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

33,415 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 33,415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

"Some" people look for exploits like I said. Those people dont change how they play. Also if a rule is made then its intended workings need to be known. All I am doing is saying "how is this supposed to work". It is no more of a problem than most other rules unless you have players trying to game the system, but that is a player problem not a rules problem. If they did not want a hard rule they can just make guidelines such as "we suggest not allowing characters to take 10 if they are threatened or distracted". Making an unclear rule is never beneficial. It promotes gotcha moments from GM's.

However it is a rule and your exploit idea is ancedotal evidence. I don't think most of us play with munchkins and those are the type who would exploit things if the GM allows it.

What I was saying above was that if they issue a guideline it should clearly state how they intended for it to work not just only be a suggestion.

As an example "as a guideline you can allow the player to take 10 even if the penalty leads to failure" is not as strong as "When we wrote the rule our idea was to allow PC's to take 10 even if it meant they had to experience penalties such as taking damage. However feel free to do as you wish for your own games". The 2nd quote would be acceptable to me. The first one would not.

I don't know why you linked the gamemastery guide.


If you are brand new to playing I would suggesting starting off with the module Crypt of the Everflame, then a few* more modules just to get the hang of some rules, and how PF adventures are written.

*how many is up to you of course.


ok. The saves, even with your bonus to stunning fist or quivering palm still seems to be reasonable. I somehow missed the qinnggong powers even though I was looking for them. That is the only thing on my watchlist since I dont know how good the monk(your version) is without them. When I am more awake I will take a more in depth look at it.


So we have an evil themed AP, a new bestiary, an occult bestiary, and a new class(vigilante).
Did I miss anything?


Vigilante makes me thing of someone like Batman or an action hero who takes the law into his own hands. Maybe the retired special ops guy who is forced out of retirement trope is a good example.

I would say they might have connections to shady people, be really tough, good in unarmed combat and with weapons, maybe they can use intimidate as if it is diplomacy. I dont know what else.


wraithstrike wrote:
Byakko wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Except you absolutely should, both for the example you gave and the several examples I gave. Furthermore, that's how the rules work.

Again, how many times do you see circus performers fail juggling while on stilts, or a tripwire? The DC may be higher, but I assure you, it's a routine take ten activity for them.

If you are disallowing take ten for large numbers of activities outside of combat, you ARE changing the mechanics.

Again, you are focusing too much on the specific example. The rules state that you can't take 10 if you are distracted. If you are simultaneously performing two difficult tasks requiring focus, it's reasonable that they are mutually distracting. This is not changing the rules.

wraithstrike: would you mind elaborating? My thoughts were meant as an aide to help decide when taking 10 is reasonable. I'm sure there will be many cases where the rules are fully specified and don't require a judgment call.

I misunderstood you but as for what is reasonable, that

Is something I don't care to hear about since it varies too much based on how someone interprets the intention of this rule. I understand judgement calls will likely still be needed even after this FAQ but something more concrete is the goal.

PS: That was not in an angry tone.

This terrible formatting is due to my phone now letting me use a spacebar to separate "that" from "is". So I used the enter button. On the phone it looked good but now I see it does not look good.


Trekkie90909 wrote:

@wraithstrike:

My thought here is that this shouldn't be a rules question. We have a separate book for Players and GMs for a reason. I agree there should be guidelines so that new GMs/Players have a resource to reference - that is why we have a GM guide/unchained (and likely future follow ups to unchained). It has no place in the CRB or any other rulebook though; a rule should not require everyone to create houserules to circumvent it in every campaign. Ideally houserules should be something you do on a campaign by campaign basis to provide additional flavor and add depth to a campaign. When they are not the system has critically failed.

I agree this is a topic which I'd like to see the design or dev team work on to some extent, possibly as a tie-in to the new skill unlock system in unchained or possibly just a rule of thumb regarding the CRs of natural hazards vs APL. It should be a resource aimed at GMs though, not a player exploit.

