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

30,818 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 30,818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yes that is the intent, and this is a 19th level character. People are doing similar things at lower levels. A pixie deflecting a dragon's attack with style feats is an example of this.

edit: Is there any other way to read it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Eschew Materials wrote:
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Also, the Quick Draw feat lets you draw a weapon even if you have no free hands or other prehensile limbs! It says, "You can draw a weapon as a free action..." It's granting you the ability to draw weapons even if you would otherwise be physically incapable of drawing weapons! After all, the ability to physically draw weapons is not a prerequisite for this feat, and the feat explicitly grants you that ability! If you have no available hands, you can just telekinetically draw your weapons!

Well, either that or an ability that says, "You can do X without doing Y," is granting you the ability to ignore Y whenever you do X, not also granting you the ability to do X. But that's crazy talk. That argument assumes that the English language grants readers the latitude to consider context and common sense when determining which of two clauses within a sentence is dependent upon the other. And, as we all know, the English language is an infinitely precise computer language, any sentence of which can have only one meaning when parsed, regardless of context.

Interestingly enough, the reason this doesn't work is because it doesn't provide a mechanism for casting spells. Arcane surge...

It works by strict RAW to me if the other one works. Of course this just highlights the point that you(general statement) can't go around shouting "RAW" because the words will still mean different things to different people. Maybe if it is something such as "you get a +1 to attack", which is very direct, but other than that RAW does not hold as much weight as many think it does.

PS: Not directed at BigT. Just making at point


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.

I agree but from what I understand of Big T's earlier argument is that he thinks they are being dishonest when they use "but its RAW", and it annoyed him into making this thread.

Meh, my game plan on this is long. Now that the idea is out there I can use it as a counter argument. So, if you are annoyed by this you should steer clear of martial-caster disparity threads from now on.

I said you were annoyed. This is about the 3rd time you have misread something I put in this thread. What I should do is what I am doing now, and if annoyance is a reason to avoid martial-caster disparity threads then you should avoid them, since you are the one making passive-aggressive topics.

edit: The people that do this won't care about your counter arguments because they are likely just trying to "win" the argument. They will likely misrepresent anything you say.


137ben wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

If you don't think there is any point to this thread, then don't post in it. You aren't required to read every thread in the forums. If you aren't interested in a discussion about RAW, and in particular about this facet of RAW, there are thousands of other threads you can read that might interest you more. Just as there are thousands of RPG books on the market that people other than you are interested in purchasing, but you are not required to buy. The forum isn't just for what personally interests you.

I personally thought this thread was an entertaining read. Well done BigDTBone.

I guess it is not required that you read it either or you would have understood the point of my last post.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.

I agree but from what I understand of Big T's earlier argument is that he thinks they are being dishonest when they use "but its RAW", and it annoyed him into making this thread.


How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.


bookrat wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Is this still going on?

it is less than 24 hours old. How long should things you don't like get talked about before we offend you?

Quote:
The spell you cast must be either one that you prepared today or be one that you know

that is definately NOT what the power says. If it was written that way we wouldn't be here.

Quote:
Spell-like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells. They work like spells but are not spells.
Is this supposed to be a related comment or did you just want to tack it on for good measure? What are you trying to argue here?

A thread should last as long ad is needed. In this case it's already been addressed so the discussion is just wishful thinking.

I actually looked it up again and it's very clear.

I provided a detailed, line by line analysis in the OP. Care to share where you believe I got it wrong?

I also find it hilarious that you continue to make value statements about an argument that you claim to be settled.

I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

** spoiler omitted **

Reason WERE given. There is a difference between nobody cited and rules, and nobody citing rules that YOU agreed with.

Dishonesty is not appreciated here.


Mark Hoover wrote:

I know about published material. I'm just wondering what folks do with their homebrewed/improvised stuff. A combo of 3 arcane spells ensures that a 1st level arcane caster villain has a +10 AC versus good PCs. That means that, if the wizard also has a decent Dex and a Size bonus, they're nearly unhittable.

A 4th buff on the same caster ensures that they have an inexhaustible ray of frost (ranged touch) with a +4 to hit. The right build gives the wizard a Ranged ray of frost (ranged attack) +4 (1d3+7) while they themselves are untouchable with a 24 AC. All at level 1.

