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

concerro's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,623 posts (41,164 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 2,178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dimensional Slide (Su): The arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location. This ability is used as part of a move action or withdraw action, allowing her to move up to 10 feet per arcanist level to any location she can see. This counts as 5 feet of movement. She can only use this ability once per round. She does not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving in this way, but any other movement she attempts as part of her move action provokes as normal.

Now I am 99% sure the intent is for the target to actual move as in "use movement", but the ability only calls out a move action.

Would I be correct?

Yeah I know the ACG errata was just released, but I will still start an FAQ if you say I am correct so we can get this officially fixed.

PS: If I somehow missed this despite checking the errata several times someone just let me know.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Most PC's do not get to choose the point of combat since they are likely invading enemy territory.

But the GM does get to choose that, and probably aught to be providing varied ways to interact with the encounter.

wraithstrike wrote:

Also a caster could potentially put out the fire, and attack an enemy. Most martials can't do that.

By using a limited resource and the action that they are supposedly using to be god? Oh, and you know, the fact that they cannot possible memories all possible spells.

A martial certainly can put out fires. They have ability scores and skills, they have environmental features, they have equipment. It just takes a modicum of inventiveness to realised that breaking open the cistern full of water, or beating the flames with a wet blanket is a valid action in a combat.

wraithstrike wrote:

At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied".


In my ideal world, every combat in a pathfinder game would have the risk of serious long term injuries, and would feel a little like the corridor fight form old boy. I am not out there campaigning for the game to be changed to be that. One day, I'll figure a way to house rule it to get that feel, but in the mean time, knowing how to use the game as it is written to get close to the feel I want is a useful skill.

You want martials to matter, there are ways to play the game that makes them matter, and there are ways to make them not matter. Your choice, but I am fairly certain the a change to play style is a more practical way of getting what you want than sitting around complaining about how broken the game is. (A situtation where, if you are successful, you potentially upset all the people who are perfectly happy with the system as it is.)

You have not made one valid point here.

What the GM aught to provide is subjective and does nothing to change "how things are" mechanically speaking.

I never said they could memorize all spells so that statement is pointless and as I have said countless times before casters do not need "the perfect spell" to solve a problem, and even before level 10 they are unlikely to run out of spells in a day. <---Other issues related to this have been broken down several times on this forum.

What your ideal world is does not matter because not everyone plays the game like you do, and if you don't get the relevance of "At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied" in response to "why do martials need nice things", then you are likely beyond any help that anyone could give you.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:

Another truth is we generally find rule lawyers annoying. Unless me rolling 6d4 instead of 4d6 resulted in your characters demise...just go with it. Game time is not look it up time.

1. Then get the rules right or let people know up front that you play loosely with the rules.

2. Some of us don't have to look the rules up to know you are wrong, and "just go with it" is terrible general advice for enough reasons that I am sure you can think of some without me having to list any.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most PC's do not get to choose the point of combat since they are likely invading enemy territory.

Also a caster could potentially put out the fire, and attack an enemy. Most martials can't do that.

At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Way of the Wicked started you off in prison, but there is not an entire AP based on you escaping and/or running away.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

When I come to this website with a question, my first instinct is to do a search for relevant topics.

Initially, when I have had a question, and my search did not turn up a definitive answer, I would often select the thread that was most relevant to my question and ask my question there. But when I did that, I was flamed for "necroing the thread." So it seems to me that the community has voted to have multiple threads on the same topic, and if we don't like it, we do deserve it.

I find the FAQs are Browsable, but not Searchable, and if I could easily search the FAQ section of the Paizo Website, I suspect that there would be a whole lot of questions that I would just not have to ask and a whole lot of arguments would just end. Likewise Official Rules Posts are harder to find in the ocean of threads and comments. If something can be done to organize Official Rules Posts within the Forum so that it's easier to find them, that would be much appreciated.

Some people will flame you for a necro. Other will flame you for not doing a search. You really can't win, so I say do what you want.

The only necros that annoy me is when someone responds directly to a poster as if they posted yesterday. However using that thread to talk about the topic is ok for me. I still wouldn't flame you for a direct comment, but I would ask why you did it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So this mean quick draw allows for quick sheathing?

