Seltyiel

Deadbeat Doom's page

Organized Play Member. 405 posts (407 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 8 aliases.


1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattGM wrote:
Voadkha wrote:

Perhaps I'm still suffering from the psychological scars caused by the destruction of LG but the new Starfinder button showing up filled me with dread.

Has there been official word from Paizo concerning whether or not the release of Starfinder will coincide with the death of Pathfinder (and more specifically PFS).

Has there been any announcement that PFS is intended to be "phased out" in the near future? Do they have at least a tentative commitment to continue PFS through Season 9 and into Season 10?

Starfinder society does exist, and will not phase Pathfinder, nor PFS, in any way. Starfinder has entirely different creative teams, while Jason Buhlman is on the creative team for Starfinder, he is not the creative director. If anything, Paizo is just going to become a Two-Headed Monster of the gaming community. Pathfinder and Starfinder.

Um...

This thread is more than eight months old. This stuff all got cleared up ages ago.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

No. Like I said, I'd just let them roll it, but that's me houseruling it.

If they were trying to do a trick attack without first seeking cover, concealment of some kind, going invisible, or creating a distraction (which targets everything that can observe you, and gives every potential target an opposed roll), AND I was adjucating a table where house rules didn't apply, such as SFS, then I would regrettably have to say that they cannot make any use of the stealth skill, including making a trick attack using that skill.

Then you would be in error.

No point of the Trick Attack says that you are attempting to hide as part of the Trick Attack.

The issue they are having problems with is that, while the first paragraph on observation gives an example of stealth for hiding, the second paragraph simply states that you cannot attempt a Stealth check while being observed.

It doesn't say you can't attempt a Stealth check to hide; it states you can't make a Stealth check at all.

I don't believe that these rules are supposed to interact with Trick Attack; but the wording is unfortunate nonetheless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dvrobiqu wrote:
Jhaeman wrote:
This has been discussed, with very good points on either side, in another thread. I think we just need to FAQ it and wait for an answer.
I agree, I think a FAQ is the only way to get a clear-cut answer. And I am sorry if I am coming off as argumentative. It's honestly not my intent. I will leave this alone until we hopefully get an answer from the FAQ.

You haven't really come across as argumentative to me; more as someone who sees a potential issue with the system, and who refuses to hand wave the possible interactions away just because that is the likely intent.

You want a concrete answer one way or another; and lacking one you interpret the rules in a literal, if harsh, fashion. I don't think you'll find many people around who would take your interpretation as the correct one; but that doesn't mean that your reasoning is without merit.

Attempting to understand what a rule actually says and means can be just as important as understanding what the people writing it were trying to convey.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the one hand, I feel that the intent of the wording of the Trick Attack ability is pretty clear about it being a separate and stand alone skill check; but on the other hand, there are possibly several parts of the Rulebook interacting here, and each part is just vague enough that it isn't unreasonable to want a little clarification from the Developers. Even a single line in this thread would probably be enough to set minds at ease; and it would give us somewhere to point to if and/or when confusion about this crops up in the future.

It's worth a FAQ if it prevents worries or arguments about it later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dvrobiqu wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:

That last part is easy enough.

Make a thread in Rules Questions entitled:
"Trick Attack and Skill Check Question."

And then in the main body of the thread, type something not unlike:
"Are the skill checks made to perform a Trick Attack subject to the same rules as normal skill checks?
I.e., If I use Acrobatics as part of a Trick Attack check, do the rules for using Acrobatics in Difficult Terrain apply?"

As for questioning things like the "attempt a Stealth check" problem; if you look up the rules for the Stealth skill, I think you will find that there is no general "you must be unobserved in order to make a stealth check" rule. You need cover or concealment in order to make a stealth check to hide, but you aren't attempting to hide when making a Trick Attack; you're trying to attack an opponent in such a way as to make them unable to adequately defend themselves.

Take Acrobatics as another example. If I use Acrobatics to make a Trick Attack, am I trying to Balance, Escape, Fly, Hover, or Tumble? The answer is: None of the above; I'm attempting a Trick Attack, so none of the rules for Acrobatics that apply to it's other uses will apply here.

First off, thank you for your instructions!