That just seems more challenging than a CR 1/2 fight should be. WBL that caster can have as many as 5 level 1 scrolls if you count them as part of their gear; more if they have Scribe Scroll for free or you spend their WBL from offense/defense on the appropriate scrolls.

This then gives you a level 1 caster with the above stats who surrounds themselves with grease and mist making them concealed and the PCs can't charge. He then, what, just peppers them with rays until either the PCs are all dead/running away or they wait out his buffs? Again, this is a CR 1/2 threat.

Wow. Arcane casters really DO get all the fun stuff...

I was speaking for when I used to do homebrew adventures and published modules.

Normally a module will say _____ has X,Y, and Z activated, but I would not have them with every buff in place if they were less than hour/level spell if they did not know the PC's were in the building.

If an enemy escapes, an alarm spell, or the PC's are detected by other means then the BBEG gets more buffs.

I sometimes have the fully buffed version statted out, along with 1 or 2 more versions. That allows for me to make less on the fly adjustments.


Uwotm8 wrote:
CL for supernatural abilities tend to be equal to your HD. I don't think that's a RAW rule, but it's how the math breaks down for most any SU ability with a save.

SU does not have CL's. If they replicate a spell they will sometimes(such as the monk's abundant step) tell you to treat your HD as CL. In this case however you are actually casting a spell so you the HD would not work anyway.


I never noticed this either.


The PC's will likely run out of spells and other resources, but that I dont see it as a difficult fight.


BigDTBone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Absent of those class features you dont need any particular level to cast any particular spell.
So you don't need a caster level to cast a spell. How do you calculate caster level dependent variables?
In the OP. I suggest that you don't, but leave that open to debate. My personal opinion would be that any spell with a CL dependent option would treat CL as 0.

So a spell with a caster level of 0 has no duration or a duration of instantaneous?

For the sake of the above question we will assume the duration is something like invisibility that is based on caster level

For certain damage spell we can use fireball which does 1d6/level.

I guess you could argue that the spell is cast, but nothing happens. Anyway this is my last RAW based argument. Everything else I say here will be based on why this thread exist. That is more interesting to me anyway that RAW that most people will know is not RAI.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
What Wraithstrike means is that he bolded the part about how a caster level must be high enough to actually cast the spell.
OK, that is dependent clause in a sentence talking about voluntarily lowering your CL. It literally has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of that sentence. And that sentence has no bearing on anything outside of voluntarily lowering your CL.
So you are saying you dont need to be a certain caster level to cast a spell by the general rules?

Yes. All the rules governing CL and spell casting are particular to the classes' "spells" class features. Absent of those class features you dont need any particular level to cast any particular spell. You just need the granted ability to cast spells. This power grants you the ability to cast spells.

EDIT, EVIDENCE; An Aasimar's daylight ability both counts as a 3rd level spell AND can have a CL of 1 is the Aasimar is 1st level.

That is an SLA. I asked for spells, and my bolded quote says spells need a minimum caster level to be cast or are you going to provide a quote saying that is no longer true?


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Really we are all way off topic as the OP has admitted its not RAI. His point was to call people using strict RAW in debates when they know or at least he beleives they know its not RAI.

Later I told him what is not RAI and what the devs did not think of are not always the same. You can have something that is legally OP. He disagreed and said that even if a combo is 100% workable it is against RAI when it gets to a point when a dev would think it is too good.

So I guess the question is "How do all of you feel about this?"

I think we should be clear, so please dont paraphrase me and don't try to abstract my logic. I specifically think that the sno-cone wish machine is not RAI.

I see no reason not to. This is a silly debate otherwise. If you have an issue with people saying "but RAW..." and then covering their ears and sticking their tongues out then that should be the issue.

It sounds like you are accusing them of dishonest debating which annoys me also, but if so just call them out instead of doing the same thing they do.

However you should also realize that some actually thing the wishbinding and other things are also RAI.

That is why I often ask people are they arguing RAI or RAW in debates so we can be on the same page.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I try to be fair to the PC's. If they are quiet and/or quick enough the casters will have less buffs up. So far I have not had many stealthy groups which makes things easier for me.


BigDTBone wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
What Wraithstrike means is that he bolded the part about how a caster level must be high enough to actually cast the spell.
OK, that is dependent clause in a sentence talking about voluntarily lowering your CL. It literally has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of that sentence. And that sentence has no bearing on anything outside of voluntarily lowering your CL.

So you are saying you dont need to be a certain caster level to cast a spell by the general rules?


