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

33,877 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 33,877 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Assuming we are saying that the PFS rules were the standard game I would not have played Pathfinder if it stopped at level 12, since I was used to 3.5. That rule alone to me would have hindered the game. I know everyone does not like going all the way to 20, but most people I have ran games for and played with like to at least see level 17.

There are other things that I don't agree with about PFS, if it were to stand in for the current rules, but I think it is clear that my answer is "no".

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Wraithstrike wrote:
Wrath of the righteous?

I suppose, although the entry for Wrath of the Righteous City of Locusts (book 6) says level 18 with Mythic Rank 9 (I don't have the actual AP, so maybe they mean you go in at this level and come out level 20 with Mythic Rank 10). On the other hand, Mythic throws a monkey wrench into the consideration: Not being in PFS myself, I can't be absolutely sure, but I don't think PFS allows Mythic either (although that's probably a GOOD thing).

I thought it actually went to 20 by the end of the book. I dont own the book so I can't verify it.

HWalsh wrote:

To put it into greater perspective:

The party should face an average of 4 encounters per adventuring day, sometimes higher if some are easier than others. Usually I find 4-6 is around the sweet spot.

If your party of 4 level 10s, comes across a single CR 10 enemy, then your party should burn around 20% of their resources defeating it. If your party comes across a level 10 and steam rolls it in 1 round... Which if all of your party is optimized as per the pre-discussed Barbarian will happen... Then your party is operating at a level of ability and efficiency way above what is expected.

That isn't the baseline.

Which is the point.

Its FINE to play in a high powered game. There is nothing wrong with it. It is wrong to not realize though that those games aren't the baseline or the intended baseline.

The games says you should face 4 encounters per day at APL=CR, but as you level up you can actually take on more encounters so that 4 encounters does not really hold up. This varies based on the actual build, and the player's ability to make good choices.

Also on your post post about optimized characters who suck at everything except for one thing you were actually describing what we call hyper-specialized characters who are only built to do one thing well. You can be optimized for your primary role, and still do other things well. That way if you have to make a perception check as an example, you will still do be competent.

As for magic items CL has nothing to do with the value of a magic item. The restriction is based on price. As an example pearls of power have a CL of 20, but some items which are much more useful have lower caster levels.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Making PFS rules the default rules for Pathfinder would have a practical problem: All of the APs (except perhaps for Council of Thieves) would have to be redesigned, because the PFS level cap of 12 is less than the level you are supposed to have when approaching the end of the AP (even though we currently have no Paizo AP that goes all the way to level 20 without modification).

Wrath of the righteous?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. I like that Paizo has rules that cover a lot of things so we all know what to expect, but I also like that every group can ignore the rules they don't care for. <----for the sake of my answer I will pretend Paizo could actually somehow control your home game or take away your GM power. I am assuming it is possible to strip a PFS GM of GM'ing authority if he just blatently ignores the PFS rules.

Zenogu wrote:

Actually, yes. Shaken/Frighten effects stack unless the ability used says they don't.

On a slightly related note, do fatigue effects stack into exhaustion? And sicken into Nauseated?

Nope sicken and nauseated are there own conditions, just like dazed and stunned are.

Fatigued can lead to exhaustion, but not by applying fatigue twice. If you are fatigued and continue to take actions that would make you fatigued then you can become exhausted.

Paulicus wrote:

Any weapon can do it by using it as an improvised weapon, though it's not ideal.

The whip can be used anywhere out to 15 feet, and can threaten out to 10 feet with some whip master feats.

There is a fighter archetype that allows this with the -4 penalty. You can just change the reach of a weapon by saying its improvised.

The rules assume the rider has a humanoid shape. Once you step outside the norms it falls to the GM.

Taja the Barbarian wrote:
noble peasant wrote:
There's a bit in the charge section that says if you are limited to a standard action on your turn you can charge but can't move double your speed, so can I ready an action to do this type of charge??

No, you are not actually 'restricted' to a standard action for the round: Otherwise, characters could 'charge around corners' by taking a move to get properly lined up, then take a 'partial charge' because they only have a standard action left.

Technically, if you were slowed, you could ready a partial charge, but that is silly enough that I'd expect a GM to just say no.

You can't move twice in the same round so that won't work anyway.

An FAQ only covers exactly what it covers. Granting an exception to the Magus does not grant an exception to similar situations. If we want a more general ruling we can ask about asking for one, but they might avoid allowing it in case they have some strange ability that is similar to a full attack, but they still do not want haste applied to.

Goddity wrote:
Well, I for one really like the idea. I will totally link back here. Good on you, it needed to be said.

