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

27,929 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 27,929 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

If it affects hit points the answer is generally yrs but not all negative energy applies to hit point.


Rules wise I would say the creator if the wand but I think its better abd easier to go by whoever is using the wand.


Ravingdork wrote:

I was thinking more like "I want to be ready for my three-year journey across the ocean where I might level up several times, so I best make make good use of this six month period of downtime to learn and scribe a bunch of spells in advance."

Essentially, you are ensuring you have the spells you want the moment you level up because they were put into your spellbook previously.

It's not even metagaming, as the character would likely want to keep himself occupied during such a journey, and bringing extra study materials with which to learn new spells is a perfectly logical thing for a wizardly fellow to do.

I hadn't even considered it for item creation.

Every spellcaster has a spells known list, not just spontaneous ones. If I am not mistaken, then (technically speaking) if a wizard EVER scribes a spell into his spellbook, it is from that point forward considered a known spell, even if he loses the spellbook later on. (He won't be able to cast the spell without his spellbook however, so differentiating between the two is most often a moot point, however.)

Well actually he can't copy the spell into a new book without another book that has the spell or a scroll so if he loses the book it is just as good as him not knowing it.


thejeff wrote:

I'm not even clear what RD means by "Spells Known" in this case. It's usually used for spontaneous casters and there doesn't really seem to be any mechanical use for "spells known" for prepared casters.

Is there some trick here I'm missing?

Prepared casters do "know" spells. Some do not consider that as "spells known". However any spell in a wizard's book is a spell that he knows.


ok, so it would also work again wall of stone if it is use to entrap someone then.

Wall of Stone wrote:
It is possible, but difficult, to trap mobile opponents within or under a wall of stone, provided the wall is shaped so it can hold the creatures. Creatures can avoid entrapment with successful Reflex saves

In that case I will just say Wall of Stone and Tomb of Magma get an autopass on the as far as getting trapped.

I am aware that "entrapment" might not be entrap, but it is close enough to keep things simple.

For anyone reading this you can still surround someone with a wall of stone without trying to entrap them, but their actions won't be as limited.


Ravingdork wrote:

The rules are quite clear that you cannot cast spells of an inappropriate spell level. However, they aren't so clear about having said spells on your "spells known" list. Is it possible to add a spell to your spellbook or familiar as a "spell known" even though you are unable to cast it?

For FAQ and discussion.

We had this discussion before. A spell in your spell book is a spell known, but you still can not cast it, and yes you may add any spell in your spellbook. There is no prohibition on that. The same goes for familiars.


I will probably say walls and wall-like effects can not be walked though when I rewrite the spell.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Quote:

Magma Tomb (Su):

Once per day, a great wyrm magma dragon can spit lava onto a target within 120 feet, dealing damage normally for its breath weapon. This magma cools instantly—it does not continue doing damage at this point but does entrap the victim (DC equals the dragon’s breath weapon save DC, 3d6 minutes, hardness 8, hp 45).

You are basically surrounded by a wall much like you would be if you failed the reflex for being entrapped by wall of stone. So does FoM give the "wall" a middle finger, or would is being trapped by a wall of stone or this dragon ability beyond FoM since you are basically surrounded?

PS: If you are in my RotRL game this is not for you, so don't worry.. :)


Targeting items is not efficient. It only makes them nonmagical, and only one can be targeted at a time. Even then they still have to make the caster level check to dispel the item. If you sword is a +5 weapon it would have a DC of 26 to dispel.

If he uses greater dispel magic it will likely be to debuff the party or any annoying party members.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


Pit fiend can still widdle the CR 20 or CR 999999 barbar to death just by staying out of reach with fireballs.

That works if the fight is in a wide open area, but not so much in an enclosed area which is where most fights take place in the game. When the pit fiend/balor/etc is used as the boss they are normally not fighting to be fighting. They are fighting to guard something. Maybe there is a mcguffin that will cause a planar invasion so if they teleport away the PC's win. Many outsiders would just teleport and use at will SLA's if they did not have a reason to engage a full bab character, and if they started to lose they could just leave to attack the party later on, if they had no reason to fight to the death.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Example:
Drow: Hello sir.
Player: <Attacks and kills drow>

Result: The dead drow was evil, but he had heard of the PC's and he wanted them to kill another drow who was planning a raid on the town. The dead drow had double...

Alternate result:

Player: Hmmm. He seemed politer than normal, maybe something was up? Better safe than sorry, though.
Cleric Player: Speak with Dead Why were you here?

Death is not the end.

