|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
"Certain metamagic feats" being too good is different from "metamagic feats", as a whole, being OP. That is why I questioned the statement.
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.
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.
Broken?Most of the metamagic feats are not worth a feat.
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.
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.
FAQ Request: What happens when you use the Create Pit line of spells, and then cover it with a heavy object?
FAQ Request: What happens when you use the Create Pit line of spells, and then cover it with a heavy object?
Really it would be most GM's that player games with.
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.
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.
Note:Sense Motive and Diplomacy are at a +10 when in combat mode
Languages Common, Elven, Gnome
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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
That is not mix-maxing. That is hyper-specialization.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
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 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.
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.
edit: Even PDT members have been countered by official post, so yeah um that James statement has 0 relevance for official purposes.
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.
I noticed that also. I think more interesting talents need to be made to avoid cookie cutter zealot builds.