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. 2,629 posts (42,243 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not going to try to convince anyone of the correct answer, but what I did do was press the FAQ button on the opening post so that this can finally get an answer. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Technically there is no spell "summon monster", so there is no spell description to reference. Now if it said as though it were "summon monster I", it'd be a little more questionable.

Yeah, but we all know it refers to the "summon monster" line of spells.

I don't think it helps to get into technicalities when we know what the intent of the wording(summon monster) was. The goal here is to find how the SLA is supposed to work, not to get into a "how pandemic can we get" contest.

Just to make sure you get what I am saying--> You are arguing against the words, and not the point that was presented. It does not help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:


Casting an Evil spell is like stealing money from the tip jar. It makes you a not perfect person but if the rest of your life is pretty good it doesn't make you Evil, just a jerk.

I don't think anyone is saying one evil spell automatically makes you evil. Many might say that repeated castings without balancing(determined by the GM) acts would make you evil by the rules. There is no hard number(X many acts changes your alignment) because it will always vary by table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

"Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People...": I think I'd ask, 'Why is evil being evil, no matter the circumstances, so important to some people...'.

For instance, take that infernal healing spell. So I'm a sorcerer, so I need no devil blood. I cast a spell that grants fast healing... No "pact with dark powers" even hinted at. The only negative is that "The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic"... So, no fire and brimstone, no tolls, spreading torment and devouring of souls. It sounds less evil than binding an angel and taking it away from it's fight against evil to clean your room...

SO why are you so invested in making it sound as nasty as possible?

I think many times they are arguing from a rules-based perspective, and not necessarily how they would run it in a game.

The protection from ____ spells are an example of that. I know what the rules say, but I would never enforce.

PS: I know some would enforce it, but luckily I have never had to deal with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
I'm fine with spells being evil (or other alignments), as long as why there is an explanation for why they are evil (or other alignments.) The protection from alignment spells are the biggest offender in this regard if you ask me.

Those make no sense to me either. If some bad guy planar binds an angel, and I cast protection from good it is an evil act. That makes no sense at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fearcypher wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
fearcypher wrote:


So if Tar-Baphon decides to spend a few years summoning hundreds of Celestial dogs everyday would you say he is a good character?

If that is all he does then yes, but I am sure that for every spell he cast, he does enough evil to keep him on the evil alignment scale.

On the flipside, if a good caster spends a lot of time casting evil spells he can keep his good alignment if he also does good deeds.

Though I just remembered Mister whispering tyrant can't actually summon celestial dogs. But he can summon Lantern archons. And he can summon a lot of them, being a level 20 wizard with 10 mythic tiers. He could keep doing that all day whilst still destroying the world. And any day he doesn't spend doing lich things he can just summon Lantern Archons for an hour. And currently he has a lot of downtime being locked away forever. So in a thousand years would he be able to emerge from his prison with an LG alignment? Just because he spent all that time summoning lantern archons?

It doesn't make sense to call summoning spells evil just because they have the evil descriptor, because that means it would apply to good as well.

So from most perspectives it doesn't make much sense to force an alignment shift just for summoning. If a player wants to roleplay the spell as corrupting their caster to the way of evil that's fine and a decently interesting idea, but it shouldn't be the go to consequence.

I have never seen it enforced. I am just saying that is what the rule is. I think many of the "this is evil/good" rules are in place to avoid opinion based ideas, and because the game assumes heroic fantasy, and the "hero" is supposed to make things right, even if he has to be less efficient.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Back on topic the adamantine golem does not pass adamantine based DR. I was about to houserule it for my own games, but then I saw that it was made out of a combination of metals, and not just adamantine.

Eh, that feels like a cop out. It's not a precious metals golem, it's an adamantine golem. It requires more than a single planet's worth of adamantine to build. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's predominantly adamantine :)

Back off topic, here's a question along similar lines:

Do a glass golem's attacks bypass a fext's DR/glass?

It isn't a copout. I thought the think was %100 adamantine. So now I think it is just called an adamatine golem, but it not even 10% admantine.

Quote:
A adamantine golem's body is made of more than 4,000 pounds of adamantine, mithral, gold, platinum, and other metals

That 4000 pounds is the combination of all of those metals. It is not even 4000 pounds of only adamantine.

It probably weights over 10000 pounds.

That means the rest of it is just regular metal. I see no reason to give it a pass by the rules or even for flavor reasons.

The flavor text might say most worlds don't have enough adamantine to build one of them, but I am sure no actual math was done. Even, so with the adamantine taking up less than what might be 15% of its body there is no bypassing DR.

