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


Off-Topic Discussions

1,651 to 1,700 of 6,833 << first < prev | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | next > last >>

That change basically ruins the archetype. The ONLY advantage MoMS truly has over the base Monk is getting early access to Feats like Snake Fang, Crane Wing, and Dragon Style/Ferocity, without having to worry about the bad prerequisite Feats for some of them(Snake Sidewind, wryyyy?)

Focusing on multiple Style Feats is nice and all, but the problem is there are only a few worth taking. Snake, Dragon, Crane (formerly, and situational even then), Tiger (barey, only for Tiger Pounce), Boar (also sort of meh at best)), Snapping Turtle (but not Clutch for most builds) and Wolf (Situational).

Meaning you want to get your main Styles out of the way early so you can spend the rest of your Bonus Feats on the more situational ones.

Changing it so at 1st and 2nd level you need to meet the prerequisites is both clunky, and drops the power of the archetype from "Weak, but cool and thematic, with some fun tricks" to "Worthless".

The idea of reducing dippability is admirable, but that ship sailed the moment it was printed. Your options are basically "Weaken it further" or "Leave it alone".

Designer

Rynjin wrote:

That change basically ruins the archetype. The ONLY advantage MoMS truly has over the base Monk is getting early access to Feats like Snake Fang, Crane Wing, and Dragon Style/Ferocity, without having to worry about the bad prerequisite Feats for some of them(Snake Sidewind, wryyyy?)

Focusing on multiple Style Feats is nice and all, but the problem is there are only a few worth taking. Snake, Dragon, Crane (formerly, and situational even then), Tiger (barey, only for Tiger Pounce), Boar (also sort of meh at best)), Snapping Turtle (but not Clutch for most builds) and Wolf (Situational).

Meaning you want to get your main Styles out of the way early so you can spend the rest of your Bonus Feats on the more situational ones.

Changing it so at 1st and 2nd level you need to meet the prerequisites is both clunky, and drops the power of the archetype from "Weak, but cool and thematic, with some fun tricks" to "Worthless".

The idea of reducing dippability is admirable, but that ship sailed the moment it was printed. Your options are basically "Weaken it further" or "Leave it alone".

Certainly nobody's stopping me from also buffing some of the higher-level abilities of the archetype in my home games if I ever go to that model. Your analysis seems to be long-term, and I agree (clearly if we agree that the dip is problematic, then that means that the archetype is also problematic over the same levels as the dip).


Rynjin wrote:

That change basically ruins the archetype. The ONLY advantage MoMS truly has over the base Monk is getting early access to Feats like Snake Fang, Crane Wing, and Dragon Style/Ferocity, without having to worry about the bad prerequisite Feats for some of them(Snake Sidewind, wryyyy?)

Focusing on multiple Style Feats is nice and all, but the problem is there are only a few worth taking. Snake, Dragon, Crane (formerly, and situational even then), Tiger (barey, only for Tiger Pounce), Boar (also sort of meh at best)), Snapping Turtle (but not Clutch for most builds) and Wolf (Situational).

Meaning you want to get your main Styles out of the way early so you can spend the rest of your Bonus Feats on the more situational ones.

Changing it so at 1st and 2nd level you need to meet the prerequisites is both clunky, and drops the power of the archetype from "Weak, but cool and thematic, with some fun tricks" to "Worthless".

The idea of reducing dippability is admirable, but that ship sailed the moment it was printed. Your options are basically "Weaken it further" or "Leave it alone".

The problem is that MoMS is far too dip friendly. I can't tell you the number of characters I've seen that dip MoMS, even for a single level, to get early access to a feat. For example, a level 1 MoMS gets Crane Style and Crane Wing if he's human, then, after that, it's onto the actual meat of the character, going Bard, or Magus or Inquisitor or anything else really.

Even with the nerf of restricting the first and second feat to only the first feat in a style, MoMS remains a very strong archetype. It's a shame that so few people don't actually play a MoMS, because it's only seen as a dip archetype, but MoMS has some very subtle strength to him. The right combinations of styles can turn him into a real nightmare to deal with.

A Crane/Snake/Panther style MoMS, for example, is a mobile terror running around the battlefield making counter attacks and blocking hits that get through. Or a Snake/Panther/Dragon is less defensive, but more offensive. God forbid someone opt to take Pummeling Style instead of Panther Style.

What the above change would do, is all but completely wipe out the tendency for people to dip MoMS for early Style feats. A change like this would have actually addressed the issue with Crane Wing (access at first or 2nd level instead of around 5th where it was intended).

There would have been some outcry, I think, but not nearly the blow up that happened over Crane Wing. It's bugged me for a long time that nearly every complaint about Crane Wing involved a 1 or 2 level dip into MoMS during those first 2 levels.

With more and more Style feats coming out now days, I can only foresee the 2 level dip into MoMS becoming a stronger and stronger option.


Personally I think if you go that route you may as well make it part of the core Monk chassis. Fuse Styles as a new ability, and the ability to take a Style Feat in place of one of his Monk Bonus Feats starting at 6th level.

