Ilarris Zeleshi

dragonhunterq's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 3,637 posts (3,753 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 3,637 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CRB wrote:

Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.

While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage

Damage doesn't actually reduce your ability score, neither do penalties.

Not that it makes a material difference, but it is worth noting that Atavistic Splinter applies penalties - is does not damage the ability scores.

Damage and penalties apply based on the amount of damage you take. It's an easily overlooked rule, but if you have, say, 16 strength and you take 1 ability damage - it has no effect. Your strength isn't 15 and the damage penalties only apply for every 2 points you take.

And you really don't need such a contrived and overpowered example to understand the interaction of damage and drain.

Zardnaar wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:
People are kvetching about wands of cure light wounds? *snicker*
They are a bit to efficient/cheap. Prefer the D&Ds without them being a thing.

y'see I see it as higher level wands are too inefficient/expensive - 'tis a matter of perspective.

On your initial point, making magic items more easily available was a step in the right direction IMO. I played far too many games with either too little magic or nothing appropriate that you might as well have had nothing.

Edit: anecdote time. In what turned out to be a particularly high magic game I once played a fighter in 1e started out with a 2 handed sword in defiance of convention (longsword was by far the best weapon and yeah I optimised from the start). I had a clear picture of him in my head wielding this greatsword. by the time he got to 10th level I had collected more than 15 magic weapons including a frost brand - not one single greatsword. It was very miserable when I had such a clear mental picture of him.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, with all the talk on resonance and the big 6 I have been giving some thought to magic items.

I've been playing a loooong time, same as many here, and way back in 1e and 2e before the big 6 were a thing, when it came time to split the treasure the forerunners of the big 6 were always the first to be snapped up. One of the reasons is reliability. You want your magic items to matter as much as possible, you didn't always get many. I lost track of the number of magic items we carried, but simply did not use because the chance of it not working was just too high, or it didn't do enough even if it took effect.

3.x made the mistake of not only codifying the big 6 so encounters assumed you had them (or maybe it developed that wat because people sought out the big 6 so encounter design had to adapt?), but they did nothing to make other items any more desirable, many of them are an incredible investment with very little in the way of reliable returns.

PF did nothing significant to redress that, and even released FAQs that made some non big 6 items even less useful (hat of disguise durations - I'm looking at you).

So should one of the aims for PF2 include redressing the balance. Cost magic items according to effect? and make the DCs relevant?
Should use activated items be active until shut off and thus actually useful? What else would be relevant to make all magic items worth the investment?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metaphysician wrote:

*cough* When is a drone a class feature? When you get a drone as a result of your class. Which is to say, yes, the mechanic's drone is a class feature. If you get a drone through some other means, then yes, its not a class feature.

Also, R2D2 is not a class feature, either. R2D2 would be a character in his own right. If you want that kind of dynamic, you don't need a mechanic, you need a second player running an SRO.

In regards to drones acting on their own, whether they are a class feature or not is completely irrelevant as that particular clause never comes into play.

I for one am not arguing that it isn't a class feature. I am arguing as to whether it is a class feature affecting your crew actions.

Considering the specific wording of the restriction, and where it appears in the text, you can't use the drone to aid another or in any way assist you in a role, but nothing seems to restrict it from taking it's own role.

In regards to drones acting on their own, whether they are a class feature or not is completely irrelevant as that particular clause never comes into play.

Effective druid levels only stack if the animal is on both lists.

Crexis wrote:

But if I chose the top left corner of the bottom left X, that in a straight line hits the E's top left corner (which means it goes through my top left ally.

So just having 1 of the 4 corners hit w/o touching your allies works? Don't need it for all lines, just 1? Hope that made sense.

That line runs alongside your allies square, at no point does it go through the square or cross the border - therefore no cover.

Nope, E does not have cover from either of the back spaces. Cover for reach weapons is worked out same as for ranged weapons. One corner of your square to every corner of theirs.

