. Immersion breaking? It's downright NECCESSARY.

Many manga institute 'training breaks' just to reflect this paradigm. The characters have gotten X powerful, now they find teachers to take them to the next stage. In popular manga, both Fairy Tail and One Piece did it. The quality of your teachers is a huge impact on your development.
For the One Piece crew: Luffy trains under Gold Roger's right hand man in Haki:
ZOro trains under the best swordsman on the planet;
Robin trains under the head of the Revolutionary Army;
Franky ends up in the lab of the greatest scientific genius on the planet;
Nami trains under the greatest masters of weather on the world;
Chopper trains in what turns out to be one of the greatest lorehouses of medical and herblore on the planet;
Usopp trains in sniping on an island where EVERYTHING tries to eat you;
Sanji trains under the #2 of the Revolutionary Army, and the Grandmaster of a Fighting Art, learning, among other things, how to run on air.
Brooke becomes a superstar magician who can literally enthrall thousands with his songs, the only one to do it alone...and the fact is, he's probably his own master...

So what? Those aren't the only types of stories. All I know is that I can't run the game I want to run if I have to contrive of rationalizations to stop all of the events in the campaign in order to allow the PCs to run off and do extra training in order to level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I find the idea that the PCs can't level until they take time to stop adventuring and train to be both cumbersome and immersion breaking. It's cumbersome because it eliminates campaigns where time is a factor; certain stories just don't work as well (or at all) when game considerations dictate that the story be put on hold every so often so the PCs can go and train up their levels.

I also see that it breaks immersion because of the way I conceptualize gaining levels and experience. There are 24 hours in the day. The PCs generally spend 8-10 hours sleeping and some variable number of hours adventuring. Usually there's at least 4-8 hours of downtime per day. It's this downtime that I imagine the PCs using to train. For example, I imagine my two-weapon fighter spending downtime practicing feats he eventually wants to take. He'll practice, practice, practice, gradually incorporating what he's trying to learn into the fights he participates in while he's adventuring. Eventually he gets enough practical experience & practice under his belt that he's mastered the technique and can now use it at his pleasure - represented mechanically by getting enough XP to level and selecting the feat.

The idea that you accumulate the necessary XP to level and then go off to train seems disconnected to me, and subtracts from my immersion.

Raising skills, on the other hand, I think should be divorced from leveling - it just seems weird that the wizard who spent the last month killing monsters in a variety of dungeons is all of the sudden now better at swimming. I wish there was a good system for raising skills outside of leveling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Does that include the style strike? How does your Unchained Monk do with elbow smash or hammerblow on the first attack?

Elbow smash? Hammerblow? Flying Kick? Does the unchained monk also get an attack/damage bonus for going off the top turnbuckle? What about entrance music for a morale bonus?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

My guess is because, somehow, one can actually ascertain an items true value based on what you can do with it. In D&D/Pathfinder, a diamond that is worth a certain amount of gold pieces can be used as a material component while a lesser valued diamond cannot.

In the same sense, if you pay 20,000 gp for a 15,000 gp diamond, you'll definitely know you got ripped off when you try to use it to cast spells requiring 20,000 gp worth of diamonds. Or use that diamond as part of the materials to make a magic item (as gems are frequently used in the creation of magical doodads).

I think you're probably right, but if you are then your original scenario doesn't work. If diamonds truly are trade goods then you can't take a 5000gp diamond and use fabricate to create a 15000gp diamond; that would mean you somehow ended up with 200% more diamond, which is obviously outside of the scope of the spell. If your assumption is that you've used fabricate to increase the value by giving it a more valuable cut then by definition diamonds cease to be trade goods.

I think we can both agree that diamonds & gems are one of those fuzzy areas in the game it's best not to think about because of the conflict over how gems are valued in real life and how gems are valued for the purposes of spell components.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
However, if you were playing a Kingmaker-style campaign with years of downtime, and one of your players attempted to use the spell in a way that would by RAW give him an income of 500,000gp a year, you would probably want to either house-rule the spell or house-rule the economy.

