Owlbear

Entryhazard's page

Organized Play Member. 1,682 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 318 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes detect magic reacts to invisibility
No it doesn't let you thwart an invisible enemy freely unless he's a complete idiot


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
But what doesn't make so much consistent, internal sense is why Iomedae gets clerics, warpriests, inquisitors, and paladins while Milani only gets clerics, warpriests, and inquisitors.

And neither of them can have Druids but Sarenrae and Shelyn can. And this is without bringing archetypes with further domain or alignments restrictions. Or Prestige Classes

And this is not a problem, every deity has its area of competence that only allows certain category of followers


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:

It's also the honor that led to Alexander Hamilton throwing his life away in a duel, as well as his son Philip. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

I do believe in goodness, but I don't believe in honor. People who do good should do so because they want to do good, not out of some outdated moral code which compels you to answer all sleights against you with bloodshed.

People still kill people today in the name of honor. It is not good and it is not right.

Paladin's honor is about fair play rather than kill for a slight


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Empyreal Knight is a blatant and embarrassing downgrade to the paladin

Who did actually think that a bonus language was equivalent to Divine Grace


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead of Musket Master I think you'd be better off with a technological firearm considering you're going to play Iron Gods


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
shaventalz wrote:


Agreed. It seems like a passive-aggressive way of avoiding actually saying "stop using combat maneuvers". Either that, or a demonstration that those making the changes haven't actually tried using combat maneuvers against non-bipeds (and think a lower bonus would work just fine.)

I tried to bull rush a bull the other day, and I imagine the Paizo development team would have similar results if they tried it, I'm reasonably certain they're scrawnier than I am.

If combat maneuvers against larger creatures with or without extra legs were easy then it would be pretty reasonable to have a feat with a BAB and Str requirement that lets you fly by flapping your hands really hard. But both seem absurd to me.

The "muh realism" argument should die in a fire


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not agreeing on a straight deduction just means that the other side is wrong


4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
I think the theory I like better is they are liquids, just not what that feat is thinking about when it says liquids.

Feats don't think, you silly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Inner Sea Gods wrote:
Aligned Class (Ex): .... At 2nd level, the evangelist must choose a class she belonged to before adding the prestige class to be her aligned class.
A class, not a prestige class. When an effect of a prestigious affect a class it can't target prestigious classes.

This is not how subsets work

Otherwise poodles aren't dogs


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Arcane Enlightment is a class feature. Thus the wizard spells are added to the caster's list. But while the shaman can prepare his spells everytime, the Oracle is locked to his spells known, thus he cannot cast those spells immediately despite those being added to his list. On the other hand he theoretically can use them with items like Page of Spell Knowledge of the divine type or Spell Lattice, and can use Divine Scrolls and Wands.

Now the interesting thing: the Oracle at some levels can change the spells known, and so he could add those spells at such times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could use a very large bag of holding or a very large portable hole


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Scholz wrote:

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Everyone is making the same arguments both for killing and not killing.

I'm pretty sure that at least one of the sides is wrong


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can someone link me the whole nested sources debacle?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

That line uses liquids in a "beer, soda, and water" sense and shouldn't be taken as magic effects (extracts) should be included.

I'm ok with the alternative interpretation, as I see it as table variance.

James Risner wrote:
Both are RAW from the reader point of view. One has a higher chance of the PDT agreeing with their interpretation.

Your imaginary English must be fascinating


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Someday I will petition for a sticky over the board that explains what a subset is


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Where do I petition for changing the casting from the Summoner to the Bard list in the next Errata?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't this basucally a Shaman? Divine prepared casting, hexes and thematic additional spells based on association


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All of this should have died long ago since Witches are Arcane


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly I'd just rename Warlock to Magical Child, give it Transformation Sequence for free, and make mystic bolts less gimpy (not needed, just a personal pet peeve with the archtype). All day magical lightshow blasts and the spell list with the flashiest spells.

About that IIRC there is a talent or feat that gives the Transformation Sequence to any vigilante that also has casting (through archetypes or multiclassing)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Magical Child totally should have had the Bard list

But the worst archetype still ist the Brute


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bladelock wrote:
Honeybee wrote:
So... the basis of your point of view is "the rules don't say they're not deities"?
No. The basis of my point of view is the description of a patron solidly fits a number of different options. These options could include deities among other things.

The point that Witches cast spells because os skill instead of granted power still stands.

