Maezer's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 1,188 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 9 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
quindraco wrote:
NPC EAC/KAC roughly correlates with 10+3L/4, which is non-Soldier/Solarian BAB, so players get an edge while leveling provided they invest in things like stat buffs for their accuracy stat, etc.

I think this logic is flawed.

A CR 1 combatant has EAC 11; KAC 13.
A CR 20 combatant has EAC 35; KAC 37
A CR 25 combatant has EAC 42; KAC 44

I would use approximate enemy EAC as 10 + 1.6*L; And KAC as 12 + 1.6*L.

To maintain the same average accuracy from 1 to 20. A soldier needs to increase his to hit bonus by 24. He gets 19 BAB, 2 to 4 (depending on starting stat) from attribute level increases, 3 from a item based enhancements. Which means average hit rate should stay about the same from level 1 to 20 if you're a an optimized full BAB class.

It is slightly worse for explosive weapons though. The average combatants reflex save increased by 18 over 19 levels. And save target DC only increases by 10+Stat mod change or 15 if fully optimized. So no matter what you do, the chance your opponent will save for half damage increases over time.

A core belief in Starfinder seems to be every character will absolutely maximizes anything he does, if he doesn't he can expect to get progressively worse at it as he levels up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Name Violation wrote:
Weapon specialization exists for drones. They can take it, and don't get it free

Not true. Drones get weapon specialization for free at level 3 like everyone else. Weapon specialization exists as a feat, so the authors didn't have to reprint the weapon specialization text for every class they printed. And maybe a bit of future proofing.

Starfinder Core Rulebook wrote:


Your drone is proficient in your choice of small arms or basic
melee weapons, and it gains specialization in that weapon type
once you reach 3rd level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The math for when to use Deadly Aim was broken down in the 6th post. There certainly are circumstances when B*(N-1) > 2D is true and using Deadly Aim is the correct option.

In Knight Magenta example, assuming a Bonus Damage of 3 from Deadly Aim and hitting KAC on 10+ w/o using Deadly Aim, using the reaction cannon You have:

3*(11-1) > 2 * (18-5)
30 > 26

So in that situation using Deadly Aim would be correct. But is increasing your average damage per round from 7.4 to 7.45 actually worth a feat? Compare it to weapon focus, which is beneficial much more often. Weapon Focus would change your dpr to 8.05 w/o Deadly Aim, or 8.25 with Deadly Aim.

I'd recommend ranged combatants take Far Shot before Deadly Aim... I think they'll get more use out of it and when it works it will provide a larger benefit when it does work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

At first level I find myself leaning toward the pike or starknife. Having a starknife for ranged combat is probably worth it, particularly if your strength is significantly higher than your dex. The pike has the advantage of reach.

After that though, for a campaign I fully expect melee soldiers to just pick up the biggest damaging weapons they find and use that primarily. With a backup of some other element/damage type.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Its probably most useful with explosive weaponry (targeting a non scaling AC of 5.) Granted it reduces the DC to save for half damage but I think if that'd your primary form of attack it might be worth it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

An 8th level spell gem does 9d6 damage for 1400.
An 8th level grenade does 4d6 damage for 2560.

Load it into a spell throwing weapon and its vastly more damage to credit ratio.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd look for lizardmen or dragonkin. I kind of like the look of these. One has the parallel bone ridges.

http://otherworldminiatures.co.uk/shop/wilderness-encounters/we5b-lizardman -warriors-ii-2/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It should be consistent. Since spells targeting living creatures specially don't work on constructs. If you don't think mending would work, then mystic cure shouldn't work either.

I would really lean toward only using the android takes the worse effect to when there are different effects actually listed. Not total immunity to any good. And susceptibility to anything bad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Really? Think 1d4 healing every day would make them too strong. Half a healing serum?

What do you think of vesk getting 6 hp to start with?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly I like it. Most modern rifles/sub machine guns generally empty their clips in under 6 seconds. As Starfinder hasn't dramatically increased ammo capacities so shooting yourself dry as a full action seems legit.

In game mechanics is it worth it? Quite possibly. In terms of action efficiency its pretty good any time you have 3+ targets (Assuming your full attack is 2 attacks with a -4 penalty).

In 2 rounds you could have 4 shots all at -4. Or you could full auto 3 shots, reload and fire again all without penalty getting in the same 4 shots without the -4 penalty and more of that damage is front loaded into round 1.

The is the cost of ammunition to consider. It might be wise to only half or quarter fill clips for some of the heavier weapons. But overall I don't mind Starfinder's approximation of automatic fire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TyrodBoshi wrote:

Can anyone get definite info on if you can actually use rapid reload and rapid shot together using a heavy crossbow?

