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

34,844 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 34,844 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The immunity negates the need for a save. The save is rolled upon the casting of the spell so you would be ok.

If you are asking about a specific situation then it may have a different answer even if it is similar to the question you just asked though.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I support your efforts to get some clarity and consistency in the rules here. I'm just not entirely sold that strict cubes are a perfect solution. I do like their simplicity, but sometimes the results are odd.

I am not trying to get a perfect solution. I am trying to get official word on intent. The game is full of situations where things are abstracted for ease of play. Facing is one example.


Ascalaphus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The cube is actually the rule, but it is not actually written.
As far as I know, there simply isn't a rule for "gridding" height. That's why the Fly rules use a completely different movement cost system for flying upwards.

I will reword my last comment. It is the intent, but it is not actually written. The point of me asking for this FAQ is to prove intent. Most people just accept it when they ask, but since it is the intent I do think it should be actually stated somewhere.

What the combat chapter actually says is how far your reach from your squares. It never really says if those dimensions refer to height, length or width so someone could argue their length gives them more reach, and the change it to height if it is convenient.

If you(not you specifically) really want to say they are squares, well once could say squares have no height or that you can only attack 10 feet from the ground as a large creature. The square is not 10 feet above the ground so you can't assume your point of reference for attacks comes from there. <----I am sure(99%) nobody would really do it though.


I found this out in Star Wars Saga, but I immediately applied it to D&D /Pathfinder after getting jumped and jacked up. ---> Do not ignore perception even if you do not intend to max it.

I had died before in a 3.5 game from getting jumped by rogues. For some reason I didn't get the hint the first time around.


James Risner wrote:

Only certain weapons can add sneak attack to non-lethal damage, isn't that the issue?

The whip isn't a sap?

No. Sneak attacks can be made with any weapon designed to do nonlethal damage. They just can't do nonlethal damage if the weapon isn't made for it.


Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't really like the idea of strict cubes. It would mean that a typical human (over 5' tall) is basically crouching in his cube. From a "visual" perspective, I'd be more at ease with taking the stated length of the monster/character and rounding up to the nearest five to get the cuboid dimensions.

However, strict cubes are considerably simpler to work with, so that's something to consider as well.

The cube is actually the rule, but it is not actually written.

If a monster is huge and you are 20 feet over his head he can't reach you even if he is 20 feet tall since game goes by squares. Otherwise the same leniency would be applied to length or width since there is no rule saying height is not the dimension left out someone could easily say the length is the undefined dimension and get extra reach that way.


CorvusMask wrote:
Just to ask, why Captain America is used as example of "Test is bs!"? <_< Like, are all the LG the same and what does superhero that symbolizes American's "thing" with freedom have to do with that?

It has nothing to do with America. Cap much like Superman is presented as having very high moral standards. That is why he was chosen for the example.


Using weapon focus and skill focus as examples there are times when skill focus will be much more useful, especially once someone gets to level 10.

However I have had characters with no use for skill focus, and that extra +1 from weapon focus makes feats like power attack less of a gamble.


Knight Magenta wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:

Balancing feats is hard, since they are all supposed to be equal. What if we changed to a point-buy system for feats? My write-up of point-based feats is at my blog.

I've priced every feat from the CRB to Ultimate Magic. I'm still working on it, and would value input.

A disclaimer: I originally found this idea on Giant In The Playground and it is eventually sourced to SKR. I've not seen a complete pathfinder feat pricing, so this is my attempt.

TL;DR: Every time you gain a feat, you gain 8 points instead. Then you can spend points on feats as listed in this spreadsheet.

Feats don't normally have objective value. The campaign, build and other factors will matter. Power attack for the guy who has dealing damage as his primary thing will get more out of it than the secondary damage dealer, as an example.
Sure, a feat's value depends on the build, but that's a far cry from saying you can't assign values to feats.

You can assign values to anything. I was not saying it was impossible. I was saying they won't be accurate across the board.


10 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

In the book and on grids the monster's dimensions are done in squares which are 2-dimensional. However most of us apply it so that the monster is a cube shaped.
When the question comes up on the boards the person asking normally easily accepts that the monster such as a large one is taking up space equal to 10 by 10 by 10.

I figured since this is a fairly easy rule I could FAQ it and get an official answer.

