|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
I belive that this is not intended as an immediate action. Instead, the spell goes off (missing or hitting or failing to overcome SR) as normal, and then on the cat's initiative, it can perform this special teleport as a swift action. The bit about following with a full attack is a reminder that using a swift action does not prevent the full-round attack action. I think that... When a dweomercat is targeted... is a key phrase. "when it is targeted" I can't (off the top of my head) think of an instance where an ability is triggered at one point in a round, but then the response doesn't get to go off until some other point in the round. For example, a monster provokes an AoO on its turn as it is moving past the PC fighter. The fighter doesn't get to take his action later, during his initiative, he takes it immediately. The OP claims that if this is the case, the ability is basically useless in all but extremely limited situations. I claim that if this ability is actually an immediate action, and includes a full attack as part of that immediate action, it's too powerful. If you go by your interpretation, if effectively gets a full attack for the cost of a swift action on its turn, and then, can still perform a full attack, therefore getting two full attack actions. I say that because the full attack it gains via the Dweomer Leap ability is executed as a swift action by the wording as is. Two scenarios... Caster Wins Init: In this scenario, the cat has not had its init yet (caster goes first). 1) Spellcaster targets Dweomercat with Spell. Resolves spell (pass/fail irrelevant)
Cat Wins Init: In this scenario, the cat has already acted in the round. 1) Spellcaster targets Dweomercat with Spell. Resolves spell (pass/fail irrelevant)
Is this how you believe it is supposed to work? Or, is it more likely that the designer(s) inadvertently said "swift" when they meant to say "immediate"?
I posted this originally in the AP31 Product Discussion thread (here) but as its a general rule/errata question and it only got one response I thought I'd try posting it here as well. Anyway, in KM1 (AP31) there is a creature called "Dweomercat" which has a special ability (spoilered): Spoiler:
Dweomer Leap (Su) When a dweomercat is targeted by a spell or within the area of effect of a spell, it can, as a swift action, choose to teleport to a square adjacent to the spell’s caster, effectively appearing mid-leap and aimed toward the caster. This ability takes effect regardless of whether or not the spell overcomes the dweomercat’s spell resistance. If it chooses, the dweomercat can immediately make a full attack against the spell’s caster as though pouncing. Using this ability does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If there is no safe space adjacent to the caster—or if the dweomercat chooses—the dweomercat can forgo using this ability. My question: As I understand it, swift actions may only be performed during the turn of the creature using it. Only immediate (or readied/delayed) actions can be used when it is not the creatures turn. If that is correct, then other than in extremely limited circumstances, isn't this ability basically useless? Or, should this actually be errata'd to have been an "immediate" action and not a "swift" action?
Not sure if its best to post here or in the Rules Questions forum but anyway, in KM1 (AP31) there is a creature called "Dweomercat" which has a special ability (spoilered): Spoiler:
Dweomer Leap (Su) When a dweomercat is targeted by a spell or within the area of effect of a spell, it can, as a swift action, choose to teleport to a square adjacent to the spell’s caster, effectively appearing mid-leap and aimed toward the caster. This ability takes effect regardless of whether or not the spell overcomes the dweomercat’s spell resistance. If it chooses, the dweomercat can immediately make a full attack against the spell’s caster as though pouncing. Using this ability does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If there is no safe space adjacent to the caster—or if the dweomercat chooses—the dweomercat can forgo using this ability. My question: As I understand it, swift actions may only be performed during the turn of the creature using it. Only immediate (or readied/delayed) actions can be used when it is not the creatures turn. If that is correct, then isn't this ability effectively useless? Or, is this actually an errata and the action type should have been "immediate" not "swift"?
