Hi James, I'm back with a question for you :P
James Jacobs wrote:
I noted that the latest APs are really better than the first ones, so I think I can see where your work leaded. I had the fortune of follow the pf development almost from the first steps, thoug I never thought to get myself the alpha and beta release. I managed to recover a copy of both alpha and beta releases, and thes are really interesting. There are some changes here and there, that feel like some "fine attunement". In those years pf seems to get a precise direction, that I honestly like... since I play pf, I never felt the necessity of a multiclass or a prestige class, and I was a good builder, back in 3.5 times. And I love that. There's a lot single class options, and archetypes that are satisfying per se. And... well, good work.No other questions for now, but, well, I just want let you know that, even if I seemed boring and harsh in the past post (I'm pretty sure you remember some of my recent out of place posts on this thread - and if you don't remember those post, please don't search for them, reading them now it seems I behave like moron), that was not my intention. I had the luck to meet Jason Bulmahn for the first release of pathfinder, and well, if I ever get the chance to meet you too, I really like to shake your hand and have you to sign my first copy ever of pathfinder crb (and maybe some other book, if you'll want). Stop, I wrote too much. Sorry for the time that this post will steal from your time :)
Hi James, I tried to search here and there, but what do you think is my best chance to get a copy of the alpha and beta releases of pathfinder (crb and bestiary)? I'd like to check the difference in the development, so I'd like to get a copy of them.
And on a related note, how much confusing was, back in time, to keep in mind the "right version"? You developers had a ruleset from 3.5, then released an alpha, then a beta, then the 1st print... How did you manage to remember the right version of PF, event in the development. Even now, when I play, I sometimes mees up myself with some rule I remember from the old 3.5, I can only imagine how difficult it could had been.
As the title: how does interact, RAW, bokish rogue with quickened SLA? Does quickened SLA bound to a single minor/major magic spell, so it works only when I have that specific SLA, or it's bounded to the general "minor/major magic" talent, so even if I change the SLA via bookish rogue I still retain the use of quickened SLA?
FYI, I reverted opn supporter type. It's more in my style of play. I can't use a melee full caster, every cell in my body refuse to do that :P
James Jacobs wrote:
Well, I never let the "threatening" presence mix with the "threatened squares" thing. I never let any of my player do things like that, nor I do when I play. But I like, as player, use intelligent positioning.And I like, as gm, to reward the same. So, that's all, I like to know if the rules themselves rewards the players for strategic placement. After all, nothing that I can't handle at my table.
And, anyway, thank you for your time :)
James Jacobs wrote:
If you do actually have a question, please just post it in as succinct and simple a way as you can. If you don't have a question, this isn't the correct thread to post in.
Right, my bad. I'm sorry, I always tend to overwrite practically everywhere. The question isreally simple indeed: do I threaten out of my turn if I can't do aoo because something/someone negate me the aoos (like flat-footed or similar conditions)?
I'm really sorry for the wal of text. It wasn't my intention, really.
James Jacobs wrote:
Yup, I agree... normally. But it seems that's should be one way only.
All revolve around the "threatened squares" definition.
Now, I have one thesis on how this work, the other person has another.
My thesis is: "In the time you need to know if you threaten, you mest check if you can do regular attacks or aoo. That means that out of your turn, since your regular attacks are normally denied, you only have to check if you can aoo (-> nothing block you from do aoos - that doesn't include if you has reached the max aoo you can do in the round, if you reached max you still threaten), since if you can do aoo that's a threatened square (the counternominal of <IF you threaten THEN you can aoo> is <IF you can't aoo THEN you don't threaten>, those two are logically equivalent). So, things like a foe under cover, total concealment or if you're flat-footed, negate your threat, since those negate your aoos."
The other thesis says: "The rules says "You threaten [...] even when it isn't your turn", so if it where your turn and you threaten (like you're not paralyzed, nauseated, and so on), you still threaten, because even if you're not in your turn, you must evaluate if you threaten as if it where your turn, because rules says so, and you can't check the aoos because the aoos requires a thretened area before you can check if you can do them".
As you can see, there's nothing of capital importance, but I feel that it should be only one answer to this, because I feel this rule is something like "Roll a d20 and add bab, str, and the other modifiers to that, if you get a number equal to AC or higher, you hit". This should be a sort of "one way rule" like that. Because it drastically change how you threaten. This question popped out in the old wotc boards sometimes (there was even FAQs and RotG quoted), and searching here, I saw at least 5 topics that arise the theme, without any answer. I think I'm really open minded, but that thing of evaluating the threatened area "as if it where my turn" even if it isn't my turn is kinda disturbing.