That is what sense motive is for, and you are assuming speak with dead is available, and that the drow will fail the save if it is availible.

Unless they had met the drow before they would not know how polite he normally is. I don't know if Golarion drow have the same house structure as FR drow, but in FR the landscape was political, so other drow were always polite if they were below you. In this case the drow needing the PC's help would be likely below then from his point of view.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Drow are a race of chaotic evil demon worshipers. Anyone that knows what they are will probably draw their weapons or kill them on sight. Those that don't will still get a creepy vibe, and probably deny them entrance. It's a case of BUT I WANT TO PLAY DRIZZT.

The "get more information" attitude gets the town burned down. Red dragons are chaotic evil. You don't negotiate with chaotic evil in fantasy games. You kill it.

Reacting as the player, rather than the character, is meta-gaming. And referencing out of game mechanics just smacks of that.

You asked a question. If you already had your mind made up there was no reason to ask.

For those on the fence about this:

There are quiet a few AP's where fire first, ask never works against you. As for the idea of talking to evil creatures is a good idea it varies by table. Some bad guys are not fanatical to whoever they serve. Sometimes you can talk to demons, and they are a lot worse than drow.

The "get more information" attitude can let you know about a bigger threat that is coming. It does not mean "talk to everyone". I don't know too many people who kill everything or talk to everyone. There is normally some middle ground depending on the situation.

Your way of handling thing may mean may work against you, and that applies whether you deal with drow, bugbears, evil giants and so on simply because you missed out on something.

As for the metagaming aspect, your character may not believe that all of a race or evil because often not all of them are. They may know it is better to avoid a certain race. You get to decide how open-minded your character is. Reacting as the player is what would make you think all of race ___ is evil especially if it is something with an evil subtype.

Example:
Drow: Hello sir.
Player: <Attacks and kills drow>

Result: The dead drow was evil, but he had heard of the PC's and he wanted them to kill another drow who was planning a raid on the town. The dead drow had double crossed the invader, and wanted him dead for personal reasons. This would have allowed the PC's to avoid an ambush on a town, and the dead drow would have revealed that a bigger force was coming later. However by not talking they are ambushed and many in the town die. Even if they repel the invasion they have no way to know that a larger force will be coming later on.


Jiggy wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
However it is basically understood that to cast a spell of level ____, and to have access to spell slots of a certain level you still need to have a certain caster level.

This is not a rule, it's a pattern you've taken for granted.

You don't gain new spell levels as a function of caster level, you gain new spell levels when the chart in your class features says you do.

Extra attacks are a function of your BAB. Spell levels are not a function of your CL.

I know this, but as a caster you caster level increases by class level. I never said spell levels were gained by caster level.

If that was the case any item or feat granting a caster level woudl give you new spells.

Really, you don't think I know that already? O.o


taldanrebel2187 wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Yes you have them, you do not lost your prepared 6th level spells or those (unused) slots. It does affect your caster level.

I said you did not lose them in my opening post. That is different from losing access to them.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:

The bad news:

Permanent negative levels do remove spell slots and other class features.

Where is this written at?


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Quote:

DEBILITATING PORTENT

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level cleric 4, witch 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration 1 round/level (D) see text
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
The target is surrounded by a glowing green aura of ill fate. Each time the spell's subject makes an attack or casts a spell, it must succeed at a Will saving throw with a DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + Charisma (in the case of oracles), Intelligence (in the case of witches), or Wisdom (in the case of clerics). If it fails the saving throw, it deals half damage with the attack or spell. You can dismiss this spell as an immediate action when the target confirms a critical hit; doing so negates the critical hit. The attack that you negated still hits, but only deals half damage.

I am sure they intended to say "attribute" modifier, but as written you add the actual attribute, so someone with charisma of 26 would add +26 to the DC, not +8.

FAQ so it can be errata'd please. :)


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

According to the rules when a caster loses a level he does not lose the spell slot. That makes since because that removes any character rebuilding, which was not fun in 3.5.

However it is basically understood that to cast a spell of level ____, and to have access to spell slots of a certain level you still need to have a certain caster level.

Let's say the following takes place:

I am originally an 11th level wizard which give me access to 6th level spells. I get ambushed by a vampire. After the energy drain hits me I am down by two negative levels. Do I still have access to my 6th level spells or can I only access spell slots that are at level 5 and below?


Raziel747 wrote:
Majuba wrote:
PF Beta, pg 396 wrote:
Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels.
It's all pretty much been set since then.

