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

wraithstrike's page

26,182 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 26,182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Dave Justus wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:

So the players should write out the script of what they want to do then give it to the GM to run? Or are the players making it up as they go and expecting the GM to keep up?
If the players want to wander off into nowhereland, how should the GM adjust his campaign world? I'm honestly just not seeing how "the players should be telling the story" works.

Of course they shouldn't write out a script. And, yes, at times the GM has to make things up on the run. The GM runs the world, and applies consequences.

Now, it is of course entirely appropriate for a campaign to have a theme and boundaries, and character creation should take those into account. If the GM is going to run Skull and Shackles for instance, you make a character that wants to be a pirate and do piratical things, not someone whose goal in life is to explore the underdark. If you want your campaign to revolve around protecting a village from evil, you tell that to the players up front (and if someone refuses to make such a character it is perfectly fine to not have them be part of that game.)

The GM figures out what the bad guys are going to do, likely gives some clues to the PCs, perhaps suggests through various means some possible courses to take but ultimately it is up to the PCs to decide what to do.

And if they go hunting meercats and their home is destroyed, when consequences happen and now we perhaps have a tale of revenge and redemption.

The AP assumes the characters actually care about the town(or its people), and not trying to save it means the player is not cooperating. If he had a problem with the AP it should have been mentioned before it started. I don't know now the GM would have handled that, but at least it could have potentially been handled before it became a problem.

Lastoth wrote:

"Also the echoing spell analogy doesn't hold since the additional casting doesn't take an action to do"

Thank you, I'm glad we agree. For the same reason, the spell combat action can complete also.

That is not the same thing. A metamagic spell is completed and you then get the benefit. The benefit of echoing spell does not require anything extra.

To get the benefit of the magus ability does require you to continue to do things after DD so that analogy is not even close.

If you can't see the difference between "I must actively do things" and" this other thing is automatic with no effort at all" then I question your ability to understand any rule.

Dave Justus wrote:

Maybe you should think about letting your game be the PCs story, not your story. When I play, the most flustering thing in the world is when it becomes apparent that the GMs story will go forth no matter what and we are merely spectators to it. Even when it is a great story (and in these situations it often is) I hate it. If I want to experience someone else's story I'll read a book, when I roleplay I want my characters decisions, motivations, successes and failure to drive the plot.

AP's are prewritten so it is not so easy, and many GM's use them because they dont have time to write their own adventures.

In other word's it is not so much the GM's story, but a prewritten one that does not allow as much leeway as a homebrew game. Any player in an AP already knows this, so they should back a character that fits the story.

andreww wrote:
Just out of curiosity how are you removing daze? Outside of mercies I am struggling to find a way to do it.

It can be removed with the heal spell.

When a player is in an AP I am about to run I let them know they are expected to be the hero. Now if he wants to do something different he needs to discuss that with me before the game so I can get an idea of how he plans to play the character.

Maybe you need to talk to the player to find out what motivates his character, and then let him know players don't dictate XP.

Lastoth wrote:

Another way to look at this is a wizard casts dimension door with echoing spell, using a 7th level slot.

DM: HAH! You arrive at your destination and you don't get the spell back as you should because your turn is over!

Player: But it was all part of the spell I cast!

Exactly this. It's all part of spell, more specifically it's all part of the action encompassed in casting the spell (the full attack action). It's not divisible.

1. IIRC the ability is full round action, but it behaves like a full attack for the purpose of haste<----Not really a major point, but it should be noted.

2. No action(game term or dictionary version) is needed to get the spell back again so DD has no way to stop it from coming back.

If I start to run, and a pit appears in front of me I don't get to keep running just because I started running. That pit will make sure I fall.

Tormsskull wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

Fiona Witchwolf Natural Weapon Ranger 17, 17, 17, 15, 15, 17 = 66

Patricia Witchwolf Lunar Oracle 14, 16, 16, 15, 15, 17 = 53

Which, is pretty much why I tend to not like to roll, but instead give generous points cause my d20's hate me, but my d6s love me.

I have a very hard time believing you rolled those stats. Did you use dice or some kind of computer program?

If the stats on this page are accurate (, then a person has only a 4.2% chance of rolling a 17 with 4d6 drop lowest. You rolled four of them. If any math experts out these want to figure out the likelihood of this occurring, I'd be interested to see.

Suffice to say without exact numbers, the odds of rolling four 17s and 2 15s with 4d6 drop lowest are astronomically low.

