Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Owl

Ascalaphus's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden 10,102 posts (10,338 including aliases). 125 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 19 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

I assume you mean this sentence?

Additional Resources > Inner Sea Races wrote:
Races: A dhamphir or skinwalker PC can use the following different statistics as alternate racial options supported by the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign rather than those options that appear in Blood of the Moon and Blood of the Night: jiang-shi born, vetala-born, wereboar-kin, and werecrocodile-kin.

Weretigers have the same stats in both books. Wereboars on the other hand get different stats, and this line in AR merely says that you're allowed to use the new statline if you have ISR.

Sovereign Court

Us arcanists gained another Spells Known Per Day slot. Can we fill that here or do we need to sleep on it first?

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's like an exploit because players can protect against it fairly trivially and NPCs cannot.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

On the other hand, bucklers don't occupy your hand and don't mess up *grace feats and swashbucklers.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

The Powerful Charge damage for Huntmaster Minawar (and the mook Minotaur Marauders) appears to be incorrect, dangerously so. The mistake originates in the Monster Codex but could hit hard.

It's listed as Powerful Charge (1d6+17). It's missing the normal attack modifier, and doesn't follow the regular trend for powerful charge damage. The Universal Monster Rules don't give a clear formula, but Advanced Race Guide does: 1.5x strength modifier + 2x damage dice. All the other monsters with powerful charge in the scenario conform to that rule.

This monster is placed as an enemy in the 3-4 subtier, and could conceivably use Power Attack (it would still be getting a +10 to hit) to deal 1d6+26 damage. That seems over the top.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Ferious Thune wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I have to say, the princess angle gets interesting when you're playing Ulfen Guards. The Guard is not focused on "what's good for Taldor", but on loyalty to the crown, i.e. Stavian III.

What will happen if he's "the bad guy" according to the adventure?

Not really a spoiler, because I think it's in the AP blurb, but...

** spoiler omitted **

Crystal Frazier was just on Know Direction, and they are definitely treating War for the Crown like a permanent change to the setting. Things were said like (paraphrasing) "this is the first time we're doing this."

Yeah, well, depending on at what part of that timeline the events of Lion's Justice take place.

Birthright Betrayed made me squirm a bit because it felt like we were in a faction opposing the policy of the boss.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

In almost all cases what the players do and what the GM gets are kept entirely separate. The GM has no undue incentive to give things too easily to players / is not screwed if the players are incompetent. But, also doesn't profit from players having something he hasn't.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

I have to say, the princess angle gets interesting when you're playing Ulfen Guards. The Guard is not focused on "what's good for Taldor", but on loyalty to the crown, i.e. Stavian III.

What will happen if he's "the bad guy" according to the adventure?

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Thes Hunter wrote:

Thank you everyone!

My group did get 4 out of 4. So no worrying about that!

However, they spent a bit offering White Thoothec Wallace; coffee, tea, cigarettes, blueberries, wine, tomato sauce, and etc, because they didn’t know if they could trust a guy with teeth so white. :lol:

Brilliant.

I thought WTW was a fair addition. Adds a good baseline to the scenario and just enough characterization to get started but not be distracting.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

IIRC, the GM gets access if and only if he has himself the correct Serpents' Rise chronicle.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Remember as many of the aspects of RSP are left to your RVC to decide how to implement, it is always best to consult them directly for answers. What some people are doing in one region is not always what is being done in another. This allows for variation based on the unique needs of different areas and support of their goals and efforts for growth, GM encouragement, etc

Yeah, but for boon trading to make sense, it has to be allowed in both the sending and receiving region (if different).

My personal impression was that Tier 2 reward cannot be given/traded (it's a personal reward) and that the Tier 1 reward can, because that's the whole point of it.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Alchemists seem to have a spell list for the purpose of being able to use wands though.

There's more evidence for alchemists having a spell list than for them being spellcasters. (...)

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

The writing in the CRB leaves something to be desired.

I think the note about summoned objects is referring to objects summoned with Instant Summons, a CRB spell that summons objects. It should not be interpreted to mean that if you Summon Monster VI a hound archon that it leaves behind a greatsword when the spell ends. The whole issue could have been avoided by not making Instant Summons a summon spell; like they later did by making Apport Object a teleportation spell.