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mathius wrote:
I guess the missing casting stat makes this even worse. That might kill it even basing it on stupid raw.
The casting stat rule is NOT in the magic chapter. It is part of each classes individual spells ability. It is therefore not a global restriction but a restriction of each class. It also has no bearing on Mythic Commoner of DOOM!

This one is --> "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, ..."

The fighter does not even get to choose a caster level.

Then the question is asked how do we know what your caster level needs to be for a certain spell?

Well that depends on how your spell list is constructed, and this fighter does not even have a spell list.

I have yet to see anyone dictate how you can cast any spell without expending a slot translate into "you can bypass every other requirement also."

It would be like a feat that said "You can use any weapon, even those you are not proficient in without taking penalties", and someone tried to say "Oh, now I can use gargantuan weapons", while ignoring the size restriction.

The entire time focusing on the "You can use any weapon.." part.

The rule about not lowering your CL below the minimum to cast is a specific rule about intentionally changing your effective CL, it has no bearing outside that context.

The arcane surge ability adjudicates all of its own conciderations regarding what level of spell you can cast; it specifically and explicitly says "any arcane spell."

I didn't bold the part about lowering CL.
Umm.... yes you did?

No I didnt. How about you quote exactly what I bolded.


Really we are all way off topic as the OP has admitted its not RAI. His point was to call people using strict RAW in debates when they know or at least he beleives they know its not RAI.
Later I told him what is not RAI and what the devs did not think of are not always the same. You can have something that is legally OP. He disagreed and said that even if a combo is 100% workable it is against RAI when it gets to a point when a dev would think it is too good.

So I guess the question is "How do all of you feel about this?"


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mathius wrote:
I guess the missing casting stat makes this even worse. That might kill it even basing it on stupid raw.
The casting stat rule is NOT in the magic chapter. It is part of each classes individual spells ability. It is therefore not a global restriction but a restriction of each class. It also has no bearing on Mythic Commoner of DOOM!

This one is --> "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, ..."

The fighter does not even get to choose a caster level.

Then the question is asked how do we know what your caster level needs to be for a certain spell?

Well that depends on how your spell list is constructed, and this fighter does not even have a spell list.

I have yet to see anyone dictate how you can cast any spell without expending a slot translate into "you can bypass every other requirement also."

It would be like a feat that said "You can use any weapon, even those you are not proficient in without taking penalties", and someone tried to say "Oh, now I can use gargantuan weapons", while ignoring the size restriction.

The entire time focusing on the "You can use any weapon.." part.

The rule about not lowering your CL below the minimum to cast is a specific rule about intentionally changing your effective CL, it has no bearing outside that context.

The arcane surge ability adjudicates all of its own conciderations regarding what level of spell you can cast; it specifically and explicitly says "any arcane spell."

I didn't bold the part about lowering CL.


BigDTBone wrote:
Mathius wrote:
I guess the missing casting stat makes this even worse. That might kill it even basing it on stupid raw.
The casting stat rule is NOT in the magic chapter. It is part of each classes individual spells ability. It is therefore not a global restriction but a restriction of each class. It also has no bearing on Mythic Commoner of DOOM!

This one is --> "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, ..."

The fighter does not even get to choose a caster level.

Then the question is asked how do we know what your caster level needs to be for a certain spell?

Well that depends on how your spell list is constructed, and this fighter does not even have a spell list.

I have yet to see anyone dictate how you can cast any spell without expending a slot translate into "you can bypass every other requirement also."

It would be like a feat that said "You can use any weapon, even those you are not proficient in without taking penalties", and someone tried to say "Oh, now I can use gargantuan weapons", while ignoring the size restriction.

The entire time focusing on the "You can use any weapon.." part.


bookrat wrote:
I generally find that monsters are much easier when one plays them as if they don't have intelligence. For example, even mythic characters should have a tough time fighting Cthulhu, because he would never go into a straight on slugfest against someone stronger than himself. I have a sneaking suspicion that WotR may not be as easy as people say simply based on so many people playing the bad guys to the PCs favor rather than as thinking and mean/vicious real non-player characters. I've been running planescape campaigns for years, so I'm well experienced with the meanness of Demons and Devils - even with mythic, they shouldn't be easy if played well.

From what I have read PC's are one rounding bosses and doing +125% of the boss's hit points at times. Now unless a lot of people are blatantly lying tactics is not the problem.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


I fail to see the difference between, "against dev intentions," and, "against RAI."