If you start tweaking other abilities I think the main problem you'll run into is keeping in line with the general archetype guideline of "Equivalent exchange". Taking too many other abilities to add too many new ones also sorta indirectly reduces its power (Frex if you replace Tongue of the Sun and Moon it becomes incompatible with Monk of the Sacred Mountain, a good mix when you're already giving up Flurry so you may as well wear armor and drop Evasion too).

Combat Style Master as a Bonus Feat early on is just a quality of life sorta thing that would help (it's a Feat tax for any MoMS who wants to be completely on from round 1).

A Martial Flexibility style thing that lets him grab some extra Style Feats or something on the fly would also help the theme. Hell, even just limiting it to the normal Monk bonus Feats and Style feats would be interesting. Grab Improved Trip and Wolf Style on the fly and it could get pretty brutal.

...

Have I ever mentioned I like Monks?

Tels wrote:

The problem is that MoMS is far too dip friendly. I can't tell you the number of characters I've seen that dip MoMS, even for a single level, to get early access to a feat. For example, a level 1 MoMS gets Crane Style and Crane Wing if he's human, then, after that, it's onto the actual meat of the character, going Bard, or Magus or Inquisitor or anything else really.

Even with the nerf of restricting the first and second feat to only the first feat in a style, MoMS remains a very strong archetype. It's a shame that so few people don't actually play a MoMS, because it's only seen as a dip archetype, but MoMS has some very subtle strength to him. The right combinations of styles can turn him into a real nightmare to deal with.

A Crane/Snake/Panther style MoMS, for example, is a mobile terror running around the battlefield making counter attacks and blocking hits that get through. Or a Snake/Panther/Dragon is less defensive, but more offensive. God forbid someone opt to take Pummeling Style instead of Panther Style.

What the above change would do, is all but completely wipe out the tendency for people to dip MoMS for early Style feats. A change like this would have actually addressed the issue with Crane Wing (access at first or 2nd level instead of around 5th where it was intended).

There would have been some outcry, I think, but not nearly the blow up that happened over Crane Wing. It's bugged me for a long time that nearly every complaint about Crane Wing involved a 1 or 2 level dip into MoMS during those first 2 levels.

With more and more Style feats coming out now days, I can only foresee the 2 level dip into MoMS becoming a stronger and stronger option.

They're really not as good as you think. The Dragon/Snake/Panther combo sounds GREAT on paper. I got super excited about getting it up and running on one of my Monks (the one in my classes/levels line, actually), and once I did...it was underwhelming to say the least.

Panther rarely comes into play in the manner you might expect. Theoretically you get what amounts to a full attack against several schmoes who try to attack you.

In practice, you whack some guy twice, and the others go "...Screw that" and just let you pass. Which is nice, but not the effect you were going for.

MoMS is demonstrably a weak archetype to take to 20th, unfortunately. It falls off around 8th at the latest and I had to FIGHT for that.

Designer

Rynjin wrote:

Personally I think if you go that route you may as well make it part of the core Monk chassis. Fuse Styles as a new ability, and the ability to take a Style Feat in place of one of his Monk Bonus Feats starting at 6th level.

If you start tweaking other abilities I think the main problem you'll run into is keeping in line with the general archetype guideline of "Equivalent exchange". Taking too many other abilities to add too many new ones also sorta indirectly reduces its power (Frex if you replace Tongue of the Sun and Moon it becomes incompatible with Monk of the Sacred Mountain, a good mix when you're already giving up Flurry so you may as well wear armor and drop Evasion too).

Combat Style Master as a Bonus Feat early on is just a quality of life sorta thing that would help (it's a Feat tax for any MoMS who wants to be completely on from round 1).

A Martial Flexibility style thing that lets him grab some extra Style Feats or something on the fly would also help the theme. Hell, even just limiting it to the normal Monk bonus Feats and Style feats would be interesting. Grab Improved Trip and Wolf Style on the fly and it could get pretty brutal.

...

Have I ever mentioned I like Monks?

Tels wrote:

The problem is that MoMS is far too dip friendly. I can't tell you the number of characters I've seen that dip MoMS, even for a single level, to get early access to a feat. For example, a level 1 MoMS gets Crane Style and Crane Wing if he's human, then, after that, it's onto the actual meat of the character, going Bard, or Magus or Inquisitor or anything else really.

Even with the nerf of restricting the first and second feat to only the first feat in a style, MoMS remains a very strong archetype. It's a shame that so few people don't actually play a MoMS, because it's only seen as a dip archetype, but MoMS has some very subtle strength to him. The right combinations of styles can turn him into a real nightmare to deal with.

A Crane/Snake/Panther style MoMS, for example, is a

...

I really like monks too, and I agree with you about the drop-off in MoMS. In my homebrewed musings, the additional benefits would probably be freebies anyway, not trade-offs, so it shouldn't affect taking sacred mountain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you ever come up with something concrete, I'd love to see it. Would be interested in trying it out for my games.

Silver Crusade

Mark, in forthcoming products could you add feats for fighters barbarians and bloodragers that do not require a 13+ intelligence and combat expertise. IMO Combat Expertise is the worst feat tax in Pathfinder.

