|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I am just asking what you think most are asking for or what you would ask for, but I do understand your post. <thumbs up>
that does not make any sense.
For flavor reasons I like the repeating crossbow, but mechanically speaking if I can just reload as a free action there is no need for the clip. My last post was speaking on mechanical reasons. As a GM I would probably let someone reload the entire clip because it doesn't hurt anything and it keeps the exotic weapon from being worse than the simple one.
There have been quiet a few times people had disagreements in the rules forum because one was discussing what he thought the most literal interpretation of a rule was, and another person was discussing how they thought the PDT intended for a rule to be ran when they made it.
A few posters have also told me they thought most people came to the rules forum to find out the most literal interpretation of what the book said.
Myself and other people try to figure out intent. As an example there is a feat which says it removes all penalties when using Two-weapon fighting. Most agree that this means you don't suffer the TWF penalties, but a very literal interpretation would mean that you actually ignore all penalties on attack rules when weilding a shield with another weapon.
My reason for doing this is to have a record of the community's default position. So as an example if "what the words say" is an overwhelming majority people can specify that they want to know the opinion on intent, and vice versa.
I think it will help with a large number of debates by having a standard.
Please use the following posts to vote with. "Favorite" the one which matches your opinion.
That is false. We can definitely know the intent without having the authors speak up. People come here to find out how the rule is supposed to be used at the table.
People tend to confuse "can't prove" with "can't know". I tend know more often than not how the rules are intended to work, even if I have no proof until an FAQ is made or a dev speaks up.
It also says "Base speed is your unencumbered speed for a specified type of movement" so I was not wrong.Now it also says "base speed usually implies base land speed", but that is not the same "base speed only applies to base land speed unless otherwise stated".
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Can you type this again and match it up against statements I actually made?
I never said it could improve a base speed you did not have. Do I really need to say that "it can't affect your fly speed if you do not have a fly speed"? I kinda assumed everyone would understand that it can't give you a base speed you don't have access to.
If an effect says it applies to the base speed then it refers to all the base speeds.
If an affect calls out "base land" or base fly" speed then it would only apply to that one speed.
Some monsters can only fly or swim so their base speed is whatever they use. Many people assume base speed equals land base speed because most creatures can walk if they can't do anything else.
The craft(alchemy) rules are intended to be more difficult than the other craft skills due to the things you can make so you can't use the artisan tools. The artisan tools should really say "any tool craft skill except alchemy"
To make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment.
For people complaining about the special ability restrictions while using ABP, here is an alternate, better version that actual lets you use them that was cut for space reasons. The Paizo blog version is basically as official as the one in unchained, and much better.
I see something about the Tarrasque. I don't see this armor enhancement.
I don't think he was advocating for an equal experience in every game. I think he was saying that a class should generally be able to hold its own without the GM having to help it out.
There is a difference between a class not holding up in a particular GM's game, and not being able to hold up in a much larger group of GMs' games because it is mechanically inefficient.
At the point we have a class problem, not a GM problem.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Haste was clearly written and called out "held weapons" at one point, but the devs didnt intend for it to work with only held weapons.
So it is not "definitely" clear that this is not an oversight.
I know bringing outsiders back to life is not a common thing, but there is no reason to pay 25000 and use a higher level slot when you can pay 1500 and use a lower level slot.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Giants were made into humanoids on purpose, and as for Elementals I have to check the book later but I think they are a type of outsider in 3.5 and PF.
Lou Diamond wrote:
When non native outsiders are killed on a plane that is not their own don't they reform on their home plane? I would think that a Solar or Planatar could use raise dead on an Angel as their magic is of a direct divine nature powered by their divine essence not magic passed on to a mere mortal. I would also say Devils,demons and deamons could do the same. Though I think by a nature deamons would not bring back a failure.
Only summoned outsiders continue to live on their home plane. An outsider that is not summoned really dies and stays dead.
Is Limited Wish intended to bypass True Resurrection(a higher level spell)?
According to the rules raise dead line of spells it takes True Ressurection to bring an outside back to life.
According to Limited Wish it can not duplicate a higher level spell.
According to the outsider entry:
When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don't work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life.
Limited Wish not only saves the party 23500 gold peices, but it is a lower level spell than True Resurrection.
It is my opinion that when the outsider entry was written that Limited Wish was included by accident.
PS: I am well aware of what the book says. <----In before someone points out the exact wording of the outsider entry.
Limited Wish does not have that text for allowing it to bring outsiders to life. It seems that in the outsider section they were listing examples and accidently included limited wish. I am going to FAQ it since I think it was an error.
If the monster is dominated or charmed then it is under the control of the enemy caster. Nothing gives the eidolon a free ride here. Despite being a class feature it is still its own creature, and it has no immunity from compulsion spells.
What the summoner can do is send the creature away if he can not regain control via another compulsion spell or dispel magic.