Hi James. Just what I can do if there's an opposite reading of a rule and I like to ask to you devs? I mean, that's a really old question, that date back since the 3.5, and inherited form PF. But never get an answer... maybe it's not so important, but really, every now and then it pops out. And I like an answer from someone of you devs... Aside FAQing the topic, there's something other that I can do? It's really important for me to know the answer.
Hi, I'd like to get some advice. About at january or so, I'll should start a campaign. Homebrew setting, 20 pb, only humans, all official material from pf, 1st level start. Ok, now, we'll have an hunter, a skald and a melee medium (mainly champion spirit). So, we're in a norse-like setting, we'll start in a really vast territory with an almost forever lasting winter (maybe we'll find some other terrain later on). As that, we're decided to go a bit "brutal". The setting practically paryed me for the oracle. And I'll go that route. But now the problem. I always played support caster, and I'm not comfortable with the melee type. I still want to do support, and cast things, but a bit of melee could be funny in this settings.
Your new rage is within one minute of your old one if less than one minute elapsed between them, so after. Just like if you want to know how far the ceiling is above you, you measure from the top of your head, not the soles of your feet.
Hmmm. Makes sense. The text specify "after your rage ends" for the 1-min fatigue, but not in the "you don't regain temp hp if you rage again within 1-min of previous rage", the different wording is a bit confusing. (I see that the two mechanics are separate, that's not a problema for me).
Unfortunately it does matter, this time :(
Simple question: I enter in rage at round 1. I end rage at round 5. Do I calculate 1 minute from round 1 or round 5?In other words, do I gain full hp from rage when I rage again after 1 minute I start the rage, or 1 minute after I end the rage?
Well, if so, we'll paradoxally could have a monster that inflict temporary energy drain and that specifies that it follow the special abilities section. So we'll could have a general rule the override the specific rule.
I love Pf, but that's... inelegant, at most.
@Metthew: sigh. That's really... meh.
Ok, I know this is answered in the FAQs, but still I don't get it, I even tried to search through the forum (and found this useful thread).
So, the thing is:
Special Abilities wrote:
A creature with temporary negative levels receives a new saving throw to remove the negative level each day.
Universal Monster Rules wrote:
If a negative level is not removed before 24 hours have passed, the affected creature must attempt a Fortitude save [...] On a failure, the negative level becomes permanent.
And the FAQ:
What this would mean? The universal monster rules are "specific"?Really?
I mean, this faq substantially says nothing aside the fact that, yes, there's a contraddiction between two different sources, but it says also "to keep it easy, we decided the the general rule of universal monster rules is a specific rules, even if it's a general rule".
Add to that the fact that basically NOTHING in PF use the "general rule" of negative levels.
So, really? This is a general rules that's NEVER used in al PF, but it's still a general rule, while the universal monster rule is used almost everywhere, but it's specific?
That's really as is?
In the Majuba's topic, the editor's note says they want to lessen the burden of negative levels, so they made every single energy drain work like "if you fail a save after 24 hours, any negative levels you failed to save on is now permanent and you can only dispel one negative level per week"?
I know this seems a rant, but really, I still don't get it. There's a "general rule" that is never used, and generate a lot of confusion. Why?
James Jacobs wrote:
Sorry, I was thinking of Bullman, because I was reading an article he wrote. But the question was for you (I never noticed if bullman has asked to close his topic, so my welcome was really for you) :)If you prefer, I can ask to Jason, but I trust your answers as well :)
Sorry for the inconvenience :)
Hmmm. Thank you for the link. But how do you get to say that Celestial Armor is priced as steel?It's a +3 chainmail with fly 1/day. So it's 9k for +3, 5400 for fly (1800 command word x cl x spell level/5, if I did the right formula). I get 14.4k. Mwk steel chainmail would be 300, so it would be 14.7k. I left out with 7.7k, that I hardly can imagine is all in the good aura. Still, the higly better modifiers to dex, seems to imply some other kind of working and/or magic. I can't see how a suit of steel chainmail could protect as a chainmail but can be as thin as a chain shirt and weight even less. So, from where you deduce that it's priced as mwk steel?
Yeah, but that rised up a question on the italian fb group: setting aside the fact that technically a specific armor is just as is, no modification (Jacobs said that about them), if a gm want to allow modifications, well what about the mithral? I know the question was highly discussed here, but if I allow the mithral, what modifications should one made? Someone says it just alter the stats like normal mithral, someone says that the mithral totally substitutes the original material so you need to apply the mithral modifications to the base chainmail.
