Fyb's page

When you declare a full attack, it is already established that you can wait to see how each attack resolves before deciding your next target.

Is it possible, after the first attack has resolved, to instead opt out of the full-attack (and thus the full-round action) to turn it into a standard, and take a move action?

I play a multiclass Inquisitor / Gunslinger (musket master), and until now I find the two classes synergize very well. Both get great benefit from prioritizing Dex and Wis.

Mine is a LN inquisitor of Iomedae, sent on a mission with his fellow church member. He's played as the gritty, sour tracker/detective, who's suspisious of anything and anyone, and makes sure that completing the mission succesfully comes first.

Basically, you can flavor an inquisitor the way you like. Mechanically, it should be a damage class, but their weapon choices are lacking if you don't multiclass. Your divine patron of choice goes a long way in helping you here. If you favor melee weapons, Gorum is a great choice (Greatsword), or even Ragathiel (Bastard sword, and you get to be an agent of holy vengeance).

DM's answer: No but it changes whether you can come back next session.

It's going to take more than this to ban a player, as we all are long-term friends. The archer's player and I go back over 20 years. We used to be boy scouts together, and would pull stunts like dueling with wooden swords, that we previously set on fire. And refused to allow some other kid to do the same with us, because it was too dangerous...

Anyhow, we knew he was on his way to falling, he knew it (I suspect it was his plan), and he figured "If my paladinhood's gotta go, it might as well be in style". We actually all cheered seeing how epicly ballsy it was of him to say that.

Mine is actually pretty fresh, from our current campaing. Our group consists of a "Divine Special Ops" team of sort. 2 Paladins, (1 archer and 1 mounted), 1 cleric, 1 Inquisitor and 1 rogue (wich was "sentenced" to help us in our quest. We all worship Iomedae. The cleric is our church apointed leader, and the archer was ordered to protect him at all cost.

The player of the archer paladin likes confrontation and to stir-up trouble, to a fault some would say. His character is described as "a paladin yes, but also a very narcissistic, overconfident, hot-blooded Taldor noble".

His claims his actions are dictated by honor, a point to which I (the inquisitor) generally responds that his conception of "honor" is more fitting of a Gorum-worshipping barbarian.

In any case, he's constantly stirring trouble, generally by attacking first and asking questions later, and considering that every challenge should be handled by smiting, considering sneaking about and negociating with the ennemy to be an unnaceptable way of action. Even (especialy?) when the odds are clearly against us.

Over the course of the campaing he:

- Attacked a NPC that just teased us by saying he was holding our cleric captive, before even learning where the cleric was kept (context: we are in their keep, the nobles are our cleric's family, afflicted with some sort of lycanthropy. Aka, they're all werewolves, and there is a LOAD of them wandering around the estate.

- Recently, while going underwater to retrieve an evil artifact from a Sahuagin temple that we want to destroy, we are trying to swim up to the temple without being seen to figure out the opposing forces and maybe get in without attracting attention, after spotting some guards mounted on sharks he deliberately cuts his hand so the blood would get the sharks (and the guards attention), saying: Sneaking is dishonorable, and we suck at it anyways, better to kill them all now). Of course, chaos ensues.

- After slaughtering a bunch of guards, we get into the temple and face a literal army and the head priestess. I manage to negociate a bit, almost convincing the priestess to hand over the artifact, since we plan on destroying it (altough they are evil, the sahuagin were actually guarding the aftifact, to prevent the return of a powerful wizard-tyrant whose essence was partly sealed in said artifact). The priestess almost agrees to cooperate, asking us what we plan to do in attonement for her slaughtered kin (hinting that she'd take a life in return). The rogue said something so stupid we were all astounded (proposed to sacrifice our crew left on the surface) and the paladin respondes by yelling "You can take me but it won't be free by@$ch!". I should probably mention that our mission is crucial, that the archer's role is to protect the priest, and that we were underwater (fighting there is hell), in a 15 ft wide corridor (with a 15 or 20 ft high ceiling), and before us is a room with about 20 sahuagin guards, all mounted on sharks and armed with lances, 1 mutant captain, and 3 priestesses. An all-out fight would quickly devolve into a literal sphere of lances around us, and a TPK under 3 rounds. (For those who care we managed to stop the paladin from firing and defused the situation, succesfully negotiating to resolve the issue by a duel, which our mounted pally quickly won).