To use rapid shot with a heavy crossbow, you need to get the reload time down to a free action (probably Crossbow Mastery). Rapid Reload by itself does not achieve this as it only makes it a move action to reload a heavy crossbow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

He wont never miss. He'll miss 5% of the time at a minimum. But even if he did never miss would it hurt your game? How much damage is he doing a round assuming he never misses? How does that compare to other players?

I don't think a summoner using a gun will be game breaking. Maybe more effective than a crossbow... but unless he invest an awful lot into it shooting the gun (even if he hits nearly all the time) wont be a very effective use of his actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Anger Nogar wrote:

but my problem with the high stat requirements is that crossbows and firearms were pretty easy for your average Joe to use and it was part of their appeal.

Some options:

1st change. Make them simple weapons rather than exotic. This makes them much easier for average Joe to wield effectively. Which is effectively a +4 to hit (in addition to being a touch attack at close range) for anyone not automatically proficient with firearms.

2nd change, give guns free vital strike feats at BAB 6/11/16. So the damage isn't totally irrelevant.

3rd change, give guns a dex (or maybe int) to damage cost modifier akin to a mighty bows strength for an extra 100gp per point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Askdal Aleheart wrote:


Doesn't that mean, essentially, he has seen a lot of people "Doing it Wrong"?

He might have meant silver weapon blanch. Which is slightly cheaper, has no drawbacks, and is sourced from the same book as the blunt arrow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My theory:

1st, 3.x carryover. 3.x didn't allow templates because you became that actual creature with stats. Since a lot of template add raw stats without a HD increase it would have dramatically upgraded polymorph power levels (which were very high anyhow).

2nd, Stupidity of templates. There is no limit to the number of templates you can apply to a creature as CR has no relevance with regard to polymorph. While you put forth marginally realistic templates as examples. You could just as easily had an Abomination, acid creature, aggregate, alacritous, alchemically invisible, amphibious, angelic vessel, arboreal, artic....(continue on) bear . So that your templates creature has only minimal resemblance of the baseline creature which isn't really the ideal of what they wanted for the polymorph spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:


The devs intentionally release errata this way so it coincides with a second printing, which I assume is because of workflow reasons and such. I suspect a lot of these corrections are things that they realized within a year of printing, not something they decided on a lark last month.

Yes I know its their policy. I get that they don't like to publish rule books that are out of date and with incorrect information mere hours after they send them to the printers. I still think its a terrible policy.

If its so broken it warrants the magnitudes of changes brought forth in the errata, then its worth the effort to publish that fact (via FAQ or whatever) when you reach that decision. Waiting years to tell anyone, letting customers invest hundreds to thousands of hours into it, so that you might push a extra copies of your new printing is not a good policy in my opinion.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:


I loved many of those items.
I also understood they were broken.

I tentatively agree. If these changes had come out 90 days after ultimate equipment was release I'd probably be fine saying the nerfs were gross overkill but yes the items were too good as written. But I have a really hard time swallowing the fact that it took them nearly 4 years to realize these items were broken enough to warrant a change.

I despise Paizo policy of ignoring balancing until the arbitrary point in time that they decide reprinting is necessary. If the item needs a change, change it. Don't let everyone assume its fine for YEARS then spring the change on them unless you can point to something recent that changed that made them go from being acceptable to unacceptable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


Min/max =/= optimized

Min/max focuses on a single character aspect and sacrifices everything else in order to max it out.

Optimization focuses on making the character better overall, and this includes being well rounded and having at least decent defenses against both physical and magical attacks.

Lol. This debate is so pointless. As we are arguing semantics. And the line between acceptable and annoying behavior is personal and going to vary widely from table to table. But I would define those terms very differently.

I see Min/Max as putting the minimum investment to get the maximum return.

I see Optimization as making improvements in order to be the best possible at doing whatever task you are optimizing for.

In character terms I see the min/max character being more balanced. He defines goals and invests the minimum possible to achieve that goal so he has the more resources to invest in the rest of his character.

The optimizer says I want to be absolute best at doing X task. He says things like... I want to be the strongest; or I want to be the fastest; or I want have the biggest damage per hit/round. And if something isn't improving your ability to do task X, then investing in it is optimizing for it.

And of course this ignores the person I least want to see at the table. The I don't want to be a Min/Max, Optimizing, munchkin... so I make all my choices totally at random without any rhyme or reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They still act like the caster is their friend and probably try to justify or defend the casters actions offering up whatever random excuses or explanations he can come up with.

Just dispel it, or wait it out. Convincing the target that he was charmed doesn't diminish its effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Globetrotter wrote:


That should give him total cover, right?

