Blake Duffey's page

Blake Duffey wrote:

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

It was stated on the Glass Cannon playtest that your spellcasting modifier adds your level as well as the relevant ability modifier, so it does quickly become a significant bonus.

Thank you for that clarity, I apparently missed that during the podcast.

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

The verbage in question is from the magic chapter of the CRB.

Truly appreciate the clarification. Don't have my books with me and was relying on online sources and Google.

I appreciate the Shisumo response. Seems compelling (although I think that verbiage is from the d20srd vs any Pathfinder source)

That was my confusion. There was an older thread without complete consensus on the answer. As a player, I prefer the answer to be yes. Pathfinder has gotten somewhat fiddly lately, so I'm never sure.

Thanks for all the feedback.

WP has spontaneous casting (convert into a healing spell of same level). WP has fervor and can cast spells on SELF as a Swift action.

Can a WP do both at the same time? Ie - can a WP memorize bears strength and during battle swiftly/spontaneously cast that as cure moderate wounds?

Thanks very much for all the feedback
Going to work this up and see what it looks like. May be back with questions.

Thank you very much for the answers to date. There seems to be some disagreement over the weapon training benefits. (For the scope of my question, I don't play PFS). I assume this scales with level (so my dwarf with his great axe gets +1/+1 at level 5, +2/+2 at level 9, +3/+3 at level 13, etc). I assume I can do this is even if don't take weapon focus with anything else? Is advanced weapon training open to this archetype (again outside of PFS play)?

Thanks again. And I agree this archetype seems like the better fit vs the base class.

Blake Duffey wrote:

What I also don't understand is the concept of getting quicken blessing at level 7 but not being able to use it until level 10.

If you read the war blessing again, both the minor and major powers include "you can touch an ally" (meaning that you can extend its benefit to your buddies, or to yourself because you are your own ally). The quicken blessing clause indicates that from level 7 to 10 you can only grant "War Mind" to other people as a swift action, if you use it on yourself it is a standard action.

Would that expendable one usage of the blessing or two?

It's the better of the two like normal.

That would make the archetype pretty interesting. What I also don't understand is the concept of getting quicken blessing at level 7 but not being able to use it until level 10.

The arsenal chaplain looks interesting. Regarding the arsenal chaplain archetype - does the sacred weapon change impact weapon damage regardless? If I wield a great axe as a sacred weapon - is it only d6 damage? In the base warpriest it looks to be the better of the two.

The arsenal chaplain looks interesting. Regarding the arsenal chaplain archetype - does the sacred weapon change impact weapon damage regardless? If I wield a great are as a sacred weapon - is it only d6 damage? In the base warpriest it looks to be the better of the two.

An animal companion with sprint (cat, small) takes the racer companion archetype (which grants sprint). What is the result?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/animal-companions#TOC-Ca t-Small

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/animal-companions/animal -companion-archetypes/racer-companion-archetype

You may have been getting heavily railroaded then, which I don't like. I don't know the GM's intentions so I can't say for sure.

If that was the case he still did not break any rules, even though many players hate being forced down a certain path with no other options.
PS: I am curious now as to what he really wanted you to do.

I agree that, *objectively*, there may not have been any 'broken rules'. I just disagree with the concept that XYZ *magic* 'lock' can only be opened with ABC *magic* 'key'. It completely defeats the purpose of the skills I have mentioned, penalizes player creativity and removes a great deal of functionality of the rogue class (IMV, anyway).

There are numerous class abilities that may not be truly *magical* but defy logic. And maybe the examples from the 3.0/3.5 Epic Handbook were silly (escape artist through a wall of force, bluff skill to portray a different alignment, sleight of hand skill to literally make a medium sized creature disappear, swim up a waterfall). (fun examples here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm)

That said, the skill uses have always defied 'real world' logic and allowed psuedo-magical actions.

Thanks again all.

I can see where you're coming from. Based on my experience, when these kinds of situations arise, it's usually because the GM wants to encourage you to do something with you PC that goes beyond his stats, skills, and abilities. When that happens, you need to use out-of-the-box thinking and I find that it's best to try applying the Rule of Cool, usually in a way that sacrifices something.