You can refer back to it, but nobody will care because many of his points are wrong. I think he should have stuck with something general such as don't use extremes/corner cases because they make your argument look weak. The same people who go to extremes will be the ones picking about the weak points in his argument. People taking things to extremes and making terrible debate points has been mentioned before. All that happens is that they normally double down on their point, and "have no idea" that their point is a corner case or extreme.

That does not make the answer "useless". It might mean some people will ask more questions, beyond the scope of the original FAQ, but that does not make the answer "useless."

Useless means it is of no use to anyone, or it has NO value. However that is not the case.

Many rulings can be asked to be broken down further given the proper corner cases to include some FAQ's that are in place now with more questions generated from them, or questions that will come later.

Also as I said before some things are not covered by the rules, and the GM will have to decide, especially since Paizo does not have the time to answer every possible question. However, Paizo not being able to answer every possible iteration of a rule does not qualify the other questions involving the rule or mechanic as invalid or useless.

It is useless to you. You have yet to state any proof as it(this potential FAQ) being useless objectively since it would at least be useful to whoever would be in this situation.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

These examples of a wizard replacing a rogue because of high int+spells are covered in several debates. People should not even bring uo certain topics and not be aware of what the counters will be. Maybe I will call that the "I have a selective memory" fallacy, or the "I didn't do my homework(research)" fallacy.

There is no reason why it has to be bad. FAQs only cover specifically what they ask. Also, one reason why people play is because this system has definite rulings. It in no way diminshes the power of thr GM. All he has to do is be clear on whar his house rules are, or state up front that he plays loosely with the rules. There are many groups that enjoy that style of play.

Chess Pwn wrote:
he does mind sharing. If we know what's on top we can go and FAQ it more to make third go to first, or first go from 75 to 200. Or we can try to band onto another that's not listed. Basically they don't want to skew the FAQ process. People will FAQ things other's FAQ.

He used to tell us before the FAQ's got put on hold a few month's ago. Do you have a post saying his position has changed?

The rules do not cover every situation. This is one of them. I will press the FAQ button.

I don't know who made this thread, but it is silly. It does not mean you are silly, but we know how this works.


The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies.
split by me to show both parts of the bolded section
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

The first part is saying the ammo actually takes on the actual enhancement if the weapon has a higher enhancement. That is what "applies" is referring to.

The 2nd part is saying that it also overcomes damage reduction. Note that it does not limit the projectile to overcoming DR/Magic. It says the weapon is treated as magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming DR.

What do magic weapons of certain enhancement do? They overcome other types of DR.

The 2nd part is not redundant. They figured someone might try to argue that it(ammo) does the +5 to attack and damage but it won't overcome the appropriate DR because it is not a "weapon" in and of itselt. So they had to be clear that property would be passed on to the ammunition.

PS: No I am not hitting the FAQ button. All a dev needs to do is say Wraithstrike is right, and we can save the FAQ space for something that actually needs it.

It looks legit to me that it only affects mounts from a rules perspective, but otherwise its silly that having a rider keep it from flying. However with this being PFS the rule has to be followed.

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Gisher wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
Gauntlets are unarmed attacks, it lists them under the unarmed attack chart. Just make a gauntlet masterwork (and enchanted) and now you have a scaling magic item for unarmed attacks.
The Core Rulebook lists gauntlets as Unarmed Attacks. The more recently published Ultimate Equipment removed them from that list.

Why is it that all the simple work arounds have the dumbest of blocking, how hard is it to just fix that in a core book?

Also, just as you can get an adamantine grill for your bite attack, I would argue you *should* be able to use do the same with unarmed strikes (granted anything short of suiting up in armor will have only the slight change that the gauntlet already does).

Another example of them trying to be sure you don't use anything other than AoMF.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

I am not sure it works -
"non-masterwork item" - is an unarmed strike an item? is this actually a limitation - it's not fluff, but is it a restriction?

*sigh* This is where the "fluff V crunch" mentality really reveals how poisonously off-the-mark it is.

There is no such thing as "fluff." Everything is important. Everything is real. If you're not suspending disbelief and actually thinking in terms of "this is REAL" as opposed to "only the quantifiable parts of this matter and the rest is 'fluff' which I can ignore," then you don't understand the point of the game and cannot expect to play it or understand its rules (which are written by people who DON'T think in these terms) properly until you do.

Even designers differiniate between flavor and mechanics and have advocated changing the flavor for your own game. Thia is because flavor is mutable.

Ravingdork wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
So someone on the corner flanks with anyone on the two opposite sides.