Actually, I'd do neither - I'd tell the player to simply not do that, and if he persisted in trying I'd kick him out of the game. Here's why: The economy in pathfinder is sufficiently broken that simply changing the fabricate spell would be a band-aid fix at best. Doubtless the player would find some other spell or rule to exploit in order to make unlimited money. It's simply not worth the effort changing/fixing every spell, rule, guideline, and system in order to prevent a player from exploiting the loopholes in the game.

Regarding the fabricate spell, in the context in which we're discussing spells here, I remain unconvinced. It still seems to me the arguments for its brokenness are being constructed by selectively choosing which real-world/'logical' actions/principles to apply in order to make their case.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Because they have no reason not to collude.
Matthew Downie wrote:
If Bob isn't an idiot he'd see that any price cut he made would be matched by Alice almost immediately, reducing both their profits and not increasing his sales at all.

Ok, so let's go in the other direction. Why don't Alice & Bob then collude to sell their fabricated diamonds for 20,000gp then? If we're going to pretend supply and demand don't exist.

Or, let's take this in a totally different direction. The argument is that fabricate is overpowered. From my perspective in order for something to be overpowered it has to have a negative effect on my game such that I find the need to change/nerf it. So far none of my players have expressed any interest in learning fabricate, and even if they did I'm willing to bet they'd want to use it for adventuring purposes since they want to play a heroic fantasy game, not Simulationfinder.

So, given the above, please explain to me how fabricate is broken and is ruining my game.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

Yea, it says wind environmental factors, without specifying mundane or magical. So it defaults to both.

Yeah, I was wondering if WW & FW counted as environmental factors because they're magic effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:

What if wizards were not total idiots?

So far the only solutions as to why the world of golarion is not very different is MURDER(???) and "Well they would undercut each other because"(???)

These are not compelling reasons imo

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Do you understand how competition works? How is Bob an idiot if, seeing that Alice is trying to sell her fabricated diamonds for 15k sells his for 14k? Since they're both the same, his are going to sell because why would anyone buy a diamond from Alice when they can get the exact same diamond from Bob for 1000gp less?

If you want to argue that they both sell their diamonds for 15k because there's an unlimited demand whose price is static you're only proving my point - it's the economy of Pathfinder that's broken, not the fabricate spell.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

There's a new ranged weapon enchant from the Ranged Tactics Toolbox called cyclonic:

Quote:

Price +2 bonus; Aura faint conjuration; CL 12th

DESCRIPTION

This special ability can be placed only on ranged weapons or ammunition.

A cyclonic weapon or piece of ammunition feels as though it were surrounded by gentle winds pulling it in all directions. When the wielder makes a ranged attack with a cyclonic weapon, a sheath of whirling air surrounds the weapon or the ammunition fired and prevents the attack from being impaired by wind, water, and other liquid or gaseous environmental factors.

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Cost +2 bonus; Feats Craft Magic Arms and Armor; Spells air bubble

So the question is in the title. Would a cyclonic weapon's projectiles still be affected by wind wall or fickle winds? I want to say no, but I think they still would because the enchant doesn't state it defeats magical environmental effects. Thoughts?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Avadriel wrote:

for bows

+5 interfering and + 4 cyclonic nimble.

Wow, I didn't know about these enchants. I wonder; does cyclonic defeat wind wall/fickle winds?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

You're a high level archer who gets word that your rich Uncle Pennybags has left you part of his inheritance. Per his will, his wizard friend will craft you three magical bows, each with a full +10 total enchantment, plus adaptive & impervious (of course).

Your greedy eyes sparkle with glee. What do you ask for on each of your bows?

Alternatively: You're a greatsword wielding martial. What do you want on your three greatswords?

Go!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:


2. You're succeeding at the check, but it doesn't have the required traits, so it's not defeated.

But you're still allowed to gather your dice pool and all that entails, right? So Damiel can still use his power to add a d6 + the fire trait to the check - thus meeting the fire trait requirement for permanent defeat - before he plays the PotO, right?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
The physical stuff doesn't bother me because it's trivial to imagine and justify cosmetic stuff. Any craftsman can put her own unique touches on a sword or what have you.

