Kogall Stonecore's page

Wow, heaven forbid that I expect a company to know when their products are going to release.

Oh, and there is no calendar in existence that would consider the 26th of February "early February". But whatever, I must be the villain here because I am willing to expect to be treated like a company respects my business.

This response is every bit as pretentious as the last one. As company that I would expect wishes to be taken seriously, how can you ever hope to be taken seriously when you cannot even provide release dates for your products. Forget the stores for a moment, you are the owner of the products. If you are not able to say when something is going to be available, how do you expect anyone to ever know and then be able to plan their finances in such a way as to be ready to purchase your items when they in fact become available. We, the buying public, should never actually enter the month of release for a product and still have no clue of when it is coming out.

Oh, and I am fully aware that the status of this item has now changed from early Feb to in stock, but that is truly beside the point now. If anything, it further illustrates the impression that your company doesn't care enough about its customers to allow us to know when things are going to release.

Dates guys, they are important........

I am going to be honest here, and then clean up this post afterward. This response comes off as reading as being pretentious. The fellow asked for an update to the release date, which is currently being listed as "early February". Early February means next to nothing to a customer that is awaiting this product, especially when we are sitting here on the 6th without seeing that this has in fact been released. And posting a link that also reads "early February" offers no resolution whatsoever to a customer asking when they can expect this product to be released. Why can Paizo not just list a release date like almost every other company on the internet does for its products? We are close enough that a release date should be available for us to expect to be able to get our hands on this product. If that is not possible, then why not?

As I said earlier, the response came off as sounding pretentious. I am going to assume that it wasn't the intent, so can you possibly share some sort of an update on when we, the buying public, can anticipate this being released?

Dallas

It will ship with everything else in February...

You can always check our Product Schedule page to see our current expectations.

Unlike a typical archetype, the Qinggong archetype is customizable--you only alter the features you trade. This means that yes, all monks can be Qinggong Monks.

See, I completely disagree with this assessment. The specific wording of the Qinggong Monk says:

"A qinggong monk can select a ki power (see below) for which she qualifies in place of the following monk class abilities: slow fall (4th), high jump (5th), wholeness of body (7th), diamond body (11th), abundant step (12th), diamond soul (13th), quivering palm (15th), timeless body (17th), tongue of the sun and moon (17th), empty body (19th), and perfect self (20th). This replaces the monk class ability the qinggong monk gives up for this ki power."

Nowhere in there does it say that it is customizable, only that it replaces a monk ability at 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th, 12, 13th, 15th, 17th, 17th, 19th, and 20th level. By targeting an ability at each of those levels, it would seem to make sense to me that under the rules for multiple archetypes no other archetype could be chosen that also targets abilities at those levels. The specific rule for this is on page 72 of the Advanced Players Guide:

"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."

Those two quoted sections seem to directly oppose one another........

On another site, a guy ha posted a guide for Zen Archer that basically states that all monks are Qinggong monks now and that a monk can be built using both archetypes. When I asked if that was legal under the rules, I was rebuffed by several people stating that since all of the abilitie4s of the Qinggong Monk were optional, that they did not fall under the rule prohibiting two archetypes if both of them targeted the same ability.

I originally was willing to accept this as correct, but the more I think about it I am thinking that it is not the case. Regardless of whether the ability is swapped out or not, is the ability still not targeted? If the answer to that is yes, then I do not see how both of those archetypes could ever possibly be taken together, as there are several levels where both archetypes target the same ability.

Opinions?

Great point. But seeing as how the OP didn't specify whether this was a PFS adventure or not, I thought I'd include information for them about "Ranged flanking" in case it might interest them down the way a bit.

True. However, such a feat is not present in PFS scenarios, as it is a third party feat.

Should homebrew/casual sessions include 3rd party content, it would be viable, though.

Fully agreed in this scenario presented, but if the archer also has the "Ranged flanking" feat they would then get the flanking bonus as well.

The Archer does not get flanking bonuses because he is making a ranged attack, not a melee attack. However, since the Archer is still counted as threatening the square (and being on an opposing end of the target), the other characters who make melee attacks do get the flanking bonuses because they are making melee attacks.

Actually, there was more to the discussion than that. There was the question as to whether or not "presenting" meant more than what you describe or not.