Generally I would agree with this sentiment. My PC was a sneaky halfling rogue, so I immediately tried to 'hide within the crowd' of the other prisoners - but was ratted out by another inmate within seconds (apparently random inmates can beat my 25+ stealth check). I tried to form an alliance with one of the inmate 'gang leaders', going the 'we can all escape if we work together' route (since I'm also the party face) - but the response I got was 'I'll help you only if you kill this other party member'. I wasn't sure what else could be sacrificed (we had already lost all money/gear) except our lives (which is what I ended up sacrificing to try to help the rest of the group take a step towards *possible* escape).

So I stand by my position that he is coming here not looking for honest answers but to validate his position to try and force his GM to rule in his favor.

You misunderstand the situation. The session was played, the character blown to bits. I have no plans to try to 'force my GM' to do anything.

I presented what I feel is a straightforward scenario - if i put this contrived 'magical bondage device' on a PC, is there no option for removing it? Said device apparently prevents spellcasting and reflects all physical damage at the wearer.

Apparently there is a consensus about the scenario. That's fine, I simply don't agree with that consensus. I would think some use of disable device, escape artist, use magic device, or some skill I'm not not considering might be useful. (primarily because the rogue's skill monkey abilities are written/interpreted broadly as a non-magical foil to the spell caster)

That's all.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate your time. And while I disagree with nearly all of you, I appreciate the feedback. :)

All kinds of things in Pathfinder are 'hand-wavey'. *How* the rogue finds a gas trap or a pit trap, how she disables a magical rune trap, how he activates a magical device isn't always revealed. There isn't always a correlation between real-world logic and how it works in-game.

Just because the cell bars are only 6 inches apart doesn't mean the rogue can't make an escape artist check. We don't get out the medical dictionary to determine how much crushing force a human can actually survive - he's a character in a fantasy setting, he makes the check, and know he's stealthing to safety. That's why it's fun.

If not a DD check, maybe an escape artist check. If not an EA check, maybe a use magic device check. I find the 'completely impossible due to real world logic' response inconsistent with how most gaming works. If we fall back on that, then nothing is really possible.

If it is magical a rogue with Trapfinding can disarm it.

How? - Its magic.

Perhaps draw the correct take-it-off-runes on it, disrupt the flux-combumbulator-thaumaturm-flow or make it think you just spoke the correct command word etc.

That was my feeling.

Indedendend of that, if you have no thief tools, no roll if your DM sais you cant improvise this with spit and fingernails.

Lack of tools should only apply a penalty, not disallow the check, based on the rules as I understand them.

What also might be is that this is a cursed item, for which you'd need Remove Curse or some substitutes thereof.

But if it is a variant of Magical Menacles working correctly, then you should get a DD or EA roll.

It's my understanding you can't intentionally create a cursed item - and in this case, each prisoner (over 50) was wearing an identical collar.

So my PC is imprisoned wearing a magical collar. It is described as a 'seamless piece of magical metal without any mechanism'. As such, my rogue is given no ability to make a skill check to remove it.

Does this seem right? Should I not be entitled to a disable device or escape artist check regardless of fluff? Or is #becausemagic a sufficient denier of skill usage?

I've looked through older posts but often wondered about this particular situation (which is something of a classical situation).

Character A wears a minor ring of energy resistance (fire)
Character B attacks character A with a flaming sword (d8 + d6 fire damage)

Does the ring provide Character A any protection from the fire damage? If not - why not? (it is fire damage, after all)

Thanks and happy gaming

How about PC death due to the GM not knowing the Pathfinder dying/death rules (and how they are different from 3.0/3.5)?

I cast resurrection on this thread!

The explanations above seem to indicate this power could not be used by the caster to roll twice for an attack.

My cleric could whack his warrior buddy in round 1, who would get 2 rolls on every d20 attempt until my initiative in round 2.

