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

lantzkev's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,627 posts (3,624 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters. 16 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

disregard the above advice saying don't be tiefling/aasimar... seriously it's about your character not the norms. Your gm can decide how the norms interact with you.


As would a million other things that are not perfectly crystal clear with the rules in any RPG system but who is going to want to buy a $400 rulebook that is 2000 pages long, full of endless tables.

I've played several RPGs with tables for damage die laid out ad nausem, or that gave you a "use this method to determine what's next" much how with str and carrying capacity they tell you what to do with what's beyond the table...

Oh and those rpgs I mentioned, were the same or cheaper than a core pathfinder book and around the same page length.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I generally view people who say a class lacks flavor as saying "it doesn't match any of my favorite tropes and/or I just don't like it"


funny how different ways (or people) presenting the same idea get different responses...

Sczarni *

That bastard had this coming to him! May god have mercy on his soul.


plate armor with spikes... because it's plate armor and it's spikey.


not really sure I'd call it an abuse myself as it seems to be that that is the intent of the item, either that or it's just meant to be an expensive way to get no bonus.


ah there we go, thanks for pointing out the monster feat improved natural attack... it lays it out further than any other table.

clear and dry. no need for FAQ or long drawn out speeches about patterns to follow that aren't really patterns.


weapon damage is multiplied on a critical, leadblades just increases the damage die of the weapon...

short answer yes it does.


I know the feeling...

hey, what's the damage do

"I think it does this based on this"
"well what about this?"
"naw you can't count that it's an outlier, look at the other pattern"
"so there isn't a clear pattern because theirs exceptions"
"no man there's a pattern, just not that one..."
"so which do you use"
"the one I said is right"
"but there's nothing that proves it's right"
"rips hair out, goes to bed"
"agrees and writes this..."


Exceptions exist. Don't base your patterns off of exceptions.

The point of it all is that there is no established pattern, regardless of what you think, it's clear there isn't based on the fact there are "outliers"

Hence it needs something official said, either a revision of the table to make it actually have a pattern or an extension of the table to include variations all the way out to colossal ++ for every base damage die.


someone doesn't believe in math or science apparently as fact rather than fiction...

at any rate for this game we can prove patterns or not, we know this does not have pattern we can reasonably infer, so we need the designers of the game to tell us what happens or we have table variation of 6d12s, 12d6s, 8d8s... etc


so you are trying to advocate there's a pattern, but it's not based on a pattern you can prove....


This needs an FAQ, not "trust me I broke the code! it's 12d6, no wait it's 6d12, no wait it's 8d8....


lets look at the d10 issue.

(small to med to large)
lvl 1 1d4 -> 1d6 -> 1d8
lvl 4 1d6 -> 1d8 -> 2d6
lvl 8 1d8 -> 1d10 -> 2d8
lvl 12 1d10 -> 2d6 -> 3d6
lvl 16 2d6 -> 2d8 -> 3d8
lvl 20 2d8 -> 2d10 -> 4d8

we see that so far the monk table is following the weapon table perfectly (and the monster table) as far as single die progression.

Now neither the monk nor the monster table have anything for what happens from 2d6 past large but if you look at the weapon table we see tiny 2d6 goes to 2d10 (med) to 4d8 large..

which does not fit a pattern of just doubling the existing creature table. (because if we look at 1d6 increased two sizes we see it's simply 2d6 so we can't simply say it's 8d6 and call it a day for a colossal monk @lvl 12)

I personally believe they hosed the table and didn't give it a true pattern, but one that's largely based off an idea of how they felt things should progress.


what I've shown is that depending on where you look you can extrapolate it several ways, none of which have any clear guide to how to extraplote them beyond what's in the table.

You could take one of three different stances and get different numbers.

There is also no general rule that explains how to do this.

Going off of extrapolation my way the end result could be 6d12 (6-72)
going off of yours we could get 8d6(8-54)
or just going off the alternating pattern 8d8(8-64)

All of which are fairly different values.