A summon spell seems to manifest a representation of a creature living somewhere in the planes; and a Summoner is described as summoning an aspect of his eidolon, not it's platonic original.

With that in mind, it does make sense to me that it departs with the things it arrived with, no more, no less.

Of course this would be a good place to write some new feats, spells, magic items, to work around that.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Two-Gun Sam wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
You'd be surprised how many only have one musket.
Yeap. Or Barbarian with only one weapon - a greatsword.

They tend to learn their lesson after getting grappled a couple of times.

Amiri on the other hand, I've seen her getting swallowed by a moonflower and then she didn't have anything to cut her way out again. Pregens should always be given a checkover to see if they have a light weapon or should buy one with their remaining gold.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Should we get a separate topic for B, to avoid spoilers for the new scenes? Or would that lead to much redundancy for recycled scenes?

Sovereign Court

I'm fine with taking an interesting in Nature, and I'll eventually dabble in all of them. Planes doesn't attract me hugely.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Funny thing about disarming. I wouldn't mind a rule that if the GM gets a bare-bones statblock, he's allowed to give the NPC a backup dagger, holy symbol and spell component pouch. Because NPCs have a tendency to become really vulnerable to disarm/sunder, not because they're willfully stupid but because of overzealous word count.

Sovereign Court

I don't think I have any damage, Woran missed one healing somewhere.

Sovereign Court

I'm gradually expanding my list of knowledges but keeping them all/most at equal ratings for convenience.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

I played this yesterday and generally enjoyed it, but I have a few things which I think could have been better.

Mission briefings and knowledge
We get very little information from our leaders about these guests, which they would know quite closely. Luwazi knows more about them, she's known them for a while.

Now I realize you can know a few tidbits more with Culture. That's a trained-only skill. It's a class skill for only 3/7 classes, and only 1/7 of the level 1 pregens has it trained.

We get a LOT of Culture checks in these scenarios. It's basically Local, History and Linguistics put together, which were all decent knowledges to begin with. It's starting to feel like a very mandatory skill.

It feels like the information is very starkly split: these things Luwazi surely knows, but she won't tell you because it's in the Culture check section.

I would have wanted the Culture check to be to know something Luwazi wouldn't know.

Talking Points
In real life I'm an introverted person. This tends to surprise people because I talk a lot, but that's when I've already gotten to know people. Talking to strangers when there's nothing to talk about, is hard. If there's a topic to talk about, it's much easier and more fun.

I found it hard to get started in the RP with these NPCs. They had some vague quirks and interests but we knew so little about them, it was hard to find a starting point.

I can just roll dice and get going that way (and that worked well enough, my soldier is all about promoting the mobile infantry). But the most satisfying RP I've had in these social scenarios was during Hellknight's Feast when we really had a definite topic to talk about, beyond "try to get influence with these people".

This ties in with my point about the mission briefing. Instead of the awkward "The VC won't tell you that because you can roll Culture for it", why no do it like this?


  • Luwazi has only so much time to brief you. You've already heard some names and maybe done some research before the meeting (Culture checks everyone). DC 10 gives you basic info and 15 a little more. 20+ gives something juicy.
  • Luwazi fills you in on every guest you had less than 15 on.

  • For each guest on which the PCs already did their homework, she has more time for in-depth discussion. If the PCs got a 10 on everyone, she can tell a secret about one of the guests of the PCs choice. If they got a 15 on everyone she has time to share two secrets.

Thinking back, maybe I should have been bolder (and in my eyes, ruder) and just gone up to people and asked stuff like "so I heard you were investing even though it's not really in your line of business, how about that" - maybe that's how extraverted people get ahead in the world but to me it seems like very rude prying.

Knowledge about assassins
And then we get called out of the meet to deal with an assassin. Fine, we want to take risks to make the splash. Not really professional but I guess the SFS right now can't afford to play conservative best practices, they need to impress with guts.

So we get told that "We know" there's an assassin coming for Luwazi, but we know nothing else. No indication about how we know the assassin is lairing there, why she is targeting Luwazi. I mean, if this assassin is so secretive and nobody's seen her real face, how do we know it's this one?

Sure, there could be a good reason for that. But it needs a bit more explanation or it looks waaaay contrived.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record (and to feast on irony) I would like to say that I've been arguing primarily about what I think the rule really is, not what it should be.

