Daw's page

Um, if that vial is effectively immaterial to the creature, how is it do you think it somehow prevents its contents from contacting the creature? All it really does is keep the contents in a fixed shape, when contacting the incorporeal creature. Realistically, an unbroken vial can be used as a club as long as it doesn't hit anything solid and breaks, whether the contents degrade with doing damage is a GM call I guess.

Well, more importantly, do you trust your GM not to then declare your "weapon/launcher" now subject to disarm/sunder attacks? Do you want to be nicknamed stumpy? OK, as a goblin that might well be a step up. You can of course expect tasteless and interminable jocularity about weapon size categories and such distractions. Do you have a drunken fratboy dominated PFS chapter?

Ok, personally I disagree with JJ on this one. That said, if you rule that the bracers work like the Wonder Woman bracers, and not like mage armor, (I would not) then yes they would not work in Wildshape. I suppose if you want Chainmail bikinis to not be stupid, then Wonder Woman bracers make just as much sense. This goes back to the fantastically stupid wording of armor bonus and shield bonus which is up there with race and racial traits. Basing erudite arguments on flawed text oh never mind.

I think you may be seriously underestimating the bagman.

I think it is part of the Darklands theme. You can be heard much further away than you can see, so you can never know who is listening, adding to the danger and hostility of the environment. Also Drow, and to an extent all elves are thematically secretive. Calling out that Drow sign language is a thing highlights this. Some take it to mean that they are the only ones, an unfortunate side effect of the rules traditions that if it isn't specifically written it doesn't exist. Good question.

Oh, honestly I totally agree with you, that the idea doesn't really interest me. What interests me in this thread is the level of venom in the negative response.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point. Was it deliberate?

How much of this hate and discontent is due to the suggestion being seen as an attack on the concepts you think are what is important? I am losing my ability to defend or even empathesize with the pathfinder mindset.

No, i don't think it is a troll. Exactly. The game, to a rather vocal portion of the playerbase, is rather more of a conceptual test bed. The focus of the game narrows to the creation of the perfect character, capable of a potential of doing hundreds of points of damage per round in rather specific circumstances. It is the build that is important, the game is just a proof of concept exercise. How much anger is generated when someone develops a strategy/character (strategy and character being inextricable) that trivializes a cherished character/strategy. I remember the actual outrage when I made an offhand suggestion that the rules actually are capable of supporting a non-combat oriented playstyle, as this was anathema to their strategy character concepts. If the concept is what you live for, the game isn't so much the focus anymore.

If you kill another wizard, his spell books are treasure, and probably difficult to find, and may well be trapped. In any case the requirement to kill a wizard with a spell list worth killing for is hardly nothing. Or you could pay for the privilege.

If you go the found or purchased scroll route, there is the value of the scroll, which is used up.

Or you could research for yourself, which also costs.

This prior post is cut and pasted from the CRB, and is done before you can write a spell into your spellbook.

There is still the unfortunate fact that you are presuming that the feat has a real but unwritten follow on effect that writing down the spell that first time isn't part of the learning process. I even can see the logic, but having a logical base does not make it RAW or RAI.

Honestly though, I have spent more energy on this than it is worth to me. Best of luck to you.

Can you also voluntarily abort a charge if you think it looks too risky, say because that reach fighter just looks a bit too ready for you?

So, just to be sure, even without a feint, the readied action doesn't happen, and the action is lost, right? Also, charging versus a reach fighter is risky as well, even without teleportation, so neither the charge or readying versus charge are 100%.

Charge is rather an all-in Mainchance option, and it is telegraphed besides. If you make rulings to mitigate those risks it becomes your only option if it is available at all. This is true, both fo the GM (NPCs) or the players (PCs). Since the PCs will more reasonably know your demons are teleporters, they rather deserve what happens if they over-rely on charge. Now feinting that charge to hopefully cause missed actions, and not making this trick so obviously a fight-winner. This gives the edge when one side can reasonably expect teleportation as a tactic. I both disagree with your ruling and you spoiler's reason for ruling that way. Also, Meirrils pique as a GM, being predictable as a GM deserves tactics being developed, it isn't cheating, and the teleportation trick causes lost lost actions as often as often as successes if you aren't predictable. This isn't rocket science.

LOL, I applaud your luck in tablemates if you feel you have to give incentives to get them to act like jerks.

Seriously, I have to agree with Isaac's points about avoidability of the drawback, perhaps also ad penalties to bluff, because no one wants to admit a jerk is ever right, as the forums clearly illustrate. Also dump sense motive, jerks by definition lack sensitivity. Perhaps add a dodge bonus or even a reflex bonus since they may not be attuned to others emotions, they are more used to being attacked. Instead of summoned creatures sticking around longer perhaps some form of a taunt might be more thematic.

from the CRB on learning spells.

The process leaves a spellbook that was c opied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment. If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish. In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more. Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or c reating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.

Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.......

Learning it still costs as normal, you just get to skip the time and costs of that final step of writing into your spellbook.