3.5 had a different book for players and GM's. Pathfinder doesn't, and without a rule the players don't know what to expect, and to many people think their playstyle is the default standard. It is written as a rule already, so unless we are saying get rid of the rule we should know what the devs intended. I would be happy with a guideline saying "we envisioned _____, however the GM is free to alter that". That way everyone knows the intent, but the GM's won't feel so bound to the rules. What I don't want is guidelines that are suggestions. and in no way let us know the purpose of a written rule. I can do that on my own. Players exploits only happen when GM's allow them to happen and if a player is the type to exploit one rule he is likely already exploiting others. I don't think giving a direct answer to this is going to cause a player to cheat, which is basically how I look at exploits.


From what I read you gave the monk its old will save back, and gave it more ki. The quiggong monk powers are also gone.

You also gave back the monk's core use of ki with:

Make one additional unarmed attack at his highest attack bonus when making a flurry of blows attack

Increase his speed by 20 feet for 1 minute

Give himself a +4 dodge bonus to AC.

Is that the extent of the changes? So far its good to me.


DrDeth wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
I expected the "cheat sheet" to be more dramatic and include some really awesome abilities. It appears to just be a handmade sheet created by a guy who makes a lot of spelling errors, doesn't edit things carefully, and might not fully understand stacking. Something like Hero Lab might be a good idea for such a player. I've seen some problems with Hero Lab created sheets too, but at least with those you might not have to worry so much about whether the player is making intentional "mistakes".
That's a good point. I may request to the group that he use Hero Lab or ScoreForge.

Yeah, and considering that many of these errors were against him, I think accusations of 'cheating" are unfair. He just made some mistakes and he didnt care about them- as the DM didnt seem care about them.

Why do these mistakes make such a bid deal to you? I mean, I didnt see anything that makes his character game breaking to the point where it'd reduce the fun for the other players.

Are you sure there's nothing personal between the two of you?

Nobody said the GM did not care. He just seem to be very nonconfrontational. Cheating matters because its annoying when one person is not following the rules and everyone else is. Different things annoy different people. The threads where some GM's do not allow for people to reflavor characters are examples of this.

Bookrat is also the one at the table, and the player intentionally ignoring a houserule he did not like along with the character errors are not exactly making him look like "not a cheater".

I can understand you not liking how it was handled, but to ignore other things that were mentioned is starting to make you look biased.

PS: I see your point, but maybe the other players did not notice or maybe they wanted to speak up but were afraid to rock the boat.
I would have called him out too eventually, if he was at my table.


For those worried that more concrete rules will limit your GM power there is always rule 0. Most of us have house rules anyway. This would just be another one.


Byakko wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Except you absolutely should, both for the example you gave and the several examples I gave. Furthermore, that's how the rules work.

Again, how many times do you see circus performers fail juggling while on stilts, or a tripwire? The DC may be higher, but I assure you, it's a routine take ten activity for them.

If you are disallowing take ten for large numbers of activities outside of combat, you ARE changing the mechanics.

Again, you are focusing too much on the specific example. The rules state that you can't take 10 if you are distracted. If you are simultaneously performing two difficult tasks requiring focus, it's reasonable that they are mutually distracting. This is not changing the rules.

wraithstrike: would you mind elaborating? My thoughts were meant as an aide to help decide when taking 10 is reasonable. I'm sure there will be many cases where the rules are fully specified and don't require a judgment call.

I misunderstood you but as for what is reasonable, that

Is something I don't care to hear about since it varies too much based on how someone interprets the intention of this rule. I understand judgement calls will likely still be needed even after this FAQ but something more concrete is the goal.

PS: That was not in an angry tone.


Byakko wrote:

There has been a lot of talk of 3rd party threats preventing the ability to take 10. However, in practice, this often breaks down and creates strange situations.

What exactly constitutes a legitimate 3rd party threat which prevents taking 10?
An Outer Planar being is but a gruff guard isn't?
A rat looking at you angrily is, but a huge pit of lava isn't?

----------------------

I'd like to propose a bit of a different concept:

The ability to take your time and progress at your task slowly and at your own pace (even over the span of 6 seconds) allows you to take 10.

Crafting items and spellcraft when used for crafting magical items do not support this.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I dunno, I kinda like how it's a bit of a stealth nerf to casters. One of the advantages of, say, a Magus is that he can cast mirror image instead of bothering with his AC, dramatically increasing his wealth in comparison to a no-spells character. Now the Magus isn't getting any extra money because he is forced to invest in AC.

That is a bad idea at higher level when dispel magic and true seeing exist. At least d6 casters can hide in the back and just reapply the buff.