Question is bolded below:

Is the 3rd dimension of a monster on a map equivalent to the other 2 dimensions? As an example if a large* giant is listed as 15 feet tall would his space on the grid be 10x10x10 or 10x10x15?

*That was referring to the size category applied to creatures in the game.


CN_Minus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I agree, but I was saying that there is no GM adjudication since that was a question you asked.

That's literally the only job the GM has in PFS other than running monsters and signing papers. You're there to resolve issues, and it's your job to know things. If you don't, however, you resolve it to the best of your ability and move along rather than extending the session and breaking the pace of combat.

I think I understand what you meant, and looking at my phrasing I agree. You can't make up rules. That said, I do need a foundation to base my ideas off of, and no one has submitted anything but the chart that says colossal creatures are 65ft tall. I will nearly certainly go with the "cube" idea, but since there's nothing in the rules supporting it that I've seen I might have to forego running this game.

It definitely needs to be written. I found a few other times it has come up, but most people kind of accept it when they are told unlike some things which turn into big arguments. I think I will start an FAQ on it. It should be an easy, and hopefully quick one to resolve.


CN_Minus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
CN_Minus wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

For PFS you should use the standard sizes as is found here.

Read the creature sizes table.
PFS specifically attempts to make an environment where players can know what rules to expect when they sit down at the table.

In a home game though, go by what makes sense to you. It'd be interesting, though probably really suck for any of the smaller PC races and would increase the power of many monsters.

Colossal creatures start at 65ft...? I fully understand the sentiment that PFS ought to be universal, and I totally agree. I just want to know whether this will be something I will have to adjudicate to my discretion, which occasionally needs to be done.
In the game the monster's statblocks determine reachs and how many squares it takes up. They stat blocks will tell you how many squares it takes up and the reach. If you run a PFS game you are not allowed to change the monster, or any other rules. This is done so that no matter if someone plays scenarios under you or another GM the have the same experience.
The statblock tells you the 2D interpretation of size. If it clearly and obviously applied to 3D as well, I wouldn't have even asked.

I agree, but I was saying that there is no GM adjudication since that was a question you asked. As for the cube thing I will see if I can find a dev(people who make the rules) quote to show that "reaching up" or "reaching down" works the same way or at least say "yeah, its a cube". This would matter for a flying creature because it would be fighting something below it as well as something beside it.


Every archetype I have seen has said Ability X replaces Ability Y that you would have gained at level Z or something similar. Sometimes an archetype will trade out several abilities or an ability that will come later, but that is also stated.

Bonethrall is actually an example of this.

Quote:
Bonethrall (Su): At first level, a gravewalker can take control of an undead creature within her aura of desecration by forcing her will upon it .......This replaces the witch's hex gained at 4th level.

Another one:

Quote:


At 3rd level, a cold iron warden gains Alignment Channel as a bonus feat and must choose either chaotic or evil outsiders........This ability replaces solo tactics and the teamwork feats gained at 6th and 15th level.

Technically it is possible they forgot to put "At 1st level", but they could have also forgot to put "at 8th level". I think it is worth an FAQ.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dark Die High wrote:

I have a very different opinion from the majority of posters on this subject.

My first question is whether the character really believes what he is saying, because unless he plans on going through with helping the Night Peddler he needs to make a Bluff check.

I do not believe that a GM should take away a cleric's powers ever. Essentially, this a meta-game issue. If you take away a clerics powers, you as a GM are basically saying "If you don't play your character the way I think you should I will take away your powers." Now the problem with this is that divine casters are the only characters in the game that have this restriction. So then you are creating a meta-game penalty for not playing the character in a certain way. If I'm playing an assassin, and I decide to become a pacifist, I don't lose all my assassin abilities.

The game rules disagree with you, and so do the game designers. It is not really about telling someone how to play something. The gameworld assumes that deities only grant power to those who further their goals.

If deity X is the god of happiness, life, and all things good then some psychopath out killing random people, or <insert other bad thing> is not going to be doing what the deity wants so there is no reason to give said cleric/inquisitor/paladin/etc any more power. Let him go to some other deity to get it.

The same would apply to a deity of death and carnage granting powers to someone who is out kissing babies, and walking old ladies across the street.


CN_Minus wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

For PFS you should use the standard sizes as is found here.

