Elegy's page

What Philip said. It's not a gaze, so don't use gaze rules.

I might not have been clear in my intent: my understanding was that Nyrissa's aura was similar to a nymph's blinding beauty:

Blinding Beauty (Su) This ability affects all humanoids within 30 feet of a nymph. Those who look directly at a nymph must succeed on a DC 21 Fortitude save or be blinded permanently. A nymph can suppress or resume this ability as a free action. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Which (to me) indicates you could close your eyes and not be affected by this aura, though I may have been overly generous by extrapolating a chance to avert your eyes and not be affected.

So, in my opinion, *this* aura may not be like the aura of uranium that Philip mentioned. I would totally agree that if it was an aura of intense heat radiating out from Nyrissa, it doesn't matter if you are looking at it or not looking at it, but since it involves an element of perception (assuming it is worded like the Nymph's ability - don't have the AP to check) then it could be reasonable to rule that they could use the gaze rules (at least as far as closing their eyes - though this wouldn't really help them in this fight since it is the end of the AP).

Hopefully that explains my thinking and allows Glass Castle to decide how they want to run it and justify it to their players. I was probably also inspired by this post (though I think they were far too lenient) about another GMs interpretation along similar lines.

BLINDING BEAUTY

Quote:

Bear in mind that her Blinding Beauty will still be in effect the entire time if he is looking at her.

I see that it's an Aura.

I also see that it's supernatural. "Blinding Beauty (Su)"

If he does fail his check on that though, how do I counter this argument.

He fails his check but acts before her or she has only taken a 5ft move.
His response : "I run straight ahead where I was going and I do the same thing."

My response would be if she hasn't moved- I can't really deny him the right to do that type of attack.

If she took a 5ft step before he acted- I'd make him roll a 50/50 and then I'd make him roll for the usual mirror image check. (I intend to have mirror image up).

Note the rules for gazes:

Gaze (Su) A gaze attack takes effect when foes look at the attacking creature's eyes. The attack can have any sort of effect; petrification, death, and charm are common. The typical range is 30 feet. The type of saving throw for a gaze attack is usually a Will or Fortitude save (DC 10 + the 1/2 gazing creature's racial HD + the gazing creature's Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature's text). A successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster's gaze attack is described in abbreviated form in its description. Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order. Opponents can avoid the need to make the saving throw by not looking at the creature, in one of two ways.

Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature's face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a reflective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment from that opponent.

Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes) and does not have to make saving throws against the gaze. However, the creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment from the opponent.

A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range. That opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an opponent to save against a creature's gaze twice during the same round, once before the opponent's action and once during the creature's turn.

Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents. A creature is immune to the gaze attacks of others of its kind unless otherwise noted. Allies of a creature with a gaze attack might be affected; these allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round. The creature can also veil its eyes, thus negating its gaze ability.

Format: gaze; Location: Special Attacks.

This covers how to avert their eyes (at least somewhat - it would be nice if they covered any other effects from averting their eyes). I would assume that this should be extrapolated for the aura - I'm not sure if there are any more detailed rules since it is an aura and not a gaze attack. It seems to me that they should have a greater chance to have to save for averting their eyes than with the gaze attack... I'm not really sure how I would handle movement once you are averting your eyes but trying to move a precise distance.

For the mirror image, if he is blinded by Nyrissa, then I would say he is not subject to the miss chance for mirror image, but would be suffering all of the effects of being blinded, so he still suffers a 50% miss chance, plus however you adjudicate the movement to target the correct square (once she gets a turn, he will not know what square she is in and will have to make Perception checks/guesses). Also note the reduced speed, so he might not even be able to reach her and attack. If he is not blinded, then I would rule he is suffering from the mirror image miss change unless he closes his eyes, in which case he is blinding himself. I also would say that you are choosing to avert your eyes or close them at the start of your turn and it affects you until the start of your next turn - in my opinion, this is reasonable and in the spirit of the rules, but it is not spelled out to my knowledge.

Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

Another thought came to me during the day though, so if I may ask one other question:

-Spell Resistance v. Witches Hexes... my understanding is that nothing has SR v. the Witches Hexes. Is that true? Is there any counter for Witches Hexes, like there is a counter for spells?