Even if the patron is a deity the witch doesn't receive spells from them directly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
The Deific Obedience feat gives you spells granted by a deity once you earn the first boon.

I would be on board with this but sadly SLAs cannot be used to satisfy spell prerequisites anymore (unless the prereq calls a specific spell)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bladelock wrote:
If Pathfinder wanted to save words the would have said "Divine Caster" rather than "receive spells from a deity" which feels like it might point to pocket cases casters who are not divine.

Rather it's because there are divine casters that do not require a deity such as Druids, Hunters, Rangers, Shamans and Paladins who cannot take it unless they also worship a deity

Witches aren't divine but arcane, so their spells are directly granted from an external entity

Rysky wrote:
They didn't say Divine Caster, they said must worship a deity and receive spells from them to cut out Divine Classes that don't get spells from Deities. There are absolutely no casters who receive spells from worship that are not Divine. The witch is an Arcane caster, they get their spells from their Pact, not a Deity that apparently can't take away that power when they can easily do the same with the Cleric.

I second this


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:

When i play a caster with crafting feats here is how it goes.

Fighter: "Hey Wizard could you make me a Belt of Strength(+2)?

Wizard: "Sure that will cost you 3,000 Gold.

Fighter: "That's a ripoff. I'm not paying you an extra 1,000 gold.

Wizard: "Okay fine. I'll spend my downtime making myself items with my crafting feat. I really want a Headband so maybe if i get time later I'll make your belt...unless I'm making something else."

Fighter: "What about my Belt?"

Wizard: "Go buy one for 4,000 Gold in the market or make it yourself."

Fighter: "..."

You see if i invest in a crafting feat. I'm planning on investing my downtime, which could be very limited base on the adventure to make the items i want with it.

So my items take priority. I usually offer a small discount to stop working on my items to work on someone else's item.

I mean there are plenty of entitled players floating around. So when i encounter one of them who get pissy at me wanting to benefit from my investment. I just tell them to go to the market or learn to make it themselves if they want to b~*%%.

It will be really funny when your wizard gets trounced by a monster the fighter didn't manage to kill before it got to him because he didn't have enough Strength


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess making the people who are supposed to avoid you death deliberately less equipped is a great idea


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So for a matter of "rightful payment" the crafter is deliberately limiting the survivability of his party?

Does he really have so little self-preservation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing should be seen the other way around: the obedience and boons are a property of the deity, and the feats grant you access to them instead of every feat having a dedicated list of obediences and boons, especially considering that obediences and boons are liste in multiple books.

Deific Obedience can access, other than deities, Empyreal Lords, Demon Lords and Eldest. The fact that these demigods don't have multiple lists means that Sentinels, Evangelists and Exalteds use the same boons, as specified in the First Realm book.

The fact that there are multiple feats means that some combinations aren't possible and that's it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is the Tranquil Guardian Paladin allowed? Basically trades all the offensive features for abilities that force enemies to not fight


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

True, except:

{. . .}

In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites.
{. . .}
This definitely includes Potions and Scrolls. So then the question becomes whether being able to use a class ability that isn't spellcasting but modulates spellcasting to produce spells that you don't actually have on your list or know counts as meeting the prerequisites. I lean in favor of no.

That line says that for creating those kinds of magic items you can't avoid to fulfill the spell requisite by increasing the craft DC by 5, but I was referring to another line that specifies that in order to fulfill a spell requirement you're not limited to using your own spell slots:

Requirements: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item's caster level.

A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.

It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary.

And anyway the Spell Study class feature of the Spell Sage says the he is effectively casting the spell.

So the Spell Sage can create those items but can't use them without UMD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aligned Spell = Aligned Action has been an active rule since before Horror Adventures


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zainale wrote:
why hasn't any creative wizard figured a way to open a portal to the plane of positive energy and a way to bottle that energy for healing uses later.

Aren't those potions of Cure spells?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say he would certainly know if he hears the enemy talk, otherwise he'd have to roll a Knowledge check


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
We're saying "I want to play Robin Hood."

>Implying Robin Hood wasn't an LG knight loyal to the absent King Richard and fighting the illegitimate Sheriff and King John


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope in expanded options for elemental empowering of physical attacks

Maybe some new options stemming from Elemental Fist


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jonathon Wilder wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Because ironwood is a temporary transmutation
You do realize Ironwood can be made permanent using the a permanency spell right? More, that Ironwood armour is actually something one can acquire.