Read the creature sizes table.
PFS specifically attempts to make an environment where players can know what rules to expect when they sit down at the table.

In a home game though, go by what makes sense to you. It'd be interesting, though probably really suck for any of the smaller PC races and would increase the power of many monsters.

Colossal creatures start at 65ft...? I fully understand the sentiment that PFS ought to be universal, and I totally agree. I just want to know whether this will be something I will have to adjudicate to my discretion, which occasionally needs to be done.

In the game the monster's statblocks determine reachs and how many squares it takes up. They stat blocks will tell you how many squares it takes up and the reach. If you run a PFS game you are not allowed to change the monster, or any other rules. This is done so that no matter if someone plays scenarios under you or another GM the have the same experience.


Neal Litherland wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It requires you to multiclass as a rogue, at least 4 levels of it.

Quote:
Major Magic (Sp): A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 1st-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list two times a day as a spell-like ability. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. The save DC for this spell is 11 + the rogue's Intelligence modifier. The rogue must have an Intelligence of at least 11 to select this talent. A rogue must have the minor magic rogue talent before choosing this talent.
My new preference is to take 2 levels of rogue, along with the Extra Rogue Talent feat. I have a feeling this might show up in more than one future character build... particularly if I want True Strike twice a day.

I had forgotten about Extra Rogue Talent. Not a bad idea.


It requires you to multiclass as a rogue, at least 4 levels of it.

Quote:
Major Magic (Sp): A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 1st-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list two times a day as a spell-like ability. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. The save DC for this spell is 11 + the rogue's Intelligence modifier. The rogue must have an Intelligence of at least 11 to select this talent. A rogue must have the minor magic rogue talent before choosing this talent.


When they say you get an ability that is replaced at level ____ then you get it at that level.


Knight Magenta wrote:

Balancing feats is hard, since they are all supposed to be equal. What if we changed to a point-buy system for feats? My write-up of point-based feats is at my blog.

I've priced every feat from the CRB to Ultimate Magic. I'm still working on it, and would value input.

A disclaimer: I originally found this idea on Giant In The Playground and it is eventually sourced to SKR. I've not seen a complete pathfinder feat pricing, so this is my attempt.

TL;DR: Every time you gain a feat, you gain 8 points instead. Then you can spend points on feats as listed in this spreadsheet.

Feats don't normally have objective value. The campaign, build and other factors will matter. Power attack for the guy who has dealing damage as his primary thing will get more out of it than the secondary damage dealer, as an example.


Girken wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

First off, reiterating something twice using the voice of an evil character talking to the players character isn't actually iterating it even once as a GM talking to a player.

We can ignore for right now whether this was evil or not and if it was how evil. I could make several arguments on both sides (and I am sure they will be made ad nauseum on this thread) but that doesn't really matter.

Since we don't know otherwise, we have to assume your player didn't think his character was stepping outside the line. Since you didn't tell him that you did, it would be absolutely wrong to apply any sort of punishment at this time. If you feel strongly that what he did was evil, and you don't want clerics of good gods doing things like that in the future, explain to him why, and explain what some of the consequences could be for his character if the character behaves that way again.

Assuming you can manage to communicate this, at least if the character strays the player won't feel betrayed.

He's been well informed about his god's beliefs and shown the descriptor page http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Sarenrae

As the GM, is it really my job after that to say "your god will punish you if you advocate worshiping other gods ESPECIALLY as a means of controlling people." that seems as odd as me saying "Watch out for that trap." to a rogue.

Yes, it is still your job. The PC should understand his deity even if the player does not. Players may also think the have leeway they do not have, and since only the GM knows where this ends and every GM is different only that GM knows 100% how it works in his gameworld. The player is not a mindreader. This is not comparable to traps because there are hard rules on that, and they are taken care of with dice rolls. You could of course allow a knowledge religion check for the player/PC to know he is messing up, but I would not advise it.


Anonymous Warrior wrote:
What about Blundering Defense. Does that work on you, or just your allies?

As a GM I would read that to only apply to other people also.


I see the problem with him trying to find loopholes and abuse the rules to be the issue.


Sumutherguy wrote:
Manly-man teapot wrote:
"Sumutherguy wrote:

One, the point was mostly an exercise in theorycrafting. Two, you always count as your own ally in Pathfinder.

Yeah, you might want to re-check that, buddy.

"You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible."