It would be nice to have more feats for 2 handed weapons. It seems to me Paizo of late has concentrated on niche feats for melee combatants instead of more general feats that rely on muscle and combat power.


Hi Mark. I have a question on a weapon enchant from the new Melee Toolbox, Shrinking. How does the weapon changing to " the size of a standard dagger" affect the weapons:
Effort: light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed
Special features: like reach and brace
Proficiency: does a dagger sized greatsword still use the normal proficiency.
Basic stats: Crit, weight, range ect. still the same?

Sorry is this has been brought up before but I haven't seen it or found it with search.

Designer

graystone wrote:

Hi Mark. I have a question on a weapon enchant from the new Melee Toolbox, Shrinking. How does the weapon changing to " the size of a standard dagger" affect the weapons:

Effort: light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed
Special features: like reach and brace
Proficiency: does a dagger sized greatsword still use the normal proficiency.
Basic stats: Crit, weight, range ect. still the same?

Sorry is this has been brought up before but I haven't seen it or found it with search.

Huh, what a great question. That quality seems to be missing a lot of necessary clarifications like the ones you mention. Only Owen can give anything even approaching official. In a home game, I might limit the enchant further to weapons that would be easy to adjudicate, or just say that it decreases two-handed weapons by two sizes and one-handed weapons by one size, or something like that, since certainly some weapons wouldn't be at all effective at doing what they do when wielded by a size Medium creature at the size of a dagger. Maybe make it an improvised weapon when the weapon clearly doesn't work in its usual way at that size? I'd have to think more on it before I knew for sure what I wanted to do.


Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:

Hi Mark. I have a question on a weapon enchant from the new Melee Toolbox, Shrinking. How does the weapon changing to " the size of a standard dagger" affect the weapons:

Effort: light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed
Special features: like reach and brace
Proficiency: does a dagger sized greatsword still use the normal proficiency.
Basic stats: Crit, weight, range ect. still the same?

Sorry is this has been brought up before but I haven't seen it or found it with search.

Huh, what a great question. That quality seems to be missing a lot of necessary clarifications like the ones you mention. Only Owen can give anything even approaching official. In a home game, I might limit the enchant further to weapons that would be easy to adjudicate, or just say that it decreases two-handed weapons by two sizes and one-handed weapons by one size, or something like that, since certainly some weapons wouldn't be at all effective at doing what they do when wielded by a size Medium creature at the size of a dagger. Maybe make it an improvised weapon when the weapon clearly doesn't work in its usual way at that size? I'd have to think more on it before I knew for sure what I wanted to do.

Glad to see I wasn't missing something obvious. ;)

I saw it and thought 'I could shrink a rapier, use it in my offhand and then TWF with Fencing grace!' Then I started questioning what it actually did vs what I was thinking it should do.

Myself, I think I'll change weapons to light, drop reach/brace, and keep proficiency until a ruling comes out. Not sure what to do about rope/chain/whip weapons. I might ignore logic or go with you and make them improvised.

PS: Another question. The ability sets the damage at 1d4 for the weapon. Is that assuming medium? And does this mean that weapons like the whip and mancatcher actually do more damage by shrinking?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will it ever be an expanded quinngong list of abilities?


I saw in the Familiar Folio thread that you were involved with the familiar archetypes. What is the "familiar effective level" listed as a prereq for the School Familiar feat? Does that mean the PC's effective wizard level for the familar ability, like a magus's class levels are equal to wizard levels but a rogue with the Advanced Rogue Talent Familiar has an effective wizard level of rogue level minus four?

EDIT: And on a similar note, how does the Sage's Knowledge ability of the Sage familiar archetype ("A sage stores information on every topic and is happy to lecture its master on the finer points") work at levels where the caster and familiar only have an empathic link and the familiar can't yet speak to the caster?

Designer

Joana wrote:
I saw in the Familiar Folio thread that you were involved with the familiar archetypes. What is the "familiar effective level" listed as a prereq for the School Familiar feat? Does that mean the PC's effective wizard level for the familar ability, like a magus's class levels are equal to wizard levels but a rogue with the Advanced Rogue Talent Familiar has an effective wizard level of rogue level minus four?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what it is (though you do need a wizard level to even qualify), and the greater says wizard 10th, so probably one or the other should change to be parallel.

EDIT: @your edit, it would be happy to lecture you if it could. If you want to hear its lectures at those levels, though, you'll need a thrush or a raven.


Thanks, Mark. I have a player interested in the familiar archetypes, and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around them.


Joana wrote:
... how does the Sage's Knowledge ability of the Sage familiar archetype ("A sage stores information on every topic and is happy to lecture its master on the finer points") work at levels where the caster and familiar only have an empathic link and the familiar can't yet speak to the caster?
Mark Seifter wrote:
... it would be happy to lecture you if it could. If you want to hear its lectures at those levels, though, you'll need a thrush or a raven.

What if the caster casts speak with animals? I know that a familiar loses the animal subtype and becomes a magical beast, but would you allow the spell to work on a familiar?

