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

36,149 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 36,149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I would say the one person who is enlarged get reduced to normal size, and everyone else gets a save.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ranishe wrote:


Actually one final related thing. This concept is important for gaining new players. A complex and unapproachable system is intimidating to many, whereas a simpler or more organized system is not. This is also speculation, but I don't expect a superficially simple system to be a turnoff to those looking for more depth, so long as the knobs presented are able to provide that (think chess. Easy to understand piece movement, complex game).

Complex and unapproachable is subjective. I have always been able to teach new players how to play. That includes the time when I was allowing 3.5 material with much less restriction into my Pathfinder games. Now admittedly even some experienced(1st edition) players had trouble with things, but I also found out they had issues with 2nd edition rules.

In my experience, if I don't turn the dial up to 11 on difficulty when I GM for new people, and I run at least a decent game people stick around and learn(good enough to be sufficient), even if they don't master the game.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:

People say that options are optional...but if I can't play the latest AP without those options, they're not optional. I can obviously write my own stuff, and I can look up the 'options' on the PRD, but frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Paizo is/was supposedly a setting company that needed to do the Pathfinder RPG to support the Pathfinder setting (Golarion) so that it could continue to sell adventures. But if people can't use those adventures because they don't have (or don't want to spend all their time online looking up) the new splatbooks, Paizo jeopardises their core business, as surely as they would with a v1.5 or 2.0 or whatever.

There are no good choices here, though there are certainly bad ones.

What are you talking about?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
But why do we need to throw out all the old books for this when they may as well just release 'Magic Unchained'?

Nope. In fact, throwing them out won't happen. In my first post, I talked about why Paizo is in a hard place with their current magic system. They could add a new one, but it would have to be a really concerted effort to keep it supported. Another Words of Power won't help any. Because I don't think Paizo is really interested in going there, I said that in my mind Pathfinder 2.0 started with Spheres of Power, because 3rd party publishers are now tackling major sacred cows that Paizo can't or won't. They're making the major changes that a new edition could bring. If they're already doing it and the product is good, why bother having a new edition?

I focus on the magic system because it is the system that causes the most contention on the boards and therefore would be the best candidate for an update in a new edition.

Contention on the boards, and contention in actual play are not the same thing. I am one of the first to admit that magic can cause problems, and in theory it can be a large part of problems at tables, but in actual practice it is not nearly as problematic at most tables.

Using the boards as some standard for how things really are can be a bad idea. I've been called a powergamer more than once, but at a table I scale the character's power to whatever won't overshadow a party and/or having the GM throwing books at me.

The boards are the perception. The table is the reality.

I think an alternate magic system that is an option would be better than a forced one or an entire new edition. It's not worth the risk to lose a lot of people. WoTC was in a position to survive even if D&D failed. Paizo is not in that position with Pathfinder, at least not until they start pushing video games, movies, or some other method to give their bank account a cushion to offset any risk.

phantom1592 wrote:

What kind of action is Aid Another normally?

d20pfsrd wrote:

Aid Another

You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.

It is a standard action. If you go to the combat chapter, and look at the table for actions it is listed as a standard action.

The text also list it as a standard action.

PRD wrote:

Aid Another

In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.

phantom1592 wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

There's a teamwork feat that lets you aid another in knowledge checks. I use it with my Inquisitor.

pathfinder society primer wrote:

Collective Recollection

You and your allies can quickly jog each other's memories to remember essential facts.

Benefit: When an ally who also has this feat attempts a trained Knowledge skill check while within 30 feet of you, you may attempt an aid another check as a free action to improve that ally's skill check. You must have at least 1 rank in the Knowledge skill to be aided in order to use this feat. If you succeed at the aid another check, you automatically know any information your ally gains from the Knowledge check as if you had rolled the Knowledge check. Whether or not your aid another check is successful, you cannot attempt a Knowledge check to determine the same information as your ally after using this feat.

While I have seen some GMs infer that this feat means you can't Aid Another on knowledge checks, most of the GMs in our area don't read it that way.