Is the contention that this would fall under the "makes no sense" bit? I'm not sure how.

Some abilities are obviously written to help teammates(people who are not you). In those cases you do not get to benefit from you own abilities.

In this case the feat's flavor and mechanics do not support it helping "you".

Quote:


You have a knack for placing yourself between your enemies and those they wish to harm.

Prerequisite: Con 17, Toughness

Benefit: During your action, designate an ally within your reach. When you fight defensively or use Combat Expertise, your ally gains a natural armor bonus to AC equal to the dodge bonus you gain from fighting defensively or Combat Expertise. You can select a new ally on any action. Allies who move out of your reach lose this natural armor bonus.

I am the first to say flavor is not the rules, but they can give a hint toward the intention of the rule.

Don't expect for a GM to allow this to work on "you" at his table.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:

So if the invis person doesn't move at all, after full attacking, he still gets a stealth check?

I'm assuming the invis attacker has to take a -20 on stealth check as if he was sniping.

You can always identify the square that an attack came from.

I used to say this also, but then I was challenged to find the supporting rule. Do you have a quote?


The vampire does not have the "with every successful pin" language because maintaining more than once was not even an option. As written all you have to do is maintain the grapple to activate it. As written the feat allows you more than on maintain, but the question is was it intended for you to be able to maintain on the same creature more than once. The feat does not specifically say you can.

I am going to press the FAQ button since it would also answer the question of can you maintain on the same creature more than once in the same round.


MeanMutton wrote:

In this case, I'm the GM trying to understand the rules. My biggest concern is this line: "This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple."

That makes it sound like you're not getting two maintain grapple rolls but rather two rolls to do one of three actions and if either succeed, you maintain.

Normally the maintain check allows you to harm or move or pin them. What greater grapple does is allow you to harm them twice, move them twice and so on. This makes grappling more dangerous especially if the creature has constrict. :)

PS: I guess you could get two maintains, but since failing the "maintain" check sets them free I am not sure that is the intent. That is a good FAQ question though, since the feat does not specifically say "You can fail the 1st attempt to maintain a grapple or pin and the target is not automatically set free".


MeanMutton wrote:

I have a few questions about Greater Grapple and the vampire Blood Drain ability.

Greater Grapple wrote:
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.
Blood Drain wrote:
A vampire can suck blood from a grappled opponent; if the vampire establishes or maintains a pin, it drains blood, dealing 1d4 points of Constitution damage. The vampire heals 5 hit points or gains 5 temporary hit points for 1 hour (up to a maximum number of temporary hit points equal to its full normal hit points) each round it drains blood.

Okay, how do these two items interact? Basically, can I use Greater Grapple to get a vampire to have more than one blood drain attacks in a round? For example:

Round 1 - Standard action to Initiate Grapple. Move action to Pin, automatically activates Blood Drain for 1d4 Con.

Round 2 - Move action to maintain pin, automatically activates Blood Drain for 1d4 Con. Standard action to maintain pin, automatically activates Blood Drain for 1d4 Con.

Result, after two rounds, you're now out 3d4 Con. Is this right?

Maintaining the pin or grapple is the check you make so they don't get away. There is only one of those a round so if you have two grapple checks a round the first one is to maintain because even if you fail the 2nd one they are not set free. That makes it "not a maintain" check so it doesn't qualify.

Now if the vampire ability said "every time you made a successful pin" or something similar that would be different.


It is often better to have multiple enemies, but to answer the question it depends on the boss and how many extra turns he gets.


Karzoug gets info about the PC's from the people who were marked and killed by the PC's as they were fed into this Runewell. This is mentioned in the last book/chapter.


Mark Seifter wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

/shrug

I went to the PRD and typed in 'searching for traps,' and that's what came up. I don't see any other specific rules for searching, but my search-fu is pretty weak.

It's not on the PRD yet, but there's also this from Intrigue, defining the result of searching an area:

Intrigue wrote:
The flip side is when a player actively calls for a Perception check because her PC is intentionally searching for something. This always takes at least a move action, but often takes significantly longer. The core rules don't specify what area a PC can actively search, but for a given Perception check it should be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a smaller space if that area is cluttered. For instance, in an intrigue-based game, it is fairly common to look through a filing cabinet full of files. Though the cabinet itself might fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present could cause a search to take a particularly long time.
That said, I personally recommend rolling a single d20 for the whole area to save on dice rolls, then just using those rules to figure out how long it took, rather than make a separate roll for each move action.

