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

deusvult's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 796 posts (953 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Taldor

Set wrote:
Rathendar wrote:

I am curious now, what positive energy effect deals damage to the living?

(not snarky!)

Alignment Channel and Elemental Channel allow you to harm living outsiders (of the designated alignment subtype or elemental subtype) with positive energy, or even to heal living outsiders with negative energy.

Exposure to the positive energy plane can also harm or kill living creatures.

In 3.5, the Ravid was a monster that harmed living creatures it struck by using positive energy. Just as any medicine, in high enough doses, is toxic, it seems that positive energy can be quite dangerous. (And, given that it encourages life and growth, it would seem an ideal way to cause tumorous growths or deformities, cause infestations and parasites to reproduce out of control in a living host, greatly accelerate the effects of disease, etc.)

QFT.

There are also other effects out there that are "RAI" positive energy that damage the living, such as Holy weapon enhancement and the Searing Light spell. Lay on Hands wasn't listed in the CRB as a positive energy effect, and I'd like to think it only became Positive Energy in the FAQ because I pointed out it technically wasn't typed that way, some other Paladin powers like Smite could also be typed as Positive Energy, and they very much don't heal Dragons and Devils and such.

Taldor

the thread in TL;DR:

Is Negative Energy a force that heals or damages its target based upon whether the target is living or undead?

Or

Is Negative Energy a descriptor for damage and healing, where many (but not all) Negative Energy effects have a reverse effect clause in their rules for when affecting undead?

Seems like the former is what most posters support, based basically upon the undead creature type rule saying they "can be healed by negative energy" actually meaning "will be healed by all forms of negative energy".

Obviously, I disagree, and point out that there is no universal "energy type" rule for Negative Energy so I sincerely question the logic in automatically turning damage in the form of negative energy into healing in the form of negative energy for undead.

Taldor ***

Undone wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Well, the devs have said that the techy feel was frontloaded and most of the rest of season six won't be all Expedition to Barrier Peaks.

I'm guessing that's probably true, but here's another way to look at it.

Season Five was Year of the Demon. Were you fighting demons every adventure in season 5?

Yes. More or less every adventure had some demons or evil outsiders associated with them.

Even those without them heavily referenced them.

Well, I suppose it depends on which adventures you've played as to whether "all" of season five had demons. I can think of a few that had no evil outsiders at all. I can think of some that had evil outsiders, but no actual demons.

I'm betting that since demons are pretty schlock for fantasy, and so much of the plot of season 5 revolved around the World Wound, there was more demonic encounters and story in season 5 than there will be numerian tech in season 6.

The overarching plot of Season 6 appears to be tracking down the lost pieces of the Sky Key. They can be anywhere, and probably most if not all will be outside Numeria. Finding macguffins that have some technobabble backstory doesn't mean that they have to be defended by techno-bad guys.

Taldor ***

The complaints about unconventional scenarios like Assault on the Wound and Library of the Lion is evidence of the hazards involved in writing adventures that deviate from what's come to be expected as the vanilla recipe for a PFS scenario.

Personally, I think lots of players don't like being outside their comfort zones. Since we generally can't replay adventures anyway, I do appreciate the off-the-wall scenarios now and again. There are certainly those who disagree, whether they are a majority or merely vocal (or both).

Taldor ***

Well, the devs have said that the techy feel was frontloaded and most of the rest of season six won't be all Expedition to Barrier Peaks.

I'm guessing that's probably true, but here's another way to look at it.

Season Five was Year of the Demon. Were you fighting demons every adventure in season 5?

Taldor

The Advanced Class guide has a spell that directly applies to the crux of my question:

Advanced Class Guide, Spell "Stricken Heart" wrote:


Stricken Heart Necromancy [death]
This spell covers your hand with a writhing black aura. As part of casting the spell, you can make a melee touch attack that deals 2d6 points of negative energy damage and causes the target to be staggered for one round. If the attack is a critical hit, the target is staggered for 1 minute instead. Creatures immune to precision damage are immune to this staggered effect.