But my cleric could not whack himself in round 1 and get two attack rolls in round 2. Based on my understanding of actions - My cleric couldn't use this on himself (standard action) and then pick a lock, climb a wall, tell a lie, or any other skill check that is a standard action. He COULD cast it and then move (and attempt a stealth check on that move).

Feedback welcome.

EDIT: Perhaps clarified here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8wm?Question-on-Luck-Domain-spells

Is the critical ability of a vorpal blade considered a death effect?

Death effects used to impact who could be raised (and still may)

Most if not all 'death effects' are necromantic in nature.

Vorpal isn't any different than hacking off a head over the course of multiple rounds.

I was disappointed when I read the initial blog post. I was a fan of the 'crusader' build available in the old Skills and Powers book - essentially a divine buffing warrior.

I'm still eager to see the final class.

If an interpretation of a rule or feat makes it seem useless to exactly the characters it is aimed at, then I find it unlikely to be the correct interpretation.

I don't find my interpretation to be 'useless' - it allows a martial character to craft a limited set of magical items. Without this feat, that is restricted to casters only.

I find it very flavorful that my samurai could craft his own magical weapons.

Why can't a PC use craft (swords), master craftsman, and craft magic arms/armor to create a magical sword?

I was talking about Master Craftsman.

To respond to Mexcalibur's comment - I think there is some ambiguity over the verbs 'create' vs 'craft' vs 'enchant'.

Some (myself included) read Master Craftsman as 'the PC actually creates the magic item'

This is different than Craft Magic Arms/Armor, where a caster can simply 'enchant' an existing item.

How the reader interprets the word 'craft' can change the way they read the feat, I think.

How is it an assumption? Where in the feat does it say you have to craft the weapon in question and not just imbue it with magic? The assumption is yours.

Where does it say you don't craft it?

There is no crafting of the initial blade involved only the making it magic portion.

I think that is an assumption on your part.

Is it really game breaking in any way to allow it to happen? To disallow it makes the feat near worthless. You've invested 5 skill ranks into a craft or a profession that don't net you much as an adventurer, wasted a feat to make a select few items which doesn't net you much, along with the second feat to actually craft the magic items.

If you didn't require taking the craft magic arms and armor feat and the master craftsman feat was a standalone that let you use your craft skills to make select items I could understand. As it stands it's a large investment and should come with the full benefits.

I enjoy the feat for flavor if nothing else - A samurai, who is a sword-smith, who buys the craft (swords), takes master craftsman, and then craft magic arms/armor - to craft his Daisho. It likely isn't 'optimized' - but I liked the concept. He could craft blades for others as well.

I certainly like that more than the concept that he can take craft (headcheese) and make any/every magic item.

Blake Duffey wrote:

I still don't understand the profession(barrister) comment, however.

It's just an example I used upthread as well. I could use Profession(barrister) to make a flying carpet with Master Craftsman. Well, not sure what item I used, but still, any item works for me.

I mentioned it, because you were questioning how often some of the skills I mentioned are actually taken. Barrister is actually a pretty good one in a RPG, especially for PFS, as getting out of sticky legal situations happens a LOT!.

It wasn't meant to be confrontational, just answering your question. Apologies if it came across poorly.

I completely disagree with your interpretation on this feat - but you need not apologize. My comments can be misconstrued as well.

Since when does anyone have to create the base item they wish to enchant? That's a huge inference you're making. I take a masterwork weapon and make it +1 and I've effectively created a +1 weapon. I didn't have to make the base weapon.

I believe the intent was a wizard could take an existing masterwork sword and, with craft magic arms, make it a magic sword (possibly, but not necessarily with a spellcraft check).

A fighter with master craftsman could take craft magic arms and create a magic sword from scratch (using the craft skill)

Hence the disconnect of people arguing that you can take craft (russian dolls) and create a battle axe.

Further upthread I compared the use of Craft/Perform in place of another skill for the purposes of Master Craftsman as being very similar to how Versatile Performance works for Bards.

Thanks - I didn't see the initial comparison.

