|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That is how I read it also. You get 2 "instead of" 1, not 2+1.
That is fair. :)Yeah, I agree that burrowing and/or Earthglide needs an update.
I haven't always taken his word. When he want to apply the Intensified Spell feat to magic missile or scorching ray I disagreed with that.
I don't think we are going to agree on this one, but out of curiosity how would you expect a party to defeat an elemental(s) in this case without strikeback under your interpretation of how the rule works?
We can assume the party is level 7 or lower for this question.
4. Either there is a clear point to the surface or there is not. If he is below ground there is cover. If he is above ground there is no cover. There is no rule saying you have to above ground to interact with it, but the rules do state that you attack beyond cover.
In my old post I said
The earth element still can't attack through the ground so it does not matter. I will ask this question again though. If the elemental could stay submerged and attack freely then why would it ever come to the surface?"
I was not disagreeing with what I said today.
I also said "Yes really. Ignoring cover is not a small thing. If there is no specific rule rule that says you can break a general rule then you can't do it. There is no rule saying the earth elemental can break the rule of bypassing cover."
Some of my later quotes were written to make a point that if tremorsense and earthglide worked a certain way this would be possible.
However if I changed my mind in another thread feel free to provide a link.
Earthglide does not allow you to punch through the earth, and that would be needed to hit someone in an adjacent square while they are beneath the ground. If it worked like that earth elementals could stay below the ground, and attack those who are above ground.
It allows for them to travel through the Earth, nothing more.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
You know it takes like three rounds of concentration to locate an aura with Detect Magic. How frequently are these opponents casting detect magic to locate a rogue?
It's 3 rounds, but still only one casting. It just has to be maintained, not that it matters whether it is cast 3 times or maintained. Most of the time when GM's complain about this spell it is because it found magical traps.
Coffee Demon wrote:
Bringing up that rule changes nothing. That "rule" just says the GM can change stuff. Generally people are talking about the game at a base level so eveyrone is on the same page. Anyone can say "but rule 0", but at that point we could be playing entirely different games and still calling them pathfinder.
I want to know if you really needed for me to explain that or if you were just trying to be argumentive?
Broken is subjective, and in most cases the person is speaking of "their opinion" whether they like it or not.
As to the water question, even if the GM say no magic to make water until level X, the players will just max out survival and use aid another checks to make it a nonfactor.
Strictly by the words in the book it doesn't say you can stop after the 2nd attack, but no GM has ever enforced that as an actual rule because the book assumes that you want to keep attacking. However if a ruling was made I am sure the PDT is not going to say you must keep attacking.
PS: Also consider looking for a new GM.
Golem are creatures, not objects even though they are created, and most wizards don't care about golems and their immunity to magic. Conjuration spells still jack them up, and they tend to have crappy will saves. Glitterdust pretty much takes care of them or the caster can summon call something to take care of it.
That entire section is on retraining and none of it applies to gains via normal leveling up.
That is why it says the new language does not count against the normal limit, and I quote.
The new language does not count toward your maximum number of languages (racial languages + bonus languages from Intelligence + Linguistics ranks). You can train this way only a number of times equal to 1 + your Intelligence bonus.
That matters because normally the amount of languages you can have is based on racial languages+bonus languages from Intelligence+linguistic ranks.
As an example if I am an Elf, I start off with Elven and Common. If I have a +3 int modifier I could also add Celestial, Draconic, and Gnoll.
However with the training in Ultimate Campaign I could learn languages without putting a skill rank into linguistics, but I could only get the "free" languages a number of times equal to my int bonus +1
So I could get training 4 more times to add Abyssal, Daemonic, Infernal, and Giant without spending additional ranks to do so, assuming the GM allows the training rules in Ultimate Campaign, and I had access to someone who could speak the language.
Third Mind wrote:
I use different minis even if they are the same creature.
As a player I have always had someone post guard because you never know when Team Evil might show up.
As a GM I don't "make" the players do anything, but depending on the situation they may be disturbed. So far nobody has ever tried to spend the night sleeping without at least one person on guard unless they were in a demiplane.
I believe the current rules/opinion of the forum is that you can't have a character who fights with more than 2 arms. There are certain monsters that can do it, but you run into all sorts of rules and balance issues if you attempt to let a PC use Multi-Weapon Fighting.
That is not true at all. In these debates before evidence has been provided that it is possible to fight with multiple weapons. The opinion is more that this should not be available to PC, but that is an issue of balance, not rules.
To answer the OP shield bonuses do not stack so you can have 80 shields and your shield bonus to AC will not stack because shield bonuses don't stack.
If one wants to be pedantic the item casting the spell means you still get to do stuff, but we know that is not going to fly if the PDT steps in. The items is the one supplying the spell, and you are still going to get stuck with the penalties associated with it. You do not qualify for.
Staves have a similar affect. They allow the user to activate a spell, while not being the actual caster, and he is still stuck with any penalties such as losing his movement after using DD. He can not however use the staff to qualify for any feats since he is only activating an item.