We'll probably either go with practical names ("Defensive Acrobatic Style," "Offensive Scorpion Style," and so on) or create flavorful names (roper style, dragon style, etc.) and in each's introductory paragraph, pointout "This style is good for emulating combat styles such as X, Y, and Z." +(a lot) Do that, yes :)
While I often find DRM annoying, I perfectly well respect a person or groups right to attempt to ensure that they are compensated for their efforts. There are enough people out there willing to take something for free that it endangers those creative persons/groups ability to make enough money off of their efforts to support them continuing to create whatever it is they are creating. Some people are so short-sighted that they don't realize that if you don't support those who are creating those things you enjoy, those people will stop creating those things you enjoy. Its like finding an awesome bakery, then stealing their bread every day, encouraging others to do the same, then not understanding why the bakery goes out of business. If you like the bread, pay for the bread so the baker can afford to buy flour so you can enjoy bread tomorrow.
A poster on Enworld asked about the possibility of a Czech translation here. The poster says that the largest distributor in his (?) country tried contacting Paizo several months ago with no response so I am reposting his question here.
I personally would have much rather seen the various sorts of arrows made into a list of properties that can be applied to various missiles. As it is now there are many cases where it would be neat to have the same property on a crossbow bolt, or a sling bullet, or a dart, for example, but in each of those cases you will have to clear it with your GM.
Not that I know much about D&D Essentials but I believe they did something like this there too... ie, saying "some things just can't be created by players" and therefore making them either unique, or exceptionally rare. I think I'd do the same thing but instead of making an arbitrary statement that "players can't make it" I'd say something like "some items are not forged intentionally by crafters but are imbued by the forces of nature independent of craftsmen.. they inherit certain traits as a result of heroic acts and can not simply be crafted" etc. Something like a sword that can slay a certain type of creature... I'd give it an elaborate history, make it unique, and say that it developed that ability naturally in the hands of a mighty hero hundreds of years ago after an epic war against that particular race etc. This way the item is filled with majesty and the players know ahead of time that some things just occur "magically" and mysteriously etc.
I've just told my players that "you will gain a level every 4th session, from now to eternity" and they go with that. They plan ahead and know when they will advance and it allows them to ignore things like worrying about if they've gotten enough encounters in or if they wasted too much time roleplaying in town talking to commoners about selling loot etc. This way they just play naturally, without concern for meta elements like worrying if they've killed enough bad things to advance or not. Works for me.
I'm wondering how long people will continue putting up with this. If enough people make it insanely clear what it is they expect for their gaming $ maybe Paizo will deliver it. For me, I want some damn attention paid to the errata and not some token 5 minutes here and there updating one or two questions a week when there are hundreds (if not more) mistake, typos, and pieces of missing text throughout the assortment of books Paizo continues to spit out every couple of months. As can be seen from above, I subscribe to the Companion, Chronicles, and Campaign setting lines. I'm at a point now where if I don't see significant improvements in the errata/FAQ situation I'll just stop sending them $ every month. I've got better things I can spend my hard earned money on. If Paizo doesn't want to focus on what I want them to focus on that's fine with me, I'll just take my $ elsewhere. I have to say that this sure makes me appreciate the quality of the 3.0 (core) books all the more. In their case they started from scratch and created an entirely new system with relatively few errors.
Hey Keichiku, I have a few books I could send you if you are interested and forgive my ignorance, if it is legal here to do so. I currently have "Sargava The Lost Colony," "Pathfinder Chronicles Heart of the Jungle," and "Pathfinder Chronicles City of Strangers." These were originally to be given away to collaborators on d20pfsrd.com but I'd be glad to send one of your choice to you just as a gift. By the way, have you been to d20pfsrd.com? It might be useful to you. Anyway, if anyone is knowledgeable about mailing products to Cuba from the U.S., please let me know. I have no idea if I can do that or not. If I can, I just need an address Keichiku and I'll send it right over.
I've resorted to 3 + Stat mod per day for all classes that can use o-level spells. It's a nice happy medium between the 3.5 and PF versions. To make sure I understand you correctly, you are saying classes can cast any cantrip they normally could, EACH, 3 + Stat mod times per day. So if I had an 18 Int and knew message, mage hand, and ray of frost, I could cast each of them 7 times per day. Seems fair to me. More uses without getting into infinite land.
