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

33,706 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 33,706 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

FLite wrote:
PFS will just dump him back here. It is a basic rules question, with no PFS specific elements.

I know. I just want him to know how PFS(the GM's and LT's) rule it. Of course he can continue to be stubborn, but he won't have the excuse of "I had not PFS guidance", or "I had no way of not knowing".

This is another example of someone not liking how a rule works and reading it how they want to. To the OP since you are having trouble grasping the concept of this rule in combination with PFS just go to the PFS section and see what answers you get.

The rod does say the affect is added as the spell is cast. I dont know what is confusing about that. If you have another interpretation for that line of text I would like to hear it.

andreww wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Most of the metamagic feats are not worth a feat.
Most aren't but those which are worth taking are crazily good for what they do. They are sort of balanced by forcing you to use higher level spell slots and therefore limiting the number of times you can use them and living with the lower DC. Things which let you get round those limitations are incredibly effective. Metamagic Rods, Magical Lineage, Wayang Spell Hunter, Staff of the Master Necromancer, all are among the most powerful effects in the game because cheating the cost on things like Dazing, Quicken or Persistent is just that good.

"Certain metamagic feats" being too good is different from "metamagic feats", as a whole, being OP. That is why I questioned the statement.

It should trump the spell as it is more specific.

Bodhizen wrote:

The reason that I didn't go with cerebremancer is that I felt that although the benefit to gaining effectively one level of spell and power advancement each by gaining a single level in a class was that the trade off was a huge loss in benefits from taking either arcane caster levels or psionic class levels and gaining their class abilities. I felt that this made for weaker casters and psionicists overall.

Additionally, in order to reach the sort of power that I felt was mechanically representative of the Dragon as presented in both the Dark Sun sourcebooks and the novels, I felt it was appropriate to expand beyond the 20th level restriction. Effectively, Borys, before becoming the Dragon, was one of the most powerful spellcasters and psionicists the world of Athas had ever seen. I didn't feel that could be represented by 10 levels of arcane caster, 10 levels of psionicist, then 10 levels of cerebremancer, since magically speaking, a 20th level arcane caster can put a 10 arcane caster/10 cerebremancer to shame, and the same holds true of a 20th level psionic class versus a 10 psionicist/10 cerebremancer.

I understand that this makes Borys and his peers rather extraordinary characters and not ones that are likely to be duplicated by player characters (though it is possible). I felt that since these characters were largely plot points and not standard antagonists (like your typical goblin or storm giant), I was okay with this.

I'm not saying that you couldn't rebuild Borys that way, but it's not the path that I've chosen.

Well it would actually be more like 20 the level arcanist or psion vs 15 arcane/15 psion, but dragons are likely 20/20 in some cases so you would still need to be a level 30 character to get that 20/20 assuming you split the levels evenly. That gives you 20 actual class level in each class, but the other side is that changing out psionic levels for "psychic magic" for those that don't like power points is easier this way if the psion is changed out for a psychic class on a one for one basis instead of reverse engineering how many cerebremancer levels are involved. That is the best reason to not use cerebremancer.

Rathendar wrote:

Bit late for the help on Borys,...BUT you could make part of his statblock the psion/wizard version of mystic theurge. Would cut down on the required numeric double whammy to get 20/20. Effectively Wizard 10, Psion 10 and MyTh10 would make him a 20/20 caster and level 30.

Just a thought.

He intentionally did not use the cerebremancer(arcane/psion combo).

I will probably do it for my games, so I might put a conversion out later on. If so I can send you a PM, if you want it.

Imbicatus wrote:

No, you are reading the rules incorrectly, there is no contradiction. The Rod allows you to adjust a prepared spell without a metamagic feat as if you had prepared it as a metamagic feat when it is being cast.

There is no fluff text in the description of the item, it is all rules text.

Metamagic rods are broken, and I ban them in home games.


Most of the metamagic feats are not worth a feat.

Mark Seifter wrote:

But what FAQ stirs in the distance, restless in its dark FAQ slumber? Will it be any of the other ones I mentioned last week or maybe even trolls....

I hope this is about that regeneration topic that has been around since forever. :)

Generally speaking you need hands or claws that are hand-like. Some creatures just get a free pass because it is the intent for them to be able to cast spells. Blink dogs are another example of this.