We tend to read it as "everyone can make an Aid Another on knowledge checks, and the feat lets you do it better." In particular, the benefit of the feat is that you can make the aid check as a free action (perhaps even off your turn) and you know the same information your ally does without any communication necessary.

The feat does not say "this feat allows you to aid another on knowledge checks" or "you normally can't do that at all."

Our DM had always ruled that knowledges couldn't be aided. same as Perception. There were just some things you had to do on your own. Finding this feat lets me aid another and as an Inquisitor, the other player doesn't need to have it.

Honestly, that makes it a pretty useful feat. Your interpretation... pretty much makes it useless. Using it as a free action is irrelevant, since the actual knowledge skill is described as:

pfsrd wrote:

Knowledge skills:

Monster Lore:


The knowledge skill rule does nothing to change the "aid another" rules though, so you would still need that feat to "aid another" as a free action.

As an example attacks of opportunity don't take an action at all, but you can't aid another on one without using an action. You would still need to spend the standard action to aid another if you knew the attack roll was going to take place.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Zarius wrote:

Several of the spells here (it's only the official Paizo lists):

Which, reading further, have something in common... The ones that aren't listed as (Cleric Only) that aren't actually tagged in the oracle list are all side-book released ones that were released AFTER the Oracle class - such as the (Un)Holy Ice Blade spell.

Okay, looked up 'Holy Ice Weapon' and found it came from the Advanced Class Guide. I then opened up my PDF of the 'spells' chapter for that book and searched for 'oracle' and found 0 matches.

Going back to the Advanced Player's Guide, the rules for Oracles state 'An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists' so technically speaking, there is no separate 'spell list' for Oracles: If a spell is available to clerics, it's available to Oracles as well (with the specific exception of 'meditative' spells from the Divine Anthology).

D20PFSRD, by the way, is NOT an official Pazio site: It belongs to a third party and may or may not be accurate.

It tends to in fact be more accurate. Especially when you realize the PRD still has not updated the Ultimate Equipment Errata.

They were saying it is less accurate with regard to how it reproduces the rules. They often take liberties with how they word or format the rules.

1) How long have you been playing Pathfinder? I come from 3.5 which is where Pathfinder started. If you want to include my 3.5 time then I have been around since 2004. Otherwise I have been around since Pathfinder has been around. I think that was 2008.

2) Have you ever been the Game Master/Dungeon Master? Have you ever been a player? I do both roles

a)How long have you/did you play each role? I do both roles all the time.
i) If you've played both: which did you like better? I like playing more.

3) Have you ever played Pathfinder Society? Homebrew? I have never played Pathfinder Soceity.
a) Which did you like better?

4) Have you ever played a game with maps? Without maps?
I tried it one once without a battlemap. I will never do it again. It was a terrible experience for me.
a)Did playing with a map make a difference to how you liked the game?

The following questions are concerning the paper's topic:
1) Do you think maps effect how player's play? How Game Master's play?
The game assumes a map will be used and it effects tactics to a very
large degree.
a) If yes: how do you think they effect the player's/Game Master's play?
b) If no: why do you think they don't effect the player's/Game Master's play?

2) Do you think maps effect the game?
How is this question different from the previous question?
a) If yes: how do you think they affect the game?
b) If no: why do you think maps don't affect the game?

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I honestly hate all Point Buy—it's just too unbalanced, too clunky. If I did use Point Buy, though, I'd likely go with 20 or even 25 Point Buy.

What is balanced?

What is positive or negative will depend on the preferred style of play and what you are trying to accomplish. Classes that are not full casters will have to do the most adjusting. If the goal is to just make the game more gritty I would go to using tactics that are less player friendly such as focusing fire on a PC and targeting holy symbols and spell component pouches.

For reasons stated above it is generally not a good idea, and I would honest go directly to a full caster in such a game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

Okay, just a little more.

Eberron kept alignments because they were obliged too - it's part of the core rules for D&D 3.x

Eberron kept deities because they were obliged to - it's part of the core rules for D&D 3.x

Even "Advanced" D&D Dopplegangers are as "genderfluid" as any Changeling. So not "progressive" IMO.