It is referenced in the Unchained book also, and since the core book doesn't cover it, it really should be FAQ'd* or noted as a "this is the intention, but we ran out of words in CRB" type of thing. Not everyone has every book or knows to check book X.

*I made one a while back, but it might not have gotten enough FAQ clicks to get priority, but there are a lot of people who do not run the game this way in and out of PFS because they don't know they intent.

PS: Personally I will just do one check for the entire room from where the character stands, but some people do like to follow the actual intent.


graystone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Back on the disease thing, even if you fail your save you don't know what the affect was.

I look at rerolls as a player thing. A character doesn't think "I rolled a nat 1, let me get reroll". He doesn't even know what rolls are.

On disease, it depends. You fight a rat and make a know check you can be pretty sure it's filth fever. Same for a mummy and mummy rot. If you mean success/failure, I cover that below.

On player/character: I look at it as both. The character doesn't know the exact number in math terms but they can surely gauge how well they are doing; rolling a 1 ref check is pretty much tripping right in front of the fireball while a mid range roll is getting you to a fairly safe spot while a high roll is pretty safe; A fort check is likely the difference between a solid/deep hit, a graze or an indirect hit.

So it's not "I rolled a nat 1, let me get reroll" but 'this looks like a solid hit coming, I better try to dodge [reroll].'

I just don't see characters knowing how well they are doing metagaming. You spend your life adventuring and you should get pretty good at figuring these kind of things out. Feeling your grip slip a little should clearly different from failing to grab the rope or having a solid hold.

The player might know what mummy rot it. The character might not.

As an example of not knowing if you try to make a diplomacy check you might get a 10 on the dice, and have a great or poor score depending on your modifiers still pass or fail depending on the person you are "working". You do not know if you did a great job or not.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree though.


alexd1976 wrote:

The only thing we handwave is rations, and only if someone can take ten to get enough on Survival to feed the group (we houserule that foraging DOESN'T slow you down for travel).

Encumbrance is a core rule, not an optional one. So is ammo.

It's way easier to track this stuff than it is to build a tenth level character, so not keeping track of it is cheating, IMO.

I think we are assuming the GM has given permission to not track it. Now if the GM has not given permission to not track it closely then I agree it is cheating.


Gavmania wrote:

So, I recently came across a GM saying that in his (admittedly limited) experience it is virtually impossible to disengage in combat once engaged and as there are already rules for casting in melee, he sees no need for the 5' step rule.

Now I have played for some time with the 5'step rule in place and was a bit flabbergasted when I saw this proposal. I'm really not sure what to make of it, so I thought I'd throw it open to the wider community. Is this ruling true to life? is it a good idea? what difference would it make if implemented?

The main reason I ask is that I was considering asking to join his group (he's local, and theres not a lot else going on around here) and I'm wondering if I should try to change his mind, avoid him or live with it?

I would simply counter that if the 5-ft step is not changing the game why is he bothering to change his game by removing it?

Honestly I think he is lying to himself. It makes no sense to say I will make a rule that does nothing. Archers also benefit from a fight 5-ft step, and casters such as rangers and paladins are less likely to make the concentration check.


I think most groups ignore this rule(about reach and cover). IIRC the combat chapter says "reach", and not specifically reach weapons, so large creatures such as giants would suffer from this also. However, I am not 100% sure that was the intent, and maybe it was only meant for reach weapons.


As a DPR based combatant I would suggest you up your constitution to 14 at a minimum. That would give you more hit points, and if you do anything meaningful the enemies will attack you. Those +'s add up over several levels. You also have low strength so that also hampers you.

PS: If your GM is not going to allow you to rework(not reroll) your ability scores then finding a way to get dex to damage and/or going with a ranged style such as archery will likely be better. Throwing weapons are more feat intensive than archery and TWF if you want to be decent at it.


Blue Nova wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
prd wrote:
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
prd wrote:

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.

Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

This feat shows that if your mount move more than 5 feet the intent is to only give you a standard(attack) action.

Ah thanks, so basically the horse could technically do a full run, and the rider could make 1 standard attack action. However, it does imply that I could get my full rounds of actions as long as I use them for Moves or Standard Actions (not full-round).