We can find inconsistancies with either of the above three methods by comparing them to a different source. To be condescending and declare your way correct is a bit rude to say the least. The idea was to get an FAQ on this... not "look at what we've already said even though we're not rule sources and clearly have errors"


if we look at monsters advancement from 1d6

we see 1d6 to 1d8 to 2d6 to 2d8 to 4d6 (already a different progression)

we also don't see a table that progresses beyond that.

So it's clear the assumption of increases to the die are incorrect going from one size to two sizes larger.
If we take the same pattern of d6 to d8 then back to d6 then d8...

we could say

2d6 ->2d8 ->4d6 ->4d8 ->8d6 -> 8d8

Or you can look at the existing weapon table and realise tiny weapon (2d6) goes to medium (2d10) to large (4d8)

Neither of the above examples hold a consistant "only d6" pattern


I'm asking other than an unreasonable extrapolation (it's much more reasonable to assume that for going up two sizes you'd find a table that matches it to some degree and extrapolate from there... in which case you discover tiny (2d6) to large is (4d8))

Constantly harping that it stays at d6s and just doubles doesn't make logical sense when you look at the tables provided for monk and equipment.


I'd love an explanation of why you think it's terrible beyond you thinking everything stays at d6s for some reason.

look at 2d6 when it's tiny (going up two sizes) it turns into 3d8

So why do you assume 2d6 jumps to 4d6?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I've used the search function, but at the same time nothing ever comes up other than extrapolation. It was actually one of the posts that prompted me to put this one up.

My own guess is that in this hypothetical you go as follows

med (2d6) to large 3d6
med 2d6 to huge 4d8 (look at tiny 2d6 to large size...)
At this point we're left extrapolating further...
med 2d6 to gargantuan 5d10
med 2d6 to gargantuan+ 6d12


it still stacks with polymorph though, it's not and effect increasing your size, you are another size.

At any rate we have either gargantuan sized from (medium 2d6) or gargantuan + 1 size lvl (from medium 2d6)


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

If I had a lvl 12 monk, and had elemental form 3 on him (makes him large) then had enlarge cast on him, and he had impact on his amulet of mighty fists and had animal aspect gorilla on him.. what would his dmg be?

I know at huge the 2d6 would go to 4d8, but past that I'm unsure.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

yeah and if you go with the "enchancement bonuses to ac are negated" there's zero point to having an armored coat beyond wanting to wear a coat.

So clearly there needs to be an explanation of how this works that's easier to understand for all (as you can tell by the varied responses)

My own take is this:

Take the highest armor (including enhancement bonus to ac) and then any other effects are only calculated from the armored coat.


I'd tell you but I'd have to kill you...

Wear a mask, use illusions/glammer/etc

It's such a secret even the most devout priests don't know anything... and if they do, they keep that a secret =D


exactly, it's I guess a clarification for the purposes of the coat what over rides what exactly.

If you were a moderate forticiation coat over +5 chain mail, do you get moderate fortification and the +5 chain mail ac or +1 and moderate fort (what's on top) and the chainmail ac =D

It's not terribly clear.


9 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

If I had an armored coat

armored coat:
Price 50 gp
Armor Bonus +4
This sturdy leather coat is reinforced with metal plates sewn into the lining. An armored coat is more cumbersome than light armor but less effective than most medium armors. The advantage of it is that a person can don it or remove it as a move action (there is no "don hastily" option for an armored coat). If worn over other armor, use the better AC bonus and worse value in all other categories; an armored coat has no effect if worn with heavy armor. The only magic effects that apply are those of armor, clothing, or items worn on top.

that was enchanted to be say a +5 armored coat and wore it over a +1 heavy fortification Breastplate what would the ac bonus be?

Would the ac be +7 (+6 ac from bp +1 from enchancement) or +11(+6 from bp, +5 from armored coat (the higher effective bonus total)

To sum it up, is the enchancement bonus considered an effect for how the armored coat works, or just things like fortification/glamer/resists/slick etc...?

