>>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

5,401 to 5,450 of 6,833 << first < prev | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Mark I have a question on Magus spell combat interacting with Mythic Component Freedom [Somatic].

Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

Since Mythic Rule set where Component Freedom is was written after the APG would Component Freedom Supersede the bolded text on somatic components?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How many Woodchucks could you chuck, if you tried to chuck Woodchucks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chuck Norris?

Contributor

I'm trying to decide if I want to tweak my PFS build slightly to recruit an improved familiar from a PFS game I ran (the type of familiar is in the spoilers section).

Generally speaking, what's your thoughts on improved familiars, particularly the one I noted below.

Spoiler:
Yreshi, a pipefox familiar from Deepmarket Deception.


Hi Mark, I have a question about Barbarian's rage power unexpected strike.
Unexpected Strike (Ex): The barbarian can make an attack of opportunity against a foe that moves into any square threatened by the barbarian, regardless of whether or not that movement would normally provoke an attack of opportunity. This power can only be used once per rage. A barbarian must be at least 8th level before selecting this power.

If your enemy use 5 ft step to move into your threatened square,will this rage power grant you an AoO?


More questions! So many questions!! AGHHHHHH

*ahem* Excuse me.

Does the Elemental Ascetic's Flurry count as having the Flurry of Blows class feature for feats such as Pummeling Style/Jabbing Style?


How does an unchained monks Flurry of Blows work in Revised Action Economy?


Hello mark.

About bloodstained gloves.

How many race it could take effect at the same time?

Silver Crusade

I do not know what it is. wrote:

Hello mark.

About bloodstained gloves.

How many race it could take effect at the same time?

I'd say 1, since you have to soak the gloves in the blood of said race.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's an oddball question for you, raised via some discussion with some friends of mine (not something we've tried in a game or anything), and was curious how you'd rule it.

Essentially, I was reading through mirror image, and noticed the line:

Core Rulebook wrote:
An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).

And in the Universal Monster Rules for Gaze Attacks, it reads:

Bestiary wrote:
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.

And in Combat section of the Core Rulebook, it says:

Core Rulebook wrote:
You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

So, basically I suggested that a character could close their eyes (presumably as a free action), and attack the square a caster affected by mirror image, instead treating them as if they had total concealment for a 50% miss chance (possibly modified by Blind-Fight). Thematically, closing your eyes to not fall for the illusions of the caster. But some friends of mine disagree, some even going so far as to say that you're automatically unable to discern the difference regardless of being able to see them as long as you're aware that they exist.

I personally don't think it's a problem or even overpowered, since even if your eyes are closed, you still take a miss chance on par with displacement, a 3rd-level spell, and you can't help whittle down the images for your allies, one of the big disadvantages for mirror image over the less potent but possibly longer-lasting blur.

So, ultimately, I guess this boils down to a few questions...

1) Is a character whose eyes are closed considered blind? Or at least unable to see the figments?

2) What sort of action is it to close your eyes? A free action? Can it be taken when it isn't your turn? The gaze rules don't say, though if moving your lips (to speak) is a free action that can be taken when it isn't your turn, it seems plausible that closing your eyes would be as well.

3) As a bonus question, when it comes to color spray, is a blind creature sightless, or is sightless meant to imply creatures that have never had a capacity to see?

4) And as a second bonus question, despite it saying if you are invisible, mirror image has no effect, a friend of mine insists that means if you are invisible when mirror image is cast, and that you can go invisible afterwards, and your figments will remain, providing both the regular miss chance and the miss chances for being invisible...I personally disagree, and argue that your figments just go invisible with you, but what's your take on it?

I feel like it's a reasonably clever idea some clever fighters might utilize, but other people have said they think it's just cheesing the system and not as intended for the spell...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game is turn based for us but combat in the game world is always going on. I would say you are denied dex until your next turn if you close your eyes, since you can't see attacks that are coming at you while you are also attacking those images.

There are no official rules for closing your eyes.

sightless=blind/can't see

the figments go invisible also. They always take on the appearance of the caster so if he is invisible so are they. This is good because of if they stayed visible and the caster moves they would give his new location away.

Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ Friday returns!

FAQ wrote:

Reflex Saves: If I’m paralyzed, held, dying, or otherwise completely immobilized or insensate, can I still attempt a Reflex save?