Hypothetical:
So the horse can run and the rider can drink a potion and cast a spell. Though, it would... look ridiculous. That would fit with in the rules correct?

If you horse moves more then 5 feet you only get a standard action for yourself.

Basically the CRB rules give you more leeway than the feat suggest you are supposed to have.

Expect table variation until Paizo fixes the mounted rules, which may never happen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not going to try to convince anyone of the correct answer, but what I did do was press the FAQ button on the opening post so that this can finally get an answer. :)


prd wrote:
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
prd wrote:

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.

Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

This feat shows that if your mount move more than 5 feet the intent is to only give you a standard(attack) action.


I have always done 5d4+5 and then empowered the total result, but since each missile could strike a different target it is probably correct to actually empower each missile. <---likely the correct way if the PDT weighs in on it.

For the sake of convenience I will just do it by target, instead of by missile. <---convenient way

PS: For some reason I have always empowered scorching rays separately even if they all hit the same target. With that said I think my first paragraph is the correct way by the ruels.


The Shaman wrote:
Morlaf wrote:

As you ask, this is what i have decided:

Barb BAB = 3/4.
in my Caveman session only fighters have BAB = 1.
Barbarians get Rage for free which is a feat that any1 can have (Str and BAB pre-requisits exist).
But as an option they can enter a Warp Spasm (which will be called something else, so as to not further offend the creators of Slaine). This will grant further bonuses in combat (the specifics I shall not bore you with). Some the player will choose so as to allow Character Customisation. Others will be rolled randomly, as the Gift of Mother Nature attempting to protect its Chosen One is, in part, uncontrollable.
A round of Warp Spasm costs 2 (or more) rounds of Rage and at the end the Barbarian is left a lot worse off than simply "Fatigued".

There is a problem looking at this from a mechanical perspective. Medium BAB in pathfinder tends to go with a LOT of goodies. At the very least, every single feature that rogues and the like get. Even then, pre-unchained rogues and monks were bad enough that they had to be changed. Right now, if I remember correctly unchained rogues are the only non-magical class with medium BAB, and people tend to rate them fairly low. So yeah, for a combat class, medium BAB is kind of a huge deal. Classes that go with medium BAB and are seen as good (not OP) tend to have level 6 spells and then something extra (bardic mojo, eidolons, inquisitor tricks, etc).

You can tweak the game as you want, and I am not going to tell you you are WRONG and should NEVER do this. However, if you want to have a balanced barbarian class with medium BAB, you want what they get to compare well to everything a bard, inquisitor, hunter or shaman will get, spells included, and at least to all things an unchained rogue ever gets (I say at least, because the unchained rogue is sort of meh as well). Otherwise, barbarians will be unnecessarily weak in the game and a trap option for the players who want to try them - they will come in expecting to be cool and awesome...

This is basically what I wanted to say, but nothing I thought of came out as not sounding negative, and I wasn't trying to be the negative guy.

Thanks for wording this request better than I could.


Slithery D wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

[The goal here is to find how the SLA is supposed to work, not to get into a "how pandemic can we get" contest.

Pedantic.

Melkiador wrote:
A similar issue is raised with the warpriest summoning blessings. They say they are a standard action unless specified otherwise. And the spell they act as specifies otherwise. Still, we fairly well know that the intent is for it to be a standard action because the wording from the beta was more explicit.
Those are both good points.

I thought I fixed that. Oh well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Technically there is no spell "summon monster", so there is no spell description to reference. Now if it said as though it were "summon monster I", it'd be a little more questionable.

Yeah, but we all know it refers to the "summon monster" line of spells.

I don't think it helps to get into technicalities when we know what the intent of the wording(summon monster) was. The goal here is to find how the SLA is supposed to work, not to get into a "how pandemic can we get" contest.

Just to make sure you get what I am saying--> You are arguing against the words, and not the point that was presented. It does not help.


Warklaw wrote:


The other issue I have with the Wendigo's combat actions is that the spell says specifically that each person affected by the spell becomes and individual cloud. This would seem to imply that even if the Wendigo grappled you and then turned to gaseous form, as the target transforms it would become and individual cloud, and easily be able to drift apart.

Any thoughts?