Its basically a GM house rule. Depending on how the trap is made it may make sense to allow it at times but it might also set the trap off.


Zagyg wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The rules in the magic section also tend to apply to supernatual affects.

As an example the rules do not say that a dragon's breath weapon require line of effect, but that rule is in the spell section. Would you allow the dragon's weapon to go through a wall?

You can use the "but it only says spells" idea, but now you need an entire new set of rules for supernatural abilities.

So you can go with the spell limitations apply to supernatural abilities or you can assume all supernatural abilities ignore the spell rules since they don't their own special section.

Breath weapons are the least of your worries if you want to decide that supernatural abilities do not have to...

That's not because supernatural abilities tends to follow some of the spell rules, that they have to stick to all the spells rules. There are many differences : spells do provoke AOO in combat, supernatural abilities don't, spells can be dispelled or countered, supernatural abilities, can't...

That is a bad example because I was speaking of situations where Supernatural abilities do not have their own special rules, and SU's specifically say they do not provoke. I never said SU's do everything spells do. I clearly mentioned how they work, in absence of their own rules. So far I have not seen an example to counter that.


Zagyg wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The rules in the magic section also tend to apply to supernatual affects.

As an example the rules do not say that a dragon's breath weapon require line of effect, but that rule is in the spell section. Would you allow the dragon's weapon to go through a wall?

You can use the "but it only says spells" idea, but now you need an entire new set of rules for supernatural abilities.

So you can go with the spell limitations apply to supernatural abilities or you can assume all supernatural abilities ignore the spell rules since they don't their own special section.

Breath weapons are the least of your worries if you want to decide that supernatural abilities do not have to...

That's not because supernatural abilities tends to follow some of the spell rules, that they have to stick to all the spells rules. There are many differences : spells do provoke AOO in combat, supernatural abilities don't, spells can be dispelled or countered, supernatural abilities, can't...

Breath weapons and spells have as much similarities than differences, but nothing in RAW tells us that breath weapons should follow spells rules. Of course you can argue that nothing tells the opposite, but this will lead nowhere.

Wraithstrike, your answer makes sense for me but I was looking for a clean answer that no player could argue at the gaming table. Obviously there is still room for debate here, and that's why the GM exists : to make a decision.

By the rules only the character is harmed, and there are no rules for the items being harmed because of this ability. The game strictly calls out when items are being harmed, and I dont just mean with magic, so unless you can show a player that this ability can harm items they will have room to argue. Like I said before if you want it to work make it into a house rule because right now there is no rule to support it working, and the rule for an ability tends to tell you what they can do, not everything they can't do.

If the items are damaged by this ability which does not call out damaging magic items, then why would another dragon's fire breath which killed a character also not damage magic items.

Basically I will put it this way. You will find no rules supporting what you want to do. Your choices are to once again change the rule or accept the fact that your players have room to argue with you.

edit: You have yet to show precedence between character death and item destruction as common thing, and what makes sense in the game to someone is still not often a rule. That is just how the game is. You are saying the rule works a certain way so the burden of proof is on you to prove it, just like it would be on your players if they had a similar ability.


I see others agree with my idea that the outside forces are the issue. :)


Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.
I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.

The penalty for failing the Contact Other Planes check is getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked.

Getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked(the penalty for failure) is a significant and distracting threat.

Therefore one reasonable interpretation is that severe penalties like dying or getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked prevent taking 10 because they represent significant and distracting threats.

Can you think of any other reasonable explanation as to why getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked on failure is a significant and distracting threat? If you can't, then severe penalty=can't take 10 is the ONLY reasonable interpretation.

Ravingdork wrote:
That FAQ entry needs to be abolished, as it causes more confusion than it resolved, which is the antithesis of any FAQ.
The FAQ is basically unneeded now - the rules text of Contact Other Plane in the CRB now includes a "Can't take 10" clause. It should definitely go.

I already gave the reason. You are worried that your interaction with deity level beings who might do bad things to you. You are focused on the penalty. I am focused on the external force that is going to do the damage. Basically it is just like trying to climb a mountain while invisible stalkers are trying to push you off the edge. It is not the falling damage, but the stalkers(outside force) which is the issue. You take away the deity, and you just have another situation where you suffer for failing, just like taking away the invisible stalkers means you just deal with the falling damage, not something trying to push you off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, it's me again.

