|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If you have a character concept that is disruptive to the expected level of play (lets call it "Pathfinder Standard of Care"), you have an obligation to explain your character concept and work with the table towards an acceptable solution to compensate. Its part of the "Cooperate" thingy.
Not fully explaining how your character is going to work and finding a solution before game play starts could be bordering on the "Don't be a Jerk" paradigm. Remember, you chose to be the pacifist in a Society which often requires the use of violence to obtain its goals - you need to make sure you can make it work.
In the real world, a brief conflagration of unconstrained fire like a fireball might not be enough to even light the rope or clothing on fire. Rope and cloth would take a somewhat sustained infusion of thermal energy to ignite, even if perfectly dry, which is not likely in the damp environment on a body of water.
Does anyone take into account the energy attacks get halved before applying damage to hardness?
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion.
Or am I missing something?
Really good advise ... I am inspired for me next campaign!
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Only CHA 7 wizards need hookers ... Sorcerer's have rock-star CHA and have groupies throwing themselves at them.
If you have to explain the particulars of each animal's physiology and use other other items do work around the core rules, then I would argue it is not "clear".
You obviously believe otherwise - I get it. It's the OP GM's call.
The OP specifically asked "So which familiars have can clearly use wands and how do I back up the reasoning if asked?"
The developers and the official organized play campaign have stated this does not include animal familiars. So "clearly using wands" seems to be the domain of improved familiars.
If you want to split hairs and argue a raven can clutch a stick in its talon (note that this is actually passing for a foot on this creature .. the hand would be the wing) while UMD'ing it, go for it.
Good Wikipedia search. You are correct that some animals show rudimentary use of tools. However, a GM or PFS decision to not allow animals to use wands seems easily justified by their lack of fine motor skills to manipulate objects.
You, or course, could house rule anything you wish.
While this is true, and using a familiar in combat makes it a target, GM's have to be careful and have good reason to target a familiar. Targeting a familiar because it is using a wand of CLW when the real threat is from the PC's can be a dick move.
What everyone else has said, with a couple of extra items ...
Dragons are very long lived, intelligent, magical, and typically wealthy.
They will / should have minions: They will have a network of spies to inform them of various powers entering their domain. I had a dragon who had the local thieves guilds on retainer. They often have tribes of minions worshiping them (think kobolds, lizardmen, etc.) These minions, while not usually a problem for PCs, provide an area of notification for the dragon. Plus, a dragon is egotistical enough not to value these minions and through them away just to drain the PCs of resources.
They are magical, and use magic: They know remote viewing spells, and use them. They have magical items, and use them. They have had the time to hire spellcasters to make defensive spells permanent.
They are / should be ABSOLUTE masters of their lair: They have had YEARS to prepare. All the terrain should be designed in their favor. Appropriate protections should be in place to protect them: dimensional anchors, anti-magic, magic traps, squeeze points for breath weapons, lead-lines walls and doors, finishes which prevent movement through them, etc.
They are patient and devious. They have no issue with picking off players one by one. If a plan of theirs doesn't work, they have years to take revenge.
The party I ran against a dragon BBEG was unable to kill him in the initial encounter before he teleported out. The dragon seethed, and he harassed them for MANY adventures before finally taking his opportunity for revenge. He took pleasure in making their life hell. Sent assassins after them. Contracted hags to send them nightmares. Plagued them with illusions that made them questions of what was real vs. not.
The fear and respect for the dragon came as they became afraid to take on a challenges because he might show up to mess with them. It was great!
If I had run this as a 5-on-1 encounter, they would have destroyed him without the resulting fear and loathing.
Eisenheim's Explosives Emporium
"Because you cannot trust goblins with your explosives"
Servicing Absalom now for three years in providing the finest in explosives and fireworks.
(Artisan's Shop vanity. I even hand out business cards and coupons to the other players at my table. I cannot wait to get a +2 to CHA so I can hire a seneschal to run the business.)
I think Dim Slide is actually superior to Shift, in that it does not end your turn like Shift does. The exception being that you cannot use it to get out of a grapple. When you get eventually get Dim Door, that is two teleports potentially per turn .. can be a party or mission saver.
Just buy a Talisman (lessor) of Freedom: freedom of movement 3 rounds when grappled for 900 gp. A "get-out-of-grapple-free" card. Its in the Occult Adventures (I think).
Thank you for your input! I had read that some time ago and forgot about it.
I am surprised there does not seem to be more ways to increase the pool. I cannot complain about the nerf too much, as I still enjoy playing the Occultist. Still, the ability to use the other exploits I invested in would be nice.
Hello collective brain trust!