By RAW. A prone character and a standing character occupy the exact same space(s) and have identical amounts cover. He would of course get the bonus/penalty to AC against ranged/melee attacks for being prone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If +1-3 to hit/damage/skills/saves (and more if you are a barbarian) is a 'minor' boost. How do you classify the standard +1 enhancement bonus +1? Because that and +1d6 elemental damage the what I see as the 'normal' (ie more than minor) +1 equivalent benchmark.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cavall wrote:

I'll still add it as a total bonus. The difference is minimal and a +1 or 2 bonus for something that happens occasionally in exchange for a +1 bonus all the time is more than fair.

Its not in exchange for anything. It stacked with everything which is one of the reasons it was quite good. You can still take your enhancement bonus to +5 and could add this property on top.

And lets not pretend like keeping good hope, heroism, or a karyukai tea set, up for the vast majority of combats is all that difficult. I think the property would have been quite good if didn't scale (just increased morale bonus by 1) and was priced as a +2 bonus, with scaling its probably more in line with a +3 bonus.

That said, after this FAQ courageous will be yet another magic enhancement effect that isn't worth the paper it printed on which I find to be a disappointment. It probably isn't worth 1,000 much less the minimum of 6,000gp that a +1 equivalent bonus costs. But it does put it right next the value of the majority of weapon enhancements that no one ever selects if given a choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Fox wrote:


Can you link to that FAQ, please? I can't find it.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qw9


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Bleed has no attack roll, it is a condition that takes effect at the start of the afflicted creature's turn not when the condition is applied, so it cannot crit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DarkPhoenixx wrote:
Does brace work if enemy is charging another character? Or only the user of the "brace"?

Brace only cares that the person you are attacking is charging not what they are charging.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It really depends on what kind of fights your GM throws at you. If you can stand your ground and force enemies to come to you the majority of the time then buffing isn't that bad.

But I don't find that's usually the case. When you have to move to your opponent pounce (and mounted (flying) full attacks are so much easier to get off its not really a fair comparison) is going to start you out 3 or 4 attacks ahead and the buff is never going to catch up on those missed attacks before the combat ends.

And don't delude yourself that you'll buff your companions on anything but the most rare time. With a duration of 1 round, its almost never going to be a very attractive use of your standard action.

-----

Instead of Boots of the Battle Herald, you might consider Karyukai tea set instead (AP#53). Its effective 12 hours of greater heroism + hero's feast for 6 people (the party) for 38,160gp assuming someone can make a dc 26 diplomacy check which should be very easy by 14th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would treat it as it does what it says it does until an errata is fortcoming. I very much doubt heroism was a typo as its been around for an awfully long time. I would guess the mythic version gaining damage was a mistake, but I doubt they ever officially change it as its not really game breaking and the text itself is fairly clear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Opuk0 wrote:
So it only counts as +3 for the purposes of the +10 total bonus limit?

No. It only counts as +3 if you are trying to randomly generate a +3 property on a weapon. For all other purposes its just a flat +10,000gp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Its position on the table is purely for random creation properties. Its cost is on +10,000 as you can read in its entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It functions the same way as any other weapon upgrade.

Take the cost of the final weapon: +1 redeemed quarterstaff would be 32,300gp.

Subtract the value of the item you are upgrading: +1 unholy quarterstaff 18,300gp.

You pay the difference. 14,000gp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The price of iron is irrelevant. The material to create a product, whether via fabricate or via mundane crafting is 1/3 the finished price of product.

You attempt to be less cheesy fails. Asking for an instant profit of 32,721gp for what an NPC would change 450gp+material compent cost. You ask how many 9th level wizards there are in the world?

Answer: Most large towns (population 2,000-5,000) have 5th level spell casting services available. Otherwise read as, anywhere that would want to buy 66,000gp worth of chain probably has them available.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In general, when using dimensional travel and arriving in solid object (ala Dimension Door, Blink) you a shunted to an available free space and take a minor amount of damage. I think this would qualify as a reasonable expectation as to what would occur, though I fully expect significant variance from GM to GM.


33 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Please tell me how you can do anything and have it not be offensive to someone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Some Random Dood wrote:

I'd say prone shooter is still better than crane riposte.

Prone shooter got a healthy buff. Its should now sit comfortably in the feats no one takes pile with oh so many other feats. Rather than in the feat people laugh at as the worst feat ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I do want to say. I despise the fact they waited 2.5 years to make this change the various other changes. That's an awfully long time for people to settle in and accept things as they are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Your stats alone will not dominate the party. A well built/played character can dominate, but this largely depends on how well built/played the surrounding characters are compared to yours rather than you initial stats.

Stats might give you head start, but the rest of character devolpment will have a far larger effect on your ability to dominate or fit in.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Knowing a 1 is a failure, and knowing the results are different things.

If you roll a 1 on a reflex save what happened? Did you take 10 damage, or 1,000. Did you just fall prone or were you teleported to the bottom of the ocean?

