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

35,717 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 35,717 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizards casting from a rod is not a spontaneous caster. The rod does not change that. The spell is still prepared even if the wizard used a rod to modify the spell.

PS: I am not arguing what is fair, but what the rules is. In fairness the spontaneous casters were assumed to get more out of metamagic rules than they actually get, and the rules never changed when PF came into existence after 3.5.

I hate how fragile 1st level characters are so I am taking the hit point rule for first level characters from 4th edition or Star Wars Saga. Either will do.

I am splitting stealth back into hide and move silently from 3.5

I am changing perception into listen and spot(now controls search) from 3.5

I see no reason why it wouldn't work. The spell is being used from a wand, and it works just as if it had come from a caster directy.

The weight is not a factor. He might be thinking of how he thinks it should work in real life, but no rules support his stance.

Here is how it goes for this case.

The penalty will be -4 for the main hand, and -8 for the offhand. The chart supports this.

The rules state that having a weapon in the main(primary) hand and one in the offhand causes the penalty. It never calls out one-handed or light weapons so that means both are penalized. They never say that "only one-handed weapons" cause a penalty when in the primary hand.

In order for your friend to be right that would have to be the rule.

Also read this official 3.5 blog on the topic from their top rules designer at the time.

The writeup is not bad. With the spells it should be useful.

I would give the monster innate class levels like dragons and some of the good outsiders have. That way you get the casting, and you don't have to bother messing with the hit die.

As long as you cast more support and utility like spells, then the NPC won't steal the party's thunder.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually think stealth should go back to move silently and hide.

I also think perception should go back to listen and spot(this can also include search).

Part of the problem with the stealth rules is that they dont differentiate between which modiers are sound based and which ones are skilled based.

Example: An invisible person in the same room is harder to detect than a non-invisible person behind a wall in another room even though I can see neither one. For all that it matters both of them are invisible.

The rocket does not allow for iterative attacks so Snowblind and CWheezy are correct.

Is the question resolved?

Remove the "ally" FAQ
Remove the "manisfestations" FAQ
Remove the "take 10" FAQ.
Remove any future versions unless they are more detailed enough that at least 90% of the board understand the intent how to apply them to the game and/or errata is supplied that makes them more clear.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Well, yes but another example of a time it's told to me the most is when I am looking for advice on how to balance something in my own games that I have created or such, and even after I make this intent clear (more so lately), someone will usually tell me to ask my GM... it's like... didn't I just say that I am the GM looking for advice and opinions?

Sometimes people just jump to the newest comment, and/or they don't really read what you said. The number of times I have had to repeat something, especially in long conversations is astounding.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it annoying sometimes too, but there are things the rules don't cover, and situations where the poster is trying to use something "not as intended". In those cases the GM is the best one to ask.

It is situational for me⬅⬅ TLDR

Since at least December of last year since it was mentioned on this post.

click here

Claxon wrote:

The initial reflex save of the spell is not for the cold damage, it's to avoid be encased in the ice.

So the Dazing effect would be negated with a will save.

While I don't think it's balanced, the effect would occur every time the creature is damaged (which is every round).

This is about like using a Dazing Flaming Sphere.

The ultimate point here is that Dazing Spell is the most overpowered metamagic ever, and GMs should really have a discussion with their players about what it does to the game and why it isn't a lot of fun (for the GM and other players).

I agree. I misread the spell the before.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't really rise up so there should be no crushing. You should appear in the place you stood before the pit spell, but two things can't occupy the same space.

The teleport spell pushes you into the next open space, but you take damage. There is no rule for this situation because the rules don't cover every possible situation, so I would use the teleportation rule.

There are no rules for crushing at all so that is 100% on the GM if he wishes to decide which gives way between a person and a wall of force. I think the wall of force would win, if it were an actual force. It is more durable than a wall of stone, and I dont see a person winning against a wall of stone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:

I´m wondering quite often what some people from the U.S. seem to find offensive and what they are perfectly fine with.

It depends on the person. Some people get mad just because you disagree with them, and them find another reason/excuse to use for them being upset.

Basically no matter what you do or say here someone will almost always be offended by it.

Even once they understand your intent they still complain.

Sometimes you just have to realize no amount of talking to them will make things better.

I think the intent would be to save once, not every round. The save for the damage should be a will save in my opinion, since the reflex save is for something entirely different.

I really think this is something that there is no actual rule for since it is a corner case, but that is how I would run it.

RAW did not give me enough info to make a "read by robot" statement so I just gave my interpretation of what I thought the PDT would say.

edit: After reading again since it says "When a creature takes damage from this spell.." then that would mean every time the spell does damage the save would be made<----- most literal interpretation

Cerwin wrote:
I know that disguise checks are supposed to be rolled in secret by the GM, what other skill checks would be reasonable for a GM to roll behind the screen to prevent metagaming?

perception, sense motive, knowledge checks, spellcraft to create magical item in case it is cursed.