There is an FAQ request on the nauseated condition which I did not know about. It is similar to an FAQ request I made about being dazed and other conditions. If possible I was wondering if you(PDT) could handle all of those conditions at once since they have similar language.

If you need links let me know.


I thank all of you for pressing the FAQ button. Hopefully this one does not take to long to get resolved. I also hope it is short enough to not need a blog.


Sneaky McSneak wrote:

Hi all! question I have not found the answer to regarding ongoing poisons. I apologize if this is alreday here, I missed it. If you are already poisoned, say by a con drain poison, on your turn, when does the damage take effect? Understand from the Original FAQ post the player may make the save at any time on their turn. But does ongoing damage occur beginning of their turn or end? A CON drain poison w/ Fort save makes the save harder, a DEX drain poison could drop a char below 13, eliminating certain feats. so when is the damage applied within the characters turn? Beginning middle end? what takes place in what order? thanks in advance.

Also great post! Jason, Thanks!

The damage occurs when you make the save, so it is likely better to wait until the end of your turn to make the save.

The damage cant occur until you make(attempt) the save anyway because you have to fail before it takes place.


Ferious Thune wrote:
If your take 10 succeeds on a climb check, then there is no danger of falling.

But it may not succeed and you may not always know the DC on a check, so you could take 10 and fail.


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.

I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

I'm not adding that, the faq states that.

Quote:
PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops...
You are misunderstanding me. The penalty is what is distracting/the threat that prevents you from taking 10. That is what the FAQ states.

I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10. I am saying the distraction/threat is the factor not the potential damage, just like the potential damage from falling does not stop you from taking 10 while climbing. There would need to be an external force to stop "taking 10" on a climb check. In the FAQ there is an external force stopping "taking 10".

PS: If you are not saying the penalty is the factor then I would not see why you keep mentioning it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
...

The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

to help you with your next reply--->Give me a direct statement with no inference just like the take 20 rule is written. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops taking 10.

edit: I see the fact that you are dealing with some powerful entity who can do bad things as the threat, not the penalty from failing.

Otherwise every skill could be denied taking 10, since it could have some possible penalty.

Here is a fun question. What is the difference in the logic between the following two assertions?

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Quote:
Falling to your death from 300ft up is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Since it isn't unreasonable to say that there is no difference in the logic between those two, then it would be reasonable to draw a a parallel and say that you can't take 10 on checks like climb, swim and fly when failing the check is life threatening, unless you seriously want to argue that getting killed is clearly less of a significant and distracting threat than becoming stupid and losing your spellcasting for a few days. Hence why the Contact Other Planes FAQ is dodgy - It is perfectly reasonable to justify ruling out take-10 on a wide swath of skills based on the same reasoning the FAQ uses.

I have seen many rules debates have two reasonable interpretations, but only one of them is correct. I understand his point. I just don't agree since there is no rules support for a penalty stopping "taking 10". The only rules supports says that penalties stop taking 20. If they want it to apply to taking 10 also, then it needs to be rewritten.


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

There is nothing in that quote that says you can not take 10 due to a penalty for failure. It only mentions that you being threatened in the reason. That penalty part is an ad on by you.

Here is the FAQ quote.

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check
It says nothing about the penalty for failure being the issue. The problem is the threat, not any penalty.
The FAQ:
Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
At the time the FAQ was made, the spell in question:
Quote:
You must succeed on an Intelligence check against this DC to avoid a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma. If the check fails, your Intelligence and Charisma scores each fall to 8 for the stated duration, and you become unable to cast arcane spells.
So you are threatened and distracted because if you fail you are penalized, because the threat of being penalized is a significant and distracting threat.

The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

to help you with your next reply--->Give me a direct statement with no inference just like the take 20 rule is written. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops taking 10.

edit: I see the fact that you are dealing with some powerful entity who can do bad things as the threat, not the penalty from failing.

Otherwise every skill could be denied taking 10, since it could have some possible penalty.


_Ozy_ wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

There is nothing in that quote that says you can not take 10 due to a penalty for failure. It only mentions that you being threatened in the reason. That penalty part is an ad on by you.

Here is the FAQ quote.

