Jo Bird's page

Abraham spalding wrote:

Your mom.

Though more seriously in Golarion you could find the trail of souls streaming towards the Boneyard.

Yes, but what are they to an adventurer/planar traveler? Can they even pose a threat, even interact?

I don't know what kind of game you're running, but in my world moms are pretty important.

I'm not sure how, at low levels, a "it can hit me, but I can't hit it" enemy isn't breaking the game. Maybe you play it with some sort of additional house rule to balance it, I don't know.

But allowing a creature in the earth to attack is not the RAW. My point, written above, remains.

As far as the creature being uninteresting without the ability to hit while it's underground . . . well, that's just goofy. A creature is as interesting as you make it in the game. Combats are as interesting as you make them too. It's your choice if you use the elemental as a monolith of hit points, and nothing else. But you have more options, you can, for instance, charge through the earth (ending up outside the earth) and attack the unsuspecting players.

I agree with concerro.

It says you can move through the earth as if it were water. It doesn't say that the earth becomes the consistency of water to you for any other purpose. Attacking someone is not movement by the RAW. Presuming you can do anything other than move is specious.

You guys - from my perspective - are trying to make logical sense of a strange power, and as you think to yourselves, 'hmmm, this thing can move through the earth, sense the presence of folks on the ground above, and punching is really just the arm moving through the earth like the body when travelling, wow, yeah, it should be able to hit someone logically!'

Then you run into the obvious problem, 'oh man, this is going to break the game.'

The easier solution, and the one tied more closely to the RAW, is to let the creature move through the earth. And that's it. If that violates your suspension of disbelief then I wish you the best of luck house ruling otherwise, but I suspect your exercise at such will create naught but headaches.

What kind of liberal landscape are you running? Who exactly uses kid gloves against bandits? They're bandits, and executing them (by sword or rope) is a part of their charter, and a part of the natural law of things.

The law deals with banditry harshly. Period. It's not real complicated, and assuming that powers that be elsewhere will frown on that is . . . absurd. They'll more likely applaud the eradication of bandits than they will tsk tsk.

This is a frontier land; a level of frontier justice is to be presumed. Heck, every bandit is going to be repentant when they're taken prisoner. I wouldn't even take that part of the charter seriously. Unless, of course, a bandit showed up out of the blue and turned himself in because he literally wanted to repent. Or, in the case of a potential bandit in part one, changes sides as the combat begins.

There are two issues here:

1. Don't try to force players into making their characters act with a modern day morality. Frankly, it's more realistic that folks everywhere will have more respect for their harsh treatment of bandits than less respect. This is the Stolen Lands, not San Francisco.

2. If your only worry is getting more information into the hands of the PC's then figure out another way to do it -- or let the PC's go forward without the knowledge. No big deal.

How does the Scorpion Whip work? Seriously.

Here's how it reads now:

To me, that means that it works like this:

1. You need the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Scorpion Whip to use it.
2. It gets a ten foot reach, just like standard reach weapons.
3. It does not have the ability to attack squares 5 feet away, just like standard reach weapons.

Now, there is an exception to the rules above:

1. *IF* you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Whip instead of the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Scorpion Whip then you may use the weapon as a Whip.
2. It then has a 15 foot reach, and can attack squares 5 feet away.
3. It then deals non-lethal damage.

The above is how I believe it should work, not only from the wording of the weapon, but also from my sense of how the weapons balance properly with one another.

***

However, apparently the Scorpion Whip reads differently in Legacy of Fire, and in the Adventure's Armory.

Here is the reading I'm told it had in Legacy of Fire:

Here is the reading I'm told it had in the Adventure's Armory:

Both of those readings imply that the Scorpion Whip is pretty much just the Whip, only better.

What gives? Does anyone know why all the wording was changed? Was it on purpose? Has the Scorpion Whip been 'nerfed'? Is the Scorpion Whip supposed to just outclass the regular Whip, and the new wording confuses that?