It's clear the caster does not lose his prepared spells and slots, what isn't clear is whether he loses the ability to cast those spells and use those slots. Atleast that's the way I see it.

FAQ would really be great to resolve the whole "level dependent variables" line because there's a lot of questions and not many clear answers

When I referenced "losing slots" earlier I knew the slots did not really go away because you do not actually delevel your character like you do in 3.5.

In the other thread I was referring to losing access to the slots. From what I understand you need to be level X to use ____ slot. When you take a negative level you are no longer caster level X so the access should be lost.

This particular question deserves an FAQ in case the devs want to say that you don't actually lose a caster level, but only take a penalty to the die roll on any caster level checks, which would make a difference with regard to spell access.


claudekennilol wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The ghoul gets a +2 to attacks.

For the purpose of your question I am assuming it is completely dark.

The ghoul gets +2 to attacks and the defender gets a -2 penalty to AC (in addition to everything else)? They're effectively the same, and while both can happen, I don't see anything in this scenario that would give the ghoul +2 to attacks.

When you are invisible the other person is effectively blind against you, so you get a -2 to attack, which is the same as a +2 to attack.

However looking at the blind condition I guess it does matter which why I write it.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:
CrabSage wrote:


I don't get why you keep posting in your own threads using another alias. If you have your own views and don't want to change them don't make a thread about it. As for your original question, I think killing on site even if something is evil is probably evil. I would say its a GM call.
No, it isn't. It's defined in the alignment section of the SRD. Drow are a monstrous race, and they are universally reviled even by other races in the underdark. Read the lore.

It will vary by GM and campaign world. As an example, in Eberron goblins and drow, who have no legal rights in Forgotten Realms, have a decent to good chance of being non-evil.

In Golarion they are not universally evil, but about 99% of them will be evil. They don't have the evil subtype however, it just happens that a large portion of them will likely be evil. However being evil is not a crime, so you should ask the GM how he runs his monsters.

There are a few threads on this forum about paladins firing first and then losing their powers. Now sometimes they were setup for failure by the GM, but that is another topic. :)


The ghoul gets a +2 to attacks.

For the purpose of your question I am assuming it is completely dark.


In that case you can use the 3.5 druid polymorph rules but be aware of what you are about to unleash if you do so. :)


thaX wrote:

As the above enviromental rules, unless the source that initiated the target catching on fire says otherwise (such as Alchemists Fire), the target gets a save every turn.

They also burn on their turn, just as Bleed and Poison effects, as opposed to the caster's turn. (Yeah, lower init means getting burned in the same turn as the higher init caster that caused the target to catch fire)

That is how I see it, from what is quoted and discussed.

Quote where it says they also burn on their own turn? Even poison affects don't affect you twice during the same round except for the first round it is applied.

Catching on fire does not say you get a save on your turn from what I can see. I do know that if something happens on init __, that is when it happens again unless otherwise stated like poison does.


The ranger natural weapon style does not allow you to use claws with iterative attacks. There is an item you can put over claws to make them count as weapons.

Natural weapons would not work with two weapon fighting so no spell combat. I don't think spellstrike works either.

These are for catfolk, but it is not game breaking to allow them for a tiefling.

Quote:
Claw Blades: These subtle blades can only be used by catfolk with the cat's claws racial trait. Bought in a set of five, they fit over the wearer's claws on one hand. The blades grant the wearer a +1 enhancement bonus on claw attack rolls with that hand and change the weapon type from a natural weapon to a light slashing weapon. Catfolk with the cat's claws racial trait are proficient with this weapon. The claw blades can be enhanced like a masterwork weapon for the normal costs. The listed cost of the item is for one set of five claws for one hand.

If this is a home game ask the GM if he/she will allow it.


As the GM you can say it requires special ink if you want, but many rules are just for game balance.

Stealing from magic users, even if it can be done is generally a bad idea, so you can have the caster be high enough level, and with enough guards that the players don't try it.


thistledown wrote:
I'll throw another snag into it. If you've got the target Frightened, can they still take the action to put themselves out while they're running?

I think they would have to leave the source of the fear first.

Quote:
Frightened: Characters who are frightened are shaken, and in addition they flee from the source of their fear as quickly as they can. They can choose the paths of their flight. Other than that stipulation, once they are out of sight (or hearing) of the source of their fear, they can act as they want. If the duration of their fear continues, however, characters can be forced to flee if the source of their fear presents itself again. Characters unable to flee can fight (though they are still shaken).

I have always read this as fear takes over your mind. All you are concerned with is getting away from whatever you are afraid of. Once you are in a safe area you may act normally.