Archaeik wrote:

I'm calling out the distinction between Casting Time" "1 full-round action" and "1 round".

Silence is the latter and falls under the rule you quoted.
If a spell is the former it completes the turn it is started and would require a ready to interrupt.

Are there any spells that call have "1 full-round" instead of "1 round" as a casting time?

I am 99.9% sure there are not any that say "1 full-round", which is why people use the terms interchangeably for spells, so it really does not matter at least until Paizo makes such a spell, or there is actually one now that I don't know about.

Blakmane wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Lastly, a well built gunfighter will trample the DPR of anything into the Dust, because they can target Touch AC. The resulting auto-hits will nicely trounce any archer in a DPR contest.
Wasn't this conclusively proven wrong in the DPR contest thread? Gunslingers aren't even in the top 5.

Well dual weilding gunslingers do really well, and they do equally well with a double barreled gun. However, not every gunslinger is using those tactics, and those that do not are not DPR kings.

Maybe Aelry was assuming those types of gunslingers otherwise they are not ahead.

People will still want an official answer, but I would have done something like that for my own games anyway so I will go with that.

edit: I pressed the FAQ button.

I would also like to know where it was answered.

I go between wanting to play and GM. It also helps me to not forget what it's like on the other side of the screen.

thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
What I'm saying is after a player plays with GM after GM who doesn't allow it for anything useful the player will stop asking. Eventually it stops becoming worth the time to bog the game down with another "why can't i T10" conversation.
True, but only relevant if all or most GMs do so.

Really it would be most GM's that player games with.

We dont have all of the talents so it's hard to say.

rainzax wrote:

Maybe Warlock should have spellcasting divorced from Talents, set up as a 4-level caster instead.

Could Extra Vigilante Talent be justified then?

I think that would work for the warlock and zealot instead of having them taking talents to get access to casting. It makes it seem like a "tax talent" to me. Just give them the casting and some nice talents.

Even when you take away the casting talents the talents for the zealot are not really impressive IMHO. Some are just ok, but I dont know if I would trade them for feats. I definitely don't see myself taking more than 4 of them once you get the casting out of the way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Logan would you mind expanding on this "no". Saying "no" won't make the idea go away. If you have some behind the scene reasons that have not been revealed that would be nice to know, even if you can't give us details on it.
Sure. It's pretty simple, really. Many of the talents are built to be more effective than a feat. Even setting aside spellcasting, there are options like signature weapon that are worth two feats for the cost of one talent. Some previous Extra _____ feats have also been better than other feats, but we'd rather not continue that unfortunate trend, especially since the vigilante will have a really large number of options.

This is a cat that's already out of the bag. "Many of the talents are built to be more effective than a feat" isn't a fair comparison anymore. It's what the 'extra' feats gets you and vigilante talents aren't better than those.

If you are just going it think of the other 'extra' feats as unfortunate mistakes but leave them in place you are in effect penalizing the vigilante because it came out too late. It relegates them to a 'second class' class that doesn't get the same benefit from it's feats. This is particularly clear for the casting varieties that are already tossing 1/2 their talents away on casting before they can pick fun stuff while the oracle is sitting there with full casting and as many extra revelations as they want...

And as a side question, when did the 'extra' feats become an 'unfortunate trend? The last hard cover has extra feats in it so when did they become badwrongfun?

I only see the extra ___ being pick up once or twice. Other than that feats still seem to get picked. If the common situation was "extra _____" almost every time I would understand how it was an issue. I am with you on this one graystone. I don't see why it is an issue.


Male human rogue 7
Medium humanoid (human)
Init +9; Senses Perception +11
AC 24, touch 14, flat-footed 21 (+7 armor, +1 deflection, +3 Dex, +1 natural, +2 shield)
hp 59 (7d8+21)
Fort +8, Ref +10, Will +9
Defensive Abilities trap sense +2, uncanny dodge
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee +1 battleaxe +10 (1d8+4/×3) or
. . light shield bash +7 (1d3+1)
Herolab got these numbers wrong. It should be 10/8/5/3 for ITWF