If such a thing occurred when I was rolling up an NPC (and it never has even in the past 20+ years), I would make that character a descendant of some epic hero or god. As that would tend to overshadow a PC, I would not make that NPC a regular companion of the PC.

As far as in general dice versus PB, I prefer dice. I don't like table top RPGs to turn into who can create the best character, which PB strongly encourages. The randomness of the dice mean that no player gets exactly what they want in a character's stats. Yes, this favors some classes over others, but I'm okay with that.

I have rolled similar stats more than once, and another guy I used to game with used to roll well, and yeah I actually saw him roll the dice.

What level is the party? By level 3 they should have ways to deal with invisible creatures, and hitting one party member once per turn is not all that effective.
The party can also ready actions to attack once they are attacked so that spring attack should not work more than 2 or 3 times, if that much.

If it does not move in round 2 then in round 3 it will start its turn invisible however once it moves it is no longer invisible.

Being hit does not remove the invisibility.

If it leaves the sight of the players any creature can make a stealth check assuming things like tremorsense or blindsight are not in use.

Ascalaphus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

To the crowd who think it's generally poor action economy to heal damage: how do you feel about removing conditions?

Does removing Blinded or Paralyzed from a frontliner have higher priority, or is it about the same as healing damage? Would you sacrifice your own actions to remove these conditions?

I don't have much experience in this area, but I'm curious.

Removing conditions is not the same as healing HP. Those of use that dont believe in healing or blasting do believe in SoS or SoL spells because they do inflict conditions. So knowing the power of those conditions we like to have ways to remove them. That is why dispel magic is popular. It does not fix everything, but it fixes a lot.
Can you really rely on Dispel Magic? It seems that I miss that caster level check all the time.

It is not an autopass, but it can solve a lot of problems when you don't have the specific counter ready.

As an example if a party member is blind and you dont have remove blindness/deafness then you can dispel it. Summon monsters in the way-->dispel them.

edit: There are ways to boost your caster level though magic items, and feats.

Jason Bulmahn has no post on the topic at all.

Stephan Radney has no post on the topic at all.

For SKR I expanded it to "dimension door + magus" to make sure I did not miss anything, and he had nothing on the topic either.

That combined with myself and the previous posters being on here a lot, but none of us seeing it means that statement was misremembered most likely.

Lastoth wrote:
Now I have to decide whether or not I want to waste the time it will take to find this post and present it, or to let it pass. I'm choosing to let it pass, but the summation of the point was that spell combat makes the full attack and the casting of the spell one action, and your turn is over after the action is done.

I will check and return in a few minutes. My search-fu is normally good.

Lastoth wrote:

Spell combat combines the spell with the full attack action, which trumps the "your turn is over" clause in dimension door (according to the stuff I've read from the devs).

A regular magus would just quicken a shocking grasp, spell combat his dimension door, arrive at the location to deliver the free attack+full attack as per usual.

I have never seen any dev say that in an FAQ or unofficial statement. Do you have a link to the quote or at least the name of the dev making the statement?

Cheapy wrote:

I don't know. Once you get your head in the rules, I've found it is actually pretty easy to figure out the intent. There are a few guidelines you need to follow, and having done actual design helps a lot since it gets you in the mindset. There've only been a few cases I can remember where I wasn't able to figure out with pretty good certainty the intent.

I do despise the bastardization of RAI to mean "Rules as IWantThem" though. I'll gladly say what the intent is, even if I disagree with it.

I think a lot of people arguing a rule is X when it is blatant that it is not X are players that don't get to GM. Most GM's I have met don't care what the rule is, as much because if we don't like the official version we will just change it.

Ascalaphus wrote:

To the crowd who think it's generally poor action economy to heal damage: how do you feel about removing conditions?

Does removing Blinded or Paralyzed from a frontliner have higher priority, or is it about the same as healing damage? Would you sacrifice your own actions to remove these conditions?

I don't have much experience in this area, but I'm curious.

Removing conditions is not the same as healing HP. Those of use that dont believe in healing or blasting do believe in SoS or SoL spells because they do inflict conditions. So knowing the power of those conditions we like to have ways to remove them. That is why dispel magic is popular. It does not fix everything, but it fixes a lot.

Dark Immortal wrote:

@waithstrike I think that blasting can be the most efficient form of magic. When everything is dead there is not as much pressure to consider what the subsequent combat actions should be because combat is over.