I'm not very familiar with witches, but my understanding is that most witch hexes are supernatural abilities - those are marked with (SU). And supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity, cannot be dispelled by dispel magic and similar spells, cannot be counterspelled, and are not subject to spell resistance - all of this is from the glossary for supernatural abilities. Supernatural abilities are negated by an antimagic field, though judging from other posters, that would be a serious problem for Nyrissa.

Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells.

I'm not familiar enough with the class to know if there is anything that modifies that - it did look like some of their hexes were not marked (SU) so make sure to double-check specific hexes.

One thought would be to have a creatures that would be effective in an antimagic field polymorphed (I think that is the spell used - not sure if I remember the trick correctly); the goal is that if the antimagic field is successful, then another creature is added to the fight. Not sure about Nyrissa's resources for doing this or the exact spell used.

Quote:

Quote:

>>Nope. A caster needs a full night of uninterrupted rest (8 hours for most races, 4 for elves) followed by an hour of meditation or study to prepare their spells or spell slots for the day. A late-night interruption means they have to start completely over.

That sounds helpful; where does it state that a late night interruption means they need to start over? I do not see that on this page: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard

I can't PFSRD from work, but you'll need to look at the resting and regaining spells rules, not the Wizard class, because the rules apply to all spellcasters and therefore wouldn't (or shouldn't) be sequestered away on one class's page.

Hopefully someone else can find those rules and link them since I can't.

I don't believe spellcasters need to completely start over if interrupted - it instead adds 1 hour to the rest they need to take. See the Preparing Wizard Spells, Rest section of the PRD.

Rest: To prepare his daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, he still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.

Another important rule to remember is that arcane spells cast in the past 8 hours count against their spells per day (from the same section):

Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.

Divine spells have different rules; for example, divine casters do not need to rest for 8 hours to prepare spells but need to choose a time of day to prepare spells and spend 1 hour praying then to prepare (from the Divine Magic section of the Magic chapter):

Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular time of day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, she must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, she must wait until the next day to prepare spells.

Divine spells also have the 8-hour recent casting limitation:

Recent Casting Limit: As with arcane spells, at the time of preparation any spells cast within the previous 8 hours count against the number of spells that can be prepared.

Here's an explanation from 2011 from a freelance writer.

As freelance writers, we're actually instructed to avoid including the creature descriptions in the read-aloud text for a location. And with good reason. It's entirely possible the PCs may have done something elsewhere in a dungeon that prompts changes to a certain location in terms of whether a monster might have relocated (i.e., gone to investigate all the noise) or gone into hiding or retreated elsewhere or called in more monsters to be there with it. You also don't know how PCs may come into a room. For instance, are they viewing it remotely via clairaudience/clairvoyance? What if they do that and there's no light source in the room to reveal the monster? What if they use passwall or teleport and happen into a room from a different direction than the monster might otherwise be visible?

The bottom line is you don't want to make assumptions about the presence of the monsters or their positions as viewed from a single perspective. That's because perspectives (and PC actions) can always change that situation. So, the read-aloud text focuses just on describing the room itself. That's because the only thing you can reasonably rely on is the PCs have the means to view the room...hence, you describe the room. What you can't anticipate (or assume) are the situations under which they might be viewing that room. That's where the GM has to get involved in preparing his game and the encounters of an adventure location.

As such, the "Creatures" paragraph following each read-aloud text for a location is there to call to the GM's attention to the fact that the room also has monsters. He (or she) can then tailor or paraphrase the description of the room based on that and the circumstances in which the PCs are able to view the room. Only at the time of running a game can the GM really know what would be present or not...i.e., whether a monster heard the PCs approaching and engaged a Stealth check...called in reinforcements...fled the scene, etc.

So, as writers, we leave that part to the GM. And, if he needs to describe the creatures, he can either consult the read-aloud text from a creature's Bestiary entry, or he can show them a picture of the creature from the module...and so on. The bottom line is that we can't anticipate the perfect read-aloud text for you. It's primarily there as a guide for you to use while paraphrasing. If it just so happens that the text perfectly matches the situation, great! Use it as straightforward read-aloud text. But if the PCs have tipped there hand, the GM needs to interpret each encounter location and make changes to whatever he tells the PCs while adapting the read-aloud text to the situation.

My two cents,
--Neil

Well as it happens I'm part of a select minority that is not allowed to join the military because we practice extremely dangerous fighting arts that only WE can do. We're basically too dangerous for the military.....One time, on a city bus, I wrecked a guy.