The way you can tell is that none of Eberron's changes are the kind that have produced the backlash from recidivist players the way Paizo's have.

That's how you can tell if something is truly progressive... see if there is any backlash.

LOL no! There is no little backlash because so few play in Eberron to begin with.

thejeff wrote:
Golarion certainly isn't flawless, but I like its approach better than "You want to play someone from a traditional Arabic-style culture? Sure, our Arabs are lizardfolk. You can play one of them."

It's called production value. Baker's home campaign had very little of it and they didn't spend much time polishing it for publication when it became an official campaign setting. Golarian has had far more effort put into it.

Rysky wrote:


How is "we don't know if the Gods even exist" progressive?

cough Dragonlance /cough

The published version is not exactly his home edition. That was a large part of it, but WoTC changed a lot of things he wanted to keep.

Time /= Value.

Example: I am sure Jason and James will on average come up with a better product for Pathfinder than I will 9/10 times, and not take nearly as long while doing so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:

Eberron is far more inclusive of race and culture than Golarion, regardless of "intent".

There is no question that Paizo really TRIED to be inclusive, or progressive, or whatever adjective you want to use to mean "accepting of and welcoming to people with traits outside of the mainstream".

That isn't what I asked about, though. I asked about which setting really WAS more inclusive, not which one TRIED to be more inclusive.

WRT the LGBTQ community, Golarion offers officially LGBTQ NPCs in positions of power and authority. WRT women, Golarion offers female NPCs in positions of power and authority.

But Eberron does that too. Changelings are by their very nature physically genderfluid, able to become male or female, cis-gender or trans-gender, or anything along a whole spectrum of sex and gender, at will. Warforged are asexual beings (and I am not certain that even Golarion has featured any overtly asexual beings in positions of power and authority) who (mostly) lack gender.

Meanwhile, Eberron's version of the Catholic Church is run by a young woman, the Blood of Vol was founded by a female, and there are several nations and Houses led by females.

So these are mostly a wash.

Now imagine that you are a foreigner, a non-White foreigner, sitting down to play an RPG.

Both campaign settings let you play humans of various ethnicities and cultures. While some of these may superficially resemble real-world ethnicities and cultures, none are exact matches, so this is a wash.

But look more closely. One of the campaign settings features humanoids -- people -- whose identity as people is so denigrated that they seem to exist simply to be killed by the heroes, their lives, land, and property forfeit to members of the PC races by virtue of their race. These people have little or no culture to speak of, no history of import, no contributions to the world they live in. They are "critters" who exist to be slain by their racial superiors.

The other setting has those same...

Depending on how you look at it either case can be made. From a "fantasyland" view I would say Eberron. From an real life or meta aspect I would say Golarion.

Most GM's don't do this as a constant thing, and if they do you are just screwed. "Not being a martial character" is also not the answer if they want to take away your mean schtick. If you are a cleric than can sunder your holy symbol. If you are a wizard they can sunder the spell component pouch. If you get past that with Eschew Materials, they take your spellbook. If you are a bard high usage of the silence spell shuts you down. The list goes on.

Basically, there is always a way for the GM to screw the player over if he wants to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Either way, these don't prove much. Just fuel for a long burning fire mostly. Hehe.

I agree. I just want to see it happen though.

Bows are already really good. I dont see them ever getting this. They don't do as much damager per hit as two-handed weapons, but since they get more full round attacks they can still put out more damage in many cases.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I ran one of these by PbP before, and everyone submitted their characters to the GM, and then he submitted them to the "combat thread". That way nobody could metagame.

I think the OP should put a deadline on things by saying 1st level combatants need to be submitted by ____. The same goes for certain other levels.

I would do levels 1, 7, 13, 20. If he doesn't make things less free-form nothing might ever get done.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point is that you can be trained to noticed things that you would not have otherwise noticed. The fact that you learn to ignore certain things, and pick up on others does not take away from the fact that your learning is applying to how well you do with when perception comes into play.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

You can learn to be more perceptive. When I joined the military I got a lot better at noticing things so I see why it is a skill just like being stealthy is a skill. When you are being trained how to clear rooms, and you get training on IED's you are taught things to look for. I can see the same thing going into not getting caught by a trap or how to notice that someone or something is in the room with you.