The difference is that one case is actually against the rules(RAI). The other can be legal with due RAI, but the combination of certain abilities can lead to things that were not anticipated, and also not good to use.

That is why I brought up the issue of +10 caster levels and Gate. If someone is going to say CL's are not meant go past ___ then they have to list the cap on CL's which does not exist. Or maybe they will argue that you can only use your native CL's with Gate or some other reason why they don't like it. In the end of that really matters.

Then you stack it with Gate which is powered more by CL's when calling creatures and you have people gating in CR 22 and higher titans at a level when that titan should be a boss fight for them.

Sometimes rules are just really poorly written and they allow things that should not be allowed, and sometimes they just interact in such a way that the GM has to decide if he is going to allow it.

Does A work with B?
Does B work with C?
Does A work with C?
If the answer is yes then they all likely work together.

Now it may also be possible for some reason the A+B+C is going to be frowned upon, but that does not make them against the rules.

Under those terms I see using a 7th level spell to gain 3 9th level spells and 75,000 gp worth of spell components every day forever in the same camp as arcane surge for a commoner.

You must be referencing a board theory combo I have not run across yet.

Can I get the long description? <-----Serious question.


I don't think so. If your GM allows 3pp that may work.

Ranger is a solid class. Why is he struggling? <----We may be able to provide help in a different way.


BigDTBone wrote:


I fail to see the difference between, "against dev intentions," and, "against RAI."

The difference is that one case is actually against the rules(RAI). The other can be legal with due RAI, but the combination of certain abilities can lead to things that were not anticipated, and also not good to use.

That is why I brought up the issue of +10 caster levels and Gate. If someone is going to say CL's are not meant go past ___ then they have to list the cap on CL's which does not exist. Or maybe they will argue that you can only use your native CL's with Gate or some other reason why they don't like it. In the end of that really matters.

Then you stack it with Gate which is powered more by CL's when calling creatures and you have people gating in CR 22 and higher titans at a level when that titan should be a boss fight for them.

Sometimes rules are just really poorly written and they allow things that should not be allowed, and sometimes they just interact in such a way that the GM has to decide if he is going to allow it.

Does A work with B?
Does B work with C?
Does A work with C?
If the answer is yes then they all likely work together.

Now it may also be possible for some reason the A+B+C is going to be frowned upon, but that does not make them against the rules.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I get the point you are trying to make, but what you are proposing is very different from the things you are against.

For the sake of argument let's say I agree this is 100% RAW, but not RAI:

You are taking one reading of the ability that you know is not going to work that way and comparing it to abilities that may or may not work a certain way.

Simulacrum as an example reads like many people argue for it. It is RAI to me, however it is also terribly written in such a way that it needs a rewrite. I have been intending to rewrite for my own games, but I have never gotten around to it.
It falls more into "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" camp.

This argument you are making is more into the "You know this is not RAI" camp. Just like the "dead" condition per RAW.

It is almost as bad as the poster who recently tried to argue that you can take AoO's against yourself recently.

I think the distinction here is that I 100%, no question, without a doubt, no hesitation, think that simulacrum was NOT intended to give you access to free wishes. To me, RAI is not in play. That is exactly the same as the dead condition argument. But people claim it is valid. To me this is just as valid. Anyone who wants to use sno-cone wish machine in an argument should be prepared to deal with the mythic tier 1 commoner of DOOM!

Yeah, but "outside of dev intentions because nobody bother to write a /feat/spell/etc better" and "against the rules per RAI" are not the same thing. That is the point I was making in my last post.

As an example in a post a while back I think I saw a way to get +10 to your caster level. It is done with various feats and magic items that stack legally. Doing that could allow you control over really strong monsters with gate(the spell).<---This is more in line with the sno-cone.

Now most likely this combination is not going to fly at a table because you just cast gate and win, but all of the various caster levels stack legally per RAI. <----Falls into my "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" category.


It would be +9. If they said the fly check bonus replaced the maneuverability bonus then it would be +5


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get the point you are trying to make, but what you are proposing is very different from the things you are against.

For the sake of argument let's say I agree this is 100% RAW, but not RAI:

You are taking one reading of the ability that you know is not going to work that way and comparing it to abilities that may or may not work a certain way.

