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

33,740 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 33,740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

wraithstrike wrote:
Dimensional Slide (Su): The arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location. This ability is used as part of a move action or withdraw action, allowing her to move up to 10 feet per arcanist level to any location she can see. This counts as 5 feet of movement. She can only use this ability once per round. She does not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving in this way, but any other movement she attempts as part of her move action provokes as normal.

Now I am 99% sure the intent is for the target to actual move as in "use movement", but the ability only calls out a move action.

Would I be correct?

Yeah I know the ACG errata was just released, but I will still start an FAQ if you say I am correct so we can get this officially fixed.

PS: If I somehow missed this despite checking the errata several times someone just let me know.

bump in case Mark accidentally missed it. <last bump for this question>


Chess Pwn wrote:
toughness and extra ki and extra anything else don't modify a mechanic that has a set regain lower than the max. HP goes to full, ki goes to full, extra anything else goes to full. when you take the feat you gain three more in your pool right then. Then when you prepare spells you gain 3+1/2 your level.

That is a terrible comparison because hit points dont work like the arcanist feature does. However I think most people know the correct way so I am going to let it go. Run it however you want at your table.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dimensional Slide (Su): The arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location. This ability is used as part of a move action or withdraw action, allowing her to move up to 10 feet per arcanist level to any location she can see. This counts as 5 feet of movement. She can only use this ability once per round. She does not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving in this way, but any other movement she attempts as part of her move action provokes as normal.

Now I am 99% sure the intent is for the target to actual move as in "use movement", but the ability only calls out a move action.

Would I be correct?

Yeah I know the ACG errata was just released, but I will still start an FAQ if you say I am correct so we can get this officially fixed.

PS: If I somehow missed this despite checking the errata several times someone just let me know.

You gain three more points in your arcane reservoir, and the maximum number of points in your arcane reservoir increases by that amount.

I see that as affecting the starting amount "and" the max.

It specifically says you gain 3 more points in your arcane reservoir, which would be whatever you currently have. As an example if you only have 1 point left then you have 1 point in your arcane reservoir. <-----that handles the current amount explanation.

It also specifically calls out in a seperate section that the max increase--> "the maximum number of points in your arcane reservoir increases by that amount"

If your max only increases then the part about the increase to your arcane would not even be needed. They could have just said "The maximum number of points in your arcane reservoir increases by 3", and called it a day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Most PC's do not get to choose the point of combat since they are likely invading enemy territory.

But the GM does get to choose that, and probably aught to be providing varied ways to interact with the encounter.

wraithstrike wrote:

Also a caster could potentially put out the fire, and attack an enemy. Most martials can't do that.

By using a limited resource and the action that they are supposedly using to be god? Oh, and you know, the fact that they cannot possible memories all possible spells.

A martial certainly can put out fires. They have ability scores and skills, they have environmental features, they have equipment. It just takes a modicum of inventiveness to realised that breaking open the cistern full of water, or beating the flames with a wet blanket is a valid action in a combat.

wraithstrike wrote:

At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied".


In my ideal world, every combat in a pathfinder game would have the risk of serious long term injuries, and would feel a little like the corridor fight form old boy. I am not out there campaigning for the game to be changed to be that. One day, I'll figure a way to house rule it to get that feel, but in the mean time, knowing how to use the game as it is written to get close to the feel I want is a useful skill.

You want martials to matter, there are ways to play the game that makes them matter, and there are ways to make them not matter. Your choice, but I am fairly certain the a change to play style is a more practical way of getting what you want than sitting around complaining about how broken the game is. (A situtation where, if you are successful, you potentially upset all the people who are perfectly happy with the system as it is.)

You have not made one valid point here.

What the GM aught to provide is subjective and does nothing to change "how things are" mechanically speaking.

I never said they could memorize all spells so that statement is pointless and as I have said countless times before casters do not need "the perfect spell" to solve a problem, and even before level 10 they are unlikely to run out of spells in a day. <---Other issues related to this have been broken down several times on this forum.

What your ideal world is does not matter because not everyone plays the game like you do, and if you don't get the relevance of "At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied" in response to "why do martials need nice things", then you are likely beyond any help that anyone could give you.

I have backed kickstarters from people I did not know and not supported people I think highly of. Now all things being equal known people will get my support, but the intention of the product and its presentation on kickstarter matter more to me than who is making it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:

Another truth is we generally find rule lawyers annoying. Unless me rolling 6d4 instead of 4d6 resulted in your characters demise...just go with it. Game time is not look it up time.

1. Then get the rules right or let people know up front that you play loosely with the rules.

2. Some of us don't have to look the rules up to know you are wrong, and "just go with it" is terrible general advice for enough reasons that I am sure you can think of some without me having to list any.

Most PC's do not get to choose the point of combat since they are likely invading enemy territory.