The biggest thing I liked better about 3.5 is cantrips. It just bugs me they are unlimited now. I know it is a minor thing but it just bugs me.Oh yes, this too. + me too. I'll probably revert to 3.5 for cantrips in any game I run, or alternatively use a book with some alternative cantrip rules if I can find any I like :)
...and unflag stuff that doesn't need an official response as a FAQ or errata item (if someone FAQ-flagged a post asking, "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?", we'd unflag it). And then poor mr. wants to know the answer flags it again a few days later. And then again.. a few days later. And then someone else does. Or... alternatively, poor mr. stupid who doesn't understand the rules, could post the question on a board only paizo can respond to and then someone from Paizo can respond with a canned response "not a problem" or something, instead of leaving the dude in the dark. Just sayin.
So... I ask this because there are some issues are more wording issues that fall under Errata. Is there something else we do for issues that would fall under Errata? Which... is why I really think the other idea... of a normal thread that only Paizo can respond to... would have been far, far superior. Then, instead of James Jacobs answering 45 inane questions about what his favorite adventure is, or what flavor ice cream he likes on Sundays, he might take the time to respond to some of these questions. I'm prepared to be obliterated by those who seem to prefer to know what color briefs he wears vs. answering questions that people have been begging for answers for... for like almost a freaking year.
There's a landscape one on the d20pfsrd.com downloads page.
Well I've probably already ticked off most everyone I can so what have I got to lose? I'll post anyway. Inexplicably, Paizo left out many rules from the SRD, including (but not limited to) burrow mechanics, a list of all bonus types, rules for how antimagic works (and many other various bits and pieces of the SRD that got lost somehow.) Most (all?) of these have YET to make it into one of the many reprints or official errata that have been released. If I recall correctly even one of the most recent errata's slipped by with almost nothing in it... accidentally (and unfortunately of course.) The collaborators and volunteers on d20pfsrd.com have compiled a list of errata and mistakes that various posters have discovered. These have all been listed in a neat and tidy database format, but Paizo has opted to ignore all of that fan effort and instead create an entirely new FAQ system that basically asks the fans to go back AGAIN through the thousands of threads and flag the questionable ones. This has already been done once but that effort served no purpose apparently, even though a very large percentage of the FAQ candidate questions and subjects are ALREADY compiled on the site for easy reading and review. The d20pfsrd.com Unofficial Errata DB Here are some specific examples... Look up the fun subject of horses and combat training (there are many posts on this subject... how does it work after all?) Look up the subject of horses and the Advanced Template making them no longer animals. (+4 to all ability scores makes it no longer an animal) Read about playtest Inquisitor Powers left in final rules Core Rulebook Errata/Mistakes (611 posts) Bestiary Errata/Mistakes (347 posts) Errata for the Bestiary Errata/Mistakes APG Errata/Mistakes (242 posts) Adventurer's Armory (read the reviews) Adventurer's Armory (read comments starting on page 4) Read the "Cons" in this thread Other random posts of interest: Believe me, I have only pasted a very limited snippet of actual errors. Some apologists will of course exclaim once again that any large effort is bound to have mistakes. I get that. But the second, third, fourth etc printings should not contain the very same mistakes that have already been discovered. Further, the same mistakes shouldn't then crop up in completely different books. Paizo folks repeatedly and profusely apologize for error after error, insisting it will get better, yet it doesn't seem to. You may note though that even given all of the above, I was giddy as a school girl to meet the various Paizo folks, talk to Jason, James, Erik, etc, and even attend the Pathfinder Rules Q&A at GenCon. I *love* the game, and it's certainly the only game for me. All I am saying is that they have a horrible editing process that they seem to acknowledge, but never improve. I've considered dropping my subscriptions but since I just give the books away on d20pfsrd.com anyway, it doesn't really matter that much to me. Anyway, I hope that's at least somewhat enlightening.