(bonus points if you recall that thread)

Anyone could have learned - if only the poster remembered which martial arts it was.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

ciretose wrote:

The whole issue is a player who agreed to play in a setting showing up with something that doesn't fit in the setting.

The question being 'did the GM show up with a setting different than what the players agreed to'.

Does that really happen? Even anecdotally?

Or, more likely, was there a misunderstanding, where something about the campaign wasn't communicated or understood properly.

I just wanted to chime in with an example of the GM showing up with a setting different than what the players agreed to. We had been told to expect that the (homebrew) game was set in a lightly forested temperate land with some feudal trappings - nobility, men-at-arms, horses, etc. I worked with the DM to develop a character who was the son of a minor noble, one of the non-inheriting ones so that he was off to earn his fortune as a fighter, going for the heavy armor route. And one of the first things that happens is that all of the characters are teleported with no warning or preparation into the middle of a desert in summer.

So yes - this does happen. It was not a misunderstanding, unless the misunderstanding was for the DM to think he had mentioned that this would be occurring.

From Michael Brock (didn't find anything else searching his posts for resurrection):

If you create an undead from a dead PC, it is considered PvP if they do not consent. It is tied into PP costs.

If you turn them into an undead creature, they will not be able to utilize Raise Dead at the end of a scenario for 20 PP. They will have to spend much more to come back. The last paragraph of the Raise Dead spell advises, "A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell." Therefore, the cost just became 32 PP for a Resurrection spell and additional PP to remove negative levels.

If you raise them as an intelligent undead, they become unplayable.

In short, just don't do it.

So intelligent undead characters are unavailable for play but unintelligent undead characters would be after resolving it with a resurrection and removing the negative levels.

Quote:

If your character has a long sword in your physical right hand, a short sword in your physical left hand, armor spikes on your armor, a boot blade out, and the improved unarmed strike feat, then they could (hasted at 16BAB) make attacks with each of them in the round designating each and every one of them as 'main hand'. Likewise when making an AOO during their turn or outside of it, they could attack with any one of them (or alternate given multiple AOOs should they have combat reflexes) and change that 'designation' with each attack.

I do not think main and off-hands are relevant when non-TWFing. There's been comments made to that effect earlier.

I am also not sure why you think one can make all those attacks in a single full-attack. I do not see how that is supported by the rules, has there been some dev comments or statblocks to that effect?

See this multi-weapon, two-weapon fighting and iterative attack FAQ that was addressing questions of penalties for using two different weapons with different hands only using iteratives.

It's somewhat long, but the main conclusion for this was that at BAB 6, a character wielding a longsword and mace could do the following in a full attack without using two-weapon fighting penalties:

(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1

I'm not sure if the sequence James proposed is valid or not (I think so based on the base attack bonus and haste attack, but I'm not sure of the text for all of the different weapons and this is all pre-caffeine), but that FAQ seems to support his example.

'Ambient light' includes all light sources, magical, mundane and fusion powered.

If an underground room is lit by enough torches that every square has 'normal' light, then adding more torches/sunrods/whatever non-magical source will not increase the illumination to above 'normal'.

What the darkness spells are saying is that this still holds true when magical darkness is in the area; adding more torches makes no difference before OR after the darkness spell is cast!

What the spell is trying to avoid is someone post-darkness lighting a torch and thinking that this torch will increase the light level in the way that it would in an unlit area; the room is lit! It's just that that light has been reduced, and more torches will not increase the light level! This is what the spell both says and means!

Darkness spells say nothing about non-magical light sources being suppressed! They could say that, but they don't!

Because they don't!

Question for your interpretation: If the underground room is lit to the same degree (every square is 'normal' light) by magical light spells (caster level 0) and someone casts a Darkness spell, what happens and why?

Charender wrote:

I just took a quick look at the SRD, and didn't find anything about taking actions while falling.

The only thing close is

rules wrote:

A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall. Casting a spell while falling requires a concentration check with a DC equal to 20 + the spell's level. Casting teleport or a similar spell while falling does not end your momentum, it just changes your location, meaning that you still take falling damage, even if you arrive atop a solid surface.

It says > 500 feet gives you a single spell, which is even wierder, because by RAW, the duration of my fall depends on the casting time of the spell I choose to cast while falling. I fall 501 feet and I cast animal messenger on my way down I take 1 minute to hit the ground. I fall 10 miles and I cast fireball on the way down my fall takes 1 standard action(~3 seconds). If I want to pull a blanket out of my pack and try to use it like a parachute, I can't because only spells are allowed, not other actions....