For example, if the bottom left X chooses the top right corner of their square (the *), no line to any corner of E's square passes through the squares of the two leading X's.


I don't usually haunt the starfinder boards, so I'm not familiar with the arguments so can someone explain what part of a drone is affecting crew actions?
The restriction is fairly tightly limited, and in no way worded as a blanket prohibition from taking part in starship combat. The restriction is after roles are assigned - if they were intended to be prohibited from adopting a role you'd expect the prohibition to be much earlier in the text.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They "fire as one". Linked weapons count as a single weapon, or at least I cannot find a good reason why they should not be treated as a single weapon - at least for firing them anyway. I would tend to treat them as a single weapon for damage purposes as well.

I would not argue with a GM that applied the damage separately though, as there is no unambiguous ruling as to how far you can treat them as one weapon.

I cannot find any mention of a small penalty to fire linked weapons.

Weather Report wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
TBH I am pretty sure Paizo considered the possibility and decided against it to the point of not even testing it in the playtest
Ha, yeah, that can be an instant non-starter, you have never seen such large toys thrown out of prams!

I have all my toys lined up and ready to throw! :)

deific obedience wrote:
Once you’ve performed the obedience, you gain the benefit of a special ability or resistance as indicated in the “Obedience” entry for the god to whom you performed the obedience.

I'd rule you choose when you perform the obedience.

There is no language indicating that you make the choice when you select the feat and it cannot be changed, so it would be harsh bordering unfair to rule that way IMO.
And while there is nothing to say you can't wait until you first want to use one it's probably not particularly thematic.

A successful UMD check does not have a duration. It will last until you stop using the device you are fooling. In any event in this scenario the UMD is irrelevant. The staff has already done it's job and the crab doesn't even need to keep holding the staff. You are now dealing solely with the spell effect.

While dust of emulation would allow the crab to trigger the staff I'm not entirely convinced I'd allow the int 1 crab to concentrate on maintaining the effect.

If you are allowing the crab to concentrate on the effect then it will last until the crab loses focus or winds down.

Whichever comes first - if (for whatever reason) you took the PrC sufficiently late theoretically you could get it by level earlier than the PrC gives it to you.

Weather Report wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
I'm largely unaffected by this issue, is it reasonable that I am curious as to whether there is a group of people for whom icons are easier. Do, for example, some dyslexics that would find it easier to interpret icons?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

In my campaigns I like to differentiate different goblin tribes by swapping out some of their basic feats. Instead of Improved initiative one tribe will have a feat that lets them move better on difficult terrain, and then they fill their lair with all kinds of bones and rubble, another tribe will have a swarm attack feat because they love ganging up on a single opponent. Maybe a small goup of Elite Goblins will have Mounted Combat instead

just a tiny change to create some distinctions, but one that is possible because I can see how the monster breaks down.

I can't do that here, because I don't get to see how the monster breaks down, all I get is end use stats without seeing where the numbers come from.

You really don't need to see where the numbers come from IMO.

It's ridiculously easy to take away the effect of a feat that it could have and add the effect of another.

I'm largely unaffected by this issue, is it reasonable that I am curious as to whether there is a group of people for whom icons are easier. Do, for example, some dyslexics that would find it easier to interpret icons?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Surely it'll be even easier to modify a creature in PF2 - without needing to justify everything (mystery bonus feats etc...) you just give it the abilities you need it to have, check it against the expected values for its CR (level?) and tweak as needed.

The only thing I can see materially needing is a breakdown of AC, because their is a narrative difference between natural armour/armour and a deflection/dodge bonus.

nicholas storm wrote:
I would take shield brace so you can use a polearm with a shield. I also second phalanx formation.

Check your GMs ruling on shield brace, if they follow the PFS interpretation you will no longer deal 1.5 str damage when using this feat. Unhindering shield works though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
james014Aura wrote:

Also, what's skills +1 or skills +5?
blog wrote:
The skills entry first lists a number you can use (in addition to the relevant ability modifier) for any skills the monster doesn't have listed, followed by a list of all the skills the monster has a different modifier for.