FAQ please


1 person marked this as a favorite.

arcanist is not the most op by any stretch


sorc arcane bond has limitations as well...


if you want a summoned creature that can really fight, ya gotta spend gold on things like gate and planar ally.



To which class spell know feature it point? Not necessarily to the sorcerer class, as you can take this ability even if you aren't a sorcerer. It point to your character spell know feature.

At most you can say that it is limited to the class feature of the class in which you have taken a level when taking the feat.

just because you're getting it else where, with the way you're creating this unique "because I said it is" looking for sorc spell known rather than spells known rule, it will forever be seeking this spells known by sorcerer rather than spells known.

If you let it apply any spell known from the class that picks up the feat you're saying that the ability merely refers to spells known by that character rather than by that class.

you treat your sorcerer level as yours minus two... that means for the purposes of that feat you're a sorcerer.


the faq about mount from cavalier and druid animal companion...


Unfortunately, this means we are getting an arcane bond as though we are a wizard, meaning we get the wizard's arcane bond.

The rest of the ability tells us how to alter that ability for us, a sorcerer. It also tells us that it stacks with the Wizard levels we may or may not have. The ability tells us that it is the same ability as the wizard's. It tells us it stacks with wizard levels. It tells us we cannot use it to select the 'other' version of the ability.

like the animal companion cavalier mount there's no actual ruling that prevents them from being two separate things unless the rule its self denies it (it only excludes familiar and arcane bond)


The text of the Arcane bond ability, when removed from the context of the sorcerer class will allow you to cast any know spell, but it is still pointing to a Know spell feature of a class, not to the spells know to a wizard/witch/magus because he has recorded then in his spellbook.

What you just did there is not part of the rules, you get it as if you were a sorcerer of your lvl -2.

You just created a rule out of thin air to make it give a benefit that you argue doesn't exist.


You cannot have the same class feature more than one time. We know that these are the same class feature because of that first quote. We know that instead of getting two copies of the exact same ability, our effective level stacks because of the second quote.

So how do you resolve it with the FAQ? How do you resolve the gunslinger and holy gun and big game hunter issue? (one battered gun, three? two?)

The wizard arcane bond does not say it stacks, so there for it doesn't stack... and it states cast any spell in your book 1/day

The sorcerer arcane bond does stack with wizard so it does stack... and it states cast any spell known 1/day

Therefore we have two different arcane bonds with two different but similar effects.


That comment is at odds with the theory that the spells known refers specifically to the sorcerer spells known.

(I don't disagree with your stance) But there's no difference functionally in this situation between spells known of an oracle and spells known of a wizard.


I'd make it out of darkleaf if I could, same effect but cheaper!


I agree that that might be what the item is for, or at least one of the ideas, the problem is the rules aren't quite so clear onhow to implement it in regards to enhancement bonuses (if those are an effector not) and in PFS this vagueness matters for table variance.


and the sorc version just simply states "any spell known"

I've asked this question in the other thread, and to this no one has answered....

IF say a lvl 20 oracle has an arcane bond through eldritch heritage... Does the arcane bond let them cast a spell known from their oracle spells.


be careful with the arcane bond... some believe that the arcane bond from eldritch heritage only apply to spells from the sorc spells known table... which you don't have.


in general you can't cast that spell unless you're that race...


fiddlers just ignore sledge, he clearly didn't bother to read the item before he replied.


That's actually interesting that you bring that up.

I never noticed that item, but it seems like a possibility. The biggest problem is the magical effect clause. the +1 enhancement bonus to armor could be considered a magical effect as well and so you'd never see more than a +1. beyond the base armor.


Remy that was never a serious question anyone had, there's FAQs and other things around that indicate what you said is true, the original poster asked as an aside to prove an completely unrelated point.



Now if you wanted to argue for 1 bonded item and one familiar I might be able to see that, barring further examination of the rules.

edit: Eidolons are not animal companions anymore than a familiar is an animal companion so the ruling does not cross over

Are you even reading anything now?