Simulacrum as an example reads like many people argue for it. It is RAI to me, however it is also terribly written in such a way that it needs a rewrite. I have been intending to rewrite for my own games, but I have never gotten around to it.
It falls more into "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" camp.

This argument you are making is more into the "You know this is not RAI" camp. Just like the "dead" condition per RAW.

It is almost as bad as the poster who recently tried to argue that you can take AoO's against yourself recently.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

I still don't think it is RAW because even RAW must take other RAW into account. See my first post here to see which restriction has not been bypassed.

You would need RAW stating "You can even cast spells if you have no spell list" or something similar, for it to really be RAW and bypass all restrictions from other parts of the CRB.

Basically you only get to bypass the rules that an ability says you can bypass if one is to be really technical about it.

Since you know this is not really supposed to work this way, what was the point of this thread?<----What I am really curious about.

See my post above about specific trumps general with regards to the spell list issue.

My point is satirical in that RAW exploits shouldn't be used in theory discussions. Any theoretical argument which brings up sno-cone wish machines or timeless planes of unlimited crafting should also be prepared to face the reality of the most powerful caster AKA a commoner with one mythic tier.

I agree with that, but what if it is perfectly legal(per RAI) but still potentially overpowered enough that most GM's still wont' allow it?


BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

I still don't think it is RAW because even RAW must take other RAW into account. See my first post here to see which restriction has not been bypassed.

You would need RAW stating "You can even cast spells if you have no spell list" or something similar, for it to really be RAW and bypass all restrictions from other parts of the CRB.

Basically you only get to bypass the rules that an ability says you can bypass if one is to be really technical about it.

Since you know this is not really supposed to work this way, what was the point of this thread?<----What I am really curious about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

Actually some of those are RAI and RAW, but getting them to pass a table is another discussion.

Some of those shenanigans are RAI, but RAI and "a good idea" are two different things.

What you proposed is not even RAI, and I don't think the issue here is that you posted it. The issue is that you posted it as if it was acceptable to do in a real game. You may have just meant this as a mental exercise, but it did not come across that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.

There is also the problem of being able to cast a spell not on your list. This ability does not provide that. It only allows you cast a spell that you expending a slot.

"I can cast a spell and keep all of my slots" does not equal "I can cast a spell even if I have no spell list".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did not even realize this had been answered. :)


Actually with Beast Shape you only get the special abilities that are called out. If it says you get grab, then you get grab as an example, but if not then you don't. The same applies with the death roll ability.

If you are building around grappling death roll can be nice to have, but if not then I would not bother with it.

With that aside monsters past around CR 10 and better have high CMD's so the ability to affect them with CMB based attacks gets a lot more difficult.


1. You do not cast any spells through your weapon. You just need to be handling the weapon to cast your spells as a wizard or sorcerer(assuming you chose that bloodline).

If you are asking can you shoot someone with the bow and cast displacement on them as if it was a spell storing weapon the answer is no.

If you are asking can you cast displacement an extra time per day because the race makes it a 1/day ability the answer is no.

If you are asking do you need the bow to cast displacement the answer is no because displacement comes from your race, not from your class, and your arcane bond only affects spells that come from that class.

Even if you were a wizard/bard(another arcane class) multiclass then you could not case more arcane spells from your bard.

2. SLA's are not spontaneous spells. They just count as spells for many functions. They have no interaction with the arcane bonded item, since it is not a spell from your class.


Boosting the strength bonus and power attack bonus are two completely separate things. This is not an oversight.


Kchaka wrote:

MPLindustries, thanks for unarmed attack idea, too bad we can't make AoO with them, as Pala-Baha said, but it's a start.

The maximum Gorgonzola I could come up with is 2 characters with Combat Reflexes, Quick Draw and Rapid Reload. Who ever wins the initiative starts to reload a hand crossbow as a free action and provokes a AoO from the other. He can then drop the crossbow as a free action and draw another empty hand crossbow and do the same thing. The other one doing the AoO drops the spell storing weapon he used and draws another one. They do that until they run out of hand crossbows or spell storing weapons.

So, still no concrete RAW saying you can't AoO yourself, other than "An enemy that takes certain actions..." which we have seen it's not true, as friends can AoO friends.

You can argue this all day long. The rules are not on your side by RAW or RAI. They specifically told you what you could do so by strict RAW you can only do that.