For Bards it is quite clear that one is not actually "keyboarding" when one intimidates, you simply replace the skill check.

Likewise, my interpretation of Master Craftsman, one need not be "innkeeping" when making a magic cloak, one is just rolling the Profession(innkeeper) skill in place of what one might normally roll. It need not be logical, it's simply a game mechanic like Versatile Performance.

I do not believe that was the intent of the feat. And I wouldn't allow it in my games. I think if you use the classic legal standard - a 'reasonable person' would not agree with your interpretation.

That said - i do not believe you are going to change your opinion, as the wording in the feat is not explicit enough to persuade you otherwise (game designers are not lawyers).

Happy gaming.

Perform (keyboard) is rarely used? Zahir (my Kingmaker character) would be surprised to hear that, as he has max ranks in it and regularly uses it in place of both Diplomacy and Intimidate. Most of the other examples of Craft and Profession skills I use are core ones listed right in the CRB, including Profession(barrister), which I have a PFS character that keeps it maxed.

This makes much more sense if the class ability of bards is considered. I stand corrected.

I still don't understand the profession(barrister) comment, however.

Blake Duffey wrote:

I would never allow one perform skill to replace multiple other skills on a regular basis. I find it hard to imagine that is 'officially allowed'.

Your opinion doesn't invalidate a class ability of bards.

He didn't specify this was a class ability. (I assume versatile performance?) This isn't simply a 'regular' use of a skill.

I stand corrected in this instance.

Perform (keyboard) is rarely used? Zahir (my Kingmaker character) would be surprised to hear that, as he has max ranks in it and regularly uses it in place of both Diplomacy and Intimidate. Most of the other examples of Craft and Profession skills I use are core ones listed right in the CRB, including Profession(barrister), which I have a PFS character that keeps it maxed.

I would never allow one perform skill to replace multiple other skills on a regular basis. I find it hard to imagine that is 'officially allowed'.

Master Craftsman doesn't permit the usage of Perform skills to make magic items, only Craft and Profession, so that would be an absurd interpretation.

I'm sorry - profession (pantomime) - does that make it any less absurd?

Perform (keyboard) to Intimidate their foes or Perform (percussion) to Handle Animals?

I find your examples creative uses of rarely purchased skills. (albeit surprising ones)

I find the interpretation that master craftsman allows you to make a vorpal long sword with perform (pantomime) absurd, and perhaps intentionally so.

I certainly don't think it was the intent that craft (socks) could be used to make magic swords.

While a literal reading with squinty eyes may not say it's not impossible - it certainly seems to be an intentional stretching of the intent.

The issue is that there are people on this thread saying that a non-wizard Master Craftsman can use craft (bows) to make a suit of armor, or a necklace of adaptation, or a carpet of flying.

Thanks much for clarifying.

All master craftsman does is allow a character to take the craft magic feats and use the craft skill in making the final check. (I'm speaking generally, not in response to you)

A ranger with 5 ranks in craft (bows) could take master craftsman, then take craft magic arms/armor - and then make a magic bow. She certainly couldn't make anything on the wondrous list.

Based on the first sentence (choose one) - I don't think the ranger could craft a magic sword (even if she had 5 ranks in craft (sword) )

A character with ranks in craft(armor) is able to create armor, but with the Master Craftsman feat he has learned to enchant anything (determined by the chosen magic item creation feat(s).

Master craftsman allows that character to take craft magic arms/armor (it replaces caster level 5 with 5 ranks in craft-armor, in your example)

You still need craft magic feats to create magic items.

My point is, you don't need spellcraft. At all. Ever. You can make every item in the books using craft (something) checks, assuming you have suitable feats and caster levels, without ever looking at Master Craftsman.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying? You have to have feats (craft magic arms/armor for example) to make magic stuff.

Normally only spellcasters can take those feats due to the caster prereqs.

Master Craftsman allows non-casters to take the craft magic arms/armor feats - and can then use the appropriate craft skill.

If you are saying a wizard can use craft (bows) rather than spellcraft during creation - I think the rules support that.

