|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
The way the game works and the way the rules are written some things are just fluff(artistic license).
That does not mean they do not matter, but it does mean they have no mechanical bearing on the game, so that makes them flavor(fluff).
Fluff is mutable, and the distinction is important since it can be changed without affecting how the game plays.
As an example I often allow my players to change the flavor text attached to traits, but how the trait actually works does not change.
Shin Bilirubin wrote:
If you are asking if you can target them with a "target" aim spell the answer is no, but yes you have line of sight.
Line of sight does not mean you have to be able to see them. It just means that there can't be anything obstructing your view to them.
edit: You need to have something blocking your vision to have line of sight blocked.
Shin Bilirubin wrote:
No, it does not break line of sight. Walls break line of sight because you can not see past the wall, unless of course it is an invisible wall. That fact that making a wall invisible allows you to see past it means that invis does not break line of sight. It actually increases line of sight.
You don't need spellcraft to know someone is casting. I guess a GM could say that, but magic is so common that if someone is waving their hands, holding strange things, and talking crazy they are casting.
You also get a perception check without detect magic. However it might make someone make a 2nd intentional check if they are suspicious.
Sometimes the illusion aura is of an illusionary wall or creature.
I do agree that if someone is one the other side of a wall they don't know you are using detect magic, but you also have no idea why that aura is there.
PS: Just to be clear I am not trying to downplay detect magic. I am just saying what it does and does not do.
There have been many threads on that topic, and if that was the concensus on that one then it was incorrect. Illusion based spells have no protection from detect magic. What you can do is find the square the invisible person is in, but they are still invisible and get the benefits. If the invisible person leaves the cone then the caster has to start over.
Morag the Gatherer wrote:
It detects magical spells, lingering auras of magic, magical items, magical traps, SLA's and their auras and that might not even be a complete list.
Just remember it takes 3 round to pinpoint the location of the aura, and even then it only tells you the school of magic, not which spell is being used.
I know from history that Ashiel is going to ask you for specific proof. While we I normally agree with Ashiel, the times I have not specific proof was asked for. Just saying it, is not likely to be accepted.
How is a cleric a better frontliner than a ranger?<---One question you will be asked to provide proof for.
How about not using "you rules folk" because many of us do have the common sense to know that PFS does not follow RAW.
I guess you "non-rules folk" wouldn't have the common sense to have noticed that though.
I stand corrected, but I did FAQ this topic. Hopefully we can get an official answer.
RD I think you opened this up before when asking could a silenced, stilled, eschew material(the feat) using spell be identified.
Jason said there was no rule against it identifying such a spell. Hopefully this time they give an answer, officially.
I think that such spells and SLA's(since they are only mental and have no components) should not be subject to identification via spellcraft. <--I am not saying this is the rule. I am saying it makes more sense that way.
PS: Since the perception penalties for distance apply to the spellcraft DC they must have something observable, but I would not expect for that to be hardcoded into the rules.
Even non-actions such as 5-foot steps and knock an arrow must be done on your turn.
For something like this I would just have them say they buy ______ worth of onyx and just mark it off as it is used. You are actually supposed to track each onyx, but it's more bookkeeping than I think is neccesary.
I've been looking into this and thinking about making the Raven's head into a broken artifact or 2 halves of one artifact. The head(business end) can be taken from the university, and the other end can be had by completing whatever you decide to replace Wake of the Watcher with. I'm thinking of upgrading an old adventure and dropping it in. The bad guys could have been killed on their first attempt to get the other(handle) half. The PC's will be trying to get it and move on with the mission. I may or may not have the another group of bad guys show up depending on how fast they can get the handle. I am thinking of stealing something from AoW or SCAP.
Honestly, there is nothing terribly wrong with making up a few DC's as long as the thing in question is supposed to be difficult and there is some foundation for it in the rules. Disable Device is a particularly grievous example. Suppose you get that +40 to your check, now what happens? By standard rules, there are no more traps. As a result, that +40 bonus is useless. By making up an inflated DC, your bonus can actually do something.
I am going to disagree here. If the +40 means the traps are gone then it has the same affect as if the traps were there. The something I get to do is avoid myself and the party being hit by traps I didn't know about.
The rules tell you to add circumstantial modifiers not make things up, and I don't mean rule 0.
A full caster with metamagic'd lower level spells is not the same as having the actual spells. They would not really be worth playing since most of the metamagic feats are not that good. In short it is likely to cause problems, and you might be better off not going beyond 10th level if spells beyond 4th level are causing problems. The game changes as you level up. That is why some GM's only allow their games to go up to a certain level.
Richard McGuffin wrote:
I don't do it, and I would not play under a GM that does it. I don't think it is common, because most GM's I have met don't do it.
I would explain to the GM how I think it is unfair to ignore the effort I put into my character, but if nothing changes, as I said before, I will leave the group.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Thanks Mark. This works. I might do an FAQ later for those with less lenient GM's. Yeah I know it could backfire. :)
BumpIf you think I should FAQ it, that is fine.
Mark, I have another arcanist question.