Of critical importance is that this spell, like inflict spells, deals negative energy damage but unlike inflict this damage is without a special rule for the damage being healing instead on undead.

So, if one casts Stricken Heart on an undead, what happens? I'd argue that exactly nothing happens. If the negative energy damage is converted to healing instead.. that's not only adding rules that are not there, that's potentially breaking rules that say the undead are immune to death effects.

So, what happens if the spell is cast on a Dhampir or a Cleric with the Death Domain? They're not immune to death effects, but I still don't see any reason they'd be healed by the negative energy damage*. To say they would be is to insert rules that are not already there.

*= this is the crux. "Negative Energy Damage" is not the same thing as Negative Energy. Instead I am saying the rules say that it is Damage that happens to have the Negative Energy descriptor.

Taldor ***

I ran this at a con- a couple of thoughts and observations I had:

The players thought it was a horrible idea to leave the book unattended in the vault and insisted on carrying it around with them. I began to churn ideas about wtf to do with the siege. Would the league agents even be homing in on the vault if the book's not there? Would there be a siege at all or would the hammer just come down on the PCs directly wherever they are when zero hour strikes? Luckily when they rescued Rand I had him boggle at their insistence of carrying it around and he convinced them the security of the secret vault was superior to the security of the anonyminity of their backpack.

The players also discussed "why don't we just teleport back to Absolom with the book and our stupid agent now that we've rescued him?" Luckily I didn't have to resort to nudging them as grand lodge and exchange players correctly divined that they weren't gonna get their faction mission boons if they just let the league run willy nilly over the export facility (and the secret pathfinder lodge therein). If it wasn't for the self-interest lobby of those players however, I do fear that they would have just cheated themselves of most of the adventure. Had it happened and they blamed the story for not being as smart as they were, I would have certainly pointed out their initial mission briefing did explicitly tell them to defend the place. But I wasn't going to remind them of that order in game.

There was some grief after the game as players complained that there wasn't enough time to do everything. I had been gleefully suggesting that they split up during the game, knowing all the while they'd disregard any suggestion from a giggly GM that was "for their own good". I got to give them an "I told you so..." to answer their complaint on that. I rather like that there are a few adventures out there like this one and others such as

Spoiler:
Library of the Lion
that reward the players for splitting up to accomplish the mission. Make that "never split the party" rule less concrete, and things get interesting!

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With apologies to AC/DC, this is the song I'm having the bard singing to kick off the siege:

Thunder, thunder, thunder, thunder
You’ll be caught
In the middle of a petty plot
You’ll look around
And you’ll know there is no turning back
When you steal
From those better than you-u
And you’ll know
There’ll be no help, no help for you-u
Sound of the drums
Will beat in your heart
The thunder of guns
Will tear you apart
You've been
Thunderstruck

That song can sound pretty impressive on a stringed intstument :D

Taldor

Eltacolibre wrote:

heh not like it matters, much the dc to use it in combat is so high and the fact it would require at least 1 minute (10 rounds) you are better off using your standard actions to fight.

In 3.5 there was an option to do a rushed check at -20 diplomacy but it has been removed from the pfrpg...so yeah you have to talk with the enemy for 1 minute to even do anything. While they can freely just attack you and use their full round actions for something else.

There are some archetypes/class features which allow you to use diplomacy in one round but right now, I'm forgetting what they are.

One can use Intimidate rather than Diplomacy as a standard action to force an attitude adjustment, so that's possible in combat. (but comes with the drawback about reverting attitude) Not sure why I thought that. It's not true.

There's also Rogue talents that make in-combat and/or diplomacy as a standard action possible, as well. But "everyone knows" rogues suck and thus aren't relevant to a discussion about what's broken in a good way :)

Taldor

Diplomacy still takes a minute to attempt to use.

That's 10 rounds of rampaging hostile attacks while you're doing nothing but sweet talking.

Also keep in mind that Diplomacy works both ways. Your amazing bonuses won't scale as impressively when the NPC uses diplomacy on you to force you to be friendly towards his own goals.