Since we are on a computer forum may I mention that your spellbook or familiar is your offline backup for your knowledge if someone succeeds in stealing, erasing or corrupting your online knowledge. We all backup our data scrupulously, right?

Altaica,
They aren't lying to you, and they aren't wrong. You have come here to ask for advice from experienced if sometimes somewhat unsocialized players, they unanimously agree on what they give you (unanimity being rather rare on the forums) and you still question their advice. Odd.

Since the banner provides a +2 shield bonus, can it be enchanted with shield bonus abilities, or even bonus points. Having it be a more effective shield might take care of the free hand issue if you use it as your actual shield. is that +2 shield bonus being a +2 base with no magical bonus, or +0 base with a +2 magical bonus.

Reading this I worry that I am losing my already limited communication skills.

Perhaps a half giant might work. There are more options If you are allowed 3rd party options. I am fond of the Dreigi, especially some of the less powerful write ups.

Applied critical sleep apnea is a cruel thing. Lack of rest unless you can meditate I suppose. Why does the ARG have so many spells I would not allow at my table?

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Perfect Preparation does not affect your spells known in any way shape or form. What it does is allow you to prepare any spell you know without needed anything else. Basically you store your spells in your head instead of book or a familiar.

So then it raises the question for me, how do you learn a spell from a scroll if you do away with your spellbook or familiar? Negate write/copy cost, you just learn it straight from the scroll?

It is equivocal, a GM call, since neither take is supported or refuted. Your GM might rule that writing it down is part of a wizard's learning process, as would the familiar be to the witch.

Hmm, half of what i wrote vanished. The gist of what I wrote was that since there was no advantage to learning was noted, none exists. The wizard still needs to write it down somewhere, the witch still has to have the familiar or perhaps someone else as an intermediary.

I think it just means that your ability to prepare the spells you have learned cannot be taken away from you by denying you your books or familiar.

JiCi, the idea was a peaceful giant. A rage build is kind of at odds with this. Of course, some playstyles are somewhat at odds with peaceful anything, so I will go away now.

Rather disagree Doc, The traditionally weaker and less versatile cleric spell list would mean your half BAB d6' divine caster is rather at a significant disadvantage to its arcane counterpart. Or are you suggesting them using the same spell lists like hermetics and shamanics in Shadowrun?

Yeah, I get it, perhaps it a failure of vision on my part, I don't see a balanced approach to this one, condolences.

GW, look at it from the GM perspective, the way you you are reading it makes Rather a lot of the danger of combat go away, so the whole risk versus reward balance gets skewed. Your viewpoints are both valid, but limited.

Isn't this just a rather poorly worded way of saying that the swarm can make as many "immediate" actions as there are separate targets starting their turns within the swarm, which yes is generally against the rule of being limited to one swift or immediate action per turn. Since we are talking swarms of many critters, action economy does't exactly apply.

Honey, it's been dead longer than there has been Pathfinder at all, it is all about "my preferences are the only right ones". One True Way if you want to be historically accurate. I would say tiresome rather than with wild. It is rather tthe distillation ........

Sorry, necromancy can be seductive in a horrible sort of way, done now.

Actually if you are pretending to play at physics, you need to consider conservation of momentum, which all these weight and enlargement spells don't. The reduced missile slows down when it enlarges, this may be counterintuitive for some, but unless we are talking on object that can crush you with it's weight alone, or somehow waits to enlarge after it has penetrated, it will do less damage. Same with heavy weapons and similar things. If you throw out conservation of momentum, then you frankly have no basis for even semi realistic combat at all.

Now if you have an enlarged object shrinking in flight, it goes faster, and does more damage, again possibly counterintuitively, look up discard sabot ammunition if you want the specifics on this, or are just interested in the physics, so the realistic damage edge favors the enlarged archer, not the reduced archer, so for you physics wonks balance remains.

Since rather a lot of your tables will resist physics in favor of partial and psuedo-physics, you are better off just sticking to the rules as written, or go look at one of those overly complex physics based systems, some are actually quite elegant if you like that sort of thing, but I rather expect most of us won't have fun with them, and combat will be about as slow going as your average science seminar. It is rather a matter of pride getting through a fight, but unlikely to inspire a repeat for most.

The Stormwynd fallacy is generally trotted out to distract from some pretty egregious behavior. Just because roleplaying and power gaming are not mutually exclusive, it does not mean that in reality, they are not often at odds.

This is more an issue of inexperience, and lack of concern or understanding with balance, and really has nothing to do with roleplaying. It is a completely wargamey issue.

You can just have an area "enchantment" causing that metal to be adamantine while in the area, but return to mere steel when removed from that area. It is a variant of an old Arduin standard to stop us from mining golems. The issue has been around for nearly as long as there has been gaming.

So, little dragon, you can perceive it in others, now, can you perceive it in yourself?

I believe your monk gets more wall crashing credibility than naked martials because entertainment media tends to blur the lines between martial artists and superheroes. Frankly most of your destructive examples bend credulity and to a lesser extent RAW, but since a great many games push into the superhero genre, even without the Vigilante class. Your take is valid and fun, just not universal. At my table, your examples would have lead to broken swords and pulped fists without specific magicks, or maybe just doorways.

