|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Assuming we are saying that the PFS rules were the standard game I would not have played Pathfinder if it stopped at level 12, since I was used to 3.5. That rule alone to me would have hindered the game. I know everyone does not like going all the way to 20, but most people I have ran games for and played with like to at least see level 17.
There are other things that I don't agree with about PFS, if it were to stand in for the current rules, but I think it is clear that my answer is "no".
I thought it actually went to 20 by the end of the book. I dont own the book so I can't verify it.
The games says you should face 4 encounters per day at APL=CR, but as you level up you can actually take on more encounters so that 4 encounters does not really hold up. This varies based on the actual build, and the player's ability to make good choices.
Also on your post post about optimized characters who suck at everything except for one thing you were actually describing what we call hyper-specialized characters who are only built to do one thing well. You can be optimized for your primary role, and still do other things well. That way if you have to make a perception check as an example, you will still do be competent.
As for magic items CL has nothing to do with the value of a magic item. The restriction is based on price. As an example pearls of power have a CL of 20, but some items which are much more useful have lower caster levels.
Wrath of the righteous?
No. I like that Paizo has rules that cover a lot of things so we all know what to expect, but I also like that every group can ignore the rules they don't care for. <----for the sake of my answer I will pretend Paizo could actually somehow control your home game or take away your GM power. I am assuming it is possible to strip a PFS GM of GM'ing authority if he just blatently ignores the PFS rules.
Nope sicken and nauseated are there own conditions, just like dazed and stunned are.Fatigued can lead to exhaustion, but not by applying fatigue twice. If you are fatigued and continue to take actions that would make you fatigued then you can become exhausted.
There is a fighter archetype that allows this with the -4 penalty. You can just change the reach of a weapon by saying its improvised.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
You can't move twice in the same round so that won't work anyway.
An FAQ only covers exactly what it covers. Granting an exception to the Magus does not grant an exception to similar situations. If we want a more general ruling we can ask about asking for one, but they might avoid allowing it in case they have some strange ability that is similar to a full attack, but they still do not want haste applied to.
Well, I for one really like the idea. I will totally link back here. Good on you, it needed to be said.
You can refer back to it, but nobody will care because many of his points are wrong. I think he should have stuck with something general such as don't use extremes/corner cases because they make your argument look weak. The same people who go to extremes will be the ones picking about the weak points in his argument. People taking things to extremes and making terrible debate points has been mentioned before. All that happens is that they normally double down on their point, and "have no idea" that their point is a corner case or extreme.
That does not make the answer "useless". It might mean some people will ask more questions, beyond the scope of the original FAQ, but that does not make the answer "useless."
Useless means it is of no use to anyone, or it has NO value. However that is not the case.
Many rulings can be asked to be broken down further given the proper corner cases to include some FAQ's that are in place now with more questions generated from them, or questions that will come later.
Also as I said before some things are not covered by the rules, and the GM will have to decide, especially since Paizo does not have the time to answer every possible question. However, Paizo not being able to answer every possible iteration of a rule does not qualify the other questions involving the rule or mechanic as invalid or useless.
It is useless to you. You have yet to state any proof as it(this potential FAQ) being useless objectively since it would at least be useful to whoever would be in this situation.
These examples of a wizard replacing a rogue because of high int+spells are covered in several debates. People should not even bring uo certain topics and not be aware of what the counters will be. Maybe I will call that the "I have a selective memory" fallacy, or the "I didn't do my homework(research)" fallacy.
There is no reason why it has to be bad. FAQs only cover specifically what they ask. Also, one reason why people play is because this system has definite rulings. It in no way diminshes the power of thr GM. All he has to do is be clear on whar his house rules are, or state up front that he plays loosely with the rules. There are many groups that enjoy that style of play.
Chess Pwn wrote:
he does mind sharing. If we know what's on top we can go and FAQ it more to make third go to first, or first go from 75 to 200. Or we can try to band onto another that's not listed. Basically they don't want to skew the FAQ process. People will FAQ things other's FAQ.