Taldor

Vandulus wrote:

Per season 6

Potions, Scrolls, and Wands
All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are
made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society
Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not
on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list.
For example, a
scroll of lesser restoration must be purchased as a 2nd-level
scroll off the cleric spell list and may not be purchased as
a 1st-level scroll off the paladin spell list. If a spell appears
at different levels on two different lists, use the lower level
spell to determine cost. As an example, poison would be
priced as a 3rd-level druid spell instead of a 4th-level cleric
spell. All potions, scrolls, and wands are available only at
the minimum caster level unless found at a higher caster
level on a Chronicle sheet.

Since stoneskin appears on the Summoner's list at 3, does that make it eligible for potion creation? If no, what about Bard spells like Good hope?

thanks

Bolded the relevant, ugly part of the rule that kills your otherwise beautiful idea.

Stoneskin is on the Wizard spell list, so there's no exception given.

Taldor

Xavram5 wrote:

1. Can you use Power Attack in combination with a Sunder attempt?

2. Can you make a Sunder attempt in place of an Attack of Opportunity?

1. So long as you had declared a power attack at the beginning of your activation that round, you are not only allowed to use power attack on your sunder, you're forced to.

2. Sunders do not require their own standard action and can be used in place of a 'vanilla' attack. So, yes you could use them on an AoO just like Trip or Disarm.

Taldor

Chess Pwn wrote:
Can I ever dual wield Longbows as a human?

As improvised clubs, perhaps. I'm not sure beating people with dual-wielded bowstaves is what you really had in mind, however.

Taldor ***

AnthonyThompson wrote:
It was a bundle of laughs and I had a great time...

Then the GM was successful. That's the primary rule: fun is had.

Quote:

... but I'm concerned that if these mistakes or rules oversights or tendency to change the written scenario aren't ever addressed that it may be a slippery slope, please share any advice you have

You are correct in that there are potentially issues at play in this scenario.

The best way, imo, to handle it is talk with the GM now that the game is over and done with. Talk with the guy (or gal) about your concerns NOW, rather than at the table when you have a dog in the fight. It could well be that there were simple mistakes made. You might learn that they were done in the interest of expediency rather than looking up every single rule. If you give the rules lawyers their way, the game will bog down and not get done in the allotted time anyway if every rule has to be looked up every time they disagree with the GM on every little thing.

If it turns out that the GM was "plussing up" the encounters to make them more challenging (and it happens often enough with the season zero games) that'd be a great time to point out that his alteration of the encounters cost you mechanically, and that such changes are not allowed under the PFS Organized Play rules. Hopefully he won't do that again, and might even offer to edit the session reporting to give you the benefit of the doubt (POSSIBLY.. don't demand this)

And as previously mentioned, it could have just been a mistake in which subtier was presented. I've made that mistake more than once.. I pretty much double (or triple, as appropriate) check I'm on the right statblock whenever the PCs start to look like they have their hands full. I've made mistakes before that thankfully have never gotten anyone's character killed, but I have made mistakes that cost them Prestige. There's been two occasions I didn't realize it until after I gave chronicles out. In those cases I was fine with assuming the PCs would have been successful if not for my mistake and correcting their chronicles after the fact.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

someone might want an apocalyptic dieoff in order to remove easy labor to facilitate greater acceptance of magic without being a necromancer, too.

I could see a Nethysian, fanatical wizard believing that engineering a massive die-off is a means to a Good* end.

*= Where 'Good' is completely debatable, and much more like a Huxley-ian "Brave New Arcane World"

*beginning evil mastermind logic*
People won't accept everyday use of Unseen Servants when they already have flesh and blood servants, afterall! No need to worry about Locksmiths Unions standing in the way of widespread deployment of Hold Portal spells when THERE ARE NO MORE LOCKSMITHS!

In the end, greater use of magic by everyone would make for a utopia for everyone left alive! Those who'd have to be removed from the picture to make it happen surely wouldn't begrudge the better lives those who survive them will get to enjoy!