I don't mind the FAQ, but it opens up other questions since it is in no way supported by the book.

Or do we need a new FAQ for any related questions???

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I think you might be using the spell wrong.
Fair enough. Thread consensus is that you're using the spell wrong, so I'm not likely to change how I run it at my table. If you want to start a FAQ thread, be my guest.

For real?


Is it a Shadow effect? Yes.
Do Shadows effects still do damage if you save? Yes
How much? 20%

Where is the confusion on this one?

Also, where are people saying I'm the one using it wrong?

C'mon guys, look at the spell, read up on illusions.

It is "normal" for Shadows to do 20% damage if you save against them.
This is a basic mechanic in the game, it's not something new or obscure.

There is NOTHING in the spell that would suggest it does full damage after a successful save, so why should it?

Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.

There is no 20% rule from the magic chapter with regard to illusions.

The only time 20% comes up in the magic chapter is here.

Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.

Yes, I know the other shadow spells reference 20%, but that does not make it a general rule.

Project image itself does not mention the 20% rule so that does not apply.

It does say "Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with)"

So what happens when an illusion is disbelieved?

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

The saving throw lets you know the spell is an illusion if you make the save, and that is a good thing. Otherwise you could keep trying to fight it, and getting jacked up by a caster who is laughing at you from the other side of the room.

The illusion itself is also not casting the spell. It is just where the caster is sending the spells(which are very real) from.

That is what this line is for ----> " The spells affect other targets normally, despite originating from the projected image."

Since there is nothing in the rules saying that passing the saves lessens the affect of the spells then that is how the rules work.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Logan would you mind expanding on this "no". Saying "no" won't make the idea go away. If you have some behind the scene reasons that have not been revealed that would be nice to know, even if you can't give us details on it.
Sure. It's pretty simple, really. Many of the talents are built to be more effective than a feat. Even setting aside spellcasting, there are options like signature weapon that are worth two feats for the cost of one talent. Some previous Extra _____ feats have also been better than other feats, but we'd rather not continue that unfortunate trend, especially since the vigilante will have a really large number of options.

This is a cat that's already out of the bag. "Many of the talents are built to be more effective than a feat" isn't a fair comparison anymore. It's what the 'extra' feats gets you and vigilante talents aren't better than those.

If you are just going it think of the other 'extra' feats as unfortunate mistakes but leave them in place you are in effect penalizing the vigilante because it came out too late. It relegates them to a 'second class' class that doesn't get the same benefit from it's feats. This is particularly clear for the casting varieties that are already tossing 1/2 their talents away on casting before they can pick fun stuff while the oracle is sitting there with full casting and as many extra revelations as they want...

And as a side question, when did the 'extra' feats become an 'unfortunate trend? The last hard cover has extra feats in it so when did they become badwrongfun?

I only see the extra ___ being pick up once or twice. Other than that feats still seem to get picked. If the common situation was "extra _____" almost every time I would understand how it was an issue. I am with you on this one graystone. I don't see why it is an issue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Signature weapon is nice, but it is one of the better ones.

Suckerpunch, however is more along the power of a rogue talent(even many causal gamers prefer feats) than it is to an oracle revelation.

However knowing that all of the talents are supposed to be better than feats helps up know which ones to mention to the design team during this playtest.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

They didn't issue an FAQ, but they chose not to do so in a very specific way. It does seem like it should be possible to use all skills both in and out of danger. This version of take 10 would allow a GM, if she so chooses, to force you to roll anytime you climb or swim, since there is an inherent danger to either activity.

I don't like it, but in the end I am sure: 1) they wanted to maintain flexibility; and 2) realized that ANY ruling would provoke questions about one billion corner cases, so instead it is up to the GM.

Answering some of the questions would be better than not answering any of the questions, and all they had to do was give certain examples, and put in a blurb saying that for anything not covered it was up to the GM. As a GM it would not have entrenched on my ability to say "no you can't take 10", so I really don't buy that logic.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:

Logan would you mind expanding on this "no". Saying "no" won't make the idea go away. If you have some behind the scene reasons that have not been revealed that would be nice to know, even if you can't give us details on it.