If power attacking with a two handed weapon the axe is at a +10/5 and does 1d8+11 damage.
Ranged mwk composite longbow +11 (1d8+3/×3)
Special Attacks sneak attack +4d6
Str 17, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 10
Base Atk +5; CMB +10; CMD 22
Feats Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (battleaxe)
Traits indomitable faith, reactionary
Skills Acrobatics +3 (-1 to jump), Bluff +10, Diplomacy +14, Disguise +10, Escape Artist +3, Intimidate +4, Linguistics +5, Perception +11, Sense Motive +15, Stealth +14, Swim +4

Note:Sense Motive and Diplomacy are at a +10 when in combat mode

Languages Common, Elven, Gnome
SQ trapfinding +3
Other Gear +1 shadow breastplate, +1 light steel quickdraw shield, +1 battleaxe, mwk composite longbow (+3 Str), amulet of natural armor +1, belt of giant strength +2, cloak of resistance +2, ring of protection +1, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, flint and steel, hemp rope (50 ft.), masterwork backpack, mess kit, pot, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, 2122 in gems (worth 2,122 gp), 2,122 gp
Special Abilities
Improved Shield Bash You still get your shield bonus while using Shield Bash.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Sneak Attack +4d6 Attacks deal extra dam if flank foe or if foe is flat-footed.
Trap Sense +2 (Ex) +2 bonus on reflex saves and AC against traps.
Trapfinding +3 Gain a bonus to find or disable traps, including magical ones.
Uncanny Dodge (Ex) Retain Dex bonus to AC when flat-footed.
Virgil is has decided to take the law into his own hands when people circumvent justice.

social persona LG: politican who realizes the law will not help those in need

combat persona LE: vigiliante who does what the law will not and is not trying to do

2 talent Combat Skill(improved initiative)
4 talent Signature Weapon grants weapon focus and later weapon specialization
6 talent Shield of Fury grants improved shield bash and virtually give TWF

The base class has a few charisma base abilities, but with the avenger specialization getting additional fighter feats, and another talent that gives twf I went that route. That meant no room to boost charisma, which I dont think I will miss anyway. The circlet of persuasion and the ability to add +4 to the social(non combat) version of the character make up for me taking a -1 to the modifier.

Armor Silence is not a bad talent at lower levels, but once I can get mithral armor or celestial armor, which I can do within the rules I would not need it. I will just eat the penalty for the armor I currently have until I can afford it.

Combat Skill which just grants more combat feats is the only other talent I would really bother taking, other than the ones I already chose.

I can't disarm magical traps so I wont bother with disable device as a skill.

Also despite the stat block saying rogue, this is not a rogue. I just used the rogue as the chassis, and made changes in herolab to account for differences.

Since the stalker is more likely to be the one sneaking around and using acrobatics I think it needs the armor silence and armor skin talents more.

I can see the avenger doing ok in a game, but the stalker is in trouble IMO.

Also if I could replace feats with talents I would see feats winning from hear on out unless Paizo comes up with some good talents. The ones in the book are nice flavor-wise, but they seem to be circumstantial. I kept thinking to myself how many times has this come up in all the times I have been gaming or GM'ing, and then I decided to not take that talent.

I will do the stalker tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.

PS: Officially the talents are winning, but I did use them for feats, so take what you will from that. I see combat skill being used to get more TWF and shield feats if I had continued this. Otherwise skill focus stealth and other stealth feats would likely have been picked up.

Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is my litmus text for the overall power of talents vs feats. If you could either choose a talent or a feat anytime you could choose a talent will most people use those slot for feats or talents. Since they already have their normal feat slots for feats that should give the talents an advantage. If it is even a tie with regard to the talent slots going to feats then they need to be improved. The rogue and slayer do not pull ahead here unless I start to choose based on flavor instead of being practical.

At a glance it seems like the vigilante should be ahead. I am not counting the casters, but the martial versions simply because I expect for the casting talents to be chosen for most builds.

We would be happy to see you try this litmus test out for different specializations; it's a good one. For the casters, they also get some slots for non-casting, and we expect they would still probably want a talent over a bonus feat that can be any feat for which they qualify. There will be noticeably more talents, so if they keep at this power level, the litmus test should swing more towards the talents with more choices.

That is good to know. I really need to get off of these forums and Facebook and put a build together.

I see the avenger as more of a batman or revenge trope type anti-hero.