Before you reply, please take a moment to actually digest what I am about to type and try your best not to make a snap judgement.

Typically, when giving a presentation for any audience, there is more to "presenting" the material than just raising it up and showing. Typically, there is a "theatrical" component for lack of a better word. What we were trying to establish was if there was a similar component with presenting a holy symbol for the intention of channeling your chosen deity's energy through. It was entirely a valid question and worthy of being asked.

Now, you can certainly feel free to question whether or not it warranted addition into the FAQ, but I personally think that it could be helpful to be in there and if it does make it in there what did it hurt anyone to put it there?

I still have my own questions as to whether it is in the spirit of the rules, not the RAW wording mind you, but the actual spirit of them to allow someone to present a holy symbol from a position of weakness but that has been hashed out and I am willing to accept the majority on that one.

See, this is another of those incidences where you wonder if some of these players have ever done anything but eat, drink, play RPGs and fiddle with the computer.

I, myself, am typing this in a prone position, and anybody who thinks a person cannot lift his arm and hold up a small piece of wood or metal while lying (either on their back or their belly) is either incredibly poor in the experiences of living on Earth, or is pretending to be so to try to get something out of you.

I also think this is another thing that DOES NOT merit candidacy for the FAQ, because it pretty much goes without saying.

"Presenting" a holy symbol is the same as "presenting" anything. You hold it up and show it to somebody. That is what "presenting" means.

This is not "entirely" true.

The feat ranged flank allows you to get the flank bonus out to 30'

Also, the description for the rongue's sneak attack specifically state that ranged attacks can get the sneak attack damage out to 30', but of course the other guy would have to be flat footed or denied his dex bonus for some reason.

You cannot flank-to-get-sneak-attack at range. The snap shot line of feats does not change this. Flanking attacks are strictly melee only.

I can agree with both points. Having played with his son, I was thinking that a hand to hand oriented monk might appeal to his inclination to be in the thick of things. Of my suggestions, to that end, I think the mutagen oriented alchemist would be best. They just so happen to be alot of fun to play for someone that likes to just wade in and start swinging away.....

Talon378 wrote:

He might like a more traditional hand to hand monk???

I personally would steer younger players away from monks for the purposes of PFS play, not just cause all the "monks so underpowered stuff", but there are just better options for beginning players. I personally would recommend a Fighter or a Ranger to that end. Of course I don't know what you're sons age is...

TBaileySr wrote:

Maybe I can talk him in to making a Summoner like dad. ;)

This on the other hand... awesome. As long as you teach him how to make an eidolon properly ;)

I understand that, but there is a strength element at work there. It would be physically possible to position yourself and have the strength to deflect that blow or to cause it to not hit straight and be more of a "glancing blow".

But, in the example of the bow that I am talking about, it is not a matter of strength. It is a matter of leverage. Drawing a bow is entirely a question of whether you can create the lever necessary to draw the bow. Having the strength to then pull the string is then the second concern, but if you can't form the lever, you can have all the strength in the world and you are still not pulling that string back.

Let me give another example. I had a DM years ago roll on a critical miss table for my bowman that had rolled a one. The table then had me shoot myself in the thigh with my own arrow. Not drop the arrow and it hit my leg, no, it had me draw back and shoot myself in the thigh for full damage. That is not only comical, it is physically impossible to turn a bow around and shoot yourself in the thigh. I told him to prove it. I accepted the damage and all, just not the described manner in which it was dealt.

I guess, in the end, I am one of these guys that is concerned about the narrative. I understand the rules and how to apply them, I just want the narrative of the situation to also make sense. I do think that there is a way to marry the two, and if being a PFS DM would not allow for me to do that, then I would not want to do it as I have been asked to do so on multiple occasions.

Talon378 wrote:

That being the case, that I am not allowed to make common sense rulings, I would never run a PFS game. As it is, if I were running one, I'd still run it that way anyway. If that is a problem, then they should probably not make me a DM then, lol......

wraithstrike wrote:

Talon378 wrote:

I get what you are saying, I really do. I am just saying that as a DM I would never allow something that I know is physically impossible no matter what the rules say. Allowing someone to be hit on a technicality is not in the spirit of the rules when I know full well it is impossible

to draw a bow at full arm extension. You cannot do it, and I would not allow it. For the player that tried, my reply would be "prove that you can do it, and I will allow it."