The core books says you can use higher level slots for lower level spells. This applies for spontaneous and prepared casters.
Can an arcanist prepare lower level spells in higher level slot like a prepared caster, and also burn higher level per days uses to cast lower level spells?
If not then how does it work.
The core rule books are setting neutral. The setting line of books are for Golarion.
bump in case Mark accidentally missed it. <last bump for this question>
Chess Pwn wrote:
toughness and extra ki and extra anything else don't modify a mechanic that has a set regain lower than the max. HP goes to full, ki goes to full, extra anything else goes to full. when you take the feat you gain three more in your pool right then. Then when you prepare spells you gain 3+1/2 your level.
That is a terrible comparison because hit points dont work like the arcanist feature does. However I think most people know the correct way so I am going to let it go. Run it however you want at your table.
Dimensional Slide (Su): The arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location. This ability is used as part of a move action or withdraw action, allowing her to move up to 10 feet per arcanist level to any location she can see. This counts as 5 feet of movement. She can only use this ability once per round. She does not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving in this way, but any other movement she attempts as part of her move action provokes as normal.
Now I am 99% sure the intent is for the target to actual move as in "use movement", but the ability only calls out a move action.
Would I be correct?
Yeah I know the ACG errata was just released, but I will still start an FAQ if you say I am correct so we can get this officially fixed.
PS: If I somehow missed this despite checking the errata several times someone just let me know.
You gain three more points in your arcane reservoir, and the maximum number of points in your arcane reservoir increases by that amount.
I see that as affecting the starting amount "and" the max.
It specifically says you gain 3 more points in your arcane reservoir, which would be whatever you currently have. As an example if you only have 1 point left then you have 1 point in your arcane reservoir. <-----that handles the current amount explanation.
It also specifically calls out in a seperate section that the max increase--> "the maximum number of points in your arcane reservoir increases by that amount"
If your max only increases then the part about the increase to your arcane would not even be needed. They could have just said "The maximum number of points in your arcane reservoir increases by 3", and called it a day.
You have not made one valid point here.
What the GM aught to provide is subjective and does nothing to change "how things are" mechanically speaking.
I never said they could memorize all spells so that statement is pointless and as I have said countless times before casters do not need "the perfect spell" to solve a problem, and even before level 10 they are unlikely to run out of spells in a day. <---Other issues related to this have been broken down several times on this forum.
What your ideal world is does not matter because not everyone plays the game like you do, and if you don't get the relevance of "At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied" in response to "why do martials need nice things", then you are likely beyond any help that anyone could give you.
1. Then get the rules right or let people know up front that you play loosely with the rules.
2. Some of us don't have to look the rules up to know you are wrong, and "just go with it" is terrible general advice for enough reasons that I am sure you can think of some without me having to list any.
Most PC's do not get to choose the point of combat since they are likely invading enemy territory.
Also a caster could potentially put out the fire, and attack an enemy. Most martials can't do that.
At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied".
Nope. It specifically calls out wild shape so unless we have stealth errata or errata it won't work. As of now it officially only works with wild shape. It is basically a druid tax enhancement., just like natural spell is a tax feat.
I do not have as much money invested in PF as other people do so a rework that would overhaul most of the game could work for me, but many people have a lot of money invested, and those what percentage of the "heavy buyers" Paizo would lose has to be taken into consideration. That is why completing redesigning from the ground up is risky.
I think it will happen one day, but I dont think they are trying to push the issue.
The issue here is that once something leave the plane you are on distance is trumped, and the weapon has a distance limit of 100 feet. That bag may be 5 feet away, but the weapon is still farther away than that.
However the text also says the weapon teleports, but I dont think the devs intended for it to cross dimensions. I think it was meant to be more like how dimension door lets you teleport, but you still end up on the same dimensional plane you started on.
I will FAQ it since I can't find any hard rules to back my case.
The fighter is terrible outside of combat, and it does not get enough in combat to make up for that. The barbarian as an example is equally as good at killing things, and it can do things outside of combat, and everything you named is just there to make sure it stays around and hits things. You can't really hit things if you are unconscious or running away. So Seranov does have a point.
Also it can only swap out fighter feats which are combat feats. To only says it can swap out feats as if it can swap out any feat is not exactly fair.
The fact that it has 2 skill points is one issue, but its class skills are also poor. The cleric only has 2 skills, but it gets useful skills.
Just because something delivers what it promises that does not make it adequate, and actually depending on how you read the text it does not deliver on what it promises. Just like the core monk the flavor does not exactly hold up well in game.
They certainly are not "Lords of the battlefield,". "Rousing the hearts of armies" is also not what a fighter does. That sounds more like a bard. That is two failed promises already.
edit: I do agree that it is better than the 3.5 fighter, but that is not a high bar to jump over.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Some people will flame you for a necro. Other will flame you for not doing a search. You really can't win, so I say do what you want.
The only necros that annoy me is when someone responds directly to a poster as if they posted yesterday. However using that thread to talk about the topic is ok for me. I still wouldn't flame you for a direct comment, but I would ask why you did it.