He used to tell us before the FAQ's got put on hold a few month's ago. Do you have a post saying his position has changed?
Does ammunition fired from a magical projectile weapon gain the benefits of the weapons magical enhancement or abilities?
I don't know who made this thread, but it is silly. It does not mean you are silly, but we know how this works.
The first part is saying the ammo actually takes on the actual enhancement if the weapon has a higher enhancement. That is what "applies" is referring to.
The 2nd part is saying that it also overcomes damage reduction. Note that it does not limit the projectile to overcoming DR/Magic. It says the weapon is treated as magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming DR.
What do magic weapons of certain enhancement do? They overcome other types of DR.
The 2nd part is not redundant. They figured someone might try to argue that it(ammo) does the +5 to attack and damage but it won't overcome the appropriate DR because it is not a "weapon" in and of itselt. So they had to be clear that property would be passed on to the ammunition.
PS: No I am not hitting the FAQ button. All a dev needs to do is say Wraithstrike is right, and we can save the FAQ space for something that actually needs it.
Another example of them trying to be sure you don't use anything other than AoMF.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Even designers differiniate between flavor and mechanics and have advocated changing the flavor for your own game. Thia is because flavor is mutable.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Clearly is not evident.If thr PDT team were to make a ruling right now what do you think it would be.
A. Overrun allows you to keep going until your movement is expended
B. You can move one square beyond the overrun opponent⬅how I am viewing your interpretation, but feel free to correct me if I misunderstood
C. Other ruling
Also those other abilities don't have anything to do with overrun. They have their own reasons as to why they work like they do, that are defined,within thr rules. You can find a reason for stopping overrun because there is no wording. Yes I understand that sometimes the wording of the ruled does support intent, but I see no evidence to support your statement.
Well, as SKR said, back in a thread from 2011 that I found after posting this one, "it works but it's not the way we intended for Monks to get Enhancement bonuses on their attacks"
That is what I was getting it, plus the other times Paizo has avoid letting the monk enhance unarmed strikes in other ways to include a slight rewording of the cestus in the ultimate equipment guide.
Basically, it works per the wording, but if someone FAQ's it they will likely have an FAQ saying it does not work especially since SKR listed design reasons(that I dont agree with) for the design team not wanting it to work.
That is why I keep saying he can use the wording or the intent, but if one is going is going to ignore intent in a home game then I would just houserule things like I do in my home games.
PS: If this is for PFS I would probably post it over there, and hope whoever is in charge of PFS speaks up. That would avoid table variation.
The AoMF affects all of their limbs so you would not have to pay extra for having more limbs, just like dragons greatly benefit from the AoMF with all of their natural attacks.
Monk's unarmed strikes are affect by spells that work on manufactured weapons, and natural attacks. That is why I said it technically works, however every time someone has found a possible work around to not using the AoMF(amulet of mighty fist) Paizo has made sure that it didnt work. At one time the cestus was worded to do monk damage, and it would have only worked on the fist, and they didnt like that idea either. One dev, even said the intent was for monk to go through the mighty fist.
That is why I said that you technically this probably works, but Paizo doesn't want it to work.
If you don't care about intent then I would just come up with some special monk wraps for their fist, and call it a day. At least they wont have to rely on a spellcaster in your game.
If it is a spread it will be called out as one. If it is not called, then it is not a spread.
You can never hold up your shield to block line of affect from a radius affect, not matter if it is an emanation or not unless specifically stated by that spell.
However what I think should have been done is for them(Paizo) to use wording similar to the silence spell.
That is basically how darkness works except that it only works on objects.
Yes, all of them get to ignore DR. Even the basic(not mythic) paladin can share his smiting.
Also, I would advise not using a one boss/creature fight against a party, even if is only 4 of them.
As an example a CR 17 fight is more challenging if it is made of 1 CR 15 and 2 CR 13's. It stops the party from dogpiling onto one creature.