Good question. It seems that you "charme yourself to auto convince that the think is one of your favored enemies". Or some sh*t like that. I can't even understand why in the world it should be a creature the target and not youself.
Instant Enemy wrote:
So, what about that? I tried to search, but I didn't find much. It seems that instant enemy isn't a mind affecting, because it lacks the descriptor, and I think this could be the case of "specific trumps generic", but also it seems that you cast the spell at the target, not at you, it seems a bit strange to me.
So, I'm searching in every page of phb, I cannot find anything. When in the phb it says, in the cover rules "for reach weapons, use the rules for ranged attacks cover", where are those rules? It just says that, but the only referral I found is the image of various cover situation. So, where are the rules for cover with ranged attacks?
Mike Lindner wrote:
As I said, that's a lot of thinkgs that are a bit strange. Moving toward someone is not a purely defensive action, but moving away to get cover yes. So if your enemy is at 15 ft from you and the cover is at 25 ft from you, and you ready the action, you'll take more time to move 15 ft than to move 30 ft (because you don't have the time to resolve the action before the trigger is concluded).
I find that ruling really strange.
Hmmm. So it would take more time moving 10 ft toward the caster than moving 30 ft away from him.Totally counterintuitive.
Another question: would you consider casting Reflective Armor a purely defensive action, since it reflect some damage on the attaccker?
Sythaeryn 'Quìlan' Caeden wrote:
I'd erase the "heal hp equal to bleed damage" thing. An unlucky roll can make your cure ineffective. I think it's serious enough even "just" bypassing hp.
Sorry, never thought about it like something that make real life sense. Exactly because it's a mechanic I see a bit of inconsistence.
also, just to be clear, you stop the bleed condition with an ability that CAN restore HP.
Nope. The percise wording is "through the application of any ability that restores Hit Points", not "that CAN restore hp". If you want to point out the single word, please stay on the text.
- this is similar to PF and, correct me if I am wrong, but when used in this way the ability ONLY stops the bleeding and does not cure any HPs.
In pf a cure stop the bleeding AND cures pf. Exactly as mystic cure do when the bleeding reach (one way or another) the hp limit. You can't ocmpare Pf, though, because a bleed damage is always a damage cured by cure spells (there's some ability that deal ability score bleed, but those are exceptions.)
Last, they used the term "bleeding" for the condition b/c its a recognized condition and easy enough to understand.Then they also applied a similar system proven to work in PF, that of the cure spell stopping bleeding. - they simply did not bother to address the fact the SPs dont really rep bleeding very well THEMATICALLY.
But they always specify, in SF, if the cure is on the stamina or the hp. Always. And in pf a cure cures all. In SF it cures only hp, never stamina.
give up on the "this seems inconsistent" angle or you'll go nuts.
Thanks for the advice. Anyway I'll give up when I'll get an official answer. I'll not go nut, really.
This won't be the only one in SF, and I can't even begin to tell you how many exist in PF, let alone any number of other systems.
Seems you think I'm a newbie. I'm not. I'm fully aware of almost all inconsistencies, I found several corner case. So don't bother about that. Really. I appreciate your worries about me, but I can handle it.
That said, let alone the consistence: if bleeding damage goes on stmaina, why the envoy's Inspiring Boost can't stop the bleeding if the damage has still not reached the hp limit?
Nowhere in mystic cure says there's any effect on stamina loss. Indeed, it specifically call out for hp, never stmaina. But you stop the stamina loss.
That's not my point, sorry. Wrong directed sarcasm.
From bleeding staus: "Your bleeding can be
So, I stop a stamina loss by restoring hp, while restoring hp never affect stamina?
Oh, and by the way, you're also saying that the Envoy's Inspiring Boost doesn't stop bleeding even if it restores stamina points ("through the application of any ability that restores Hit
You call that consistent?
A healing effect stop something that affect something you never heal via that healing effect. And since when I cast mystic cure I can redirect to me any residual hp left, while you bleed on stamina, I can stop your stmaina and give myself a full cure. So I never healed you by a single point, but somehow I healed you from a the blood flowing outside your body.
Really you can't see ambiguity or inconsistence?
Jimbles the Mediocre wrote:
So, if you have 20 hp and 30 stamina, get hit for 7 damage, and start bleeding, you're saying me that if I still have stamina, I must stop the bleeding with a medicine check or by magic that restore hp damage, even I'm not taking hp damage?