There's what I was looking for, and yeah it is kinda awkward. I only came across it originally in a fight over requiring concentration checks for featherfall. JJ came on and said that it wasn't intended.

I had forgotten the 500 foot fall rule. Which is also weird and contradicts with the subjective directional gravity planar trait (which defines falling speeds as follows):

Subjective Directional Gravity: The strength of gravity on a plane with this trait is the same as on the Material Plane, but each individual chooses the direction of gravity's pull. Such a plane has no gravity for unattended objects and nonsentient creatures. This sort of environment can be very disorienting to the newcomer, but it is common on “weightless” planes.

Characters on a plane with subjective directional gravity can move normally along a solid surface by imagining “down” near their feet. If suspended in midair, a character “flies” by merely choosing a “down” direction and “falling” that way. Under such a procedure, an individual “falls” 150 feet in the first round and 300 feet in each succeeding round. Movement is straight-line only. In order to stop, one has to slow one's movement by changing the designated “down” direction (again, moving 150 feet in the new direction in the first round and 300 feet per round thereafter).

It takes a DC 16 Wisdom check to set a new direction of gravity as a free action; this check can be made once per round. Any character who fails this Wisdom check in successive rounds receives a +6 bonus on subsequent checks until he or she succeeds.

Edited: quoted and linked correct rules - subjective vs. objective

I'd like to open something for discussion: are there any silly, counter-intuitive, or just plain bland rulesets that you'd like to see reworked? Something you'd be interested in if, say, a third-party product or amateur "fix" came along to address the rule.

*wink*

I know the Craft rules get a lot of flack, but I'll give you another example:

The sundering / damaging objects rules. It is entirely possible (very easy, even) to sunder a worn headband or circlet (with a large axe or hammer, even) without harming the wearer. It is also harder to sunder a longbow with a dagger (or a sturdy pair of scissors; snip!) than it is with a flail.

Corner-cases? Probably! But if you had the chance to decide which rules got a little extra love, what rulesets would you single out as "wonky?"

Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts

You could look at seeing how to improve or clarify the stealth system - it gets a lot of questions on how Darkvision and other senses interact with Stealth and Hide in Plain Sight (and other issues). SRM has reportedly said (via Hobbun) that:

the changes on Stealth have not been abandoned, it’s just taking longer than anticipated. They were finding the current changes were not working as well as they liked, conflicting with other class abilities.

For example, he said the changes did not work well with the Ranger’s HiPS. However, he stressed it is something they are still working on, but there is no ETA at the moment.

If you want to take a look at the issues people have had, here are some threads:

Paizo Blog - Stealth Playtest 1

Paizo Blog - Stealth Playtest 2

For determining in-character what is evil, the official rules of alignment are here on the PRD - just in case you are not familiar with the by-the-book rules. That said, what matters for you is how your group and your GM interprets those rules (both from what your current alignment is and how quickly alignment changes), and if there is a serious dispute between your PC and the paladin.

I hope that the current discussion in this thread convinces you that alignment sees a great deal of variance from table to table and group to group. It sounds like you are in a group where area of effect damage spells will be a liability at times, while in other groups you would fit in with no issues (as long as you didn't accidentally include the other PCs in the area of your fireballs).

I second ub3r n3rd's suggestion of talking with your group to see if you are overdoing the chaotic moments - they might also have ideas on how your PC might be better able to respond to these events. If everyone in your group is having fun with your PC, then everything is fine and you only have to change if you want to. If your PC is making the game less fun for the others, you might need to tone it down. Either way, you could also ask them for ideas on how your PC could deal with these situations in the future to be less disruptive.

Humbly yours,
Elegy

That approach still throws those RL monks and LG couatls under the bus.

IIRC, James Jacobs actually said it was chaotic.

Every time I think about going to get a steak, this thread pops back up.

He said it varied (though it would still throw the monks under the bus if they were friends in life, and it being chaotic is also a problem for monks). Most recent quote I could find was from last month. Also, he stuck with cannibalism = same species, though he did say that eating other species was not that different from cannibalism:

Jaçinto wrote:

Dear JJ

I am tracking alignment in my game as per that very handy system you suggested and it is working out well. It is forcing my players to think before acting as there has now been an ex-antipaladin. My question is, because it has come up, what is cannibalism defined as on Golarion? By which I am asking whether it applies to eating a member of the same species or does it also apply to eating other sentient races? Like a human eating an elf, dwarf, or even possibly an orc. I ask because when a merfolk member of the party died, the human, tiefling, orc, and catfolk cooked him up and ate him even though they were not short on food.