- The final straw was during our last session. Back on the surface our boat had been taken by pirates. A legendary pirate queen and her army no less. We manage to escape to the shore, but find out our look-out (a kid with extraordinary eyesight (powerful magical lenses)) had apparently defected to her side and was helping her find us. While trying to rest to recover her strenght, we are set upon by about 15 or so pirates (more like very strong viking types fighters) led by the turnover look-out kid. The archer pally gets up, aims and yells "Now, let's see if your eye is faster that my arrows" and proceeds to full-attack the kid in the face. After the archer exlaiming "60 dmg! Take that!" the DM mentions that attacking and killing this kid is the last straw and will result in him being stripped of his powers.

His answer? "Now, that does'nt change my damage, does it?" With a smirk.

You did VERY well. Good for him. Might teach both the player and the character a lesson. With great power comes great responsibility and all that jazz.

Reminds me of the campaing were playing right now. One of the paladins (there are 2) is a Holy Hunter, cocky, impulsive, agressive, headstrong and narcissitic to a fault. Shoot first, ask questions later. Repeatedly he shot while the others were trying to negotiate, because he did'nt like the idea of bargaining with evil aligned people or creatures. Or would draw attention to himself because "stealth is dishonorable" and endanger the whole group.

His latest antic? While negotiating with a Sahuagin priestess for repossession and eventual destruction of an evil artifact her order is tasked with guarding, she mentioned the fact that we slaughtered a bunch of her guards, and she would require a life in return. The rogue proposes to sacrifice part of our crew left on the surface (we all gasp in horror), the priestess refuses, saying they are innocent, and the paladin yells "THEN TAKE ME YOU HEATHENS" and goes to shoot. We manage to stop him, but the GM calls the dreaded "Ok, roll for initiative". We called it off at that point, on account of it being too late for a big fight.

Did I mention that we are underwater, surrounded by about 20 sahuagin guards, 1 captain and 3 priestesses? Oh, and 3 of us are ranged, me playing a gunslinger. The GM strongly proposed we roll up new characters, "just in case".

Seriously, I can't stand paladins and their damn codes, that and "impulsive" characters, this kind of character trait is always only an excuse to stir trouble. Could'nt the damn code be more "You seek to avoid confrontation whenever possible and must always act sensibly and calmly?"

Or at least a penalty to perception, now that move silently and stealth have been combined? This of course, if the silenced stealther is smart enough to stay at a distance where an opponent won't be affected by the spell and notice something is wrong.

The general concensus regarding silence is that you don't get a save if the spell is cast on an unatended object and you happen to be in the spell's area of effect. This is supported by this thread, where that interpretation was mentioned, and where Jason participated in the discussion and did not correct this interpretation:

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz0r8x?Spell-Silence#0

Granted, the thread is quite old, but I believe the spell's wording has'nt really changed since.

I have a few questions regarding wands, material components, and the abundant ammunition spell.

Does using a wand requires the material components of the spell? What if the material component has a more substantial value than usual? What if the component value can vary, like abundant ammunition with special (but nonmagical) ammo like alchemical cartridges or adamantine arrows?

Concerning abundant ammunition by itself, i have a bit of trouble with the wording. If this spell is cast on my ammo pouch before combat (with lets say 20 paper cartridges before combat). I recharge 7 times during combat, the seventh time not shooting since combat is finished, the leaving the firearm loaded. How many ammo is left in my pouch after the spell expires? Is the gun still loaded or will this ammo disapear?

Now, is there a difference if the spell is divine in nature or arcane (the material component line being M/DF)?

Thanks for helping me with this!

He can do it, but the penalties(from TWF and rapid shot) stack. He also had to take quick draw in order to pull the daggers out as a free action so he can throw them.

Yeah, he did. After I told him he had to to throw that many daggers.

Thanks for the answer. This way if our GM decides this is a problem and want to limit this, he'll know it's a houserule.

