Wind Chime wrote:
Those monsters are rare enough that sleep is not normally an issue, and half-elves are not immune to sleep. They don't get "everything" elves get. They should however get the immunity to the ghoul's paralysis since it calls out elves.
I thought Ciretose and AdAstraGames were saying the same things. -->The amatuer has no time restriction, and even with one they "might" come up with something really good, but the professional due to limitations is better not only because of their ideas, but because they do it on a deadline.
That is nice, but you need to quote rules in the Rules forum. So far the closest anyone has come is Ravingdork, and his findings suggest you need to make it into a melee attack.
Actually it is not that easy to be a game designer, because you have to be able to appeal to almost everyone no matter their style of play, and with the houserules I see suggested by some of the people here the ability to appeal to wide audience is something they don't have.
I also see a lot of people with blinders on, and they like to make arguments based on contrived situations. Yeah they have fun at their home games, but designing for the masses is not their forte.
Being an expert is also about being able to read the market and give them what they desire. Knowing the RAW and being good at math are not enough.
Many of the better game designers not only need to have an understanding of mechanics so they make classes, feats and so on, but you have to be able to write stories also, at least for Paizo.
Most people can do neither, some can do one OR the other. Few can do both.
Yeah it requires a lot of natural talent, and it is not something you can really learn in a college. With that said I think the word "professional" fits better than expert.
A lot of the times rules are argued from a the point of a player who wants to do something.
Remember the rules work the same for NPC's, and PC's, and ask yourself "is it ok/fair if the GM does this to me"?
With that aside the rules presented by RD seem to indicate you need a way to make disintegrate into a melee attack. The magus can do it with one of it's arcanas.
You cannot compare sports (which are based off physical performance) to writing up a set of rules (which is based off mental factors), Ciretose. That's not even comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to freaking grenades. Also, name some examples of those incompetent people shouting about their poorly planned out ideas instead of just stating something with nothing to back it up. Because really, I have seen people who do a better job than Paizo ever has and who never got paid for it (or have their works ignored because it's 3PP), Kirth being one of them, while you are here claiming these people are a myth.
And once again I say I can make a better fighter than the PF fighter because I don't have a deadline. However if I had to go up against SKR or Jason in a contest while creating a new class with a short deadline I am sure that at least 9 out 10 times my idea will not be chosen.
That is not a knock against Kirth, but it is the likely result when some of us non-professional that know the rules are up against against an established professional.
Real life situation: I was in the military, and some contractor with a master's degree in engineering was trying for 8+ hours to fix one of our electronics systems. Well he left, and less than 20 minutes later I fixed the problem, and no, I was not standing over his shoulder watching what he had already tried.
Conclusion: They exist, but they rare enough to almost be a myth.
I am not freaking out, but your post did not come across the way you intended. :)
There also ideas some of these people would never have thought of that are good. Every developer lays an egg sometimes, even after creating something that the masses loves, and even those of us who would never be consistant at putting out quality work will come up with something really good.
The key to greatness in any occupation is consistency. The guy who averages 10 points a game, but occasionally scores 30 points will never be as valuable as the guy who gives you 20 points night in and night out.
PS: I am sure I can create a better fighter than the PF fighter, but I don't have a deadline to meet either.
PS2: Ok last PS... :)
Oh, and I dont care for VoP either.. :)
I think another broad assumption by the 3e devs that seems to be carried over to Pathfinder is to overrate spontaneous casting.
PF did not overrate it. They were well aware of the wizard's power over the sorcerer, but part of the appeal and marketing plan was backward compatibility with 3.5, so they could only change so much if they wanted to bring the 3.5 crowd over. Some things they could have changed more, but it is hard to tell at times what they could and could not get away with.
When it says an new ability replaces an original ability that is gained at level X you get the new ability at the same level you would have gotten the original ability at.
As an example if I say ____ replaces the 8th level rogue talent then I get the ability at level 8 in place of the rogue talent I would normally get to select.
Yeah they should have specified that you get it at 8th level since most archetypes spell it out, but it is just an oversight. It does need to errata's however so FAQ'ing it is not a bad idea, if for no other reason than to maintain consistency.
The witch is not broken. It can be annoying for a GM that likes to use single creature encounters though, due to sleep and evil eye. As for knowing every first level spell it is possible, but he has to pay for the spells, just like a wizard would.
Robert Brookes wrote:
Nice.. I like it. :)
It is not so much that it has a per day limit, but it does have a restriction based on you needing LoH to activate it.
So if you can find a way to recharge your LOH before the end of the day you could use it again.
you can expend all of your remaining uses of lay on hands to deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per use of lay on hands expended + your Charisma bonus.