The stalker seems more like a spy who is supposed to have enough skill to fight out of a situation if he is seen sneaking in. This one seems to be better off with a group of sneaky people. I don't want to see him scout ahead since his combat skills don't seem to great by me reading over them.

Anyway I will see what I can come up with.

Also the effortless lace say " as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons."

The combat chapter shows how light weapons and twf(the feat) interact. The feat not repeating the information is a nonfactor unless you can prove feats must repeat information that is already mentioned.

RumpinRufus wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Effortless Lace effectively makes the weapon light for how it interacts with TWF feat. A light weapon in the off hands means you only suffer a -2 instead of a -4 penalty.

The TWF feat says zero about light weapons. While it's true that a light weapon in the off hand only takes a -2, Effortless Lace does not make the weapon light, it is merely treated as light for a number of specific purposes. TWF is not one of those purposes.

Upon further research, this has been discussed before: RAI is that Effortless Lace reduces TWF penalties, RAW is that it doesn't.

The lace treats a weapon as a light weapon.

PER RAW a light weapon in your off-hand takes a lesser penalty than a one-handed weapon.

The rule is in the TWF rules in the combat chapter.

PRD wrote:
First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

The off-hand weapon being light drops the penalties by two. The TWF feat drop off-hand penalty by another 6 so instead of -10 you are dropped to a -8 for using a light weapon in the off-hand. Then with the feat taking 6 more from the penalty you end up at -2 with the TWF feat.

Torbyne wrote:
Is there a reason you went with Weapon Master over Two Weapon Warrior? Have you given any thought about how you are going to keep your strength and dex up to keep going with the TWF feats and damage output?

The weapon master has more damage potential during full round attacks which is where TWF works best anyway. As for dex you only need to get it up high enough to qualify for the feats you want. Otherwise strength should have priority, unless someone is using a dex based build.

It might work with CotCT or CoT, but it will require the GM and the party to work with the player similar to when the party openly accepts a new character without a lot of question. However they will have to suspend belief more often. It might also work with the first 2 books of Carrion Crown, and maybe book 5.

It is completely unnecessary to hide you identity in any other AP that I can think of unless the GM goes out of his way to have the bad guy looking for trouble makers, just so the vigilante can be useful in both "costumes".

Generally speaking I have never had to go from a social situation to a combat situation without some notice, but it can happen and it has happened. In that situation how A, B, C, and D go into a dungeon(just an example), and A, B, C, and E come out might be hard to explain away. Many times if you kill all the bad guys he can go back to being D before they come back out, but if a bad guy in the dungeon knows D is coming in and has contact with the boss, and he can't find D it won't look good.

As a GM I know I have bad guys run away or at least attempt to flee at times and they report things.

It works better as bruce banner/hulk type thing where you really change. That will probably be an archetype for a summoner.

This is going to boil down to how much a group is willing to suspend belief.

In many games the NPC might ask "what happened to that other guy*", and unless he(the players) plays it up then it really won't matter, but that sort of defeats the purpose, if it never matters.

*That is what happened when another party had someone who was in disguise a lot.

Here is my litmus text for the overall power of talents vs feats. If you could either choose a talent or a feat anytime you could choose a talent will most people use those slot for feats or talents. Since they already have their normal feat slots for feats that should give the talents an advantage. If it is even a tie with regard to the talent slots going to feats then they need to be improved. The rogue and slayer do not pull ahead here unless I start to choose based on flavor instead of being practical.

At a glance it seems like the vigilante should be ahead. I am not counting the casters, but the martial versions simply because I expect for the casting talents to be chosen for most builds.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Signature weapon is nice, but it is one of the better ones.

Suckerpunch, however is more along the power of a rogue talent(even many causal gamers prefer feats) than it is to an oracle revelation.

However knowing that all of the talents are supposed to be better than feats helps up know which ones to mention to the design team during this playtest.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

They didn't issue an FAQ, but they chose not to do so in a very specific way. It does seem like it should be possible to use all skills both in and out of danger. This version of take 10 would allow a GM, if she so chooses, to force you to roll anytime you climb or swim, since there is an inherent danger to either activity.