Also if your buddy is disguised as an enemy then your perception of him is as an enemy. You however never actually see yourself as your own enemy. You can trying something like "I dislike myself for all the problems I caused myself so I am my own worst enemy", but don't expect for a GM to allow that to pass either.

Even if strict RAW allowed it, which it does not say you can do this, he is under not obligation to use RAW over RAI.

You have two hills to climb, and neither one is going to happen by the book.

If you wanted to stab yourself during your turn I would allow that, but I am not your GM. However I would not allow you to do it as an AoO. Immediate action casting, which is basically what you would be getting is limited with good reason,


trollbill wrote:

No one in my area really tries tricks like this as they are usually frowned upon. To a degree, this is because most people feel they are cheesy, but really it's because attempts to use such cheese will invariably create an argument that disrupts the game. And for most people, the desire to have a smooth, fun game outweighs the desire to show everyone some cool metagame trick they discovered.

I would simply recommend talking to the players who do this and explaining its potential problems. While not everyone listens, more do than don't.

I think the most egregious trick I have ever used like this involved a Wall of Force and two successive readied actions.

Can something be cheese and suboptimal at the same time? I can see it being useful in corner cases, but as an ongoing strategy someone not attacking or not casting spells is not going to bode well in many cases.


I guess I should also contribute a peeve or 2.

As a player, players who talk too much in character. You do not need to talk to every NPC in existence, nor tell them your life story.

As a player, GM's who show favortism. I don't mind the new guy getting a pass for not knowing a rule, but when a certain player has different rules than everyone else that is annoying.

As a GM, players who quit the game, and don't let anyone know they quit.

As a GM, when they do something nonsensical and then complain about the results. Most of the time I let a player live with their mistakes, but sometimes I let them know what they are about to do is very bad idea.

RL example which I may have used before:

Player-->I am going to dump constitution, make a melee character, scout way ahead of the party walk right up to the mid/mini boss and his minions and proceed to threaten them. Then when I will also be the one to start combat

Me--> <face palm>

Rest of the group--> <face palm>

Then they go save him, and I pretend like they somehow know he is in trouble, just to avoid him not being able to play for the next 2 or 3 hours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Sorry, i make it a habit of ignoring rules lawyers. Precisely because they are rules lawyers. Now if they were to speak up only when needed, that would have been awesome.

We don't read minds so we assume we are always needed. :)

As a rules lawyer I shall also start to petition for the more PC term "rules advocate". :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the devs assumed you would not to go outside of your natural class list because they gave no mention of how to convert spells over. However some people thought that the word "any", while not printed, was valid.

I think the intent is clear, even if the RAW is not. The ability is not stopping you from choosing a spell you can't use, but you still can't use it. I think it would be better if the FAQ just flat out said something like "you are limited to your class list for choosing new spells unless otherwise stated"<======Not the exact verbage I would use, but I think it is close enough for the purpose of intent.


MadE wrote:

So what if I used the Heavy Wooden/Metal shield?

It still has a Minus 2...

I'm really confused...

The tower shield applies that -2 because it has it as a special rule that has nothing to do with ACP, and honestly they are not worth the trouble to have.

If you have a bucker, light shield, or heavy shield you would not take a penalty as long as you were proficient with shields.


PRD wrote:

Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the beginning of your next turn. When using a tower shield in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only. You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge (see Combat). The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield's encumbrance.

A tower shield has an ACP of -10. If the penalty to attack was from nonproficiency then the penalty would be a -10, not a -2.

With the tower shield you take the -2 because of how big it is.

That benefit section you quoted only references the ACP penalty. It does nothing to save you from the penalty due to the shield's size which is where the -2 is form.

Here is the benefit section again.

Quote:
Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills

As you can see the benefit does not say "the only penalties that count are from the ACP and they are for strength and dex based checks".

It is saying that any penalties that are from the ACP only apply to strength and dex based checked.

Those are two very different statements.


Melkiador wrote:
Did someone mention this already, because it sounds terribly fair? Allow everyone to use each others rolled arrays. So each player generates a set of 4d6 drop the lowest and then you can pick a set from any of the players in the group.

I mentioned it, and I think it is the best way to do it, but I think the idea of having different stats goes against this for many GM's.