Yes, you can still attempt a Reflex save, but since your Dexterity is set to 0, you’ll have to replace your Dexterity bonus with a –5 penalty, so you’re not likely to succeed. If you do succeed, it might be due to the power of your <i>cloak of resistance</i>, a good angle for cover, or even luck. Either way, follow the rules of the spell for a successful Reflex save, even if this would change your space, like <i>create pit</i>. However, you lose evasion in these circumstances. If you are under the influence of a rare effect that causes you to be immobilized or insensate and allows ongoing Reflex saves to escape the effect, as an exception to the rule, you can use your full Dexterity bonus (instead of a –5 penalty) for the purpose of attempting those ongoing saves only, since your full Dexterity is at work within the confines of the spell, trying to break free.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, check out the first blog of pure villainy and evil.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm doing my best not to gloat.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm doing my best not to gloat.

That was your best attempt? ;)


I'm happy to have another FAQ Friday even if I didn't even know this question was out there. I'm hoping this means the expedited gauntlet FAQ is closer to being addressed.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I never said I was succeeding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark, about Warpriest Sacred weapon damage.

But what is the purpose of this? I mean, I guess if you have a Warpriest wielding a kukri or a dagger it can help, but it confuses the heck out of the one guy I know who runs one.

How, exactly was this meant to work?

Not asking for a rules answer, just how did the designers/writers expect it to work?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This new spell from Inner Sea Temples seems to be missing something.

Betraying Sting:

BETRAYING STING
School evocation; Level cleric 6, occultist 6, psychic 6,
shaman 6, witch 6
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will partial; Spell Resistance yes
You unleash divine power to smite those who wrongly trusted
you. The power takes the form of a yellow-and-black bolt of
energy that makes the sound of a thousand angry, swarming
wasps. This spell affects only creatures that have an attitude
toward you of indifferent, friendly, or helpful. The spell deals
1d8 points of damage per 2 caster levels you have.

It lists under saving throw "will partial" but never says what that partial is.
That and 1d8 damage per two caster levels to one target seems really bad for a 6th level spell. Add to that that it can only be used on targets that are at least indifferent to you makes it terrible. It seems to me that there used to be some sort of debuff it gave that could be resisted with a will save. But for some reason that debuff did not make it into final printing.

I am curious what the spell was and what it is meant to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MichaelCullen wrote:
This new spell from Inner Sea Temples seems to be missing something.

It's worth remembering that Mark works on the Pathfinder RPG line, not the Campaign Setting line, so he probably doesn't know what the intent or the original version of the spell was, though he can certainly make an educated guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark, you were one of the ones who made the kineticist class weren't you? Have you considered making a numerian "Nanite" element ala Generator Rex? An Android with conscious control over its nanites could perform alot of feats that would be really similar to a Kineticist wouldn't you think?


MichaelCullen wrote:

It lists under saving throw "will partial" but never says what that partial is.

For any damaging spell, partial is half damage. Because it is a Will save and not a Reflex save, evasion doesn't work.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PokeyCA wrote:
MichaelCullen wrote:

It lists under saving throw "will partial" but never says what that partial is.

For any damaging spell, partial is half damage. Because it is a Will save and not a Reflex save, evasion doesn't work.

Um no, half damage is half damage. Look at disintegrate for an example of partial.

(Not sure why Evasion was brought up, but remember Stalwart is a thing)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To add to Rysky's correct response, another example of partial can be that you suffer a debuff even on a successful save. It's usually something like one round of shaken/sickened. At one extreme you have Prediction of Failure, a Will partial spell that on a successful save still makes you both sickened and shaken for 1 rd/CL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How would you describe the Emptiness defence from the perspective of the kineticist when activated?

When accumulating burn what sort of visual affect would a void kineticist gain?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Written before my question:
If any word that I used wrong or political correctness
please forgive,I am not good at English.

Hello,Mark.
I have a question,hoping you could describe more clearly.

Vigilante Archetype:Warlock's Mystic Bolts
"Abilities that affect all weapon attacks the warlock makes, such as the arcane striker warlock talent, function with mystic bolts."

Does that means a feat "should" use on all type ,can also use on the Mystic Bolts?
If the answer is "Yes",such as "Rapid Shot" or "Deadly Aim" or "weapon Finesse" CAN'T use on mystic bolts? Because Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim
could just use on Ranged Weapons; weapon Finesse could just use on Melee Weapons.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As a heads-up, there is a major deadline for Starfinder this week and the PDT have been tapped back into that project for a little while now, so no FAQ this week.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
As a heads-up, there is a major deadline for Starfinder this week and the PDT have been tapped back into that project for a little while now, so no FAQ this week.