Do you mean like this?

I don't think this would be true in the case of Medium creatures.

That's not flanking.

Lucerne Hammer might be worth it.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The point of overrun is to be able to go through someone's square and not be stopped. If you could only go to the next adjacent square the ability would be useless.

I hope that argument is not being presented as intent.

It's not the intent, clearly. It's the RAW answer as to how it works with how the rules are written.

Per RAW, the combat maneuver is useless and is actually broken and can't work. Per RAI, it works, but is quite pointless to bother using, given the headache here.

Clearly is not evident.

If thr PDT team were to make a ruling right now what do you think it would be.

A. Overrun allows you to keep going until your movement is expended

B. You can move one square beyond the overrun opponent⬅how I am viewing your interpretation, but feel free to correct me if I misunderstood

C. Other ruling

Also those other abilities don't have anything to do with overrun. They have their own reasons as to why they work like they do, that are defined,within thr rules. You can find a reason for stopping overrun because there is no wording. Yes I understand that sometimes the wording of the ruled does support intent, but I see no evidence to support your statement.

The point of overrun is to be able to go through someone's square and not be stopped. If you could only go to the next adjacent square the ability would be useless.

I hope that argument is not being presented as intent.

Edinoiz wrote:
Well, as SKR said, back in a thread from 2011 that I found after posting this one, "it works but it's not the way we intended for Monks to get Enhancement bonuses on their attacks"

That is what I was getting it, plus the other times Paizo has avoid letting the monk enhance unarmed strikes in other ways to include a slight rewording of the cestus in the ultimate equipment guide.

Basically, it works per the wording, but if someone FAQ's it they will likely have an FAQ saying it does not work especially since SKR listed design reasons(that I dont agree with) for the design team not wanting it to work.

That is why I keep saying he can use the wording or the intent, but if one is going is going to ignore intent in a home game then I would just houserule things like I do in my home games.

PS: If this is for PFS I would probably post it over there, and hope whoever is in charge of PFS speaks up. That would avoid table variation.

Edinoiz wrote:

Oh, I was going to use the above trick to get +5 fists and then have an amulet with the required enhancements (Shardong being one of them, THROW FIST!!!). End result for 4 limbs + Amulet would be 300k, but considering monk I would probably need to enhance more than just 4 (add Head for headbutts at least, maybe for elbows+knees, maybe for additional limbs, etc) so I'd be getting up to 400k gp and above rather quickly.

But yes, Sharding for THROW FIST! <.<

The AoMF affects all of their limbs so you would not have to pay extra for having more limbs, just like dragons greatly benefit from the AoMF with all of their natural attacks.

Monk's unarmed strikes are affect by spells that work on manufactured weapons, and natural attacks. That is why I said it technically works, however every time someone has found a possible work around to not using the AoMF(amulet of mighty fist) Paizo has made sure that it didnt work. At one time the cestus was worded to do monk damage, and it would have only worked on the fist, and they didnt like that idea either. One dev, even said the intent was for monk to go through the mighty fist.

That is why I said that you technically this probably works, but Paizo doesn't want it to work.

If you don't care about intent then I would just come up with some special monk wraps for their fist, and call it a day. At least they wont have to rely on a spellcaster in your game.

Antariuk wrote:

So in another forum we have a discussion about the darkness spell and whether or not it works as an emanation or a spread. There are people who believe that the effect is like an explosion of anti-light and that you can take cover, so to speak, by holding up your shield or whatever. And then there are people (I am one of them) who think it just instantly turns the light level in the affected area down without line of effect being a problem, so yes, darkness creeps around corners and what have you.

The problem I think is the spell's wording "causes an object to radiate darkness", which is really confusing.

Are there any official rulings on this, or a FAQ or another thread where people came to some sort of agreement? I'm not in desperate need to be proven right, but I am very interested in what the overall opinion here is.

If it is a spread it will be called out as one. If it is not called, then it is not a spread.


School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread

You can never hold up your shield to block line of affect from a radius affect, not matter if it is an emanation or not unless specifically stated by that spell.

However what I think should have been done is for them(Paizo) to use wording similar to the silence spell.


Area 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space

That is basically how darkness works except that it only works on objects.

Technically, but Paizo intends for you to use the amulet of mighty fist.
So the question for your group is which matters more, words or intent.

In this case I would just avoid alignments and let smite just work on infidels(those who had a very different outlook) as far as the pally was concerned. Spells such as protection from evil would also work the same way.

Another idea is to allow the smite to do less damage vs nonevil enemies.

