The Green Faith

GreenMandar's page

374 posts. No reviews. 12 lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Is there no longer a PDF version available?

Also, while it's post RotRL, it is before other Adventure Paths that occur in Sandpoint or interact with Sandpoint characters so it's not too far on the future.

Most of it is still relevant, at least the more fleshed out descriptions and stats of locations and NPCs. Of course some things are changed as you alude to, a few NPCs that died or locations that are no longer the same. It does seem a lot of the extra encounter material is post ROtRL. But unless you are feel a lot more encounter material that shouldn't be a problem.
What else..
There are pictures of many more of the town's NPCs.
And updated wandering monster chart for the hinterlands (more specific for the type of terrain you are in).

I'm on my phone or I would give more specific answers. I'll try to come back.

I'm getting the same error when trying to look at Player Companion pages.

Are there any published archtypes that would make sense for a dwarven brewmaster?

RSX Raver wrote:
GreenMandar wrote:

Nox, again you are stating your interpretation and saying it's RAW when it's not.

RAW are silent on whether you can change Animal Aspect at a distance which is the problem here.
If "the book clearly says you can do this" then quote me that exact part. It's not in what you posted above.
RAW there is no range defined.

Exactly, that is the source of this dilemma.

RSX Raver wrote:
Since there is no range defined, then the range is limitless per RAW.

Where in the rules does it say that when a special ability has an undefined range, you default it to limitless? Please provide that bit of text, it would be useful to the discussion and would clear things up.

RSX Raver wrote:
The problem with these types of cases, is that it leaves it to GM discretion to make a ruling, as it is not clearly defined.

No disagreement from me there.

RSX Raver wrote:
But Nox is correct in the assertion that RAW has no range limit.
Just above it was established that RAW is undefined in regards to range
RSX Raver wrote:
RAW includes the omitting of information, like range in this case.

What do you mean by this?

Nox, again you are stating your interpretation and saying it's RAW when it's not.
RAW are silent on whether you can change Animal Aspect at a distance which is the problem here.
If "the book clearly says you can do this" then quote me that exact part. It's not in what you posted above.

Sundakan wrote:

Su abilities are not spells. They do not follow spell rules. If they did, a range would be listed (Personal, touch, close, medium, or long).

It has no range listed because it isn't a ranged effect. It is simply something you do. It does not have a range any more than Wild Shape has a range.

No Supernatural abilities are not spells. But other than where stated otherwise or contradicted by the rules, special abilities and magic follow the rules in the magic chapter, see my previous post.

Wild Shape is used by characters on themselves, bad example. Almost every ability that affects another creature has some range listed, even regarding ACs and familiars.

Sundakan wrote:
IIRC there IS a general rule somewhere that abilities don't work across Planes unless they're explicitly stated to, but other than that there is no limitation listed or implied.
You may thinking this:
Core Rules, Magic Chaper, Spell Descriptions wrote:
Unlimited: The spell reaches anywhere on the same plane of existence.
This is relevant too.
Core Rules, Magic Chaper, Spell Descriptions wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target.

Either just touch or unlimited, but with line of sight, seem the most logical interpretations.

Nox Aeterna, your conclusion doesn't follow from the prior statements.
No where in the rules as written does it say you can always change your animal companion's Animal Focus as long as your animal companion is alive.
It simply says they can be changed as part of the same swift action. It unfortunately doesn't list if this ability can be used at a range. We know what your interpretation is. Continuing to repeat it at this point isn't constructive.
Also I'm fully aware that Supernatural Abilities are not spells, however almost the entire chapter in the core rules on how magic works is subsections about "spells". Very little is said about Spell-like and Supernatural Abilities in the Special Abilities section at the end of the Magic chapter, as rather than rewriting the magic rules for each of these, they basically defer back the previous rules and then state how they are different.
"A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells."
So generally, except for the given exceptions and when specifically stated otherwise in an ability's description, one should look to the magic chapter to see how they work.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
bitter lily wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
I dont remember readin any range in it at all, thus there isnt a limit, be it 5 fts away or in another plane, you can change your AC focus.
I couldn't find a range either when I looked. So that's the default, then? Any range. As a new PF GM, I appreciate the Q & the A.

