This belt's wearer gains a +4 bonus to all poisons and a +2 bonus on Escape Artist checks. In addition, once per day on command, the belt can be animated as a venomous snake or constrictor snake that obeys the animator's spoken commands for up to an hour. If the animated snake is slain or moves 100 feet away from the animator, the snake reverts into belt form.
I think this means a +4 to save against poisons, but it is not written well.
According to the new FAQ clarification
That seems to signify that a silence spell can block cackle, but previously I thought it did not because it is not a sonic affect so I thought the cackling was just flavor text.
My question is this, If an effect uses sound as the medium of delivery should we assume it has to be heard to be effective, even if it is NOT listed as a sonic effect?
PS: If order to avoid any confusion the specific question I want to be answered is bolded.
At character creation you are limited to certain languages depending on your race. It would make sense that this would still apply, but the new ruling does not say that.
1. If you can't gain language X through intelligence alone at level 1, I don't see how you can do it at level 4, assuming you use that level to increase your intelligence.
2. It gives some motivation to put ranks into linguistics.
FAQ Please. :)
Relevant section of Witchfire stats:
CE Medium undead (incorporeal)
Incorporeal per the PRD wrote:
An incorporeal creature's attacks pass through (ignore) natural armor, armor, and shields, although deflection bonuses and force effects (such as mage armor) work normally against it.
That quote is why incorporeal creatures attack against touch AC. Being a ranged attack does not make the witchflame bolt an exception.
If it has language such "Unlike an incorporeal creature's normal attacks..." then it could be viewed as a rules exception, and not an error.
FAQ please. :)
This question was asked in another thread, and marked as ""answered in the FAQ", but it is not there.
So please FAQ it again.
The purpose of this thread is to see if the monk can hold up across several combats to include boss fights against a variety of monsters. This will also show how well it compares to other classes.
When simulating the monsters use tactics. Don't make another poster have to call you out for dumbing a monster down.
The invisibility spell also give a +20 to the stealth modifier when making a stealth check. It also says it give a +40 if the target is stationary which is very close to, but not exactly, what the language in the invisibility condition for the glossary says.
The problem is they are not worded the same way, which leads to some confusion.
Is the invisibility spell better worded than the actual condition?
FAQ this please.
PS:An explanation on how this works on stationary and moving targets would also be nice.
This post is made to get FAQ's so we can get an official answer.
The book says "While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" rather than "While mounted, you can wield a lance as a one-handed weapon."
By RAW you are using a two-handed weapon in one hand, but getting two-handed benefits.
No matter what your stance is I kindly request you press the FAQ button.
The game is already in progress. I am looking for 5th player that can be reliable. We play on roll.net which is a virtual table top every Monday from 900PM until 1AM EST. We try to be there by 845 to make sure we start by 9. Roll.net is very easy to learn and use, and it is constantly improving.
The next game is tomorrow so the chances of making it are small, but the party is currently level 5 with 4 players.
We have a:
They are optimized pretty well.
This is the GM's campaign guide that includes character creation rules and game rules.
You will also start with 5000 gp. No more than 33% of that can be spent on any one item.
Background stories are not mandatory, but they will help if I am on the fence about who to let in. I also roll the dice out in the open, and there is a very real possibility that your character might die. No far nobody has died yet though. :)
Now that I have your attention I want to bring attention to a common theme on the boards. That would be people assuming that anyone disagreeing with them is saying there is only one way to play the game and/or insulting them. That is not the case. If I say I don't like rolling dice, or any thing else playstyle related and I give reasons for it, that does not mean I am insulting you, or insisting you change your style of play. I am sure that if you are asked why you play the way you do, that you will have your reasons, and you are not trying to insult me or saying I am "doing it wrong." Don't go reading between the lines for insults that don't exist because if you look for an insult you will find it, whether it exist or not. That also goes for statements that don't exist.
The other issue is people assuming you are trying to say one thing due to reading between the lines, when you are discussing something else. My last thread got a lot of off-topic GM rants. It seems they did not read the topic, but read between the lines or tried to. This led them to believe I was trying to deliver a message that was never in the process of being made.
There are some people who will tell you that your style of play is inherently wrong, but all you have to do is ask those people is that their belief, and they will say yes. They won't try to hide it, and force you to figure it out.
In short don't accuse, ask. It is better for discussion, and stops bad blood before it starts. You might think you know someone's intent, but if they don't say it in exact words, then you really have no proof.