You take the one 1d10 and the 1d6 for being on fire if you fail the save upon the initial casting of the spell.

You do not get another save nor take fire damage again until the initiative count of whoever cast the spell comes up again. The exception to when you can get another save, apart from the init count of the caster is in the following sentence.

"...rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus."

Basically the free save happens on the same init the spell was cast. Any bonus saves will have to initiated by actions committed by yourself such as rolling on the ground. It also seems that if another character uses their turn you would get a reflex save. That seems fair because they could be doing something more effective during combat.

Not a rule--->The book does not list which action it takes on your turn to attempt a reflex save, but I would use the alchemist fire rules of a full round action. At the very least I would say a standard action. Just to be clear I am not saying this is a rule to use a standard or full round action. I am just saying that is what I would do so someone does not effectively get 2 free saves.


I think they basically cast spells the same way, but with enough variance that two casters casting a spell still require their own spellcraft check, even in the same class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Who the money goes to is abstracted. It is paid because the rules say pay it, and I do enforce it. Wizards are strong enough without freebies.


At higher levels enemies have really good perception checks. I rolled a 50 tonight with an NPC. True seeing, blindsight, blindsense, and so on are also a factor. One of my NPC's was made to be really good at perception, and while the others got lucky rolls they still could have hit a 40 on average.

Other problems are escaping if you get caught. If you can not escape can you fight your way out to create an opening so you can run later.

At lower levels you still have to be able to deal with possibly getting caught.

A stealthy character should also have a good perception to avoid getting ambushed first.

Bards, inquisitor, rangers, etc can be just as stealthy if not more so than a rogue. My ninja is actually the "ranger" class, but all of them have to deal with the same problems that come with trying to be stealthy.

That thunderstone is only a +15 fort save IIRC. If a player builds his character to have a good save it is generally a wasted action to use it. The tanglefoot bag can be an issue depending on the group, but generally speaking it would be something I would do to make a combat last longer instead of expect for it to be a significant factor.

I do like handy haversacks, and eyes of the eagle as cheap magic items. Being able to bring a lot of things to table with knowledge checks, social skills, and other ways to be versatile are good. That gives you multiple ways to solve a problem.


Kwauss wrote:
Since it's not very clear what happens when you spend your action on subsequent rounds (e.g. inspire courage), why is it limited if it doesn't say so?

On subsequent rounds you are not restarting it, you are maintaining it, so there is no reason to mention the later rounds.

Actually I was only speaking of inspire courage since it gives a choice, but only upon starting it.

As for the other performances you would have to refer to their specific text to see how strict they are.

IIRC that is the only one that gives you a choice. The others tell you what you have to use.

PS: If there are any outside of the CRB then I am not aware of them.


Kwauss wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


With all of that aside the party has to be able to hear it, and most of the time this won't really do you any good except for corner cases.
I might even allow it, if it came up, if it was not too difficult, but since I use bards as NPC's I would let the players know it could work against them.

PS: I don't think a devs would allow it,if they were to issue an FAQ however.

Do you think they can rule that without backtracking on other rulings minimizing bardic performance requirements?

What rulings do you mean? I don't remember any rulings against the bard class.


Scythia wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Scythia wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I found it.

click me

That seems to apply to a class option chosen from a list of available choices, not a locked-in always happens option.

Still, I guess that's as close to an official stance as there is. Handily ignored for my games.

So, Scythia, does that mean that my Ranger or Paladin PC can take Boon Companion as his third level feat?

I don't have the book that feat is in, but it increases your effective level for the purposes of your animal companion, right? In my game, so long as you're not using an archetype that trades out the companion or requires you to choose party bond, sure you could. You just wouldn't benefit until you reach the level to have a companion (and I would probably limit your effective level to a max of your actual level).

It doesn't bother me if you want to use a feat (or favoured class bonus) for something that is of no immediate benefit. Likewise, I'm fine with a ranger taking the + energy resist (or +skill ranks) for animal companion favoured class bonuses at 1-3, in my games.

He asked because the feat says you must have an animal companion, but they dont get it until level 4. Now he will likely question your stance on the FCB vs the feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kwauss wrote:
There's no rule you have to perform constantly, so one whispered joke should do it. What's the base DC to hear it? DC 15 is a whispered conversation, but this is just one joke - so DC 20? Almost like silent spell...

I guess you could say that.