Example: "We have this other idea that will expand on the talents, and some of them will be able to be much better than they are now. Sadly I am not allowed to give any details, but trust me, you will be amazed."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Stalker also obviously got a lot of creativity and attention put into it, but mechanically its abilities aren't up to snuff...likely because of this, sadly:

Mark Seifter wrote:
David Neilson wrote:
So can you tell us which of the Vigilante's aspects you have been put in charge of?
While we'll all be working together under Jason on the class, I was the one to whom we farmed out the stalker talents. It was quite a challenge; a class with strong Will saves that has a design goal to both avoid squashing the Unchained rogue and avoid being squashed by the Unchained rogue. Right now, a lot of that dynamic lives in the talents being quite strong compared to rogue talents.

Poor guy got stuck trying to put a good spin on "We're balancing this around the Rogue".

So that is the problem. The rogue being a weaker class should not be a balancing point unless it is the low end of the balancing point to be avoided. If they don't get rid of that idea or Mark can sneak some good stuff in and hope Jason does not notice I know what I will not be playing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems like we have flavor text mixed in with the mechanical text, but I am not all of these contain flavor text.

This is mostly for the PDT, but others can feel free to chime in.

However before I get into the flavor based questions I want to point out a contradiction.


Expose Weakness (Ex): The stalker vigilante can use sneaky tricks in order to make it easier to damage a foe, whether it be throwing a fine dust of cold iron over a fey or melting a glob of silver onto a lycanthrope’s hide. The stalker vigilante can add the ability to reduce a creature’s damage reduction or hardness by 10 to the list of options when attempting a dirty trick combat maneuver check (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player’s Guide 320). This does not stack with itself, and it does not work against creatures

with DR/—.

From what I understand the intent is to let the vigilante bypass the DR or hardness and then the GM comes up with how it happened. If this is the case then it should be noted that the beginning text is flavor text. However as written it could seem as if the materials needed have to already be in place. If this is the case then this ability is very circumstantial.

If this is another GM discretion ability then it should noted so players know up front.


Foe Collision* (Ex): The stalker vigilante shoves one of his foes into another. When the stalker vigilante deals hidden strike damage with a melee attack, he can also deal an amount of nonlethal damage equal to the extra damage from hidden strike to an opponent adjacent to the first (even if the second opponent is out of his reach). Unlike normal, this vigilante talent applies to any successful
hidden strike.

I read this one as the vigilante has a means to deal extra damage to an opponent that is adjacent to the targeted opponent. However if the first opponent is a stone golem(just one example) I can see a GM calling for a strength check or combat maneuver check. Is the "shove" flavor text?

The following are not flavor based questions.


Divine Training II (Ex): The zealot vigilante gains the ability to cast one 2nd-level spell per day and increases the number of 1st-level spells he can cast per day by three. A zealot vigilante must be at least 4th level, have a Charisma 12 or higher, and have the divine training I base ability to select this talent.

Is this saying he gain an "additional" number of spells that he can cast beyond what the spellcasting table for the class gives, or is the intent that you must take the other divine training in order to cast spells normally?

I found the answer. The book says "* A zealot vigilante only knows spells of this level only if he has the appropriate talent to cast spells of this level."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
(This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)
I find it amazing this line gets overlooked so much. So much so that they had to put in an FAQ saying no they don't stack and didn't even bother to say why they didn't stack, just that if they stacked it would be too good for 80,000 gp.

I learned a long time that when people want a rule to work a certain way they can get very selective with their reading.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Gibbons wrote:

I'd argue that arcane bloodline is the opposite of THE sorcerer bloodline....

PRD wrote:

Sorcerer Bloodlines
The following bloodlines represent only some of the possible sources of power that a sorcerer can draw upon. Unless otherwise noted, most sorcerers are assumed to have the arcane bloodline.

That is what he was referring to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A whip is a reach weapon and follow the ranged attack rules for the purpose of soft cover. That should also apply to CMB since it is also an attack roll.

When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I normally have then fight in an area where they can fly, and I have also jumped/ambushed a few parties. Most of the time however it is the flight that is the issue, and they try to intimidate the PC's into walking away. Of course I know it won't work, but dragons are arrogant so I play it up sometimes.