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check

It says nothing about the penalty for failure being the issue. The problem is the threat, not any penalty.

The problem is, falling 300' to your doom is at least as distracting a threat as some temporary stat drain. In fact, one could argue that death from falling damage is far more of a threat than a condition where you merely have to wait a few weeks to be completely recovered. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to look at the reasoning provided by that FAQ answer and conclude that the reasoning is universal even if the specific application is not.

This is why that FAQ was answered badly.

One could argue that, but falling is not a threat nor is swimming unless SKR had no idea what he was talking about. A threat is a present danger, not a possible danger. Now if something was trying to push the player off of the mountain that is a threat/distraction.


Ok. I missed the "hybrid" part.
In that case I would have given a smaller list based on the theme if the idea is information gathering.


Detect magic
Detect thoughts
See invisibility
Clairaudience/Clairvoyance:
Tongues
arcane eye
scrying
contact other plane
legend lore
true seeing
Arcane Sight, Greater
Scrying, Greater
Vision
Discern Location

Honestly you are better off going straight caster. Mixing a poor BAB and 3/4 BAB class will not help you in combat. If you don't care about combat, your wizard will have more skill points than a rogue due to his intelligence.

Normally I would not have included that many divination spells, but due to you trying to be a master at getting information/spy they will all be useful.


I missed the nauseated condition when I made this, but since it has its own FAQ I hope it gets taken care of also. Once Paizocon is over I might shoot a message to Mark to see if he can take care of both of these at the same time.


The Green Tea Gamer wrote:

It does make a little sense to define how you are unable to do anything, yet somehow you are not helpless. Why is it you cannot coup de grace a helpless, stunned, or dazed character, for example? Clearly they can't do "nothing" or they'd be helpless. There's a very small subset of things that are considered "not an action", as well.

I understand if someone splits hairs to gain an advantage here that's really munchkin-y, but some GM's are themselves very meticulous and want to let their players know when they have limited options they otherwise wouldn't have, and again, I REALLY would like to know what the dividing line is that keeps someone from not being helpless in these three conditions if they're supposed to be unable to do anything, yet somehow can defend themselves, albeit much much worse than usual in 2/3 cases.

You have to specifically be helpless or have a condition such as being unconscious. The intent of dazed and stunned is to take away your actions, not set you up for a a CdG.


The Indescribable wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
So basically he has no deal with the demon. He was just tricked into becoming a demon for some reason?
the contract is likely in giving him the power for his soul.

That is what I would have done as a GM, but the player may have just wanted an excuse to become a demon or half-fiend, and the GM played along.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ow Mai Bak wrote:
So basically you can use the tables to buy custom items:

More or less.

Armor (Core Rulebook Table 15-3)

You can use all legal types, special abilities and materials in any combination.

You can upgrade TO specialty armor but you can't upgrade specialty armor. For example, Your masterwork hide armor can become +1 hide armor. Which can become +2 hide armor, which can become rhino hide armor.

Your rhino hide armor cannot be upgraded to +3 Rhinohide armor, nor can your +3 hide armor be made into +3 rhino hide armor.

Since celestial armor doesn't have a specified metal, there is no upgrade path to celestial armor.

Weapons (Core Rulebook Table 15-8)

See armor.

Potions (Core Rulebook Table 15-12)

All potions are at minimum caster level unless bought otherwise on a chronicle sheet. Be sure not to get a personal only spell (like see invisibility)

Scrolls (Core Rulebook Table 15-15)

Minimum caster level.

Wands (Core Rulebook Table 15-17)

Minimum caster level. Fully charged only unless found on a chronicle sheet.

I want to say no metamagic but i can't find the citation for it.

Why can't specialty armor be upgraded? One of the Golarion specific books allows it. Does PFS have a rule against that, or is it not allowed because PFS sees it as an alternate rule?


So basically he has no deal with the demon. He was just tricked into becoming a demon for some reason?


Ow Mai Bak wrote:

So basically you can use the tables to buy custom items:

Armor (Core Rulebook Table 15-3)
Weapons (Core Rulebook Table 15-8)
Potions (Core Rulebook Table 15-12)
Scrolls (Core Rulebook Table 15-15)
Wands (Core Rulebook Table 15-17)
Select Wondrous (Ultimate Equipment: Bracers of Armor, Bodywrap of mighty strikes, ect.)

