wraithstrike's page

I would like an underdark adventure. The fairytale one is not something I can see as an AP. Maybe a 1 shot, but that is about it.

Quatar wrote:

Charge is a special full round action which makes an attack, not a standard action.

Well then, can AM BARBARIAN TWOWEAPONRAGELANCEPOUNCE?

He only gets the double damage on the first attack IIRC.

I don't remember if there was an official ruling on the two lancer part of the question or not.

It seems to be an error in the bestiary. They should have at least a +14. I would hit the FAQ button to see if we can get it fixed.

If you throw an oil at someone you are not "smearing" it on them. At best you might be "splashing" it on them, which is the word thrown weapons like alchemist fire use.

Use of oils as a splash type weapon is house rule territory, and like many things is not supported*. If it is not directly supported then it falls under rule 0.

*That does not mean it is not logical, but since PFS is very rules oriented, if you don't have a quote saying you can or can't depending on what you are trying to do it is up to the GM heading the table you are playing at.

edit:Splashing and smearing are not defined game terms, but the real life words do have different definitions.

How are you getting a good AC* on the animal companion using WBL wealth? I am just curious because keeping my druid with a decent AC took enough money that I did not have much left over for my animal companion.

*CR equivalent bad guys miss at least 50% of the time.

Now what would happen if the Cleric healed? What would happen if the Cleric ATTACKED the enemy? What would happen if the Cleric used a CC? What would happen if a Cleric used a spell to mitigate damage like Shield Other?

The cleric is not attacking because he is healing, and I do agree that shield other is a better use of spell slot than healing in this scenario, so is summoning or a lot of other spells.

The Shield Other spell means less spells get used*, and you can get by with more channels once the fight is over.

*That means it is more efficient than curing in the middle of the fight.

If you put a rogue in the fight then the cleric is probably curing the rogue instead.

Hermit X is correct. Nothing says you get the standard bard abilities. Even with the archtype(not template) you still have bardic performance.

You just have different abilities than normal. In short all the PrC does is boost what you already have. Notice that it never says it gives you anything as far as specific performances. It only stacks bard levels to determine how it advances.

How it advances is now determined by the variant version you took.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

I'm sorry, but you cannot blame freelancers for writing material that your company went on to publish in your official splatbooks. That's what playtesting and editing is for! If it were one or two whoopsies that would be fine, but nearly all monk material outside the Core book is suddenly being changed and disfigured.

Like I said...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Flurry... is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.

...which you then published in official books, despite being based on a faulty reading of the rule?

Hmmmmmm.

Yeah Paizo messed up. You can stop rubbing it in now. Maybe we can get FAQ's back.

You are mistaken as to who is responsible for "every negative change" to the monks since they came out.

I am not functioning alone. The design team works together on these things. And before it goes to print, Jason reads all the rules content as a last-minute check.

How brass knuckles interact with monk attacks was a decision the design team reached after discussing it.

Monk vows were a decision the design team reached after discussing it. (Mind you, in the design turnover for the vow, the benefit was you got +1 ki for every 5 monk levels. So it's not like I took what was presented and nerfed it, I felt it needed more of a boost than as it was originally written. Clearly most people think it deserved more, but don't paint this situation like I did this to punish anyone or that I hate monks or vows.)

The wording for flurry of blows in the Core Rulebook was written by Jason (and as that TWF reference isn't in the Beta, it was probably added very late in the design process for the Core Rulebook). At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent. "Sean's ruling" on how flurry works isn't my personal belief (derived independently with no input from Jason) of how the rule should work, it's the result of me checking and re-checking with Jason about it over the course of the boards discussion to make sure I understand what he meant by the text in the Core Rulebook.

As it turns out, the rules for the monk flurry aren't clear. I got it wrong when answering an earlier FAQ (perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough to Jason when addressing that FAQ issue, perhaps Jason misrembered that he changed how flurry works in PF). Other people on staff got it wrong when they built or developed stat blocks. Freelancers got it wrong when they wrote archetypes for the monk. Like much of the rules text in the Core Rulebook, the flurry text could really benefit from being rewritten and reworded. The design team hasn't...