With that aside there are many times a player can have conditional modifiers so unless the players have a problem metagaming, and you really have no other solution I would not tack on the extra work.

MMCJawa wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I really do wish we had emoticons here.<---serious comment.

I know we can do the :) and :( among others, but many people dont know what all of them mean.

It would make it easier to for people to note when they are being angry, just joking, and so on.

True, but I see that abused as well on other forums (example: posting something really offensive but then including a smily at the end, as if that excuses the previously written comment).

That is fine. When someone says something like "You are a moron", and put a smiley face at the end the the mods just ban you for a few days.

After enough bans, they just get perma-banned.

That is a self correcting problem.

I really do wish we had emoticons here.<---serious comment.

I know we can do the :) and :( among others, but many people dont know what all of them mean.

It would make it easier to for people to note when they are being angry, just joking, and so on.

WormysQueue wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cheers. I don't think I've ever seen that happen - I can see it's a theoretical possibility, but I've never seen anyone claim offense where I didn't really believe they were offended.

Oh, I've had pointed out to me more than once that sometimes my posts are felt as being offensive when the only thing I try to do is to be as concise and exact as possible. And when I asked what exactly I had done wrong, the only answer was that the offended people got the vibe from my post that I was too convinced that I was right.

Which is why I normally try to be extra careful not to speak in absolutes but that (and other things happening here in Germany) is also why I don't share JJ's sentiment that only the people feeling offended have the right to define what's an offense and what's not. Because I see some of them use this on a daily basis to try and shut you down.

I think this is excellent advice. If there's nobody replying to the "fake offendee" then I think the tactic will be pretty transparent.
Problem being that now the "fake offendee" might feel offended by getting ignored by you. :) Still, probably the best thing one can do.

Next time I accidently offend someone I will explain what I meant. If they get my point, but dont like how I said it, that is enough for me. Some people read too much into things, and it doesn't help that text does not carry emotion well.

Thomas Seitz wrote:
I thought you were a guy. I was informed otherwise. I apologize. How may I make restitution?

I didn't know either. I have only seen women called Chris as a short version of Crissy or Christine. If it was a female as their full name I always saw it spelled as "Kris". I guess even old wraiths like me can learn new things.

Ascalaphus wrote:
I thought Wall of Force had to be vertical?

That is correct. For some reason I thought the spell gave more leeway with the orientation of the wall, but it seems that I was incorrect.

What is the primary purpose of the NPC? Basically if you were adding a new party member what would you want his role to be?

Has the monster been introduced to the party yet?

If not, I would not focus on it being a specific monster unless there is a story reason for it.

Those are not spells being cast so I would say no.

Lazlo.Arcadia consistency is important for immersion. Many GM's try to let players know there is no floating PC tag over their head. If they do something stupid they go to jail just like an NPC would, and when it comes to feats and spell they are normally held to the same rules. If the PC's just get to ignore random rules it can hurt the story more than it helps it.

Anguish wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Ability score damage does not lower your score. It just provides a penalty. Ability drain lowers your score.

Feeblemind also does not do ability damage. It just flat out reduces your ability score to a certain number.

Technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. But also unhelpful (which is out of character for you, wraithstrike). Metaphorically, you have just interrupted a chess match to correct a participant's posture.

It actually affects the game. That is why I spoke up.

If you hit me with ability damage my spellcasting with regard to being able to cast a level 4 spell, as an example, is not affect.

If it had been an issue of only semantics, and ability damage actually stopped you from being able to cast spells of a certain level then I would have stayed quiet.

Chess Pwn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Player: Well Jason said I can change my breathing. You can't actually see breathing so no spellcraft.

GM:But the FAQ says use the artwork.

Player: That was a suggestion, not an absolute rule. Show me where it says it must be that way.

It doesn't matter if the manifestations are a fireworks show or a change of breathing. The rule is, currently, that they are equally visible. That whatever your manifestation is its mechanically equivalent to a different manifestation.

Hence the issue with invisibility and the like because its not exolicitly clear how manifestations act with these rules. And people really like having mechanical issues be constant

You do know that was a hypothetical situation created only to make a point right?

Ability score damage does not lower your score. It just provides a penalty. Ability drain lowers your score.

Feeblemind also does not do ability damage. It just flat out reduces your ability score to a certain number.

VRMH wrote:
Maybe it has already been mentioned, but the Dawnflower Dissident's Secret Caster ability doesn't work under the new ruling: it's an automatic failure when the "Spell has an observable effect that clearly emanates from the caster". Which apparently has always been the case.

That will need an FAQ also, so it can be fixed then. This FAQ ruling is going to lead to a few erratas it seems. Someone else mentioned feats that it affected.