Or do you just not know how cavalier mount and animal companion works?

prd wrote:
This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level.

Much like a paladin, ranger, etc getting an animal companion/mount...

It's generally been assumed you always get just one animal companion/mount regardless of how many sources you have and that they all stack with each other. so that if you were say a 5pal/5 cavalier/5ranger/5 druid you wouldn't have 5 different mounts/animals at lvl 5, but you'd have one at lvl 20... Now we see there is an official source saying "well yes and no, take your pick basically"

So I guess if you want to use your sense of it has to be exactly different, we could have a bonded ring for sorc, and a bonded pinky ring for the wiz...


the lantern archon thing is nothing unique to the summoner though, just fyi. Every arcane and divine class with summon monster can do it...(nearly all of them)

Your definition of cheesy is now every caster in the game nearly.



You have two abilities that grant you an arcane bond, that do not state they cannot work together, or that by taking both you only get one arcane bond...

hence you have permission for two bonds, and there is no restriction except that you can't get a familiar and arcane bond at the same time.



Once again the rules are permissive, not restrictive. There are a LOT of things the rules don't tell me I can't do, but I know better than to try them.

They don't say I can't make a 90 degree cut in mid jump, but I am sure I will never get to pull it off at anyone's table.

I have two rules that both say I get an arcane bond.

You claim incorrectly that there is something that prevents what the rules provide permission for.

If they wanted you to have a choice they would have said you can have one ....... or two........

It's interesting that they provided text in regards to not having a familiar and arcane bond, but not excluding two familiars or two arcane bonds.

And while I agree that the intent may have been to cause stacking issues and prevent people from having two familiars, two arcane bonds etc, there's no language that raw prevents two bonds.


I think you're assuming something that's not written into the rules of the game anywhere.

It's funny you mention the ediolon thing... ya know much like animal companions....


Cavalier: Do animal companion levels from the druid class stack with cavalier mount levels?

If the animal is on the cavalier mount list and on the list of animal companions for your other class, your cavalier and druid levels stack to determine the animal's abilities. If the animal is not on the cavalier mount list, the druid levels do not stack and you must have different animals (one an animal companion, one a cavalier mount).
For example, if you are Medium druid and you choose a horse companion, levels in cavalier stack to determine the horse's abilities. If you are a Medium druid and you choose a bird companion, levels in cavalier do not stack to determine the bird's abilities, and you must choose a second creature to be your mount (or abandon the bird and select an animal companion you can use as a mount).
This same answer applies to multiclassed cavalier/rangers.
(Note that the design team discourages players from having more than one companion creature at a time, as those creatures tend to be much weaker than a single creature affected by these stacking rules, and add to the bookkeeping for playing that character.)

As an aside, this was already quoted on this exact same page...

same feature from two different classes essentially providing either one or two different companions... If we went with your logic this is impossible.

So we're told they stack if identical, but not if they are different.


the rules both state they give you an arcane bond.

This isn't a bonus to a stat/ability/save etc so the stacking rule doesn't apply.

There's nothing in the rules that prohibits you from getting two arcane bonds. If you want to quote a rule that'd be swell, as it stands I have two different class features providing an item each.


I wasn't the one claiming one could one shot anything at the same CR they are.

mechalibur wrote:
The eidolon can usually 1 or 2 shot most CR equivalent monsters, while the summoner keeps it constantly hasted, can offer battlefield control options, and other helpful spells.


so if I was a say monk first and then at lvl 2 picked up gunslinger I wouldn't get a battered gun with your permise.


those items don't work because they say they only work with spontaneous spellcasters... "Once per day, a spontaneous caster can draw upon a runestone of power to cast a spell" It has little to do with what they know and everything with the restriction of the item.

The arcane blood line makes no mention of such exception, it specifically says spells known.

Question for you, what do you think would happen if through eldritch heritage a lvl 20 oracle picked up an arcane bond... just one magic item that's really cool and cheap to enchant or also 1 spell he knows cast through it...

1 to 50 of 2,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.