Speak with Animals wrote:
You can ask questions of and receive answers from animals, but the spell doesn't make them any more friendly than normal. Wary and cunning animals are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones make inane comments. If an animal is friendly toward you, it may do some favor or service for you.


mmm, here's a question that I don't think has been completely answered.

A 6th level sensei can 'affect one ally within 30 feet rather than the sensei himself' when using class abilities that cost ki.

A 4th level qinggong monk can cast hydraulic push or scorching ray by using ki points.

1. What can a qinggong sensei do with this?
2. Do you 'affect yourself' during the casting of an offensive spell?
3. Can you cause all of your allies to fire scorching rays at something when you use this ability?
4. Or, could a jerk qinggong sensei target himself with his own scorching ray, and attack all of his allies instead?
5. Or would a qinggong sensei just target all enemies in range with scorching rays instead of his spell-alloted number?

Designer

Joana wrote:
Joana wrote:
... how does the Sage's Knowledge ability of the Sage familiar archetype ("A sage stores information on every topic and is happy to lecture its master on the finer points") work at levels where the caster and familiar only have an empathic link and the familiar can't yet speak to the caster?
Mark Seifter wrote:
... it would be happy to lecture you if it could. If you want to hear its lectures at those levels, though, you'll need a thrush or a raven.

What if the caster casts speak with animals? I know that a familiar loses the animal subtype and becomes a magical beast, but would you allow the spell to work on a familiar?

Speak with Animals wrote:
You can ask questions of and receive answers from animals, but the spell doesn't make them any more friendly than normal. Wary and cunning animals are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones make inane comments. If an animal is friendly toward you, it may do some favor or service for you.

By the spell text, it normally wouldn't work, but I doubt it would be a problem if a motivated character could talk to creatures with the augmented animal subtype using speak with animals. I have allowed it in home games.

Designer

ohako wrote:

mmm, here's a question that I don't think has been completely answered.

A 6th level sensei can 'affect one ally within 30 feet rather than the sensei himself' when using class abilities that cost ki.

A 4th level qinggong monk can cast hydraulic push or scorching ray by using ki points.

1. What can a qinggong sensei do with this?
2. Do you 'affect yourself' during the casting of an offensive spell?
3. Can you cause all of your allies to fire scorching rays at something when you use this ability?
4. Or, could a jerk qinggong sensei target himself with his own scorching ray, and attack all of his allies instead?
5. Or would a qinggong sensei just target all enemies in range with scorching rays instead of his spell-alloted number?

The sensei is not the one affected by those attack powers, so it wouldn't work; it only works on powers that affect the sensei himself.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

And the latest #1 FAQ has been answered.

Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

Without the mighty behemoth of the damage dice progression FAQ to protect them, these FAQs seem to have a short lifespan at the top nowadays. Will the fact that Light and Darkness is so complicated that it can't possibly be answered without a longer blog version like the poison FAQ allow it to rule the FAQs for a while, or will the freebooter reign supreme forevermore, since it isn't in the RPG line? Perhaps the freebooter will receive one more FAQ request and take over even if Light and Darkness has no answer? Find out more about this exciting rivalry on the next FAQ Friday!


Mark Seifter wrote:

And the latest #1 FAQ has been answered.

Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Without the mighty behemoth of the damage dice progression FAQ to protect them, these FAQs seem to have a short lifespan at the top nowadays. Will the fact that Light and Darkness is so complicated that it can't possibly be answered without a longer blog version like the poison FAQ allow it to rule the FAQs for a while, or will the freebooter reign supreme forevermore, since it isn't in the RPG line? Perhaps the freebooter will receive one more FAQ request and take over even if Light and Darkness has no answer? Find out more about this exciting rivalry on the next FAQ Friday!

Damn. I knew it would be ruled somewhat like this, but it still messes with some characters I've built. Namely my take on Captain Falcon.


I may be over-tired, but the last two sentences in that FAQ seem to be contradictory. Does this mean that an actual size change and "as if" size change stack (lead blades + enlarge person being the obvious example).

Also, I don't think that the answer actually answers all three clauses of the question: actual size, effective size, and starting damage dice. So do a monk's robe (or monastic legacy), lead blades, and enlarge person all stack, or is one pair of that considered the same thing?

Designer

ZanThrax wrote:

I may be over-tired, but the last two sentences in that FAQ seem to be contradictory. Does this mean that an actual size change and "as if" size change stack (lead blades + enlarge person being the obvious example).

Also, I don't think that the answer actually answers all three clauses of the question: actual size, effective size, and starting damage dice. So do a monk's robe (or monastic legacy), lead blades, and enlarge person all stack, or is one pair of that considered the same thing?

Best actual size increase and best as-if size increase do stack. Monk's robe changes your effective monk level rather than doing either of those things, so that would work too!


Does that include the increase from improved natural attack feat? I had
thought that was an exception to that rule.

Silver Crusade Contributor

I'm still in bed and a bit hazy, so regarding the FAQ: do shield spikes and the bashing property still stack, or are they mutually exclusive?