Linkified so I can use it as a reference to rude people.

Hopefully the healer drops a cure spell or channel before anyone is bleeding out if it gets to that point.

Nobody is saying, well I am not saying, don't heal at all. I am saying that most of the time it should not be needed*.

*This assumed certain things that I mentioned upthread. Of course groups and GM's may change how other people end up taking damage.

It depends. If your GM uses monsters(not humanoids) they get larger past level 10 and their CMD jumps by a lot making it much harder to pass acrobatics checks. Of course if your AC is low enough that the exta +4 does not mean a lot then mobility won't matter that much anyway.

I don't know why folks claim healing doesn't keep up with damage. Barring critical hits or multiple foes it seems to do just fine. Compare Scorching ray to Cure Moderate. 4D6 (but has to hit on a Ranged touch and get by fire resist and SR) vs 2d8+3, with no chance of failure. 14 pts (IF it hits, etc) vs 13 pts. An Ogre does 2D8+7- IF he hits.

Of course, once can Empower(etc) damage spells, but the same with healing spells, and in fact a simple domain choice gets you all healing spells empowered for free.

Sure, Healing is hardly the best thing to do Round 1, where party buffing or Battlefield control will be far better. But on the last round of combat- is there much use to buff or control?

Healing is but one option, and like others, it's a option that is best used at the right time.

Because it doesn't, and as you level up the gap widens until you get to the heal spell. At level 7 you have cure critical which does 4d8+7-25 points of healing on average.

CR 7 Huge Earth Elemental +17 to hit (2 slams) 2d8+9 average of 36 points of damage. It also has DR 5 and 95 hit points.
With power attack +14 to hit and avg of 48 points of damage.

CR 7 Stegasarous Melee tail +16 (4d6+12 plus trip) 26 points on which is less, but if you get trips your AC is dropped.
It also has power attack +13 and the average goes up to 35 points of damage

CR 7 Hill Giant Melee greatclub +14/+9 (2d8+10)
38 if both hit. Against a well armored fighter or pally the second attack will most likely miss though.
PA +12/+7 avg if both hit 50 points of damage. Once again if it is a fighter or pally they can probably avoid the hits if built with high AC, but that goes back into what we were saying about tactics and decent builds. The best idea is to never get hit.

If that is the rogue he might end up eating 50 points of damage just like anyone else with light or medium armor might eat 50 points of damage, and if they are low enough for the cleric to be healing that is not a good thing.

If the GM uses a level 7 barbarian then it gets worse.

Once again if you have to heal to keep someone alive then do so, but it is better to not find yourself in that situation.

I read it. I understand that RAW says "see the spell". I am saying the RAI is different. If it is not different then perception really has no baring on the issue.

I still think they should have kept the 3.5 ruling that said the components had to be seen. It worked much better than way.

You are out of luck just like if a sorcerer choose a free bonus spell ahead of time. That is RAW and RAI. I will add however that being allowed to pick another feat in its place should not be an issue power wise.

It won't work without houserules to make up for it.

wraithstrike wrote:

If you can't see the caster then you can't see him casting any more than you can see him pick up a stick.

Agreed, but spellcraft doesn't require you to see the caster, just the spell. And I thought if an invisible character picked up an item, that item didn't get invisible?

You can never see spell, only the affects of the spell if it has any visual affects.

If you had to see a spell then charm person could not be spellcrafted.

The fact that the perception skill is needed in certain cases shows intent. They should have written it as you need to be able to see the "casting of the spell", but bad wording is all over the CRB.

A post I replied to. Read my quote at the bottom regarding the sorcerer.

SKR has ruled on it, and give the same answer I did. Does he really need to make an FAQ?

wraithstrike wrote:

Spellcraft does say that the perception skill can apply to spellcraft as far as penalties go, and if you are invisible you get a +20 to your stealth check.

That should add a +20 to spellcraft checks at least.

That depends on if the effects of spellcasting is affected as well. If you're invisible and summon a creature, that creature isn't invisible - whether the casting is visible or not isn't stated by RAW.