Taldor

Poldaran wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Kill off enough of Golarion's peasantry and serfs, and the labor will have to be made up by SOMETHING. Magical technologies would be a ready answer for every day applications once there are no longer enough slaves/peasants/serfs to go around to empty all the chamber pots, harvest all the grain, etc.
That would make for a great arc villain for a larger campaign.

Indeed. An uber-necromancer springs immediately to mind. Not only can he offer zombies that work 24 hours a day without all those mewling complaints that slaves offer, if he can engineer a mass disaster that requires new labor solutions due to a sufficient winnowing of the lower classes... why then there'd be tons of corpses available to animate.

Taldor

Some scholars argue that the social upheavals in the aftermath of the black death were the crucial impetus that lifted Europe out of the stagnancy dating back to the dark ages.

Kill off enough of Golarion's peasantry and serfs, and the labor will have to be made up by SOMETHING. Magical technologies would be a ready answer for every day applications once there are no longer enough slaves/peasants/serfs to go around to empty all the chamber pots, harvest all the grain, etc.

Taldor ***

Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment is my alltime favorite PFS scenario because of the roleplay the GM gets to do.

Taldor

ACG page 8 wrote:


Parent Classes:
...
While a character can multiclass with these parent classes, this usually results in redundant abilities. Such abilities don't stack unless specified.

If it doesn't explicitly say they stack, it's pretty cut and dried they don't.

Taldor

Now that the ACG is out, the Warpriest class gains some ability to cast with both hands occupied by weapon and shield.

But still generally best to buff up, THEN draw your weapon and spend the rest of the fight swinging.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with a fundamental tenet in the thinking of the original post... that it is fundamentally "lawful" to stick to a code of honor.

Chaotic people can and do have their own codes of honor; the chaos is more that they don't care what other people think of their personal codes of honor than not sticking to one.

A rugged mountain man or pioneer, for example, may certainly have all sorts of rules for behavior in something akin to the Wild Wild West. But if his code of honor/conduct emphasizes individualism (aka, the needs of the One outweigh the needs of the Many) then he's more chaotic than lawful.

With regards specifically to a samurai culture, I'd suggest at least a cursory look at AEG's Legend of the Five Rings setting. Specifically the Scorpion Clan. Those guys are steeped in honor, yet if it were D&D/Pathfinder they'd be all sorts of Chaotic.

Taldor

Is Bokrug an evil deity?

Beyond that, killing a loyal servant and companion out of expedience, whether you eat it or not, would be evil in the eyes of most reasonable people.

Taldor

I'd like to make sure I understand the bonus damage swashbucklers get.

- Primarily it comes from precise strike, but isn't available until level 3.

- Swashbuckler levels equate to fighter levels for purposes of qualifying for feats, so they can get the weapon specialization feats.

- Weapon training

- Slashing Grace doesn't work with piercing weapons, and isn't relevant to my idea of a trident user (right?)

- Dex in place of Str to damage IS still available via Agile weapon enchant, however

- Pirahna Strike doesn't work with 1-handed weapons, but Power Attack is still hypothetically available

- Crit-fishing, which really won't work with a trident.

That's pretty much it? I'm playing around with the idea of Vital Strike, since Swashbucklers are supposed to move around and only spend a standard action on an attack anyway. Definitely not sold on that idea however.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When a paladin wants to tell the party rogue that she doesn't look fat in her new leather armor when she does indeed look like an overstuffed sausage, a bluff check is necessary and would not impinge on his alignment or class.

But with more seriousness, deception isn't necessarily the same thing as lying. Nor is deception always incompatible with exemplary Lawful Goodness. Subterfuge and deception are essential tenets of warfare, whether on the battlefield or in the king's court.

Taldor

Hama wrote:
That is why I accept only the first number they say. If they then correct themselves, it's too late. Should have paid attention.

I tell people, "Well, you'll remember to include that flank/bard song/whatever next time, now won't you?"

Taldor

Is it worth the bother of building a Swashbuckler that specializes in a trident? What sorts of things would you do to make up for the diminished crit range and resulting slower rate of recharging panache?