Thank you. :)


Would it be possible for you, or the PDT account to make a thread in the Rules forum to generate a list of all known size increases in the game, and then split them up into "Physical Increases" and "Effective Increases" so we can have a comprehensive list of what does and does not stack?

The Size FAQ is a good one and covers a long standing issue, but there are still going to be questions about it. Making a list of all known abilities and seperating them into Physical and Effective size increases would probably clarify most, if not all, of the questions. Perhaps a 3rd list for things like Monk/Brawler unarmed strike damage that increases damage dice but is *not* a size increase.


Man I just realized with the size increase FAQ my Tetori loses a whole d8 off his Unarmed Strike, I think. Tell me if this is correct:

His base Unarmed Strike damage is 2d8, which increases to 3d6 when Enlarged, which increases to 3d8 with Titan Strike making it effectively Huge now? As opposed to the 2d8 to 3d8 to 4d8 I thought before?

Edit: ...Nevermind. Reading failure (I was following the chart linearly instead of reading the text that specifically says JUMP TWO. Doy.)


Hi Mark, I was hoping you could give some design guidance on how the Beast-Bonded Witch archetype is supposed to work - I've been wanting to play one for a while, but haven't due to widespread confusion on how to adjudicate their abilities. Most urgently:

Their 8th level ability lets them take the shape of their familiar (or one of "similar" kind). This ability seems to assume the familiar is of type animal. How does this work if they're not? (and to be fair, even basic familiars are magical beasts not animals)

Their 10th level ability to share bodies has spawned many threads, and really could use a lot of clarification. Here's a few:
What qualifies as "gravely injured or about to die"?
What type of action is the transfer?
What happens to the ousted spirit when using the magic jar effect?
Can the witch and familiar just keep magic jar body jumping endlessly?


Mark Seifter wrote:

And the latest #1 FAQ has been answered.

I asked this question in the thread, but is it really the intention to not allow LB to work on a spiked shield, or has no one specifically looked at that?

I think the problem I have with this FAQ is that a spiked shield is an actual weapon whose damage is simply described using relative language.

Let me approach the question another way, does Lead Blades work on Spiked Armor? Spiked armor is listed on the weapons table and list a damage dice. So it seems LB works on spiked armor...but not on a spiked shield?


Mark Seifter wrote:
And the latest #1 FAQ has been answered. ...

And now my character's 12d6 weapon deals half damage... damn... Still... probably for the best in most games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are Pathfinder Society FAQs still considered RAW for non-society games?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey Mark, would you be interested in taking a look at this thread: Effective Level Increases and Archetype Class Features

The answer seems pretty cut and dried to me, but some people are really, really adamant about their personal interpretation of the rules.

TL;DR: Some people (The ones in the right) believe that when a fighter archetype gives up Armor Training in parts (Such as 2-4, but not 1), the other three parts cease to exist for the fighter and as such, he cannot access them, even with a Sash of the War Champion, which says he treats his level as four levels higher for the purposes of armor training.

The other side believes that even though the fighter has obviously given up Armor Training through the class features of the archetype, a Sash of the War Champion will still allow an archetyped fighter to gain Armor Training 2-4, because magic.


Kudaku wrote:
Are Pathfinder Society FAQs still considered RAW for non-society games?

I realized this one could do with a bit more detail - I was in a hurry when I posted the question earlier. While talking about useful "utility" items with another GM at the LFGS I ran into an attitude that surprised me. Basically, he argued that the FAQ for Snapleaf being a consumable is only rules-binding for PFS, since it's listed under the Society FAQ instead of under the Ultimate Equipment FAQ (where the item is printed).

While I didn't argue the point I privately thought that attitude was needlessly contentious (a FAQ is a FAQ after all) but after actually reviewing the PFS FAQ I find myself torn on the issue. On the one hand there are FAQs that I'd personally consider rules-binding for Pathfinder as a whole (Snapleaf being a consumable, no combining the Wildblooded & Crossblooded sorcerer archetypes) but on the other hand there are also FAQ that are clearly only intended for PFS (limiting Paladin mounts, Profession: Torturer) - somewhat problematically, other than personal there doesn't seem to be a way to distinguish between the two. Where do you draw the line?


Hey Mark, a follow-up question to your FAQ on size-increase stacking. How is the Improved Damage Evolution meant to be handled? Its language is subtly different from other size increases:

Improved Damage wrote:
Select one natural attack form and increase the damage die type by one step

Bold is mine. Is this meant to be a size increase, or do you actually increase the base die type (such as increasing a d8 natural attack into a d10, a d10 into a d12, etc?)

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Byakko wrote:

Hi Mark, I was hoping you could give some design guidance on how the Beast-Bonded Witch archetype is supposed to work - I've been wanting to play one for a while, but haven't due to widespread confusion on how to adjudicate their abilities. Most urgently:

Their 8th level ability lets them take the shape of their familiar (or one of "similar" kind). This ability seems to assume the familiar is of type animal. How does this work if they're not? (and to be fair, even basic familiars are magical beasts not animals)

Their 10th level ability to share bodies has spawned many threads, and really could use a lot of clarification. Here's a few:
What qualifies as "gravely injured or about to die"?
What type of action is the transfer?
What happens to the ousted spirit when using the magic jar effect?
Can the witch and familiar just keep magic jar body jumping endlessly?