Basically, in GrenMeera's analogy, it's a DM call whether or not the dog is invisible when you are.

If you can't see the caster then you can't see him casting any more than you can see him pick up a stick.

I guess they are the same. That only shows that the ranger is in the same boat I guess. FAQ time. :)

That is just telling you that the with can learn more than one hex, but my point was the bbook never says witches gain hexes at level X.

Examples

Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level or higher, a monk can avoid damage from many area-effect attacks. If a monk makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, he instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if a monk is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless monk does not gain the benefit of evasion.

Now that is not an ability that allows you to make future choices like hexes do.

Combat Style Feat (Ex)

At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of two (seven, if styles from Advanced Player's Guide are allowed) combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon combat (Note: Advanced Player's Guide adds 5 new combat style options: crossbow, mounted combat, natural weapon, two-handed weapon, and weapon and shield).

The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.

In this situation you have one class ability that is given as a collective, and specifies which level it starts at.

Magic items don't always follow spells exactly. Basically what happens is someone thinks of a magic item, and finds the spells are most likely to go with it.

Spellcraft does say that the perception skill can apply to spellcraft as far as penalties go, and if you are invisible you get a +20 to your stealth check.

That should add a +20 to spellcraft checks at least.

If you look at the language, it just says it replaces the hex given at that level, not the hex class feature itself. It's like how a class can cast 0 spells of a certain level, instead of not being able to cast spells of that level.

...but as I pointed out the book never says you gain the hex class feature as a collective thing. It only points to individual hexes.

Hex: Witches learn a number of magic tricks, called hexes, that grant them powers or weaken foes. At 1st level, a witch gains one hex of her choice. She gains an additional hex at 2nd level and for every 2 levels attained after 2nd level, as noted on Table 2–10. A witch cannot select an individual hex more than once.

The book never says the hex class feature is gained at level 1. It says that at level one she gains one hex of her choice. It then goes on to list the other levels one may gain a hex at. It seems reasonable that being able to use hexes gives you the hex class feature though.

With the gravewalker that first hex is not given to you until later. If the hex ability was still available then the witch would be able to use hexes.
To say I have a class feature but I can't use it is like a rogue flanking someone, and claiming to have sneak attack, yet not being able to do so.

Borthos Brewhammer wrote:

Also, how can you say the gravewalker is useless at 1st level without having access to the Extra Hex feat? You still have spells, you have your familiar, also a crossbow probably. Just like every other 1st level caster. It's not a big deal. Take spell focus, imp. spell focus, toughness, hell, dodge even. Skill focus, etc. Plenty of feats you can use at level 1 for a witch without extra hex.

"Useless" is a bit of hyperbole.

However, "gimped, compared to other witches" is not. Hexes are the witch's primary class feature, it's what makes witches witches. This ruling, in my mind, essentially says that gravewalker "witches" aren't really "witches" until they hit level 2. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Also, I see no reason from a balance perspective to gimp gravewalkers in this sense. Hexes are more powerful than feats. Forcing gravewalkers to choose between a litany of less powerful feats instead of choosing abilities that are central to their class's concept is ridiculous.

I would just hold off on any feats at all until second level, but you will all tell me that RAW says you HAVE to take a feat at the level you qualify for it, so you can't "bank" feats.

I find that ruling also to be silly.

So yeah, I'll house rule it.

But still, I would very much like to hear the developer who created teh gravewalker witch archetype explicitly and specifically state that it was their intention to not allow gravewalkers to take "extra hex" feats until level 3. If so I think that was a grave mistake. If not they should make an adjustment to the archetype description to allow it to work as it was intended.

Original dev intent does not matter.

As an example if I create something(class, monster, feat, spell, etc) as a freelancer for Paizo, and SKR or Jason change it before it gets to the books the book version is the official version.
Until the gravewalker gets a rules exception it works the way the books, and the devs say it works.

edit:Even if SKR makes it in house it won't matter if Jason changes it so original dev intent still does not matter.

Go Ahead and let her play the Pixie..