If there is no listed range then there is no range limit.

Then again, i dont see why they would add one, melee hunter builds are already have access to much better stuff in the teamwork feats, no reason to create a possible issue for a ranged build.

No range listed doesn't necessarily mean no range limit, it could mean you can't use it at any range at all and must be able to in contact - "touch".

As always, there is one crowd that takes the "if the rules don't say you can't do it, you can" approach and another that goes with "if the rules don't say you can do it, you can't".
While there is nothing explicit, The Range and Aiming a Spell sections under magic would indicate touch and possibly line of sight, but definitely not on another plane of existence.
I was hoping someone could point to something from another rule, such as another similar supernatural ability that would point in the right direction. Right now this is speculation.

What is the range of the Hunter's Animal Focus ability when used on his/her animal companion?

What do ectoplasmic creatures look like in the Golarian setting? Is it like Slimer from Ghostbusters?

You are very welcome.
But.. sorry, at 14th level the Beastmorph archtype replaces Persistent Mutagen with Grand Beastform Mutagen. Persistent Mutagen is removed along with all mutagen abilities from the Promethean Alchemist archtype. You can't stack archtypes that modify/remove the same class abilities. Sorry I know you want this to work, but it doesn't.


Advanced Player's Guide wrote:

A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.

As you pointed out the Promethean Alchemist takes away the mutagen ability from the alchemist. The Beastmorph archtype obviously adds to the mutagen abilities and specifically calls out that it replaces persistent mutagen with Grand Beastform Mutagen. Getting the mutagen ability from a different class wouldn't change how these archtypes aren't allowed together.

Also the Unstable Mutagen doesn't grant a character the Mutagen ability, it allows a character who already has Mutagens to make one Unstable Mutagen a day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Actually the thread I was thinking of a Dev chimed in but didn't give a final answer. I found another thread that gave the opposite if what we would like :(

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Still trying to find the post...

I saw another thread out there once in which, if I recall correctly, one of the Devs said that language was accidentally left out of this book that would have had all these weapons be martial for Gnomes.

Good point, at least in regards to extracts and things that don't have to be thrown.

Are there any creatures published anywhere that have a climb speed greater than the base speed?

It says holding in regards to what can get a save, not what gets targeted. Anything "exposed" gets targeted. What is "exposed" though in regards to this? In a pocket or pouch safe? Ugh..saying that the glass vials are just safe is very unrealistic and inconsistent, but having them all be destroyed is pretty terrible to an alchemist.

I reread that part of the rules again, I suggest you do the same, this time pay close attention to where it says "round" and where it says "turn". A full round is what takes place from an initiative count to the next time that same count comes around. A turn is what happens on your particular initiative count, not after it. If after rereading you still believe you are right, please quote exact the exact piece of text that says that.

Note the language about only being able to take 1 swift action is during your turn, not the next round. Compare to the language immediate actions has that specifies what happens when an immediate action is after the turn. Realizing this, I think this might be legit rulewise even if it seems like a shenanigan.
Not terribly broken, you are losing a standard action, will likely drop your initiative count, and have a chance to lose the readied action if the triggering condition doesn't happen. I would think a condition would have to be more specific than just another character starting their turn or "doing something".

I basically agree with what Claxon just said. And I would point to the FAQ ruling on extracts of spells that require a choice to make when casting as evidence that extracts being like potions language doesn't go too far.
Personally I prefer the "potion like" interpretation of extracts and infusions in general, but officially, rules wise, I don't think that's how it usually goes.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

DM_Blake when I read the post from Jason B you linked to, I take away the opposite message. He says that it could have been clearer, but nothing about stealth denying dex being an incorrect interpretation of the rules. I remember this post from back when he first made it and made a note in my hard copy rules that this includes stealth. I went back now and reread it again a couple times.
This IS a piece of the rules, yes it is a lttle vague, but it is there. Byakko just layed out how putting together with other rules language gets us to stealth denying Dex. A developer has said that is how this meant to be interpreted. How is is interpreting a piece of the rules in a way the developers intended a house rule? To me ignoring the piece of text in question would be a house rule at this point.
And if the target is denied their dex bonus, why couldn't a character with Sneak Attack use it? "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would denied a Dexterity bonus to AC" from the rogue's Sneak Attack description.

