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

james maissen's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 7,114 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.




11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

When the Arcane Archer lists BAB+6, could a PC with BAB+7 take levels in the class (assuming it has the other prereqs)?

-James


In another thread:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon.

That FAQ is just clarifying that you can choose either 2 attacks with the sword and 1 with the mace or 2 with the mace and 1 with the sword—it wasn't implying anything about the order in which you had to take them.

The "do them in order highest to lowest" rule only applies to attacks with that hand. In other words, if you're +11/+6/+1, you have to do +11 before you do +6, and have to do +6 before you do +1.

The rules don't actually state or care whether you start with your main hand or your offhand, just as long as each hand's "in order highest to lowest" rule is followed.

My question, if anyone could answer it:

What is the reason for the requirement in the first place? Does it serve any purpose?

I had my guesses in 3e, but the above goes against those.. so I'm at a loss. Is this a phantom that doesn't need to exist at all? Or is it something whose purpose is getting lost? Perhaps it still applies, perhaps not with the Pathfinder changes to 3rd.

-James


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The latest FAQ says 'No' without any reason or context as to why this is so.

Do I need to wield armor spikes in my hand?

If a PC lost a hand, are they also likewise prohibited from TWFing using a one-handed weapon and armor spikes?

Does this apply to a PC with THREE hands?

Why did this get changed from 3.5? None of the associated printed rules in this area seem to have been changed.. why is the FAQ interpreting things in oppositely?

Does a character that attacks with a two-handed weapon, not threaten squares with armor spikes they are wearing? Can they make iterative attacks with them if they made prior attacks with a two-handed weapon?

Does this also apply to monks say wielding a staff and wanting to flurry with that and unarmed strikes?

Is this limited to armor spikes, or does this apply to all of the weapons that do not require hands to be used?

A ruling in a vacuum causes more questions than answers. I appreciate the dev team being very active, but more than 'No.' as an answer is something I'd ask for if the goal is for the FAQ to be helpful.

-James


The Cleric Archetype Merciful Healer gives mercy with channel energy, and expressly states that "Feats and effects that affect a paladin’s mercy also affect this ability."

However, since the Archetype doesn't have Lay on Hands, they cannot TAKE any of the Mercy feats.

Is this a mistake, or is this somehow only supposed to apply to multiclassed Paladins?

-James


With 'normal' two weapon fighting with a one-handed weapon as primary and a light weapon as the off-hand, we all know how STR bonus to damage and power attack applies.

Let's take a 'abnormal' situation:

A monk (or character with IUS) elects to TWF with an unarmed strike as primary and a two-handed weapon as their 'off-hand' weapon.

What's the bonus to damage from STR and power attack for this two-handed weapon?

Does the bonus/penalty on power attack cancel out, or does 'off-hand' trump 'two-handed' weapon?

Certainly if the character switched the two-handed weapon to 'primary' and the unarmed strike to 'off-hand' then you're looking at 1.5x & +3/-1 on the primary even though that's not the 'normal' two weapon fighting that one assumes.

-James


Halfling Monks can add a bonus to CMD vs grapples and 1/2 stunning fist attempts per day.

What if the halfling monk has an archetype that removes stunning fist? Do they still add stunning fist attempts thereby getting it?

-James


What's the point of the spell?

It seems, from reading it, to be strictly inferior to the 3rd level spell.

Rather than giving each creature touched (up to 1/level) a duration of 10min/level, the higher level communal version divides this 10min/level between those touched!

I'm guessing whomever wrote this didn't realize that waterwalk was already a 'communal' type spell?

Or am I missing something?

-James


This has been a sticking thorn in my side for quite some time as I don't see it as useful.

There are some arbitrary restrictions on what consumables that a PC can purchase in PFS.

I'd like to bring it back up again, that it be considered to be removed from the PFS rules.