Yeah, that archetype has some pretty loose wording. In my home game, I would be tempted to borrow language from some of the (far tighter worded) similar abilities in Occult Adventures to fill in the gaps, but that won't be an option for you for a few months. I agree though that it seems pretty much impossible to run it without coming up with a GM interpretation of how those unclear parts should work.

Designer

Ashram wrote:

Hey Mark, would you be interested in taking a look at this thread: Effective Level Increases and Archetype Class Features

The answer seems pretty cut and dried to me, but some people are really, really adamant about their personal interpretation of the rules.

TL;DR: Some people (The ones in the right) believe that when a fighter archetype gives up Armor Training in parts (Such as 2-4, but not 1), the other three parts cease to exist for the fighter and as such, he cannot access them, even with a Sash of the War Champion, which says he treats his level as four levels higher for the purposes of armor training.

The other side believes that even though the fighter has obviously given up Armor Training through the class features of the archetype, a Sash of the War Champion will still allow an archetyped fighter to gain Armor Training 2-4, because magic.

I believe that you are pretty much decisively correct, and the language that explains this is usually in those archetype chapter intros that nobody actually reads since they read the one in the APG and figure they're all the same (consider, for instance, the ACG archetype chapter intro).

Designer

Kudaku wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Are Pathfinder Society FAQs still considered RAW for non-society games?

I realized this one could do with a bit more detail - I was in a hurry when I posted the question earlier. While talking about useful "utility" items with another GM at the LFGS I ran into an attitude that surprised me. Basically, he argued that the FAQ for Snapleaf being a consumable is only rules-binding for PFS, since it's listed under the Society FAQ instead of under the Ultimate Equipment FAQ (where the item is printed).

While I didn't argue the point I privately thought that attitude was needlessly contentious (a FAQ is a FAQ after all) but after actually reviewing the PFS FAQ I find myself torn on the issue. On the one hand there are FAQs that I'd personally consider rules-binding for Pathfinder as a whole (Snapleaf being a consumable, no combining the Wildblooded & Crossblooded sorcerer archetypes) but on the other hand there are also FAQ that are clearly only intended for PFS (limiting Paladin mounts, Profession: Torturer) - somewhat problematically, other than personal there doesn't seem to be a way to distinguish between the two. Where do you draw the line?

I think what happened was that at first PFS made rules rulings and then they stopped and adopted a policy that the design team needed to be the ones to make those rulings, so you'll see a few rules rulings in there in addition to many PFS-specific rulings. As far as I'm concerned, while they may not be "official" for Pathfinder in general, Mike and John are ace Pathfinder players and GMs whose experience with PFS around the world make them, to me anyway, high on the list of the next most trusted pairs of eyes for this stuff in the whole company after the design team itself, so I'd generally assume that what they ruled there was a good idea.

But yeah, the trouble of distinguishing them and the fact that they sometimes prevent FAQ threads on the same topics from thriving in the rules forum seem pretty clearly why they were discontinued in having those topics (though that decision was before my time here).


I would like some advice with designing a playable pseudodragon race.

Could you enlighten me on the RP for the following abilities? I am using the Race Builder from ARG, but there are quite a few traits left out:


  • 15ft. land speed
  • Stinger
  • Poison
  • Telepathy 60ft.
  • Blindsense 60ft.

Some others that I believe I came up with a sensible solution for, but would still like your input:


  • Greater Spell Resistance seems to fit the 12 that it has per the bestiary, but I am thinking Lesser might make it more balance since it will also be gaining PC class levels.
  • I went with Sneaky (5 RP) and Camouflage (forest) (1 RP) for the +4/+8 racial bonus to stealth. Though I am finding it very hard to see how a +4 to stealth is powerful enough to warrant 5 RP...
  • I decided to use Xenophobic at a -1 RP by removing the ability to gain additional bonus languages.
  • I went with Greater Weakness for the ability scores (lowers the RP some and fits into the 7 strength issue Pseudodragons have, paired with the -2 size penalty.

I would really appreciate any and all input you could provide, as it stands the Pseudodragon has 40+ RP...more than a gargoyle...

Designer

BigP4nda wrote:

I would like some advice with designing a playable pseudodragon race.

Could you enlighten me on the RP for the following abilities? I am using the Race Builder from ARG, but there are quite a few traits left out:


  • 15ft. land speed
  • Stinger
  • Poison
  • Telepathy 60ft.
  • Blindsense 60ft.

Some others that I believe I came up with a sensible solution for, but would still like your input:


  • Greater Spell Resistance seems to fit the 12 that it has per the bestiary, but I am thinking Lesser might make it more balance since it will also be gaining PC class levels.
  • I went with Sneaky (5 RP) and Camouflage (forest) (1 RP) for the +4/+8 racial bonus to stealth. Though I am finding it very hard to see how a +4 to stealth is powerful enough to warrant 5 RP...
  • I decided to use Xenophobic at a -1 RP by removing the ability to gain additional bonus languages.
  • I went with Greater Weakness for the ability scores (lowers the RP some and fits into the 7 strength issue Pseudodragons have, paired with the -2 size penalty.