What happens when you spend all of your LOH's?
You deal extra damage equal to "1d6 per use of lay on hands expended + your Charisma bonus."
The ability does not separate the two. There is no comma or other grammatical structuring to support the LOH damage and the charisma damage being seperate.
So unless it is stated otherwise it is all or nothing.
Now if the feat said "You deal extra damage equal to your Charisma bonus, and in addition if you expend all of your LOH's you also deal additional damage equal to 1d6 per use of lay on hands expended" then the OP might have a valid case.
However it is not written like that.
With that aside you already know they plan to clarify some things about stealth so this is kind of pointless. Just wait until they give their answer, and if they miss anything we can ask them about that. More than likely it will be in a blog, like they did for poisons. When they do these blogs they generally stick around to answer other questions.
Since your 4 questions are at the root of stealth and invis they have to be answered anyway.
1. It is not really that bad, and that is coming from one of the man poeple you see debating here. Don't confuse tableplay with theory crafting on the boards, and difference in playstule, which is mostly what a lot of the debates amount to.
2. They are not getting updated, and they do work fine in games. Them not working is not an issue until you get to much higher levels. People just want them to be able to do more, but that "doing more" is not an issue until you get a high level of system mastery. Before that you won't notice the problems.
PS: Some people never get to that level of system mastery, and that is not exactly a bad thing.
PS2: Many people's system mastery is nowhere near as good as they think it is. So take some of the quotes with a grain of salt, unless it is backed by hard data.
As for 3 I think it depends on how the author meant for it to work. It could be one affect that kills them and immediately bring them back to life meaning it should work as a simultaneous affect.
On the other hand it could be intended as two effects in one ability that kills them, and then brings them back to life.
Note that my second explanation has a comma.
So the question is does it "kills them and...." or does it "kills them, and..".
As written it has not comma so it is all one affect. As an example if I have an effect/spell/etc that kills you and brings you back as a vampire, but you are immune to ever becoming a vampire I can see the argument that the spell/effect/etc fails to work.
Also from the way I am reading it the reincarnation spell is not cast. It is just being referenced so you know how the ability works.
PS:I am not sure about how this is supposed to work so I did FAQ it. The lack of a comma may have been a grammatical error.
So, while wearing this item on my face, there should be no hindrance in using it with either Spellstrike or Spell Combat?
No. All the rod does is supply the feat, so if the item in question just supplies the metamagic feat it won't be an issue.
Not related to the thread-->I still can't find the item and I checked the PRD and PFSRD. What book is it in?
So let's look at Rod Wielder.
Rod Wielder (Su): The magus adds his Intelligence bonus (minimum 0) on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance when using a spell contained within a rod or when making a spellstrike attack channeled through a rod.
It refers to spellstrike and attacks channeled through rods.
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
Now we know spellstrike only delivers spells through weapons, and it never calls out metamagic rods which are not weapons anyway, but are there rods that are weapons?
Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs due to their hardy construction.) These sturdy items have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27.
So some rods are weapons and some are not, depending on their description.
We know that some rods are weapons, but they are called out.
Conclusion: So rod wielder works with rods that contain spells or rods(those that are weapons) used with spellstrike to deliver spells.
Now since there is no rule exception that allows for non-weapons to be used with spell strike and no rule exception allowing the metamagic rod to suddenly be used as a weapon the rod weilder ability should not apply to metamagic rod.
What face slot item works like a rod?
The rules never say the metamagic rod stores the spell or delivers the spell.
As you can see the metamagic rods don't mention channeling. Only the magus does so the question should not be how metamagic rods work.
The question should be how does the magus ability "Rod wielder" work.
The spell would make it too easy to destroy things and the game has rules on sunder. That makes me believe the RAI is to target the target not his equipment.
Since there are no rules for targeting worn equipment with spells unless the spell in question says you can, it seems to me that you can not.
I would, but only because I the way Golarion is done is to make it so that the amount of canonism is not that much, and a lot of it is left to the GM as to where his Golarion is on the timeline.
With that aside having the notice DC be 10 points lower than the perception DC to be pinpointed seems like a better idea.
Get rid of the DC 20 to notice rule.
If some guy clunking around in armor requires a DC 21 to be pinpointed, then the DC to notice him would only be an 11.
Get rid of the notice rule altogether.
That is not the entire quote.