I think prohibiting Spell Combat on Slashing/Fencing Grace was very ill-flavored, because magi are certainly a one-handed weapon class and it does fit the theme. I also think that it's nice if graceful deadliness is an alternative to brute strength deadliness for magi.

That said, I'm not a fan of just how clunky most Dex to damage options are. They tend to have deep gateways that mean several levels playing a gimped character, and then they give you too much of a good thing. I would have preferred a much more moderate reward for graceful fighting but available easily from level 1.

I don't like Dervish Dance as the one remaining dex to damage strategy for many magi. It's a too-dominant option, particularly because it exaggerates crit-fishing tactics. If scimitars had been a 19-20/x2 weapon it would have been entirely different because then you'd have competition between critfishing and dex to damage.

Ideally I would like to see a single feat for "grace to damage" for any finesseable weapon, available with at most Weapon Finesse as prerequisite, but balanced such that Dex to damage doesn't become overwhelming; and I want it to work for magi and monks too.

Options could be:

- Dex to damage always counts as precision damage.
- You add your Dex bonus but also any Strength penalties you have.
- Your maximum Dex bonus to damage is capped by your level.
- Instead of Dex to damage, if you're using Dex to hit and Strength to damage, add half your level as bonus damage (with some maximum).

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
My group also got 4/4, both when I played it and run it. Both groups went after Shinri first and to be honest I would find it a bit odd for anyone not to. You have very little direct evidence against her when you get back from the ruins.

I like though that the adventure allows either direction. Basically, you have to do one "hard thing", swaying the council with little to go on or taking down Shinri without guards to help. And then the second thing is made easier if you succeed at the first.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

701 Taclash / Called Starknife fun

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm pretty sure having explosives under the stage about to blow away other Starfinders counts as threatening ...

Yeah, that's what I meant. Someone planning to bomb your boss should count as "threatening your allies".

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:


This is where you start inventing rules which you think should perhaps exist.

No, that is where i parse "while" to be during your turn not the split seconds of plank time within it.

(edited for a bit less growl)

If a hand still remembers the weapon being in it, if you fail a disarm and drop your weapon, can you just keep attacking with it because your hand still remembers holding it?

Of course not. Things in your round happen one after another. Spell Combat is very clear that either you cast and then fight, or fight and then cast.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

BigNorseWolf wrote:
supervillan wrote:

I think Lau's nailed it, really.

Spell combat is "like" two-weapon fighting in that you get a -2 on your attacks during the spell combat full attack action, and in that you are getting an extra attack. And that's it. Because no other similarities are called out. Spell combat is not two-weapon fighting, it just shares some features with two-weapon fighting, and the features that it shares are all called out.

Okay, if that's the only similarity can I two weapon fight and magusflurry in the same round?

No, because that would be two different full-round actions. Similar to Cleave and Vital Strike.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

GM Wageslave wrote:


It'd be a rather perverse set-up to have the team succeed at the mission objective, but fail to get *any* prestige from the scenario (becaue they missed the Secondary, too).

Would it be possible to get a clarification on this?

I'm not sure what you mean?

Primary: sway the council.

Secondary: beat Shinri and take her 2+ tablets.

It's easy for players to get them mixed up. When an Aspis boss enters the picture players might focus on her and the council becomes an afterthought - but that shouldn't happen. Take a moment during the mission briefing to make sure the players understand that their primary mission is to help set up the much bigger Society efforts for the Bloodcove Blockade scenario.

You could ignore Shinri entirely and still get the primary objective.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Some things that I think could make rules glut just a bit easier to keep up with:

1) Establish firmly that it's the CRB making the basic rules. Other books don't get to create new rules by coming up with a feat or item that solves a problem that doesn't exist. Potion Sponge, I'm looking at you.

Of course other books can still introduce new classes and such but if you're not using anything out of a book, you shouldn't need it to run your game.

2) Focus the instruments you're using to clarify and errata rules. Make the Pathfinder FAQ one long page, not one page per book. So that you can Ctrl-F through the whole thing instead of guessing where something is hiding. Use some layout to make it clear where each book begins and end, but ensure the thing is searchable as a whole.