Can they? How far can they deviate before it's not the same weapon? If I put a cool spike on the end of my sword, like the Uruk-hai in the Lord of the Rings movies, is it no longer a longsword (even if the spike is purely decorative)?

Quote:
Magic is different, since it has no mundane or contextual reference.

Why is magic different, exactly? The fact there is no reference to exactly what magic looks like or how it works only implies that there should be even more variation. You're dealing with an intangible thing. There is no tangible standard that you can compare it to.

It doesn't matter if the fireball is blue, green, orange, black, or white. It doesn't matter if when you cast lightning bolt a phantom image of a blue dragon's head appears around your hand for the short instance of the spell. It doesn't matter if the cone of cold spell looks like a winter's blizzard or sub-zero's ice from Mortal Kombat or a flood of frozen-spirits sweeping over the cone's area. What matters is each spell deals X d6 damage in Y area with a DC Z reflex save for half. >_>

Quote:
If one wizard's fireball is orange and another's is green, why? Do they know slightly different versions of the same spell? Are the spells exactly the same, but cast slightly different? Is it something inherent to the wizards themselves? What about spontaneous spellcasters?

Actually, yes, there is in fact evidence that it is just that. See, knowing a spell doesn't mean you even know or use the same words as the next guy using a spell. Just because your Sorcerer knows Fireball and has vocal and somatic components and such doesn't mean he gets to recognize that somebody else (including another sorcerer) is casting fireball). For that, he must make a successful Spellcraft check.

In the same...

I don't know what to say. Maybe it isn't completely logical or I just can't explain it. But I don't want to have to deal with the headache/annoyance of custom spell effects. Thankfully, none of my players have ever asked.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

No, Matthew has the right of it. Fabricate only 'breaks' the economy because the economy is already broken to begin with. Trying to make the argument that fabricate breaks [the economy] and therefore the spell is broken is disingenuous.

Take Ashiel's scenario for example. If we're trying to argue using realistic economic principles it fails because as soon as Alice the 9th level wizard tries to profit from turning a 5000gp gem into a 15,000gp gem she fails because Bob the wizard undercuts her by selling it for 14,000gp. And then Charlie the wizard undercuts them both by selling it for 13,000gp. And so on and so forth. In the end the price of the '15,000gp' diamond will settle at 5000gp plus whatever the cost of casting fabricate is.

Saying "wizards don't use fabricate that way" is not merely GM fiat. The entire structure of the game requires necessary compromises in order to function as a narrative device and gaming framework. If you're going to start demanding real-world logic in every aspect the entire thing falls apart.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

That must be really rough. As a GM, I refluff descriptions of stuff constantly. It keeps the game fresh and interesting. It's often a rather efficient way to add a little indirect personality to certain characters.

For example, the goblin sorcerer Grex "Jum-Jum", who's summoned riding horse via the mount spell looked like a rainbow-colored donkey. Or a drow wizard whose empowered fireball threw blue and orange flames. None of these things affect the game mechanically in any way, shape, or form, beyond just making the game more fun and/or cool.

In your game do all longswords look the exact same too? How do you reconcile the extreme amount of OCD-irritation that occurs from seeing Pathfinder art depicting things like staffs and swords differently, even though they all share the same statistics?

Why has your head not exploded yet over the way armor looks? (o-O)

The physical stuff doesn't bother me because it's trivial to imagine and justify cosmetic stuff. Any craftsman can put her own unique touches on a sword or what have you.

Magic is different, since it has no mundane or contextual reference. If one wizard's fireball is orange and another's is green, why? Do they know slightly different versions of the same spell? Are the spells exactly the same, but cast slightly different? Is it something inherent to the wizards themselves? What about spontaneous spellcasters?

Next, how does that affect spellcraft checks to recognize spells? Is it the same, or should it be different, and why?

It's just more effort than it's worth.