I will make a thread about it in the Rules Questions. I just didn't want to make a new thread if this one is too similar.

As far as the argument that none of the rules that apply to a Stealth check would apply because you are making a Trick Attack and not a Stealth Check, then does this mean you don't add the Ysoki's Scrounger racial ability (+2 to Stealth checks) to a Trick Attack? The rules for Observing (Page 260) use the same generic wording of "Stealth check" in the second paragraph.

Glad to be of help!

1. Making a Stealth Check to Hide is not equivalent to making a Stealth Check for some other purpose (such as attempting a Trick Attack).

2. The Ysoki's Scrounger racial ability applies to ALL Stealth checks, not just to ones made to Hide.

3. The rules for Observing appear to be infuriatingly vague on this subject; but the first paragraph refers to direct observation occurring when "a creature is visible, when the situation makes it impossible for the creature (to) use stealth to hide, or when you have succeeded at a Perception check to pinpoint the creature using a precise sense such as blindsight." The way in which this and the Stealth skill are written lead me to believe that these rules were created before the Operative's Trick Attack had been implemented, as it is not referenced anywhere else in the Core Rulebook.

I fully believe that I am interpreting the rules correctly in this instance; but I will concede that more explicit wording should have been used to clarify when and how Trick Attack interacts with Skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dvrobiqu wrote:
Kate Baker wrote:

That's a good catch, dvrobiqu, and it does muddy the waters for looking at rules as written. I suspect that this part of the text is conflating "attempt a Stealth check" with "attempt a Stealth check to hide," but that's just a gut feeling based on how many of us have done that here, including me.

I still think that if there were intended to be restrictions on the use of the skill, it would be listed in the trick attack section, and I'll rule it that way at my table. It's going to be very frustrating for ghost operatives to be told that they can't use their associated skill very often when, say, Daredevils would be allowed to attempt it every turn, and I really don't think that there's supposed to be that kind of disparity between specializations. The observation text probably makes this FAQ-worthy, though.

There are other aspects, aside from using stealth while being observed, that I find troubling with the way the trick attack rule is written. In particular, once I start questioning which aspects of a skill check apply and which ones don't I am left with a lot of gray areas for my players to make arguments.

Such as, do you increase the DC of the trick attack if the players are in the undergrowth of a forest biome (page 397 - Forrest Terrian)? Is it subject to armor check penalties if you are using a dex based skill (Page 134 - Skill Description)? Does it benefit from any items or serums that increase the Stealth skill? Does it benefit from Stealth Warp (Page 106 - Stellar Revelations)?

If they simply wrote, "Just before making your attack, make a Trick Attack check using either Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth..." I would have no issue what-so-ever.

We are in agreement that this probably needs a FAQ. And I certainly would not argue with you if I was sitting at your table about it. Admittedly I am a newb here and I have no idea how one would request that, or what is the proper procedure for that.

That last part is easy enough.

Make a thread in Rules Questions entitled:
"Trick Attack and Skill Check Question."

And then in the main body of the thread, type something not unlike:
"Are the skill checks made to perform a Trick Attack subject to the same rules as normal skill checks?
I.e., If I use Acrobatics as part of a Trick Attack check, do the rules for using Acrobatics in Difficult Terrain apply?"

As for questioning things like the "attempt a Stealth check" problem; if you look up the rules for the Stealth skill, I think you will find that there is no general "you must be unobserved in order to make a stealth check" rule. You need cover or concealment in order to make a stealth check to hide, but you aren't attempting to hide when making a Trick Attack; you're trying to attack an opponent in such a way as to make them unable to adequately defend themselves.

Take Acrobatics as another example. If I use Acrobatics to make a Trick Attack, am I trying to Balance, Escape, Fly, Hover, or Tumble? The answer is: None of the above; I'm attempting a Trick Attack, so none of the rules for Acrobatics that apply to it's other uses will apply here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.

I almost commented on that; but then I thought that perhaps such an observation might not be welcome, what with it being more or less a separate rule system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
I wonder if this box contains enough Skittermander whelps?

There is no such thing as 'enough Skittermander whelps'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mine says that I'm a selfish arrogant ass.

My history of aliases says that I like pictures of Seltyiel.