Given the errata which reduced the number of times Consume Spells and Consume Magic Items could be used per day (yes, I know it should have been 3 + CHA mod, but we are not here to argue that), I have been searching for ways to increase the number of points in my arcane reservoir. I have an Occultist Arcanist in PFS that I love to play and am not giving him up. Luckily, I did not dump CHA, so sitting at a 14 CHA, I am not in too bad shape.
So here are the ways I can see of increasing the points in the arcane reservoir:
Consume Spells: Add points equal to a spell clot given up for the day. Max use: CHA mod (min 1). Commentary: Most useful way to add points, but nerfed by errata. Not contingent upon actions by others.
Consume Magic Items: Add points equal to 1/2 the level of the spell contained in the item. Only spell greater than 1st count. Max use: CHA mod (min 1). Commentary: Useful way to add points, but nerfed by errata. Not contingent upon actions by others. Costs wealth.
Counter Drain: 1 point per three spell levels on a successful counterspell. Only spells greater than 2nd count. Commentary: Very conditional source of points. Requires investment in the counterspelling exploits. Arguably, counterspelling is not the most efficient use of exploits and actions, although the arcanist seems to do it best.
Resistance Drain: End spell resistance to gain ½ point per spell level of a successfully resisted spell. Commentary: Very conditional source of points. Requires investment in Spell Resistance and Greater Spell Resistance, not normally considered strong exploits.
Siphon Spell: When using greater spell disruption, if the caster level of the spell is equal to or higher than that of the arcanist, and the DC of the dispel check by 5 or more, adds 1 point. If exceeds check by 10 or more, adds 2 points. Commentary: Very conditional source of points. Requires spell disruption and greater spell disruption exploit to select this exploit.
Extra Reservoir: +3 points in arcane reservoir, and the max number of points increases by that amount. Commentary: Solid choice. Can optionally be retrained at higher levels when points are more available.
Gnome: Gain 1/6 point per level of favored class bonus. Commentary: You have to be a Gnome. 1/6 is not that impressive.
Are there any other items, tricks, traits or features which could assist in getting more points? This is my question to you.
The Numerator wrote:
Well put .. this is how I understand it to work.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Since I have already started to cast, then no AoO, since the AoO is only triggered at the start of casting. So there appears to be a way out whatever the ruling of a GM.
First of all it is true that it might save you some money, but it is freakishly difficult getting spells in the first place. Yes you can buy a scroll to do so but already 2nd level scrolls cost 150gp 3rd 375. compare that to the 10gp 20 30gp scribing cost it is miniscule. Second I get soo much cash anyway.
PFS is not overly generous on cash, so there is really never enough to go around. That being said, getting access to spells is relatively easy: scrolls or spellbooks (rarer) in game, fellow player characters, or at the grand lodge. The first two do not have any access costs, and the last is at half the scribing cost. But I do see spending a bit to get my spell book running "thick".
I really do not see arcane casters using the eclectic and out-of-combat utility spells ... maybe this is for good reason. But I do want to have a go at it.
Thank you for your thoughts. My estimates are that Cypher Script would save me about 6500 - 7000 on writing spells from levels 1 -11. I am looking to carry around a large amount of spells, not just the 10 or so most ideal ones that everyone carries (see original post). However, I will have to re-evaluate my assumptions based on your advise.
I would like to tap into the collective brain-trust if I might to ask for opinions on when or if to take augment summoning for my Occultist Arcanist.
The Basics: I have an Occultist Arcanist I am developing for PFS. The premise is a Johnny-on-the-spot spellcaster for all situations – a spellcaster’s spellcaster. What I mean by this is to develop a thick spellbook, and make liberal use of Quick Study to get the party out of a pinch. I envision using this mainly for non-combat utility spells to overcome scenario situational difficulties with magic. To use the eclectic utility spells no one has time to memorize. Occultist enhances this by allowing extra “spells” per day from it’s summon monster ability, and would allow more utility spells to be allocated during non-combat events . I do not see this character as a primary summoner – summoning just happens to be one of his useful tricks, in and out of combat.
The Problem: As an Occultist Archetype, I am losing two free exploits at 1st and 7th – and I really love the exploits. I am finding it hard to put off things like dimensional slide and potent magic for augment summoning. I have another character who is a dedicated summoner, so augment summoning was a no-brainer - I took it at 1st level (also a human) and never looked back. Since I do not have experience with not having augment summoning, the question is: Would you take Augment Summoning with this build concept, and if so, when? Is Augment Summoning still viable in later encounters, or should I ditch the Augment Summoning altogether in favor of better opportunities?