Actually that is the spirit and the letter of the rules(cover rules). It is one of those cases where the rules trump real life. Another example is paralyzed characters being allowed reflex saves, and PFS GM's don't get to ignore rules, which is why I am hesitant to do so even if I move to a a larger city.

Game Balance and easy of play trump realism every time. :)

Another example, just because I am bored, is using a shield to block an attack from a giant or really large dragon. Realistically your arm, and maybe the shield itself would be broken. That is all of my rules examples for now. :)

That being the case, that I am not allowed to make common sense rulings, I would never run a PFS game. As it is, if I were running one, I'd still run it that way anyway. If that is a problem, then they should probably not make me a DM then, lol......

Talon378 wrote:

I get what you are saying, I really do. I am just saying that as a DM I would never allow something that I know is physically impossible no matter what the rules say. Allowing someone to be hit on a technicality is not in the spirit of the rules when I know full well it is impossible

to draw a bow at full arm extension. You cannot do it, and I would not allow it. For the player that tried, my reply would be "prove that you can do it, and I will allow it."

Actually that is the spirit and the letter of the rules(cover rules). It is one of those cases where the rules trump real life. Another example is paralyzed characters being allowed reflex saves, and PFS GM's don't get to ignore rules, which is why I am hesitant to do so even if I move to a a larger city.

I recommended it for Faq. I think that it would be a useful addition to the FAQ. The original question about whether a cleric can use his Channel while prone is a very good question and I think others could benefit from the discussion.

We had been told it was 5' high, which sounds reasonable considering there were three or four steps to climb to get up to it. Either way, with the Cleric up on that top edge, and the Dwarf out beyond that column, my point was incorrect as the line of effect could come off the side and get to the dwarf. I didn't think the Dwarf was sticking out quite that far.

Looking at the scenario, the diagram does show steps that would put the cleric on a raised area, but the text does not say how high it is raised. Normally when an area of the map is raised enough to matter(at least 5 feet) it is noted. That(not being raised enough to enter the next square vertically) would put the cleric and everyone else on the same level as far as squares go. Since all squares on the same level as the cleric would get hit with the channel the dwarf would also be hit.

PS:Of course this all assumes I did not miss anything, but I did check 3 times.

He might like a more traditional hand to hand monk???

Also, have him take a look at the Alchemist. The mutagen oriented alchemists might be just up his alley. They can get nasty in a hurry.......

Maybe I can talk him in to making a Summoner like dad. ;)

I get what you are saying, I really do. I am just saying that as a DM I would never allow something that I know is physically impossible no matter what the rules say. Allowing someone to be hit on a technicality is not in the spirit of the rules when I know full well it is impossible
to draw a bow at full arm extension. You cannot do it, and I would not allow it. For the player that tried, my reply would be "prove that you can do it, and I will allow it."

Talon378 wrote:

You had me agreeing with you until you said that if it were 4 feet that I could shoot along the top of the cubes. I am sorry, that does not make sense that i could ever hit the feet of someone who is four feet above me when I would have to be holding my bow above my head and still have the strength to draw back the string above my head with full extension on my arms. In short, that would be impossible and I would not allow it to happen.

And again, I repeat...

Being able to shoot anyone is completely and totally irrelevant to line of effect. Get that out of your head. You either have line of effect to the target square or you do not. In the above example, you do not. If the wall were four feet high, it would not block line of effect.

By the same token, you could still attack the person over a 4ft wall, they'd have partial cover. If you hit them anyway, you didn't hit their foot, because Pathfinder doesn't have locations. In this case, you are assumed to hit some visible part of the target.

Now, if the target is laying prone, the GM can rule they have total cover against direct line attacks like arrows and slings and rays, if the GM so chooses. However, for magic that's AoE, like a channel, if the channel has line of effect to the square, then the square is effected, even if the target would have cover against a normal arrow or sling attack.

Remember, with area of effect, especially bursts, affect is all or nothing. It either affects the entire square, or none of the square. And if it can affect any of the square, then it affects all of the square.

Ok, I was thinking he hadn't gotten around the column completely. That being the case, my argument is completely invalid and I retract it. Time to head to a temple, I suppose.

It was still an interesting discussion though.