10,000 lbs seems high. Clockwork leviathans are on the high end of Huge (25 ft long) and they only weigh 6,000 lbs. I can easily see a creature closer to humanoid proportions, and animated by magic rather than bulky gears an whatnot, coming in closer to two tons.

And even if its not entirely composed of adamantine, its the business end that counts, right? An adamantine tipped arrow is mostly wood after all.

Huge adamantine fullplate only weighs 250 lbs, which means there's enough adamantine in that 4000 pounds to cover the golem head to toe.

Having the the fist be made of adamantine would make it logical, but its not stated anywhere.

Here is what I think should have happened

"Even though the admantine golem is not entirely made of adamantine it's natural weapons still overcome DR and hardness as if they were a manufactured admantine weapon."

That nonsense about there only being enough for one golem on a planet(Golarion) should also have never been printed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
fearcypher wrote:


So if Tar-Baphon decides to spend a few years summoning hundreds of Celestial dogs everyday would you say he is a good character?

If that is all he does then yes, but I am sure that for every spell he cast, he does enough evil to keep him on the evil alignment scale.

On the flipside, if a good caster spends a lot of time casting evil spells he can keep his good alignment if he also does good deeds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:

It is a serious question because it is a major sign of an overly controlling GM. And they do not want players, they want an audience to ooh and ah at their amazing story.

Also, what makes you, or any other GM, more immune to metagaming than the players? Don't say that it is not metagaming when the GM does it, because that is a bald faced lie. GMs may not do it with skill checks, but they do it with PC abilities and tactics.

The GM's role is not the same as the players so he is not as limited. I really don't see it as metagaming. As a GM you have to adjust the adventures at times. As an example I have GM'd for less than optimal parties. Had I ran the adventure as written it would have led to TPK's. I have also ran for superoptimized PC's who could have each had a good chance to solo the BBEG.

There are times a GM can give NPC's knowledge they should not have. That is different from adjusting the game for the good of the group.

While I tend to let the PC's have their own rolls I don't assume that every GM who rolls some dice for the players is trying to control them. Some people will metagame. Others will not. As an example, a disease does not show its effects until the next day after the save. If you roll a low number vs a disease carrying monster you should not be looking to cure a disease. The character does not know he failed the save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Buckeye wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Silence stops a witch from cackling. If you can't here the witch cackle (because you or the witch is in an area of silence) then it doesn't work.

Also, getting more than 30ft away from the witch will get you out of range.

Thanks folks.. Couple thoughts.. Is there an erata or rule someplace that states silence blocks a witch's supernatural effects? My player states Supernatural isn't impacted by silence.

As for bashing the living pulp out of it, I agree if you can get to it with the invisibility, flying etc. d8 arrows aren't all that sexy. ;)

Silence stops cackle. It doesn't stop all of the witch hexes. There is an FAQ on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would reflavor the spider as some type of abberation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Witches just like other poor BAB casters tend to have defenses vs being bashed, and things can go south if the bashing takes too long.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The PC's shouldn't know they got a 1 on the dice roll. I think if you keep rolling until you get a high roll it is metagaming.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Something to consider is that the Pathfinder RPG does not have a mechanic that rewards sub-optimal play. If your backstory says you're scared of zombies, then the first encounter against zombies, you cower for a round as your action (by choice), there's nothing that rewards you for this, other than positive reinforcement from your GM or fellow players. The system itself though will punish you, by giving the zombies two turns. Instead, the system's reward would be for violating your backstory and just attacking the zombies.

I would argue that if you're looking for a mechanical reward for all role-playing decisions that you make for your character, you're likely a roll-player.

If the negative stigma around the term roll-player can be reduced, then people who are roll-players won't feel the need to not claim the title.

Which will ultimately make it much easier to form cohesive groups and have successful campaigns.

I would argue that making bad decision in combat is actually poor roleplaying if you know better, and that is a hinderance to good gaming unless the GM is holding your hand.

I would also argue that my above statement does not promote good will between board members, but neither does calling someone a roll-player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:

Tanglefoot bags, hah! Yea enough chucked at it will be a good low level way to slow it down. Better if you get minions in there to hurl them.

Try UMD/Spellcraft of Disjunction?

At the level the party is at they can use a scroll directly without UMD if they can get their hands on a scroll. The dragon is not likely to fail the save though since scrolls have the lowest possible DC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rabindranath72 wrote:
137ben wrote:


As Sissyl pointed out, though, this particular website is not the best place to find other 3.0 players. It's Paizo's website, so it naturally attracts Paizo fanboys, and this website is likely to have an unusually high representation of Paizo-worshipers and out-right hostility to anyone who isn't a Paizo-fanatic. Most of the Paizo-fanatics who liked 3.0 are now playing Pathfinder.
Please understand I am not trying to recruit players, or engage in edition wars. Given that 3.0 is now a legacy game, I was interested in the opinions of those playing the "2nd reincarnation" of the game, or of people who uses PF material in their 3.0 games (like I tend to do.) If the post should prove offensive I'll ask the moderators to close it.