There are no rules for whispering one sentence vs a conversation and performing is not a conversation.

conversation wrote:
an informal talk involving two people or a small group of people

With all of that aside the party has to be able to hear it, and most of the time this won't really do you any good except for corner cases.

I might even allow it, if it came up, if it was not too difficult, but since I use bards as NPC's I would let the players know it could work against them.

PS: I don't think a deve would allow it,if they were to issue an FAQ however.


Scythia wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I found it.

Quote:

Related Point: Can I apply the aasimar or elf oracle's favored class bonus to a revelation I do not yet have? Can I do so for the aasimar bard’s favored class bonus?

No, when choosing which class feature’s effective level to increase, you can only select a feature that you already have. For example, an aasimar flame oracle cannot choose to improve the wings of fire revelation with her favored class bonus until she actually gains the revelation at 7th level or beyond; she could not start augmenting it at 1st level.

This isn’t actually a new rule. It’s just a clarification that I confirmed with the design team because it seemed that some folks were assuming otherwise.

click me

That seems to apply to a class option chosen from a list of available choices, not a locked-in always happens option.

Still, I guess that's as close to an official stance as there is. Handily ignored for my games.

I guess someone could ask for another explanation. I don't play PFS, but if I did I would like an answer to what you ask because it is a valid point.

However I am 99% sure the intent is that "you can not improve what you do not have".


Bandw2 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
... wraith... pls... use the edit button... you're scaring the children.
LOL. I really am lost here. If I made a typo message me so I can fix it. If you think my finding out about them using some psionic rules in an actual(official) game might scare someone then.... :)
you double and triple post all the time, that's what's scary.

My psicrystal handles the phone. I handle the laptop. That is how it goes. :)


I would blindfold the psion so he can not select any guards as targets. Better yet put some iron mask on him with a lock so it does not fall off by accident. :)


Bandw2 wrote:
... wraith... pls... use the edit button... you're scaring the children.

LOL. I really am lost here. If I made a typo message me so I can fix it. If you think my finding out about them using some psionic rules in an actual(official) game might scare someone then.... :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I found it.

Quote:

Related Point: Can I apply the aasimar or elf oracle's favored class bonus to a revelation I do not yet have? Can I do so for the aasimar bard’s favored class bonus?

No, when choosing which class feature’s effective level to increase, you can only select a feature that you already have. For example, an aasimar flame oracle cannot choose to improve the wings of fire revelation with her favored class bonus until she actually gains the revelation at 7th level or beyond; she could not start augmenting it at 1st level.

This isn’t actually a new rule. It’s just a clarification that I confirmed with the design team because it seemed that some folks were assuming otherwise.

click me


Vuldra is also a place they might use for it. For now it does not matter, so you can tell your player it is not in Golarion.

They have used psionics in The Dragon's Demand for a monster, but not the full rules.

Maybe that is where you player got the idea from.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Numeria has hinted at it from a flavor/story perspective, but I was saying mechanically there are no rules for it. If the rules are made I am sure that is where it will be predominant.

I don't see any mention of psionics in Numeria, Land of Fallen Stars. I mean other than the detect thoughts as part of the poison condition for drinking the fluids. It's grasping at straws to say that psionics exists as part of any official lore.

There's a collective sense on these forums of "THAT guy". But the logical fact remains: Psionics are NOT and never have been core. They've always been 3PP as far as Paizo is concerned. Anyone that thinks otherwise can ask the creators at Gencon.

"That's the one. My point was that it's not completely unheard of in the Golarion setting... The flavor exists already though."

Ok, then name one adventure path with a psionic character in it. Or one country. Or even an NPC name, in any Paizo-published material. Seriously I'd be interested to see any Paizo published material that explicitly mentions psionics or even a psychic. Beyond detect thoughts, that is.

I already said MORE THAN ONCE, that is was not official yet, and there are NO rules for it. I am only saying it was hinted at, not that it has full coverage or that you should allow it. Since IF it is done paizo won't be using 3pp you should not use the power point system if you don't like it.

But to answer your question: James Jacobs(the guy who controls Golarion lore) has said that if psionics is fully implemented in any form it would be in Numeria. However because of the situation with psionics, it would be Paizo's version of psionics, not DSP's.


When climbing your taking 5 feet takes up more than 5 feet of movement if you dont have an actual climb speed. That means your 5 ft distance on the map will actually take up 20 feet of movement due to climb restricting you to 1/4 of your movement speed.

When the rules are written they assume you are doing things normally. When you change the base assumption you must adjust according.

As for climbing creatures, the only ones that are allowed to climbed by the rules are the newer ones in the bestiary because they are so large.