Mythic does amazing(for the PC's) things to their power level and the monsters don't get enough defenses to stand up to it.
My advice is to add more monsters per my above suggestion, and use max hit points if you are not already doing so for any monsters you have.
If you are a prepared caster such as a wizard or witch then you must prepared the metamagic version of the spell, and it will take up a higher level slot during preperation. When you use a spell as a prepared caster that spell is gone.
5th level empowered fireball(2)
4th level heightened fireball(1)
3rd level fireball(3)
In the situation above I have 3 normal fireballs, 1 heightened, and 2 empowered fireballs prepared. The metamagic ones are taking up higher level slots as you can see.
If I cast the heightened fireball of which I only prepared 1, then the other fireballs are still available because they are their own spells.
Spontaneous casters such as bards and sorcerors do not prepared spells.
6th level 4/day
5th level 4/day
4th level 5/day
3rd level 6/day
Now since the sorcerer has access to every spell he knows all the time he can does not run out of spells. He runs of out daily castings/slot per spell level.
So I can cast a normal fireball at least 6 times per day using the 3rd level slot assuming no other spell is cast.
Empowered fireballs take up a 5th level slot so I would have to use one of my 5th level slots to cast the empowered version. This would only burn one 5th level slot.
PS: The number of daily spells I listed is likely not accurate. I was just using them as an example of how the usage would go.
Expect some table variation, but, if you had them on correctly when glitterdusted, you would get the bonus to the save. Putting them on after being affected by glitterdust, though, probably should not give the benefit, as you are trying to clear your eyes of the dust, effectively, rather than having additional sparkles continuing to blind you.
No, he would not get the save.The goggles do not give you a +8 vs blinding effects. They give you a save vs things that a blind creature are immune to.
Since blind creatures are not immune to glitterdust the save does not apply.
The goggles do not grant immunity to anything, even when worn. They grant you a +8 saving throw bonus against an effect that a blind creature would be immune.
However being blind does not make you immune to glitterdust. It just means you don't have to save against the blinding affect because you are already blind. It is just like you can't be sickened if you are already sickened because nothing will else will happen. However you are still not immune to the sickened condition.
As aother example, glitterdust makes you blind for a limited time, but if there was another affect that could make you blind permanently such as the blindness/deafness spell you would still be subject to it. <---example of you not being immune just because you are blind.
Silver Surfer wrote:
"Good" is subjective. Do you have any examples of how this could be "too much/OP" in a game?
Per the game RAI you never become an animal aka gain the animal creature type so the spell can never affect you.
Scenario 2--> If however one were to actually gain the creature type then we would have a rules contradiction and that would require an FAQ. My guess is that Paizo would say you the spell does not work on someone or something that is temporarily an animal.
If you want to speculate on what would happen if Paizo never chimed in on scenario number 2, then it falls on the GM, since some things are beyond the rules if they are overlooked or never thought of. So all we can do in those cases is speculate on what we think Paizo would do.
Yeah, I am saying the rules do not cover every possible scenario because players can get creative, and sometimes things just get overlooked.
Berti Blackfoot wrote:
Actually you are not following the rules. The rules don't say you need feat X to wear armor. They just so you take penalties. The rules also allow for you to spend gold by lessening or eliminating those penalties. Saying "I don't like it is one thing", but saying "this is the rule" when it is not the rule is another thing altogether.
There is nothing wrong without houserules. Look at what section of the forums we are in, but don't pretend they are rules, just because you don't like the rule.
edit: I didn't know this started in the rules forum. In that case you were most definitely wrong.
I think he is trying to say it would not happen enough to make it work trying because the difficulty is too great.
So it might be attempted a few times at first, but seeing how impractical it is, it would stop being tried.
Are you asking about the "actual rules" or are you wanting to discuss "why it would be a good or bad idea" to allow it?
Another example of context that is great. :)