You had me agreeing with you until you said that if it were 4 feet that I could shoot along the top of the cubes. I am sorry, that does not make sense that i could ever hit the feet of someone who is four feet above me when I would have to be holding my bow above my head and still have the strength to draw back the string above my head with full extension on my arms. In short, that would be impossible and I would not allow it to happen.

I do agree with this, and I would love to have the map in front of me again to be 100% sure of the location to be sure but I am going to ask our DM to consider the line of effect involved to see what he thinks of that.

Having said that, let me get your opinion on this slight edit of the situation.

What if I were standing at the edge of a dais and the other guy was standing on it but in from the edge? Drawn like this:

x x x x x x x x = the floor of the room
x x x a y y b a = me b = you
x x x x y y y y = elevated dais (let's call it 10' of elevation)

By the most technical sense of things, a line could be drawn from the upper left edge of "b" to the upper right edge of "a" down the side of the elevated Dais. Would you allow that shot? I would hard pressed to allow it because I realize that he would be shooting directly through the floor to hit the target.

If the the cleric's channel has two avenues(squares) of approach to the dwarf, and the column blocks one line, and the floor blocks the other line then that would work to stop it also.

If there is only one possible line that would work, and neither one stops it completely then the line should continue.

Basically the invisible line goes to the first obstacle, and checks it.
If it is not total cover then it moves on. It then goes to the 2nd obstacle, and checks it. If it is not total cover then it still moves on. It is not a case of the line being partially blocked, and another partial blocking will stop it.

edit:In PFS this is especially true since a GM is not allowed to alter the rules like that. He could have fudged the dice damage, but he can't just pretend total cover is there.

I get what you are saying, and if you will notice I haven't really been arguing with the exact things you have been saying. I am only saying that the addition of the Column should combine with the floor to create total cover. The burst, which as I understand it does indeed need line of effect, would have to go through both the floor of the Dais and the column. I am thinking that the floor and the column separate from one another would create partial cover, but combined I do believe that they block the imaginary line from one to the other.

The floor could count as a barrier and block line of affect so if the line passed through it then the dwarf would be safe.

I was thinking he said it was 5'? Plus he was at the back corner of it and had a column also in the way. There shouldn't be any way really that a line could be drawn from the Priest to the Dwarf.....

Ok this would bear questioning. How high is he dais? It had stairs leading up to it so I am assuming it is at least 4 foot tall or more. That would certainly matter in regard to line of sight if the dwarf was against the wall of it.

Now this I am going to disagree with you on. Only because the fact that he was prone caused a situation where his line of effect was also having to travel through the floor as well as the straight line that you are talking about. On a level playing field, I agree with what you are saying completely, but him being prone means that his line of effect had to travel through the floor of the dais.

TBaileySr wrote:

Given the picture I posted the priest would have had to crawl to the edge of the dais in the grease to shoot at the dwarf with both of them prone I would think.

Going prone would not be a factor, but if he would have to walk to the edge due to the dias being more than 5 feet across to shoot someone who is at the edge then it seem like your son had total cover.

Even then you would have the issue of the Column that would still have been between them. I think one or the other would give partial cover, both would seem to give total cover, in my eyes that is. Also, considering that shooting while prone is problematic to begin with and being prone allows for a bonus to AC that mimics having partial cover and I would think that that the two would work together to provide full cover.

Given the picture I posted the priest would have had to crawl to the edge of the dais in the grease to shoot at the dwarf with both of them prone I would think.

I accept what you are saying and think that in our given situation we may have a legitimate line of effect issue. The column, plus the floor would likely have created a "wall of stone" that would prevented him from being able to affect our Dwarf.

'Present' means to display or show something. No reason he can't do that from prone, he just holds it over his head for all to see.

As to cover from the burst, bear in mind that it's total cover which protects you, not just cover (although cover can give you a reflex save bonus). Total cover means you're entirely behind a wall or the like, not just partially. If the victim was completely blocked from the point of origin by walls/floor/whatever, then he would be safe. But if even part of his body was not in cover, then it provides no defense at all against the channel.

Again, I do not disagree with your assessment of the rules. I will say that if it were my game as DM, I would rule that it wouldn't work because of what I have been saying in here. In the game earlier, I told the DM very plainly that it was his game and I'd accept whatever he said, but that I personally disagreed with him and why. The only reason I am arguing it here is because this is the proper forum to discuss it amongst interested parties without disrupting a game.