Luckily, you could take the Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat to use the abilities as swift actions 3 times per day :) I created a half-orc cleric of war and strength, initially thinking those abilities could be used on himself. The PC is currently 2nd level so the pre-req for Quicken Spell-Like Ability makes that off-limits for some time (Prerequisite: Spell-like ability at CL 10th or higher.) Also, some GM's may believe/rule that feats identified as "monster feats" can not be used by player's, no matter whether that is correct or not. @Set: Thanks for the ideas but the GM is unlikely to allow custom rules. I'll likely just ask him to allow me to rebuild the cleric, as those domains suck if you want to imagine the cleric of war and strength being.. strong and war-like lol I really suspect its a design error and not intentional, but it is what it is absent any comment from Jason.
I didn't care for the idea of that Ignore User option, since it seemed likely to make conversation too incestuous, with people slowing pulling their head further into the sand, surrounding themselves only with an 'echo chamber' of those whose opinions and tones agreed with their own preferences. I only "ignore" people who I feel are rude or disrespectful to others, not people who disagree civilly and politely. I really enjoy seeing varying perspectives but I have no patience for people who belittle and disrespect others. I have a great deal of appreciation for civility and manners though. That you still see these forums as a hotbed of cliquishness and hostility *despite* filtering out users whose posts seem cliquish and hostile, means that my preconceptions may have been unfounded. I can't filter everyone out or it'd be too quiet! lol I wonder if running this script increasingly turns into a game of 'whack-a-mole,' where it seems like people who need to be Ignored start popping up with ever-increasing frequency the longer you use it. Not really, or at least not in my case because I have identified 4-5 poster's as repeatedly rude and belligerent to others. My ignore list grew quickly, then stopped. I haven't added anyone to it in quite some time.
lol :)
Yes, there are, in my estimation, just a few (though for me its more like 4-5) individuals who have seriously poor social skills. I choose not to interact with those specific individuals.
So it appears that both the Strength and War Domain Powers are intended only to be used on targets OTHER than the Cleric of those domains? Strength Surge (Sp): As a standard action, you can touch a creature to give it great strength. For 1 round, the target gains an enhancement bonus equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum +1) to melee attacks, combat maneuver checks that rely on Strength, Strength-based skills, and Strength checks. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier. Battle Rage (Sp): You can touch a creature as a standard action to give it a bonus on melee damage rolls equal to 1/2 your cleric level for 1 round (minimum +1). You can do so a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier. I say this because both effects last "until the next round" and require a Standard Action to use. Therefore, if the Cleric uses them on himself, it takes his Standard Action to target himself in round 1, and then the effect ends just before his next action. So effectively the domain powers are useless to him, and only effective on others. Is that a correct reading of the rules as written and if so, is that how it was intended to work?
+1. There are about 4-5 individuals that practically live on the forums and have a tendency to savage anyone who they feel isn't up to their intellectual and/or Pathfinder rules proficiency level. They make a point of quickly becoming aggressive and offensive towards posters. It is why I am thankful for the "Ignore User" Greasemonkey script. My board reading is much more pleasant when I do not have to read posts by those individuals continually belittling others. It'd be nice if some of these users received some sort of warning, but it hasn't seemed to have happened yet. Also, there is a very strong "fan-boy" factor on these boards and any negative comments will very quickly be attacked. Its fairly pointless to try to say anything negative about anything Paizo does so generally it comes down to "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" which, of course, just feeds into the fanboy-ism. In all honesty I have been continually frustrated by the editing process at Paizo, frustrated almost to the point of considering canceling my subscriptions, but until now I have held my tongue. The reality though is that the situation is clearly not improving, no matter how much various individuals curse the problem. This is something that had better seriously receive some attention. There is a very strong, growing sentiment among many I have spoken or communicated with regarding the horrible editing on book after book and its reaching a breaking point. Ok, commence savaging.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