With that said I will apologize for my recent snark over the past day or so, but in the future I would also like anyone who falsely accuses another poster to apologize. If the person does not apologize to you then it is better to ask for a quote and an explanation than it is to turn up the sarcasm meter. I feel like asking for a quote is fair for someone being accused of something online. The accused can either explain the quote, if it exist, or they just get to denounce the accusation since the lack of a quote is a lack of evidence.
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
This is just an interest check. I would like to use roll20 to run an online game. I was intending to run one for a local group but it looks like things are falling apart.
I should always be available between 830 PM until about 2AM Eastern standard time.
I am normally off on Mondays, and some other random day during the week.
The days I work might have me going in at 7AM or in the afternoon so while I might be able to game at other times on different days the first listed time is the only one I can guarantee.
I was thinking of running Savage Tide or War of the Burning Sky. Both go to level 20, but the AP's that end at before that are also acceptable assuming I have the AP. I don't have anything past Carrion Crown though.
Game Difficulty-TPK's are possible. I am not out to kill anyone, but you will be responsible for your character for the most part.
The character creation rules have not been set because the game will be decided by committee if I can get enough players. The more difficult the game the more things I will allow at character creation. As an example Savage Tide will have a higher point buy and more books allowed than Carrion Crown would.
Whatever I run will be set in Golarion most likely. Well WotBS won't be, but that is the exception.
The goal is to get 12 hours of gaming in a month. That is about how long it normally takes me to GM one book of an AP. More hours are better. :)
Houserules that apply to any campaign::
Sorcerers don't have to use a full round action to cast a metamagic spell. They also use the same spell progression as a wizard.
Monks will get more help too, but exactly how is still being worked on.
I already have a spot reserved but that still leaves 3 to 5 spots open.
The summoner will be allowed, but I expect for you to know the rules for it. If I have to keep saying "no you can't do that", I reserve the right to ask you to change to another class.
If you post to say you are interested please list 3 AP's to include 3.5 AP's that you are interested in. AoW is not availible, at least not this time, sorry about that, but SCAP and STAP won't be an issue.
EST=Eastern Standard Time in the U.S. There are several sites online that can convert that to your local time zone.
I made a post in a PbP thread, and it is showing up in my account's post tab, but it is not in the actual thread. If I click on the timestamp from the post it takes me to the thread, but my post is not visible.
The following is the post that is not showing up.
At 3rd level, a samurai gains an unparalleled expertise with his chosen weapons. At 3rd level, the samurai selects either the katana, longbow, naginata, or wakizashi. The samurai can draw the selected weapon as a free action as if he had the Quick Draw feat. In addition, whenever he threatens a critical hit with the selected weapon, he gains a +2 bonus on the confirmation roll. Finally, his samurai levels stack with any fighter levels he possesses for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites for feats that specifically select his chosen weapon, such as Weapon Specialization.
As we can see the Samurai actually has no levels in fighter, and there is no verbiage saying that his Samurai levels count as fighter levels for the purpose of this ability.
An eldritch knight adds his level to any levels of fighter he might have for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites for feats (if he has no fighter levels, treat his eldritch knight levels as levels of fighter).
I know Paizo does not promote multiclassing so I was thinking that the RAI was to count the Samurai as having fighter levels even though the RAW does not say that, but then there is this:
Bonus Feats: An internal alchemist can select Alertness, Extra Ki, Great Fortitude, Improved Critical (unarmed strike), Improved Initiative, Improved Unarmed Strike, Iron Will, Lighting Reflexes, Stunning Fist, or Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) in place of an alchemical discovery.
This alchemist archetype does not have any ki. It has to multiclass in order to use that feat, but otherwise it sound monkish in nature by its flavor.
This is mostly a post asking for FAQ's, and I am asking everyone to hit the FAQ button no matter what your stance is on the matter. :)
We seem to have a new poster who does not know the difference between a general rule and a specific rule. He also does not realize the PF devs trump 3.5 devs when they have conflicting ideas.
My reply to his last post:
Today we bring to you the last match of the First Annual Grand Battle Tournament. Your two combatants are have bested many of the most powerful creatures in existence.
First we have Darius Blackfire a man whose martial might, and ability to withstand punishment is second to none. His dark powers make him a worthy adversary.
His opponent is a man with considerable magical talents, and his power is not to be questioned. I present to you Orion the Smooth.
