Seltyiel

Blackstorm's page

Organized Play Member. 763 posts. No reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 763 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So, let's say a situation like this:

(I hope it'll be clear)

XXXB
XX2X
C1XX
AXXX

B and C are enemies, A wants to charge B. Can he charge? As per definition of charge, there's effectively a line from one point of the square A that pass thorugh C square, even if the "real" movement of A is A->1->2, and doesn't touch C.

So, what the hell?


Hi James, I'm back with a question for you :P
In a group we discussed about desert and create water. So, just out of curiosity and aside the rules, I wonder how do you handle create water in desertic environment or similar ones? Do you use some hr, or do you just let flow? I think it's interesting from the point of view of golarion setting: I doubt that create water could ever reflourish a desert, but I'm really curious on what you think about it.


Hi James, can we expect a pathfinder unchained 2? I see a lot of inexpressed potential in PFU, like you had a lot more to write, but obviously, you can't because space reasons. I'm really have the feel that the unchained has a lot more to say than we get with only one book.


James Jacobs wrote:


It was tough going from 3.0 to 3.5 D&D, but even more difficult going from 3.5 to Pathfinder. The Council of Thieves Adventure Path has a few "warts" as a result of us not being super familiar with the new game, for example—the primary one being that you only got to about 14th level or so in that AP rather than 17th level, since we built the adventures with some incorrect assumptions.

Howe we manage to remember is by practicing, and by working at it pretty much every workday of the week for years and years and years.

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?
Iknow that with the witch's hexes you must select a single hex for things like ability focus, but does it applies to minor/major magic as well? I tried to search, but I didn't find anything.


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
If I ever going to do melee caster I'll take a warpriest instead. Thanks all for the support, anyway.
Oh, and just to add coolness, gm let me to get a yak companion :)


James Jacobs wrote:

Threatening a foe means just that—you threaten the foe. Your presence is threatening. As long as that is the case, then you threaten the foe, even if you can't take attacks of opportunity... but THAT SAID, if your foe KNOWS you can't take attacks of opportunity, then it won't consider you to be a threat. It's not an all-or-nothing binary situation, and your GM needs to be able to make the call as the case demands, and the player needs to respect that GM call.

And the GM needs to maintain the trust with his players by not being a jerk and starting to do things like, "Oh this guy is so powerful that he doesn't consider you a threat and therefore you can't flank." That's lame.

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:


THAT SAID, now I'm curious. Go ahead and ask your question here if you want. I'll provide my answer if I can, with the caveat that this is my interpretation and that I'm providing it as someone who has over a decade of professional experience with the game(s) in question but that it's not an "official clarification/errata."

(I honestly the idea that there's only ever one possible interpretation for every rule is ludicrous.)

Yup, I agree... normally. But it seems that's should be one way only.

All revolve around the "threatened squares" definition.
Plain and simple, the definition is: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Hmmmm. Interesting suggestions. I'm trying to figure out something reliable.


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.
I'd like to go with the spirit guide oracle, and I'm oriented toward the nature's mistery (natural divination seems soooooo fitty). And, obviously, the nature's whisper revelation is so good to bring down the mad - the gm allow me to take noble scion of war, so I don't need to worry too much about dex. So, I need some advice on the build. there's some chance that in the late game I could stay out of melee. So, suggestions?


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
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).


SheepishEidolon wrote:

I read it this way: 1 minute after the end of the previous rage. The text flow (first 'disappear when the rage ends', then 'again within 1 minute) points to it, but that's only a minor argument. More important: If you rage more than 10 rounds in a row, you could immediately gain temporary HP again, with the next rage - that's very likely not intended.

Usually it shouldn't matter, though.

Unfortunately it does matter, this time :(


Quote:


These temporary hit points are lost first when a character takes damage, disappear when the rage ends, and are not replenished if the barbarian enters a rage again within 1 minute of her previous rage.

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?


skizzerz wrote:


Presumably they left the general rule in there instead of issuing an errata in case they want to explore that design space (temporary negative levels which don't become permanent) in the future

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.

