Please cancel order 2774067. It's been on backorder since September.
Search Posts
"Rediculous[sic]" and "stupid" are words that the other posters managed to avoid when discussing this. It's not like I am advocating banning rainbows and birthdays, so why the vitriol? Edit: and if you notice, I even agreed with their points.
Lots of well-reasoned posts about why the auto-lock isn't such a smoking hot idea, particularly from Mikaze. It looks like jumping on unhelpful necromancers and attempting redemption via public shaming is the way to go. I've enjoyed the many levity posts, as well. Edit: in a forum where voice inflection is absent, I am very paranoid about sounding like a snarky ass. I am grateful to most everyone who contributed. Edit: Just to be clear.
So my notion is stupid because you found one thread by having it bumped to the top of the list instead of finding it via search? I know that there's more to your argument than just that, so please try and restate nicely.
What if the thread were locked with a message auto-posted that says something like, "This thread is being locked due to inactivity. Anyone with followup questions is encouraged to start a new thread." That is a very nice suggestion. This would provide an automatic, polite way to encourage the poster to start a new thread. Maybe even provide an automatic set of URL tags that link back to the old argument for background information. Polite and it saves us from zombie threads cluttering up the boards. Anyone with a legitimate question can start a new topic (as they should) and anyone who just wishes to spout off at the OP will have to find something else to do rather than pick at a two year old scab.
Can you please automatically lock any thread that has lain untouched for a year or more? There seems to be a rash of posters who want to jump into a three year-old (probably out of date) discussion to throw their two cents in. I don't want to read someone's outdated argument especially if I had already read it back when it actually was relevant or, gods forbid, posted in it!
Evil Dave
Legitimate, yes. This is why a "quick-draw" shield boggles my mind, though. I'm also glad that they changed the way that weapon cords work. It's not that cheesy, but I'm sure somebody will be along soon with something far more mind blowing than this... Welcome to the boards and happy gaming!
Don't be passive-aggressive about it. Man up and tell him that he's ruining everyone else's fun and that if he can't shape up you'll continue gaming without him. If he doesn't, continue gaming without him. Life's too short.
Oops, it was on the front page. Not your fault, it was on the front page because somebody found a ten-month old thread and decided to throw in his 2CP.
Not you, Satchmo.
And only slightly less well known than that is failing to check the date of the thread that you're posting to. Seriously, what's with all the necromancers around here these days?
yeah that doesnt make it any less confusing why there was confusion over it I really wish these forums would automatically lock a thread that hasn't been active for a year or more.
It's a four year old thread.
The two backordered products are on order #2774067
Great, thanks. Do you have any information about the backordered products?
Order 2889497 has been pending for almost a month now. There doesn't seem to be anything backordered. I have another order with two backordered products that has been sitting for over two months. Is there any way to know whether or not I'll actually be able to get that order filled? Maybe even before Christmas? Please let me know. Dave
In the text for bombs, it states that "bombs are considered weapons" and arcane strike says it imbues your "weapons."
Prying Eyes, [clap] They're watching you... [clap, clap] They see your every move...Prying Eyes, [clap] They're watching you... Prying EEEEYYYYYYEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS They're watching you
How are you qualifying for TWF, ITWF, and Elemental fists?
Since the FAQ came out that allowed spell-like abilities to be used to qualify for arcane casting requirements, an assimar Eldritch Knight build has been bubbling in my head. Then to round out to level 20, take levels of Arcane Archer. If this weren't a theory build, then I would suggest taking five levels of EK to qualify for AA, then two to four of AA. For the rest, finish EK and either go back to AA or mix in some Wizard levels if you want to get to ninth level spells. I guess you don't have the pain points before you get to be able to do anything "Arcane Archery" like you would in a real game, though. And I know it's like the rouge/rogue thing, but it's aasimar, not assimar.
Awesome. Thank you!
I've got two orders pending, one solely of a backordered item (2774067) and the other (2774196) with a backordered item that's holding everything else up. Is it possible to move my backordered item from 2774196 to 2774067 and get the rest of my order?
Dave
Woops! Right, Benedict! Not sure why I said Bernard ...Benedict? :-) With a handle like Benedict Cumberbatch, I will guarantee that isn't the first time that's happened. :-) He even has two middle names. Sheesh!
Benedict? :-)
Update: looks like I've got myself a good group, but there's still room for one or two more. Please post and send a PM if you're interested.