Also a caster could potentially put out the fire, and attack an enemy. Most martials can't do that.

At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied".

andreww wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

FAQ Friday returns!

FAQ wrote:

Wild armor and other transforming armor: When I use a wild armor and gain the armor’s benefits, what restrictions, if any, apply to me? In general, when I transform with a polymorph effect and some of my gear melds into the form, what restrictions do I have for melding with large amounts of heavy gear? What about other types of transforming armor?

If you were in medium or heavy load from encumbrance before transforming, you continue to take those penalties in your melded form. Otherwise, ignore the weight of melded items and calculate your encumbrance in your polymorphed form entirely based on non-melded items. When wearing melded armor and shields, if you gain no benefit from the melded armor, you still count as wearing an armor of that type, but you do not suffer its armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, or arcane spell failure chance. If you do gain any benefits (as with the wild property), then you do suffer the armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance. This also applies to all other situations where you or an armor transform: you always count as wearing an armor of that type, and if you gain any benefit at all from the armor (such as mistmail), you apply the armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance.
What FAQ will be next? Gencon looms, which means that afterwards, blogs might be possible! But not next week. Find out more on next FAQ Friday!
Thanks for this. Can I ask you to comment on one aspect of Wild armour. It specifies that it only works during wild shape. Is the Wild property also intended to benefit people using polymorph effects?

Nope. It specifically calls out wild shape so unless we have stealth errata or errata it won't work. As of now it officially only works with wild shape. It is basically a druid tax enhancement., just like natural spell is a tax feat.

There are no rules or guidelines for this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Way of the Wicked started you off in prison, but there is not an entire AP based on you escaping and/or running away.

I do not have as much money invested in PF as other people do so a rework that would overhaul most of the game could work for me, but many people have a lot of money invested, and those what percentage of the "heavy buyers" Paizo would lose has to be taken into consideration. That is why completing redesigning from the ground up is risky.

I think it will happen one day, but I dont think they are trying to push the issue.

The issue here is that once something leave the plane you are on distance is trumped, and the weapon has a distance limit of 100 feet. That bag may be 5 feet away, but the weapon is still farther away than that.

However the text also says the weapon teleports, but I dont think the devs intended for it to cross dimensions. I think it was meant to be more like how dimension door lets you teleport, but you still end up on the same dimensional plane you started on.

I will FAQ it since I can't find any hard rules to back my case.

Hey Mark it's me again.

For the arcanist the elf FCB says "Increase total number of points in the arcanist’s arcane reservoir by 1".

Does this apply to the max, the amount you start with daily, or both?

It is nice to have but I would not invest in it. At most I might get selective channel, and I would not put more than a 14 in charisma for the purpose of channel. The last time I had a cleric I had an 8 or 9 in charisma. When things went bad I still kept the party in the fight.

The fighter is terrible outside of combat, and it does not get enough in combat to make up for that. The barbarian as an example is equally as good at killing things, and it can do things outside of combat, and everything you named is just there to make sure it stays around and hits things. You can't really hit things if you are unconscious or running away. So Seranov does have a point.

Also it can only swap out fighter feats which are combat feats. To only says it can swap out feats as if it can swap out any feat is not exactly fair.

The fact that it has 2 skill points is one issue, but its class skills are also poor. The cleric only has 2 skills, but it gets useful skills.

Just because something delivers what it promises that does not make it adequate, and actually depending on how you read the text it does not deliver on what it promises. Just like the core monk the flavor does not exactly hold up well in game.

They certainly are not "Lords of the battlefield,". "Rousing the hearts of armies" is also not what a fighter does. That sounds more like a bard. That is two failed promises already.

edit: I do agree that it is better than the 3.5 fighter, but that is not a high bar to jump over.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

When I come to this website with a question, my first instinct is to do a search for relevant topics.

Initially, when I have had a question, and my search did not turn up a definitive answer, I would often select the thread that was most relevant to my question and ask my question there. But when I did that, I was flamed for "necroing the thread." So it seems to me that the community has voted to have multiple threads on the same topic, and if we don't like it, we do deserve it.

I find the FAQs are Browsable, but not Searchable, and if I could easily search the FAQ section of the Paizo Website, I suspect that there would be a whole lot of questions that I would just not have to ask and a whole lot of arguments would just end. Likewise Official Rules Posts are harder to find in the ocean of threads and comments. If something can be done to organize Official Rules Posts within the Forum so that it's easier to find them, that would be much appreciated.

Some people will flame you for a necro. Other will flame you for not doing a search. You really can't win, so I say do what you want.

The only necros that annoy me is when someone responds directly to a poster as if they posted yesterday. However using that thread to talk about the topic is ok for me. I still wouldn't flame you for a direct comment, but I would ask why you did it.