I'm not looking for uber-optimized.. obviously. I want something unique that is still "effective enough" for the standard of PFS scenarios. Plus I've got a perfect mini for a trident wielding swashbuckler that would be a crime not to make use of...

Taldor

Plus there's also the general tendency to forget that Wisdom has more to do with "not being stupid" than Intelligence does. Intelligence is more about how fast do you learn something new than really about how smart you are. Intelligence of "dash" really just means you won't be teaching it any new tricks is all. It still has a cunning and understanding of how to use its own natural abilities.

Taldor ***

The potential problem is what becomes of all the Space stuff in Season 7 when it's presumably no longer appropriate.

Taldor ***

Season Six is where everything old is new again.

Don't get me wrong, I love the homage.

I do question whether there's an entire Season's worth of material there, though.

Taldor ***

David Bowles wrote:
Something having hardness does not make it an object.

OTOH there's nothing saying creatures can't be creatures and objects at the same time. But despite that, at least one person with a golem next to his name disagrees.

So my point is, if you don't use the object hardness rules for creatures with hardness, then what rules DO you use for creature hardness? It's not defined in the bestiary at all, or anywhere else as a creature defensive ability. The only rules (that I know of) that cover hardness are those rules for damaging objects in the CRB.
The developers cherry pick object hardness rules to apply to creatures with as far as I can tell, no rhyme or reason. So it's impossible to answer spinoff questions that haven't already been explicitly answered.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Just jumping in to say that I agree with Andrew Christian. And yes, that means ranged weapons do half damage before applying hardness. I recommend the purchase of some durable adamantine ammunition.

Personally, I'd agree 100%. However, in whatever passes for wisdom on behalf of the rules team, they've clarified ruled that Animated Objects do not take 1/2 damage from ranged weapons before hardness is applied.

It's not in the FAQ yet, but I've talked to James Jacob and in his eyes that's The Law.

It's unfortunate, because the bestiaries don't define what the defensive ability "hardness" is. Apparently it's not the same thing as object hardness in the CRB, since ranged weapon damage isn't halved.

Since creature hardness != the rules as described in the CRB, I don't know why energy damages are halved to creatures with hardness. I'm not saying they shouldn't be.. I'm just saying the rules team made a big mistake by not making the ALL the object hardness rules apply to creatures with hardness.

Taldor

boring7 wrote:


The Mimic only gets a grapple if IT hits YOU.

Not true.

Mimic's Adhesive Ability wrote:


A weapon that strikes an adhesive-coated mimic is stuck fast unless the wielder succeeds on a DC 17 Reflex save. A successful DC 17 Strength check is needed to pry off a stuck weapon.

So, if you would or would not let someone drag a mimic around by the hilt of your sword, then you should or should not let someone drag a stickyblooded spell recipient.

Taldor

How would you resolve the questions in the OP if instead of the spell, the sticky thing in question was a mimic?

Then apply the same answers to a wizard with the spell. It's almost the exact same wording as the adhesive ability.

Taldor

You'd be walking a line. Some GMs might let you go with what you think is a reasonable pick. Some might disagree about what is "reasonable". In other words, expect table variation on that.

Taldor

Damanta wrote:

This discussion stems from there being 2 differently written versions of the Scorpion whip.

** spoiler omitted **
Sean K Reynolds wrote: A scorpion whip uses the same rules as the whip in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, except (1) it deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses, and (2) the stats in the table.

** spoiler omitted **

In conclusion, by going with the tables and text as provided, if you are not proficient with whips, but are proficient with scorpion whips you have according to Ultimate Combat an 1d4 x2 perform slashing weapon.
Adventurer's armory gives you a 1d4 x2 15ft reach, trip, disarm slashing weapon that provokes an attack of oppertunity when using it within a threatened square and does not threaten.

Interesting point, but you're ignoring chronology.