The second example you list applies specifically to lances while mounted, I believe. The lance was an example. It says 'two-handed weapon with one hand.' I guess the difference is the text that reads 'treat as a one-handed weapon,' which the lance does not have. The caveat for lance while mounted doesn't say 'treat as a one-handed weapon,' just that you can wield it with one hand. Looks like I just answered my own question. If it says: treat as a one-handed weapon, treat it as a one-handed weapon. If you're wielding a two handed weapon one handed in a manner that doesn't specify, then you can have the extra damage from Power Attack. Got it.
I got very confused when reading the FAQ this morning.
Edit: Never mind, I figured it out. If the exception reads: 'treat as a one-handed weapon,' then you treat it as a one-handed weapon. If the exception doesn't specify, then you can continue to treat it as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of Power Attack.
Nope, you're thinking of take 20 taking 20 times as long. There's no language like that for take 10.
If you go to 'My downloads' the latest errata should appear above the list of downloads. Or are you looking for something else?
Hi, Damon.
Good luck and happy gaming!
Depending on how far along in your campaign you are and how much money you have, you might be able to get something like the cloak of the bat for bypassing such things, if you can get the ability to find them. Alarm only triggers on tiny or above size creatures...so if you can become diminutive, you can bypass it without any sort of need to disarm it. Check the date on these threads before you post. If he still had questions two yeas later, he'd start a new thread.
Greetings and welcome to the Alamo City, I know a few members are looking for a game in our local obsidian portal <Link> group, join it and post your desires and I bet you will have a game established in no time. You can also find links on that page to our Warhorn sites for organized play. Have fun and good luck. That was quick. Thanks, Lordzum. I'll go check out OP.
Greetings, all! I am relocating to San Antonio, TX at the end of July and I'm looking for players for a Pathfinder campaign! I'm a veteran GM from the 3.5 days, and I've ran several campaigns to completion. I am looking to run a fairly standard Pathfinder home game with a balance of role- and roll- play. I have a homebrew world to adventure in and I encourage and incorporate character backstory.
Evil Dave
I'm not sure you are understanding how this set of feats interact. No, I think you need to sit down with your CRB and APG and read through this again. Trample
Charge Through
Is says "complete the charge" after your overrun. If you've already moved through their square, how can they possibly be the target of your charge? Ride By Attack
If you are asking a question and don't like my answer, don't accuse me of not understanding how it works. Go read it yourself first and bring in quotes instead of accusing me of reading things into it that aren't there.
Toldja so...
Where to begin? Charging is a full round action. At the end of the charge, you may make one attack action. That attack action could be a single melee attack or a maneuver that can replace one attack action, such as an overrun. Trample allows your horse to also make one hoof attack if you knock your target prone when you overrun.Charge through allows you to attempt to overrun one target in the path of your charge. Your charge path ends when you reach the target of your charge, ergo, you cannot use Charge Through to target the same creature that you're charging. It must be a separate creature. if mount has Spring Attack, could it also attack as part of the charge action? You cannot combine Spring Attack and Charge. They're both full-round actions.
It doesn't work. If I were mounted on my horse and we performed an overrun, I couldn't use my improved overrun feat, nor could I decide to use my CMB instead of my horse's. The horse is the one doing the overrun and I'm along for the ride. I would also not call it elegant to declare before each action whether I'm using my horses's feats and CMB or my own.
Piddles, if he had an opportunity to make an AoO on a charging mount and rider, could choose to strike either. The rider is sharing the space of the mount and is therefore within reach. Thanks! Don't thank us yet. The more people that respond to this, the probability of this thread turning into a mud-slinging rules mess approaches one. Exponentially more quickly for mounted combat questions...
Poor Piddles! I'm going to need to do some reading now, but the horse is performing the overrun maneuver. Trample is a feat that the rider can take that specifically applies to his mount. Stompy's Improved Overrun feat benefits him/her during the overrun as well. The bonus to CMB counts, no AoO, no avoiding due to Trample. Poor Piddles, indeed. Edited for clarity
Is your wife's barbarian just a collection of numbers or does she have a backstory? I would recommend you start there.
Please know that we aren't trying to beat up on you. We do want to help. The disconnect that Wraithstrike is pointing out is the fact that you want to make sure that your setup follows the rules for Pathfinder, but you have a scripted outcome in mind.
What if your player loses init and the demon crits her and kills her before she acts? Will you let it stand? No? Then don't make her roll until the outcome actually matters. Your knowledge check is impossible for her, so why put it in there? If she needs information, put it there in a way that the player can accomplish through guile or skill or just give it to them. Other ways are unsatisfying.