It was only once we started this conversation that I even thought about line of effect, which is extremely questionable in our situation.

Talon378 wrote:

I actually agree that this is correct in a RAW situation. I am more or less arguing that it doesn't wash for me from a "trying to visualize it" stance. I think it is an argument of technical rules versus common sense flavor.

wraithstrike wrote:

There are no rules for dropping things when you fall. Being prone when you are a cleric does not make you weak either. It is not people like will think "The cleric is prone, and not a threat now." He can still present that symbol strongly in every sense of the word. Before you try to take up for the dead player remember the rules work both ways in this game, and you really don't want to prevent the party cleric from channeling just because he is prone or unable to keep a vampire away because he is prone.

With that said there is no rule support for not being able to present a symbol strongly while prone or any other situation, except for those that don't allow you to take actions or move.

Flavor is not the rules though. Only the mechanics are, and most people I know would say it only has to be manipulated and put on display. The assumption that the cleric is less of a cleric because he is prone is not one I agree with. If the cleric lost power for being prone then I might agree with that flavor-wise, but since he can still summon demons, and do other really bad things to you while prone my view on him would not change at all. If anything him being prone would upset him, and make him more dangerous.

Talon378 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Just to be clear is the following correct?
c=cleric
d=dead pc
x=squars

xxxxx
xxcxx
xxxdx

In short if them being on the same level would he have been 5 feet away or farther away*. I ask because these things happen in 3d so even if he was a level below he could have been hit since it is a spherical affect, if he was far enough away.

*I know he was on a different level. I am just trying to create a mental image.

More like this:

B
xdcx B
xssseeep
xssseeee
xssseeee
xssseeee

Where:
x= ground
s= stairs leading up to the dais
c= the small colunm at the edge of the Dais
e= the elevated dais
p= the priest that had fallen down.
B= two creatures that were both large. The one closest to the Priest was also prone

I will ask another question since I probably don't have the PFS adventure in question. If both players were standing would they have been able to shoot each other with ranged weapons?

I wouldn't think so, mainly because of that column at the corner which would have been in the way. At a bare minimum, it would have been partial cover. With both of them prone, I would think the cover would upgrade to full because of the fact that line of effect would now have to go through both the column and the floor of the Dais itself.

wraithstrike wrote:

Just to be clear is the following correct?
c=cleric
d=dead pc
x=squars

xxxxx
xxcxx
xxxdx

In short if them being on the same level would he have been 5 feet away or farther away*. I ask because these things happen in 3d so even if he was a level below he could have been hit since it is a spherical affect, if he was far enough away.

*I know he was on a different level. I am just trying to create a mental image.

More like this:

-----B
xdcx B
xssseeep
xssseeee
xssseeee
xssseeee

Where:
x= ground
s= stairs leading up to the dais
c= the small colunm at the edge of the Dais
e= the elevated dais
p= the priest that had fallen down.
B= two creatures that were both large. The one closest to the Priest was also prone
-= The only way I could get the other big creature to the right sqaure

I actually agree that this is correct in a RAW situation. I am more or less arguing that it doesn't wash for me from a "trying to visualize it" stance. I think it is an argument of technical rules versus common sense flavor.

There are no rules for dropping things when you fall. Being prone when you are a cleric does not make you weak either. It is not people like will think "The cleric is prone, and not a threat now." He can still present that symbol strongly in every sense of the word. Before you try to take up for the dead player remember the rules work both ways in this game, and you really don't want to prevent the party cleric from channeling just because he is prone or unable to keep a vampire away because he is prone.

With that said there is no rule support for not being able to present a symbol strongly while prone or any other situation, except for those that don't allow you to take actions or move.

From a logistical standpoint, since the cleric in question was elevated and further back on a raised Dais, the line of effect is going to be broken by the stone of the Dais and the column that was at that corner of the Dais.

I still would argue against the ability to "present" your holy symbol while prone. We also didn't roll to see if he dropped it when he fell, so there is that as well. I just don't think that it makes much sense for him to be able to rebuke us, in the name his God while he is laying on the ground. Seems to me like the God would be like "You're making me look bad. Stand up and get back to me."