It's the number for all other skills not specifically listed

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:

Resonance: I love this. I’m sure it will undergo tweaks but providing mechanical and story reasons for why magic “costs” something is fantastic! Please allow me to roast marshmallows over the insect-riddled corpse of the Magic Item Christmas Tree effect. Don’t listen to the optimizers wailing, Paizo. This is a great concept.

Optimisers will optimise whatever the system ends up looking like - I'm not sure disliking resonance has anything to do with optimisation.

At least a couple of the people who dislike the potential to reduce the number of magic items you can use do not optimise at all - they just like a number of small utility effects rather than the one powerful thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barroom brawler - in place of one of the conditional feats like cleave or lunge.
You can pick up cleave if it's useful or another situational feat as the need arises.

CRB magic chapter on conjuration/summoning spells wrote:
When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire

Afraid not.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

But this is exactly what take 10 is for! what is the issue with taking 10 that you don't want to see it?

There are no rules or guidance for rolling up many skill checks into a single check.

Dave Justus wrote:
I believe the phrase 'any animal or humanoid' in the specific special ability of the dragons overrides the general rules about size in change shape.

I believe you are right. No need for GM fiat.

Dragons that can shape shift have the change shape special ability

FAQ - special exception allows dragons to stay in form indefinitely

Still means only tiny-large dragons can mimic small/medium humanoids, but I'd GM fiat that restriction away.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
graystone wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Paladins as knights in shining armor would be concerned with the appearance of impropriety
They are? I missed that part of the code... "must act with honor" doesn't equal 'must APPEAR honorable'.

Honor is all about reputation. You don't do honorable things because they are good acts(although they might be those too). You do them in order to defend your reputation.

"One can distinguish honour from dignity, which Wordsworth assessed as measured against an individual's conscience[2] rather than against the judgement of a community"

I disagree.

you should be using the definition of honour that goes:
Oxford Dictionaries wrote:
The quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.

A paladin should on every level should be far more concerned with being honourable over appearing honourable.

Fighters Tactics - Making teamwork feats work for you.
(I may or may not have an unhealthy fondness for teamwork feats)

Dazzling Intimidation - Dazzling Display is fun, but not practical as a full round action.

Interesting overview. I look forward to seeing what you've done with the rest of the critters.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really buy the 'prevents cookie cutter'/'prevents pressure from peers' arguments. Whether the max stat is 18 or 20 there will be an optimal way to build any particular character. IF there is pressure to be optimal, reducing the maximum a stat can be won't change that.

The only way to prevent that is to homogenise everything to where everything is identical, which doesn't really solve anything.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

Cool, that's good to know. It seemed like the actual ability score thing shouldn't really have been that big a deal.

I can't blame you for being salty that we are losing spells per day though. Who doesn't want to be throwing spells around willy nilly? I think it may be necessary for the health of the game, and hopefully powers offset this a little in practice. But this is one of the few things I look at where I am like "Yeah, that's gonna sting for some people."

I'll have to say my initial response to that little snippet was less than welcoming, I have had to actively remind myself that - a) We don't have a full picture of what (if any) other powers casters may have and b) expectations are going to be different.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

I don't think that even in PF2 there should be poisoner Paladins. However, in that grey area between no evil acts and no dishonorable acts where protect the innocent lies there could be a necessary exception made.

For role-playing purposes it would not be plan A to carry poison around and a paladin wouldn't be happy about having to stoop so low to save lives, but I agree that the mere use of a chemical advantage isn't an automatic power down.

I'll be honest here I don't advocate paladins with a bandolier full of toxins. I really don't think anyone is.

For me, I would be giving serious stink eye at any paladin even thinking of carrying around poison on a regular basis.
In my games they will have to do some serious fast talking to persuade me to allow them to carry around a sleep poison.