A simple 15d6+45 fireball will kill quite a few things in one hit, save or no, for quite a big chunk of the game. And it will not care about your resistance 5 or 10 all that much. This fireball is off the top of my head but I am positive I can not only make one (if proof were needed) but make one at sufficiently low level as to validate my statement.

Dead enemies don't take actions and there for blasting is highly efficient if done well. Though, I admit that it requires only a few fairly specific options to perform. But there is still some variety within the blaster builds that deal 1hko damage.

That is not really a lot of damage depending on what level you are at, and blasting is inefficient because of the resources needed to make it compete with not blasting. The daze metamagic feat does make it a lot better, but it is the feat, not the blasting that is doing the heavy lifting.

PSusac wrote:

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but:

Use Ventriloquism to make it sound like the verbal component is coming from across the room. This doesn't get rid of the sound of spell-casting, but it does provide social cover.

Consider you want to cast charm person in a crowded bar. Go to the toilet, cast ventriloquism (lasts 1 min/level), then cast your charm person, and have it sound like your voice is coming from under the table of that crowd of rowdy construction workers over on the far side of the bar. Between the distance penalty (-1/10' distance) AND the muffling from the fact that it's coming from under the table AND the noise, you should get a pretty good chance of "hiding" the somatic component to the spell.

Otherwise you can just make it sound like it's coming from someone else, or even an area of space that might be mistaken for an invisible spell caster.

It's a trick I used against my party as a GM, and they wasted 2-3 rounds before they figured out where the guy was hiding (and he was hiding, NOT invisible, so see invisible didn't work).

And all it costs is a level 1 spell.

By the rules if they see you casting the spell they still get a spellcraft check though, even with ventriloquism up. At best you can say the other noise is a distraction, but then again the sound of combat is not enough to warrant a penalty so that still makes it a hard sell.

Gingerbreadman wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

OK, suppose you're fighting a group of villains whose ultimate goal is to replace all life with undeath, and who are preparing to bring forth the most powerful undead being who ever lived. A vampire king who is about seven levels more powerful than you offers you his aid. (He doesn't want all humanity replaced with undead because then where's he going to get fresh blood from?) What's your first move?
I tell him to feel free to make his own moves to stop the ultimate evil but to not cross my path doing so, or else...

So you would rather risk the world ending than side with someone who can keep it as it is, just because you dont like them?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Oh, of course. They still threaten within their square, though.
Is that a rule, with a citation? All I can find is the generic "Creatures with a reach of 0' do not threaten."
prd wrote:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

There you go. We already know an animal can attack into its own square.

Snorter wrote:

It would help, if there were some way to re-designate these rider effects as 'non-actions', part of the overall 'damage' triggered by the successful attack, so they can be distinguished from free actions that take some decision-making from the attacker (quick-drawing, changing combat stances, double-handing a weapon), or combat maneuvers, or the decision to alter one's attack via Cleave, Awesome Blow, Vital Strike.

I can't see how anyone could argue that a creature with a venomous bite didn't inject that venom as part of its bite, so why would a gluey ooze not stick to its target, as a result of its slam?

So; no to unarmed warrior declaring Grapple as AoO, but yes to giant frog hitting you with its tongue, and accidentally globbing you back into its mouth.

Rider affects don't use an action type. If the snake venom required a free action you would have a point. Grab requires an action. Now the RAI may not be matching RAW, but in that case the wording needs to be changed.

PS: I have also noticed that I have allowed wolves to trip if they bite during an AoO, but I also did not know it was a free action. Now I have to take away the trip or allow the grab to be consistent. Decisions decisions..<sighs>

Nefreet wrote:

Banning something is not a deviation from the rules.

Actually it is. The default game assumes all of the rules in play unless listed as optional. Banning or modifying them means you are not playing by the default rules. I am not saying it is a bad thing since I have never met anyone that played by all of the rules, but if you are not following the book then are you deviating from it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErrantPursuit wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
It wouldn't be that AoO are "normal"; it's that they're not "actions".
wraithstrike wrote:

Action is a game term.

AoO's are not actions in the sense that move and standard actions are, so no grab.

You know, I looked at Actions. An attack is an Action.

Actions in Combat wrote:
Making an attack is a standard action.

Next I looked at Attacks of Opportunity. An Attack of Opportunity is an attack.

Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack
I'm still confused, then, how an attack of opportunity is not an action?