UE came out two years after SKR's clarification to Adventurer's Armory. If UE wanted that clarification to be the rule, it'd be there. And it isn't. And thus his clarification is to a version of the weapon that has been removed/rendered obsolete and is accordingly pointless, with regards to the scorpion whip as presented in UE.

Perhaps they deliberately changed SKR's ruling as of UE. Maybe they didn't and forgot to include it. You'll have to make that decision for yourself.

Taldor

blackbloodtroll wrote:

"Occam's Razor" is your way of shifting the burden of proof.

You say the weapon works in a clear, and concise way.

I say it is unclear.

You are correct in that it is unclear in at least some way. I was saying that by applying Occam's Razor, one can see which way to read it is less unclear and is thus probably the way to go.

In further detail, one can read the rule in such a way that one must answer the following question:
"How do you switch between whip and scorpion whip?"

You can alternately read it and have to answer:
"How do you combine the stat blocks?"

Given that there are already numerous "modal" abilities out there that have you make an "on or off" decision at the start of your round, and that decision lasts until the beginning of your next round (example: Power Attack) it doesn't seem like a big revelation to apply that preexisting standard to the scorpion whip's ability.

What has less precedent and thus is more problematic is combining the stats of two weapons into one weapon. Do they always combine all stats? if not, what stats are combined? Under what circumstances? Etc.

Couple that "choice" of reading the rule with the context of many users hitting "FAQ" and the developers choosing not to issue one, they are making one of three statements:
"The rules interact in the simplest way, like or exactly like my first example that doesn't require any additional rules."
or
"We don't care."
or
"It's too hard an answer to give you one yet. We're still working on it."

What's the most likely scenario? So, yes, I don't have any citable proof of what the devs think. I just have a standard of what's most reasonable, and that's what I've been going off of. Call it just my house rule if it makes sense to you to do so.

If we're talking about PFS and you want an exact answer beyond what some user without a golem said on the forums, then you're sadly out of luck. You'll just have to make your own ruling as GM, or accept another GM's decision when you're playing. I'd advise keeping in mind that even in PFS a GM is not obligated to interpret a rule in your favor just because your build depends on it.

MrRetSej wrote:
Yeaaaaaah. Just take Whip Mastery and avoid the headache of the Scorpion Whip unless your DM is willing to house rule it in your favor. Hell, if you aren't playing PFS and are house ruling anyway, see if you can use a Whip Dagger from 3.0.

Yeah, or the deadly enchant for one's whip. Problem solved without the feat tax all while remaining PFS legal.

Taldor

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I don't how you got them, but if you actually have answers, I would love to hear them, and know how you came to these conclusions.

My answer comes from applying Occam's Razor.

Sure, the wording on the rule could be better written, but perhaps.. just perhaps, there hasn't been a FAQ or Erratum on it because if you choose to read it the way that doesn't require a ton of explanation, then there isn't explanation required...

If you want to overanalyze, you can find ways to obfuscate the rule. But if you choose to, you can read it fairly cleanly to mean:

"When proficient in both whips and scorpion whips, and wielding a scorpion whip, you can choose to use the scorpion whip as a regular whip instead of a scorpion whip."

If you don't want it to mean that, then perhaps consider that the lack of a FAQ or Erratum changing the rule is silent support for that reading I suggested.

Barring that, there's always Rule Zero. The GM can make any rule he wants, and you can do what you want with Scorpion Whips at any rate.

Taldor ***

There are plenty of gamers in North America that don't make it to Cons, too.

Benefits only available via convention participation is something of an elitist stance to be taking.

Taldor

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Citation?

Quote:


Light Exotic Weapon:
Scorpion whip 5 gp 1d3 1d4 ×2 — 3 lbs. S Performance

One Handed Exotic Weapon:
Whip 1 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 2 lbs. S Disarm, nonlethal, reach, trip

So, the whip and scorpion whip not only have very different stat blocks, they're completely different types of weapons to boot, in the eyes of the rules.

Scorpion Whip special rules wrote:


This whip has a series of razor-sharp blades and fangs inset along its tip. It deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses. If you are proficient with whips, you can use a scorpion whip as a whip.