You're ok. He probably read the title and thought you were trying to recruit people.

I thought the same thing until I read your posts.

With that being said there is a recruitment area for any game system here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
James Risner wrote:

@Covent, with your criteria I can't provide a reference that isn't a 3.5 FAQ (which exists) or a pathfinder officially "unofficial" post.

So let's call it table variance.

This is all a new concept to me as well. I wouldn't mind seeing those references, if they're all you've got.

It feels less like "table variance" and more like "houserules". Nothing wrong with that, of course.

Here is the FAQ for nightsticks.

3.5 FAQ wrote:


Can a character benefit from multiple nightsticks (Libris
Mortis 78) or multiple orange prism ioun stones (DMG 260)?
Neither of these items provides extra bonuses in multiples.
The rules for stacking (Rules Compendium 21) do not allow
untyped bonuses to stack if they come from the same source.
However, this does lead to an interesting question: Could a
character use a nightstick and then grab a second nightstick to
use? The Sage recommends Dungeon Masters limit the
nightstick and similar items to one a day.

He is basically saying no to the ioun stones, and a suggestion for the night sticks.

The night sticks could be used for shenanigans in 3.5, but there they were not covered under the stacking rules so he could not outright say no. Well he could have, but there is no rule support for it

edit: I just read the nightstick again. I was thinking of the wrong item. With the nightstick it can be read as
1. "the nightstick is giving you 4 more uses of turn undead"
or
2. "the nightstick is raising your daily total by 4".

If you use interpretation 1 then several nightsticks could be used, but under interpretation 2 then only one should be allowed.

So that is ambiguous.

A better example is is carrying more than one rod of ________ metamagic which do the exact same thing. I see no reason why that would not work.


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

@Covent, with your criteria I can't provide a reference that isn't a 3.5 FAQ (which exists) or a pathfinder officially "unofficial" post.

So let's call it table variance.

Since you view each as separate. What happens with 10 Orange Ioun Stones on one character?

That is not the same thing. At that point you are getting into stacking rules from the same source.

Now if each Orange Ioun Stone was 1/day then yes you could do it, but that is different from an ongoing condition which is what the actual version of ioun stone give.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
rabindranath72 wrote:

You have a good point about the shifting of policy from adventures to rules. I say "shifting" because I recall the main motivation which convinced my group to move to 3e, was Peter Adkison stating that "there won't be any additional rules beyond the three core books, but only setting and adventures"; his idea was essentially to return to the early 1e days. We know that the late 1e stuff was published essentially to save TSR's bacon; and similarly, although the introduction of 3.5, (as stated by Monte Cook) was planned from the start only to fix errata, it actually became a big overhaul (and with all the subtle changes, it's difficult NOT to think they did it to get people to buy the books all over again.)

When Adkison left WotC, apparently the people who took the reins didn't quite agree with his view.

It's kind of been the prevailing theory since at least 2E that the system will die if they don't constantly pump out rules supplements. WotC subscribed to the theory throughout 3.5 and 4E, and Paizo still does.

5E seems to have rather conclusively proved the theory wrong, however.

Pathfinder gets most of its money from adventures. It seems as if 5E is trying the same thing. Paizo gives us options because we keep asking for them also, not as a prevailing strategy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The newest version is assumed to take precedent.


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

What action type do I need to close my eyes, and what action is it to open them?

This matters for the purpose of mirror image and the Blinded Blade Style feat progression. It may also matter in other cases such as gaze attacks.

The bolded question is what is being FAQ'd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for encumberance I dont really do hard tracking, but if you dump strength(9 as an example) you shouldn't be carrying 70lbs of gear. So far nobody has taken advantage of me not tracking it down to the pound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules never really intended to use attacks as a beneficial thing so it is outside of the scope of the written rules. More than likely Paizo will leave it up to the GM, but I figured it was worth a shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always saw it as being overpriced, especially since it doesn't stack with other DR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

That is right. I remember because I thought it was dumb that binding a good creature was a good act after a discussion on the boards.

Paladin: What is that creature with wings?

Good Sorcerer: It is an angel I just captured. I will hold him here until he decides to cooperate with us.

To reiterate: The spell to summon an angel is Good. The spell to keep it captive is Evil. So the magic all cancels out alignment-wise.