An attack on that table is referring to the attack action which is an standard action. An attack is not an action per game term. Different attacks however may require different actions. Don't confuse the game term with the real life term, and Grab is using the game term definition of action.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Does anyone actually rule that you can't use grab on an AoO? I've never seen it. Is there actual disagreement on this or is this a perceived problem?

I would not allow it since it is not given a specific rules exception.

Pathfinder rewrote a lot of rules. This is one of them that no longer applies. I was playing the game for months and picking up little changes here and there as I went along.

Pathfinder is not D&D 3.75. It is it's own game that uses many of 3.5's rules. Unless the wording is the same it is fair to say the rule has changed.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

75% of a CL 10 fireball is 26.25 damage, on average. A CL 10 cure serious wounds heals an average of 23.5 damage. Even with a 50% save rate and no difference in investment, the blast spell has better numbers than the cure spell, even before factoring in multiple targets.

Is that the end of the issue? Not necessarily. But that wasn't the point of my post; the point was DrDeth's false assertion that his opponents need to compare totally tricked-out damage dealers against baseline healing in order to make the contrast appear.

And that is simply a lie.

Which is all I was trying to say.

But what if there's a single monster? With fire resistance and a good reflex save and evasion? And the healer is using empowered cure critical wounds and a quickened channel in the same round? And all the people being healed are Fey Foundlings?

If there is a single monster then a single target spell should be used. Hold Monster stops a lot of damage, and if you want ot use it against a cure spell, then the cure spell can't do anything to negate it. The best spells in the game don't do hp damage or cure hp damage. That is why healing and blasting are both considered to be inefficient.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Next, when it's compared, it's always a false comparison . You take a generic cleric with no special abilities and match them vs a specialized damage dealer with every feat , trait, magic item and ability point dedicated to doing damage.

It's okay to disagree with a conclusion; it's not okay to lie about how people got to their different conclusion.

A cure serious wounds, cast at the level you get it (CL 5th), with no special investment, heals 3d8+5, averaging 18.5 HP healed to a single target.

A fireball (same spell level) cast at the same CL (5th) with no special investment, deals 5d6 damage, averaging 17.5 damage to multiple creatures.

To be fair, this is not a reasonable comparison. You don't typically save against healing.

On average, monsters will make their saves half the time, so the average damage goes down (to 75% of the numbers). As the opposition advances in level, the saving throws get better against a static target, so average damage goes down even more. Add energy resistance (which becomes increasingly common) and the comparison gets even harder.

The fact that you're mixing single-target and multi-target spells makes it a difficult comparison as well

Monsters don't make saves half of the time. Even some that are APL+1 or +2 may not do so if the caster focuses on pushing DC's.

RDM42 wrote:
To hear people talk they must seem to think that offensive spells and buffs aren' resources used up but healing is resources used up.

You have a quote for that?

S'mon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Most likely they are trying to use the case of extraordinarily strong women and/or equally weak men as the norm. Sometimes people get so caught up in their corner case they forget that the discussion is on the norm.

I was told (on ENW, a couple years ago now) that the belief men are stronger than women is a false social construct. Also that by saying men were stronger (on average) I was encouraging rape, because this would discourage women from fighting back against an aggressor.

As far as I can tell, the people who said this were being serious. Incidentally my wife in her leisure time is a Rugby Prop Forward, and stronger than at least 95% of women. She is under no doubts that not only is she nowhere near as strong as a typical male Rugby Prop Forward, she is in most respects nowhere near as strong as a typical man (but good luck trying to push her around). :)

I wish I could have been in on that one.

People are silly.

There is an undead in monster manual 3 whose claws suddenly extend to 20 feet even though it is only a large sized creature. A good way to catch players off guard.

Matthew Downie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I am sure the poster will be in to speak for themselves later, but in any event the majority of us think like me. Use tactics to avoid healing, and then heal when things go bad.
True - about two-thirds of forum-users feel that way.

I had forgotten about that poll. Yeah I did take option 2.

S'mon wrote:
Quandary wrote:

The intimation that you ignore or erase male/female strength variance from the in-game context is shocking, and laughably irrealistic to believe that players can/will actually expunge such conceptions from their mind. I mean, in the most gender equal locale you could imagine on modern Earth, no serious person could ever REMOTELY imagine that to be true.
I frequently see people on the Internet claim to believe IRL that men and women are equally strong by nature, and that to believe otherwise is sexist. The people saying this seem to be sedentary males, but sedentary males make up the majority of Internet posters in general. :)

Most likely they are trying to use the case of extraordinarily strong women and/or equally weak men as the norm. Sometimes people get so caught up in their corner case they forget that the discussion is on the norm.