Reincarnate is a pretty strange and complex spell. It's certainly one of those that every GM should look at and decided exactly how he wants to run things in his game (awaken and simulacrum and miracle and wish are similar in this regard).

The way I handle reincarnation effects in adventures and sourcebooks is to follow the guidelines as guidenlines, not rules. If a human gets reincarnated as a troglodyte, they'd retain any mental human abilities, but would lose physical ones. They'd gain troglodyte physical abilities, but lose mental ones.

For this case, it's actaully pretty clear-cut.

The human, upone being reincarnated, would back out his +2 bonus to an ability score if it had been applied to Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution; if that bonus had been applied to Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, he would not lose it. He gains the Trog's mods as listed, along with all of the troglodyte's attacks, stench, darkvision, armor, and stealth bonus for being able to shift his coloration.

He'd keep his bonus feat and extra skill ranks gained from being human since those are mental, not physical.

He'd also gain 2d8 racial Hit Dice, which means his base attack bonus, saves, and skill ranks go up. He also would gain a new feat, and depending on if that extra 2d8 HD bumped him up enough enough, a +1 bonus to an ability score of his choosing.

As for what his CR would be... if he's a player, that doesn't matter at all. CR isn't for player characters. He's now more powerful than the other characters in the party, of course, and that presents some challenges to the GM... but not so much if the other players aren't jealous and are cool about things. The GM, of course, can do what he needs to do to make the PC's new life as a troglodyte relatively rough and miserable, of course, since that kind of change would wreak havock on family and relationships and even simple trips to the grocery store.

If this is an NPC, once you rebuild all the stats, just sit down and look at it as a whole. Chances are good that...

James,

If this is the way it is supposed to work, and this is the intent of the spell, then please update it with errata because that is not what the spell says.

Quote:

"First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments (since it is no longer necessarily of his previous race) and then apply the adjustments found below to its remaining ability scores."

First: you remove the subject's racial adjustments. That includes mental adjustments by the wording of the spell.

Then: you use the below chart to make adjustments on the subject's remaining ability scores. Here, you change the scores using the chart in the spell.

This makes perfect sense as written. Nowhere does it say "keep your mental adjustments to stats." Which works fine because it keeps some folks from getting more than one set of racial adjustments, such as a gish class reincarnated into a bugbear.

The way you've said it is done in source books is not the way the spell says to do it.

The character keeps class abilities, feats, skill ranks, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points.

The only thing the spell specifically does not give the character from the new race is the language. I don't see a reason to make presumptions about what else a character is not supposed to get.

I understand that some folks want to house rule the spell in a manner otherwise, and I'm fine with folks house ruling to their heart's content. It just happens that I'm fine with the spell as written.

Now, your above post is telling folks that Paizo is printing official material using a mechanic that is different from the one written in the spell. I have no problem with that, but I would like to urge you guys to provide some errata on the spell to make it work as you've mentioned, or to cease printing official material that treats it as if it's written in a manner it is not.

I'm only asking because this issue is creating arguments where no arguments are needed. Some folks take what you've said in this post as gospel, and some take the writing of the spell in the Core book as gospel.

And yes, I'm aware that you've said all GM's should adjudicate this spell as they best see fit. Unfortunately, people being people, well, a lot of us are looking for official rules because we trust you guys. So, with respect, please provide us with some errata. Or at least take a moment to mention that the spell can be interpreted as written.

Thanks.

There is a magus character in a game I am running. The question of holding charges on a touch attack inevitably came up. Thus far, my ruling has been that spellstrike does not allow for the charges of the spell to be held.

I will list my reasoning below, but I'm prepared to reverse my ruling if someone can point to some official errata stipulating otherwise. I'll also happily accept an unofficial quote from a developer that states that held charges remain.

As I see it:

Spellstrike allows the magus to change the way a touch attack spell is normally cast by allowing a melee attack to be performed "as part of" the casting of the spell.

