|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Wizards casting from a rod is not a spontaneous caster. The rod does not change that. The spell is still prepared even if the wizard used a rod to modify the spell.
PS: I am not arguing what is fair, but what the rules is. In fairness the spontaneous casters were assumed to get more out of metamagic rules than they actually get, and the rules never changed when PF came into existence after 3.5.
I actually think stealth should go back to move silently and hide.
I also think perception should go back to listen and spot(this can also include search).
Part of the problem with the stealth rules is that they dont differentiate between which modiers are sound based and which ones are skilled based.
Example: An invisible person in the same room is harder to detect than a non-invisible person behind a wall in another room even though I can see neither one. For all that it matters both of them are invisible.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Well, yes but another example of a time it's told to me the most is when I am looking for advice on how to balance something in my own games that I have created or such, and even after I make this intent clear (more so lately), someone will usually tell me to ask my GM... it's like... didn't I just say that I am the GM looking for advice and opinions?
Sometimes people just jump to the newest comment, and/or they don't really read what you said. The number of times I have had to repeat something, especially in long conversations is astounding.
You don't really rise up so there should be no crushing. You should appear in the place you stood before the pit spell, but two things can't occupy the same space.
The teleport spell pushes you into the next open space, but you take damage. There is no rule for this situation because the rules don't cover every possible situation, so I would use the teleportation rule.
There are no rules for crushing at all so that is 100% on the GM if he wishes to decide which gives way between a person and a wall of force. I think the wall of force would win, if it were an actual force. It is more durable than a wall of stone, and I dont see a person winning against a wall of stone.
Hayato Ken wrote:
It depends on the person. Some people get mad just because you disagree with them, and them find another reason/excuse to use for them being upset.
Basically no matter what you do or say here someone will almost always be offended by it.
Even once they understand your intent they still complain.
Sometimes you just have to realize no amount of talking to them will make things better.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It's a rules change depending on how they finalize it. There was never any hint of manifestations in 3.x or Pathfinder.
I have already in this thread that Jason came across this problem years ago, and had no idea what a manifestation was. He said when you cast a spell it was known that "something" happened, but he said what that something was, was not clear.
I even posted the quote before, and I will do so again. I am also going to add it to my list for easy reference anyone claiming that manifestations as an actual thing are not new.
Also in 3.5, which is after 3.0, their official FAQ said that you did spellcraft checks based on components, not any manifestations.
Since I am doing all of this typing I might as well put the quotes down one more time.
Noted that he then goes to list examples after "such as", and none of those refer to visual manifestations such as glyphs appearing in the air.
Now let's go to the 3.5 FAQ.
3.5 FAQ wrote:
As you can see Paizo had a different philosophy, but even Paizo never had a hard rule on exactly what was noticed(not seen, but noticed), and nothing to state the any effect on invisible casting. Everything mentioned after "such as" from Jason's post can be bypassed by invisibility.
I do think that in 3.5 you knew when someone was normally casting a spell because casting a spell was common in the typical fantasy setting, but nothing in the rules hinted about giving the location away with all of the components removed
When writing modules or running PFS you go with common sense. There are a few rules that people don't run by RAW because it is not intent.
1. The shield feat that lets you ignore twf penalties for your shield is written to ignore several other penalties by RAW.
2. Dead people can legally take actions<----My favorite one to mention
Contrary to somewhat popular belief the GM is supposed to follow the known intent, not read the book in the most literal sense possible. Reading the book like that also causes some things not to work at all.
That falls under "The build and how it is used determine that.".
Letting the player do what they want is only a problem is the player takes things too far, which is what my above quote includes.
I don't think that many people get in trouble here, and I don't' think everyone needs to be address specifically.
What could be done is to have all moderated post tabbed when they are all tied together, and one explanation could be given to everyone vs each person being personally counseled for lack of a better term.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I think it is because the PC's are good guys who tend to be reactionary, and not proactive. That is how must fantasy stories are.
But having to go through bad guys to gain plot items to revive a deity could be a great idea. The forces of evil would be trying to stop you, once they found out what was going on.
Pink Dragon wrote:
I know that. I was saying in my last post that I agree with you now after rereading your comments.We are on the same page. <thumbs up>
Nobody asked for every little nuance to be moderated, and trust is not an either/or situation. It is normally a matter of degrees. That is how you can trust one person more than you trust someone else.
We all know that no system is perfect, but nobody is asking for perfect. Some are asking for what we perceive as "better".
"Well moderated" is also subjective, and leaving something open for discussion does not by itself make good conversation or good anything else. You can listen to someone already know you are not going to agree no matter what they say.<----I am not saying the mods are doing this. I just pointing out the error in logic.
At the same time you are telling people how to handle their business. How ironic.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Who said "LGBT people" are "controversial topics" and not people?
What was being said from my reading was topic revolving around LGBT based topics amounts to more bans.
15 people liked this?
I guess Nicos can clarify what he meant.
edit: The context of the statement was very clear to me so I am wondering how that many people read it, and nobody questioned Crystal's interpretation of words that appear nowhere in the forum.