I have only run two dragons in an enclosed area. One of them did well, but still died. The other was destroyed in a very one-sided combat.

I also tend to have them prebuffed, and depending on the optimization of the group I might change their spells and feats out.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brogue The Rogue wrote:
"The dragon has yet to lose" is not something to be proud of. This isn't a game of Players vs. DM. It's a collaborative game of all players working together to have fun.

Hello Necromancer. What was the purpose of this?

Also don't make assumptions you don't sit at my table.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

It's the rules of a role-playing game. That requires role-playing.

I am too lazy to add this to the meme thread, but people making things up is pet peeve of mine. Stop it. "I really like it, and I wish things were this way", is NOT a rule.

It might be the basis/intent of a RP'ing game that you RP, but it is not a rule anymore than having fun is a rule because it is a game. Yeah you should have fun, but it is not a rule.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
All I'm saying is that animals with Grab have varied tactics, and it's worth considering all of them
Right, but within the actual rules, are they supposed to? That's the question being asked.

There are no rules on tactics, and there wont be.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

I understand you are disappointed, but quite frankly the rest of what you say is hyperbole.

There are rules for take 10, but the last thing we are going to do is try to cover every instance on when you can take 10 or not. The game is far too complex and has a narrative structure where we must trust our GMs to make the best decision possible during play. And we do trust our GMs as well as the players to make arguments as to why they should be allowed to take 10 at a certain instance. Creating a long list of yes and no for all the situations of the game would end up being nothing more than advice anyway.

That is at least why I supported the answer how it stands. No FAQ needed.

Good gaming!

I specifically said in the OP, since I am the OP, that I knew every decision could not be covered. I listed about 4 examples and then asked for a "good rule of thumb". So the "we wont cover every situation" is not a good defense, and if that is the way my request was read then it was misread.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are not use to running a game for them I would start the game well below 20, and have them level up to 20. That gives you time to adjust the game for what they can or can not handle. It also gives you time to get a handle on they mythic rules.

Running high levels games if you are not used to it is very difficult. That is why I suggest working your way up to it instead of trying to start at 20.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If this is not redone I will likely have to come up with a few examples for when taking 10 will or will not be allowed. I worry more for other people than anyone who games under me since I will be fairly consistent about this and not say "no taking 10" just because.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

Your words and/or description set the basic form and shape of what you say - your roll determines how well it came off and was presented. It's as if what you said was first given to a scriptwriter for polish then given to an actor to present in game. It's not a tape recording of what you said, it's a post-production edited film quality version of what you said modified by what you rolled.

And I'm sorry, but at least the content and general thrust can help or hinder him. Yes, I realize it's said by a much more skilled speaker - which is reflected by the skill and the roll - but there are some arguments that would NEVER work on some listeners, no matter how high their diplomacy, and there are some lines of argument that would almost always work on a specific listener, even if said by the mumbling half Orc who is flipping off the eleven king while dancing naked in court.

That is why I said to go by intent rather than the words. Most of use know people who are terrible with words. A compliment about losing weight might come out as "You are not nearly as fat as you used to be". That might not be taken well by the recipient. That person should not suffer RP'ing because of a real life limitation. Many of use play the game to escape our real life limitations. To carry this forth if one person is not going to be hindered then another person should not be getting bonuses. It gives another player an unfair advantage.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
williamoak wrote:

I’m also worried about this as a GM. My own current standard is “Roleplay it, you roll a proper check, with possible bonuses/negatives depending on how good an idea it was, though it will always mostly rely on your stats”. But it still worries me, because it’s not an easy thing to do, and I don’t want to start balkanizing people out of the face role.

So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?.

The characters ability to be a good talker should not be hindered or enhanced by the players any more than a character should get a bonus to strength because the player can bench press 400 pounds.

Basically I look at the general point the player is trying to get across, and the character says it as effectively as the rolls are.

The player can make an outstanding speech, but if he makes a bad roll, then his well intended compliment can come across as a back handed compliment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rule is this. You have to use the shield hand to lose the shield AC. It does not say the "off-hand" makes you lose the shield bonus to AC.

Now if someone wants to argue otherwise create an FAQ because as the rules have been explained off-hands do not negate the shield bonus as a general rule.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

D-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!