3) Merge the Campaign Clarifications and PFS FAQ into one document. Again for ease of searching. Split things between the Guild Guide (major principles, character creation) and the Clarifications (specific sources and cases, complex niche topics than 80% of the people don't use). This way the Guild Guide stays short and focused, and there's only one other place to look for the remaining campaign rules.

4) Establish a mailing list for FAQ, Additional Resources and Clarifications updates. Probably opt-in (legal) but all VOs should be on it.

6) Give blogs with permanent effects (like rules things) a clear title, not a Golarion data. Don't put it together with other topics that also get announced on the same day. If a rules change is buried in the middle of an after action report of conventions on a different continent and 5-star promotions of people I don't know, I might not notice the rules change...

7) All rulings made in the forum are added to the Clarifications in the next update. Using the forum is nice and flexible if a sudden crisis pops up or when something needs some back and forth to hash out the ramifications, but a year later it can be hard to reconstruct. Five years later new GMs can't be expected to trawl the forum looking for rulings by ex-leaders that still carry authority to round out their knowledge of PFS rules. By reading the Clarifications you should be able to learn everything you need to know.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:

The only thing that FAQ says is that the 2WF penalties to hit last for your whole turn. You're taking an accuracy penalty because you're trying to do more things. It doesn't make your hands remember what was in them. The right hand doesn't care what the left hand did. All it knows is that you spent some attention on it and therefore you're getting a -2 to hit.

Do you have any rules citation that there is no hand memory?

Without that we have to ask if there is hand memory. Not use "there is no hand memory" as a piece of evidence for another position.

I don't see any rule for hand memory for "what you carried". Show it to me.

Asking me to disprove such a rule is like asking me to disprove there's a rule giving you free gold.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
If there's no hand memory at all why are you still taking that attack penalty for what your hand did before your attack?

Because that rule is actually in the book. And in the FAQ, exploring numerous aspects of it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The fact that you still take penalties for what your other hand did even if you're not currently doing it, right now, even though the rules speak in the present tense is evidence (not proof, but pretty good evidence) that they mean nowish, for your action, not the nebulous o plank time in which your attack actually happens.

This is where you start inventing rules which you think should perhaps exist.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you point a gun at someone, put it away, and then ask for the money it's still armed robbery even if the gun isn't in your hand at the exact moment. Intent matters.

It's the guy you're trying to rob who remembers, not your hands.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Things get really, really weird, rules laweyery and exploity if they write a rule to try to prevent certain combinations and then people work around those limitations to put it in through persnickety gray areas of the rules.

You're inferring far, far more intent than is written there. The rules just look at the present. What we know about intent (going back to the SKR/JJ quotes) is that they were okay with making touch attacks with the off-hand, as well as unarmed strikes, but not flame blades.

I think you and Nefreet are making too much out of the "like a weapon" thing; an off-hand attack is also like a weapon and Dervish Dance is fine with it.

I think the "like a weapon" is just intended as a device to explain why Spell Combat is giving you a -2 penalty, because just like during 2WF, you're spending some time on your off-hand so your main hand gets a few seconds less.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BNW, if you quote bits of FAQ please use the Quote tags otherwise it makes it hard to see where your own words end and the quote starts.

FAQ wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting: If you use this on your turn to attack with two weapons, do you also take that penalty on attacks of opportunity made before the start of your next turn?

No. The penalties end as soon as you have completed the full-attack action that allowed you to attack with both weapons. Any attacks of opportunity you make are at your normal attack bonus.
Generally speaking, penalties on attacks made during your turn do not carry over to attacks of opportunity unless they specifically state otherwise (such as the penalty from using Power Attack or Combat Expertise).

The only thing that FAQ says is that the 2WF penalties to hit last for your whole turn. You're taking an accuracy penalty because you're trying to do more things. It doesn't make your hands remember what was in them. The right hand doesn't care what the left hand did. All it knows is that you spent some attention on it and therefore you're getting a -2 to hit.

Sovereign Court

Well I suppose I gained another spell per day so that puts me at 2 L1s remaining, which isn't terrible; and perhaps a new spell prepared. And with Precise Shot I become better at range which is what I was aiming for all along (pun intended). But if the Reduce Person runs out we're still weak.

@Woran/Justin: how much time is left on those Reduce Persons?