My current alias also says that there aren't any Starfinder images available yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My wife and I pay ~$80US a month for our cellphones, and we're limited to 5GB per month. Our home internet costs us close to $100US a month, and it has a 500GB per month limit.

'Murica.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
suprise rounds are a thing and some one not making their check could mean the difference between winning or loseing the fight depending of the dificulty of the ambush

It is physically impossible to optimize Perception to the point that it will be actually useful against an ambush, since Stealth is much easier to boost, and most ambush encounters are against creatures with a high Stealth modifier.

If you can succeed at a Perception check against an ambush with any sort of consistency, you are playing something natively good at Perception, you dumped a bunch of resources into Perception (which guarantees you suck at something else), or it's just a regular encounter, not an ambush. I don't care how many feats, traits, and magic items you throw at the fighter, he'll NEVER be able to beat a rogue in a Stealth vs. Perception check; not even if the rogue's only putting skill points and a minor magic item into his Stealth.

Also, if you are having to deal with ambushes often, that speaks more towards your group's tactics and Stealth abilities than it does their Perception...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
bitter lily wrote:


If your decision to keep your personal "working theory" isn't happy-making for some of your fans, why do it? Why not let us know in a blog -- nothing "official" -- what your personal theory is? If we as GMs want to tell a different story, you're still freeing us to do so. End of mystery in the sense of withholding information, on-going mystery in the sense of what we make of it.

Why not?

Because I don't have a personal theory.

I do not know how Aroden died, or why, or who did it, or in which room it happened. I don't find those things to be the interesting parts about him. In fact, it's kind of the one aspect of the character that I don't find particularly interesting.

The interesting thing to me is more in the "what now" aspect of what happens to the campaign world when "God" dies. What happens to institutions, to culture, etc. Add to that the idea that this also casts prophecy in doubt, and you've got a bunch of inherent questions that are more interesting to me than "who did it."

I never really considered "who did it" when I created Aroden. I left that to be determined later, to be woven into other stories by other authors, very likely stories that hadn't been considered yet, left for future development if we decided to develop it at all.

The "working theory" is more something James and others have pieced together in the time since Aroden's creation, tying in the few clues that I left with other cool stuff that they're planning to have a "maybe this is how it went down," but as I mentioned earlier, even that's flexible until we actually decide to address the issue. If we do.

I could outline an entire Aroden-focused Adventure Path with all kinds of insight into his life, his cult, and the ruins of his influence, but to be perfectly honest I'm not certain even that would answer the question of how he died.

I like that the people of Golarion don't know. So long as there's no "official" answer, the answer is free to be whatever you want it to be.

Huh.

Okay, I have to admit; this has changed my outlook on the Aroden Mystery situation. I had always viewed his death as a known variable, a fixed point in time and space, which radiated outwards to affect the rest of Golarion. My point of contention was with having been made aware that Aroden had definitively died, and that Paizo both a) knew how it happened, and b) were never going to reveal it.

Now I realize that the mystery of Aroden's death isn't about how he died; the mystery is about how Golarion is reacting to his death.

Very cool.

I retract my earlier statement of disinterest. In fact, now I think that the best ending for Pathfinder would be an AP about the return of prophesy; it could be kind of like Golarion finally getting over the loss of Aroden.

Thank you for this post, oh wise and benevolent dictator of my gaming budget!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Tarrasque: and Army of One.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Parity of Aeons.
A Safeguard of Agathions.
A Choir of Angels.
An Establishment of Archons.
A Denial of Asura.
A Liberation of Azata.
A Vacuity of Daemons.
A Massacre of Demons.
A Bureaucracy of Devils.
A Division of Demodands.
A Corruption of Divs.
A Brigade of Formians.
An Invocation of Genies.
An Obstinance of Inevitables.
An Essence of Kami.
A Bondage of Kytons.
A Befoulment of Oni.
A Disarray of Proteans.
An Escort of Psychopomps.
A Treachery of Qlippoth.
A Decadence of Rakshasa.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Welp, here's hoping that there's going to be subscriptions and consolidated shipping; I just ordered one of everything, and now I'm sad for August me's wallet...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not that it matters; we all know that Paizo is super awesome when it comes to equality. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo is not eligible to be included in the CEI; for businesses, only those rated by Fortune magazine are reviewed by the HRC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously?

