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

twells's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 170 posts (175 including aliases). No reviews. 5 lists. No wishlists. 9 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

Dragon Maw, Tail Terror (feat), and Draconic Bloodrager (claw-claw) gives you 4 natural attacks at 1st level. I have a character built around this, and it is pretty effective (while raging), but by no means over-powered. Multi-natural attacks is very draconic.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wedel wrote:
I think I will be going with the Valet Archtype. I have to admit that the Thrush is in almost everyway better than the Raven, except for some thematic things I like...

Sometimes, theme is everything.

Lantern Lodge

Just throwing it out there ... a Thrush can also speak, fly, but gives bonus to Diplomacy instead of Appraise.

Lantern Lodge

A quick reading of the rules and the FAQs would lead me to believe that the "Blood of Dragons" ability of the Dragon Disciple advances both the Sorcerer and the Bloodrager Draconic bloodlines. However, the effects do not stack .. as such, abilities come on line on a "first-past-the-goalpost" fashion. Both the bloodlines are nearly identical, so it should not be such a big problem.

Keep in mind if you argue the point I have made with your GM, you are taking the advice of an intoxicated individual.

Lantern Lodge ***

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.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Lord Lupus the Grey wrote:

Em, I'm not saying, that fireball is the best for destroying a ship.

I'm just asking about it because it's damage is greater, than most siege engines at all, a d it's energy is FIRE vs WOOD.
Yes, I know, that the ship is a tough thing, but "this is magic": damage like from cannon, but with radius of 20ft. And it defenitly will kill some crew, destroy sails and start the fire + will deal some damage to the ship's body. I'm even not talking about black powder on board.

I'm just saying, that ship itself is not only the wooden body. And if you kill the crew - the ship is also dead. And if there is a fire on ship, it's not a 2d6 per round, it must be much destructive according to 360 hp of ship.

Thanks for help.

We will just use mass combat rules for spellcasting bonus -_-

First, Fireball is NOT like a cannon. Most of the damage from a cannon ball is physical damage from shrapnel. Fireball is just a brief explosion of energy.

Yes, in the real world a Fireball would set the ship on fire but in the real world a Fireball would set your clothing on fire too but you don't seem to be arguing for characters to be set on fire. In the real world a person hit by a fireball would be covered in 3rd degree burns and would find it difficult to even move much less continue fighting but I expect you don't want that to be emulated in the game.

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.

Lantern Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:
twells wrote:
Fregod99 completely ninja'd my post - full crit backstab on 20 mins of writing.

Ha! Sorry. Been there.

No worries .. you said it better than I was going to.

Lantern Lodge

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?

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fregod99 completely ninja'd my post - full crit backstab on 20 mins of writing. Well done.

But essentially, what he said.

Lantern Lodge

DM_Blake wrote:

Is anybody a fan of Boxing? The sport where guys beat each other for 12 rounds?

I ask because there's a useful analogy here. Bear with me.

In Boxing, lots of guys just go for the head all round long. They know (correctly) that if they land a great headshot, the fight could end right there. So they keep trying. The other guy, of course, keeps ducking. Sometimes this works, sometimes not.

Other boxers like to punch to the body. It's almost impossible to knock somebody out, particularly a well-trained athlete, with body punches. So why do it?

It wears the guy out. Those body punches hurt the muscles, sap the wind (breathing), and cause a lot of exhaustion. A boxer who has been hit a hundred times to the body is going to find it difficult, perhaps impossible, to breathe well. With oxygen depletion all his muscles, including legs to stand on and arms to throw punches, get very weak. He loses his ability to throw dangerous punches. If you do it right, he becomes practically helpless, certainly harmless.

But fighting that way is boring. No fun. No fun for the fans, either - everybody likes headshots.

What does this have to do with spellcasting?

There are a lot of posts in here saying don't use spells that take control away from a player because it's no fun. Just like body blows are no fun.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

One problem with the mid- to high-level game is the Rocket Tag. Everyone does tons of damage and doesn't worry about defense. I guess some players like it that way but it seems that majority of posts I've read would like less rocket tag.

I think of a campaign's 20 levels like a 20 level boxing match.