Then:

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:

FAQ wrote:

Negative Levels: On page 562, it says that you get a save to remove temporary negative levels each day, but the universal monster rule for energy drain, as well as nearly every mention of temporary negative levels I can find, say that after 24 hours, the temporary negative levels become permanent if I fail my save. Which one is right?

The rule on page 562 is the general rule, but almost every specific rule in the game functions differently, and specific overrides general. Incidentally, the universal monster rule for energy drain doesn’t explicitly say that the negative levels are considered temporary before they become permanent (it just says “negative levels”), and we want to make it clear that they are temporary negative levels at that time (and thus that you can remove them more inexpensively with restoration). The only text directly in error is the reminder text at the end of enervation which claims that becoming permanent after 24 hours is the general rule.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Blackstorm wrote:

Welcome back Jason :)

Now, please, don't hate me... but really, why you didn't specified a duration for the poisons in the design phase? "Until the weapon strike" means essentially that I can carry dozen of quivers of poisoned arrows, after all, just need to draw them.

I'm not Jason. You're in the wrong thread. Oops!

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 :)


Welcome back Jason :)

Now, please, don't hate me... but really, why you didn't specified a duration for the poisons in the design phase? "Until the weapon strike" means essentially that I can carry dozen of quivers of poisoned arrows, after all, just need to draw them.


Cevah wrote:

Celestial Armor is priced as Steel. Changing out the base material causes the usual benefits. Therefore Celestial Armor made from mithral gets mithral's benefits in addition to its own magic.

Here is a post I made with a lot of links and info about Celestial items:
Mithral Celestial Plate Armor

/cevah

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.


Celestial plate CRB:
"This bright silver or gold +3 chainmail [...]"

Celestial plate UE:
"This +3 chainmail [...]"

From the paizo prd.

Ok, now, what version should I use?


blahpers wrote:

Oops.

Why the heck is this spell an enchantment anyway? What does it actually do, you know, in-universe?

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:


School enchantment; Level ranger 3

CASTING

Casting Time 1 swift action
Components V, S

EFFECT

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature that is not your favored enemy.
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

From prd:

Enchantment wrote:


All enchantments are mind-affecting spells.

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.


zza ni wrote:

i think in the concealment and cover section.in the combat part. let me be sure.

yep the first words in cover "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack..."

omg. I should had a total blackout. I read that line like 10 times without noticing it.


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?


I think human is good. As arcanist, the halfling is a bit unlucky with stats. My gf want to build a school savant, so I suggested a way to get some early exploit.
Ty all :)


SlimGauge wrote:
Is there a particular FCB that you're interested in ?

Halfling arcanist FCB to applying to another race.


"Simple" question: there's a way to get the alternate FCB of a different race?


Mike Lindner wrote:


I think running towards someone is not a defensive action. You are moving to threaten them. Getting an attack of opportunity on them when you otherwise could not is not defensive, it's offensive.

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.


BraveRift wrote:

The way I read it, a "purely" defensive action would be one that does not intend to cause harm to an opponent. Dropping prone, ducking behind cover, taking a total defense stance, casting a buff or utility spell, etc would all be purely defensive, and can happen before the opponent's action resolves. If you're attacking, doing a combat maneuver, or casting a spell on a foe, I'd say that's at least partially "offensive," even if you're doing it for the sake of self-defense.

For the second case, it seems correct to consider "starts casting a 1 round spell" equivalent to "casting a spell" as far as ready triggers go, so I'd certainly allow the ready-er to take action right after the caster has started casting (thus potentially causing the caster to lose the spell).

For the third case, triggering an unknown spell gem is still casting a spell, effectively. If it happens to be something non-offensive, I'd allow it to resolve first. Otherwise, it should happen after.

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:


My suggestion:

"Bleeding reflects the effort to patch up a wound that is open and oozing blood. Until the wound is sealed the character loses Stamina to reflect the effort in keeping the wound sealed from bleeding. When Stamina is depleted, the wound is actually bleeding profusely. It is necessary to heal an amount of HP equal to the bleed damage to seal the wound. A DC 15 medicine check as a standard action stops the bleeding if the target character still has at least 1 point in her stamina pool. If the target character has no stamina left, the DC increases to 15+ the damage she is suffering"

Make it riskier. Bleeding is serious stuff.