Since it doesn't specify any change to the range increment, I would say it stays the same. Ninja'd

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the Combat chapter/Combat Statistics/Armor Class: "Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC."
That seems to be a piece of RAW to justify a successful stealth denying dex bonus.

As far as stealthing after combat begins, why not hold your action until some distracting event happens (like a fire ball). "If your your observers are temporarily distracted (such as by Bluff check) you can attempt to use Stealth." Note Bluff is just one example, doesn't say that's the only thing that can be used. Anything as distracting as "hey look, trolls" should be considered. Untimately this would be a GM call on what is and isn't distracting enough.

I suggest moving the Crypt Breaker discussion to it's own thread.

The question shouldn't be whether it's spear-like, but whether "it's same general size and shape as a bow". I think a Halberd is really stretching that.

Similar wording to Cavalier's challenge. Each needs to pick a target for the ability that they can see for the effect to work. I don't see why this needs to be reworded.

The way I'm reading Dominate Monster/Creature is that it's one command at a time, which would mean if the fighter was commanded to ignore aid, he wouldn't be much other use to the Abolith. But I'm not positive on that reading of it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say no because this is a specific magic effect that is designed to counter things like invisibility and says it "cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades". And otherwise a creature that can cast Invisibility at will could just recast it the next round.
I disagree with you Matthew that this spell gives off light. While "sparkle" can mean that it gives of light like sparks. It can also mean somthing is highly reflective and "sparkles" like a diamond or glitter. The second seems the more likely based on the name of the spell and "A cloud of golden particles".
Also absent from the spell description are some of the things one would expect from a light producing spell, such as the [light] descriptor, info on how much light is given off or how the spell interacts with darkness. Compare to the description of Faerie Fire.

As Darksol says, the vampire keeps the Undead type, and it still doesn't have a Con score either. Ability scores only change when polymorph effect specifically say they in do, this case, Change Shape, not at all.
As far as what various abilities the vampire will lose shape changing away from a vampire, I would recommend looking at the Undead Anatomy series of spells. These spells tell us what abilities are gained by changing form into that of an undead. It is logical that similar abilities would be lost when one polymorphs away from the undead form into the form of a living creature. Of course as Darksol points out, per rules the GM is the final arbiter of this, even without house rules.

PRD>Core Rulebook>Additional Rules>Smashing Aan Object wrote:

Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

Ranged Weapon Damage: Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness.

A literal reading of above two paragraphs, would mean any splash weapons that do energy damage, which includes most bombs, would only do one quarter damage to objects, unless considered "similar" to "siege engine". I don't think a bomb doing only one quarter damage while something like an arrow or javelin doing half makes sense. Am I missing something?

Majuba wrote:
If the purchaser drinks it right away, I would consider it the same as spell-casting services. If they want to take it away (which keeps the alchemist's extract slot locked up until it is used) - that would require very individual negotiations. Potion price would be the bare minimum (don't forget the caster level on that by the way).

Has it been officially clarified if infusions last more than a day?

Chaotic Fighter wrote:
Ernest Mueller wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
* I get that some people don't like a "magical" ability like brawler strike being part of this class, but we need to make unarmed brawlers viable at overcoming DR (just as we do for monks), so it has to stay.

Not if they're using close weapons, that's the beauty of it. They can use magic/special material brass knuckles, cesti, rope gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, etc... All the things that RAW, no monk would ever touch. And that just scream "Brawler!"

"The brawler inflicts their brawling damage instead of the normal weapon damage when using any close weapon." Give 'em proficiency in those and improvised weapons and simple weapons. Done.

