|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Just thought I'd let you all know that I am VERY close to having the Skull & Shackles B, C, and 1 cards ported into the OCTGN gaming space, so if anyone besides myself is ambitious enough, you should be able to scan in your cards and start playing by the end of this week. I'll update on here and on the PACG Facebook page when the update has gone out.
If you're not familiar with OCTGN or playing the PACG online using that program, I have a quick-start guide that I wrote up.
Easiest way to do this would be to let him play a Wayang Shadow Wizard.
jeuce is correct on the summon monster spells, in PFS you can summon any elemental type that is covered in the additional resources (which means any creature in any of the four Bestiaries, since for books which are part of the core RPG line, the assumption is that everything is legal UNLESS it is called out specifically.)
So, yes you can summon a small magma elemental.
But, NO, you can't wild shape into one, since the elemental body spells have specific lists of possible elementals, which things like the magma elemental have not been added to. I doubt this will ever change, honestly, because whoever adds the elementals to that list will have to come up with specific powers that are gained for each level of spell.
Edit: Ninja'd and proven wrong by Auke. I missed that one! So yeah, you can only summon and wild shape into the standard 4 elemental types. In a home game, I would allow the other types to be summoned, but in PFS you're stuck.
Flaming, shocking etc. weapon ability. You really require the character to spend a standard action to activate the ability?
If you're making multiple attack rolls, it counts as multiple attacks for things like chill touch and the like. So yes, you make all the attack rolls separately, and then just resolve them as a single strike for things like Damage Reduction, etc, which means you'd get to add several instances of chill touch to the damage.
Another funky situation is if you were to, say, attack a Swashbuckler who has the parry and riposte deed. He/she would be able to parry and riposte some of your pummeling attacks, but you'd still add the ones that hit together at the end and resolve them as one attack.
The Pummeling Strike feat chain needs rewritten, if you ask me. It just creates way too many corner cases in the rules.
Just wanted to post here that I played my first two scenarios yesterday, using Alahazra, Jirelle, Lirianne, and Seltyiel, and I absolutely loved it. Mike and Vic, you guys have done a great job of making the game feel very pirate-y without losing the core of the game. It's come a long way since the playtest.
I particularly like the idea of the ship being anchored in some scenarios, as opposed to there not being a ship at all in the more landlocked scenarios.
This did bring up one interesting point though: The rules still talk about times when you're not commanding a ship, and what to do if you encounter another ship during those times. Does this apply when you're at a location but your ship is anchored somewhere else?
Example: I was playing the second scenario of Plunder and Peril, and
EDIT: I misremembered... it was a Barrier that summoned a ship at a landlocked location. So I should have banished the ship and ignored the barrier, I believe.
TL:DR; Game feels great! Answered my own question cuz I was dumb. LOL
Oh crap, really? That would totally invalidate my build.
PAGING GM, IS THIS THE CASE?
I mean, we're not talking about social norms here, we're talking about rules. And the rules are ambiguous as I'm reading them.
This... is a valid point. So he could do three bites as if they were unarmed attacks and then two claws.
Ah, see I missed that second part. I totally agree that he should be able to substitute bites in for unarmed strikes during his regular full-attack action, and then still get natural attacks after that, but the natural attacks AFTER his regular full attack should all take the standard -5 penalty, because they're all secondary. Them's the rules.
Yeah, there are two things that I am annoyed about in regards to this whole thing:
@fretgod99: I don't think he's proposing a change... I think he's telling you his interpretation of a combination of rules that are a bit vague, and I personally agree with his interpretation. It seems the whole thread is at an impasse, and this really won't get resolved without a dev chiming in, which might never happen, unfortunately.
I'll just chime in with my interpretation (though I'm having trouble parsing all the long-winded posts, so it's entirely possible I am not understanding the argument.)
From what I can tell, Scott is trying to find out if he makes three iterative attacks (NOT A FLURRY, if I'm reading correctly) as a monk with Feral Combat Training (bite), can he bite three times as his iterative attacks as if they were unarmed strikes, then still make all of his normal natural attacks (bite and two claws) afterward? Then he's asking what the penalty on the additional natural attacks would be.
My assumption going in:
My interpretation of this would be:
Now, if I've misread things and he is trying to FLURRY and THEN use the bite and two claws, he can't do that because flurry specifically calls out that you can't combine it with natural attacks.
Edit: my rules reasoning behind my interpretation:
Feral Combat Training FAQ wrote:
Seems to me that you can use the bite as if it were an unarmed strike, and you don't NEED to be currently flurrying for that to happen. For example, you could use your bite to deliver a Stunning Fist attack as part of your normal attack sequence.
At least this one requires a panache point. Not nearly as crazy as the cape of feinting.
That narrative gets even better if you get the role card for Seoni that lets her banish an Ally to draw three cards... for me that's basically her sucking the life out of one of her supposed allies to fuel her powers. Very dark and awesome. LOL
Could this feat in conjunction with a Divine SLA qualify anyone to take Divine Protection?
Since Divine Protection specifically requires the "blessings, domains, or mystery class feature", I would say no, as it's not giving you the full class feature. If it said "access to domain, mystery, or blessing powers" then sure.
Hmm... let's look at the domain powers and see if there are any divine spell-like abilities in there.
The Animal Domain gives you speak with animals which I believe defaults to the druid list, so it would count as divine spellcasting (thanks to that FAQ that everyone talks about).
That is the only one I could find, but I think that would qualify you for Blessed Striker.
The "apply the new rules to the old set" should also assume that you take the new way of writing cards into account. If the Impaler of Thorns was to be printed now, it would say "For your combat check, reveal this card to roll your Strength or Melee check +1d8 +2."
So in other words, they never meant to punish anyone, they just updated their rules and cards for consistency. They can't magically go back and change your cards for you, so you've got to apply a bit of common sense to the cards.
Pixie Rogue wrote:
Ignore all the angst... the book is awesome. I was lucky enough to have someone lend me a copy to look through until my sub gets to me. Holy crap awesome. Seriously.