No, it doesn't. You can always create magic items using a suitable craft skill check. That you are required to use a particular craft check when creating items to benefit from this feat doesn't change that in any way; it just means that the only items you can create using this feat to provide you with effective caster levels are the ones for which the craft you picked is appropriate.

This is entirely incorrect:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/magicItemCreation.html

Only casters of 5th level can take Craft Magic Arms/Armor and only casters of 3rd level can take Craft Wondrous Item.

Master Craftsman is an exception to that rule.

It's this kind of thread that has me considering leaving Pathfinder for something simpler.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final

Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.

Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. *Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats*. *You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level.* You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.

*Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.*

It's unbelievably clear that the whole purpose of this feat is to allow a martial character to create a narrow list of magic items. For example - I have a samurai with craft (swords) and master craftsman (swords) for the express purpose of self-crafting a magical katana.

Whether that's why they don't do what you ask or not, I can't say. But, that's my understanding.

I'll certainly grant you that some people simply want it to be a certain way, and then they argue the results if it's not to their liking.

'What do you mean I can't make 10 attacks via a head spike, elbow drops and knee lifts, in addition to my normal attacks!?!?!!'

If I can get a pretty strong consensus, that's good enough for me. Isn't there a Paizo policy regarding when/if they release errata?

My problem right now is the rules forum. There is a chilling effect in my opinion for people who post there, and there is a very toxic discourse happening daily. A growing number of people are being very insulting when basic questions are asked, or when there is disagreement on what rules mean.

I'm going to propose a different solution, although I have zero expectation that it will be implemented. Have the rules forum monitored by developers who *actually answer the rules questions*.

For reasons I do not understand (please feel free to enlighten me) - Paizo has some kind of corporate stance that basically precludes actually answering the rules question. There have been many many many threads where developers (Sean Reynolds being a key offender) have spent 10x more times with excuses why the question isn't answered than it would to actually provide an answer.

(The range is 60 feet - that's an answer)

Compare the Paizo rules forum to a similar forum run by PEG, INC. for Savage Worlds: http://www.peginc.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=56

When I go to a rules forum (whether it be for Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Star Wars SAGA Edition, etc) - I'm simply looking for an answer to a rules question. Clint at PEG gives a concise *official* answer I can use at my table. Paizo almost never gives a concise answer (James Jacobs answers are almost always insightful, but they are normally presented as 'non official') It leads to frustration, which leads to verbal barbs. Should the posters be 'better people'? Sure, I suppose so. But I can't tell you how frustrating the lack of support is when it comes to genuine questions/problems with the rules.

Nine times out of ten, an 'official' answer would solve the problem and end the thread. Why is that hard?

Opinions on meta-gaming are certainly table dependent - some would be critical of meta-gaming, some would be critical of NOT doing it.

That said - if you wave away the meta-game issues - do you diminish the knowledge skills? (if I can read the Bestiaries and apply them to my PC - why spend valuable skill points on nature/religion/etc?) When will they be used otherwise?

The Elven Curve Blade is also in Ultimate Equipment, pg. 20.

This is true, but I find this visual representation quite poor. It looks like a large fish hook and looks nearly unusable as a weapon. It also doesn't look 'elvish'.

For what it's worth, I much prefer:

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1357/14/1357142826007.jpg

http://www.collecttolkien.com/images/Weapons/Weapon%20Sword%20High%20Elven% 20United%20Cutlery.jpg

I agree, class doesn't matter.

Class doesn't matter but it might help (here is why I think)

A wizard gets 2 skill ranks and his class skills are appraise, craft, fly, knowledge, linguistics, profession and spellcraft.

I think skills like diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive would be useful to a merchant; so spending a level on rogue to get that +3 to those skills (plus the skill point bonanza) might be a fair trade.

I think if a PC were 'only' a merchant, he's most likely a rogue. I agree that any class could be a merchant.

and he (usually ) leans towards caster types of classes.

then i'd suggest bard (or a level of rogue to get the skill points)