Considerable confusion often arises regarding how difficult a Spot check to notice or locate an invisible thing is; the latter is much harder than most people realize. That's because the basic Spot DCs noted in the Dungeon Master's Guide are for merely noticing that there's something unseen somewhere within 30 feet. The DC for actually pinpointing an invisible thing's location so that you know where to aim an attack is 20 points higher.
It is not saying the pinpoint DC is always 20 points higher. It was just explaining the difference between the DMG which only gave the notice DC, and the perception DC due t confusion that was caused.
In short it is 20 points higher to pintpoint than the DMG DC's. That is all it is saying.
It has nothing to do with being aware of the rules than knowing the effort a full attack takes. The coup de grace is nothing more than a carefully lined up shot to a vital area. It makes sense that it would take more time than a standard swing, and also increase the chance of death.
If I take 3 swings at you with an dagger or I line up one shot to try to cut an artery, the one shot is more likely to kill you.
There are some who sprout there opinion as facts there so if you word it as a fact, then it will be viewed that way.
So now you have 2 options, you can stop wording your opinions as facts or you can accept that every time you do someone will take it as you stating a fact and speak against it.
I'll give one more example. :)
"Wakdown goes into example but I will cut it down to make room to answer his questions
It depends on John. I have known a few Johns that would be upset or at least less than happy if I allows them to live so I can YES to this question. The John's you play with may thank you for allowing them to live. In short it will vary by player.
It is not personal at all, and ghouls are smart, or at least no dumb. Why do people keep forgetting that?If they try to drag him off his buddies will lose action economy, and they might die. The his "food's" friends will most likely kill him before he enjoys his meal. It is more logical to kill all of the PC's except one, and once they paralyze the last one, they can eat him alive. :)
My john's do for the most part, and when I am John I except my PC's fate with no hard feelings. Now it is not that I don't care about my PC, but I know that victory and a long life are far from a given, and that any day on the field of battle may be his last. In the end my sacrifice will have most likely saved many others. Hopefully someone else(the new PC) can step into my shoes and continue the fight. Having died with valor, while staring evil in the face is an end that one would rather endure, but it is not something any PC of mine will ever be ashamed of.
I'd suggest the folks asking these questions aren't playing with a GM they've known 20 years, because... well, folks who have been gaming together for 20 years don't usually second-guess their GM.
Most people are surprised to know that ghouls are more intelligent than the average person. I first came across this exact question over 5 years ago in the WotC forums. I was surprised myself, but upon checking the ghoul's stats Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 14, I had to say the wisdom alone, which accounts for awareness would support the coup de grace, so it is not a question of questioning a GM. It is a question of "would NPC X realistically do _____".
You are assuming we don't know the players well enough. With that aside I don't have to know you well in order to allow your PC to die. Now I generally don't do that on the first session, but I do try to give an impression of how combat can go at times. That way you know the words in my GM campaign guide about allowing you to die are not just words. From there you(the player) can decide if this is a game you want to play in. I know my games are not for everyone, but neither are games where the GM holds back. I have played under a GM that refused to allow anyone to die, and while I think he was a nice guy, it was a boring series of sessions. I specifically game him permission to kill my character, even if he allowed the others to live, but he just couldn't do it.
It is neither better or worse to coup de grace. It is better to game with those of a like-mind however so the coup de grace, and other SoD affects don't cause an issue.
PS:Now if a group really insisted on no SoD affects then I might take them off the table completely.
Aranthos you have just been called out. I think he indirectly just said "post a build or go home".
How don't the spot checks match up with PF? If I missed something let me know what it is. Every thing I have quoted with reference to spot has matched up.
Dr Grecko wrote:
It is not about "my" argument. I use the numbers that translated across editions of the game. I don't care what RAW is. If RAW does not make sense I will just houserule it, so I have no real need to be right.
The wording in the invis(PF) matches the spot checks, since PF does not have them seperated we have to go by what we have.
3.5 gave you the option of the spot or listen chick so even meeting the lower DC would work. That lower DC is what you should expect to see in PF.
Yes, but my thought is that the distinction may come in having it be a WILLING transformation, it says "has been turned undead" in my mind that is an unwilling transformation by another, like when a skeleton is raised. It's more f a philisophical question than a rules one.
You can be turned dead by voluntary or involuntary means. Even from a non-rules perspective I don't see why it could not work if you wanted to return to life.
As an example you could allow your vampire friend to turn you. That counts as willing to me, and you would be more perma-destroyed than if you were turned against your will.
Maybe after living as a vampire you really hate it, just as much as if you had been forced to be one.
I knew you were going to say that. I am saying it is pointless to an extent. That does not mean it won't be entertaining.
PS:I also said it might have a use since the new classes were not in the old discussion.. :)