Mark, do you have a list of the top 3 FAQ's likely to be answered next?
If so do you mind sharing?

2 of those sound like you have to actually be moving, even without me reading the full rules of the feats, so even that already sounds like a no. Even if they technically did a GM can put what he calls a reasonable limit on free actions. So either way it does not work.

Yes, all of them get to ignore DR. Even the basic(not mythic) paladin can share his smiting.

Also, I would advise not using a one boss/creature fight against a party, even if is only 4 of them.

As an example a CR 17 fight is more challenging if it is made of 1 CR 15 and 2 CR 13's. It stops the party from dogpiling onto one creature.

Mythic does amazing(for the PC's) things to their power level and the monsters don't get enough defenses to stand up to it.

My advice is to add more monsters per my above suggestion, and use max hit points if you are not already doing so for any monsters you have.

No you cant walk. You are gas and restricted to the fly speed.

I think things are fine. I don't come here for hot topics so I don't generally go to those sections. It is not difficult to "not click on a post". I have been "not clicking" for years.

Also what Covent said.

If you are a prepared caster such as a wizard or witch then you must prepared the metamagic version of the spell, and it will take up a higher level slot during preperation. When you use a spell as a prepared caster that spell is gone.


5th level empowered fireball(2)

4th level heightened fireball(1)

3rd level fireball(3)

In the situation above I have 3 normal fireballs, 1 heightened, and 2 empowered fireballs prepared. The metamagic ones are taking up higher level slots as you can see.

If I cast the heightened fireball of which I only prepared 1, then the other fireballs are still available because they are their own spells.

Spontaneous casters such as bards and sorcerors do not prepared spells.

6th level 4/day

5th level 4/day

4th level 5/day

3rd level 6/day

Now since the sorcerer has access to every spell he knows all the time he can does not run out of spells. He runs of out daily castings/slot per spell level.

So I can cast a normal fireball at least 6 times per day using the 3rd level slot assuming no other spell is cast.

Empowered fireballs take up a 5th level slot so I would have to use one of my 5th level slots to cast the empowered version. This would only burn one 5th level slot.

PS: The number of daily spells I listed is likely not accurate. I was just using them as an example of how the usage would go.

From a mechanical point of view I will say slayer, but what else you want to do besides fight with daggers also matters. Also what is your point buy or does your group roll for stats?

kinevon wrote:
Expect some table variation, but, if you had them on correctly when glitterdusted, you would get the bonus to the save. Putting them on after being affected by glitterdust, though, probably should not give the benefit, as you are trying to clear your eyes of the dust, effectively, rather than having additional sparkles continuing to blind you.

No, he would not get the save.

The goggles do not give you a +8 vs blinding effects. They give you a save vs things that a blind creature are immune to.

Since blind creatures are not immune to glitterdust the save does not apply.

Basically the goggles would not help you here.

The goggles do not grant immunity to anything, even when worn. They grant you a +8 saving throw bonus against an effect that a blind creature would be immune.

However being blind does not make you immune to glitterdust. It just means you don't have to save against the blinding affect because you are already blind. It is just like you can't be sickened if you are already sickened because nothing will else will happen. However you are still not immune to the sickened condition.

As aother example, glitterdust makes you blind for a limited time, but if there was another affect that could make you blind permanently such as the blindness/deafness spell you would still be subject to it. <---example of you not being immune just because you are blind.

Silver Surfer wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:

Which would be cool in a game where specialization was less rewarded than it is in party adventure style games but in Pathfinder generally being able to be almost as good as the wizard and almost as good as the cleric and almost as good as the fighter and almost as good as the which mostly just means what role to I pick to be sub-par in today.

The point is that the Shaman can be almost as good simultaneously in several classes

"Good" is subjective. Do you have any examples of how this could be "too much/OP" in a game?

Crimeo wrote:

I do think that step 2, however, is still extremely vague and confusing/undefined. That is, if you are an animal as a part of a temporary effect, are awakened, and then that temporary effect ends, what happens to you? Don't worry about what the effect is. Let's just say it's completely unrelated magical temporary animal type changing pixie dust for sake of argument.

If anybody has any further thoughts on THAT, and whether any rules might be relevant to it, I'd be happy to hear them. Not really interested in anything else, thanks, but definitely still interested in that.

Per the game RAI you never become an animal aka gain the animal creature type so the spell can never affect you.

Scenario 2--> If however one were to actually gain the creature type then we would have a rules contradiction and that would require an FAQ. My guess is that Paizo would say you the spell does not work on someone or something that is temporarily an animal.