JJ Jordan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
JJ Jordan wrote:
I hate to put more pressure on GMs, since their plate is already full, but the characters stat arrays shouldn't matter a lot if the GM is doing a good job managing the spot light of the game.
I don't plan spotlight time. I do put various situations in the game to make it so that unless you have built a character that is bad at everything that you should find something to do. Personally I don't think it is the GM's job to "spot light" your character. The game has social situations, combat of various types, traps, some problem solving, and so on. Between all of that you should have a character can contribute better in some way at some time. If not then planned spot light time won't help because someone else will be better at you in each of those situations anyway, even during time that was planned for you.

Each GM should do whatever they want to do. This game requires that they enjoy their role and continue doing it.

I will say that managing the spotlight is different than planning spotlight time. If you've just rolled through a combat encounter, a trap, and an obstacle and a cleric has been kind of useless for the whole session then the GM could make the next social encounter center around the cleric. Or hey, isn't that weird, the next trap requires someone to channel positive energy to deactivate it. That's not written into the adventure, you say? Strange. Nudging the spotlight is easier for the GM then it is for the character.

Shifting this back to rolled versus point-buy: if a character gets a junk stat array via rolling, the GM has the power to compensate through the narrative (unique magic items found built especially for that character?). One might argue that this is unnecessary work for the GM and they should have just used point buy to begin with. I can't argue against that except that some times things are more interesting when they're different.

A cleric has channel energy no matter what his stats are, so that does nothing to solve the problem the poor rolls are causing.

I should also not have to make up new rules for a player when it is easier to just not roll for stats. That is just making things more complicated since no trap needs channel energy by the rules. Now if the group has nobody to disable traps, and nobody has dispel magic, and channeling is an alternate way to handle the specific trap that is different. So far this rolling and me having to do special things is not adding much to the game, at least not enough for me to deal with all of the problems that come with it.

I am well aware that the trap is just an example, but as I pointed out in my other comment the character in question may not be able to do something someone else can not do. Even so occasionally throwing him a bone might not work, especially if the problem is roll stat related.

Interesting is subjective*, and I see your point, but I have never seen rolling make anything more interesting. If things are interesting in the campaign with rolling the campaign as a whole would likely be interesting with point buy also.

*Yes, I am aware that this also means that varying stats can be interesting to some people, even if they are not interesting to me.

As for special items made for that character-->Many groups want the wealth to be evenly divided, so either the character does not get the special item, or it counts against his cut, which he may not want to happen. I have been in groups where we just give an item to whoever needs it, and never count coins, but I have also been in groups where anything you take is counted against you.

I don't think rolling for stats is a terrible thing for every group. I am just pointing out that not using it is not necessarily a lack of management skills for a GM. The problems it brings just are not suitable for every group.


What is a spy?

Also have you decided what the campaign will be about because it is easier to work something within the campaign after you decide what the campaign is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyph Oradin wrote:
Could you do this in PFS, or just normal pathfinder?

Not in PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The book suggest 2d6+6 as the default rolling option. To reduce the spread you can up the minimum, so the dice have less impact

10+2d4 or 3d4+6 or
2d6+6(special) --->In this case 1's and 2's both count as 2's

Of couse that means no stat is worse that a 12 which ups the power curve.

or

Give them 15 point buy, and them let them roll 2d3 that they can add any where they want on a 1 for 1 basis, but still cap it as 18 before racial modifiers.

If they happen to roll a 6 they still wont be much better than a 20 point buy. If they get a 2 then they still at least have a 15 point buy with a little extra.

Another option is to have them roll 3 stats at 2d6+6, and use 10 point buy on the other 3 stats. That should give them at least two good/decent stats.


Rabbiteconomist wrote:

I was working on my campaign making some Duergar NPCs when I noticed a powerful synergy in feats and Duergar spells. Assuming a 5th level character as the base example.

Step one: Duergar Race (note that Duergar are Dwarven subtype, and qualify for Dwarf feats)
Step two: Ironhide (APG) +1 Nat Ac as Dwarf.
Step three: Toughness feat (pre-requisite for #4)
Step four: Tough as Iron: +2 Nat AC if you have an A.C. bonus already (+0 if you have none)
step five: use of the duergar spell Ironskin which grants a +4 enhancment bonus to Nat A.c..

Optional feat: improved natural armor
Optional: Amulet of Natural Armor+1 can replace the step 2 of this.

Natural Armor Bonus to AC at level 5: +7

BEWARE THE IRONSKIN CLAN OF DUERGAR.

The amulet of natural armor provides an enhancement bonus to natural armor and replaces step 5 to a small extent, not step 2.