We are still doing this?

Really?

Is there no other silly pedantic thing to argue about?

How about a rousing conversation about falling Paladins? Fighters versus Wizards? Goblin babies? Hands?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the Pathfinder system, and I love the world of Golarion, and I love the various mysteries and intrigues; but, eventually, I am going to want to have a moment of revelation.

At some point, the mystery of how Dou-Bral became Zon Kuthon will be more frustrating than interesting; the creation of the Eye of Abendego will cease to be of concern, I will stop caring about why Asmodeus was entrusted with the key to Rovagug's prison, and what he plans on doing with it, and I'll give up guessing at the truth about the death of Aroden.

In every case save one, there might someday be a big reveal where we will finally be let in on what is going on; but not where Aroden is involved.

It honestly has meant that while I still dig for clues and tidbits of information about other secrets of Golarion, I pretty much just ignore Aroden.

I believe it was a mistake to state that the truth about Aroden would never be unveiled. It is one thing to tease people with dangled morsels and red herrings; it is quite another to just say, "Move along folks, nothing to see here".

At this point, the only thing that would get me interested in the mystery of Aroden again, would be a promise that the final Adventure Path Paizo ever puts out for Pathfinder will be about his death.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So we are supposed to be sticking to pure Pathfinder? No house rules?

Then I get nothing. I've never played a character in any game, adventure paths included, that hadn't been modified heavily.

If we open the doors to primarily pathfinder but with house rules allowed, then I become a Gestalt Wizard 30/Cleric 30/Mythic 10 High Elf(1/3)/Dark Elf(1/3)/Orc(1/3) who worships knowledge directly and who's bonded object is an Artifact staff which allows him to cast any spell he knows without needing to prepare it, at a caster level equal to his character level.

Like I said; modified heavily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I notice that nobody is talking about the lack of equipment.

It is all well and good for me to suddenly become an epically powerful wizard, but that doesn't change the fact that I need a spell book to prepare the majority of my mojo...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are using core only, I suspect that the King of the Ring is going to be a Diviner Wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I like the idea of giving the Sahuagin wings; evil flying shark people FTW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair to TOZ his entire point is that, as there are no rules in place to handle this particular subject, the fallback is to rely on the GM running the game to make a call; he then proffered the ruling he would personally make as a GM.

He never said that his decision was the only one that could be made, he just said that the rules don't cover it, so it's GM's call, and his call would be to fix it so as to avoid exploding books being the most powerful weapon in existence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bitter lily wrote:

*** giggle ***

OK, thanks. But now I have to wonder if I got ECL right. APL is "Average Party Level" -- 4 6th-level PCs = APL 6. Except I thought that was ECL, too...

It is Effective Character Level, but he and the OP of that thread should have used CR instead, as ECL was a 3.0/3.5 term and was phased out when Paizo created the Pathfinder system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Necrocraft might be close enough to what you are looking for. Necrocraft are Undead types that have Construction Points; though they do not have the Construct type, so that may not be good enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

What if i start one where people ask me to ask someone else something, or maybe see if they'll also ask someone else (i'm talking real people) and see if i can get a chain going.

See how many middlemen i can add.

A question within a question within a question. Threadception.

We have to go deeper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cmastah wrote:
Starglim wrote:

There are more in the Monster Codex. I'm not sure if they're on the PRD.

DrDeth wrote:
Where are the rules for doing a gnoll PC??
Mostly in the Gnoll entry in the Bestiary, I expect. First ask your GM if a PC whose race worships demons and eats people will fit into the campaign.

My first intention was to post this as side info, then as a funny FYI, then as a sad realization of current affairs with playing evil races:

Most folks who play gnoll choose to go the goodly route, playing instead outcasts from their people or simply those who eschew the dark nature of their people, or instead essentially a more bestial version of elves.

It's.....yeah.....it's dogfaced drizzt.

I played a gnoll in a skull and shackles game; I was the ship's cook, and nobody ever questioned why there was meat being served the next day after we killed enemies (or errant crew members).