Our rogue's favored way of fighting is throwing daggers. Other players in the group voiced concern over the fact that he may be ''cheating''. The rogue in question combines two-weapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting and rapid shot while throwing daggers, effectively being able to throw as much as 5 daggers on a full attack (2 iteratives + 1 rapid shot + 1 TWF + 1 ITWF). Can this be done? Could this be done with pistols or crossbows (assuming you reload as a free action and have an extra hand or two to reload with)?

The game master is a begginer, and often turns to me for advice. In that case, at first glance this combo does seem abusive, especially with sneak attacks on top, but can find anything saying it is illegal. I'd like to know what the RAW is on the matter so our DM and can then make an informed decision.

Domains are not like archetypes. You only get to pick 1 subdomain, as it replaces your domain.

Yeah, your party needs healing.

I don't know Oracles, so can't say for them, might be worth checking out.

Your two best options are basically druid and cleric of Erastil

(or the Empyreal Lord Sinashakti, which would give you the Travel domain and allow a Chaotic-Good alignment, but your proficiency is short-bow).

In both cases, your priority remains Dex-Wisdom. Also some strenght to help with the damage once you get a composite bow.

It appears to me Cleric might be the best route, it's pretty dwarfy (go take a look at the webcomic Guilded Age for an example of a bow-wielding dwarf cleric/oracle). You get channels, and do not need to memorize your heals so you get a better spell selection.

In any case try to all (well, not the sorceror obviously) get the teamwork feat "Target of Opportunity", this thing is gold in a ranged group.

Leave the switch-hitting to the ranger, you have enough on your hands as it is.

Eldritch Knight and Shadowdancer are both builds that start to come together around 8th level.

Not surprising, since the earliest you can possibly get those classes is level 6 for Shadowdancer and level 7 for Eldritch Knight...

But yeah, I'd say casters in general start to rock at those levels. But you knew that already did'nt you?

The funny thing is, many gaming groups don't even bother with encumberance. Hell, I'm surprise so many people here do.

I recently tried to push using those rules at out table, and I was shot down pretty darn quick by the other players, AND the current DM, who did'nt want to be bothered with this. I guess it's par for the course. Some of us have been playing together for close to 20 years now, over a bunch of systems, and I can't recall a single game where we calculated encumberance, as long as carried gear was "reasonable" (reasonable being a very relative term).

So, I guess my solution would be to find a lazier DM... O_o

Jeranimus Rex wrote:

LazarX's cunning analysis of writing belies the fact that anyone can figure out who a poster really is by clicking on the name (Kelsey has an easier time of deduction because her main profile has her name on it.)

Not really. there's no preventing anyone from opening up multiple separate accounts on this board.

Yes. Lazyness. Works wonders on me. ;p

Also from the religious list "Purity of Faith" if you worship Iomedae. This one in particular is crazy good, as it not only gives +1 to Will saves, but also a +1 to Reflex and Fort saves against spells and effects originating from an outsider with the evil subtype (ie Devils, Demons and some other nasties).

(Pathfinder Player Companion: Faiths of Purity)

In the same spirit, another, more recent AP deals with the same situation, and by then the PCs are much lower level:

Fight Fires: A PC can fight a fire in an adjacent square
by beating the fire with a cloak or tapestry (such as the
tapestries that hang on the walls of the room) by making
a DC 12 combat maneuver check. Using magic to fight the
fire (such as by casting create water or enlisting the aid of
an unseen servant) grants a +4 bonus on this check. With a
successful check, the fire in that square is extinguished, but
the square can still catch on fire as normal in a later round.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say that the larger and more intense the fire, the higher it's CMD should be, and the stronger the spell the higher a modifier it should give.

Of course, many spells have their effect against fire included in their description, which greatly simplify things, like for exemple Hydrolic Torrent:

"Hydraulic torrent extinguishes any normal fires it encounters along its path. Magical fires are unaffected."

LazarX wrote:

Kelsey.... your writing style is rather transparent.

Huh?

LazarX is implying that you are hiding under an alias, but are not very good at it since your writting style is rather easy to recognize.

Tough I doubt you're "hiding" since A) You kept the same icon you first used for your other alias and B) Simply mousing over the current alias shows the most used aliases anyways.

As for the pranks... Stake a fake "torches and pitchfork mob that wants to burn the witch at the stake" prank (up to having casters to use very convincing illusions of flames growing and feeling hot, without actually being dangerous. But make sure it's, well, fake; and finish it with a big party bash for her (that starts when the "flames" reach her, and turn into butterflies or some such).