In the right circumstances though poison use may be acceptable - emphasis on the 'may'. I don't agree with the absolutism of the OP.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Not really, the OP has called using poison a vile and depraved act, so Malthraz' point is good. is a hunter vile and depraved for using poison?

Crayon wrote:
whew wrote:
Crayon wrote:
By contrast, if you divorce character background from the rules, you have an unlimited number of choices for your character's backstory. Ergo, more options.
Having a background doesn't prevent you from having a backstory. It just ensures that everyone at least has a minimal backstory.
I never claimed it did. I will say that as far as backstories go, 'Apprentice Blacksmith' is strictly a lateral move from 'I have a longsword' and that I don't think there should be associated game mechanics because said rules serve to restrict the choices available to the player for no real pay-off...

The way I see it, backgrounds are seeds, the kernel of who you are - they aren't (necessarily) the entirety of who you are.

Nothing in backgrounds limits your backstory, you can reflect your backstory in other ways than just a background.
A background only has to reflect a part of your backstory.

Of course if you want to pick a background and call it done as far as backstories are concerned you are golden.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Nah! I'm with the design team. If it's honourable to use enhanced weapons it's ok to use poisons. Real world comparisons aside (it's not real world) there is little difference between extra acid damage and ability damage - both will kill you, both are above and beyond that caused by the weapon itself. If one is ok, the other is too.

Whether a substance was initially designed to facilitate slavery does not mean that every use is. I mean the bad guys are fond of using weapons and armour to evil ends - should a paladin enter combat unarmed and unarmoured?

Now sneaking poison into someones food is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:
I'd like to see out of combat utility for all martials - information gathering for the rogue that approaches divination, a network of contacts that can arrange transport on short order to nearly anywhere, that kind of thing
I'd love for 'mundane' characters to at least get more 'mundane' resources. If you don't mind me questioning, how would you envision that information gathering working? Does the Rogue automatically get a spy network, does she just always somehow seem to figure out the secrets...

I'll be honest I don't have a good idea.

Most of the ideas I do have are very generic or require at least a modicum of handwavium that would no doubt drive some people absolutely batty.
I don't mind a little sketchiness in the 'why' or the 'how' for instance so just saying you can obtain x information in y hours is good enough for me. I can add flavour to suit me.

The creative uses of having (for example) a network of informants would require severe limits - I'm not sure how persuasive a simple "they provide these services and cannot be persuaded to do anything else" clause would be. I'm not really great at setting those limits - I assume (despite evidence to the contrary) that people a) have a modicum of common sense and b) won't try to break the game.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see out of combat utility for all martials - information gathering for the rogue that approaches divination, a network of contacts that can arrange transport on short order to nearly anywhere, that kind of thing

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something truly tanky - Like a bodyguard effect or maybe a 'shield other' aura that affects all allies or easily switches between allies.

The ability to 'mark' a foe so they take a penalty if they don't attack the paladin.

Something like a souped up diehard so you just keep on fighting when you really shouldn't.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

Yeah.... AoOs being a Level 1 Fighter ability is NOT a good thing. Everyone should have AoOs by default.

I get that Paizo thinks that AoOs slow down the game (they do sometimes, to be fair) but the introduction of new Reactions is going to do the same thing and AoOs exist for a good reason.

Fighter - "Aha foul Necromancer! You are gravely wounded and we have you surrounded. Surrender!"

Necromancer - "Nah, I'm just going to run between the Wizard and the Cleric, then chug this X-Potion, bringing me back to full health."

Fighter - "STOP HIM!!!"

Cleric - "I...can't! For some reason, I can't move my arm to hit him with my mace!"

Wizard - "My staff! It's too heavy to move! What foul magic is this?!"

Necromancer - "Metagame-knowledge-mancy!"

I thought this for a long time when I first read the new AOO rules, then I realised why would the wizard react as quickly to a physical threat when all his training has been to magical threats? the wizard having a specific reaction to a spell being cast is much more thematic.