Well, that makes me sad, but good luck on making the deadline.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
As a heads-up, there is a major deadline for Starfinder this week and the PDT have been tapped back into that project for a little while now, so no FAQ this week.
Well, that makes me sad, but good luck on making the deadline.

I hope so...I was here until ~12:15 last night, and I'm still not sure this bit is going to get done on time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
As a heads-up, there is a major deadline for Starfinder this week and the PDT have been tapped back into that project for a little while now, so no FAQ this week.

my F5 key thanks you for the warning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
As a heads-up, there is a major deadline for Starfinder this week and the PDT have been tapped back into that project for a little while now, so no FAQ this week.
Well, that makes me sad, but good luck on making the deadline.
I hope so...I was here until ~12:15 last night, and I'm still not sure this bit is going to get done on time.

Well, thank you to everyone on the team for your hard work on the book! I look forward to getting it when it comes out, and I'm excited for for how happy my friends will be to check it out.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
As a heads-up, there is a major deadline for Starfinder this week and the PDT have been tapped back into that project for a little while now, so no FAQ this week.
Well, that makes me sad, but good luck on making the deadline.
I hope so...I was here until ~12:15 last night, and I'm still not sure this bit is going to get done on time.
Well, thank you to everyone on the team for your hard work on the book! I look forward to getting it when it comes out, and I'm excited for for how happy my friends will be to check it out.

Thanks! But hey, at least we got up a cool new Villain Codex blog!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mr. Mark Seifter,

In your estimation, if there was an occultist archetype that got to use their body parts as implements what would be suitable features to give up?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are there rules about using Ride to mount an animal that doesn't want you to ride it? It seems odd that it's just a move action with no chance of failure, even in combat or when the horse belongs to an enemy force.

Are there rules about using Ride to mount/dismount a mount more than one size category larger than yourself? Or is it just impossible for, say, a halfling to get on a horse or a hippogriff?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey Mark! Apparently Divinity Original Sin 2 came out when I wasnt looking so I was wondering if you'd grabbed it yet and what you thought of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back to the Kineticist questions. If I have the Expanded Metakinesis, choosing the Disruptive Spell option, how would it interact with a Mobile Blast? How would a Mobile Blast interact with the Metakinesis Twice, for that matter?

Silver Crusade

Hi Mark, could you look over an idea I have for making a change to the Magus the Magus would get Unchained Spell combat at 1st level the Magus would also be able to choose 1 simple or martial weapon to use as an arcane bond [the magi can choose to use an exotic weapon as an arcane bond but they must expend a feat to do this.]

Spell Combat [Unchained]
The Magus cast spells differently than normal arcane casters. Magi do not use somatic components when casting their spells when using Spell Combat. The Magus channels his spell power threw his arcane bound weapon when casting touch spells from the Magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action or less or casting a spell with the close range arcana.
The Magus must make a standard concentration check to cast a spell in this manner and takes a -2 to all attack rolls the round he casts as spell in this manner.
If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls,
up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
Unlike standard spell strike the Magus does not get an additional attack a part of casting a touch spell.
If the Magus hits with his spell combat attack he deals normal attack damage for the weapon +spell damage. The Magi uses the critical threat range of his weapon for both his weapon and spell damage.

For instance if a 7th level magus wielding a rapier [18-20x2] scores a critical hit and confirms the critical hit while casting an intensified shocking grasp. he would deal he would deal [2d6 {rapier damage}+14d6 shocking grasp damage.

At 8th level, the magus's ability to cast spells and make melee attacks improves. When using the spell combat ability, the magus receives a +2 circumstance bonus on concentration checks, in addition to any bonus granted by taking an additional penalty on the attack roll.

At 14th level, the magus gains the ability to seamlessly cast spells and make melee attacks. Whenever he uses the spell combat ability, his concentration check bonus equals double the amount of the attack penalty taken.

Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Unexpected FAQ sneak attack!

FAQ wrote:

Sword Saint Samurai: The sword saint samurai’s brutal slash ability replaces an ability that doesn’t exist. What should it alter and replace?

The sword saint samurai’s brutal slash should replace the second sentence of weapon expertise with “At 3rd level, the samurai selects either the katana or the wakizashi.” This alters weapon expertise. Brutal slash also replaces mounted archer.