His name was Grue. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
AMBARBARIAN - STILL NOT SURE WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

AM BARBARIAN BEST BARBARIAN! AM BARBARIAN DESTROY SQUISHY MAGIC USERS; ALSO PLANETS.

AM BARBARIAN ACCOMPLISH FEATS OF AMAZE POWER BY RIDE BIG BATTY BAT THROUGH SKY, HIT BAD GUY WITH RAGELANCEPOUNCE OF DESTRUCTION!

RAGELANCEPOUNCE ONCE GREATEST AND MOST SECRETEST SECRET MARTIAL ABILITY IN WHOLE THREAD WHERE IT CAME FROM. AM BARBARIAN RAGE. AM BARBARIAN MAKE BATTY BAT RAGE. AM BARBARIAN ON BATTY BAT CHARGE BAD GUY WHILE USE POUNCE RAGE POWER AND TWO LANCE FOR DOUBLE POINTY STABBY POWER. AM BARBARIAN SIFT THROUGH BAD GUY BITS FOR LEFT OVER GOODIES.

AM BARBARIAN CONTROVERSIAL CAUSE HE SAY HE SMASH BAD MAGIC GUY; ALSO PEOPLE ARGUE NO CAN USE TWO LANCE FOR DOUBLE POINTY STABBY POWER.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In general, I don't see all that much fudging of dice rolls at the tables I sit on; the issue I see most often is the GM deciding to up the DC of skill checks if the character's are able to make the checks more often than 75% of the time.

I try not to get too salty about it; but if I spend eight-plus hours building a character with a specific skill set and niche to fill, I darn well expect him to be good at what he does, not just "average".

As a for instance, through the use of a combination of Traits, Feats, Skill Points, Stat selection, and personal wealth spent on Magic Items, I have achieved a bonus to Intimidate of +39 at 9th level. Magically, even though I should realistically never even need to roll in order to successfully Intimidate someone, I not only need to make a roll, but straight out fail more than a third of the time.

If the GM is just going to alter the DC's of the checks because "the PC's winning all the time is boring", then what is the point of me putting all the time, effort, and resources into my abilities that I do? I despise feeling like I am being punished for trivializing skill based challenges; I say, with the amount of work I've put into it, I SHOULD be able to trivialize some paltry skill check.

Sorry, that got a little bit ranty there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I'm sorry I started this thread.

Don't ever be sorry for asking a question!

The very fact that a disagreement has broken out is proof that the rules are not crystal clear; but if you had not asked, there might never have been a discussion about it, and in turn there might not have ever been an opportunity to clarify things.

Asking questions is good, and you should never feel sorry for the opinions or comments of others; you are not responsible for their beliefs or their behavior. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding something here. Under the basic rules for magic rings, it is stated that rings are usually command word activated, as opposed to being use-activated as you appear to want them to be. When the rules say usually, what that means is that all rings are command word activated, unless a specific ring says otherwise for the powers of that ring only.

I find it amusing that exactly the opposite argument was used, by quite a few people, when arguing that trait bonuses are untyped.

Even though the general rules for traits state many traits give a trait bonus, the consensus was all traits bonuses are untyped unless explicitly stated otherwise.

This opinion prevailed even with an explicit statement of RAI in the trait rules stating that traits are not intended to stack.

If explicit wording is required in once circumstance, one would think explicit wording is also required in all similar circumstances.

1. This discussion is about the activation rules of rings, and has nothing to do with traits.

2. I was not/am not involved with any discussion concerning Trait Bonuses, so I don't give a flying fiddle about what people have said/are saying about them.

The subjects of other Threads need to stay in those Threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CalethosVB wrote:

Bloodline:

A blood arcanist selects one bloodline from those available through the sorcerer bloodline class feature. The blood arcanist gains the bloodline arcana and bloodline powers of that bloodline, treating her arcanist level as her sorcerer level. The blood arcanist does not gain the class skill, bonus feats, or bonus spells from her bloodline.
Variant Bloodline Arcana wrote:
When selecting spells known, you can choose spells from the psychic class spell list.