Otherwise someone(fighter, rogue, etc) could get a staff with arcane and divine spells and qualify for Mystic Theurge(Spells: Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells.)
False. Many GM's either have houserules or they run the game in such a way as to reduce/negate the imbalance. That does not mean the problem does not exist. If you want to subscribe to the logic that "the GM can fix it" then nothing is broken, and everything should be allowed because the GM can account for in his own games. However for people prefer not to or don't have the time to fix things, these problems show up quiet often.
People also buy the books because they don't have time to houserule everything and they assume Paizo has mostly pre-balanced it for them.
In addition you see some people avoid the rogue because of it's problem so by that logic alone, which I also think is not a good reason*, you can argue it is not balanced.
*I am referring to idea that some people avoid it is not sufficient to say it is broken and likewise some people playing the class is not sufficient to say the class is ok.
Thanks for the answers. The PC in question is a Shaman, so would that be WIS vs. the opposing spell-casters applicable attribute? Or using CHA anyway?
It's still cha vs cha. It doesn't default to your main casting stat so if the other caster is cha-based then he has an advantage in most cases.
Kurald Galain wrote:
The witch having something else they could do, does not make EE poor.That is like saying the barbarian could have hit for 900 points of damage so this 450 points of damage is garbage.
RD is not fond of houserules.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
I don't link them at all and I don't restrict anything as long as a player's background story is not made to get a mechanical advantage.
Levels are an OOC mechanic so I have no problem with an level 5 NPC who has fought in a war campaign being part of a PC(level 1) backstory, when they both had the exact same experiences in combat.
Rolling does nothing to stop min-mixing. That myth needs to be taken out back and shot. It stops a player deliberately choosing how much he can sacrifce in one stat to be good at another, but nothing stops him from putting the best stats where he needs them, while putting the less useful stats in an area that does not hurt as much. Nothing also stops him from putting the best combination of choices(class, magic items, feats, etc) together
Das Bier wrote:
Intensify raises the damage cap and only the damage dice/level cap. Things like fireball have a damage dice per caster level cap. Scorching ray has nothing resembling damage dice per caster level.
Scorching ray just like the other spell has a "projectile/attack" per level cap, just like magic missile does.
1d6 points of fire damage per caster level
scorching ray wrote:
one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd
<---more rays based on CL
magic missile wrote:
or every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile
<----more missiles based on CL
intensified spell wrote:
Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels
<--this really needs to be written better. Is that an FAQ on it, but it does call out damage dice, and not projectiles, rays, and so on.
Yeah I disagree with parts of it, but I think we agree for about 75% of what you wrote.
Like someone said it is really a magic/non-magic disparity, but for the purpose of this comment I will use caster/martial because I am so use to typing it.
I don't think casters outshine martials at most tables, but I do think they have the ability to do so. It just doesn't happen for several reasons, one of which is that it is inefficent to spend spells on something if a someone else can do it with a skill. This of course assumes the problem can be solved with a skill.
Another part of the disparity is that martials can be replaced by casters. Before anyone gets too bent out of shape, I am not saying a wizard, druid, or a cleric is going to match a fighter or a barbarian in DPR vs a single target, but between their ability to fight and their spells they tend to take care of combat with less trouble. The fact that they don't focus on hit point damage as much doesn't change the fact that they make life easier.
I agree with the rest of your write up, until you get to your ideas on how to fit it. I don't think there is an across the board solution(s) that will work. It will vary by table, except for number 10, which is basically "talk to your group".
The Sword wrote:
What is clear is that the expectation of a lot of the posters here is far, far away from the typical adventure path. Based on how some people are describing encounters it is almost as if they are playing another game. It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.
Not really.I actually described a scenario where a caster-light party got their butts kicked, and how things would have been different if I had a caster instead.
I don't know if you missed, forgot it, don't believe the account, or if you think it was a corner case so it doesn't count.
Personally, as a GM if I run a monster it plays "keep away" to avoid the party ganging up on. I know people can pull out ranged weapons, but unless they are focused on ranged attacks or have spells the fight will be a lot more difficult.
MC/D doesn't mean martials can't do anything at all. It means there are things they can't do, and often when they can do them they may have a more difficult time getting them done. <--People also take comments like these to mean "martials are helpless and can not do anything", even though that is not what was said.
Another issue with topics like this some is that people will use words like "useless" and those get all the attention instead of more objective post which give martials some credit but also outline their limitations.
Perhaps I am missaplying the term Fiat. I mean "changing/ignoring the rules of the game for a narritive point." Its something that I support, and if the term seemed condescending then I apologize.
GM Fiat much like rules lawyering is not neccessarily a negative thing, but it can be a bad thing depending upon how it is used.It is basically used in the forums(normally) for when the GM makes up things on the spot.<---Not always a bad thing.
GM Fiat Positive: The players are stumped on how to bypass a certain obstacle. Maybe you thought player X could do it, but his character does not have the ability so you call for an intelligence or wisdom check, and then make up some new way to pass the obstacle that nobody had thought of, and that by the rules is probably not supposed to work.