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:


A magus using Spellstrike is only making attacks with the scimitar, and that's where the spell goes. So the feat is not tricked at all, it's getting exactly what it aims for.

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.

You are not suddenly not wielding a weapon in your offhand for the round because you drop it or swap it from one hand to the other after having gotten the benefit from it.

If you drop a weapon you're not wielding it anymore. Whether you benefited or not is not relevant. If it's not there then it's not there.

If you transfer a weapon from one hand to another (which is pretty much what Spellstrike does) then it's no longer in the original hand.

There is no "hand memory" like that in the rules. Dervish Dance doesn't look at the past or future, only the present.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

There is a penalty for using the same skill repeatedly on an NPC; a -2 per use. Is this only for each cumulative successful uses? The "Special" text for Iteration 177 seems to imply so:

Quote:
Special Talking about a previous Starfinder Society mission (one for which a PC has a Chronicle sheet) allows a character to attempt a Diplomacy check with no penalty even if another PC has already succeeded at one Diplomacy check to influence Iteration-177.

It's not that easy to determine that from the base influence rules though. (The penalty for keeping on trying seems to be that the NPC might move off after three failures.)

---

When confronting the assassin she tries using Charm Person. However:

Charm Person wrote:
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus to its saving throw.

If the PCs know she's waiting for the moment to blow up the First Seeker, wouldn't the +5 bonus apply? Let's assume that the PCs consider the first seeker an ally...

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
You didn't have to do "historical research". Those posts were linked several times in this thread already, and on the very first page of the Campaign Clarification Requests thread =\

I couldn't find any link to it in this thread. Maybe I overlooked it?

At any rate, you didn't bring up the second link I put there, where SKR explained that he doesn't have any problem with a duelist using Two-Weapon Fighting and Dervish Dance, as long as it's not done with a second weapon. A fist or claw is fine.

Nefreet wrote:
I'm repeating myself again by saying this, but I didn't need either JJ or SKR to come to my original conclusion.

So which is it? Should we pay attention to historical sources or not? Because if you read them whole instead of isolated sentences, they don't support your position so clearly.

Nefreet wrote:
Dervish Dance turns off when there is a weapon in your off-hand. During Spell Combat, that weapon is a spell. Full stop. Need look no further.

And I disagree with that. What Spell Combat says is that "this is much like 2WF, with the off-hand weapon being a spell that is being cast". It is not exactly 2WF since the order in which you take actions is different: the spell is cast either before or completely after the other attacks. And the spell is only in the off-hand as it is being cast. After that it is wherever spells go once they're cast. If it's Grease then it's on the floor. If it's a touch spell the Spellstrike transfers it to your weapon hand. But it's certainly not in your off-hand anymore.

So even before you make an attack roll, your off-hand is empty again. And Dervish Dance doesn't have any kind of text saying "if your hand was at any point in the past or future occupied...", it just checks that situation right at the moment you're making the attack.

Nefreet wrote:
Any shenanigans about "well you're not carrying the spell so", or "I'll just Quickdraw so my off-hand is empty when", or anything along those lines falls under "tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters".

No, the spell isn't in your off-hand when you Spellstrike. There's nothing tricky about that. You're invoking a rule about residual hand blockage that doesn't exist.

The line about tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters refers to people trying to have a Flame Blade in their off-hand and claim that it doesn't violate Dervish Dance.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lau,

If you use a spell to try to trick the feat into letting you get away with using two weapons, the GM is well within his rights to say that the effects of Dervish Dance don't function as long as you're doing two-weapon fighting.

How is that not violating the intent? You'd be two weapon fighting with the spell.

You can't drop a weapon mid way through an attack routine to stop the two weapon fighting penalties. Once you've gotten the advantage of that weapon being there you're stuck with the consequences.

The intent is that you only make weapon attacks with your scimitar. You're not supposed to trick Dervish Dance into getting to make other weapon attacks. James Jacobs would probably stop you from doing the Quickdraw trick. But he also says touch spells are fine, just not touch spells that create a weaponlike thing like Flame Blade.

A magus using Spellstrike is only making attacks with the scimitar, and that's where the spell goes. So the feat is not tricked at all, it's getting exactly what it aims for.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay so I failed my Will save vs. the temptation to do historical research, and went to look for the SKR/JJ posts that Nefreet mentioned.