This is what happened when I played my first Pixie.. .and unfortunately.. Last Time

For those that are too lazy to click link:

Funniest Death Ever : Hackmaster

I made a pixie fairy with mASSIVE physiologic and physical flaws.. I had
like 119 building Points (average character has 20 or 30).. after
rolling up the character and stuff.. I went thru training ( I was a
thief)..3 years... I was incarcerated(prison) for 5 years.. and the max life expectancy for a pixie fairy is 8 years . I got out of prision on
7th year.. Dmed rolled my max Life of 7 years.... so I died when I got out of prision.. During Character Creation..

That is a different system and other than the name it is probably hard to compare them. I am sure pixies in PF live longer than 7 years.

I carry extra holy symbols and spell component pouches when I need them. I have always wanted to sunder a holy symbol, but just have not done it yet. :)

wraithstrike wrote:

The cleric has to strongly present his holy symbol.

Actually, they don't. Not for healing anyway. If you look at the cure spells (and Heal) you will notice that the only components required are verbal and semantic. There are no material or divine focus requirements listed.

For casting the caster must speak in a strong voice which still give him away.

Personally, I'd say the maximum benefit clause from Boon Companion kicks in no matter which order the bonuses are applied in.

This is how I see it also.

I think those that say in combat healing is a bad idea are trying to say that it is always a bad idea. I just think that most of the time it is a bad idea some other spells, along with other measures could have made sure the damage was never taken in the first place.

PS:After reading your post I think we agree. Everything has a time and a place. As an example I won't cast any spells if the party seems to be handling things.

Short work day encounter model = Sorcerers will win. They can use there most powerful spells. With out needing to worry about them running out of them.

Long work day encounter model = Bards will win. They have so many ways to affect the out come of fights. There is little to no chance of them every running out past level 5.

Only if the sorcerer is spamming spells...

wraithstrike wrote:

I was assuming the healer was visible and the enemies were intelligent. If the bad guys can't get to him that is another thing altogether. Even I would still try to locate or get to the healer if possible though.

Of course if the healer really can not be touched try to kill the fighter or squishy if possible.

I'm having trouble following this. Does the enemy learn by trial and error, guess by appearance, or do they know ahead of time?

But in the end, the fact that you consider the healer to be a lynch pin for the group speaks towards its efficacy.

Now when your party is seldom significantly challenged, then in-combat healing, using consumables, other buffing actions and things like scouting and stealth are perforce devalued. When that's not the case they all increase in usefulness.

-James

If the fighter is single handedly holding off three people, but three can overcome him if it weren't for that pesky healer then the healer should die. If they think the fighter is not doing enough damage to kill them first then kill the fighter. My post was in response to another post that have a situation where the cleric was doing enough damage to keep the fighter up long enough to kill the enemies. That is now I read it anyway.

The cleric has to strongly present his holy symbol. In most game worlds that means cleric or pally, most like a cleric since a pally would be fighting beside the fighter instead of healing him from the rear.
I understand the enemies don't know what hp are, but if I would assume if someone is bleeding badly, or has other injuries, and the cleric removes those injuries then he is an issue. At higher levels a cleric can also cast heal.

It is also efficient to kill as quickly as possible. The cleric might be getting in the way of that.

In short, consider the situation. I often use the monster's mental stats also. A hill giant might think he can kill the fighter, despite the fact that his wounds keep recovering.

I guess I mis-spoke. That, or all the hostility in this thread just made people want to think I was an idiot. Obviously I don't think using tactics is meta-gaming. That would be extremely stupid.

I think using out of character knowledge in your tactics is meta-gaming. How would your character know, for instance, who exactly is the striker? Who to attack first, tactically? Do I think it's meta-gaming to talk about action-economy in-game? Yes. Because there's no such thing as real-life action-economy. Are marines meta-gaming when they do it? No. That's stupid. Marines are real, dungeons and dragons is not. If you have trouble with that concept, then we're done talking before we've started. Saying "here is what I think the best tactics are" isn't belittling someone. Saying "here is what I know the best tactics are, for all circumstances, and if you disagree you're obviously not good at gaming" IS. On a side-note, I think it's hilarious that you get all holier-than-thou on me for supposedly getting holier-than-thou on you. :P

Wraith: Again, playing intelligently doesn't bother me, usually. But if you have a dumb character and you're playing intelligently, then it does. If 10 is the average intelligence, and on average we can assume that most Pathfinder players are more intelligent when it comes to things like this than the average person, then unless your character is particularly smart there's a good chance they couldn't come up with some of the things suggested. And yeah, fighters, tacticians, warlords, etc would probably be able to come up with really good tactics. But what about the lowly sorcerer who has hardly ever been in a fight? Or the Bard that just knows that when he's with his friends, they fight better?