As for the above, I'm 20 hp, 23 stamina, and now I roll bbleed for 4. Now I'm at 19 stamina, right? Ok, now, the priest cast mystic cure, because he get some damage and just want to heal himself too. Now, he cast mystic cure, but I'm not short of hp, I'm full, os he "split" the cure by taking al the cure fo himself. And now, without curing a single hp, he healed me from bleeding?
1) What exactly is a purely defensively action?
It seems the new wording is really grey.
If I have a wolf animal companion, can I sunder then trip with a single attack, due to te special ability of the wolf?
Trip Universal Monster Rule wrote:
A creature with the trip special attack can attempt to trip its opponent as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity if it hits with the specified attack.
Since a combat maneuver is an attack, and since the attack coul it, what about a sunder->trip? It seems really strange to me, but I can't find rules against it.
So, 2 other questions:
1) Vain drawback: "Whenever you fail an opposed Charisma-based check, you take a –2 penalty on all Charisma-based checks for the next 24 hours."
2) Movement. Let's say I have something like that:
Wher X is a solid obstacle like an house angle or similar. If I'm in A and I want to go in B, can I "cut" the angle a move A->B or must I move A-C-B?
In pathfinder no HP damage no sneaky attack.
Do you have any rule about that?
Java Man wrote:
I'm highly confident that you need hp damage and a to-hit roll. But heck if I can site a source for that at the moment.
I searched almost anywhere for a source about this topic. Can't find any.
Hi guys. I searched for this, but cannot find a RAW answer: how can I say, RAW, wether or not a spell that doesn't hp damage deals also sneak attack damage? Where are the rules? The only kind of rules I found about things like enervation or touch of fatigue spell refers to 3.5 CArcane, so I'd like a PF only answer. Can you help me? Maybe some post from developers in some remote thread?
I'm sorry if there's another thread about that, but I can't find any.
So, I'm playing my shaman in JR. We're about to start the caravan and have to setup the starting asset.
Benefit: Once per week, you may roll twice when you are called upon to make an Attack, Security, or Resolve check. Take the higher result of these two rolls as your actual roll for the check.
Now, the fortune teller job says:
Once per week, a fortune-teller can give advice on how best to handle the coming week’s perils. In addition, once per week after the fortune-teller has given this advice, when the caravan has to make an Attack, Security, or Resolve check, you may roll twice and take the better result.
So, I we take Lucky Caravan, does it give two rerolls per week?If not, why should anyone take that feat?
What this feat means? It's bugged? There's some errata?
EDIT: a couple more questions:
2) The circumstance bonus is max +5, but some jobs doesn't have a maximum numbers. Does it mean that, saving the limit of +5, you can have, for example any number of guards?
3) About the guards: does the +1 Security to to avoid the surprise stack with the all-time +1 Security from the guide?
Hmmm. The shaman has an effective spontenous slot, though.
That does remind me of something though. Spirit guide oracles are spontaneous casters who get to steal most of the shaman's best tricks.
thanks, but I already builded the shaman, I want to try it. I know there are better ways to be shaman-like, but I wanted to give it a shot.
If I'm not a magus, and I wield a weapon, what happen if I cast a touch spell when I'm holding the charge? The wielded wepon doesn't discharge the spell (else a cleric can't even cast a clw), and that's ok. But what if I'm holding the charge and instead of attempt to discharge the spell on the targe I attack with the weapon I wield? Do I still holding the charge?
Runestones of Power are items to give you extra spontaneous spell slots. Effectively pearls of power, but you need them in hand when you cast a spell rather than using a standard action after the fact. They are expensive though.
Are you sure they works for the shaman spontaneous slot?
I can't find other thread on the matter. So, there's any way for a shaman to have something like cleric spontaneous conversion for the spirit spells, instead of just one slot? It would be really helpful for my pc (I don't go in melee, I rely more on my spellcasting. A control/buff type, you know). Only PF material, no 3pp.
Sorry fo the necroposting, but I need a clarification: let's say we're in a 5 ft. wide tunnel.
A is the PC (halfling, 20 ft move, so double move needed), G# are the goblin or whatever. Let's suppose I want to pass over the goblins. Tipical DCs are: 17, 19, 21 (goblin DMC 12, +5 for passing through, +2 for each goblin after the 1st).
Let's say I roll, in order, 22, 25, and 15. OMG! I cannot pass through G3, and I remain stuck in G2 square. Where I go? Do I go back to A starting position? Do I stuck with G2 and squeeze me and he? Do I pass anyway on the other side?
Basically, where I go if when I lose movement I'm in an occupied square?
Note that the occupied square can be occupied by ANYTHING.