As a GM, I can spend 20 levels going for head shots. Bam, nuke to the head, save or take all this damage. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Meanwhile, that fighter is getting bigger swords, deadlier feats, and playing high-damage rocket tag with all my monsters.

Or I can go for body blows. Save or go screaming down the hall and don't come back until the fight is...

Really good advise ... I am inspired for me next campaign!

Lantern Lodge

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Hookers and blow.

If you're a high level wizard and you are PAYING for hookers and blow, you're doing it wrong.

You're a rockstar! People will give you hookers and blow for free!

You're obviously confusing Wally the Wizard with Sammy the Sorcerer whos' got both the Charisma, and Bluff as a class skill. :)

Only CHA 7 wizards need hookers ... Sorcerer's have rock-star CHA and have groupies throwing themselves at them.

Lantern Lodge

graystone wrote:

twells: PFS has it's own house-rules. As such, it doesn't have to follow the actual rules. The developers should have voiced objections before they printed rules that clearly allow animals to qualify. Developer post disapproval doesn't overcome actual printed rules.

As far as "So which familiars have can clearly use wands and how do I back up the reasoning if asked?". I think the familiars CLEARLY stated as being able to use a wand, scroll, or staff is the best way to "back up the reasoning".

"As long as the familiar can speak (like most improved familiars and a few birds) and hold or wear the item as necessary" is the current standard. Note, BIRDS are listed so I don't see how that's 'hair splitting'. It'd be 'hair splitting' IMO for someone to exclude said raven, not for inclusion. Also, a bird doesn't need to move it's beak to vocalize so it can clutch that wand in it's beak.

For other non-improved familiars/birds, the check is #1 speaking and #2 hold or wear the item. A Ring of Eloquence easily covers the speaking part and holding works for many as fine motor skills isn't needed just "hold".

Avians and Biped can wear rings so Monkey, Dinosaur (compsognathus), Bat, dodo, hawk, osprey, owl, parrot, raven, rhamphorhynchus, snail kite, thrush, toucan make the easiest item users. Others need non-slotted rings or the extra item slot feat plus a holding method.

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.

Lantern Lodge

graystone wrote:
twells wrote:
graystone wrote:

twells: Lots of animals use tools fairly dexterously. Orangutans and chimps make and use spears to hunt/fish. Woodpecker finches use cactus spines to spear larva. Weaver birds are good enough to weave Intricate nests. A Mandrill narrowed down a twig to clean his nails. Orangutans have been taught how to chip stone handaxes.

I don't see aiming as a credible issue, let alone animals that can grasp objects as being "ridiculously clumsy".

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.

GM or PFS are free to rule however they wish. I find it just as justified to allow wand use because of their well documented tool use. If you can stab a fish with a crudely made spear I wouldn't call that "a lack of fine motor skills to manipulate objects".

Familiar Folio, pg#5 "If you have enough ranks in Use Magic Device or choose magic items that don’t require such checks, your familiar can activate a wide variety of magic items for you. As long as the familiar can speak (like most improved familiars and a few birds) and hold or wear the item as necessary, it can activate command word items and attempt the necessary check to activate a wand, scroll, or staff."

So YOU, of course, could house rule anything YOU wished. The rule is speak and hold or wear item as per the Familiar Folio. All the talk about "fine motor skills" and "manipulate objects" isn't in the rules, just hold... So "Everyone is focused on whether an animal familiar can grasp a wand" was the correct view, unless of course you have a ruling that's been made since the Familiar Folio came out this year.

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.

Lantern Lodge

graystone wrote:

twells: Lots of animals use tools fairly dexterously. Orangutans and chimps make and use spears to hunt/fish. Woodpecker finches use cactus spines to spear larva. Weaver birds are good enough to weave Intricate nests. A Mandrill narrowed down a twig to clean his nails. Orangutans have been taught how to chip stone handaxes.

I don't see aiming as a credible issue, let alone animals that can grasp objects as being "ridiculously clumsy".

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.

Lantern Lodge

Everyone is focused on whether an animal familiar can grasp a wand. Grasping and aiming are two wildly different things. Look at how awkward even the dexterous chimps are using sticks - its ridiculously clumsy. It does not bode well for an animal to properly use a wand.