That's right; we have altered the terms of the FAQrrangement; now we can have PComp and CS FAQs even if they aren't literally #1 in clicks like before (thus using our usual algorithm for choosing FAQs instead of the much stricter one), as long as PFS has already done the legwork for their Campaign Clarification document. Woohoo!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
That's right; we have altered the terms of the FAQrrangement; now we can have PComp and CS FAQs even if they aren't literally #1 in clicks like before, as long as PFS has already done the legwork for their Campaign Clarification document. Woohoo!

Yay!

*hugs Mark*

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
That's right; we have altered the terms of the FAQrrangement; now we can have PComp and CS FAQs even if they aren't literally #1 in clicks like before, as long as PFS has already done the legwork for their Campaign Clarification document. Woohoo!

Hurrah!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
That's right; we have altered the terms of the FAQrrangement; now we can have PComp and CS FAQs even if they aren't literally #1 in clicks like before, as long as PFS has already done the legwork for their Campaign Clarification document. Woohoo!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, indeed! However, don't expect this to yield more than a small handful of them, just because only a few were strongly on the FAQdar before (and not all of which are also PFS campaign clarifications); this just means they can be treated equally to other topics on the FAQdar if they have a campaign clarification. Which is still hugely good progress, so good reason to be excited! (just want to make sure to do expectation management)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A while back, there was mention of a Simulacrum blog post in the works. Saw another thread pop up about that, and I was just curious if that was still out on the horizon, or if it was decided to drop it.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
A while back, there was mention of a Simulacrum blog post in the works. Saw another thread pop up about that, and I was just curious if that was still out on the horizon, or if it was decided to drop it.

I wrote a draft in March 2015, but it's a significant percentage of the wordcount of a Player Companion book, so getting enough resources for the PDT to fix what's wrong with the draft and get it in shape with a consensus agreement continues to be challenging (at the point that we get all sets of eyes on that blog and have a discussion, it's enough more passes per word that it might have taken a solid percent of the resources of developing a Player Companion). That's when I wrote Light and Darkness as well and another long on Divinations and one on Grappling that is even more tangled than the simulacrum blog while being shorter (the simulacrum blog just has a long example). Fortunately for divinations, it proved to be highly apropos for Ultimate Intrigue, so I took everything in that potential blog and put it into Spells of Intrigue during development (including the example story at the end).

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Unexpected FAQ sneak attack!

FAQ wrote:

Sword Saint Samurai: The sword saint samurai’s brutal slash ability replaces an ability that doesn’t exist. What should it alter and replace?

The sword saint samurai’s brutal slash should replace the second sentence of weapon expertise with “At 3rd level, the samurai selects either the katana or the wakizashi.” This alters weapon expertise. Brutal slash also replaces mounted archer.
That's right; we have altered the terms of the FAQrrangement; now we can have PComp and CS FAQs even if they aren't literally #1 in clicks like before (thus using our usual algorithm for choosing FAQs instead of the much stricter one), as long as PFS has already done the legwork for their Campaign Clarification document. Woohoo!

This is some of the best news I've had all day!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

... when Mark writes clarifications, Mark writes clarifications. Well, good to know, and it'll be a fun surprise when it does come out!

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
... when Mark writes clarifications, Mark writes clarifications. Well, good to know, and it'll be a fun surprise when it does come out!

Mostly it was that I had a step by step process by which a GM tries to adjudicate the stats for a very challenging to adjudicate simulacrum of a nearly CR 20 creature, with notes on when there were several possible ways to go and why the direction the GM picked might not always be the best of those options in some circumstances (because there was no easy option). Also, I looked at it again and somehow got the wrong wordcount last time (did I open the wrong file? Not sure); it's more like 20-25% than 50%


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So any chance to get Ascetic Style FAQ'd to mean what the author wanted and going the same direction that FCT went? To not be crazy open ended? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
... when Mark writes clarifications, Mark writes clarifications. Well, good to know, and it'll be a fun surprise when it does come out!
Mostly it was that I had a step by step process by which a GM tries to adjudicate the stats for a very challenging to adjudicate simulacrum of a nearly CR 20 creature, with notes on when there were several possible ways to go and why the direction the GM picked might not always be the best of those options in some circumstances (because there was no easy option). Also, I looked at it again and somehow got the wrong wordcount last time (did I open the wrong file? Not sure); it's more like 20-25% than 50%

Of course, you know, Mark, as always, if you need another pair of eyes to, oh, check it over, you know where to find me.

/butter wouldn't melt in my mouth

What did I say?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the announcement of the Necromancer coming to Diablo 3, do you think it would be a good source for new talents for the Void kineticist ?

Necro Trailer

5,401 to 5,450 of 6,833 << first < prev | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.