But you cannot use the crafting table (Core Rulebook Table 15-29)

Correct. That is because there are no hard rules for creating customized item. That table is only a guideline, and it can result in things that are not balanced by the table's cost.


I would just restat commoners by giving them two HD. If they have a dagger they should pull ahead.


If you confirmed the crit then all of hits are crits. Basically double the normally of dice you would normally roll.


The Indescribable wrote:
Blackpowder Witch wrote:

A couple of the tenets for Iomedae's Paladin Code of Honor are, "I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given." and "I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them."

Now, you're a Cleric and not a Paladin so that doesn't truly apply to you, but you can still use it as a guide for your actions. If your ally refuses to change his actions, then there's nothing more you can do. Certain splinter cults of Sarenrae are into forced redemption, but that's not really Iomedae's wheelhouse.

Hey, where did you find this? I haven't been able to find this in any of the books I have. I'm playing a Paladin of Iomedae in Wrath of the Righteous.

Pathfinder Player Companion: Faiths of Purity


I am a player in an Iron Gods game, unless the GM has special knowledge that playing a certain one will spoil the plot it should not be an issue. I do have their stats, and they are not really anymore powerful than the core races.


Not in core. Maybe in a mythic game, but I dont really follow mythic much so I am not much help there.


Kudaku wrote:

Why does "alertness" have to be specifically a skill? Consider concentration - it was a skill in 3.5 and changed to a simple scaling modifier in PF, complete with traits, feats and magical items that improve it. While I agree that finding the right balance between "blind as a bat" and"auto-spot all the things" can be tricky, I'm not at all sure we need to restrict ourselves to working within the skill system.

Personally I like the idea that adventurers become increasingly paranoid and/or aware of potential danger and/or paranoid as they become more experienced and level up. It's reflected rather well in real-life where veterans will frequently pick up on potential danger signs that a rookie won't notice.

Search has to be a skill to have a high enough modifier to compete with traps or other hidden things. Well I guess it does not have to be a skill but the formulas as presented won't work to keep the modifier high enough or protect anyone's niche. It also does not make things any easier.


I don't think not gaming with someone has to ruin a friendship. I realize that not everyone has the same preferences in gaming, even if they get along away from the table. If the person takes it personally it might go that way.


I am going to press the FAQ button since this is a good question, but I would allow it.


It is is a free action to switch a weapon to your offhand, but in most situations you will either be fighting someone at range or up close.

You should also be able to threaten both squares.


thorin001 wrote:
Why would a Great Wyrm Red dragon want an ability that deprives it of additional loot for its hoard?

Great point. Red dragons are very greedy. They like ly get their loot by killing other creatures and taking their stuff. As for how this breath weapon incinerates creature s but not gear, it's magic. People killed by fireballs don't have their gear damaged. So I don't see why this dragon should do so either. As written its a good way to kill invaders and collect more treasure.


CWheezy wrote:
I wonder if paizo even knows how bad this talent is, and they wilfully ignore it?

I am sure the read the messageboards here. I just dont know why they did not make it better(as in worth taking).


Why wouldn't you allow rick parents to be picked up? The RP can be that someone in his/her family passed away. It is actually a weak trait, so unless you are protecting the player, I am not seeing the issue.


I always assumed the message that arrived used the sender's voice so sense motive should still work.

That 2nd question is a corner case. I would not trust the person if someone or an ally did not cast the spell themselves. In that case they could verify the truth.

But assuming it would happen here is hot it works:

Zone of truth has a 20-ft.-radius emanation so the person getting the message would have no to know if the person was lying unless he had an ally verify everything.

I don't know of any spell called detect lies, but I know about discern lies. You would also need an ally to verify that the person is not lying.


The shield is not restricted to the off-hand. It had that language because it was assumed the player would use it in an off-hand. You can also use two handed attacks with them.


Reincarnation would not work. It is still the same person, just in a different body. You did say he killed the cleric, but you did not mention if he made the knowledge check and became a half-fiend. I doubt he has or it would affect his appearance, so it seems your friend is about half-way through the 3rd stage of the ritual. I thought he had made a deal with a demon.

So now I have new questions.

Did he make a deal to learn the secret of demon transformation, and if so what was the deal?

1 to 50 of 33,415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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