Your armor comment scares me. Is there something wrong with the way armor looks? Should my head explode?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dire Mongoose wrote:

Honestly in general I think the spells that bypass spell resistance are too good, not just that one. Disable Construct doesn't exactly bother me because there's an opportunity cost to picking it -- you just might not run into a construct that day if you're a prepared caster, or you sacrificed a slot for it if you're spontaneous. But, like, Glitterdust? That's good for almost everything.

In the groups that I play with, the casters just naturally gravitate towards loading heavy on spells (when they pick something offensive) like Glitterdust and Create Pit. It's totally common for the party to encounter a golem or something with atrocious SR and just not even notice, because there are a ton of SR: No spells that are also just plain great for their level besides it.

I think most of the SR: No spells should probably be a level or two higher than current, so there's actually a tough choice to make more often between the most effective spell of your level or something that's a hedge against SR.

For me it's more about internal consistency than pure spell power. For example, Create Pit is something I think logically would ignore SR, after all you're not actually targeting a creature with it. Furthermore, if it was subject to SR how would you adjudicate it? A creature whose SR you fail to penetrate just floats above the pit?

There are spells besides Disable Construct that shouldn't ignore SR that do, in my opinion, but then again if I were to start making wholesale changes to the spell list I'd be doing more than just changing which spells are affected by SR.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I've banned three spells outright in the game I'm running:

Blood Money - for obvious reasons.

Snowball - shouldn't exist.

Disable Construct - really shouldn't exist.

Though Snowball and Disable Construct aren't necessarily overpowered, they're spells that have been deliberately designed to get around intended limitations and drawbacks for spells.

Snowball is an elemental damage spell with evocation spell scaling that was made as a conjuration spell solely to get around spell resistance. It specifically contradicts the spell creation guidelines in Ultimate Magic.

Disable Construct is an even worse offender. It is, to my knowledge, the only enchantment school spell that targets an opponent that doesn't allow spell resistance. There's no justification for having this spell bypass spell resistance, and in fact the only reason it does is so that it can target golems.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Why do you not let your players have green lightning and red fireballs anyway? I mean, do you really care so much that that requires a feat?
I wouldn't let them either. We're not playing a video game.

How do you connect green lightning to "we're playing a video game?"

I know that personally, "green lightning" makes me think primarily of Luke Skywalker at the end of the Vong War (that would be a book, not a video game; we've never gotten any sort of game of that era) and to a much lesser extent the villains of the Bazil Broketail series (that would, again, be books).

Because I'm OCD. If I let a player do something like that, it means I need to think about that kind of stuff for every NPC I make from then on out. Furthermore, I'd feel compelled to come up with systems, guidelines, and justifications for that kind of personalization.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Why do you not let your players have green lightning and red fireballs anyway? I mean, do you really care so much that that requires a feat?

I wouldn't let them either. We're not playing a video game.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
The assassin PrC sucks at its job, even if the slayer and rogue do not exist. There are a few threads that go into detail on that topic.

It's like Tacticslion said; it's only usable as an NPC as an actual assassin, and not as an adventurer. (And like you said, still worse at it than other classes.)

The funny thing is that if I were to actually make an NPC with the Assassin PrC and wanted to maximize its effectiveness I'd use wizard as an entry class. Maxed Int for Death Attack and wizard, with spells to provide great assistance for carrying out assassinations.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

93. Player: "I'm going to put this artifact in my Bag of Holding so it can stay safe and nothing bad will happen to it."

GM: "Well, that's fantastic, a really smart decision! I'll just mark it down on my sheet over here that you have your artifact in that Bag of Holding so it doesn't draw attention-AAAAND it's gone.

Player: "...What?"

GM: "The artifact in your Bag of Holding, it didn't do too well, it's gone."

Player: "What do you mean, I have the artifact!"

GM: "Not anymore you don't. Poof!"

If I was the player I'd take that bag and start an artifact disposal service.