2.Forest-no cover or concealment within 20 feet. Trees 20 feet tall
I believe the words "unarmed strike" and/or "unarmed attack" should be removed since unarmed strikes are also made with other body parts. It would also prevent someone trying to say their knees do lethal damage, even though they are only wearing gauntlets. Now I know common sense dictates that metal on your hands won't help your knees but a lot of posters here like to be intentionally obtuse. "Oh, but RAW says..."
It would also prevent people trying to argue that a weapon mentioning unarmed strike or unarmed attack allows for a monk's damage to override. Yeah I think it is silly to since there is no raw to take the monk's damage can overtake the weapon's damage, but that is neither here nor there.
The other idea is have a specify that the monk's unarmed strike damage does not override the weapon's listed damage.
Please hit the FAQ button.
Another company known as Casters by the Sea Shore used to have columns where they would break down the basic rules. I think Paizo should do the same. I understand you are busy right now, but sometime in the future it would be nice to have. Many of us come from 3.5 so we know the intent of the rules, but there are a lot of new people, and with the "Paizo is its own game" idea, which I understand, the thought of listening to someone who played a different game is not taken too well. It would also help to explain the instances where the rules are not the same any more such as grapple. You are probably thinking some things don't have to be explained, hence the " no reply required" responses to some FAQ's*, but I have seen some of the more knowledgable posters to include myself misread a common rule. It also helps because for some people the fact that the words did not change, does not mean the meaning did not change. How the same words can mean something different is beyond me, but that is for another thread.
*No I am not saying all of them deserved a response. :)
Those blue squares are buildings and pillars. The height of each one should be visible.
3 Blown Away Size: Creatures on the ground are knocked prone and rolled 1d4 × 10 feet, taking 1d4 points of nonlethal damage per 10 feet, unless they make a DC 15 Strength check. Flying creatures are blown back 2d6 × 10 feet and take 2d6 points of nonlethal damage due to battering and buffeting, unless they succeed on a DC 25 Fly skill check.
I will assume that you can move normally if you can make the strength check.
The blown away size is large so unless you can become huge you have to deal with this. :)
If there are any questions please ask.
Void Oni Initiative:1d20 + 6 ⇒ (11) + 6 = 17
Just to be clear using the 2nd line as an example if you are 25 to 50 feet apart you the concealment is 35%, and there is a +4 cover bonus to AC.
PS:I also had not accounted for 55 feet so the last line is not 55+feet.
If there are any questions please ask.
I understand certain posters who I shall not name, lost their minds a while back, but the rest of us should not have to deal with the FAQ silence.
I don't care if increased moderation of post and booting of people from the site takes place. I just never believed in the concept of mass punishment. Each of us are adults, and those that are not adults should still know how to conduct themselves. If a person can not behave like an adult then they can have their posting privileges suspended. Someone might ask what if they need to post a question to customer service. That is a good point. More than likely the site is set up so that you either have full access to the site or no access to the site, and that might include purchasing capabilities. At the least you have full posting privileges or you don't from what I understand. I guess locking people out of certain forums might have to be an option. I know it is not fair for Gary to come up with code, just to put people in time out, but it is also not fair to allow people to remain on the site, and have the rest of us suffer* for it.
*I think the word suffer is a little over dramatic, but I could not think of a better word at the moment.
Anyone else have any solutions feel free to chime in.
I know a GM can remove your character from his games, but I seem to be in a lot of inactive games, and it is cramping the the space I have available on my screen. Could you include an option to allow someone to remove their PC from a game so the campaign is not taking up space on their screen. Most of the GM's have disappeared so there is no way to get them to do it.
On one side of the map we have a strange beast with a man inside of it, going up against, a man of great magical prowess. Who will move on to the semifinals, Orion or Ulthor? The terrain here appears to have been ripped from a war torn city as two metal barricade that used to be buildings jut from the landscape. Will they be a facter in the fight? We will see.
By random roll Darius gets to face a lathavos, a monstrosity that can reach the entire map, and has several ways to kill you. There are not many beings in the multiverse that are more evil and sadistic. I would suggest he kill it quickly. These two combatants also find themselves in an area with no obstructions. It is just a man with his weapons vs a creature from the Abyss.
The monster can reach the entire map so unless you are flying it can reach you, assuming it is not flying. It is represented by the red area.
We have Dorian Brindale master of the death by hand or by bow going up against Duncan Oto a man who bears many scars, and will proudly bear many more, whose melee ability is among the greatest to have ever lived. They will do battle in open plains with no obstacles to block their paths
SU's can't really be cast since they are not spells or SLA's, and don't even operate the same way that spells do, but some SU's give you access to SLA's(which do provoke).