Most of the time fights do not go to 5 rounds. If they do that 5d10 coming into play 5 rounds into the fight is not likely worth whatever you gave up to get it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So this mean quick draw allows for quick sheathing?

I don't mind the FAQ, but it opens up other questions since it is in no way supported by the book.

Or do we need a new FAQ for any related questions???

Wizards are better overall, but I still like sorcerers better. In the end if a player knows the game well it won't really matter a whole lot.

alexd1976 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

So, regarding Project Image, is the consensus that regardless of whether or not you make your save...

it does nothing?

I mean, why even allow a save if making it doesn't do anything?


Making the save means you recognize it as a SHADOW EFFECT.
That means it does 20% normal damage.

Also, you gotta maintain line of effect to it... so it isn't that great.

Please, PLEASE cast that spell on me, I will gladly take 1/5th damage.

but the spells it casts aren't shadow effects...


Okay, if people want to read it that way, then delete the save being allowed, and delete the line of text about objects acting as if having made the save, as CLEARLY the person writing the spell made a mistake.

*walks away shaking his head*

That is how everyone runs it that can read the rules correctly. If everyone(99%) of us are wrong then start the FAQ, or you can cite rules. So far you have not typed anything to back your opinion, but feel free to do what you want at your table. Just know the PDT would not rule it the way you are suggesting it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I think you might be using the spell wrong.
Fair enough. Thread consensus is that you're using the spell wrong, so I'm not likely to change how I run it at my table. If you want to start a FAQ thread, be my guest.

For real?


Is it a Shadow effect? Yes.
Do Shadows effects still do damage if you save? Yes
How much? 20%

Where is the confusion on this one?

Also, where are people saying I'm the one using it wrong?

C'mon guys, look at the spell, read up on illusions.

It is "normal" for Shadows to do 20% damage if you save against them.
This is a basic mechanic in the game, it's not something new or obscure.

There is NOTHING in the spell that would suggest it does full damage after a successful save, so why should it?

Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.

There is no 20% rule from the magic chapter with regard to illusions.

The only time 20% comes up in the magic chapter is here.

Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.

Yes, I know the other shadow spells reference 20%, but that does not make it a general rule.

Project image itself does not mention the 20% rule so that does not apply.

It does say "Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with)"

So what happens when an illusion is disbelieved?

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

The saving throw lets you know the spell is an illusion if you make the save, and that is a good thing. Otherwise you could keep trying to fight it, and getting jacked up by a caster who is laughing at you from the other side of the room.

The illusion itself is also not casting the spell. It is just where the caster is sending the spells(which are very real) from.

That is what this line is for ----> " The spells affect other targets normally, despite originating from the projected image."

Since there is nothing in the rules saying that passing the saves lessens the affect of the spells then that is how the rules work.

There is no direct rule for this. It is all up to the GM. This is really more of a general advice or basic discussion type topic. I wouldn't allow it, but some people like games to run that way.

I found the item that was used.

blightburn paste:
This heavy stone box measures 2 feet to a side, and the tiny compartment inside is lined with lead. Inside the compartment is a half-ounce of deep green paste. This paste is made of animal fat mixed with ground-up blightburn. Once the box is opened, blightburn paste limits teleportation within 60 feet and irradiates anyone within 60 feet, afflicting them with blightburn sickness (see sidebar for details on both effects). Any creature that touches the paste is afflicted with blightburn sickness (no save), and takes 2d6 points of fire damage per round until the paste is cleaned away with a successful DC 15 Heal check.

Create: Craft (alchemy) DC 30

Blightburn: The mineral blightburn is a green-glowing crystal and burns anyone who touches it, dealing 2d6 points of fire damage per round of contact, and its radiation causes blightburn sickness.

The substance also limits teleportation. Anyone casting a teleportation spell in or teleporting to a cavern with blightburn in its walls must succeed at a DC 30 caster level check.

I just noticed this thing is hauled around in a 2 foot cubed box meaning it is likely going to need to hands to be handled so someone is going to have to pull it out of a bag of holding or handy haversack(assuming it can fit in), and then open it.

Blightburn Sickness:
Type disease, contact (see text); Save Fortitude DC 22

Onset 1/day; Frequency 1/day

Effect 1d6 Con damage and 1d6 Cha damage; contact is automatic when a creature comes within a 60-foot radius, and can be blocked only by lead sheeting, 1 foot of stone, or a force effect; Cure 2 consecutive saves

So this caster has 20 CR of actual minions, but he also has gate, and there are magic items and feats that can boost you caster level by at least 3, but I think have seen builds with casters levels more than have 5 above what the caster is. I will go with 3. That means he can pull in a 20 HD monster, and just control it. Otherwise he has to negotiate with it. I doubt he will go that route unless he called it earlier, and has a prearranged plan set up. IIRC Pit Fiends are CR 20 monsters and have 20 HD. They have "trap the soul as an SLA". By the 4th round of them spamming it someone is likely to no longer be in the fight.