If I had more than one player the player would not dictate rules to me, but to answer the question if the rolling player rolled well, then I would allow the point buy player to have an equivalent point buy to whatever was rolled.

Matthew Downie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Saying it is a waste of time is not the same as never heal.
"It's a colossal waste of time" is a pretty blanket statement. I've never heard anyone say, "It's a colossal waste of time so you should only do it occasionally."

I know that they said, but the point is that compared to other things healing is the low man on the totem pole for the purpose of primary combat strategies.

I am sure the poster will be in to speak for themselves later, but in any event the majority of us think like me. Use tactics to avoid healing, and then heal when things go bad. Other than the one poster who else do you think said "never heal"? As hard as I am against healing, I know the dice gods sometimes hate the players and healing is a requirement.

Matthew Downie wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Next, when it's compared, it's always a false comparison . You take a generic cleric with no special abilities and match them vs a specialized damage dealer with every feat , trait, magic item and ability point dedicated to doing damage.

There's also usually the assumption there's one healer trying to undo all the damage inflicted by the other side. Suppose your party consists of a life oracle, a healing domain cleric, a paladin and an alchemist?

DrDeth wrote:
But in my games, and in James Jacob's games- healing during combat is a must
Oof! First person this thread to say that. You're just asking for a debate in which people claim that you'd do just fine if you replaced your in-combat healing with improved offensive capabilities, and you disagree, and neither side can prove a thing.

I can't prove how it works at your table but I have made healbots bored because myself and another player made sure to not take damage. I mean we took damage, but he basically stood there bored in combat because we did not need the heals. Now of course if a GM runs tougher than normal encounters in combat healing will be more likely, but that is not the norm. As for your "team heal" they will still waste resources if they focus on healing and not killing. That would be a bad idea under a game I ran, but due to table variation it might work at yours. I can assure you that barring harder than normal encounters a party only needs decent builds and decent playing skills to avoid constant in combat healing.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:
Above and beyond the tactical issues, the sad truth is that in the majority of cases healing can't even keep pace with a single round's average damage. Making healing literally worse than doing much of anything else.

Not really.

Let's say you have three allies, all attacking - a couple of optimized martial damage dealers and an arcane caster. The enemies are focusing their attacks and trying to kill one of the martials. The martial character has 100HP but is taking 40-50 damage per round. You can heal, say, 25 damage per round with ordinary healing spells. Let's also say this is a fairly tough battle and if you just stood around doing ntohing, the martial character would die before the battle was won.
1 Be a healbot and heal the fighter every round.
2 Wait for it to become an emergency and then start healing.
3 Don't heal at all.

Option 1 usually works if your allies are any good. Sure, you can't keep up with the damage being dealt, but you negate about half the damage each time, meaning he lasts twice as long before going down. That buys your allies and extra action or two each, which is almost always enough to win a battle. This has the disadvantage of using up more party resources.
Option 2 sometimes works but if it does become an emergency the small amount of healing you do may not be enough to make any difference at that point. The fighter goes from -10 hit points and unconscious to 15 hit points and prone; he's still one round away from death.
Option 3 will normally work if you have optimized your character for battle and prepared appropriate spells.

Number 2 can include any number of tactics that I mentioned and in those cases the emergency does not take place. If for some reason you are counter spelled, the bad guys ALL make their save, and so on then you might have to heal, but generally you can find a way to reduce damage that is more effective than healing.

Matthew Downie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I drop summon monsters in combat, they will get hit with damage that may have gone to the party.

"Should my cleric summon a monster, or cast a healing spell?"

If I'm asking the question, someone is injured and presumably still under attack. If I start summoning, even if my concentration isn't interrupted, the monster won't arrive until next round, and there's no reason to assume that whoever is attacking the injured guy will stop and turn his attention to the summoned creature.

wraithstrike wrote:
So just to be clear, nobody is saying NEVER heal in combat.

Some people are implying it:

Zhayne wrote:
Healing in combat is a colossal waste of time
Is anyone here arguing that every group needs in-combat healing, or is that just a strawman that people feel the need to prove wrong?

The summon should be brought in at the beginning of combat and many of them are on par with the mooks you are fighting so they shoudl get some attention. They should also be placed in a position so they have to be dealt with. In other words the monster should be in place before anyone takes damage if possible. Yes, I know that is not always possible, but summons are not the only damage mitigating spell.