I was in this game as well. The opposing Cleric had been greased, which caused him to fall. He then channelled energy while prone, rather than try standing up.

For our situation, I think we are going to end up saying that since the Dwarven warrior in question was already unconscious when he took the damage that killed him, that he won't be dead as he could not view the holy symbol while unconscious.

But, for the context of future engagements, I am interested to see how this conversation goes. How can he really brandish and present a holy symbol when he is on the ground. Isn't part of the presentation of the symbol the thought that you are doing so with conviction? How much conviction can you really be showing when you have just suffered a fairly embarrassing fall? Just a few thoughts.

My post on this will not be from a RAW perspective, but more from visualizing the effect in my mind. In my opinion, the way Channel Energy is intended to be visualized is that the cleric in question presents his holy symbol "strongly" and focuses the power of his god through it. If that interpretation is agreed with, then it would be logical to state that it doesn't seem to make sense to be able to Channel Energy from a position of weakness (prone).

To me, it would be like the priest in "The Exorcist" falling down and then rebuking the Demon to leave the girl. It would seem to me that rather than leave, the demon would be too busy laughing at the weakness of the Priest to actually leave.

Opinions?

Rules As Written

Thanks

There's nothing in RAW other than 'When you are bitten'. So strict RAW, biting a were doesn't do anything. Anymore than biting a vampire makes you a vampire.

If your GM wants to make that a house rule however, it's not as if it isn't something that could make sense. If it's a magically active virus, then you're exposing yourself to it (similar to if you bit someone with HIV, you'd be exposing yourself to HIV in their blood).

Bottom line, there's nothing in RAW, but the GM makes the final call. My suggestion is talk it over with your GM and work with him. Worst case scenario, you need to get a Remove Curse ASAP.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is RAW?

First of all, why would you want that thing in your mouth in the first place?

Second, yeah, as written, you can't contract lycanthropy by being biting a lycanthrope. However, wererats are known to carry Filth Fever, which is a disease you probably could contract by biting the dirty rodent and that takes me back to my first question ^_^

Of course I want to bite him. I am a Feral Mutated Alchemist. Have you seen the bite damage on those guys? Oh, I should also mention that I am enlarged, if the dice land correctly my guy can dish out about 35 points of damage at Level 2 the bulk of which comes from that nasty bite. So yeah, I wanna bite this guy before he gets to bite us.......

I am having a discussion with my GM about this. I am running an Alchemist that has taken his feral mutagen and gained a bite attack. We are in an encounter where we are facing a Wererat. Now, the rules for Lycenthrope specifically state that to infect someone with Lycanthropy, the lycanthrope has to bite his subject. Now, my question is what happens if my character with his bite attack bites the wererat? My GM is saying that I'd get the curse, I am thinking that the transferral of the curse is tied to him damaging me.

Opinions?

I am running into this problem alot as well. I am playing a 2nd level zen archer and have yet to go into a combat that cover didn't play a part. It isn't necessarily our DM's fault either. The rules of the game call for cover if anything obstructs your line of sight to the target. In my opinion, the rules for cover are a little too restrictive. I don't think that party members should provide cover. If they are truly my companions, in my opinion, it makes perfect sense that we would adapt our styles to allow for them to be in front of me but still allow for me to have a line of sight to the target. An example of this would be them standing to the right of their square while I am to the left of mine, which should open up a line for me to fire through. I just feel that allowing party members to offer cover seriously nerfs archery almost to an unusable point.

Crafting while adventuring limits you to 4 hours of work netting a total of 2 good hours of crafting. You might get a GM to bend on that but part of the reason is the conditions are not ideal for crafting.

As to needing rest, it does not say he requires rest or sleep but that he can only make x amount per 24 hours. The issue becomes if right after breakfast the party heads out, and faces a tough opponent requiring the alchemist to expend his extracts and bombs, if the party then rests for 8 hours, the casters all have their spells back but the alchemist doesn't.

I am not so sure things work the way you are suggesting. According to page 218 of the core rulebook, you cannot learn spells to fill slots created by casting spells later in the same day as you have cast them. I am reading that to mean that you cannot regain spells every 8 hours as you are suggesting, but that you can only your "number of spells per day" per 24 hours........