Bolded for emphasis. It doesn't say anything about using a scorpion whip as a combined scorpion whip/whip. It just says "as a whip" which is a defined, statted weapon that does no lethal damage, and etc.

Taldor

blackbloodtroll wrote:
deusvult wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Sacred Weapon doesn't change nonlethal weapons, into lethal weapons.

You are better off just nabbing a Scorpion Whip, using it as a Whip, and be able to deal lethal damage, along with the ability to deal damage to armored foes, whilst doing Sacred Weapon damage.

Actually you'd need Exotic Weapon: Scorpion Whip to do lethal damage with it (and without reach, as Scorpion Whips don't have reach, etc) If you ALSO have Exotic Weapon: Whip, then you can also use a Scorpion Whip as a regular whip (e.g. with 15' reach, no lethal damage, etc)

Even if you have both exotic weapon proficiencies, it may be a challenge to find a deity that grants scorpion whip as a divine weapon.

Oh?

This all news to me.

Are saying a Scorpion Whip, used as a Whip, deal nonlethal?

Yep. The scorpion whip and whip are two seperate weapons with two separate stat blocks, and as exotic weapons require two different exotic weapon proficiency feats. However the scorpion whip has that special rule where if the wielder is also proficient with normal whips, the scorpion whip may be used as either type of weapon. The rule doesn't describe combining stat blocks, so you have to use a scorpion whip in one 'mode' at a time rather than combining both weapons into one.

Taldor

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Sacred Weapon doesn't change nonlethal weapons, into lethal weapons.

You are better off just nabbing a Scorpion Whip, using it as a Whip, and be able to deal lethal damage, along with the ability to deal damage to armored foes, whilst doing Sacred Weapon damage.

Actually you'd need Exotic Weapon: Scorpion Whip to do lethal damage with it (and without reach, as Scorpion Whips don't have reach, etc) If you ALSO have Exotic Weapon: Whip, then you can also use a Scorpion Whip as a regular whip (e.g. with 15' reach, no lethal damage, etc)

Even if you have both exotic weapon proficiencies, it may be a challenge to find a deity that grants scorpion whip as a divine weapon.

Taldor ***

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
...and now I'm calling things ad hominem attacks without realizing it. Maybe I'm going into a fugue state.

No, you didn't make use of that tactic. I just noticed you happened to overlook it when someone else used it against me, and by omission of complaint appear to condone it since you were establishing yourself as some authority on logical fallacies by bringing them up for a 2nd time. Maybe you didn't see the other person do it. Maybe you did and condoned it because the poster has been agreeing with you. I don't know and don't presume to know.

Taldor ***

You don't NEED the confirmation number if you've lost it, although you probably can't make neat little profiles for your characters on this site if you can't enter the confirmation number.

If you contact the VC for your region (listed in the PFS Organized Play Guide) he can probably arrange for your access to the website to be sorted out.

Taldor ***

Venture Captain Richard Dangle wrote:

Superior is pretty subjective. Especially when dealing with the interpretation of deliberately ambiguous rules. I'd say allowing the players to consensually make the a deliberate tactical decision to puts another PC at risk is the right thing to do, but that's just my opinion and there's nothing particularly superior about it. But I'd certainly advocate it!

You, me, and most posters in the thread seem to agree that there are infinite options about how a GM may or can adjucate a player's actions that could potentially harm another player's PC. I'm calling that "Mike Brock's view".

The view I've been arguing against is that there is no flexibility. That view is where players may not, under any circumstances, even including having the express permission of said player(s), harm each other's PCs.

It is indeed a pretty black and white dispute. Flexibility is allowed, or flexibility is not allowed. And given Mike Brock's own statements on the issue, my use of "superior" is actually a nod to being charitable and not calling the other side flat out "wrong".

Taldor ***

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I didn't realize I was going hipster. Is there a pill I can take to prevent that? Also, the situations are not the same at all. The first law of robotics says that inaction is RvP. Nothing in the guide says inaction is PvP. You can keep arguing to the absurd and throwing up straw men, but that doesn't mean your argument is correct and/or logical.