Lantern Lodge

Sanjiv wrote:
I hope that in the future we get a spell called "Eavesdrop." I don't know why don't have one already.

That sounds like a good spell to research. (As long as it is not PFS)

Lantern Lodge

LazarX wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:

The character in question is chaotic good already.

So ... is the best use of improved familiar a wand monkey?

Judiciously. If you make a regular habit of a familliar being a serious threat, don't be surprised when enemies start treating it as a primary target.

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.

Lantern Lodge

There is nothing finer than taking a toke off a faerie dragon.

Lantern Lodge

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.

Lantern Lodge ***

Three words:

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.)

Lantern Lodge

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).

Lantern Lodge

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.

Lantern Lodge

Thank you for that .. I missed it! Apparently with the errata, its not so bad to an evil arcanist.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The continuing advances from aging would only be by GM interpretation, as it does not appear to be RAW. I could not find anything that says you mental stats "reset" with each new reincarnation or resurrection.

Lantern Lodge

No one has any suggestions on other ways to boost arcane reservoir points?

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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:

Exploits:

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.

Greater Exploits:

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.

Feats:

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.

Race:

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.

Lantern Lodge

The Numerator wrote:

I actually would disagree that RAW this is allowable. I would think it would hinge on the reading of beginning to cast and continuing the action.

From Ready: "Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."

The trigger of the move is the wizard begins to cast. So the fighter then gets her move action, and that action (only the move, not an AoO) is resolved. So now she's next to the caster, and the caster then continues to cast the spell. The caster does not begin to cast the spell once more... the spell casting has already begun. Time does not stop, the rules simply say one action resolves before another. So the move action resolves, and then the spell resolves. Since beginning to cast the spell is the only thing that would provoke the AoO, no AoO is provoked from continuing and resolving that action.

I think this is exactly why the rules state that beginning to cast the spell is what provokes... if you don't threaten at the beginning, then no AoO.

Well put .. this is how I understand it to work.

Lantern Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
twells wrote:
Since a 5' step can be taken at any time, and if the caster hasn't moved, what would prevent the caster from just 5' stepping out of reach?
"You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round." Since they've already started to cast (the trigger for your readied action) they can't 5' step away.

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.

Lantern Lodge

Since a 5' step can be taken at any time, and if the caster hasn't moved, what would prevent the caster from just 5' stepping out of reach?

Lantern Lodge

The PbP sign-up website indicated there were still seats open. If that is true, I would like to participate. You can let me know with a reply or a PM.

Thanks in advance.

Lantern Lodge

Helikon wrote:
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.

Lantern Lodge

My Dragon Disciple wielded a falcata to devastating effect.

Quick historical note: Falcatas were not meant to be wielded one-handed - they had a return on the hilt which would have made it very difficult to put your other hand somewhere.

Lantern Lodge

Helikon wrote:

kick Cypher script and go spell focus C Augment summoning for level 1

Your summons do kick bottom vs a little money gain... and trust me it is "A LITTLE" you start with 6 spells LV 1. There are maybe 10 good ones you might need. So you save 20 gold. Thats nearly "NOTHING"

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.

Lantern Lodge

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?

The Build:
Exploits are currently as follows:
1: None - Conjurer's Focus (Occultist Archetype substitution)
3: Familiar <-- non-negotiable .. I just want it.
5: Quick Study
7: None - Planar Contact (Occultist Archetype substitution)
9: Metamagic Knowledge (Dazing or Persistent)
11: Greater Metamagic Knowledge

Feats are currently as follows:
H: Cypher Script <-- assists with the cost of having a large spellbook
1: Spell Focus (Conjuration)
3: Extra Arcane Exploit (Potent Magic)
5: Extra Arcane Exploit (Dimensional Slide)
7: Improved Familiar <-- non-negotiable .. I just want it.
9: Augment Summoning

Opportunities:
Extra Exploit: School Understanding: Foresight
Extra Exploit: Consume Magic Items <--PFS, so there is no penalty for sucking found magic items dry.
Extra Exploit: Metamixing
More metamagic <-- has one of the traits which lowers the spell-level cost.