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.


Haster wrote:


Seriously, we need to stop thinking about this as though it makes some sort of real life sense. Its a game mechanic.

Sorry, never thought about it like something that make real life sense. Exactly because it's a mechanic I see a bit of inconsistence.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
- 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.)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?


Voss wrote:


Not in the rules, no. If mystic cure is doing something weird, it doesn't show up in Keskodai's write up.

I'm not sure what 'stop your stamina' means. If you mean stop the bleed, that's entirely consistent with the rules presented. Hence, the lack of any ambiguity or inconsistency- the presented rules really do function.

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.

Quote:

If your point is that magical healing and hit points is inconsistent with how injuries work in the real world, well, welcome to D&D, circa 1974, but that doesn't have anything to do with the rules being consistent

That's not my point, sorry. Wrong directed sarcasm.

From bleeding staus: "Your bleeding can be
stopped with a successful DC 15 Medicine check as a standard
action, or through the application of any ability that restores Hit
Points."

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
Points", not stamina points). So not only you're saying that there are no problem with bleed going on stamina that can only be stopped by restoring hp (you stop a stamina loss by restoring hp, even if you don't restore a single hp), but you're also stating that, since the envoy's ability don't restore hp, it cures stamina points but can't stop the continual loss of stamina points.

You call that consistent?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

What needs clarification? Damage is damage. Bleeding continues until a healing effect or medicine check.

There isn't any ambiguity in the rules.

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:
Core Rulebook > Tactical Rules > Conditions (pg. 273) wrote:

Bleeding

You take the listed amount of damage at the beginning of your turn each round until this condition ends. Your bleeding can be stopped with a successful DC 15 Medicine check as a standard action, or through the application of any ability that restores Hit Points. If you take two or more bleed effects, you take only the damage from the worst effect.
If bleed damage bypassed SP, it would be called out explicitly. Bleed damage is just like any other damage. As far as I know, that are no attacks that bypass SP.

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?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) What exactly is a purely defensively action?
2)Let's say I ready with the trigger: "When he cast, I attack him". Now, this clearly inst a purely defensive action, os it should occur after the cast. But what if the spell is a 1 round casting time? Do I take my attack after the casting, loosing 1 round of action?
3) What if there's a spell gem of wich I don't know the spell, and I ready "If I'm attacked I use the unkonwn spell gem"? The time of reaction change depending on something unknown?

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."
What exactly mean opposed cha-check? It seems that the rules make a difference between charisma check and charisma skill check. Is a charisma check an all inclusive? If so, what is an opposed charisma check? I mean: bluff is a charisma skill, but sense motive is a wis skill, so if I bluff vs Sense motive, is an opposed charisma check?
If the opposed charisma check are only the stat vs stat, isn't this drawbacks basically a free trait?

2) Movement. Let's say I have something like that:

XA
BC

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?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

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?
Thanks for help :)


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.
I was looking through the feats, and I wondered about Lucky Caravan:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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:
1) from the text it seems that the casters doesn't count to the limits of the job. It seems strange. So does they count AND you can't use more than 5 of them for the jobs?

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?


avr wrote:


It looks to me like they don't, given they don't work for 'spellcasters like clerics who have the option to spontaneously cast certain spells'.

Hmmm. The shaman has an effective spontenous slot, though.

Quote:
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?


Paradozen wrote:
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.
thanks in advance :)


Sorry fo the necroposting, but I need a clarification: let's say we're in a 5 ft. wide tunnel.

A(G1)(G2)(G3)_____

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.


Forseti wrote:
Spellcraft would be a reason. And yes, it would matter to me. I detest meta-gaming.

I'm assuming that the fighter would have some mean to detect the first spell as harmless or useless. But I didn't ask about metagame, I asked about the rules.


Forseti wrote:
Is there any reason for the fighter to suspect the wizard of opening with a useless spell?

Does it matter? If the fghter can identify the spell via spellcraft he detect the spell as useless.

1 to 50 of 763 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>