1. It doesn't make things simpler, but rather more complicated.
2. It makes no sense the way it stands in game.
3. It makes a 2nd CL scroll of magic missile unobtainable by someone that could commission a Holy Avenger to be made!
4. The more house rules you have in an organized campaign the worse. It serves as a barrier to those that know the core rules but don't know all the society house rules. And for those that don't know the core rules it confuses the life out of them when they have two conflicting sources.

-James


Not sure the best place to put this, but here goes:

Was looking through the FAQ of the core rulebook and noticed an error or two. Not sure where I should post this in order to get it fixed.

For example we have:

"FAQ' wrote:

Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?

All four of those are valid choices.

Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.

—Sean K Reynolds, 10/22/10

But just like in 3.5 under Ray of Enfeeblement we have:

"Ray of Enfeeblement' wrote:


A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1. A successful Fortitude save reduces this penalty by half. This penalty does not stack with itself. Apply the highest penalty instead.

So one cannot sneak attack with a Ray of Enfeeblement (for example) as it does NOT deal damage.

I'm not sure what SKR was thinking here. Also I'm not sure why they are deviating from 3.5 where this extra damage (say in the case of Enervation) would not become 'negative energy damage'. As far as I know such is still the case for Point Blank Shot and Sneak Attack with such spells.

-James


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Many people seem to be of the opinion that the Paladin's mount is of type animal.

I believe that seeing as it has an INT of 6 it doesn't qualify for type: animal, and as such it is a magic beast. By the rules for Paladin mounts they count as animals for purposes of spells, but their type is magical beast.

How do other people weigh in on this?

If it is type: animal.. what's the point of giving it an INT of 6? Why make something strange here if for no purpose?

-James


I was wondering if anyone has looked at 'redoing' the staple spells that were aped for the word effects anywhere?

If not, perhaps one consolidated thread would be helpful for this, as it would also serve to introduce people to how words of power works with things that they are familiar with.

To whit if a spell comes up as too expensive or cheaper than it need be then a listing of what might be done to either pare it down to fit or what could be added could come AFTER the write up of the spell itself in word form.

-James


Assuming that the class layout is roughly fine for people I would suggest the following tweaks to them:

1. Spellstrike: allow as a standard action the magus to cast a 1 standard action casting time touch spell and then at any time during that round make a melee attack as a free action that would deliver the spell as well as whatever damage it would normally do. If holding a charge on a touch spell allow it to be delivered via normal melee attack.

In essence this would work much like any normal caster being able to cast a touch spell then at any time during that round attempt to deliver it as a free action with a melee touch attack. And if holding a charge on a touch spell being able to deliver it via an unarmed strike or natural weapon attack.

2. Spell combat: remove the forced concentration check, many times this will be needed anyway.. but remove the arbitrary requirement for it. Also remove the penalty to hit when using it.

Limited resources of the magus' bard casting will hold this in check. At higher levels the penalty is lessened and removed- the levels where this power is increasingly strong. At low levels its currently near useless, and certainly not worth the burn on the resources.

3. Magus arcana: don't fuel it via spell slots, rather fuel them via swift actions.

Much like an inquisitor can burn swift actions for bonuses, let the magus do likewise. The power level of the arcana imho should be around the same value as it seems to fill the same niche.

4. Alter the 10th level ability to have magus levels count as 1/2 ftr levels for feats. Change this to magus level-3 and have it start at magus level 7.

We've learned that in 3e having things progress at 1/2 the rate of another class is a mistake. Paizo has fully embraced this with the skills overhaul and Paladin/Ranger casting level. I applaud them for this realization as WotC never did. Now extend that realization here.

5. Spell list: play with the spell list to include some spells at a reduced level for magi as opposed to wizards.

Some tweaking here needs to be done. Currently its a much reduced list, while all the other 2/3 casters have spells that take this into account. Both the narrow focus of the spells and the increasingly lower relative spell power to a full wizard is too much.