I think an FAQ on this says you must wait until you have access to the ability. My search fu is failing me though. If I find the link I will post it later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


So, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial point was "you need to *own* all these books!"
Um. Where did I say that? I don't remember saying it, and when I looked, I couldn't find it.

You may not have used the word "own", but you made it seem like a lack of access was a problem, and yeah I can find the quote for that.

Quote:

All I've really been saying is that we've hit a point where at least some of the people who left 3.5 for Pathfinder (because sticking with 3.5 was always an option, even after WotC abandoned it) are becoming disillusioned with PF and looking to 5e D&D the same way they looked to PF when it first arrived on the scene.

Not everyone. Clearly many people here emphatically do NOT feel this way.

That is very different from the feel of your first post. There will always be "someone". Someone may go to 5E, not like it as much, and come back to PF. Some will stay with 5E. Your first post has a much stronger feel than "some will leave". There will always be someone that will leave, even if 5E had not come around.

Quote:


You can howl all you want about it, you can make all the accusations of goalpost moving that you want, you can dismiss our feelings as invalid all you want -- but it's still going to be how we feel.

And that means something.

Nobody is dismissing your feelings, but you made certain statements as if they were facts, when they are not.

So IF ALL you are saying is that the rules bloat is too much for some, then we agree. You may have even listed some valid reasons as to why they will leave, but if you don't your post to be read as "the sky is falling", then don't write them in that manner.


You know what, I am done here. I dont have time to debate if objects are going to be called "inanimate constructs".


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.
This is the difficulty of the position you are trying to espouse. You can't argue that fire and water have the same properties in PF as they do in real life...
I'm not. The fire in fire elementals and the water in water elementals have the same properties as fire and water does in PF.

What properties are those since you made it seem like you were referencing real life before?

You pull from various object interactions and scattered rules across the game. I believe the brightness of the flame comes from vision of lighting rules, the damage from touching the fire elemental comes from the Burn ability rules (which talks about what happens when you touch a burning creature)

Wet is a non-condition in PF, it does very little(nothing as far as I can tell). Water makes things wet, but only from a narrative perspective since being wet doesn't appear to do anything. At least I have yet to run into an effect that describes being wet.

So basically when have no water or fire properties that support your claim.

So we have to assume that if water elementals act like water then we must use real life water properties. That means when the source of water makes things wet the source is lessened, even if it is by a small amount.

By this logic the water elemental slowly withers away, for lack of a better term.

Objects are NOT inanimate constructs. Object are objects. Constructs are creatures. The two are in completely different categories.

And with that said touching does not equal an attack which is what the burn ability calls for. If that were true rogues would sneak attack everything and everyone they touched that did could not add dex to AC, assuming they were not immune to it.

If the rogue shakes your hand are you taking sneak attack damage?


And since we are on the topic how is PF water and fire different from real life water and fire?


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.
This is the difficulty of the position you are trying to espouse. You can't argue that fire and water have the same properties in PF as they do in real life...
I'm not. The fire in fire elementals and the water in water elementals have the same properties as fire and water does in PF.

What properties are those since you made it seem like you were referencing real life before?

edit:
If you can quote the properties of water and fire in PF I would like to see it.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


Fire does cause damage to touch see torch.

Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.

Also I never said it works like it did in real life. I'm just looking at the rules, which both fire and water have.

I did not say it did not cause damage.

I asked why are you not harmed by being close(in proximity not far away) by a fire elemental if you are harmed by being close to one in real life?

As for the water elemental I am asking you why it does not run out because real life water does not auto replenish so if a water elemental acts like real water then it makes things wet by leaving part of itself behind.

You do realize that wetness is the presence of water. That means the water has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the water elemental. Therefore he is losing water. So does he dry up or just create more water to replace what was lost?


Flori the Fabulous wrote:
jlighter wrote:

Late reply, but as best I can read it, Fiery Shuriken is still a "targeted spell," and thus would only get 1 sneak attack by SKR's reasoning for every wave of shuriken fired. It still has the potential to get sneak attack on every shuriken, but they'd have to each be fired by a separate action and each would have to qualify.

Also, THREAD NECRO! Sorry. :)

I like SKR, but I'm not sure this is the best ruling for this particular thing. There are only a few character types who would use this to any extent, and it wouldn't make them overpowered.

The rulings are not made by SKR alone. They are made by the entire design team. Individual members use to post the rulings, but since posters used to blame individual devs they are now stated as being posted by the design team.

1 to 50 of 27,929 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.