Aside that a Nereid needs to access those spells, it's still susceptible to a Dispel Magic


1 person marked this as a favorite.
default wrote:
Considering ironwood is a thing, why not ironwood fullplate?

Because ironwood is a temporary transmutation


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

100d100

Four rolls of 90. Four rolls of 20. And not a single 3. Explain that with your fancy-schmancy "math", smart guy.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ each of those has a nonzero chance of happening, especially "not a single 3" is at 36,6%


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
My point was once luck is involved statistics take a back seat.

I take personal offence at this statement as a professional mathematician.

The whole purpose of statistics is to deal with phenomena in which chance is involved.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
Personally, I think the biggest problem Pathfinder specifically has with Cthulhu is that they gave it a stat block.
Jader7777 wrote:
The same as the gods, they should of never stat'd him up.

Not really, even in the source Mythos Cthulhu is lesser than Azatoth or Nyarlatoteph, and stuff like heavy weaponry can hurt him


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Despite American TV, Torture doesnt work. The guy being tortured would either refuse to talk, or give false info (which might open the box anyway) or under duress will forget.

But it works in fiction, and characters are in a fictional world, so it works there : )

But you also have magic that is still more reliable making the torture again an unneeded infliction of pain


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
dysartes wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
PFS has a ruling that lets you use evil spells without them changing your alignment...
*adds entry to the growing list of PFS Bad Decisions*

It prevents the inverse.

If casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an inherently bad act, it follows that casting a spell with the Good descriptor is an inherently good act.

Protection from Evil has the Good descriptor and no material cost.

True but as always redemption is harder than falling.
Not in pathfinder. I think it's 5 spells and you've gone from good to evil or from evil to good.

So if I save 5 HD of people after having murdered the same amount do I get back to Neutral?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why people have so many issues in reading "it's treated as" as "it's treated as"? "It's treates as X" it means it can count as X for all the rules interactions


1 person marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

Knowledge checks to tell how something other than a monster works.

Knowledge local only tells you the race and general weaknesses.

If you face an enemy party of Dwarf Fighter, Elf Wizard, Human Cleric and Halfling Rogue the only thing the knowledge check can really tell you is their races which is not the most useful or relevant. In 40 years I don't think this game and D&d have addressed this.

Actually in Inner Sea Intrigue or Spymaster's Handbook (cannot remember which of the two right now) there's a table of knowledge skills and DCs in order to identify Class Features and Feats possessed by a creature


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:

Im a little bit on the fence. While I do agree that everyone having their own options to use their own resources and actions to heal themselves is cool, Im also of the opinion I think the game would be significantly more fun and challenging, and that healing would be much more interesting if the sheer number of ways and availability of healing where lessened.

Part of me would like to see Cure/Infernal Healing spells removed from all classes except Cleric and Paladin, with a few sprinkled in at later levels/higher level spells for a few other classes like Ranger and Druid. None for Witch, Alchemist, psychics, etc. . ., or if so handled very similar to Domain only spells.

kevin_video wrote:

I disagree with "fun", but it'd definitely be challenging. It'd be very 2e and 3e like. The problem is that other systems are carefree with their healing, and people are flocking towards that more nowadays. A lot of players refuse to have their characters move even a half inch if they're out or low on healing. While it kind of panders to those players than to the more hardcore who enjoy the idea of delving through 10 dungeon levels with no way to come back from the brink of death, if Paizo doesn't then they'll completely lose out on that demographic. Market wise, this is a good move.

That said, there's no reason why a group couldn't ignore this book altogether if the GM felt it took away from the challenge of the game.

It wouldn't even be more challenging, the only result you get is that the party would be "cleric/paladin + 3 more classes" instead of "class capable of healing + 3 more classes"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Divine magic's exclusive lock on healing is one of the biggest issues of this game and needs to be addressed.

This is true if you ignore bards, witches, alchemists (and investigators) and the occult classes


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Because I insist you play the character written on your sheet. So don't write what you can't play.

Time to rewrite the ability scores


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Where do you get the swallow ability?
Looking at the Ravenous Curse I can only see that you get blood drain at the end


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Why a religion should trust someone that is directly empowered by the deity after years of training?"

Truly a mystery


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you were to feature Carcosa in a Pathfinder game, who would be its inhabitants?

Clearly there would be worhippers of Hastur, but I expect a decent chunk of the populace to be non human, especially as I imagine the place not entirely on the material plane


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I stopped reading at "Paladin is summarized as Lawful Stupid"

1 to 50 of 318 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>