GM Fiat Negative: The party is in a boss fight, and things are dicey. Player suddenly remembers he has ability X, which won't insta-win the fight, but it will significantly improve the party's chances. However you don't want that player to save the day because ___ so you decide the monster is immune to that ability. Then the player has another, which while not as good as the first idea is still a solid idea. However, it still involves that player's character largely contributing to the party's success, and you shut that idea down also, even though it would work by the rules.
Another one I see here from time to time is then GM's suddenly decide rogues can only sneak attack once per round or that it can not affect certain creatures, and this was never mentioned in advance.
GM 1990 wrote:
Some people just can't stand adversity I guess. Losing the ability to get the most out of your class features is just part of the game. As an example rogues can't sneak attack everything. Paladins can't smite everything. Magic won't always work whether it be by SR or some other reason.
Okay, now I'm having a beef with this proposed scenario. Who the hell teleports onto solid ground? You teleport into the air and open the bag of holding with your small army inside of it. I mean you can land before opening the bags but the teleporting thing should be a midair thing at least 150 feet above the place you're invading to avoid getting spotted by things with true seeing.
You have to end a teleporation affect on something that can support you.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
Nobody should have a problem with a wizard(npc) using the spell to stop the pc wizard, but most of the time in these post the poster will, as I said before, "try to stop every idea the player/caster thinks of", which is not realistic for reasons I already described.
Teleport failing is not a problem, as long as the GM is not just actively aiming to shut the one player/class down. <----I hope that makes things clear.
As a GM I have had caster's whose primary purpose in combat was to counterspell the party casters, but it's not something I do for every fight.
Also if a player favors spell ___, and some bad guys escape they will let the higher ups know, so when the players get to a boss he might be very resilient or immune to that spell.
I'm not seeing a downside and I am sure vampires and liches have entertained guest which involved eating and drinking.
As for the appearance, the lich would have craft wondrous item, and the ability to research new spells. Between the two he could hide or remove the normal lich appearance pretty well.
The worst part is seeing family and friends die over and over again, but people are resilient.
Das Bier wrote:
Not having spells makes the party weaker, and it you are a druid,or other fighty caster then you might still be able to give the melees a run for their money.For the 2nd time in this discussion➡➡full arcane casters are not the only ones stepping on people's toes.
I don't think certain people anticipate having adventurers meddle in their affairs so they don't think to take certain measures, and if adventurers are so common that they are always in everyone's business* then the common measures to stop them would be known so the players would likely not use the common methods and it would be almost impossible to stop every idea a player can think of without it coming across as railroading.
You can enter a castle via teleport. You can charm you way in. You call planar monsters to assault the place for you. With the right spells you can just destroy the place if you can't find a way in. I could keep going, but my point is for the NPC to have a perfect counter to whatever the player came up with as a commonly occurring theme is going to look very suspicious.
*If this were to happen laws would likely be in place to stop them from doing so, and to stop the profession as whole.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Thanks. I had forgotten about this.
I have a rules question for you.
Let's say someone cast a fog spell centered on themselves. Let's also say the caster can see through this fog. Now the rules say the opponent on the outside has no way to bypass the fog cloud's statement that vision is blocked beyond 5 feet. This means the caster can not be seen.
If the caster whose sight is uninhibited were to make a ranged attack against the person who can not see him, would the opponent who can not see the caster lose dex to AC or would you say that even if you can not see someone you still get dex to AC.
I am asking because someone believes that "not being able to see someone" is not enough, and they did say dev input would matter.
DC 10 is a "common(anyone can make it)" check. Commoners are not finding water in the dessert in most games. That would pretty much kill the idea of the dessert ever being dangerous, which is obviously the idea the GM was trying to represent. And none of these examples to anything to disprove his point. Of course a GM can just keep throwing more obstacles in the party's way but it becomes obviously pretty quickly.
The Sword wrote:
He still won't know every spell or ability that is on everyone's character sheet. He may also not be used to more experienced players who are used to these things and are able to get around them.
And as the party levels up it gets more difficult to account for every little thing they can do, and that is before they start to get creative.
How the game should be played is by whatever method fits that group the best.
Honestly I didn't read past this line, but the rules do state this in a round about manner though.
Basically, if you are hidden(aka they fail the perception check to notice you) your opponent is not able to react to your attacks. If the opponent can not react they lose Dex to AC.
It is more of an "If A is true then B is true" type of thing.
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly.
So if you do not notice the hiding opponent then you can not react.
If you can not react you lose dex to AC.
Once again in the combat chapter.
With all of that aside and for anyone read if you are in the mist, and someone can not see you then they lose dex to AC against you.
Is someone trying to make the argument that you retain dex to AC when you can use your eyes to see the enemy?
PS: Common sense says we are assuming things like blindsight, blind fight, or other special abilities are not in play. Don't be that guy.
GM 1990 wrote:
By normal I meant no GM modifications to make it more difficult.
edit: In a later chapter(s) there are some hard hitting bad guys so that might be an issue for the ninja.
GM 1990 wrote:
If is is the normal AP, and you guys optimized decently well you can be ok, assuming you stay with the wizard.