Those +3 caster levels also means that if he has to escape he can do so with his 2nd attempt, but that would also count as overcoming the encounter, even if the caster did not die. As for his minions he could have monsters are just have more casters, such as summoners, or clerics.

I skipped a few post so if he is restricted to monsters I guess they should be thematically chosen.

I just noticed the wizard is level 18 so those HD go up to 21 for any gated creature. I think the pit fiend is still going to be chosen, and there may be more than one of them coming in.

Also this thread is sorta pointless. We know how it ends. You can't put limits on one group, and basically no limits on the other, and not know the outcome. If we are playing basketball, and you have to follow the rules, and I can can do anything I want, to include calling in Lebron James and a young Micheal Jordan to play for me, I am winning the game.

I really don't know if those putting very hard limits on martials are the ones saying they can't have nice things. I think they are happy with how the game is. For my own games it would mess with my suspension of belief to have them level a mountain, but they can do a lot more than what is acceptable by the laws of physics. That is why I liked ToB.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

This is a followup from another thread discussing the martial/caster disparity and how "unrealistic" it is to for fighters to,... well, to do anything like wizards can. A comment that has come up a lot in that thread is that allowing a fighter to do anything faintly "anime" risks "turning every martial class into into weird magus/jedi/ninja/wizards" or turning a fantasy game into a superhero game.

I'm literally wondering, then, what can possibly be done. So I wish to pose a thought experiment.

Rules for the experiment:

* A party of high level (17th level) martials is taking on a high-level caster (18th level caster, plus enough minions to make it a CR 20 encounter).
* The encounter is taking place in the caster's stronghold. Think, if you like, of Conan encountering the evil wizard at the top of his tower. This gives the caster the home field advantage plus all the prep time in the world.
* The party consists of a fighter, a rogue, gunslinger or a skirmisher ranger, and a brawler. No spells among them. More importantly, no magical items duplicating spells either. This is about martials themselves being cool, not martials pretending to be casters.
* The caster is RAW legal; no nerfing him. Simulacra of wish-granting outsiders, bags of marbles with symbols on them, teleporting to private demiplanes, all legitimate.
* The party is not allowed to do anything "wuxia," "weeaboo," "anime," or similar derogatory words.

.... but other than that, the party is not restricted in any way by the Pathfinder rules. The whole point of this experiment is to figure out what an awesome martial character looks like, feels like, and plays like. So if jumping 50' in the air is "wuxia,"or shooting bolts of lightning from your hands is "anime," you don't get to do that.

And, most importantly
* The party has to win, and win awesomely, so that everyone has a good time.

I'd like people to...

A few months ago a guy wanted a character who did use any magic(spells, SLA, or SU's), and still be a "caster killer". I would definitely look into that thread because this group faces similar issues even though there are 4 of them. I think an ability was found that was helpful, but I am not sure if it was mythic or not, but IIRC, it could be foiled if the caster knew the martial had it.

Here is the thread.

My next post will give the ability if I can find it.

You can succeed in Rise of the Runelords without killing certain ones, particularly the last boss.

I would not say "obviously" since the core summoner is likely to out perform it.

I don't think any class is worthy of an across the board ban so I would never recommend it as a general solution. I might do it based on that specific group, and campaign. It just depends on the group. Not every option is PF is good for every table. I dont care for the master summoner because if the player keeps pulling summons his turn can take forever. They also can overrun AP's as written, due to action economy, but for a game where a GM has time to adjust to the party, and the player is not taking forever on his turn, they are not so bad.

I just thought about something. The WW decided to go after a known powerful alchemist instead of just stealing the items themselves from a University?

I am sure they would know who the count was so that seems risky o me.. Let me know if I missed anything.

If not then I am going to alter the story to make this more reasonable.

The first time I ran this my group never really knew how powerful the creator of the golem was, but I still want it to make sense in case they find out this time around.

LMAO. I had to think for a minute, then I realized which AP you were talking about.

To answer the question, Slumbering Tsar, Rappan Athuk, and Age of Worms.

They overlap, not stack, and if you get hit with it twice in the same round then it is better to go by the init of the 2nd ghoul unless the first one gave you more rounds of paralyzation.

There are too many points in this. It would be better if it was broken up over a series of threads.

sylvansteel wrote:
Is there a way to make undead attuned to positive energy?

Not that I know of. There may be a 3pp solution.

Unless you are low level a martial is not likely finishing anyone with just one attack.

I was sure we mostly agreed on this a long time ago. Is someone who is actually known for knowing how the rules work disagreeing with someone else who normally gets the rules correct?

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.

1 to 50 of 33,740 << 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.