FAQ wrote:

Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.

A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.


FAQ wrote:

Jumping: If I want to jump over a 10-foot pit, is the DC 10, like the table says, or is it higher, since I need to move a total of 15 feet to reach a non-pit square?

The DC is still 10 to jump over a 10-foot pit. You do move a total of 15 feet when you make that jump, but some of that is not required to be part of the jump. One way to visualize it is to think of it as walking/running the 2–1/2 feet from the center of your original square to the edge of the pit, jumping the pit right to the other edge, and then walking the 2–1/2 feet to the center of the new square.
Will mithral win again next week, bigger and better than ever? Will it actually be taking 10 again? Should we make a FAQ about whether you can take 10 to craft things out of mithral and watch it get 1000 clicks in 1 day? Find out on the next exciting FAQ Friday!

I don't think anyone would complain if we had 2 FAQ's again next week. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A 5 foot step is movement/moving. It just isn't a move action. This lines up with the combat chapter listing it as the other way of "moving" to avoid an AoO, other than withdrawing.

A specific quote:

She could instead limit her movement to a 5-foot step, as a free action, and not provoke any attacks of opportunity.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PT.B=The Devil wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The only real problem with point buy is that it is infecting game design.

Half the classes in the ACG have abilities that allow them to circumvent ability prereqs based on the premise that the class couldn't access those abilities because of the way the stat generation method limited them.

That combined with the stigma set by those who swear by it, makes me consider it, The Devil.

There was a thread on Facebook about it that got really nasty.

I agree with this. However, 3.5/PF just doesn't work well with random rolling from the get go. I mean sure you can trick motivations and intentions by using some type of failsafe rolling method that provides a standard array anyways, but why go through the extra work for a similar payout? Maybe just maybe P2 will take the path that allows random rolling to work out just fine. I doubt it though because 5E went this route and P2 when it happens is most likely going to be a wild opposite. The snakes are out of the can, so I'm living with point buy the devil I know.

To answer the OP its because people either want the traditional experience or the feel of an organically made character. This trick may just work for some groups, but others will only try and fight it. Ultimately, it's a preference thing and I would be surprised if you get a better answer than that.

What I am asking has nothing do with preference. I am not asking why people prefer rolling. I am asking why people say rolling stops min-maxing while citing the putting of the low stat in the score you dont need as evidence, when you can do the same thing with rolling. Some even say it is min-maxing when the point buy is not being bought down to raise a score somewhere else.

I think I am done now because no logical answer has been provided. It just boils down to "I don't like it so I will use ___ reason to say it is bad".

There is nothing wrong with not liking point buy. I just don't buy the min-max logic, not at least until someone can tell me how rolling stops it anyway, since that claim that rolling does not encourage mix-maxing has been made more than once.

PS: Actually the claim is normally that point buy influences min-maxing and heavily implying(if not directly stating) rolling does not have people putting low stats into the unneeded score.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Not sure if this counts as "Forum Meme" but it irks me that boobs is fine for the word filter, titties is fine for the word filter, but "t#!+" is not.

Did you try to type Titanic is totally sinking, and it was blocked?

PS:To anyone reading this watch the bolded letters not the phrase.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:

So there's this weird habit a lot of gamers seem to have, though most of us have been guilty of it at some time. When presented with an idea that jars us, or which we don't like but can't figure out why, we'll point out how in history that didn't happen. You see it regarding why people shouldn't be allowed to play gunslingers, why only certain ethnicities of humans should only be allowed in certain parts of the world, etc.

I've thought a lot about this, and the only conclusion I've reached is that when most of us who use this kind of logic have never really examined it.

The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy

What are your thoughts on this?