Whether every other classes reaction is as on point I eagerly await finding out, but each class having reactions reflecting their training is one I'm getting on board with.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Much as it sounds like a good idea, as an unashamed optimiser I know I would absolutely take advantage of it.

The only way to implement this is for it to be an actual choice for RP reasons, with little or no mechanical advantage.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

OFF-TOPIC 1: I'm really not a fan of this new method for generating ability scores. To me it lends itself to having too many cookie-cutter characters that are all the same 'cuz that's the "optimal" combination for the classes main stats. [For instance: why would my Fighter ever take the "scribe background" when the blacksmith one pumps my main stat?]. I see this as especially being a problem in PFS games where people tend to optimize more so than in casual games, but it's still an issue.

The floating stat boost should make this a non-issue to an extent. If you have a scribe background you probably want the +2 int, and you can use the floating boost for strength.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I will miss the usually deep flavor of traits and the creative challenge of weaving them in your PC's backstory

I guess they were a part where balance and variety just cannot coexist

I think the background step should be more of a GM-approved player's choices thing rather than the packages we are given here. Though I understand how the latter are easier to reference in APs and in PFS

Maybe the Background step should be 2 GM-approved floating stat boosts, then GM-approved Skill feat, then being trained in a GM-approved Lore skill, with pre-made packages being a help for people who do not wish to go in that level of customization (including APs and maybe PFS)

GM approved stat boosts and skills? You might need to explain this a bit more - because my first thought was "hell no! not on my watch!" GMs can ban options, but otherwise should only get involved in character creation if invited to - it's my character, my sole interface with the game I should get to decide what it looks like. The GM has the rest of the world to play with.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It was just an off the cuff example.

There are over 40 different paladin archetypes on AoN. Some of which can greatly affect how the class plays. The paladin is far from the most archetype-d class there is. There is a lot of cross contamination of class abilities. There is no such thing as a standard paladin (or a standard anything really). They don't all have nice and neat package of abilities that allow you to neatly pigeonhole each class.

I really can't see how anyone can justify your game class being your in-world description

She'll probably get there eventually, but that's the thing about mutability - it can change. Her story will evolve and as it does how she describes herself to the world also changes.

Under an immutable "paladin is a paladin" that's a story that can't be told.

Freedom of movement doesn't necessarily give you immunity to the grappled condition. It means exactly what it says - any attempt to grapple the wearer fails. It doesn't give you any immunity to the consequences if you choose to engage a grapple.

You can still gain the grapple condition if you successfully grapple someone.

It does however make you immune to any attempt to counter grapple made to do anything but escape, so grapples are still extremely one sided in your favour.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the camp of your class is how you do a thing, it isn't what you do - the ingame word for what you do is as mutable as you need it to be.
There are a 1000 different ways to build a cleric, not all of them will look the same or feel the same in world - so if they describe themselves as holy warrior, or priest, or healer, or ranger, or whatever that is how they will be known in world.

In fairness there aren't many paladins that would describe themselves as anything but - but they can, and it's not lying, imagine a naive youth who strives to do good who may not even be aware she is a paladin, she is just a warrior trying to make the world a better place. She may even deny being a paladin as she probably doesn't feel worthy of the title.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Is this a rule I am unfamiliar with? Paladins have no special authority, nor are they instantly recognisable as such.

Even if known as a paladin their word is only as good as the next persons because while they shouldn't lie they can still be wrong.

Interesting. I want to see the rest of them, now!

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought I'd read somewhere that Pharasma was quite comfortably the most powerful of the deities, but is largely neutral to all other deities save those creating undead, so doesn't flex her muscles much. However I couldn't find where I read that.
What I could find though:

Pharasma is far more powerful than Iomedae and Sarenrae.

There isn't a strict heirarchy, but there is a top tier including Pharasma, Rovagug and Desna. Further down we find out that some of the elder gods such as Nyarlathotep are probably as powerful as Rovagug.

EDIT: found it.


FAQ supporting the above posters - proficiency gained as it is listed in the tables.

1 to 50 of 3,637 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>