That could depend on the form the animal ha. There is no exhaustive list. If the form can perform the feat he should be able to take it. There is no physical restriction on this feat so it should be ok.

The rules do not cover this so you will have to ah-hoc the CR. The rules tell you how to add class level, but not swap them for racial HD.

I would build the monster and then compare it to a the monster chart for creating monsters, and keep in mind how it compares to monsters in the bestiaries.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It basically acts like a hand, and it is a part of armor(but primarily a weapon), but not armor by itself so it has no negative impact on casting.

Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".

Yeah it does. If you can see a spell being cast, you can identify it. Manifestations are merely an answer to 'how can you see a spell with no components?'
Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.

You'd have to be pretty obtuse to not make that connection.

Per RAW it never says they have to be sight based. I don't think that is the intent to do non-sight based ones as of the FAQ, but the lack of clarification is why I am avoiding this rule until they spell everything out. It's not worth the trouble with a "by the book" person.

Player: Well Jason said I can change my breathing. You can't actually see breathing so no spellcraft.

GM:But the FAQ says use the artwork.

Player: That was a suggestion, not an absolute rule. Show me where it says it must be that way.
That is similar to the problem you are having now for enforcing a partially made ruling.

You might want to talk to your group about how to handle rulings with holes in them. That is all of the real advice I can give you.

Sometimes waiting is betting than pushing the new rule on the group immediately.

Ok, I was being extraordinarily difficult, but I still think that we need an explanation on how they work. Do I need line of sight to the caster? Can the manifestations be audible? As pointed out by myself in another thread, nothing says they have to be visible, and Jason's old post said a change in breathing counts.

Honestly I see this as new rule due to the psychic magic, otherwise the lead developer's original ideas would still apply. However with the FAQ not really defining anything it is legal to have a manifestation that can not be seen(in several ways), and therefore not satisfy spellcraft.

RAW: The FAQ is so wide open that there are ways to get around the intent. There are examples in the other thread so there is no need to repeat them here.

My opinion of what RAI is: The idea is to have a visible element, but I don't think they will let it trump being invisible in any way at all.
With regard to spellcraft and a player getting a check, much like perception checks to notice things they are pretty much automatic. It's not like looking for a trap, which is something you have to actively do.

Now of course you are free to disagree with the automatic spellcraft check, but I have no problem creating an FAQ for that also.

Yidhra, Goddess of Paradoxes wrote:

Okay, then. I'm glad we're all clear on this.

I'm glad you agree with me.

That's not the entirety of my argument. Part of it was already explained. He has done nothing to define exactly how manifestations work, which matters. There is also the issue of "seeing a spell" and what thar means.

Squiggit wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.

What's there to prove? How spellcraft works?

spellcraft wrote:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

What the FAQ itself says?

Question wrote:
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell?
Answer wrote:
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball.
This all seems pretty straight forward to me, so can you be more specific about which part you're finding objectionable?

I saw no proof that noticing equals free spellcraft.

You are assuming that seeing a spell being cast equals see the manifestation.
The FAQ exist to prevent casting in plain sight. It never says it counts for spellcraft. It might be the case, but I am saying there is no direct correlation written in specific terms. Since RD plays by RAW inference shouldn't count.

Ravingdork wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".

Yeah it does. If you can see a spell being cast, you can identify it. Manifestations are merely an answer to 'how can you see a spell with no components?'

Prove it.

Squiggit wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".

Yeah it does. If you can see a spell being cast, you can identify it. Manifestations are merely an answer to 'how can you see a spell with no components?'

Prove that the entirety of your statement is true. So far nobody has been able to do so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do we have an expected date for the next FAQ's? If that is today then feel free to skip this message. :)

If you don't want to tip your hand then also feel free to skip this message.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Mark it seems as if we need an in depth blog on stealth. I know the rules were updated/clarified in Ultimate Intrigue, but there is still a lot of confusion.

How can the community specifically ask for a blog similar to the blog on poison, which has examples for people to go by?

I am opposed to asking specific questions, because it will lead to another question, which might take months or longer to get an answer, and it probably better to just handle it(as much as possible) all in one go.

I am overall enchanted by the idea of blogs that handle complex issues with many subquestions, but as the guy who got excited and drafted roughs for several different blog topics in March 2015, I can tell you that you might be more likely to get results, albeit incremental as you say, from specific questions. The trouble is that blogs are long and have a lot of decision/discussion points, so vetting them through the FAQ approval process is challenging, even when I provide a draft, since it takes so much time from everyone involved, and time that their schedules may not allow, even if I can shave off a half-hour for a single question FAQ.

All that said, for ease of reference and explanation, I prefer blogs as well when the situation calls for them.