What I do see with regard to gunslingers and Asian based themes is that it does not fit into medieval Europe as if they thing D&D fantasy was intended to only be based around that. I would have called it the "not in real Europe" fallacy, but I get your point. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was no leap in my logic. You made several mistakes while reading what I wrote. As an example I said the fungus exist. I never said it was created byban NPC. It is just a danger that exist. As for my restoration example that is a suggested house rule. I even said as much. As for the story not trumping the rules what I mentioned with Pathfinder authors breaking the rules was a fact. Now if you are trying to say Paizo should not allow it anymore that is a different argument than what I thought you were saying.
Also game terms are not flavor. they are classifications.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM and player I prefer point buy. If the players really want to roll they can but anyone can also use anyone else's rolls. That way you dont have someone with stats that are a lot better than someone else's. I also prefer to us the pfs average for hit points.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The reversal

This is when someone is passive aggressive or uses a veiled insult. When called out on the issue they try to play the victim acting as if they have no idea what you are talking about.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM I would give everyone the same XP. It is the rule, and it keeps things simple for me. Even when you die you get counted as having gained XP. All it takes is participation in the fight to get XP

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I like that explanation...

If I wasn't making this check, would I be considered in "immediate danger"?

If yes, you can't Take 10. If no, you can Take 10.

I also like it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Withdraw and stealth is rules legal, but certainly abusive because there is no practical counter. There are some high level spells that can simulate the effects of Agent Orange and high level parties might have aerial recon, but outside that this is the sort of tactic that armies and gendarmeries have trouble countering.

Using guerrilla tactics when you outnumber the players is abusive to a degree that cannot be described remotely adequately without tripping the profanity filter. Save it for a kingdom building game when the players have enough armies to actually respond with counter-insurgency tactics.

Abusive? To the point you cannot describe it without profanity?

I was looking for the "/sarcasm" quote at the end of your post but there isn't one; was your post serious?

It is NOT "abusive" to challenge players with an encounter. It is NOT "abusive" to have monsters and NPCs care about their lives and try to run away instead of always fighting to ridiculous deaths. It is NOT "abusive" to have enemies use the rules, the basic, core, simplest rules of running and hiding.

Nothing, NOTHING about what happened here was "abusive". Not even close. Calling it "abusive" just about triggers my own profanity filter...

I agree. I think it is a valid tactic, even if it is annoying to the PC or player.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malag wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Yes you can withdraw(rules definition) and stealth, but not in the same round that you attack.
They never did attack. While characters chased two targets who were constantly withdrawing, two other archers sniped them down. So attacking while withdrawing never really happened. They had advantage in numbers.

I was just answering the rules question I thought you were asking.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malag wrote:

Hello paizonians,

It has been quite a while from the last time that I made any topic, but recently, I got shot with a blunt bullet right into my forehead for using „intelligent NPC guerilla tactics“ against the party. Although I was quite insulted for being told that the tactics were „abusive“ from my side, it nevertheless forced me to question the legality of those tactics and if I made something wrong in it so here comes a short summary of the last two fights. Please don't refrain from criticizing both me and the players, but keep it civil:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Your tactics were not bad, but some rules may not have been applied correctly.

The players get a reactive(free) perception check to notice hiding enemies.
Some people think they get another check when the ambush begins, but that is up for debate.
Someone attacking also gives their position away unless they used the sniping rules which apply a heavy penalty. This matters because once they attack they are observed, and you can not restealth while you are observed. Sniping gets around that.

For the 2nd fight they also should have gotten the perception check since this was a new combat.

I do agree that leaving people behind is a bad idea. One of the things that most people know is that you do not split the party.

I am going to assume you mean withdraw as in "move away", not the game term. The game is definitely not legal, but neither is moving away, and making a stealth check for reasons already mentioned.

It is possible, just not easy to do this. Stealth is hard in Pathfinder.

31 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

When classes such as sorcerers or bloodragers get free bonus spells known due to their class features, such as the sorcerer bloodline, how is the level of the spell determined? <---FAQ question.

For those of you who may want to say just go by whatever level it normally counts as for that class I agree, but the oracle gets a spell early due to an FAQ. There may also be times when a class gets access to a spell it does not normally have access to, such as an arcane class gaining access to a divine spell.

I thought there was a rule or dev comment on it, but I was not able to find it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

Scorpion Whip errata:

Basically: It's an exotic dagger with the performance property instead of 19-20 crit and throwing.

If you have whip proficiency in addition to scorpion whip proficiency it effectively becomes a 1d4 whip that always deals lethal damage and isn't stopped by AC.

Thing is, you still provoke, so you're still going to want Whip Mastery and potentially improved whip mastery for AoOs.