BigDTBone wrote:
andreww wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I would be interested to see the level 20 fighter against the level 20 druid optimized for wildshape combat (this is obviously not what druids are good at.) I imagine that the fighter could lose at their own game there.

Actually druids can be amazing at melee combat.

I would be more interested to see if a druid, or really any full progression AC class, could be put up against the fighter and win with its master acting only as support/buffing.

I am currently looking at a nature oracle and wondering if his pet talking horse can beat the fighter...:)

It may be interesting to limit the spellcaster to just two spells known. (No cheating and using catch-all like wish, or the illusory evocation spells, or even summon monster.

I'd go with magic jar and ddoor. Take over their body, take off all their gear, then just ddoor straight up, take falling damage, repeat steps 3-4 as needed.

After the magic jar, he could remove the fighter's gear, buff himself, and then beat the fighter in melee combat.

If it is an archer, take his gear, start flying around and shooting him with his own bow until he dies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you can choose the ranger bonus feats with the ranger bonus feat slot and ignore all prerequisites.

Psyonis wrote:

5- I'm surprised no one mentioned another drawback when compared to haste- the caster is not included in the effects:
"With this blessing, you call your allies to move forth and empower them to conquer and become victorious. Each round for the duration of this spell, each of your allies can choose one of the following bonuses for that round at the beginning of its turn (their choice)." Note it only works on 'your allies'- not one subject per level or similar...

According to an FAQ you count as your own ally unless it doesn't make sense. I know that "unless it doesn't make sense" part is not very clear, but when I saw it in play most GM's let it work on the caster so many see it as making sense to allow the cleric to benefit to.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just here to watch and make this one observation:

The wizard can probably gate in things that can kill the fighter especially if he boost his caster level high enough to bring in CR23+ monsters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I don't think CdG makes sense from a tactics point of view if the enemy intends to win the fight why waste time when one enemy isn't attacking you anymore. The exception would be if you know that someone will heal him and get him back up fighting you.

Most holy symbols are not hidden away so its not hard to tell if someone may have a healer in the party or not.

In this specific case the enemies were CE, and that makes it more reasonable for them to put being bloodthirsty over tactics.

PS: If there is no sign of a healer then I agree its better to not CDG someone from a tactical perspective.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

If CdG was an effective tactic, PCs would use it all the time

I think I saw it only once and used as a mercy killing

In any given situation, if our favorite murderhoboing PCs would not have used a CdG, then NPCs using it is very unlikely

PC's don't do it more because it is not easily setup. Normally monsters go from alive to dead. Also many players on a metagame level know that Team Evil does not have clerics. When I have used healers for Team Evil, the PC's made sure the NPC's stayed down so by your logic, and my players it is useful for the PC's if the enemies might stand back up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Speaker for the Dead wrote:
My only comment is about the detect good/evil spell. The op commented in a spoiler that the since the sprites are using the spell they would always know which way to look. It takes three rounds of concentration before they would know the power and location of each aura. The first round all they should know is that auras are present. The second, the number of auras. Since the paladin was flying about it seems unlikely that he would have stayed in the cone area of effect for three rounds. Of course they could have made really good perception rolls.

That is not exactly right. The spell is a cone. If something is in the cone you know dont know where it is in the cone on round 1, but you know it is in the cone. On round 3 you can nail down the square it is in.

Now if you have the spell up, and it pings when a creature is in the area it makes sense to say that the creature in question is likely the cause of your "radar" going on. It is not 100%, but its a fair bet to make if you are out in the woods, and nothing else happened that might set it off.

Lorila Sorita wrote:

I wouldn't say it was unfair, but you were definitely playing a cut throat, no mercy type game. If you want to play a super deadly game, then that is fine, but maybe that wasn't his thing. They were evil pixies so hunting down and murdering the guy makes sense from a roleplaying perspective.

