|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Well, I'm most disappointed as GM. This essentially makes a hat of disguise useless for masquerading monsters hiding amidst the humans. It also seems rather counterproductive for an item ostensibly used for infiltration to require you to vocalize a command word every ten minutes to maintain a disguise.
The hat, not being a ring, might be mental activation. The ring of invisibility however is most definitely a command word. What happened was the ring discussion took over the hat thread. :)
I agree the rule can not predict future rules, but when those future rules are written the devs can easily say "X counts as Y" or write in a counter-rule. In this case neither happened, and I see no RAW to say that hardness on a creature can by bypassed.
I would allow for anything that bypasses hardness on an object to bypass hardness on a creature, but I don't even know if that is RAI.
Doomed Hero wrote:
DR can mean tough skin or a fast regen rate for purposes of flavor. Hardness is normally just something hard such as stone or steel.
Effectively they do the same thing except that one is normally only applied to objects, but they are two different things for how they interact with the rules. I do like hardness since it means that you can't just use your +__ weapon to bypass it.
1. I was running an AP and if you set the trap off the room would start flooding and dump electric eels in the room with you.
2. I never experienced this one since I missed the session, but the group set off a trap that puts you into a box that rotates, and the walls are lined with spikes. I thought it was funny, and so did the GM, but I guess those inside the box were a little less amused. :)
Going after stats is not normal and not nearly as easy as it was in 3.5. I had a build based around it, but I never used it because I knew the GM would not like it.
If they have debuff spells many parties will use them. Maybe they are just inexperienced or not used to a certain playstyle. You may have to give them advice during or in between sessions to see if they are willing to take it. If not they may just prefer the way they are playing.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I thought I had erased that part, but since I didn't....Yeah, but there are people who can afford the car. If you use their low wealth rules nobody(a much smaller number of people than is intended by the rules) is buying the 200000 gp magic item. Ok, you might have an elf who has lived for a long time, but well you get the point.
If you don't want to give the money out then I think the idea of doing a quest in order to get the levels removed would work. That way you don't have your party walking around with a lot of loot, and they get fixed up. If they ask why someone as power as the NPC can not do the quest, then you can have him otherwise engaged. Maybe a more serious threat, at least in his opinion, needs to be taken care of.
RAW both arrows get it since Manyshot is one attack but with two arrows. RAI it is probably the same, but I dont know if GM's actually run it that way.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
When the system was new threads proclaiming "Smite/Paladin" is OP/broken were being made at a faster rate than "rogues/monks" suck threads.
The intent really is once per fight.
One player landed a dragon in front of an archer and then complained when the archerdin murderized it because it was CR=APL+3. I tried to explain that the CR in the book assumes certain things and that when you downplay the strengths of a creature the effective CR is not as high. Anyway it is what it is now. There were other threads were the paladin's new found power surprised GM's and they were not happy about having to adjust their old 3.5 tactics for it.
The game's economy is not meant to be realistic. It is really there to give players a way to buy things. There are a few threads online on how hard it fails. No matter if you look at it from a the commoner's income or what Paizo expects you to get it fails if you really get into the details.
However since you run a low income game I would suggest that only a metropolis is likely to have a large amount of rare/expensive components such as diamond dust.
Also money is not enough motivation for someone to risk their life and not everyone has adventuring skills.
The average commoner makes about 400 gp a year*, which is actually about 1.1 gp a day or 11s p. If we are going to base economy off of those numbers then none of the higher magic items exist which is fine because nobody is really going to be able to afford to make them. Also since the game bases the prices on its current model and not what commoners make then in actuality the price of the components would match what the economy can produce. Otherwise the math just kills the concept of certain things have the current book pricing. So if your current playstyle is mostly based on math then you will have to reprice a lot of things to be accurate. If you just want a gritty playstyle then carry on. :)
*I have seen this math in several places online. I guess I should check it however.
So he takes 10 on this and gets a 20
You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work.
Half of 20 is 10.
10 x 4 week =40 per month
Not that I did not give wisdom a high score or use skill focus
So now 480/365=1.3 gold per day
Now if you are untrained(no ranks in profession) then you earn 1sp per day, not even 2.
Gets tired of typing and decides to not go into the break down of how bad the game is at representing an actual economy, mostly because it is way off-topic.
Anyway I just wanted to present some information.
1. These are level 1 characters. I don't run APL+3 for any group below level 3.
2. CR alone is not enough to determine if a creature is an ok opponent for a group.
They do have the same CR ratings. As an example all Elder elementals are CR 11.
I think the intent(only after reading some dev post) is for only bestiary 1, but I am asking the questions because not many people play that way including myself. An IMO this is one of those things that does need to be stated officially because there is no RAW language to indicate this is even a possibility otherwise. I am going to keep playing the way I always have as a GM though. I just don't like unwritten rules that we are supposed to know about.
The summon monster and summon nature's ally spells allow you to summon various elementals. The newer bestiaries have new elemental types such as the Ice and Lightning elementals. It seems that most people are of the opinion that since there is no working saying that only the bestiary 1 elementals are allowed that any new elementals can be summoned also.
So here is the question: Are the bestiary 1 elementals such as the fire, water, earth, and air, elementals the only ones allowed to be summoned with the summon monster and nature's ally spells?
Shane LeRose wrote:
I do agree with them not expanding it. That spell is really good already. They do however have alternate list you can use. I think a compiled list is on d20pfsrd.
Jeff Merola wrote:
I will FAQ it. That is something that needs to be in writing if that is the case.
Protection from evil will not protect the creature from non-evil creatures so the circle version won't either. So what if the caster trapping the evil creature is also evil?