It's what you do with it that really counts. And kidnapping angels and 'holding them until they cooperate' definitely sounds Evil to me.

True. The circle of protection from <insert alignment> spell is the opposite of the alignment you are using to keep the creature trapped.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't think binding an evil creature is an evil by the rules. Torturing them however is another story.
It is. Since Ultimate Intrigue made casting a spell with the evil descriptor an evil act, and using planar binding on a fiend gives the spell the evil descriptor.

That is right. I remember because I thought it was dumb that binding a good creature was a good act after a discussion on the boards.

Paladin: What is that creature with wings?

Good Sorcerer: It is an angel I just captured. I will hold him here until he decides to cooperate with us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't think binding an evil creature is an evil by the rules. Torturing them however is another story. Torture is not listed in the rules as evil, but if Paizo had an "evil acts" book that would probably be in it.

Actually it is an evil act.

Heal Skill wrote:
Although the Heal skill is traditionally used to aid the injured, treat poison and disease, and otherwise provide comfort to the wounded and infirm, the anatomic knowledge granted by this skill allows it to be used for far more nefarious uses as well. Any character may attempt to torture a living target with physical and mental anguish; the results of such torture can be determined with a Heal check. Note that torture is an evil act, and as such may have repercussions on good characters (especially paladins, clerics, and others that must abide by the precepts of their alignment).

That quote is from Villians: Rebirth, which is a 3rd party supplement.

PS: I agree that it is evil. My point before was that no official rules support it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think binding an evil creature is an evil by the rules. Torturing them however is another story. Torture is not listed in the rules as evil, but if Paizo had an "evil acts" book that would probably be in it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I like bringing them back at the same level as the party. Otherwise it makes the party weaker, and if they are at a lower level it makes it harder to survive individually also. It could start a downward spiral.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

How do the mechanics of the call truce feat improve the base ability to call truce that has no mechanics listed with it?

At best, its changing calling for a truce to "You can't do it" and then simultaneously providing the ability to do it. Not a good "clarification" to the rules either.

I think the feat is more for people who go strictly by the book.

Player: Can I ask them to surrender. There is no way they will win.

GM: I would allow it, but the book says it would take one minute of you talking to them. Sorry, you must fight on.

Personally, I would just allow the NPC's to surrender if they were losing badly enough. A diplomacy check would not even be needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to see the Lords of the Nine(at least some of them). If I only get one I want it to be Mephistopheles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you break the paladin code in any way it seems to make you lose your powers if you are going by the rules.

As a GM I would say you count as alignment ____ for effects such as spells, detection and so on, but you are still really LF. However, that is me being nice, not the actual rule.

Basically, the vigilante class does not work well mechanically with paladins unless the GM helps him out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right now it is Carrion Crown and CotCT. I can't choose.


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

If a player falls and goes through a threatened square or if he has the drag combat maneuver performed on him by a friendly character through a threatened square does either one of these provoke an attack of opportunity?


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Different groups handle this differently. Some get mad(OOC) and not just IC.

Killing your current character won't stop you from doing it again, so it's better to discuss the social norms for this group.

Personally stealing from a bunch of people whose special talents revolve around ending life is a bad idea. If you can't afford the gems then ask the party can you just owe them. That way next time they just take the cost out of your share of the loot.

PS: Kender-like activities don't go over well with many groups.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the feat says "as a one handed weapon" that means you can treat it as if it is a one handed weapon to include holding it in your off-hand. It would take a lot of linguistical gymnastics to interpret "as a one-handed weapon" to mean anything more than that.

This FAQ also backs up everyone saying it can be weilded in the off-hand.

Quote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

Do you need for the text("so on") to specifically say "for everything a one-handed weapon counts for" instead? <----I am not being sarcastic/snarky/other negative term. This is a serious question.

edit: for clarification


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This makes no sense to only have on apple products when it could be on Android also.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:


As I play Paladins, the point is to do good, and to use lawful means as the preferred method of doing so. Law and Good are not equal - Law supports Good, and if the means genuinely interfere with the end, then and only then should the means be reconsidered. The redone oaths were a direct reflection of that.

It's a loaded phrase that really has no definition.

True, but we all know what it means. Rather than telling him to not express the idea I would give him a better way to say it that was not so negative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thax are you implying that a huge creature can not TWF with greatswords made for medium-sized creatures?

Such a weapon would be treated as a light weapon for a huge creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Warrior wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't think the rules cover it.

What? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/sense-motive

If an NPC is lying, it's a free, passive SM roll vs. Bluff.