Spellstrike specifically limits the Magus to ONE melee attack. That seems to me to be a specific rule that otherwise outweighs the general rule of touch attack spells.

Regardless, the charge of a touch attack spell dissipates if the caster touches anything, even something unintentionally touched, e.g. his enemy, his waterskin, his sword, whatever. Note, the Magus is, of course, touching his own weapon upon the casting of the spell.

Even if touching his weapon is ignored for purposes of dissipating the charge there is still the consideration of the actual attack made against someone's (non-touch) AC. A melee attack is going against an AC that is generally inclusive of an armor bonus, and a shield bonus (or even natural armor). In other words, the attack - unlike a touch attack - doesn't actually *miss* in terms of coming into contact with an item. The sword blow could scrap across a breastplate, or clash against a shield, but still do no damage thanks to the protective barrier between the attacker and defender. Missing due to a touch attack is clearly an all around miss; that's why the touch AC is so much lower.

Basically, "instead of" making the normal touch attack, you are making ONE melee attack, and you are attacking "as part of" the casting of the spell. Of additional importance, you are attacking a normal AC, and not a touch AC. Add all of that to the fact that you are by necessity touching something upon the casting of the spell, i.e. your weapon, then I can't see the sense of allowing for charges to remain held. Also note, if you're interpreting the "unintentional" touch ruling of held charges to only apply to your off hand you have to consider the use of wands with the Magus.

In short, I feel like my ruling is simple and elegant. I feel like it's supported by the rules, and not some house rule. There may be errata, or developer comment otherwise though, and while I haven't been able to find it yet I am open to reversing my decision in the face of strong evidence. I just want something reasonably official, or at least very well thought out, as opposed to a slew of opinions cloaked as facts.

Thanks.

Eacaraxe, I'll respond to your post last as it was the longest.

***

Bob, I'm not big on the idea of gaming with literal children. I think there's something inherently weird about that, especially if those children are not my own. It runs the risk of creating an inappropriate peer relationship that strikes me as unhealthy, both for the child and the adult.

Now, if the child being gamed with is my own, well heck, I fully endorse teaching my child some basic tenets of honesty, and above board behavior. Further, I want my child, ideally, to have a reasonable, intuitive sense of statistics, and consequences. The last lesson I want to teach is: "don't worry, daddy's gonna fudge those dice for you cause the rules don't apply to you, no they don't."

Making slight adjustments to the reincarnation table is an obvious fudge, and there's no way your player doesn't realize that you engineered his roll. So, why roll? There's an overwhelming arrogance in someone who thinks they're clever enough to provide just what the player wants while pretending it's nothing more than luck. Who wouldn't see through that? Who wouldn't look at the table later and say, "why'd he even bother to make me roll?"

Getting what you want consistently as a player can be fun for a while, no doubt. But it's not organic; it doesn't come with a real sense of accomplishment. Rather, it's masturbatory, fleeting and empty, signifying only the catering heart of a would-be beneficent DM.

***

Revan, where to start?

As a DM I do not want my players to die either. That's a far cry from not allowing them to die.

There's nothing players notice faster than a DM too worried about whether they'll be upset to let their characters die. Once they do realize then they lose a little bit of anticipation in every scene. "Oh, it doesn't matter what I do in this scene, trust me, ol' Revan's not gonna pull the trigger. He'll save me."

Suddenly players are biting off more than they can chew, and divorcing themselves from the personalities of their characters -- simply because you've created a situation (albeit with good intentions) that disallows them from exploring the very survival instincts of the characters they probably once longed to play.

Fudging rolls to not kill characters just makes for spoiled players. Spoiled players enjoy the game as a hobby. Strong players enjoy the game as art. That's what challenging yourself in life is all about. And that's what challenging the characters in game is about.

***

Bill, trusting someone to lie to you effectively is certainly your right in this crazy world. The reason I'm not sitting next to you on that carefree wagon is because I've never met someone capable of running a novel for players.