I would really appreciate any and all input you could provide, as it stands the Pseudodragon has 40+ RP...more than a gargoyle...

The trouble with the race builder is, as you note, that the costs of the abilities vary pretty wildly, and not always at the same rate as their actual usefulness (skill bonuses in general seem to be particularly overvalued, as you surmise with Sneaky). Furthermore, it never captures a race's synergies (for instance, ignoring racial swap outs and just using the basic abilities, the ifrit race has an extremely noticeable advantage over the other three elemental planetouched in that it actually receives a +2 Charisma, which stacks with its racial ability to raise effective Charisma by 2 as a sorcerer). As such, the race builder is really best to give you a basic ballpark, but it's not going to tell you the whole story.

With that caveat out of the way: As a whole, lower land speed is probably not worth any negative points due to the fly speed, but the race builder does have the slow speed ability, which usually nets 20 and could be adjusted here to give 15. Stinger is probably another option for the "Natural Arrack" advanced offense trait that costs 1 point. Pseudodragon poison is a pretty buff form of the toxic offense trait; it seems clearly worth 4+ compared to toxic. Given that Blindsense 30 is 4 points, since many effects in the game are around 30 foot range, Blindsense 60 is a whole lot more effective, likely worth 6 or even more. Telepathy with no limitations other than distance is a pretty effective way to coordinate past enemies, and as a party spokesperson, it obviates the need for languages entirely, so depending on how much Truespeech is worth, it should be worth even more.


I can corroborate "Telepathy is insanely useful" over here, having played a Nosferatu for quite a while now.

One of the major benefits being coordinating social encounters (planning the best way to manipulate someone as you talk to them).

Designer

Rynjin wrote:

I can corroborate "Telepathy is insanely useful" over here, having played a Nosferatu for quite a while now.

One of the major benefits being coordinating social encounters (planning the best way to manipulate someone as you talk to them).

Absolutely! My recent experience was as a face wizard (Cha 14, max ranks, and class skill is high for a wizard anyway) whose faerie dragon had telepathy and was a quite passable diplomat herself.


N N 959 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

And the latest #1 FAQ has been answered.

I asked this question in the thread, but is it really the intention to not allow LB to work on a spiked shield, or has no one specifically looked at that?

I think the problem I have with this FAQ is that a spiked shield is an actual weapon whose damage is simply described using relative language.

Let me approach the question another way, does Lead Blades work on Spiked Armor? Spiked armor is listed on the weapons table and list a damage dice. So it seems LB works on spiked armor...but not on a spiked shield?

Any thoughts on this, especially the last part?


Mark Seifter wrote:

The trouble with the race builder is, as you note, that the costs of the abilities vary pretty wildly, and not always at the same rate as their actual usefulness (skill bonuses in general seem to be particularly overvalued, as you surmise with Sneaky). Furthermore, it never captures a race's synergies (for instance, ignoring racial swap outs and just using the basic abilities, the ifrit race has an extremely noticeable advantage over the other three elemental planetouched in that it actually receives a +2 Charisma, which stacks with its racial ability to raise effective Charisma by 2 as a sorcerer). As such, the race builder is really best to give you a basic ballpark, but it's not going to tell you the whole story.

With that caveat out of the way: As a whole, lower land speed is...

Okay, so would it be easier to trash the RP values and just give it the abilities it is supposed to have? Or do you think I should try to somehow balance it with other races?

Contributor

Mark Seifter wrote:
I believe that you are pretty much decisively correct, and the language that explains this is usually in those archetype chapter intros that nobody actually reads since they read the one in the APG and figure they're all the same (consider, for instance, the ACG archetype chapter intro).

I read it immediately after seeing that it took up nearly twice as much space as the original APG archetype rules page.

By the way, those clarifications in terminology were FANTASTIC. Could you pass that along to the rest of the PDT for me? One thing that I would like to see, however, is an update that notes whether some of the older archetypes should have their wordage updated to be in line with the new text. That would be SUPER useful.

Designer

BigP4nda wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

The trouble with the race builder is, as you note, that the costs of the abilities vary pretty wildly, and not always at the same rate as their actual usefulness (skill bonuses in general seem to be particularly overvalued, as you surmise with Sneaky). Furthermore, it never captures a race's synergies (for instance, ignoring racial swap outs and just using the basic abilities, the ifrit race has an extremely noticeable advantage over the other three elemental planetouched in that it actually receives a +2 Charisma, which stacks with its racial ability to raise effective Charisma by 2 as a sorcerer). As such, the race builder is really best to give you a basic ballpark, but it's not going to tell you the whole story.

With that caveat out of the way: As a whole, lower land speed is...

Okay, so would it be easier to trash the RP values and just give it the abilities it is supposed to have? Or do you think I should try to somehow balance it with other races?