If you're trying to get a hunch about a situation, determine if someone is enchanted, or interpret a secret message, it takes an action (usually 1 minute per the rules).

I already knew where to find the skill just like everyone else does.

Where is the rules text that says it's passive?
I will rephrase that. Could you quote the rules text that says it's passive?
Ok, I don't think this should matter. You should be using Sense Motive in any and every social interaction you take part in. It's also considered pseudo-standard practice to declare certain actions the norm in certain situations. I.E. if you aren't being chased by something, the party Rogue always takes 10 to stealth up to each door, performs a Perception check to listen at each door, and then checks out the lock after making a perception check to find any traps. I KNOW 3.5 had this in their DMG (not as a rule, but as a strong suggestion), and while I don't recall seeing anything on it in the CRB, I think it might have been assumed here. Thus, Sense Motive would be active, if it wasn't considered 'good practice' to let your GM know that you want to use it as often as you can. They're the ones who are going to be rolling it anyway.

Stealth slows the party down so many people only stealth at certain times. Basically there is no pseudo-standard for every group that I know of. Every group and sometimes every campaign for the same group has different standard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't think the rules cover it.

What? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/sense-motive

If an NPC is lying, it's a free, passive SM roll vs. Bluff.

If you're trying to get a hunch about a situation, determine if someone is enchanted, or interpret a secret message, it takes an action (usually 1 minute per the rules).

I already knew where to find the skill just like everyone else does.

Where is the rules text that says it's passive?
I will rephrase that. Could you quote the rules text that says it's passive?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Players always ask for it so I let it be something they ask for if the NPC is directly lying to them.

If the NPC is trying to pretend to be confident when he is really scared I ask them to roll the dice.

Unless Ultimate Intrigue has some clarification I don't think the rules cover it. What I typed above was just how I do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is really something that needs to be fixed(clarified).

I think we should FAQ the opening post so the devs add it to the other FAQ(with 110+clicks).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
LostSoul wrote:

Good Evening,

What would the founders of the Human race look like from a stat line point of view? What CR should they be? Spell like abilities? Supernatural? Just wanted some input. Going to have some characters come in at some point that were petrified by a medusa, &/or some vampires or wights.

Thanks for the input.

Soul

Standard Azlanti modifiers.... Human with a +2 to every stat. As already been described.

And you're wrong in another area... the founders of the Human race were aboleths.

That comment is about 6 years old. The OP likely won't even see it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Making the items inaccessible is also an option, and depending on the situation can be more harsh than having to fix the bag later on, especially if it is an item they could need relatively soon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jifd wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The bag contains an extradimensional space. I would say that if the bag(no longer magical) can no longer support the items in it, then the items fall out, and the bag ruptures.
So you suggesting destroying the bag, right? It seems fair.

Yes, if a nonmagical bag of the same size could not hold the items.

What the players can do is get a make whole or greater make whole spell to fix it. However that option might not be immediately availible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The bag contains an extradimensional space. I would say that if the bag(no longer magical) can no longer support the items in it, then the items fall out, and the bag ruptures.

There is no real rule, but that is how I would do it. That way there is still a penalty, but the players don't lose everything in the bag.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:


What is the issue is that, by your comments about whims above, you still seem to think changing things makes for a worse game. I see it as variety.

Since I seem to be the Ashiel Whisper today-->There is no bone to pick with variety, but as was stated before unnanounced major changes, and things that deviate too far outside the norm are an issue.

As an example of things outside the norm and that may be "whimsey:

A GM may want to make magic a mysterious and dangerous thing so the GM may have a rule that says "Every time you cast a spell there is a 2% chance you suffer a side effect. Roll a d20 to determine what bad thing happens". One of these bad things could be you aging 20 years.

I am going to take a guess here, but in the example in the above paragraph Ashiel would like for the GM to mention this variant magic to the group vs just saying, "this is how it will be for this game".

That is likely part of the "whimsey" factor.

PS: As an aside since Ashiel had admittedly run a game well outside of the norms <---Part of the reason I don't think Ashiel has a problem with variety.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There really is no hard rule for this.
The Solar while a good creature may feel like if he helps out it could prompt this to happen more so he might just do nothing at least until you convince it to help. If you fail to convince it then it can stand by until the spell's duration wears off.
He could have actually been doing something more important when he was called, at least in his opinion.

What I would do is to call the creature in advance and try to convince it to help the next time you call it. The spell does say you can name a specific creature vs just calling out to a creature type. It shouldn't even require knowing the true name.

That way when you use Gate during the battle you will know it will cooperate. That assume you get it to help you the first time you call it.

1 to 50 of 2,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.