So at that point you basically have a whip that deals .75 more damage and has the performance property.

Am I missing something or this just... really bad now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Endzeitgeist wrote:
This is a steal in its non-price-reduced version. The Zeitgeist AP is a thing of beauty and awesomeness.

You are the super reviewer guy. I will read your review on it. At 9.99 I will likely buy it anyway though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Devoted is a descriptor, therefore, it only applies to personalties that can be described by it.

Kinda like how humanoid is a descriptor, therefore, only things that fit that description can be refered to as humanoid. Therefore you can't logically apply humanoid to things that don't fit the description. Devoted is the same way, it doesn't apply to every personality, because it defines a limited set of possible personalities.

Regardless of the words actually used, my original point still stands, paladins make sense being limited to lawful characters.

Your point does not stand. Chaotic people can be devoted(dedicated, committed, etc). You have given your opinion, and no hard rules or facts that prove otherwise.

It makes sense to you, so if you are saying it only has to make sense to someone then a lot of things make sense, and in that case this sub-topic is pointless. If you are saying it has to make sense to most people then I doubt you will get most people to agree with you, so by that version of "make sense" your argument fails.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:

I have zero interest in adventure paths.

I adore 3pp content but I think the 3pp publishers have tunnel vision.

I think there is far too much "you are playing the game wrong" attitude on the boards.

I have seen enough "you are playing the wrong game", and enough people take things out of context to interpret it that way, that I may not agree, but I understand with the way some people only deal in absolutes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are going to make a silly thread that is not intended to be serious it is best to put it in the off-topic area. If you put it in the advice or rule area it will look like you are baiting people.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:

The demons could make the head into a Beheaded:

In brief, "A beheaded is a severed head or skull animated as a mindless undead sentinel that silently floats at eye level as it lies in wait for living prey or is sent out into the lands of the living to terrorize everyone it finds."

From Resurrection: You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

The players have the body (definitely a "small portion of the creature's body) so that should allow for the casting of Resurrection. However, since the head is now undead and hasn't been destroyed, I can easily see that being a reason the spell fails, thus engendering a quest.

I agree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
coyote6 wrote:

You're playing in Golarion, right? As I understand it, typically no soul can be returned to life except by powerful spells (i.e., true resurrection or the like) once it has been judged by Pharasma. There is no defined time it takes for that to happen; the convention is that for PCs, it doesn't happen fast. But for an NPC? Yeah, you could just say that Pharasma judged Sosiel already, and he has gone to join Shelyn.

(Edit: maybe not even true resurrection will work; see James Jacobs post here.)

@ the OP: Golarion does not have any official alteration to the resurrection spells. The director may thinks its cheap but without a rule the players may feel like you are playing with surprise rules. I would make it into a house rule if it bothers you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, it's me again.

There is an FAQ request on the nauseated condition which I did not know about. It is similar to an FAQ request I made about being dazed and other conditions. If possible I was wondering if you(PDT) could handle all of those conditions at once since they have similar language.

If you need links let me know.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

to help you with your next reply--->Give me a direct statement with no inference just like the take 20 rule is written. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops taking 10.

edit: I see the fact that you are dealing with some powerful entity who can do bad things as the threat, not the penalty from failing.

Otherwise every skill could be denied taking 10, since it could have some possible penalty.

Here is a fun question. What is the difference in the logic between the following two assertions?

Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Falling to your death from 300ft up is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Since it isn't unreasonable to say that there is no difference in the logic between those two, then it would be reasonable to draw a a parallel and say that you can't take 10 on checks like climb, swim and fly when failing the check is life threatening, unless you seriously want to argue that getting killed is clearly less of a significant and distracting threat than becoming stupid and losing your spellcasting for a few days. Hence why the Contact Other Planes FAQ is dodgy - It is perfectly reasonable to justify ruling out take-10 on a wide swath of skills based on the same reasoning the FAQ uses.

I have seen many rules debates have two reasonable interpretations, but only one of them is correct. I understand his point. I just don't agree since there is no rules support for a penalty stopping "taking 10". The only rules supports says that penalties stop taking 20. If they want it to apply to taking 10 also, then it needs to be rewritten.

1 to 50 of 2,178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.