Honestly, I too-often see the RP used as a justification that a new race with highly-synergistic abilities is "balanced" with the core races (for instance, consider the race Wizardling that spent all its RP on powerful wizard abilities like extra Intelligence, Spell Focus as a specific bonus feat in addition to getting a variable bonus feat, etc). I think the builder was meant to be a good starting point for a GM who wanted to make a totally new race from scratch, rather than much of a measuring stick for a race that you already know what you want.

Having said that, choosing pseudodragon as the base race gives you a strong basis for creating all the abilities, so the race builder doesn't help you as much as it would help us if we decided we wanted to make a new race called dracolar, a tiny dragon of some kind but we weren't sure about all the abilities. As to balance with other races? It depends on what you want to do with it, really. Clearly playing a race with abilities like that is very strong for any class that isn't harmed by being so little (basically spellcasters), so it's going to be more powerful than, say, a human. But if everybody is playing a monster with weird abilities, you could try to balance them out. Having run and played games with Savage Species in 3E, I've learned that it's typically much better if everyone or no one plays a weird race with more powers, since depending on what the humans and such get in exchange (before Pathfinder, this was typically additional class levels), they will generally either be significantly stronger or weaker than the monster races. A GM with an eye for lots of homebrewing, relative balance, and customization can probably come up with fun wahoo abilities to give to an elf or human, though, to keep the name and flavor of those races the same but bring them up in line with more powerful monsters. Doing that carefully, combined with raising the opposition a bit, is probably the #1 way to include PCs of races with odd and powerful abilities.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I believe that you are pretty much decisively correct, and the language that explains this is usually in those archetype chapter intros that nobody actually reads since they read the one in the APG and figure they're all the same (consider, for instance, the ACG archetype chapter intro).

I read it immediately after seeing that it took up nearly twice as much space as the original APG archetype rules page.

By the way, those clarifications in terminology were FANTASTIC. Could you pass that along to the rest of the PDT for me? One thing that I would like to see, however, is an update that notes whether some of the older archetypes should have their wordage updated to be in line with the new text. That would be SUPER useful.

I'm nobody! Who are you?

Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

Contributor

Mark Seifter wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I believe that you are pretty much decisively correct, and the language that explains this is usually in those archetype chapter intros that nobody actually reads since they read the one in the APG and figure they're all the same (consider, for instance, the ACG archetype chapter intro).

I read it immediately after seeing that it took up nearly twice as much space as the original APG archetype rules page.

By the way, those clarifications in terminology were FANTASTIC. Could you pass that along to the rest of the PDT for me? One thing that I would like to see, however, is an update that notes whether some of the older archetypes should have their wordage updated to be in line with the new text. That would be SUPER useful.

I'm nobody! Who are you?

Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

There are no fewer than fifteen different ways that I can interpret you choosing to respond to my comment with a well-known poem about camaraderie against authority.

Trying to decide which interpretation is correct is going to keep me up ALL NIGHT.


Hey Mark, how do you feel about combining Familiar/Cohort/Animal Companion rules. Would it be something you would allow.

Also, what exactly would the mechanics be, which abilities would take priority when they overlapped? Would you just use the best or faster progression?


Was the medium class influenced at all by the Persona games?

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I believe that you are pretty much decisively correct, and the language that explains this is usually in those archetype chapter intros that nobody actually reads since they read the one in the APG and figure they're all the same (consider, for instance, the ACG archetype chapter intro).

I read it immediately after seeing that it took up nearly twice as much space as the original APG archetype rules page.

By the way, those clarifications in terminology were FANTASTIC. Could you pass that along to the rest of the PDT for me? One thing that I would like to see, however, is an update that notes whether some of the older archetypes should have their wordage updated to be in line with the new text. That would be SUPER useful.

I'm nobody! Who are you?

Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

There are no fewer than fifteen different ways that I can interpret you choosing to respond to my comment with a well-known poem about camaraderie against authority.

Trying to decide which interpretation is correct is going to keep me up ALL NIGHT.

Wait, what the dickens? Unreal! I thought I made that poem up. Are you saying someone else also wrote the same thing?


Tels wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

And the latest #1 FAQ has been answered.

Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Without the mighty behemoth of the damage dice progression FAQ to protect them, these FAQs seem to have a short lifespan at the top nowadays. Will the fact that Light and Darkness is so complicated that it can't possibly be answered without a longer blog version like the poison FAQ allow it to rule the FAQs for a while, or will the freebooter reign supreme forevermore, since it isn't in the RPG line? Perhaps the freebooter will receive one more FAQ request and take over even if Light and Darkness has no answer? Find out more about this exciting rivalry on the next FAQ Friday!
Damn. I knew it would be ruled somewhat like this, but it still messes with some characters I've built. Namely my take on Captain Falcon.

I on the other hand heartily endorse this faq as it is how it has always made sense to me. Thank you, faq team!

I'm glad my 12d8 unarmed strike Monk/Druids and 14d8 Unarmed Strike Conqueror Ooze still work exactly as planned. :)

prototype00

1,651 to 1,700 of 6,833 << first < prev | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 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.