A touch spell won't negate the benefit of the feat, unless that touch spell specifically gives you a weaponlike attack, such as flame blade does. Furthermore, the flavor of Dervish Dance implies that you're simply attacking with one weapon. If you use a spell to try to trick the feat into letting you get away with using two weapons, the GM is well within his rights to say that the effects of Dervish Dance don't function as long as you're doing two-weapon fighting.

Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters, after all. It's supposed to make fighting with a single weapon more attractive, so as soon as you start trying to game the system to get an off-hand attack, you're breaking the spirit of Dervish Dance and the feat should stop working. You can certainly still cast spells with your off hand and make touch attacks, but making touch attacks with spells is generally not something you can do with two weapon fighting.

That's a very different story than what we've been hearing!

1) You can use touch spells alongside Dervish Dance (for example, Shocking Grasp), but not spells that produce a weapon-like effect (like Flame Blade).

2) The flavor of the feat is that you're attacking with a single weapon. If you're using Spellstrike to deliver your touch spells through the weapon then you're attacking with a single weapon, you're not twisting the flavor at all.

3) This comment is from 2010, before the publication of Ultimate Magic in 2011. That's why it doesn't think making touch attacks with 2WF is something you can normally do. Although it was already possible then with Quicken Spell of course. But it certainly doesn't make any direct comment on what a magus can do because magi didn't exist yet.

This thread is basically about a druid (Produce Flame, Flame Blade) using Dervish Dance.

Dervish Dance is also specifically intended to let you use a scimitar with the duelist prestige class, as many of the duelist's abilities require (1) no weapon or shield in the off-hand, and (2) your weapon has to be a *piercing* weapon.

Ah, this is SKR talking about no weapons in the off-hand. But let's see what SKR said about duelists before?

The concept of the prestige class is that you have one hand free.

That doesn't prevent you from making unarmed strikes or claw attacks, as your hand is still empty.

It would prevent you from using a spiked shield, as your hand is not empty.

So he thought the intent of Dervish Dance was that it should work with those things the Duelist is meant to do. And he's fine with duelists doing 2WF, as long as he keeps the hand empty.

Now the FAQs I mentioned earlier make it clear that if you cast a spell with Spellstrike, it moves to your weapon-hand. You have no choice in that if you use Spellstrike. The held spell can go off if you touch things with the weapon-hand, but the off-hand doesn't have that risk. Clearly the off-hand is now free again.

===

Conclusion: the ancient developer opinion Nefreet refers to doesn't actually agree with his position. It predates the magus but roughly supports using Dervish Dance with Spell Combat/Spellstrike.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

The Bestiary isn't part of the season 5-6 Core Assumption, Season 7 doesn't mention a Core Assumption, and 8-9 only refer to it in the glossary.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well what would be good ways of making small arms a viable choice?


  • Things that occupy your other hand a lot, like shields that provide a worthwhile bonus.
  • Exciting 2WF styles.
  • Emphasizing that small arms are concealable and not bulky. Missions where getting larger weapons in is tricky, or fighting styles around being really light.
  • If Zero-G rules make an issue out of needing a free hand to steer around properly.

If the point of weapons is to hit hard, and big weapons hit harder, then making small arms viable needs to be about emphasizing that sometimes bigger is inconvenient.

Of course then you need to worry about Kasatha having plenty of hands.

Sovereign Court

I'd say Abadar in particular is likely to work inside the system. As in, the authorities receive a sternly worded amicus brief explaining his position on an issue.

Desna on the other hand has been known to break the rules in the name of Good, and get into trouble for it.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

By level 9, the range on Teleport is already a significant bit of the Inner Sea region. Determining which locations are well-known to you is another matter, although I think it's safe to say any lodge from which you've gone on adventure before.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Follow-up: how big is such a workshop? Is it something you can own? Can it be carried?

The only workshop I could find was the Tech Workshop expansion bay for starships, but that one mentions it halves the crafting time. Since you always need a workshop, the fact this one halves the time implies it's more-than-required, and that there might be a smaller one that still allows crafting in the regular time.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

I went with 3/4 being enough. But if the party heads to the council at the end of the adventure, you get a lot of bonuses and 4/4 is quite doable.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@kaisc: Dervish Dance doesn't stop you from declaring 2WF attacks. But at the moment when you're making your scimitar attack, you'll check if you're carrying weapons in your off-hand, and if so, lose out on the benefits. But you're still allowed to make the attack.