"Got an artifact you can't seem to get rid of? For a mere 50,000 gold I'll let you put it on my special Bag of Holding and it'll disappear for ever! Guaranteed!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

86. "The good news is I rolled a 2. The bad news is - what's your AC again? Yup, that's still a hit."

87. "I need to know what buffs everyone has up right now."

88. "Say, did you all get separate rooms or did you just get one room?"

89. "Let me know as soon as any of you eat any of the food. I'll need you to make a perception check."

90. "Did you use any protection?"


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I swear if my precious Kyra gets nerfed because of this I'M NEVER POSTING AGAIN!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
andreww wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
I wonder what the melee vs. archery effectiveness graph would look like across 20 levels.
It depends on which you are comparing it to. Level 1 pouncing summoners, level 4 pouncing druids, level 10 pouncing barbarians or straight fighter, rogue or monk types?

Mostly thinking same-class melee vs. archer comparison. So a melee fighter would be compared against an archer fighter, and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


1. Especially with PA, they've got a pretty good chance of missing with the iterative if the caster has an at all decent AC. By 6th his AC should be 20ish.

2. By 6th any full arcane caster worth his spell component pouch will have some other form of defense up most of the time he's likely to be threatened. Blur/mirror image etc.

3. To get the iterative they not only have to reach melee - they need to start in melee.

Yeah, contrast that with the archer, who at 6th level now has Manyshot so is shooting the wizard 3 times, with the 1st shot effectively doing double damage. And she's doing this from the get go since she doesn't have to move into melee.

I wonder what the melee vs. archery effectiveness graph would look like across 20 levels.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Vanilla WoW was the best version of WoW!

Wait, what are we talking about here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Couple of things from my homebrew world:

1. Druids are very very rare due to persecution. This is because druids' worship of nature is tied to worship of the old pantheon of the Beast Gods, which were overthrown by the new pantheon of the Quinsaelia (The Enlightened Ones). One of the evil gods (Shaeleen, Goddess of Hatred and Suffering) even has a sect of inquisitors whose sole purpose is to find and kill any remaining druids.

2. The most powerful state in the world is the hobgoblin Kumerian Empire, which controls 60% of Gajalae - the largest continent in the world. The Kumerian Empire is perpetually at war with the remaining nations of Gajalae due to its constant aggression and desire to conquer the entire continent.

3. I have the beginnings of a framework for ritual and cooperative magic, but nothing yet concrete. One of the preliminary ideas I had was that ritual magic is a way for lower level spellcasters to cast spells of higher level than they'd normally be able. I also want to incorporate the idea of powering or enhancing magic by tapping into the energy of the world's ley lines, but don't have any ideas for mechanics for such a thing yet.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 2, 6) = 14
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 1) = 8
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 5) = 12
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 3) = 10
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 6, 5) = 14
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 6, 5) = 14

Hmm, interesting. This array says cleric to me, not sure what race though...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 2) = 11
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 4) = 11 +2
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 4) = 11
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 1) = 5
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 2) = 10
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 3) = 8

This individual is a human rogue who's adventuring life is cut short as his lack of smarts gets him caught soon into his career.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 2, 1) = 6
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 2) = 7
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 6) = 11
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 2) = 10
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 1) = 7
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 5) = 12 +2

Youch. This guy is a human sorcerer who manages to get by, but it's tough going. His first two feats are Iron Will and Toughness and he specializes in battlefield control spells and party buffs as his spell DCs aren't going to be very high.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Why is your guys' text green and how do you get the little arrow icon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Smite Evil doesn't care about abilities that mask alignment; it only cares about actual alignment. If a paladin uses smite evil on an evil creature who was using nondetection, undetectable alignment, or some other ability that obscures a character's alignment the smite evil will still work.

The danger of course is that if you use smite evil on something that isn't evil you've wasted the attempt.

As far as using smite evil as a means of detecting if something is evil, that's not really explicitly defined in the rules. I think it's presumed that a paladin somehow is aware of when her smite is working, but question becomes how does she gain that awareness? Does she need to actually attack the target to see if she gain the hit & damage bonuses? Or something else?