-James


With the advent of the magus and spellstrike, I figured I'd ask this question:

What is the threat range of a held touch spell when its delivered by an unarmed strike or natural weapon?

To whit:

PC1 has improved crit touch spells, improved unarmed strike and punches to deliver a held shocking grasp. Is it a 19-20/x2 or a 20/x2?

PC2 has improved crit: claw, a claw natural attack and claws to deliver a held shocking grasp spell. Is it 19-20/x2 or a 20/x2?

PC3 has a 20/x3 natural attack and uses it to deliver a held shocking grasp spell. Is it 20/x2 or 20/x3?

Whatever answers apply here should likely apply for the magus' spellstrike baring a rules exception for them.

-James


I was wondering if anyone has done a comparison between the two as of yet?

I'm wondering how well the Monk compares to the fighter.

On the fighter's side there is manyshot and weapon training while on the monk's side there is improved flurry (8th), ki points (for extra attacks), and greater flurry (15th).

What are people thinking here?

-James


Mike Ethridge wrote:

This will negate any attempt for you to surprise them (sneak attack) with a spell, to sneak up on a target and then use a spell to sneak attack you will need to use silent spell (feat) or a spell without a verbal component."[/i]

Is that the case?

No.

At best they will know what square you are in, but you will still be not visible to them.

Ask your DM if you can negate sneak attacks from a greater invisible attacker if they are making noise.

-James


As Josh has asked that this discussion not take place on the FAQ thread, I figured I would start it up on it's own thread.

If reading this thread offends you in some way, please feel free not to read it or spam comments on it that will only prolong this thread and place it more often on the front of the lists enraging you even further.

That disclaimer over..

Josh stated that this rule and associated house rule makes things simpler.

I disagree and don't see how this is the case.

Core rules:
Your formula for scrolls is 25gp*spell level*caster level + material cost.

Some spells appear on multiple spell lists, and this was evidently too confusing a concept for some. These same people evidently objected that others, more knowledgeable, had purchased items for less gp than they did.

They were able to do this because they understood how scrolls worked and looked at other spell lists. They didn't need to do so, and could have paid a (higher) price by simply looking at their own spell list.

The poster child for this was the spell 'lesser restoration' which is a 2nd level cleric spell and a 1st level paladin spell. Thus a divine scroll of it at minimum caster levels is either 150gp for a 3rd CL scroll scribed by a cleric, or 25gp for a 1st CL scroll scribed by a paladin.

Somehow this single spell really annoys people. If that is truly the case, then the easiest and least impacting house rule would be to make the spell a 2nd level paladin spell rather than a 1st level one. In the end it would cause less confusion and affect less people.

Some people have defended this removal by saying that paladins don't scribe scrolls. Yet there are readily available scrolls of paladin only spells available and they are not clamoring for their removal. Perhaps now they will simply out of their insane dislike for a 1st level lesser restoration spell. I don't know it seems irrational, but c'est la vie. Again I say address this at the root.. alter the spell in question.

The problem with Josh's initial ban is that casters other than Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards suddenly had large amounts of their spell list that they couldn't purchase legal scrolls. This was really unfair to those characters (even the paladin ones who's brothers were scribing those dreaded lesser restoration scrolls).

For example a good number of Bard spells are not on the wizard/sorcerer list but rather only appear on the cleric (or druid) list(s). As scrolls are either arcane or divine depending upon who scribed them, the initial ruling made it so that a bard could not purchase an arcane scroll of cure light wounds, arcane scroll of silence, arcane scroll of freedom of movement, arcane scroll of speak with animals, and many others.

So Josh made a house rule that they could purchase scrolls of them at the prices of their divine counterparts that appeared on the cleric or druid lists.