Feats are currently as follows:
Any opinions offered would be most appreciated.
I find that the theory-crafting loses part of its luster particularly with PFS as you often cannot just stop and divine your way into a perfect spell selection. These things are timed and there are often consequences for stalling.
Furthermore, some poster's ideas of battle field control (i.e. God-mode) can really slow play down quite a bit, so take that into account.
I have also seen in my area that wizard's do not, in PFS, change their spell selection as much as you would think.
I always encourage people to play what they like, and that is what I would say to you.
Hello gaming world,
If I could impose upon your goodwill, I would like to tap your collective experience for some advise.
The Question is this: Is there any way to get Dex in place of Str for both to-hit AND damage for a Kensai wielding a katana?
I am not really interested in a scimitar for the Dervish Dance route, as I am pretty fixed on using a katana for flavor reasons. At most, I would consider downsizing to the wakazashi.
I could do a level dip if needed, but would prefer to stay single-classed.
Although my search foo is not perfect, I have investigated slashing grace as getting halfway to the prize.
Its a PFS build, so I've got that going for me.
Any help you can render would be most appreciated.
Figments and glamours work more or less like holograms. Figments create a "hologram" out of thin air (like Silent Image). Glamours make a thing look like something else, put a "hologram" around a creature or object (like Disguise Self). Every creature, if it has the senses to detect them, can see and experience them - it is not specifically happening in the mind of the beholder.
Well, you cited the same section from golems that I (attempted) to paraphrase. I also added the definition from the Intelligence Ability score - "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." No INT = no ability to learn or reason. I was aware that they have OK WIS scores - just saying it is not unfair to call them stupid.
And maybe there is some confusion in that I did not mean to suggest that you attack through a silent image wall .. just that you put it up and walk around or away, or use it to divide and conquer if there is more than one enemy.
See, I interpreted his response as "A" ... I could not see where he gave any indication "B" or "C" would be considered.
I agree with your interpretation, BTW.
The reason I was trying to get a more descriptive answer is that more than a few GM's do not interpret the illusion school of spells properly. For example, do not understand that mind-affecting immune creatures are not immune to figments.
Whether I like it or put relevance on it is immaterial ... TriOmegaZero is a Venture Lieutenant for PFS, and has administered at least 150 games to get 5-stars, so his opinion matters at least a little with respect to the influence it has over his area.
How would pointing that out be inappropriate?
So when you say "Which is what I said." in response to Jiggy's "Or more to the point, it will react to the illusory wall in the same way as it would react to a real wall, regardless of what that reaction might be." you meant, "All golems will try to smash through the illusion wall, because all golems would try to smash through a normal wall."
Is this then correct?
If so, then it is not the same, as the creator's instructions would make golem's reaction conditional.
Since you did not let this issue lie ...
In your example refuting my statement that a silent image is often all that is needed to shut down a golem (or other mindless creature), you specifically mentioned that golems would simply walk through the wall Kool-Aid style. Are you now reversing you tack?
To clarify, which is your position:
A. All golems will walk through a silent image of a wall, ignoring what there eyes tell them. Because that's what golems do.
B. Some golems will walk through a wall (fake or not), because they have been specifically instructed to walk through barriers in pursuit of some triggering condition.
C. Golems typically will not walk through a wall (image or otherwise), because it is a barrier which prevents them from seeing any threat.
D. Some other explanation.
Keep in mind .. mindless means just that ... without the ability to think or remember anything, or the ability to develop tactics beyond what it has been specifically instructed to do. Also keep in mind that instruction have to be simple, per the creation rules of such automatons.
You are a 5-star judge for PFS, and a venture-lieutenant, so with the 150+ games you have sat over, I would assume that this has possibly come up once or twice.
What he said.
I do not get your response. Are you saying that it is guarding the illusion wall, or breaking through it a-la Kool-Aid style?
If it is breaking through Kool-Aid style, then it would probably have had to been instructed to do so, such as "If you see anything approach this area, follow it until you destroy it" or some other (simple) condition. In which case, it should also attempt to go through normal walls as well.
While that is technically true, a GM who directs a mindless creature to question what is before their eyes isn't really playing a mindless creature correctly now, are they.
And figments are not mind-affecting effects, so that does not apply. ( mind-affecting effects = charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)
Now, if you do not have eyes and are mindless, that is a different story ...
One thing interesting to note is that deities MAY have the power to change worlds, but there are other deities to contend with who would resist that change, maybe even catastrophically. This would probably be the main challenge for character in that they have to deal with other divine powers. Most likely, in VERY subtle way ... upsetting the balance of power in the good and evil planes of existence could make one a dead god.