Personally I'd rule in favor of the player Darkholme is arguing with. Not because the paladin could "feel his AC increasing", but because the way I handle smite evil thematically is that as soon as the paladin activates smite she can feel the divine energies coursing through her. If she activates smite and doesn't feel it, that's the indicator that the smite failed and the attempt is wasted.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
stealthymonkeyman wrote:
From what I can tell the intent seems that you qualify for "Any one feat", "Any one feat" for purpose of requirements is "Any One Feat". with the narrow reading of the class feature overwriting the general, however feel free to disagree as it does not seem so clear cut, the word "Any" does not say "Any one you qualify for" nor should it be implied to say so. Any is Any and in this case in my opinion many.

This is incorrect. You must always meet the prerequisites for a feat in order to select it unless the class ability that's granting you the feat specifically states that you do not have to meet the prerequisites.

Furthermore, every ability [of which I'm aware] that exists which does grant a feat for which you can ignore prerequisites does so from a specific, limited list of feats.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So it's a no-go RAW, huh? Grrr, that's disappointing.

Although upon further review it looks like a Ring of Invisibility is still on the table, since it's use-activated but not command-word activated.

Unfortunately the Ring of Telekinesis is command-word activated, so I'll have to find something else.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

@CLH - It's projection at this point because that encounter is still a long ways off. The PCs are only level 9 right now and that encounter isn't going to occur until they're around level 16. If the party is averaging high 30s or better ACs then I'm definitely going to have to get the character a higher to hit total. The problem is that both Arcane Strike and Arcane Accuracy both eat up your swift action, so I'll have to dig elsewhere for bonuses.

@Capt. Darling - See above. Group isn't to the point where they're encountering that kind of high level stuff.

@stealthymonkeyman - Applicable Knowledge doesn't help you get early entry because nothing about the ability allows you to bypass feat prerequisites.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So the most ridiculous thing just happened. We were playing RotRL deck 4 scenario 5. I was playing CD Kyra with the Fireflower role and the two powers that allow me to recharge a card after I defeat a monster to explore again.

The scenario rules state that if you defeat a henchman but don't close the location you shuffle the henchman back in. One of the henchmen, the Headless Lord, states that if you defeat it you can draw a random armor from the box.

So basically here's what happened:

1. Kyra explores, encountering the Headless Lord. Amaryllis was kind enough to play incendiary cloud so I'd need to roll utterly terrible in order to fail the check. I reveal my Longsword +2 and roll my dice, defeating the Headless Lord.
2. I draw a random armor from the box for defeating the henchman, and then the reality of the situation dawned on me. I decline to close the location.
3. Since I didn't close the location, the henchman is shuffled back into the location, which was now down to the henchman and another card.
4. Since I defeated a monster, I used Kyra's ability to recharge a card to immediately explore again. I encounter the Headless Lord.
5. Repeat steps 1-4. Since I also had a blessing in my hand, when I encountered the other remaining card in the location deck I was able to keep exploring.

Because of the incendiary cloud, I was able to repeatedly fight the Headless Lord until I had the entire stack of armor from the box in my deck. We ended the scenario with me having a deck size of 81. Since I had literally gotten all the armor available in the game, everyone was able to have their pick. There was much laughing and merriment at the table.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:
What buffs are up in your simulation? How many attacks are you assuming pr round? My level 18 magus simulation using haste as only buff said 400ish DPR with 2 empowered frostbite vs AC 30. And 345 vs. 35, a Big drop. But he have the option of dropping one attack to let the other 5 go after touch AC.

Buffs are Shield, Haste, Heroism, Fire Shield, Unerring Weapon, Locate Weakness, Blur, Overland Flight. The simulation was run with 3 iterative attacks, 1 haste attack, and 2 spellstrikes.

Does your magus have precise strike? I statted this magus up before the ACG came out, so no precise strike. I haven't yet decided if I want to do some arcana swaps in order to include it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Byakko wrote:

Note that being able to speak with their master is not the same as being able to talk (and say command words) normally.