Sorry Heather,

I was unclear, common wisdom is one of my sarcasm go-to phrases ...the "wisdom" Is not universally correct and presumes there is only one way to play. You probably don't play that way, nor do I. As I said, it is just a matter of tastes and playstyles. If you play their way said wisdom is valid, but since not everyone does, it is not common.

Falls of the branch laughing, "Close enough, You'll do."

Heather,

I believe the common wisdom is that hit points beyond what is needed to avoid instakills is just delaying the inevitable, so it is better to focus on doing or preventing damage. There are many guides touting this with convincing graphs and notes. Barring the true believer it is all a matter of taste and playstyle.

To be more precise, and less sweepingly grand, plot armor means the character cannot be killed now, before his part of the story is told.

To be fair this must be terribly annoying if you don't give a fig about plot.

^_^
Uhmm, I enjoy the silliness, but my nit picky nature will out......
There is no King of England currently, so I will only let you get away calling yourself the Royal BoyToy of England, unless you can tell me what the watery tart whispered in your ear when she handed you that sword.

Isn't there an Orca based Agathion? Now that you mention it. Away from easy resource ATM, my connection is currently too horribly slow for research.

Agree Dave, though Unbalancing Attacker, or even Shrug It Off might not limit it to sword and board types. I can tell you from experience though that shield-work is less dependent or even helped by strength than you might think. I can give you anecdotal evidence that it is hard to get off a good shot when you are being pushed around a field of battle.

I can't think of any more, but there was a fantasy story called Cold Mercy that might give you a viewpoint shift that you might be able to use. I will try to dig up more information on it without being a spoiler.

Hmmm, wouldn't actually be worse if they worked together, but not working with you. How biddable is your GM? I fear tragedy in your future if he agrees to allow you to take this feat twice.

Adding this to dirty GM tricks folder, mwa ha ha ha.

I really don't have an answer more than LK got first....

^_^ ....but in an effort to brush up on my troll-speak.....
"OMG, letting Jumpers in is a franchise killer! Now you want UNDEAD Jumpers? GAAAAHHH"

Actually great old ones are thought to be incomplete intrusions into reality by forces that may well be in and of themselves larger than reality if you go by Lovecraft's letters. Some of his editors disagree and reimagine the Mythos into a more standard Judeo-Christian mold which is more commonly gamer friendly.

I rather quibble with your description of plot armor as a writer having his cake and eating it too. It is rude and dismissive, when you take into account the non-wargame rloleplay aspects of the game, which it seems that you dismiss as well. Since this all about opinion you can't be wrong, but none of us is right, either.

Has anyone with more energy and sensitivity than I possess studied how chosen names and avatar artwork affect how forum-folk act and are perceived to act?

Weight class was effectivly and more simply subsumed as a part of strength and size. A serious improvement, if not completely perfect. I realize that it seems unfair to some, but the alternative just leads to silliness like pixies holding the bridge against the charging giants.

Try boxing or wrestling over your weight class if you want to understand why strength can reasonably be adjudged more influential to combat manuevers. For the more stat ant of us, Sugar Ray Leanard was much more skilled and dexterous than Mike Tyson, this doesn't make it at all likely that he will win. The simple and brutal ability to overwhelm an enemies defenses is a very powerful thing. This is quite annoying if you are not the one with the greater strength.

So, does this mean Arodens death somehow gave adventurers the power to disrupt the set and fated paths? Are adventurers his true heirs? This is better than Illuminati.

Is your Tournement about cheese? Is everyone on the same page on this? If not, what you are doing is not cheese, but cheating, This is a contest we are talking about after all, are we all knowingly playing by the same rules? You do know that in most tournaments you don't pre-buff before the actual fight, and your entire concept is effectivly pre-buffing. I rather think it is you who are missing the point.

Actually sorry if this offends.

The feat 'Expert Salvager'

Suggests that it can be salvaged to base components with a skill check.

"You gain a +4 bonus on Craft checks for Craft skills in which you have at least 2 ranks and Spellcraft checks when crafting items by foraging alchemical supplies and material components, salvaging raw crafting materials, and salvaging raw magical item materials."

Spellcraft does have a Salvaging skill use.

This doesn't seem to address the materials actual costs at all.

Hmm, Inkeeping with the established WBL silliness, you could rule that breaking down an item halves the value of its, perhaps with rules to get a bit better than half with skills/feats might play better with the accountants. I suspect the point is do the accountants one in the eye as it were.

While I am not a big fan of The whole WBL accountancy system, neither do I believe in effectivly handing out gift cards as a GM.

Ravingdork wrote:

The crossbow references a bonus to a singular attack and damage roll, and does not use plural pronouns; ergo, I'm not the least bit certain it would apply to all of the rays in a scorching ray, or to all the blasts from a battering blast.

I wish we could get the rules team on this item and fix the miss understanding once and for all.

Not to be facetious, really, but isn't it more entertaining with some of the grey areas staying grey. The system is unlikely to crash around our ears if our tables disagree on this issue.