You chased down and murdered a player who was trying his best to flee the encounter, when there was more dangerous targets, and higher priority targets around, that you could have easily switched target to. So you could of definitely went easier on him. If it was me, I would of switch some of the pixies to the other targets but it is what it is.

I also disagree when people say the paladin made a bunch of bad choices. He actually made the choices you would expect smart players to make. When he was attacked, he went and hid behind cover and when wounded he retreated. Which is better than most people who often don't use cover very much, and many people do not retreat when wounded.

You say he should of ran to the party, but from the sounds of it he just ran the in the direction away from the threat, which is the safest direction to run. The party didn't have a cleric by the sounds of it, so what does running to the party do? They couldn't have saved him. They couldn't coup de grace him, but they could of just shot a few arrows into his unconscious body and he would of died all the same.

Tactically it makes more sense to finish an enemy off. An enemy with 1 hit point is just as dangerous as one with 100 hit points, and in PF, unlike real life it just takes one healing spell or channel to bring someone back into the fight.

Running to the party/friends means he is not fighting alone, and that means he might live. Running back to the party has saved PC's and extended the life of NPC's several times in games I have been a part of.

It arrived today.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At low levels I take player skill into account with how much leeway I give them, but before I go any further I can't say you were objectively wrong. He may have just been expecting a different game than you were running.

He could also have had real life issues stressing him, and the character death just made him want to go home.

He likely assumed that leaving the map was a "safe space" since many GM's might have let him go, but he should have retreated toward the party anyway just so he would be there to help them.
I would have given him the "Are you sure you dont want to go that way(back to the party)?" hint.

Also many players feel like it is objectively bad form to coup de grace a PC. I don't agree, since different tables have different ideas with what is ok for that table's social contract.

As for the detect good/evil spells, you are correct.

edit: I do not find you to be at fault, and it may be good that he reomoved himself now vs later in the campaign.

There are not that many creatures that burrow, not enough to justify a random encounter anyway every time he burrows. If that is the case the burrowing monsters are close enough to attack the party above ground unless he goes really far underground, especially if they have tremorsense.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your strategy(ability as a player), and what you are fighting will matter more than your build. I've seen some good builds die due to bad choices.

Having high saves and high armor for melee types is a good way to stay alive, and paladins do well in both departments.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are either in a square or you are not. A GM can say you lean to bypass line of affect, but by the rules the square you are in, the square the target is in, and whatever is between you is what will determine if you have line of affect.

If the barrier give the target total cover then the spell can not pass through it.

Killer_GM wrote:

I would as ever enjoy playing with Turin the mad, who I've gamed with since 1982, and Pheonixhawk, who I've gamed with since 2000.

Add to that:
Sir Charles Evans (25)
Capnvan, a like-minded gent
Capn Jose Munkamunk, former player
Hexen Ineptus (though he'd likely refuse)
Yoda was right, former player
Psionichampster, former player

That would be nice just to see if I could avoid the Red Folder, but if the Dice gods look upon me and judged me unworthy then Red Folder it would be.

Cheapy wrote:

There are a number of people I'd like to play (or play more with). I played with Rogue Eidolon only once, but would be fun to play again with. Same with Ssalarn. A game with Endzeitgeist would be very interesting (and he uses so much 3pp that I wouldn't even be able to metagame capabilities!).

Wraithstrike would be good fun as well, I feel.

<smiles> x 1000

You actually search a 10 ft area, but your point still stands.

I have a subscription to Strange Aeons. Pathfinder Adventure Path #111: Dreams of the Yellow King has not arrived, even though I have had the pdf for over a week.

By the rules there is no XP, but a GM is advised to give ad-hoc XP in certain situations.

Here is how we know swarms don't get affected by ranged touch attacks as questioned.

PRD wrote:
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate),
disintegrate wrote:


School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 6
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a lodestone and a pinch of dust)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect ray...
A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit....

Rays like any other attack roll based attack only target one creature unless otherwise specified.