PS: Protection from <insert alignment> may also give the creature a reroll
I see no reason you couldn't use Acrobatics during Spring Attack movement. All using Acrobatics does is reduce your speed and make your movement not provoke - while Spring Attack also makes your movement not provoke, I don't think that matters. You could choose to Acrobatics through an empty field if you so chose. If you need a loose justification, tell your GM that you are tumbling to prevent any potential AoOs from an invisible person who might be there, as Spring Attack only prevents AoOs from your target.
Because uncanny tumble says you have to use it to avoid an AoO from an opponent, not a potential opponent who may not even be there. You already know the target of Spring attack can make an AoO so unless there are really invisible opponents then Canny Tumble does nothing. It also calls out "that(opponent who could hit you with an AoO). That spring attacked opponent is not that opponent.
The orange ioun crystal boost caster level by +1, but if every caster is +5 above the party level then you will still fail a lot.There is also a feat that lets you cast at a higher level for a specific school of magic.
No, it does not give mean you can unlock the 20 rank ability if you only have 10 ranks.
Here is how it works.
Rogue's Edge (Ex): At 5th level, a rogue has mastered a single skill beyond that skill's normal boundaries, gaining results that others can only dream about. She gains the skill unlock powers for that skill as appropriate for her number of ranks in that skill. At 10th, 15th, and 20th levels, she chooses an additional skill and gains skill unlock powers for that skill as well.
What this means is that you get to choose one skill at 5th level, and that one skill gets to use the skill unlocks. Later on you get more rogue's edge again so you can apply it to more skills.
This basically gives you more skills that work with the skill unlock, however you can only take the feat once. The feat itself only gives you access to skill unlocks up to 10 ranks, but since it stacks with rogue's edge you also get the 15 and 20 rank unlocks also.
Cutting Edge (Ex): A rogue with this ability immediately selects two additional skills with her rogue's edge ability. She can select this advanced talent multiple times.
This talent allows you to choose 2 more skills to unlock as if the rogue had rogue's edge two more times.
Basically the feat and the rogue talent you get to choose more skills to unlock if the four granted by the rogue class are not enough.
That spell is awesome. I have used it again monsters with built in caster levels, so they tend to have lower caster levels than me. I have used it on magical traps. I have had my players use it to debuff a boss, if they rolled well.
Generally speaking a boss fight will have the opposing caster be a few levels higher, but in normal fights the caster is normally a lower level or only slightly higher, but of course that still requires you to roll higher than an 11.
If a caster is 5 levels above the party your GM is not using the normal rules for designing encounters. That would make the caster at least +4 above the party APL.
PS: My advice applies to most tables I have played at and the combats I have seen described on these boards. It seems that may not work at your table.
Actually I misread it. The ability allows the barbarian to leave himself open to free attacks, and then he can take AoO's against the attacker, but the rules still clearly define when you provoke. You must take a provoking action.
In care you are still interested here is the ability.
It is an attack in the sense that it does damage. It is not an attack in the normal sense, because it is just a rider affect.
Asking for feedback here without an actual playtest would be a terrible idea. Too many people here think their way is the correct way to play and someone's underpowered is someone's overpowered. A playtest cant be done for every possible errata due to the employees being so busy.
PS: I don't care much for the newest errata either.
Neal Litherland wrote:
I have always had players roll double the number of base dice for the weapon and double the modifiers, but it is not a crit so being immune to crits will not protect anyone.
I did not say you will definitely die. I said that unless your GM is overly nice to you* or you get very lucky then you will die. I also said that someone several levels below you can do the fighting thing better than your wizard will be able to. <---Not trying to convince you, just making sure you understand what I said.
With that aside there is no reason to have 8 deaths by level 5 from the "blenders" and then expect for your wizard to step in and survive. <----Once again, not trying to convince you. I don't really have a horse in this race.
*This includes poor tactics.
Dave Justus wrote:
I don't believe that the rules allow an incorporeal creature to inhabit the same square as a corporeal creature (absent a possession type ability), let alone another incorporeal creature.
There is nothing stopping an incorporeal creature from sharing a square with a corporeal one. They don't even really share the same space since they don't interact with each other until an attack or magic is in play.
The rules just don't say it because they assume it is obvious considering that they can occupy the same space as solid objects.
So before we go any farther are you saying what you think the PDT would say or are you taking the most literal reading the rules?
In fact, they cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions.
That leads me to think them stopping in an occupied square is not going to force anyone out of the square.
With the mythic rules you can only need to be competent to rule over the campaign. Making monsters mythical does not scale their difficulty enough to keep pace with the rules the players use.
I don't know how things are in your normal game, but for this one there is not much you can do except to advance the monsters beyond where they are officially.
I think there is a difference between unbalanced and gamebreaking.
Yeah those featherstep slippers were priced way below their value, but the tremor boots have been errata'd into "not worth buying at all".
The Falcon bracers(forgot the real name) could also have been adjusted better than they were as well as some other items.
Knight Magenta wrote:
Playtesting is hands-on for the Paizo staffed and they are always backed up as is.For the most part the staff does well, but I do agree there were a few botches IMO with this current errata.
I also don't want PFS to determine the rules for my homegame. They are not the gold standard and many of the rules there exist to give everyone the same experience.