I don't like it, but in the end I am sure: 1) they wanted to maintain flexibility; and 2) realized that ANY ruling would provoke questions about one billion corner cases, so instead it is up to the GM.

Answering some of the questions would be better than not answering any of the questions, and all they had to do was give certain examples, and put in a blurb saying that for anything not covered it was up to the GM. As a GM it would not have entrenched on my ability to say "no you can't take 10", so I really don't buy that logic.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:

Logan would you mind expanding on this "no". Saying "no" won't make the idea go away. If you have some behind the scene reasons that have not been revealed that would be nice to know, even if you can't give us details on it.

Example: "We have this other idea that will expand on the talents, and some of them will be able to be much better than they are now. Sadly I am not allowed to give any details, but trust me, you will be amazed."

I like RD's idea. Some of the talents are better than feats, but they are still no better than an oracle's revelation or a witch's hex as an example and there is a feat for those. If they go with this design idea then all of the lower powered talents need to be bumped up, or they need to make this feat, even if they say you can't use with talents X,Y, and Z.

Honestly I don't think calling them "talents" is a good point of comparison to say they are better than rogue talents. If the name "talent" is the issue then just change the name to "expertise", which works considering each vigilante type is its own subclass, or something else that sounds good as a category name.

The "weapon versatility" is questionable since it is not a permanent change.It allows you to deal a different damage type, but it does not change the property a weapon has. As an example you can use a sword as an improvised weapon to do bludgeoning damage, but that does not make it a bludgeoning weapon.

In a home game a GM will probably let it go, but if this is for PFS it expect table variation.

RJGrady wrote:
bookrat wrote:

Since those are italicized, they count as subfeatures and can be traded out individually. So an archetype that trades out pistol-whip would be compatible with an archetype that trades out utility shot. I didn't see any archetypes that trade out all dreads from a specific level based on a quick search of pfsrd.

But wouldn't that be a modification of 3rd level deeds, making the archetypes incompatible? If 3rd level deeds isn't a thing, why is a fighter's 2nd level feat a thing?

"Fighter bonus feats" is clearly a base ability, so if adding Iron Will is a modification, isn't not getting a bonus feat at 4th level also a modification?

I would think trading out a 3rd level deed would be ok. It is italicized. Also Bookrat said the trading out pistol-ship would work. Now if something traded away deeds in their entirety that would be different.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Susano-wo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
...but it is not like this FAQ is written as well as it could be either. It needs to be rewritten. I understand it, but I can also see where some people are genuinely not understanding it.

I agree. I understand what the ruling is, but only after Mark's clarifying posts. All terms need to be defined. Heck, until Mark posted what constitutes a subfeature, I didn't have a clear conception of what exactly that meant. Thank you for your clarifications, Mark, but the FAQ needs to be precise enough that you don't have to post such clarifications for it to be understood

Also, Kalindlara: do you primarily play at PFS? IF you do not, then I would not worry too much about stacking getting screwed up, if you have played with these combos and your GMs are fine with them, there's no reason to stop. The reason for rules on archetype stacking are to prevent imbalances from creative stacking, not to arbitrarily restrict.

There's a reason the FAQ recommends that GMs consider allowing certain stacking on a case-by-case basis!

I was going to ignore the skill thing personally so this is not so much an issue for me. However some GM's like to be bound by the book more than others do. I understand you might want to leave some of this in the power of the GM's, but many GM's including those like myself who will just ignore rules we don't care for still like to have an official rule.

At the very least a "this works like _____" and "this(other thing) is up to your GM" would be nice.

I don't think too many of us(not counting PFS) even mind the GM having the call, but we do want to know where table variance officially begins.

PS: For some reason I feel like I am not saying this as well as I would like to say it. Anyway I don't know how else to say it so I will sit back, and watch as I dont have as much as a horse in this race as some other GM's will.

Jeremy Smith wrote:
Thanks, Liz!

Jeremy I seem to have trouble getting on your site, and my only two possible emails are not working to reset the password. I could not find a contact page otherwise I would have sent you an email.

I was thinking about this before. It seems your play experience has matched up with my theorycraft.

For ease of play I would suggest the vigilante letting the party in on the secret. Even in shows such as Arrow and The Flash the superheroes know who the other hero's "normal" identify is. It just makes life easier for everyone.