Also the word "target" is used in more than one way. It is a specific way to aim a spell for spells such as "hold person". It is also used to mean the victim chosen for your attack. So if I target someone with a ray they are a target. If I target them with hold person they are also a target.

Here is how we know swarms don't get affected by ranged touch attacks as questioned.

PRD wrote:
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate),
disintegrate wrote:


School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 6
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a lodestone and a pinch of dust)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect ray...
A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit....

Rays like any other attack roll based attack only target one creature unless otherwise specified.

Also the word "target" is used in more than one way. It is a specific way to aim a spell for spells such as "hold person". It is also used to mean the victim chosen for your attack. So if I target someone with a ray they are a target. If I target them with hold person they are also a target.

I don't have any maps I need done right now, but just in case I do or someone else does later what is the turnaround time, and the "donation" that would be appreciated?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would not say either is more important. Ideally, the rules as written will convey the proper intent(how the devs intended for the rules to work at the table).

If you are asking which is better to use at the table I will say that using something as it was intended, whether it is rules or some random tool is the better option in most cases.

If someone goes directly by the rules, and reads them in the most literal way possible the game does not function.

As an example, the magic section calls out "spells", and not supernatural abilities with regard to using magic and "aiming", so a literal reading of the rules would allow someone to say that SU's are not restricted by the same targeting rules that spells use.<---A poster actually tried to use that argument before. This could lead to things like an SU that causes one target to be confused to work on someone behind a brick wall.

Another example would be reach weapons doubling reach so a colossal creature can hold a reach weapon sized for a tiny creature and its reach would double simply because the rules do not say the reach weapon has to be sized for whatever is using it.

There are other examples, if someone wants to be pedantic enough about reading the rules.

I completely missed that. That is interesting. If I allow that I will be sure to choose a madness that won't TPK the party since it will likely take a nat 20 to not fail the save.

Where does it say they actually encounter a Great Old One?

The heal skill does not recognize diseases, but in my games I would allow it.

Only mentioning this because we are in the rules section.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:
Isn't that why you have a party everyone has what they are good at so you have to work togeather to cover all the bases

I have seen and been in caster light parties. In those cases all of the bases may not be covered.

Jason if you have seen the post then you have likely seen the reasons why, assuming you continued to read. Is there something written in those post that you do not agree with regarding why?

11 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been that way for over a decade now, and I(as a player) never found much wonder in magic items, and a lot of players feel that way. Making them rare doesn't translate to "more special" for everyone.
For the players that do see them as special, giving them something that is not in any official book still makes their eyes twinkle. What I plan to do next time I run a campaign is to use the unchained rules that allow enhancement bonuses to be built into the character. That way they can spend gold on magic items for the "cool factor" vs the "need factor".

Use the Shatter Defenses feat.

Ravingdork wrote:
swoosh wrote:
No that's an awful way to design things. Someone shouldn't need to spend all their feats and wait until the campaign is half over to make a combat style work just to make fighters feel better about themselves.


So I suppose wizards should get meteor swarm at level 1 now too, eh? Cause why bother earning or waiting for anything?

It's not an awful way to design things. If that's the way the game worked, with all of the rewards up front and nothing to aspire to, no one would play the game for more than a few sessions before they got bored and moved on.

That is not what he was saying, not even close. Try reading it again.

The Fiend Fantastic wrote:

I can understand that, i was just curious about this.

On the other hand, could it be used in this manner to hitch a ride, so to speak, for spying purposes for example?

Using the spell to hide inside a person is beyond the intended use of the spell, so to even allow that is up to the GM. It's not a bad idea if he will allow it. I just want you to be prepared for it he does not allow it.

If this is PFS it will likely not be allowed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell was not intended to be used that way so there are no rules on how it would work. Whenever you come up with something like this it really falls on the GM to come up with a solution.

Balance matters a lot for the game so the GM and players dont use things the devs didnt think of to unbalance the game.

I would say that you are expelled before completely forming. <---Not a rule, but that is how I would do it. It keeps a low level spell confined to its power level, and it stops the NPC from doing it to PC's since the games uses the same rules for PC's and NPC's.

1 to 50 of 36,149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.