Cannibalism is essentially defined as eating your same species, so the PCs in your group are not technically cannibals.

That said, the act of eating a sentient, intelligent creature is still pretty gross and creepy and weird, and barring extreme circumstances (such as being in a starvation situation), eating an intelligent creature... ESPECIALLY if when that creature was a life it was your friend, is not really all that different taboo-wise than cannibalism.

I'd call cannibalism (and also the act of eating intelligent species or eating things) a chaotic act.

If said act involves things that were once your friends in life, or if the act of preparing the meal for food involves torture or tormenting others, then it's also an evil act.

On the other hand - YMMV and house rules are made for these issues :)

Gorbacz wrote:

Thalandar wrote:

Cannabialism (which in a fanatasy world means eating of the flesh/drink blood of a intelligent creature).

Is eating the following considered Evil:

- Red Dragon Ribs in Honey and Chilli Glaze
- Cutlet from an awakened Dire Boar that evil druid used to keep around
- shish-kebabs from those talking dinosaurs that tried to eat us alive the other day on Castrovel

Just curious.

imho, yes, those all count as cannibialism in a fantasy world, and I as a Game Master would rule eating them as an evil act

I now picture an adventure where citizens are turning evil due to (unknowingly) eating the flesh of awakened animals served by the evil meat-packing industry. And those who die in such a state are coming back as ghouls, due to the cannibalism.

Dakcenturi wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

Programmers are notorious for not being able to make good estimates at how long a particular project will take them; but they're much better than anyone else.

Being a programmer, I think it is less "not being able to make good estimates" and more making good estimates based off their vision of coding but running into an issue.

As an example, there was a piece of code I was working on that should have been easy enough to do from a *design* standpoint, but when I got to programming it I ended up taking an extra 3 weeks to nail down the exact correct way to implement it so it fit with the actual design.

If you typically complete projects in the time you expect to, then you are falling victim to the planning fallacy.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but the list seems to be stating that the result of the planning fallacy is the opposite - that people take overly optimistic views of how long a task will take and thus take longer than planned for. The planning fallacy is looking at the specific details of a project when planning it, rather than comparing that project to other projects that already have been completed to get a reasonable baseline; the result of this having an inaccurate estimate that tends to be over-optimistic.

What I would really like to see some crowdpower on is ideas for rewards that are not directly related to the game itself. We are already putting everything into it we possibly can so we can't promise more in-game type stuff (we have lots of stretch goals that have those kinds of things but we need to get the million in the bag first).

A question on this - does this mean you don't want proposals for extra features in the game that would take a lot of work (like having three more races ready for the open enrollment launch) or that you don't want proposals that may (at least from my limited understanding) not include as much change to the actual game.

I had an idea for a pledge level where someone could provide art direction for Wayne Reynolds or another top artist to work up their character for a loading screen, probably with signature of the artist and contributor, but wanted some direction on if this is feasible as a reward or not.

Now I'll go back to hiding from Ryan's death eye-lasers over the goblin plushie suggestion, since they are physical products :)

My thoughts on possible rewards:

Not Involving Game Features:
- Trip to Gencon, game GMed by X/Y/Z of one of the opening scenarios / backstory of the game, or the Thornkeep dungeon scenario
- Mention of a Pathfinder Online character in a Paizo Module or Adventure Path
- Ability to advise on artwork for a character to appear in the Pathfinder Online instruction manual

Involving Game Features:
- Right to name one store/NPC storeowner/item in a starting zone or a nearby geographical area/feature
- Skype board meeting with Ryan Dancy and other Goblinworks employees for a report on how the game is going development-wise
- Rights to be on a senior council - that would vote on what items should get voted on by the main crowdforgers (be careful of how much this might lengthen decision-making though)
- Ability to name a group of antagonists

Physical Products:
- Dice set/dice bags
- Map
- Imitation Pathfinder Wayfinder (I think that is what it is called)
- Goblin plushies

This is all brain-storming - I'm sure Goblinworks can determine at what point any of these would be feasible to make money for the Kickstarter and not push the development of the game back.