Noted. :)

Snowlilly wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
There was never any hint of manifestations in 3.x or Pathfinder.

There was a 3.0 Forgotten Realms specific feat that allowed a caster to customize the observable manifestation of his spells.

The mechanical benefit was an increased difficulty to spellcraft checks to identify the spell.

The non-mechanical benefit: I could define spell manifestations as my character drawing runes of black fire floating in the air as he cast his spell. Pathfinder not having this feat means I don't need to pay a feat tax to assign thematic properties to my spells. The manifestations are always present, but I get to choose how they manifest without paying extra.

Artwork depicting spellcasting as having a visual manifestation has been consistent from present day all the way back to 1st edition.

I think I know the feat because it came up in another discussion. If it is the feat I am thinking of it also does not mention manisfestations, and it has an actual mechanical benefit.

Basically you choose a theme, and spell you cast that you think of a thematically linked visual noticable effect can be affected by the feat.

Basically it was up to the player to come up with something if he cast a spell such as haste which unlike fireball has no automatic visual effect attached to it.

The benefit of the feat was that the ability to spellcraft your spell increased by 4.

It doesn't say that anything about manifestations being there if the spell would not automatically have a known visual effect though.

When I said manifestations were not a thing in 3.X I was saying there was no reference with regard to the general rules for spells having manisfestations.

I was not including the appearance of the fireball in the fireball spell, as a manifestation which this feat from 3.X does.

In Pathfinder the manifestation itself is separate from the fireball itself.

Ravingdork there is nothing in that FAQ about being able to spellcraft based on manifestations. The FAQ is only for the purpose of noticing a spell taking place. If that is you wish to run the game then just make it a houserule, but there is no real rule for what you proposed.

Noticing a spell is being cast does not mean "I get to identify it".

Quantum Steve wrote:

In short, the FAQ isn't a rule change. The FAQ is unclear as to how it effects the game mechanics only because it doesn't effect them at all.

It isn't a rules change yet because there is no "this is exactly how it works" language. That is why I worded the comment the way I did.

If they say something like "manifestations appear and give away your location even when invisible" that would be a change.

The question is will they keep the idea that the "something that is noticable" will still be something like your breathing rate changing, or something more like fireworks that shows up even when invisible. The 2nd part is will these fireworks give away your square if they exist.

PS: fireworks is a reference to glyphs or any other "light show".

PS2: I agree that there is no official rules change yet, but I think people are talking about the potential rules change when this is clarified.

voideternal wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

For those saying you can rake, and the release the grapple as a free action do you think that is what the PDT would say if they weighed in right now, or are you just saying "intent doesn't matter, only the words do"?

I am asking because many times one side is arguing how they think the rules are intended to work, and the other side is knows the intent, but they are arguing what the book says.

Seeing the Lion can rake rake bite claw claw + initiate grapple on the initial turn pounce, I don't see what's wrong with the Lion rake rake let-go-of-grapple full-attack bite claw claw + initiate grapple on the following turns.

So which side of my question do you fall on?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
If the PDT follows true to form over the last couple of years the answer is "whatever will cause the biggest nerf, regardless of the words."

So your answer is ?????

Once again for Steve

"This FAQ isn't a rule change. If the devs go ahead and attach mechanics to the fluff of manifestations, that would be a rule change, but the devs haven't done this yet. All the FAQ does is make clear that you can identify, interrupt with a readied action, counter, take an AoO, and otherwise notice when someone is casting."

My reply is really a copy and paste from what you replied to, and that is below

Copy and paste: "It's a rules change depending on how they finalize it."

That means that people are waiting for more clarification, and that clarification will determine if the FAQ is a rules change or not.

You misunderstood a few other things also, but those can be understood if you choose to go to the link I gave you in my above post.

I know the artwork does not refer to glyphs. That was an example based on the FAQ.
Also if you had been following the topic which spilled over from another post you would know the artwork is what many are proposing has to happen*. No, I am not saying anyone said it has to look exactly like the artwork. They are saying that even while invisible these manisfestations show up. I didn't feel like rewriting all of the arguments because this has been going on for over a week so I figured any normal posters had been familiar with it.

Click here for more background info

*No, I am not accusing you of anything. It is just me saying this may be why you do not know why I said what I said without going into more detail.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Just another case of Paizo inheriting something from 3.5 and not everything crossing over well.

Edit: Even worse, a change that brought more ambiguity.

3.5 Adamantine Golem wrote:


An adamantine golem’s body is sculpted from 45,000 pounds of pure iron and is then polymorphed into adamantine (using wish).

I like the 3.5 construction rule description better. It was an adamantine golem that was more than 5% adamantine. It also would have gotten rid of Paizo's flavor text that tried to limit how much adamantine was on the planet before someone had to travel to another planet or plane to get the rest of it.

1 to 50 of 35,717 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.