On eidolons: They can be made to equal fighters in combat. Either that or many of us missed some broken rules.
On interesting options: Interesting is subjective. One person's "interesting" is another person's "this sucks". What we can measure however is what is useful. Interesting also does not really have a bearing on power creep or bloat.
To answer the OP's question, most builds I see have more core feats than non-core feats so some options will be better than core feats, but you are also comparing every non-core book to just the CRB, so even if it gets to the point where a build is 100% non-core feats it won't really be saying much.
I never saw anything about "absolute best". Do you have a citation?
Quiggong sorta proves my point and pummeling style alone is not saving the monk nor putting it on par with zen archers.
And Wraithstrike, I think that depends on how extensive your definition of system mastery is. I've been playing Pathfinder for four months now and my first character was a monk. She's at seventh level now and I have to admit I put her on the shelf for a while because I was unhappy with how suboptimal the build was but I feel it's fairly objective to say that while there are some situations where she's very ineffective on the whole the character is far from unplayable and it only took minor tweaking to get her there.
I never said anything about unplayable. I am only stating that monks are for the most part suboptimal(below the bar of "Standard").
Most monks are still at the bottom with archetypes such as the zen archer being an exception. Overall I still consider the monk to be at the bottom because you either need a good archetype, multiclassing and/or good system mastery to make it work.
Do a search for Fury's Fall and weapon finesse for an in game example of this.
By the rules charm person does not bypass the spell. The spell has no provision for not allowing a charisma check for the bound monster. Would it be logical if the monster was dominated? Sure. However what makes sense and what the rules allow are two different things.
The rules state " You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature's Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward.".
They do not state " You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature's Charisma check unless the creature agrees in which case no charisma check is needed. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward.
The best you can hope for by the rules is a modifier of +0. Seeing as how this is the rules section you are getting a rules based answer. If you want "how should this be played" answer then I advise you to go to general discussion or the advice section.
My point was that Will was not using 9th level casters as his base. He seemed to be using what most of us consider to be good without being too good. Kestral took it completely out of context.
To answer your question, which you hit on people on these forums tend to take things to extremes when the truth is often somewhere in the middle. Not being equal to a wizard does not make you weak, and being better than a rogue does not make you OP.
Bard and rangers are good "middle of the pack" comparisons when it comes to classes. We do not have an official metric but many gamers here also look at the inquisitor as a good measure of balance.
When it comes to feats they are more situational, but leadership should not be the common level of power.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
the Slayer is an amazing replacement for both the Fighter and the Rogue. play that if you want your noncasting fighter fix.
That is how I feel, but many will say that telling them to not play a rogue is not the correct way to give advice. I do understand to an extent. It just depends on how one perceives the game.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Animal Companions and Eidolons are not feats. They are class features which tend to be stronger than feats on average.
I think there are some in Ultimate Equipment, but they have other affects. I would go to the PRD and open up the magical weapon section and the wondrous item section, and use the search feature in your browser by typing in sneak attack.
edit: I don't think there is a magical weapon property that does this but there may be magical items. I misread your post.
The devs have stated the answer so this will likely lead to a "no reply needed". I don't see them changing the answer to "ok it has no duration". At best you will have errata stating that certain magic items have a limited duration.
Then people will still complain that it was a bad decision, but normally when someone says no and you keep asking they tend to say "no" in much more stern voice. That "voice" in this case will be errata if they answer it again. Anyway I am done here most likely. There is no point in debating since people are trying to change the words to say what they want them to say despite the devs saying "this is how we want this to work".
I am playing a slayer now and competing with the fighter for damage, and I can still do other things. Now we are still low level, but I don't expect for much to change at level 10. Even if the fighter is ahead in damage I don't expect that he will be far ahead.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
I dont think full casters are the measuring stick unless you had another definition of top shelf.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Not one of the four of us thought it was continuous or even possibly continuous, but it's true that I personally wasn't sure it defaulted to command word over use-activated until some people in the thread pointed out that it's in the rules for rings.
There you go. No dev, not even a former regular boardmember thought it was continuous.
Anyone can use the ring. Not everyone can use the wand so it makes sense for the ring to cost more. That is why potions cost more than scrolls per use.
How far that goes is up to the GM. For most evil monsters such as outsiders they would even kill friends trying to keep them prisoner, and if they have knowledge arcana and/or spellcraft they may recognize the spell.
The charisma check for planar binding is to get the monster to actually agree. That is different from forcing it to cooperate. The fact that someone might kill themselves instead of completing a task due to charm person/monster is showing they are not in agreement with it. That is why charm monster won't work to bypass the charisma check for planar binding.
I would also suggest starting at level 1. Higher level characters tend to have a lot of abilities/options.
Bruno Kristensen wrote:
I know how CDGs work. I'm trying to find out how Invisibility affects a sleeping sentry's chances of waking up as the would-be coup de gracer is sneaking up to him.
Invis has no affect at all if you use RAI. RAW stealth does not differentiate between sight and sound. RAW you can be behind a door and still get that +20 mod to stealth even though they can't see you anyway.
So it depends if you want to go by what the book says or what the book intends.
edit:The invis rules do state that invis does not affect perception based on noise so you can use that to justify ignoring the +20.
Archery is already the best one. Mounted Combat due to the mount will not always be chosen but it does a lot of damage.
TWF'ing is something that I helped out by taking GTWF out of the feat tree. It is not part of ITWF.
Sword and Board TWF is not bad. It just takes a while to come online.
Normal sword and board is the worst one with regard to damage, but you do get to attack and have a decent AC so that seems fair to me.