This plays merry hell with the prices on them, however:
The arcane scroll of cure light wounds is unchanged at 25gp.
The arcane scroll of silence goes from 200gp min to 150gp and is allowed to exist at 3rd CL rather than a 4th CL min.
The arcane scroll of freedom of movement goes from 1000gp to 700gp and is allowed to exist at 7th CL rather than a 10th CL min.
The arcane scroll of speak with animals goes from 525gp to 25gp and is allowed to exist at 1st CL rather than 7th CL min.

Now the knowledgeable PC will be able to purchase in a good number of cases cheaper scrolls than core, and read them without check at earlier levels than they otherwise would be allowed.

Those not in the know of course can only complain. Perhaps this will generate another house rule, and so on.

Meanwhile other prices have increased, and worse the minimum CL on them has increased. The later is a serious problem in that a reader for a scroll needs to have his/her caster level at least as high as the caster level of the scroll to read it without a check.

The irredeemably evil lesser restoration spell that those foul paladins could provide increases from 25gp at 1st CL to 150gp at 3rd CL. Likewise rangers, bards, summoners, etc have spells that are higher caster level on scrolls than the minimum CL for their class.

What does this mean?

It means that if a poor 1st level bard wishes to say buy a scroll of hideous laughter he needs to spend 150gp rather than 25gp. Worse yet is that when he goes to read the scroll he needs to know that he has to make a caster level check to do so. Doesn't matter if it's a spell known to him or not. A 4th level ranger with resist energy memorized can't always read a minimum CL divine scroll of it on another.

All in all, I'm not seeing how ANY of this is EASIER. Rather it makes it more complicated and what does it SOLVE?

It stops 25gp scrolls of lesser restoration, 50gp potions of lesser restoration and 750gp wands of lesser restoration.

Changing lesser restoration to a 2nd level paladin spell would fix this and more.

Currently a 4th level paladin could memorize that hideous lesser restoration spell, cast it and then using only a 1st level pearl of power (say provided by the party cleric) recall the spell to cast it again.

Now a cleric would need to use a 2nd level pearl that costs 4000gp to do this! Thus that same investment by the cleric on 1st level pearls would have that paladin casting it a total of 5 times rather than only twice!

If the others are a problem, why isn't this?

If making all of these complicated house rules to achieve this is worth impacting all of the non-primarily listed spell casters (bards, summoners, inquisitors, witches, etc), why not just address the actual thing that is wanted to be 'fixed' and that's lesser restoration.

Either way PFS is making a house rule and diverting from the core, but this way the impact is far less while achieving even more along the lines that it seems was intended for it.

I'm not a fan of house rules in organized play. I think that they should be minimized, and wherever possible avoided altogether. Living Greyhawk fell into the trap of making these rules time after time, and it got to the point that there were many rules for which a good majority of the long time players were unaware. It made entrance into it in the later years a very daunting affair, and for no good reason. The campaign guide at one point neared 100pages like some avalanche that started as a small pebble. If I recall right one volunteer spent a great deal of time cutting it down at one point into a readable document, much like Hercules clearing the stables.

It never needed to get to that point, and as PFS goes through version after version of its rules document if it's not careful the same will happen to it. And it will discourage new players like the myriad of accounting rules that LG accumulated did as well.

I want us to learn from past organized play campaigns' mistakes.

-James


Is there a way in PFS for a fighter to have a mount that's more durable than, say, a heavy warhorse?

A ranger or paladin have scalable mounts. Does a fighter have anything comparable, or do most viable mounted combat builds need to be paladins or rangers?

-James


Since casters can cast 0 level spells at will, shouldn't wands of 0 level spells be either priced differently, or at least work on a certain number of charges per day?

Seems skewed to pay 375gp for 50 charges of something a caster could do 1/round, and just double that for the same number of charges that a caster can only do a small limited number of times per day.

-James


Is anyone else annoyed by some of the mod stat blocks that say things like 'use stats for the thugs in encounter 1 just change X and Y'?

I, for one, would rather have everything listed out for each encounter at the encounter. As a result I've taken to writing them up on my own, but that gets annoying at times.

-James


©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.