You know, like a fake kidnapping surprise party setup, but with more flavor.

A sorcerer should be pretty simple. Few spells, no need to memorize them, just cast them on the fly. Also, even tough it is suboptimal, make it a blaster. Like an half-orc fire sorcerer, and put all his favored class bonuses in +dmg.

Take a few utility spells, stay away from complicated ones, and he's set.

For the tactics it's gonna work out pretty much like the Witch, tough at some point he might have to poke with a longspear or use a crossbow.

Icyshadow wrote:

I actually saw a homebrew Paladin once called "the Kantian Paladin". It was pretty awesome, and actually made sense.

Actually, the deontological/utilitarian dynamic fits the lawful/chaotic dynamic very well.

Deontologists (Lawful) believe that the way you do something matters. An action is Right because of the way you carry it out, the results of the action do not matter. This is what leads to the absolute honesty of paladins and devils; they want to achieve their goals, but they aren't going to do things like lie to get it done. To act without any kind of code or rules to be held accountable to is a terrible idea. That would be Wrong in the deontologist's eyes.

Utilitarians (Chaotic) don't care how you get something done, as long as you get it done. An action is Right because of its results, not what your methods are. Something like stealing from the rich to help the poor (Robin Hood) is a utilitarian idea, as is doing morally reprehensible things to achieve your goals. Limiting yourself to a code is foolish (codes don't always get the job done) and leads to dogmatism and stagnation. That's Wrong in the utilitarian's eyes.

Of course the "corner alignments" (LG, CG, LE, CE) bring in moral philosophy to this as well. When it comes to good and evil, I like to think of it like this: imagine a 2D circle with a nice bell-curve to it. This represents a Neutral person's care for others. The highest point is in middle (themselves), their close friends and relatives are directly surrounding them, then their acquaintences are a bit farther and lower, and so on until you get to people they've never heard of at the edge of the circle, farthest down.

A good person would have a curve with a lot of space at the top because they care about others a great deal, including people they're not close with. Their curve has a lot of room at the top to where almost everyone is on the same level of care as the good person himself. An evil person would have a curve that's much...

That would be the same article I posted a link to above. ;)

There will never be an absolute deffintion of alignments, and I believe this is the whole point of it. However, I can point you to this article:

All About Alignment

It is well written, extremely detailed, and should answer most of your questions if you decide you share this point of view. This is generally the one I use, and refer my players there when they have alignment questions, unless I want to use the concept differently of course. But then they are informed so.

Also, keep in mind that Detect Alignment only catches auras, as had by Paladins, Clerics, creatures with an alignment subtype or beings 4th level and above. Commoners will not register on a detect spell, which gives you some ambiguity right there.

A dragon campaing can be a blast. However, the rules for Pathfinder hardly support such a thing. You should seek out the Council of Wyrm setting, it's made precisely for this. It's D&D 2nd edition, but I believe could be adapted to PF. Or just use the old system rules.

The most epic game I ever DMed was for such a campaing, using this setting, altough it was a solo campaing for one of my friends. Much easier to manage.

With the gunsmithing feat, a character can craft bullets, pellets and black powder for 1/10 of the market price, and alchemical cartridges for 1/2 the market price.

This means a regular shot will cost 1.1 gold, and a paper cartridge 6 gold per shot, while the market price is 11 gold for a regular shot and 12 gold for a paper cartridge (the 1 gp diffence being in the paper and the was used).

Now, clearly this price disparity is there for balance reasons. A character with the gunsmith feat can shoot cheaply, OR quickly.

But "special" bullets can also be crafted, like silver or adamantine bullets, at the cost of 7.1 gold per shot for adamantine bullets and 3.5 gold per shot for silver bullets (powder charge included).

That said, would you allow players to craft paper cartridges with special bullets (silver or adamantine), and if so, at what cost? IE. how would you break it up? Because the difference is pretty huge.

Real world logic would tell me to go with option 1, the cheapest. However, game logic and deconstruction of the regular alchemical cartridge seems to indicate the second, and much more expensive, formula should be used. Your opinions?