If you hate hipsters, I'm sorry for comparing you to one. I was trying to have some levity, since we both apparently think we're smart and like to cite things most people have to look up. For the record, if you want to look like an expert on logical fallacies, not calling out something so infantile as ad hominem when it's prominently on display doesn't do much for your credibility.

But I digress. I'm not bringing the laws of robotics into the discussion per se. I used them as a fairly well known example to serve as a parallel. Yes the events in "The Inevitable Conflict" are impossible for PFS (although maybe not now that we're in Season 6, but that's another thread..) but they serve as an illustration and warning about how things can get out of hand if one insists on a perfect rule against PvP. My point has been that sticking to what some posters have been insisting is RAW still allows for passive PvP, which defeats the purpose they're trying to achieve. My other point is that Mike Brock's own view (shared by myself, and most of the posters in the thread) is the superior way to read the rule.

Taldor ***

David Bowles wrote:

There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.

And in that, yes, I would completely agree. What I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency in allowing passive PvP while simultaneously disallowing consentual PvP.

Taldor ***

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Another flaw, I hope to prove fatal, to the argument of no "intentional PvP" meaning no harm to any PC ever:

If one cannot even subject a PC to the possibility of harm, say via failed reflex save by being inside an AoE, what allows you to subject YOUR OWN character to the possibility of harm? You might fall and take damage if you try to climb the wall. By the same (imo, unreasonable) reading of no "intentional PvP" equating to "no PC harm by players' hands", you can't even take the daily risks inherent in adventuring.

Reductio ad absurdum much?

Since we're going hipster, I rebut with this.

If you don't get it, consider the implications of what "no harm via PvP EVER" means when you consider that includes action AND inaction.

Taldor ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
deusvult wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Also, what you do to your PC is an entirely different category from what you do to someone ELSES pc.

Alright, so the rogue wants to climb a wall. If I don't stop him from exposing himself to the risk of falling, it's the same thing as exposing him to that risk myself. So goes the argument, at least.

Obviously it's ridiculous, and that's my point.

I can put MY rogue on a wall, but i cannot put someone ELSES rogue on the wall via telekinetic charge if they don't want me to.

What PVP ultimately comes down to is player choice. People get to play their character, and you don't get to decide that they should be on a wall, off a wall, or take x amount of damage just because you can.

Equating Me putting my character and Someone else putting that same character in the same situation is a semantic trick, not an argument, not a point, and certainly not an end to the no pvp means no pvp crowd.

You and I appear to agree on the basic tenet that Players may not harm another's character without that other player's permission, and what constitutes harm is decided primarily by the "harmed" PC's player, and enforced by the GM.

I'm not saying how silly that is.. I agree with it. I'm saying how silly the view is that players may not harm (under any definition the GM chooses to use) each other's PCs, even if they voice permission for it.

Taldor ***

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Also, what you do to your PC is an entirely different category from what you do to someone ELSES pc.

Alright, so the rogue wants to climb a wall. If I don't stop him from exposing himself to the risk of falling, it's the same thing as exposing him to that risk myself. So goes the argument, at least.

Obviously it's ridiculous, and that's my point.

Taldor ***

Bigdaddyjug wrote:


Reductio ad absurdum much?

Obviously, I would say not. Given things said upthread that are assumedly sincerely held beliefs by only a couple individuals (with multiple aliases ;) :

Quote:


You can't throw a harmful area effect on a fellow player.
Quote:


And nowhere in the chapter is anything about "you can do it, if the other player consents/does not protest". And please don't start about "accidents". That is a can of worms i'd rather not open. Because then you get all kinds of " I accidently included the guy i don't like in my fireball ".

If those views were correct, then I'm just pointing out the Unintended Consequences of that rule that proponents of that view apparently haven't considered. Luckily for the rest of us, Mike Brock definitively does not agree with them, as TOZ helpfully pointed out.

1 to 50 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.