They are not the class skill, bonus feats, or bonus spells of the bloodline; the psychic spells are alternative options for selected spells known, granted by the Bloodline Arcana class feature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Man's Promise became The Salty Splinter, mostly because we were a pain in the ass to everyone we came across. :)

Eventually we traded it, another ship, a butt-load of plunder points, and a number of magic items in for a custom Fabricated Man'o'War called The Terminus; aptly named for being the end of many a sailor's tale.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Swimming in the Pedantic Ocean is relaxing as there is no real threat of drowning, what with it being shallow and all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see a Cyborg Template/Installation System that can be dropped onto playable races, so that one can play as a cyborg without requiring it to lock in/out a particular race or class.

I would like to see a complete overhaul of the stealth system as part of their retooling of the skills.

I would like to see a class, prestige class, or archetype that merges magic and technology in an organic fashion.

I would like to see a fresh new take on Alignment.

I would like to see a new Item Creation system.

I would like to see Starfinder flourish and become my new go-to system.

EDIT: I also REALLY REALLY REALLY want to see playable Artificial Intellegences!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Telekinetic Blast wrote:

You throw a nearby unattended object at a single foe as a ranged attack. The object must weigh no more than 5 pounds per kineticist level you possess. If the attack hits, the target and the thrown object each take the blast's damage. Since the object is enfolded in strands of aether, even if you use this power on a magic weapon or other unusual object, the attack doesn't use any of the magic weapon's bonuses or effects; it simply deals your blast damage. Alternatively, you can loosen the strands of aether in order to deal damage to both the object and the target as though you had thrown the object yourself (instead of dealing your normal blast damage).

You substitute your Constitution modifier for your Strength modifier if throwing the object would have added your Strength modifier on the damage roll, and you don't take the –4 penalty on the attack roll for throwing an object that wasn't designed to be thrown. In this case, the object's special effects apply (including effects from its materials), and if the object is a weapon, you must be proficient with it and able to wield it with one hand; otherwise, the item deals damage as a one-handed improvised weapon for a creature of your size.

Telekinetic Haul wrote:
When using basic telekinesis, you can move an object that weighs up to 100 pounds per kineticist level you possess. When using your telekinetic blast, you can throw an object weighing up to 100 pounds per kineticist level you possess, but this doesn't increase the damage. If you accept 1 point of burn, the maximum weight increases to 1,000 pounds per kineticist level you possess and the duration increases to 1 minute per kineticist level you possess.

Regardless of the size, weight, mass, velocity, etc., you always deal damage with the item as though it were a one-handed improvised weapon of an appropriate size.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure the names were used from the tome of horrors because those are Open content, whereas the others are WotC-specific.

As for names for the new ones, I got nothin'. The Demodand names that already exist aren't from real world mythology, so you can't just pick more that are related. I suggest making up something that sounds right to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashram wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

You can magically strengthen an object to lose the fragile quality, but in most cases, masterwork/magic takes care of that.

Weapon Fragile Quality wrote:
Fragile: Fragile weapons cannot take the beating that sturdier weapons can. A fragile weapon gains the broken condition if the wielder rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with the weapon. If a fragile weapon is already broken, the roll of a natural 1 destroys it instead. Masterwork and magical fragile weapons lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description.
Armor Fragile Quality wrote:

Fragile: Armor with the fragile quality falls apart when hit with heavy blows. if an attacker hits a creature wearing fragile armor with an attack roll of a natural 20 and confirms the critical hit (even if the creature is immune to critical hits), the armor gains the broken condition. if already broken, the armor is destroyed instead. Fragile armor is broken or destroyed by only critical threats that are generated by natural 20s.

Masterwork and magical fragile armor lacks these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material description.

Most of the primitive materials from Ultimate Equipment are fragile unless magically strengthed, such as bone. Being made masterwork does not alleviate that drawback.

Bone is the only primitive material that does not lose the fragile quality when made Masterwork; and it can still be either magically reinforced OR just enchanted to remove fragile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KM WolfMaw wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

In my day we called them Friendly Local Gaming Stores.

Oh, how miss those days...

Some are still those, some...

Not many though; I live within a 45 minute driving distance to five different LGSs, and I still order my stuff online just so I won't have to interact with the unfriendly staff and their Draconian ideas of fairness.

And don't get me started on used merchandise...