And since they now count as fighters they can just pick up penetrating strike.

Edit: Even better. Run into a creature with an annoying amount of DR. Martial Maneuvers gets you penetrating strike and Greater Penetrating Strike.

I would like to add my support in respectfully asking the design team to consider some other non magical/supernatual mechanic to replace Brawler's Strike (to clarify just calling Brawler's Extraordinary as I think was suggested upthread would for me be more immersion defeating than this).

Other mundane classes such as fighter and rogue don't have built in mechanics for overcoming damage reduction.

I might repost this question when I can use my laptop to more easily quote and link what I want to.

In regards to question #1, have there been any other recent threads on this? The spell craft skill description should be included in any such discussion as there is third set of rules there.

An interesting way to implement this, that would let alleviate having to stop the game for a bunch of saves, be very suspenseful and realistic, would be to hold off on having the save made until the alchemist goes to use the extract, mutagen (or bombs if your GMgoes that way or it's a blue dragon). Afterall I don't see why the alchemist would know what things were wrecked until having a chance to pause for a bit and examine everything, heck it's debatable it he/she would even know if they were hit with the effect in the first place.

Bomb catalyst vials are a mix of "various volatile chemicals", it's a big ? as to whether that would include water and ultimately a GM call. Water by itself is not volatile (but I know can be if mixed with other things). I would recommend ruling that catalyst vials are not affected, avoiding much of the above hubub (less saves) and extra benefit of not being as punitive on the alchemist. Rolling saves on just extracts and the mutagen seems more manageable.

Some good questions and thoughts brought up, but AFAIK there is no such thing as fluff or crunch in the RAW. People deciding they can ignore some piece of the rules as "fluff" is house rule territory.

Not-so-invisible quote #2
This is from the Magic item chapter, the section on weapons.

PRD wrote:

A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.

Similar to the last one. Once again ALL magic weapons.

Back to the original post.

Not-so-invisible quote #1
This is from the weapons part of the Equipment chapter.

PRD wrote:
All magic weapons are automatically considered to be of masterwork quality. The enhancement bonus granted by the masterwork quality doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus provided by the weapon's magic.

It says all magic weapons. Not just permanent, not just manufactured, ALL.

What veiled insults?

So what's next with this line of arguement? A 5th level Magus can add properties such as flaming directly to a masterwork weapon since it already has a + 1 enhancement bonus?

The Morphling wrote:
Well now you know there's no invisible rule somehow banning this combo in a book published before the ability was written. Problem solved. They stack.


I second Diego from above and no Shisumo, he is not making up rules.
At least three spots in the core book it states in some fashion that the masterwork enhancement bonus doesn't stack with magic enhancement bonus for weapons. (I'm doing this from a phone on my break or I would provide links)
Once in the equipment chap - masterwork weapons section, once in the Magic Items chapter - weapon section where enchancement bonuses are discussed and lastly the Magic Weapon spell. To the best of my knowledge anywhere in the corebook masterwork weapons and enhancement bonuses are talked about together this stacking is not allowed.
The Magus's Arcane Pool ability doesn't need to restate a specific rule already established in the CRB, it needs to specifically override it if the MW enchancement could stack with the magic enhancement bonus.

Zark wrote:
Zahmahkibo wrote:
I would take "stack" in this sense to mean, "contributes to progression along the normal magic enhancement track." So, a mwk weapon Arcane Pooled into a +1 weapon nets a gain of +1 damage. The alternative is letting a 17th level magus enhance a masterwork weapon into something better than its +5 equivalent.



Does anyone seriously consider think that SKR or one of the other developers would come on here and agree with the idea of stacking on top of the masterwork bonus as opposed to above?

Good question. I wonder if there are other abilities/rules out there with the same wording to use as a guide.

Other than the mace, the rules are fairly silent on how it works with weapons that are normally wooden hafted to have a metal haft instead (talking non-special material here). My feeling is these should be custom (different prices & weights) but that's just my opinion and it would add more complexity.

1 to 50 of 374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>