It's the height of ego that tells a man he can craft results better than actual results.

***

Eacaraxe, don't worry, I don't think you're breaking my balls. Blurring my eyes with a wall of text? You bet. But never breaking my balls.

Likely. It's a good word. I like it. It fits. As in "probably". As in "most".

Let me start by addressing your commentary on gaming without dice. When I wore a younger man's clothes my buddy thought he shot me with a laser gun. I know because he told me he did. What my buddy didn't know was that I had a force field up so it blocked it. Those games were fun. Then I grew up. Suddenly, that kind of raw make-believe wasn't so great anymore.

I've participated in acting exercises, and I've even had a great time doing it. But I've never fooled myself into thinking that I was enjoying an unbiased game. The problem with it runs deep. It's next to impossible for your improv buddies to be on the same page. There's no script, there's no quantifying presence. In other words, there is no anchor. That's what dice give us: a justifiable set of laws governed by pre-existing conditions and statistics that we can all come close to agreeing on the majority of the time. No longer can my force field stop your laser beam, get it?

Here's a little something I think all good DM's should strive to remember: we all paid for these pathfinder books, let's use them.

There's a great fallacy in your examples. I never said that following the results of the dice meant that a DM should reiterate those results to players in the most boring method possible. Absolutely not. The results should simply be determined by the dice. The delivery of the results should be filled with verve and flair, sometimes solemness, sometimes with enthusiasm.

Think of the dice as the steak. Think of the description of the results of the dice as the sizzle.

In your second example you imply that Tamara's death must be boring while her fudged save is super exciting. At the risk of sounding like I'm thinking outside of the box why not have Tamara die with the same descriptive license you've reserved for her near death.

In short, respect your players enough to let them die. Respect your players enough to not lie to them. Learn the game well enough to create appropriate challenges. Respect the game well enough to use the rules. Breed an atmosphere that favors personal responsibility and consequences. Let your players explore their character's instincts for survival. Stop killing off anticipation, and stop spoiling players. Do all of those things, and I promise you'll begin to discover a whole new world of surprising adventures.

DM's shouldn't fudge. The dice are likely a better dictator of drama than the DM. The dice will provide organic highs and lows throughout the game. The DM will provide a monotonous set of highs and lows that are easily seen through.

One shotting the BBEG? Great. Those rare moments make for great memories later. "Yeah, my character was so cool he one shotted the dragon, remember?"

Character dies? Great. Now there's some real room for role playing. Even if your games are role playing light, it highlights the need for serious thought behind future tactics. It creates consequences. Read that word again: consequences. That's important.

See, if the DM fudges the results then no character build really matters. No feat selections matter. No skill point allotments matter. In essence, the character doesn't matter. Frankly, I find it insulting when I'm playing in a game and the DM is fudging.

Worth noting: DM's who fudge rolls either think that they're smarter than they are, or that players are dumber than they are. I notice this stuff when it happens, and so do a lot of other folks. Used to, I would quietly seethe while pretending I didn't notice just out of good manners. These days, I outright refuse to play at a table where fudging is happening. I expect that the person DMing a game I'm playing in to be fair, and trustworthy. I sure don't expect him to insult me by thinking I'm too dumb to notice his juvenile attempts at force-feeding drama.

I'm an adult. I game with adults. I expect every member at the table to act like adults.

Dear Paizo,

I have spent a relative "fortune" on your books. I enjoy your system, and I enjoy your modules.

I understand that I can play this game any way I like, and, as a DM, I can make any rules calls I feel are appropriate. Thank you for expressing that I have the freedom to do that.

That being said, I choose to play this game like the designers intended. As such, please provide some basic errata on this spell. There seems to be little consensus on how this spell works.

Thank you in advance for taking a moment to clarify this for me, a loyal customer, and all the other folks who paid good money for a solid game system.

Sincerely,

A fan.