To be on topic though, I would still rather have a real book in my hands than a PDF on my screen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Mark, if I can have a signed copy of Occult Adventures shipped to me for free, please confirm by not responding in the next 24 hours.

Thanks. :-D

Double or nothing, Mark. I could use a signed copy of Unchained, too. I'll even raise the stakes. 48 hours. Sound good? Do not respond in 48 hours if you want to give me two signed copies of books you've worked on.

*Gets Excited*

If he actually does send you signed books, I am going to be so mad I didn't try that first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:
Metal Sonic wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:

Adamantine, getting duller.

Riiiiiiiiight.

I second that. Your adamantine weapon don't get dull by fighting a adamantine golem, why punish martials any further?
Really.. . is there any where people won't bring up the martial caster disparity debate?

Space... because Martials can't get there without a caster anyway. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel that to do Rules Lawyering justice, we should debate in Infernal. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yay! There are 128 more posts since last night, and literally no progress has been made by either side of the arguement! I think it might be time for some folks to FAQ and move on.

EDIT: 130.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Elements Song.

Edit: I just couldn't resist-
I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire.
The Water Song.
Earth Song.
Fly Like an Eagle.
Waterfalls.
In the Air Tonight.
Ring of Fire.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rocks Die; Everyone Falls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:
Calth wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I don't care if it's an AoE or not, it's still not much damage, especially when they save.

Kinetic Blade is nice...but it's not the Blast. The class shouldn't be forced into melee attacking to deal good damage...which is yet another thing that was stressed ad naueeam during the playtest, but not addressed.

I haven't ignored anything. I mentioned both of these options already.

Having at-will equivalent to 5th level AoE evocation spells is not much AoE damage?

Or being able to drop staggering AoEs at will for hydromancers?

There are a lot of powerful viable options available for kineticists. Standing there and playing archer just doesn't happen to be one. I'm sorry that's what you want the class to be, but its just not

But it should be.

I love the Kineticist; it might even be my favorite class now, but I still feel that I should be able to specialize in DPR and excel at it.

The Elemental Annihilator goes a long way towards fulfilling that desire, but in doing so it completely obliterates the Utility Wild Talents, without which I feel like I'm just playing a fighter archetype that gets less feats.

I also might come off like a petulant child to Tels, but a wonderous item that you could store burn points in would be incredibly welcome; as would something to mitigate the actual non-lethal damage taken per burn point.

You can specialize in dpr. Pyrokineticist, grap kinetic whip and you can dpr just fine. You just cant do it from range.

And that's the problem. I like the blast mechanics. I like the idea of a single massive blast per round. I don't like that I am going to dish out more DPR with Kinetic Blade/Whip in melee than I could ever hope to do with a Simple/Composite Blast.

Right now a non-melee Kineticist is dealing non-optimized, chained rogue levels of damage (albeit in a far more consistent manner). They should be dealing optimized blast sorcerer levels of damage without maxing out burn in one fight, at the very least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I don't care if it's an AoE or not, it's still not much damage, especially when they save.

Kinetic Blade is nice...but it's not the Blast. The class shouldn't be forced into melee attacking to deal good damage...which is yet another thing that was stressed ad naueeam during the playtest, but not addressed.

I haven't ignored anything. I mentioned both of these options already.

Having at-will equivalent to 5th level AoE evocation spells is not much AoE damage?

Or being able to drop staggering AoEs at will for hydromancers?

There are a lot of powerful viable options available for kineticists. Standing there and playing archer just doesn't happen to be one. I'm sorry that's what you want the class to be, but its just not

But it should be.

I love the Kineticist; it might even be my favorite class now, but I still feel that I should be able to specialize in DPR and excel at it.

The Elemental Annihilator goes a long way towards fulfilling that desire, but in doing so it completely obliterates the Utility Wild Talents, without which I feel like I'm just playing a fighter archetype that gets less feats.

I also might come off like a petulant child to Tels, but a wonderous item that you could store burn points in would be incredibly welcome; as would something to mitigate the actual non-lethal damage taken per burn point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been reading my GM's copy (he let me borrow it for my Kineticist), and I have to say I am more satisfied with Occult Adventures than I have been for any other Paizo book since the APG came out.

Kudos.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it the 29th yet?

What about now?

...Now?

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>