Looking at your GMing objectively is very tough. Us looking at it for you and critiquing it for you is tougher. But it will help if you're open to it.
"Chekov's Gun" You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means. "Chekov's Gun" refers to a story in which the writer (not the Trek crewmember) reportedly said something to the effect of, "If you don't know what to do next, have somebody enter with a gun." It's not a plot device, it's a spur to get your players to do something other than craft for weeks on end when used in a PNP setting. Your artifact is often referred to as a "MacGuffin," from Hitchcock lore... Reading the rest of your post, you seem (pun intended) hell-bent on your Babau, and your concerns about it are focused on its role in the start of the story. I would suggest that you think of a more natural way to get your player invested in the story rather than the extended cut-scene with the dead father and the killing blow and the divine meddling.
Food for thought. GMing is a tough job. Good luck and happy gaming.
Trying to play this out in game is going to be nothing but frustration for your player. Fighting a demon that she has no hope of beating, all of her party dead, and "divine meddling" are all things that take away the ability of your player to make meaningful choices. She's listening to your story at this point and her die rolls don't matter. You should probably just start the character, level one, at the end of this situation. This is where she starts: standing over the corpse of a demon that wiped out her friends and there's an awakened critter that can help her. At that point, she can now decide what to do and carry out HER plan, not yours.Would you really kill off her character at the very first fight of the very first session? No? Then don't go to the dice and hope things come out okay, they don't matter yet. If you expect things to go a certain way, you'll always either be disappointed as a GM or your players will have no agency over their characters and not have fun. Just my 2CP, take them for what you will.
Interesting. By jove, you're right. I was going to go to the old standby, Ray of Enfeeblement and point out that penalties do not stack. It would seem that this spell specifically does not stack, but it's called out as an exception. The rules for penalties do indeed say that they stack. I stand corrected. Thanks!
Nitpick: Penalties do not stack; only the highest one applies.
You do realize that you don't threaten with ranged attacks, right? That's the Snap Shot line of feats. If your DM is likely to pull "spiders with Glitterdust" on you for Greater Invisibility, what makes you think that he'll let you have an item like that? I think you and your DM may have a difference in playstyle that requires more discussion than just custom magic item rules. You may want to look into finding a group that's more agreeable to your style of play.
The spell says "Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" This means that if any of your targets are more than thirty feet from ANY of the other targets, they must be excluded. Target X is 30 feet from Target Y. Target Z is thirty feet from Y and sixty feet from target X. You can target X and Y or Y and Z, not all three. Edit: since I had to be ninja'd by somebody, I'm glad it's Howie23.
But I think bonus static damage is better than additional dice. I agree.
Vital Strike is highly situational. Cleave also. They're quite useful early on when you only have 1-2 iterative attacks, but later on as Full-Attack becomes more useful, Vital Strike and Cleave become more and more situational in their application. If you're a Fighter, every 4 levels you can "swap out" a previously learned bonus feat for a new one so, if you want, you can take one or the other early on (ie. lvl 1 or 2) and then later (ie. lvl 12) trade it out for something that better suits your needs. But if you're not a fighter, it'd probably be better to just stick with benefits that can always be leveraged so you're not stuck with heavily depreciated feats Vital strike requires a BAB of +6. You can't take it at level one or two.
If a Daylight SLA counts as "being able to cast a 3rd level Arcane spell," then I can qualify for Eldritch Knight at level two with an Aasimar Magus. Not saying that's right or wrong, just interesting.This begs the question, though: if your base class is magus, what possible reason could you have for choosing to go eldritch knight instead? You want to trade awesome class abilities for full BAB and the loss of a caster level? This just seems like an awfully weak trade. That's not the point. Suddenly you can qualify for a prestige class at level two. That's never been possible before this ruling. I could do it with an Aasimar Aristocrat and qualify at level two and not gain any benefit from the spellcasting advancement. Prestige classes that were formerly only available at level five or higher are now within reach at level two. What does that mean for the game? What other unintended consequences are opened up by this ruling? Is this something you'll ask your DM for? If you're a DM, would you allow it? Why or why not? Is there going to be further clarification once this starts showing up in PFS? Or are we all off base and SKR is going to tell us all that we're extrapolating something from the ruling that we shouldn't?Edit: this came across harshly, which I didn't intend. Removed some extraneous questions.
|