If you want to speculate on what would happen if Paizo never chimed in on scenario number 2, then it falls on the GM, since some things are beyond the rules if they are overlooked or never thought of. So all we can do in those cases is speculate on what we think Paizo would do.

Yeah, I am saying the rules do not cover every possible scenario because players can get creative, and sometimes things just get overlooked.

Berti Blackfoot wrote:

My players all take the light armor proficiency for their ACs, if they didn't, I wouldn't let them wear armor. That's not screwing players, that's following the rules. (Warhorses with boarding are a different matter, for me at least)

Now if they wanted to buy mithral, I'd tell them before, or let them erase it and add the gold back.

Though I suppose, what the op is saying is certainly RAW

Actually you are not following the rules. The rules don't say you need feat X to wear armor. They just so you take penalties. The rules also allow for you to spend gold by lessening or eliminating those penalties. Saying "I don't like it is one thing", but saying "this is the rule" when it is not the rule is another thing altogether.

There is nothing wrong without houserules. Look at what section of the forums we are in, but don't pretend they are rules, just because you don't like the rule.

edit: I didn't know this started in the rules forum. In that case you were most definitely wrong.

DM_Blake wrote:

I bet you $50 that if you change your LARP rules to say that small edged weapons cannot destroy bows at all unless they strike the string, well, then you would see lots of bowstring sunders in your LARPing.

I remain unconvinced.

I think he is trying to say it would not happen enough to make it work trying because the difficulty is too great.

So it might be attempted a few times at first, but seeing how impractical it is, it would stop being tried.

Rambear wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Rambear wrote:
Wait. So you can argue that in pathfinder creatures cannot provide cover for themselves because that is in the rules, but you should defo do damage per square on an explosion because it is more realistic?
No, I'm actually arguing the opposite. But then like so many posters on these forums, you can't be bothered to actually read and parse what is being said, you're just focused on trying to "win" an argument.

I am not trying to win anything. Stop trying to guess about my motivations and do not attack me based on these presumptions. That is a rubbish argument (Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well, look it up).

All I have been trying to do is:

A) Show that in the context with this game it is not feasible to apply damage per square. Which you have more or less agreed to.

B) Try to argue that there are a a variety of factors to take into account if we would look at damage/square. Several have been named:

1) How tough is a bigger creature?
2) What percentage of a being is being affected?
3) Does the fact that a creature is very big and "provides cover" for itself have any effect. Say my monster is 15x15x15 feet. Even if every square is in the blast radius, the one in the middle would be inside the creature. What about the ones at the back of the creature?
4) AoE effects have a point of origin. For explosions, does closer or farther away affect the damage you take?
5) Should the damage be lessened for smaller beings? Or should the damage for an explosion be a set amount of damage for the blast area, divided by the amount of squares?. Make fireball 2d6/level, but divide that damage per square?

I do not claim to be an expert on matters of physics, nor on balancing RPGS. Hell, I am hardly an expert on anything really. I just wonder how you would envision this and how

P.S. Stay away from feigning outrage because people react in a certain way. You have acted outraged yourself, in my opinion for no reason. We are all adults here, and I try to...

Are you asking about the "actual rules" or are you wanting to discuss "why it would be a good or bad idea" to allow it?

edit: The quaterstaff allows it, and it is a wizard weapon so I dont see the issue with any other weapon.

Ignore my earlier wrongness. :)

Yeah it would be 100+10. There is a thread somewhere in the forums to submit prd typos.

Crimeo if your goal is to convince us the wording in the book is not "good enough" then you might as well agree to disagree. It is not going to happen.

If that is not your goal then you might want to let us know what it is.

Snowblind wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
^This is the problem right here. You call it "blatantly obvious" while nobody else here is doing so.

And it is.

I can do a poll if necessary of normal people without any context. Pretty sure that nearly 100% of people nort already pre-invested in a cultural tradition of playing D&D a certain way, or interested in playing by RAI (despite that specifically not being of interest here anymore) would agree.

Try it out with me. Throw up on your facebook: "If you are a human, and a magical spell changes you into a rabbit, are you a human after, or are you a rabbit?" with no additional information, comments, likes for certain answers, etc. See what happens....

This is the equivalent of asking a group of people "If I am playing a professional sport and another player punches me in the face repeatedly while in the middle of a competition match then they should be penalized heavily for it if not thrown out of the sport, right?" and then proclaiming "See, the opponent in my Mixed Martial Arts bout shouldn't have won, because people think that what my opponent did wasn't OK". It's a tad disingenuous, to say the least.

Another example of context that is great. :)

1 to 50 of 33,877 << 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.