Personally I dont think taking a 3 feat chain is worth getting only a +3 AC, unless you have feats to spare.

I would use the Ironskin spell however. :)

PS: On a two-handed fighter type that nat armor can mitigate not having a shield however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JJ Jordan wrote:
I hate to put more pressure on GMs, since their plate is already full, but the characters stat arrays shouldn't matter a lot if the GM is doing a good job managing the spot light of the game.

I don't plan spotlight time. I do put various situations in the game to make it so that unless you have built a character that is bad at everything that you should find something to do. Personally I don't think it is the GM's job to "spot light" your character. The game has social situations, combat of various types, traps, some problem solving, and so on. Between all of that you should have a character can contribute better in some way at some time. If not then planned spot light time won't help because someone else will be better at you in each of those situations anyway, even during time that was planned for you. The only exception would be something RP based that is written around your background story, but background story moments do not help a player fell less marginal if he has crappy stats, and super character" is doing everything else.

Real life example: I tend to roll well, and I so with a druid whose primary goal was to be good in combat in animal form. Due to my high perception I found all of the traps, and bad hiding bad guys, and I killed them in melee, even in humanoid form. What I could not kill my animal companion did. Our scout had rolled terribly so did not want to really risk scouting. A few times I chose a mobile and/or small form and went ahead to check things out. Now you will probably reply with "It was a druid". I will admit using one of the game's best classes did help me do this, but if that player had better stats he would have had a higher perception, and hit points. He admittedly said that was what stopped him, so even if my druid who rolled well had not existed he still would have been reluctant to scout, and he would still would not have found those traps.
Of course not rolling for stats would remove have made this situation a lot less painful. This is how I manage spotlight time--> I make sure the player has the means to create his own spotlight time, and you give them a variety of situations to use what they have.

Quote:


PF is a d20 system. If two melee characters are fighting side by side, one has an additional +1 STR over the other, it wouldn't even be noticeable in a short fight. We're talking about a difference of 5% of attacks that will miss for one character will hit for the other. An observer would see no difference in fighting skill.

It might not be a +1 in the main stat. It might be a +2 or more, and the player will notice when. Also many times the rolls(for stats) create a much larger difference across the board that shows in the game.

Quote:
It's all psychological to the players but the characters themselves would barely notice.

The characters most likely would not care, since they are not real people. They would likely be happy to have someone else who is great at ___. I know I prefer getting teamed up with talented people in real life. The players however might not be so happy playing Robin to everyone else's Batman.

Quote:


Now if you're straight up rolling and one person get's a 40 point buy equivalent and another gets a 5 point buy, you will notice the difference. But if both players are mature then you have an interesting party dynamic that we don't normally get to play with.

I don't think it is so much a maturity thing since we all know someone will emerge as the MVP. However, most people at the least like to know they are useful at the table, and/or they get to do use their talents. Sometimes the difference in stats causes this not to happen.

Now of course you will likely say that if super character can do everything the other character can do that he should step aside and not use ability X*. However the player will know this is a metagame decision, and may not like it. Had they had equal stats this may not have been an issue.

*Another dynamic is that the other characters combined leave one character in a position where is not the best for any situation, so they have to step aside occasionally, if that player is the type to want the spot light.

Another real life situation: I was GM'ing and there was a player who was decent at many things, but good at nothing. After the game he came to me about times when he wanted to do _____. _______ came up at important times in the game, and being unsuccessful would have caused the party a lot of trouble, so they did not want to leave it to chance.
Basically he wanted to be the the character that saved the day, but did not make a character that could save the day in any situation. Now of course I could have made the situation easier to bypass, but then the "why are you coddling my character" would have come up. <----This was not due to low rolls in this situation, but the same player only avoided the situation before because the game ended before his low rolls doomed his character to the party tag-a-long

Rather than having the best man for the job step aside, and manage all of this spotlight time, if your players care about it, why not just use point buy?

Now if the players know you will create situations specially for them, and the other players will step aside, and that does not bother them, then rolls are fine.

I was slated to run an AP, and half of the group wanted to roll so I told them that everyone rolls and then records the stats. They can then choose any rolled stat array. That way we dont have someone being forced to use an 11 point buy while someone else has a 37 point buy. Everyone can use the 37 point buy.

PS: I don't think anyone rolled a 37 point buy. I just chose a high number to make a point. I think the highest was close to 30.

1 to 50 of 30,818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.