The "only I know my identity" idea works for people like Superman and Batman because they tend to work alone, but in PF just like the TV shows I mentioned, everyone on the team knows both identities.

As for the low mental stat characters they dont have to be bad at keep secrets. There are several ways to play a mental stat. Being tip-lipped or loose-lipped is common in many people despite their mental prowess.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Stalker also obviously got a lot of creativity and attention put into it, but mechanically its abilities aren't up to snuff...likely because of this, sadly:

Mark Seifter wrote:
David Neilson wrote:
So can you tell us which of the Vigilante's aspects you have been put in charge of?
While we'll all be working together under Jason on the class, I was the one to whom we farmed out the stalker talents. It was quite a challenge; a class with strong Will saves that has a design goal to both avoid squashing the Unchained rogue and avoid being squashed by the Unchained rogue. Right now, a lot of that dynamic lives in the talents being quite strong compared to rogue talents.

Poor guy got stuck trying to put a good spin on "We're balancing this around the Rogue".

So that is the problem. The rogue being a weaker class should not be a balancing point unless it is the low end of the balancing point to be avoided. If they don't get rid of that idea or Mark can sneak some good stuff in and hope Jason does not notice I know what I will not be playing.

James Risner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
either the rule should say class features and class skills or there needs to be errata to say the class skills are class features.

In this thread, they clarified that they are not class features but that they are considered class features for the purpose of stacking archetypes. Because when the archetype stacking rules were written, archetypes only modified class features. But during the development of archetypes they because to modify non-class features like class skills.

Make more sense?

I understand how it works, but the FAQ nor the book says that and people should be able to read the book and/or the FAQ to get the full information.

137ben wrote:

A lot of people in this discussion (and previous threads) appear to be using contradictory definitions. Some people use the phrase "minmax" to refer to high optimization builds with minimal weaknesses, capable of contributing in all or almost all circumstances.

Other people, such as DrDeth, use the word "minmax" to refer to extremely unoptimized builds with crippling overspecialization.

At least on this forum, Minmax is its own antonym.

It has always been like that which is why it is so hard to discuss.

I am going to start calling the fighter dumping wisdom to 7 hyper-specialization.

Mix-maxing when I use it will just be someone putting their abilities scores in the most optimal place, no matter if they were bought or rolled.

So you can hyper-specialize and it may or may not be min-maxing depending on the severity of weakness you obtain while doing so.

DrDeth wrote:

Here's the real problem- the Min-Maxer often punishes his fellow players, and that's where the real issue lies. You love doing damage so you dump wis to 7, which mean you fail your will save, are dominated and have to/ get to kill the party.

That is not mix-maxing. That is hyper-specialization.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
a wizard, for example, to dump strength is not really a handicap.

The problem comes if the GM, like I did back when I played PF, uses the encumbrance rules...

That 7 in STR is all nice and good until you realize that your character can't carry anything over 23 lbs. without suffering penalties for movement and a limit to the character's maximum DEX bonus.

Except that a wizard doesn't typically need to carry more than 23 pounds, because there's always a fighter around who won't notice the additional weight.

I have carried the caster's things in a party before, and when the party can get a handy haversack or bag of holding the strength does not matter. In actual games it has never been an issue.

I like VM's idea of extra talents, and I like PDK's idea for the actual and pretend alignment.

bookrat wrote:

Definition of terms and consistent use of those definitions is something that Paizo definitely has trouble with. This FAQ is a prime example. We have Class Features to be somewhat defined, with Class Skills distinctly outside of Class Features, except that this FAQ includes Class Skills as a part of Class Features (where Class Skills are not a part of Class Features elsewhere, like in the event where a Paladin falls and loses the Class Features). Likewise, we have Class Subfeatures, which is not defined anywhere official, but it is used officially here in this FAQ.

And this lack of defined terms with a lose use of them throughout the Rulebooks has caused confusion. The FAQ to helps with clarification then causes more confusion, also due to the lack of precise definitions, and then those of us who try to understand it are then shamed for trying to "bend the rules," when all we're doing is trying to understand what the heck is going on.

Frankly, the shaming is flatly unprofessional. I would absolutely be appalled of anyone in my line of work did this and I would take them aside for a private conversation to let them know about their lack of professionalism. You should never shame someone for trying to understand something or for trying to work within a set of specified guidelines.