Quote:


Wind Walk (Sp) If a wendigo pins a grappled foe, it can attempt to wind walk with the target by using its spell-like ability—it automatically succeeds on all concentration checks made to use wind walk. If the victim fails to resist the spell, the wendigo hurtles into the sky with him. Each round, a victim can make a new DC 23 Will save to turn solid again, but at this point he falls if he cannot fly. Eventually, the wendigo strands the victim in some rural area, usually miles from where it began. A creature that wind walks with a wendigo is exposed to wendigo psychosis. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Basically, the Wendigo's spell-like ability allows it to do things creatures can't do with the normal version of the spell, such as grapple someone it has used windwalk on.


Wind Walk wrote:

WIND WALK

School transmutation [air]; Level cleric 6, druid 7
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Targets you and one touched creature per three levels
Duration 1 hour/level (D); see text
Saving Throw no and Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance no and yes (harmless)

The initial casting is only a standard action. The 5 rounds is for when you are changing form after the spell is cast.


They should have used the same language for both books. I flipped-flopped on this several times.


Calimar_T wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Calimar_T you are incorrect.

PRD wrote:
Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise
Source

... unless noted otherwise, right.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Summon-Sp-

Does that count as "noted otherwise"?

Your link is broken.


anium wrote:
So your argument is "it's not me, it's my spell that is attacking", with a spell that is totally linked to you and does nothing if you don't direct it or you can't see your enemy. The way I see it, is like i'm just swinging my sword, not my fault you were in the way.

I will answer your question when you answer mine.

Is spiritual ally attacking after the cleric is dead your way of saying the dead cleric is attacking someone?
I don't want to attribute an argument to you that you are not making so I am asking for the 3rd time.


Morlaf wrote:

I've got no intention of "nerfing" barbarians.... or buffing Fighters.... Just changing Barbarians.

This WILL happen whether or not ppl like Claxon say things like "I don't wanna play in your campaign!"
I was asking for ideas to maintain the balance while making them, believe it or not (!), more of a fighting beast.

They will loose most silly Rage Powers, Trap Sense, (Imp.) Uncanny Dodge and I was contemplating the +1 BAB.
This will be replaced with things like.....
oh hang on.... I think I am repeating myself.....

If you change them they will either get better or worse.

I didn't know bloodragers got full BAB so that kills that idea.

I don't know what to tell you really. Barbarians being able to beat things in the face while having some utility is their main appeal. Maybe you should ask your players what they would be willing to accept in exchange of what you are taking away.


anium wrote:

I doubt you know all the DM everywhere, spiritual weapon is clearly a spell, your spell, that you are directing. Would you say the same for spectral hand and interposing hand?

You don't summon a creature, just because it can act in auto mode doesn't mean it's a real entity.

I think spectral hand is actually the caster making the attack, going off of memory.

There is a difference between the caster attacking and a spell effect using his stats.

As an example, black tentacles is not the caster attacking anymore than spiritual ally or spiritual weapon is.

By the way if the caster dies after casting spiritual ally are you saying the caster is still attacking?

PS: I will look up spectral ally and interposing hand and not be lazy about it.

spectral hand wrote:
The spell gives you a +2 bonus on your melee touch attack roll, and attacking with the hand counts normally as an attack.

The spell says it is your attack roll so the caster is attacking.

interposing hand wrote:
The hand makes saving throws as its caster

That shows that it is not the cast, but gets his saving throws.

Maybe you were looking for a hand spell that does attack.

crushing hand wrote:
This spell functions as interposing hand, except that it can also grapple one opponent as grasping hand. Its CMB and CMD for grapple checks use your caster level in place of its base attack bonus, with a +12 bonus for its Strength score (35) and a +1 bonus for being Large (its Dexterity is 10, granting no bonus to the CMD). A crushing hand deals 2d6+12 points of damage on each successful grapple check against an opponent. The crushing hand can instead be directed to bull rush a target (as forceful hand), using the same bonuses outlined above, or it can be directed to interpose itself, as interposing hand does.

I would say it is just like spiritual ally or spiritual weapon, and that the caster is not attacking. Basically unless the spell says the caster is attacking then the caster is not attacking. To avoid any attempt to twist what I am saying I am referring to when the caster creates something that can attack on it's own.


I think they are really just magical bags, but every table I have been at has always treated them as backpacks.

1 to 50 of 34,844 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.