When you have an SU that gives you access to an SLA does using it provoke?
An example is the 20th level ninja ability. I saw another one the other day, but I can't recall what it was.
When a GM is running an NPC the tactics are listed in the statblock. While I do have a PFS card, I have yet to play or GM a PFS games.
I have been told that the GM must follow the tactics listed in the statblock. I have also been told that the GM is free to ignore the suggested tactics. I can't find any PFS rules support for either side, but the fact that more than one knowledable poster has given me a varying answer makes me wonder how clear this is.
Which is correct?
At no point does it say the new spell has to come from the sorcerer's spell list., however the intent is pretty clear.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimising is a broad term, and it includes min-maxing and powergaming. It is basically using the rules to make your concept come to life. In short everyone optimises to a certain extent.
Min-maxing is basically minimising your weaknesses and maximising your strengths, and I see it as a form of optimisation. A sorcerer as an example would try to build their fort saves up since that is a weak point for that class. A barbarian or fighter would try to boost their will save while still remaining a threat in combat. There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion. Dying is not fun.
Some see a min-maxer as someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area in order to make it dominant somewhere else. This overspecialisation in one area often causes problems for GM's who are unwilling are unable to go after the weakness. If the GM is good with the system and the table does not mind this is less of a problem. It however is just bad optimisation in my opinion, but that is for another thread altogether. I don't even think it deserves a name.
Powergamer's try to get every advantage they can within the spirit of the rules. This is not inherently a bad thing. After all nobody likes to die, but when you are well above the group norm for what is acceptable it can become an issue. That does not man the “powergamer” is at fault. Many times it is a combination of a really good character, with characters that are not made so well, or just a “different” playstyle that magnifies the problem. Is powergaming bad? No. Can it cause problems when you are the only one at the table doing it and/or you are much better at it than everyone else? Yes.
PS:I am not seeing these are the current definitions. I am just trying to get a standard so everyone is not using a different definition of the same word.
PS:This might get moved to Gamer Talk, but I figured I would at least try.
edit:Spelling and clarity.
Hit points: The first class HD is maxed. Then you can roll and compare it to the average. Take whichever one is higher.
Level 6: That way spontaneous casters don't get shorted a spell level.
WBL: 16,000 gp. No more than 33%(5300) on any one item. If something is really close I will probably hand wave it.
Point Buy: 20 points
Books allowed: Almost anything. It will have to be in either the PRD or at D20PRD.com
You get two traits, and no two traits can be in the same category.
Races:Ask about any non-core 0-HD race. You can play half-celestials as an example, but I will probably tag you with a penalty to your level.
Someone who can heal(not just cure spells) is a preferred, and would take priority. We are not looking for a healbot, but after combat healing or emergency healing if the dice don't favor the players would be nice.
The Rheumy Refrain (Sing)
Since concentration checks are only used for spells in Pathfinder this seem to be an error. Maybe they meant Fortitude check or the author forgot that concentration checks are no longer a skill in Pathfinder.
1. Please be civil even if another poster annoys you and/or tries to bait you. I would like for this thread to remain open.
On to the issue at hand.
There are some abilities that say you can replace base ability X with ability Y.
Weapon Finesse wrote:
With this ability you replace strength with dex
There are other abilities where you add ability X to ability Y.
Fury's Fall wrote:
The way this is written it would add dex to strength which leads playrs to believe that you add dex to whatever the primary modifier for the trip attack is.
Combining the two makes it seem as though you can double dip dexterity.
James Jacobs wrote:
Jame's interpretation means that you can add different attributes, but you can't add the same one twice. Personally I don't care what the actual answer is. I just want the wording cleaned up or an FAQ saying that even though they are worded differently that anytime this situation comes up that you can not double dip if that is the case. From a "we don't want to break the game" perspective I understand this perfectly fine, but RAW it is hard to prove.
Discuss, but more importantly hit the FAQ button.
I am not asking this because I need to know.
Is it still evil, although less evil, if the spell is used for a good deed?
Disclaimer-->The point is not to tell GM's how to run game, but more of a "generally speaking" thing. Of course GM's will always be able to run their home worlds or versions of Golarion as they see fit.
Hit the FAQ button please. :)
I have seen this feat read as saying that it stacks with itself, which bypasses the normal bleed rules.
I think the feat stacks with other critical feats instead, since other critical feats don't stack unless you have the Critical Mastery.
At no point does bleeding critical say it stacks with itself. It says it stacks, and the way it stack is confirmed by the special line.