Where are you getting this from? The Speak With Master ability clearly indicates that the speech is verbal and the communication is as though they were speaking a language. And if you look under the description of command word items, it specifically says that the command word used to activate the item is often a nonsensical word, which negates the need for the command word to be an existing word in any language.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dekalinder wrote:
Celestial Armor is still miles better than Mage Armor. Also, Spell Perfection doubles the effect of Intensify, upgrading the damage cap to 15d6. 90 damage in a first level spell slot.

Hmm, are you sure Spell Perfection interacts with Intensified Spell like that?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Joe Hex wrote:
Personally, I always found the Bard just-plain-weird. Who breaks into a performance in the middle of heated combat?

Bardic performance is basically this trope:

Theme Music Powerup

It's a well-established and much beloved trope.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

13 for the base feat

15 for the Improved version
17 for the Greater version

The schools will split these requirements among all the stats OTHER than INT.

Let's run with this:

Abjuration - Constitution, because Abjuration's all about making you harder to kill.

Conjuration - Strength, because you need to be able to show those summoned creatures how much of a tough guy you are.

Divination - Wisdom, because it grants you the perception to see the things divination can reveal.

Enchantment - Charisma, for obvious reasons.

Evocation - Strength, because Evocation's all about brute force.

Illusion - Charisma, since you need to be able to convince others of your tricks.

Necromancy - Constitution, because you to be pretty healthy to meddle with the energies of life and death.

Transmutation - Dexterity, because if you're going to be changing your form you need to be nice and flexible.

How's that?

Edit: There's a precedence for this as well. Remember 2nd ed. AD&D? If you wanted to be a specialist wizard you had to have a high secondary stat in addition to your Int. It broke down like this:

Abjurer - 15 Wis
Conjurer - 15 Con
Diviner - 16 Wis
Enchanter - 16 Cha
Illusionist - 16 Dex
Invoker - 16 Con
Necromancer - 16 Wis
Transmuter - 15 Dex


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
ryric wrote:

That does seem to remove a strategic choice - playing with the standard rules, if I flip over a Basic card, I can choose to acquire it(an easy hp), or I can choose to fail it to get rid of it forever. But if I choose to get the easy hp, the Basic card stays around instead of being perma-banished.

With your house rule there is no choice since I can perma-banish the card after the scenario either way.

Strangely enough the way my group plays it actually creates the choice you're outlining. If we went with the RAW we'd almost never pick up any basic boons after the beginning of deck three for exactly the reason that picking them up would mean they'd stick around unwelcome. With my house rule we at least debate whether or not to try to pick up a boon based solely by the usefulness of the boon itself.

Hell, even with our house rule we don't bother picking up most basic cards aside from allies with explores because having a useless card in your hand and then clogging up your discard pile is a hindrance.

On a more general level, it's disappointing when you start a new deck and never see the boons you add because you're still seeing the same basic crap you've been seeing since the first adventure because it's clogging up the decks. Another poster mentioned that they removed all basic cards as soon as they start deck three, which is something I've considered doing as well.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ughbash wrote:
stealthymonkeyman wrote:
Precise strike, you can loremaster to get spell perfection earlier then 15th but sacrifice capstone.

Unless I am missing something I do not see how the loremaster lets you get Spell perfection early. Even with the instant skill secret which gives you 4 ranks you are still limited to your level in ranks.

What am I missing?

Pretty sure you're not missing anything. I know of no shortcut that allows you to gain more ranks in a skill than you have hit dice. Furthermore, magus doesn't qualify for loremaster until 16th level unless you take the spell blending arcana to get a divination spell from the wiz/sorc list.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
PapaZorro wrote:
Ring of Spell Knowledge or Page of Spell Knowledge with some Use Magic Device checks (helped out by high-charisma) should allow them to be able to cast Mage Armor. Alternately, have them use a wand with UMD, only a 20 check (18 if they've successfully used that wand before).

Neither of those are usable by a magus as they're both only usable by spontaneous casters.

1 to 50 of 998 << 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.