I'm not saying tactics are meta-gaming. I'm saying that using out of character knowledge to make tactics is, and that sometimes it can be hard to distinguish between what you know, and what your character would realistically know.

Training makes up for a lot. I would our characters with their training are better at tactics than a smart person without real life training. Actually I am not assuming. My M.I. unit went up against some grunts(infantry) in a military exercise, and those guys kicked out butts. No I am not saying that there are no smart grunts, but on average I am pretty sure we are smarter than they are.

As for the bard and sorcerer I would also think that the party works together in downtime just like it is assumed the they practice individual skills. The bard does have some proficiency with armor, and weapons so I am assuming he got some military training somewhere, even if it was not the same as a fighter or paladin.

Mentioning a monster's AC would be metagaming if the exact number is used, especially if no knowledge check is rolled. Even then the player should only say the monster has thick skin or its agility makes it hard to hit.....

As for metagaming in general, some thing are almost always considered metgaming while others vary by group. If I roll a bluff check as a GM, after a player rolls a sense motive check, and then the rest of the party rolls sense motive that is metagaming to me, if I know they would not have rolled if I did not roll. What I do now is make certain rolls before the game starts. :)

PS:This thread is not hostile. People are not exactly agreeing on everything, but it is pretty civil. When insults and namecalling starts, then you have a hostile thread. Go to an alignment thread and you will see hostility. I try to avoid those.

PS2:If there have been any insults I missed them, and I would suggest flagging the offending post to keep things civil.

james maissen wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Focusing fire is a good idea, but if tactics is the reason then why not attack the healer? Once you kill him/her it makes it easier to kill the others.

Perhaps when you started attacking you did not know who the healer was?

-James

Plenty of other possible reasons. The melee guy might be the only one standing in a position to be attacked. The healer might be invisible. The healer might be in plate mail while the fighter is lightly armoured. The enemy might be stupid but relentless. The enemy might see the fighter as a 'worthy opponent'. The fighter might be doing so much damage per round that killing him is the only way the enemy could possibly survive. The enemy might see the healer and say, "that guy's doing in-combat healing, what an idiot!" Or the GM might just have a grudge against the fighter.

I was assuming the healer was visible and the enemies were intelligent. If the bad guys can't get to him that is another thing altogether. Even I would still try to locate or get to the healer if possible though.

Of course if the healer really can not be touched try to kill the fighter or squishy if possible.

GM's with grudges are metagaming. I was assuming in-character tactics also.

PS:Stupid enemies would have to be near animal intelligence to not figure out not to go after the obvious source and/or stubborn.

wraithstrike wrote:

Focusing fire is a good idea, but if tactics is the reason then why not attack the healer? Once you kill him/her it makes it easier to kill the others.

Perhaps when you started attacking you did not know who the healer was? It is very possible for parties to obfuscate these roles amongst their members, and if the enemy has no way to know and the DM doesn't use out of character knowledge for them..

So now you've used one of your precious rounds to turn the tide in severely harming one of the linch pins. If you switch to the healer in essence you have given him a round's worth of healing while continuing on the damage dealer might afford you a lucky crit that could put him down which buys you a LOT of tempo.

But if a healer will draw fire to them over others (say the party wizard) then I'd posit that they are performing another role for the party in just that.

-James

I don't think healers draw fire on purpose though. If so I am willing to take change, tactically speaking.

I don't know how relevant this is, but I'll share it anyway:

My party started an Evil campaign not too long ago. (Way of the Wicked. It's crazy fun, check it out) Because of that, it makes it a bit harder for us to have a healer. So I was really worried when I found out we weren't going to have a cleric in our party. Up until that point, I figured you ALWAYS had to have at least SOMEONE who could cast a CLW when needed.