Any opinions offered would be most appreciated.

Lantern Lodge

Runestones of Power .. costly, but adds to slots usable per day.

Lantern Lodge ***

Stephen Ross wrote:
there are Feats and a Spell that help reduce the cost of Scribing before you have enough cash to buy a Blessed Book.

My search foo is terrible and I cannot find the Spell or feat other than Cypher Script which reduces the costs of scribing. Any assistance with references?

Lantern Lodge

I am playing a vanilla arcanist in PFS and am loving it. Two words: Potent Magic.

Lantern Lodge

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.

Lantern Lodge

Thanks everyone for the quick reply. The swashbuckler solution seems like the way. Thanks for the advise.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Lantern Lodge

This is where the sorcerer/arcanist has some punch ... Piercing Spell applied on the fly can be a lifesaver.

Lantern Lodge

Nicos wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Maybe it's not RAW, but strictly speaking, how is an illusion NOT mind-affecting by it's very definition? It's not there, you only perceive it to be there, and perception is all an affect of the mind.
there could be illusions that create the image per se, like an hologram.

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.

Lantern Lodge

andreww wrote:
twells wrote:
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.

Citation required. Mindless does not mean unable to think or remember anything. In fact Golems often have perfectly decent Wisdom scores which suggests otherwise. The Golem section describes mindless as:

Quote:
Being mindless, golems do nothing without orders from their creators. They follow instructions explicitly and are incapable of complex strategy or tactics. A golem's creator can command it if the golem is within 60 feet and can see and hear its creator. If uncommanded, a golem usually follows its last instruction to the best of its ability, though if attacked it returns the attack. The creator can give the golem a simple command to govern its actions in his absence, or can order the golem to obey the commands of another, but the golem's creator can always resume control by commanding the golem to obey him alone.

They are only incapable of complex strategy or tactics, not any form of thought at all and nothing suggests they cannot recall information.

Personally if you silent image a Golem in a game I am running while you are fighting it then it will try and break it down getting a Will save due to interaction.

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.

Lantern Lodge

Berinor wrote:
twells wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
twells wrote:
True, you did. The only difference is in your world, golems are programmed to go through walls in pursuit of their prey.
Actually, no. Golems are diverse opposition and will react according to their instructions. Which may or may not involve pursuit.

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.

My reading of TOZ's post (and more importantly to me, my own interpretation) is B and C. There's a certain level of, for lack of a better word, cunning or instinct that tells it whether to attempt to jump over pits, ignore them and walk over, or find a way around. This would likely be based on whether it can make it across and whether its existence changed within its "memory". Same applies to walls.

That would depend in part...

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.

Lantern Lodge

TOZ wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Wow I have never seen anyone call out someones stars like that.

Can't say I agree with it.

Some people place more relevance on those things than is warranted.

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?

Lantern Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
twells wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
twells wrote:
True, you did. The only difference is in your world, golems are programmed to go through walls in pursuit of their prey.
Actually, no. Golems are diverse opposition and will react according to their instructions. Which may or may not involve pursuit.

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?

No, I said it would try to smash through the illusionary wall. The same as it would a wall of stone.

twells wrote:

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.

Nope. Never has.

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.

Lantern Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
twells wrote:
True, you did. The only difference is in your world, golems are programmed to go through walls in pursuit of their prey.
Actually, no. Golems are diverse opposition and will react according to their instructions. Which may or may not involve pursuit.

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.

Lantern Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
twells wrote:
What he said.
Which is what I said.

True, you did. The only difference is in your world, golems are programmed to go through walls in pursuit of their prey. Which is perfectly okay.

I choose to play them differently. Which is also okay.

Lantern Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
twells wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
twells wrote:
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.
Mindlessly Kool-Aid-Manning the illusory wall is playing correctly.
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?
I am saying that if you throw up an illusionary wall to stop it, it will attempt to break through the wall to get to you the same as if you used wall of stone.
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.

What he said.

Lantern Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
twells wrote:
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.
Mindlessly Kool-Aid-Manning the illusory wall is playing correctly.

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.

1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.