It sounds like they are saying "never" heal due to the negative talk, but that is not the case.

Saying it is a waste of time is not the same as never heal. The idea is that unless someone is about to die you should be doing things to kill the enemy, reduce their damage output against the party, or buffing your team members so they can kill faster.

Sneak is based on being able to land when the enemy is not fully focused on you. The rogue's problem however is not really damage. It is the other things that it is supposed to be good at that other classes do just as well.

PS: If your focus is only on SA then I think that would help, especially with ranged, but I would still have a limit on it since I don't see how the rogue benefits from someone on the other side, but far away, and nobody else does.

I think SKR would know intent since he helped to write the rule though, even if it was not written perfectly. Now GM's can decide if they want to follow RAW or RAI?

AFAIK they are attack rolls but they don't crit. I will try to find proof later.

There is no rule for this, but druids would likely not like undead. For now it is up to the GM.

Nefreet wrote:

The link I provided above reads otherwise.

Free Action wrote:
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally

Action is a game term.

AoO's are not actions in the sense that move and standard actions are, so no grab.

MattR1986 wrote:

I hear this theorycraft argument regularly on here and simply don't buy it. Things always go your way and follow DPR with 20-sided dice? You don't encounter crits or an enemy that has an ability/tactic that is especially devastating to your group? Your DM always follows APL+0 so you take just enough damage to finish fights without heals? It just doesn't fly with me.

Nobody says people never die or come very close to it. We are saying that it is generally better to prevent the damage than it is to try to recover(heal) the damage. If I drop summon monsters in combat, they will get hit with damage that may have gone to the party. If I use a wall or cloud spell to divide the enemy then that means the party is getting attacked less. Less attacks generally equals less damage. If I buff the party to do more damage then enemies go down faster. That also decrease the amount of damage they can put out.

So just to be clear, nobody is saying NEVER heal in combat. We are saying there are ways to make sure it happens a lot less, and in those cases someone built around healing is not needed.

Kazaan you just have to eat the penalty. I know it does not seem fair, but that is how the rule works. I guess from a flavor point of view you are so focused on trying to handle two weapons that it throws off your concentration enough to give you the penalty on the first attack.

If you have an optimized group the combats wont last 10 rounds, but with that said I still don't see the advantage Mystic FF has over Mysitc PA, and yeah read everyone's comments here. 1 minute is longer than 1 round so even AoO's should be affected by Mythic PA. Now if PA said AoO's did not benefit then FF would have a small edge.

edit:By "won't" I mean most likely not to.

I never noticed that Splendor, but I think for ease of gameplay most will allow it. Another houserule I will have to add in. :)

Shadow Jump does not qualify for the Dervish Line feats. You need abundant step or to actually be able to cast dimension door as a spell or SLA. Something working similar to DD does not make it DD. Abundant Step is specifically called out. That is why it qualifies.

Ravingdork wrote:

Yeah, well Paizo is dumb!

lol. jk.

In all seriousness, they can be pretty inconsistent. There is nothing in the rules indicating that you can identify a silence/stilled spell and, in fact, there are things in the rules (like the ranged penalty to Spellcraft checks) that indicate quite the opposite. It is Paizo's OPINION that one should be able to identify silenced/stilled spells even though their are no components to be identified, but that's not RAW as they have not created any errata for such a thing.

In 3.5 you could not IIRC. In PF the devs allow it. It makes no sense to me either so I normally let my players vote or see if they expect it to be done.

Robert Brookes wrote:

AP fiction is such a strange beast. I personally don't pass around the AP volume to my players, so they'll likely never read the fiction. As a GM I want anything in the AP to directly enhance the experience. Right now, while well-written, the fiction still seems extraneous.

If fiction *must* stay in the AP line, why not have it involve the major players in the adventure path itself? I'm envisioning a fiction piece for Reign of Winter where we get to see Elvanna and Rasputin plot to overthrow Baba Yaga. Make the fiction directly serve the AP's story so we (the GMs) can learn and understand the principal cast better.

This.. :)

Rapanuii is correct. If you were trying to get the shield bonus from your shield and the TWD feat, they don't stack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The dead condition unlike being paralyzed does not state that you can no longer take actions, and it is possible to go directly to dead without gaining the "dying" condition which also stops you from taking actions.

1 to 50 of 26,182 << 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.