I've never seen anyone try to bring all of those followers into combat. Trying to track them would drag the game down. I didn't even create the followers for one of my players. I just said they existed, and had them building something or doing maintenance on the party's HQ. They were basically just used for flavor.
Doomed Hero wrote:
And nobody else here thinks that's silly?
It doesn't matter if it is silly to anyone. Solid things block line of effect. Glass is not as hard as bricks, but it is solid. Being able to see through it doesn't make it less solid. The same logic that stops magic from getting through glass stops it from getting through a wall of force, which is another thing you can see through.
If the player knows his characters well it should not take that much longer. I tend to get through my NPC's fairly quickly as a GM. Unless everyone has a "pet" it should not be a problem
Being optimal is not counter to being interesting. Both can be done.
I also don't think anyone is saying you have to create the best character ever, but the party should feel like you are contributing. That matters because your character can have an impact on whether or not someone else's character dies. In a group where the GM has the time, and is willing to adjust more this is less of an issue, but not all groups have that luxury.
What counts as contributing?
That depends on the party you are with and how they play the game.
Nonlethal damage is how it has been done ever since 3.X.
edit: For spells you can cast at a lower caster level.
With regard to the section you are referencing it is just saying what you can do when you are psionically focused.
Your options are normally that you can expend you psionic focus to do certain things such as
1. "Take 15" on a concentration check.
2. Use it to power feats, class features, or anything else that calls for you to expend your psionic focus.
With regard to concentration checks they work very similar to how they do for magic.
As an example if you are in range of someone who could get an attack of opportunity you would have to make a concentration check to use your spell and not let them get a free attack. If you fail the concentration check they still do not get a free attack but the spell will fail.
For psionics it is the same. You make a concentration check if you are being threatened in melee combat to be able to use your power, and avoid giving them a free attack roll. If you fail the concentration check they still do not get a free attack but the power will fail.
Another example is that being in bad weather or being grappled also cause spellcasters and manifesters(people who use psionic powers) to have to make a concentration check to avoid having their power or spell fail.
So how does this work expending your psionic focus interact with making a concentration check in the above examples?
Instead of rolling the dice and hoping that you make the concentration check you can just expend your psionic focus, and it will be treated as if you rolled a 15 on the dice. Add that to your concentration modifier to get the final result.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
I understand you point perfectly well. In addition to these calculations, people's real life experiences are how the idea actually came up in a post a while ago. The math just backs it up.
I've also seen it happen. If the PC is very optimized and/or the party works very well together he may not take much, but in that case* the healer(hit point healing) based character won't be needed.
*I had this happen in a game, which I partially described earlier when I was shutting down the enemies, and the party would kill them. The healer hardly ever got to heal anyone, especially in combat.
If the party is taking damage consistently, then the healing falls behind more and more at higher levels.
Basically the info is not just based on a math chart and theory craft.
Eschew Materials+Silent spell+Illusion of calm spell....does it prevent Identifying a spell being cast with Spellcraft?
It's not difficult to come up with an in-game reason to take it, and why you take has no bearing on whether or not it breaks things at the table. The build and how it is used determine that.
it just slows down combat by too much to be a fun option most of the time.
That I definitely understand. That is why I have summoners(not the just the class) have their summons stats ready in advance, and know how they work.
If a player who is already slow wants to summon or take a "pet" class I try to push them in another direction. The same applies to leadership.
He never said there was a more powerful feat. You said "Every single build or class takes it at level 7 no matter what they are.", which is all that he quoted.
I think you were trying to say "If very single build or class takes it at level 7 no matter what they are, it probably shouldn't exist as a feat."
That period in between "are" and "it" also changes the grammatical structure of what you wrote.
Here are the quotes from SKR(former rules designer at Paizo)
another poster in the same thread wrote:
SKR replying to above quote wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
Your NPC wizard who is two levels behind you can likely be better than every party member that is not you, even with NPC gear. Depending on how he is played or built the GM may be better off with regard to combat, having him not directly participate.
The thread never disappeared. It was moved to a different forum. I have been awake and checking since it started. That is not to say that it won't disappear.
With PrC's the stat for that ability will make you weaker overall, unlike a caster. As an example that assassin uses intelligence, which means bypassing dexterity constitution strength, and wisdom.
I know clerics get to use charisma for channels, but even on a failed channel vs undead they get something out of it.
You can take ability focus also, but if the stat is not a top 3 stat for me then I am not burning a feat to help it out.
Klara Meison wrote:
Her profile picture is actually Seoni under some weird lightning. As for pronouns, she has repeatedly stated she doesn't care which ones people use. I prefer she since it fits the avatar image.
I did realize I was so inactive here that I didn't notice a avatar change.
Yeah some of you see me posting here back to back, but it's tame by comparison.
Steve Geddes wrote:
That is what I got out of it also. Personally, I think certain political discussions are best held in other places even if they are related to the game. Not so much because I don't think they can be done here, but because you never know when your comment is going to vanish. I would hate to have a comment deleted if I had spent a long time writing it out, and yes it has happened before.
I don't know what that other place is because if the topic also involves Golarion and you go to a debate specific forum, and mention Golarion it is going to be strange for them(other non-RPG members).
This might be something a private FB group is for, for the times when we have to go into certain discussions.