And by the time you make the attack, you're not carrying anything in the off-hand anymore, since touch spells are FAQ'ed to move to the weapon-hand.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

I assume you can keep the leftover UBPs?

But yeah, why not in lots of 100? I can see the appeal of a neat round number but 1000 might be overshooting it.

Sovereign Court

Hmm. Now to choose some new spells...

Sovereign Court

Precise Shot, finally!

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I have used Teleport in PFS. To take the body of a deceased PC to a temple outside Rahadoum to get raised and then back to the dungeon. Fast travel isn't entirely useless. But although the ability is "powerful" in isolation, it's not necessarily very good in organized play.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blog Post wrote:
I'm the first to admit that when I first read the Starfinder Core Rulebook, I quirked an eyebrow at some of the environmental protections armor offers. Coming from other RPGs, it was clear that Starfinder had a different concept of what environmental hazards should challenge PCs. When it came time to outline Starfinder Society #1-08: Sanctuary of Drowned Delight, I discovered that Starfinder armor provided a plethora of opportunities for adventuring in environments often reserved for higher-level play in other games. So, despite being a Tier 3-6 scenario, this month's scenario is going underwater!

I think this is one of the great things about setting up a new game in a different setting: the chance to revise traditional barriers.

Starfinder makes some things that were hard in Pathfinder a lot easier. Resisting gas attacks with armor, or a 200 credit armor upgrade that provides Darkvision (12000gp in Pathfinder).

I'm hoping the equipment book is going to delve a lot deeper into descriptions of what Starfinder technology is capable of - so far I'm getting the feeling that for example computer technology is even a little behind our own world, while space travel and combat tech is way ahead.

I'm fine with the computer tech being a bit behind - if the game becomes all about leveraging power through networks, data mining, supersurveillance, AIs, operating remotely through expendable drones and so forth, it's really not a 'Finder game anymore. Space Opera in a way requires some technology to be behind, to keep the "human" element central.

But pushing some technology forward and others backwards, does make it far more useful to have a good book giving an explanation about what Starfinder technology is and isn't capable of in broad terms (not getting bogged down in specific buyable items).

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

I suspect, RAI, Dervish Dance is supposed to occupy your other 'hand' for the duration of your attack routine - similar to the way you can't two-weapon fight with a greatsword and armor spikes.

Those things aren't really similar though. The greatsword FAQ basically means "to use a 2H weapon and get all the benefits you also need to use the opportunity to do make off-hand attacks". It's using a 2H weapon and 2WF that are incompatible. But a dervish dance scimitar cannot possibly be a 2H weapon at the same time.

There is nothing in Dervish Dance that prohibits 2WF with natural attacks or unarmed strikes or anything else that you don't carry in your off-hand. And the FAQs make it very clear that any spells you're spellstriking are held in the main weapon hand.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The magus class has real problems in that too many things all point towards one very good build. If the pieces didn't fit quite so neatly together, we might see more variation in magi builds. Imagine:


  • What if the one weapon you could get Dex to damage with didn't have an impressive crit range? For example if you could only get Dex to damage with a mace. You'd have to choose between that extra damage or the better crit range of a rapier. You might see both varieties.

  • What if magi didn't have to wait until level 7 to start using medium armor? There'd be less of a push for Dex-based magi because you could be strength-based and have decent armor class still.

  • What is Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter were banned? You could no longer use Intensify Spell and the cheap Pearl of Power I. Spell Recall would become more valuable, and archetypes that trade it away would be less prominent, like the Kensai (which also has diminished spellcasting). You'd get a split between "warriors with a few spells" and "spellcasters with some fighting ability" builds. Again, increasing diversity.

    Also it'd significantly reduce GM irritation about magus nova-builds destroying encounters in 1-2 rounds all day thanks to cheap refueling.

    The magus class is entirely capable of winning an extended fight, but why bother when it's so easy to win instantly?

Dervish Dance isn't the problem. Dex and Crit reliance, and those two coming together on the scimitar, that's the problem.

1 to 50 of 10,102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.