I agree. If the archetypes are going to also include class skills which they obviously do as blocking agents, then either the rule should say class features and class skills or there needs to be errata to say the class skills are class features. Personally I dont mind the ruling, but I do mind that what the book says, and what the ruling is do not match up.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Guys, those of you attempting to bend the ruling on subfeatures to have it apply to class skills and bonus feats are treading on dangerous ground. Part of getting agreement from the whole PDT to codify the subfeatures thing in the FAQ (previously it only existed in an Ask JJ thread, even though a fair number of people, myself included [you can even see old threads with Rogue Eidolon on them] wanted it to be the answer) was that I promised "No one will think this opens the door to a slippery slope. It's clear-cut that this only applies to things like deeds and bardic performance with a bunch of additional abilities listed on the 1-20 character chart." If I'm wrong and you guys keep at it, it's not impossible we'll see a retraction to disallow subfeatures within bardic performance, etc.

Mark people reading rules how they want to read them is not new here. I am starting not to expect much better from certain posters, but it is not like this FAQ is written as well as it could be either. It needs to be rewritten. I understand it, but I can also see where some people are genuinely not understanding it.

My post keeps getting eaten. Basically what would it take to get the language tightened up?

I see this class working as an NPC, but as a PC it starts to look suspicious because in both forms it is hanging around the party. Why is one gone and the other is there? Over the course of an entire AP/campaign I would expect for the bad guy to get suspicious.

However even if the GM handwaves that to help the player it takes too long to change costumes.

I made a 3rd level expert and 3rd level fighter since that was easier than making the actual class just to cover the costume change in different scenarios. It was messy. They were not full builds.

Tomorrow I will make a 3rd of 5th level version and post the playtest results later this week if I can't do it tomorrow. I am going to rerun an encounter that was supposed to be social but one of my old groups turned into a combat situation. <----I have seen this more than once.

VRMH they are both the same person. They don't change into different people. They just have to hide certain things. It is just like how teenagers are viewed as innocent by their parents when they are out having sex, smoking, and drinking. They(heroes) hold back until they change because the them showing their true abilities could cause more trouble(or lives) than if they do not stand back and let bad things happen until they can change.

Another example is one of my former coworkers who was very professional at work, but was using profanity and other nonsocially acceptable behavior away from the job. It would be no different if she was some foul-mouthed vigilante away from the job, just using the job as a cover.

Sean H, James is not on the PDT(rules team), and he has said his words are not to be used as rules clarification. <---common knowledge aroudn here.
Only the PDT gets to make rules. James has even said some board members know the rules better than he does. That does not mean he has no understanding of the rules, but his words do not matter any more than ours in a rules debate.

edit: Even PDT members have been countered by official post, so yeah um that James statement has 0 relevance for official purposes.

One thing I dont like is waiting until level 13 to drop that 5 minute change over time. At the very least have it drop to 1 minute around level 7.

Bandw2 wrote:

I'm actually interested in this enough personally to think it could use a FAQ.

Specifically: when does a Double Weapon count as a two-hander and it's separate weapons count as a one-handed and light weapon? and can these individual halves of the weapon be treated as one-handed or light for feats, spells, and effects.

example: Is there a difference between being the target of an effect and how the effect determines what happens. So does a double weapon count as a two-hander for prereqs of feats like slashing grace but power attack treats it as a one-hander and light for determining it's effect.

You should probably write this again and use effortless lace as an example. That would get you an answer to your specific question, and maybe even a more general question. Having it as its own thread is more likely to get it votes also.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
It appears to me that you already know the answer to each inquiry, or your phrasing seems to indicate as much. However, perhaps after the play test the flavor text will be further separated from the mechanics.

I am about 99% sure I know the answer. This was really done so they can clear it up for other people so an FAQ is not needed later on.

Entryhazard wrote:

I think it is interesting that you can choose to delay or stop the spellcasting progression without giving up caster levels or multiclassing.

The real problem is that the Zealot Talents aren't that interesting compared to the other specializations. They basically get the Inquisitor class features and little more

I noticed that also. I think more interesting talents need to be made to avoid cookie cutter zealot builds.

1 to 50 of 33,706 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.