After playing a few sessions, I realized that our Alchemist takes up that healing slot well. Not because he ever heals us himself, but because he makes us potions that we use to heal ourselves, usually out of battle. Once or twice we've had a character go into the negatives in-battle. And it's always scary when that happens. But usually someone will run up and force-feed the downed guy a potion to keep them from dying. So normally we wait until after-battle to heal, because of our alchemist's potions. It's really opened my eyes to new tactics.

That being said, it really irks my jim-jims when people focus too much on tactics. In this thread I've heard more about using 'the proper tactics' and such than in most others I've read. Almost like you're belittling people for NOT meta-gaming. Anyway, my two cents.

1.Why would playing intelligently bother you, and how is it belittling you?

2.Using tactics is not metagaming. If we can figure it out I am sure the characters could figure it out if they were real since they would be the ones with actual training.

Focusing all attacks, where possible, on a single enemy until they're dead, then moving on to the next one, is just good tactics, for PCs or NPCs.

Of course healing isn't the only effective strategy in this situation, but it's a perfectly valid one. It has advantages, such as being guaranteed to have some effect - when your fighter is dead in two rounds, do you want gamble on the enemy missing a saving throw?

Focusing fire is a good idea, but if tactics is the reason then why not attack the healer? Once you kill him/her it makes it easier to kill the others.

Sorry I completely misread your post. I assumed the Prc gave you inspire courage specifically, so I went and read the text for both classes. The Bardic Performance does stack, but Inspire Courage is not regained.

You get the bard ability, but you are not "getting it back". It is a function of the PrC entirely in this case, not the bard class.

Since the bard you are playing no longer has the ability you can't use the bard class levels to stack them. You only get the effective levels of bard that the PrC give you.

I would say no by RAW. The tattooed sorcerer completely takes away certain options. The cross-blooded sorcerer can not modify an option it does not have.

I agree with BBT, especially for a new* GM. In such cases special abilities are generally not advised.

With that said by RAW they stack.

*It seems you have GM'd before, but I use the word new in this case because of your long absence from the game.

Levitate was in the Alteration school which is probably what we call Transmutation now.

What Transumation spells were Enchantment spells?

I was right. I just missed the rule even though I read the paragraph. :)

Yes I would, I would also mind him using Flesh to Stone, but there are ways to deal with both spells.

If a player(group) did not mind it going both ways I would probably allow it, but I don't have PC only options in my games, and many other GM's don't either. I think that is why the spells are written the way they are.

PS:Well I don't Sunder or Coup de Grace, but other than those everyone is treated the same for the most part.

It is added twice.

Trap the Soul was not was I was talking about. I was referring to situations where you use/sacrifice souls(the power of souls) to gain power.

The "obvious" text is referring to situations where you lose your arms or legs as an example. If the the class feature would depend on arms or legs then that class feature would be lost.

Enlarge person is from a different school and is not breaking any rules related to polymorph

Speed is not called out I do wish it had been, but most GM's would give you the land speed of whatever race you changed into. <--There are no rules I can find to support this statement.

I would also say you keep your natural armor bonus if it came from a class. It is dependent upon you having skin, not skin of a certain race.

Mojorat wrote:

Icyshadow, really dont get why you are trying to make becoming a litch something fluffy and cute.

Mojo, I don't really get how you can turn "morally ambiguous" into "fluffy and cute". I mean, what led you to such a conclusion? Better question, why do you even bother complaining about something you cannot really affect, and missed the point of anyway? And Wraith, not all soul-related spells are Evil.

I don't know what a soul spell is, but a common trope of D&D is that using other people's souls for your own means is a bad thing.

wraithstrike wrote:

How would you handle boss fights? Would you be ok with one spell basically ending an encounter, even at high levels?

Sure, why not? It´s not the only way to end a fight with one spell, and it´s always a will save ,so if pumping the use of that kind of spells let´s you end a fight quick here and there.....them´s the breaks.

Would you mind the DM using it on the party like that?