Its the results not the failure or success of a save that the GM is suppose to keep hidden, far more than number of the die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Proley wrote:

I prefer rolling, Point Buy is a min-maxers favourite, so if you want less cheese, go with rolling.

I find this to be largely untrue. MinMaxer are very likely to have the numbers arranged from highest to lowest in the same positions regardless if they point buy or roll. In which case they are min/maxing just as much investing as little as possible in one area, and as much as possible in another.

Or if you meant organic rolling where you roll once for each stat, that's pretty character destroying. As its not a lot of fun to play a wizard with low intelligence, or cleric with low wisdom so what you roll for your stats largely dictates what you play.

Not to mention the discontent of players who roll poorly in comparison to their neighbors. By and large I find point buy or preset arrays to generate happier players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:


That image had a charge that was not the closest (it had two diagonals when one would suffice), so it was very convincing. Until I noticed it came from a thread that was about how to use Ride-By-Attack. That feat requires you continue movement after making the charge in a straight line.

And the statement: "That applies to all charge attacks. That's the normal rule for charge." SKR made here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b9?Mounts-with-attacks-and-the-RideByAttack- Feat#39

In response to the idea that he might have only been referring to ride by attacks still left doubt. I am not real fond of the fact there isn't a really good searchable compilation of Dev Message Board unofficial psuedo FAQ posts. But use your Googlefu, the knowledge is out there if you care to look.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thorkull wrote:


That's not what SKR said. What he said was that it doesn't have to follow the grid (i.e., it doesn't have to be an orthagonal or diagonal charge, it can be a 30-degree charge).

Yeah it is what he said. Here's the thread, he makes several posts in the thread try to read it if interested in the subject, its worthwhile:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b9?Mounts-with-attacks-and-the-RideByAttack- Feat#30

And here is a link to some of the pretty pictures he made.

http://s248.photobucket.com/user/seankreynolds/media/angled-charges.jpg.htm l

I am pretty sure with some digging I can come up with posts made by others Devs to the same effect. But believe what you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wow. I almost feel guilty valet looks so good to me.

Cooperative Crafting nearly doubles the amount you can craft per day. It of course varies wildly from campaign to campaign and GM to GM, but if the campaign has any kind of timetable at all (ie isn't Kingmaker) you will reach the point where you can't craft your (or more likely the entire parties) gold into magic items before you are forced to move out.

No I am never one to downplay a bonus to perception, but losing alertness just doesn't measure up with the above. In fact if all I got was the Cooperative Crafting feat, I'd gladly give up every it replaces as the rest is just gravy.

Prestidigitation 1/hr probably just a fun ability but its fun and doesn't replace anything.

Teammate. Really good too. If you take lookout, this will probably get you several a few extra surprise round actions. Or Shake it Off is one of the best save boosting feats in the game. And your familiar is almost always in position. This is great too. (And more advantages if you talk other party members into it). oh and it replaces nothing again.

Deliver touch spell: holy cow, this is 5 star too. (Let me tell you healers should consider getting a familiar via eldrich heritage/arcane bond for this as it dramatically increases the ability to distribute buffs/heals/removal affects around the party.) It means your familiar can likely get in an out for 1 AoO, rather than suicide eating a full round attack. And again it cost nothing.

Deliver aid, probably wont get as much use as the above. But maybe it can help disarm a trap and get out of the danger zone before the explosion. It replace speak with animals of its kind. Really. How many times after level 7, are you getting a vital clue out of being able to speak with rats, ravens, etc. Its incredibly narrow and so negligible of a loss in most campaigns I don't think its worth these sentences.

Aide to All. Okay. Maybe this could in theory be a loss. I am not a fan of the scry, teleport, slaughter, leave attack style. That said getting the invisibile, tiny, familiar is valid way of setting this up and if this is something you expect to do regular then you might not consider the valet a trade up.

-other archetypes-

Infiltrator archetypes. I mentioned the one thing the Valet marginally gives up is the scry/teleport/slaughter. These both fill that nitche rather well. If you want to use your familiar as a (sacrifial) recon units well this is pretty much a solid improvement in that role over the the standard familiar.

Pilferer. Comic relief. Honestly this is the role familiars used to take in my campaigns if they were of note. Monkey/Raven harassment has lead to lots of laughs at my tables. And this just gives them a few more tools to play a few more jokes. When I look hard, I don't think they are worth it from a mechanical stand point, but I can certainly see it from a fun makes the game more interesting point of view.

Honestly I like them all. And will probably never run a non-archetyped familiar again in my life. The Valet archetype is probably over the top good (but I think crafting is over the top good) but they are all very usable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They put a sticker in the door telling customers they numerous retired adventurers (prior happy customers) on retainer to reclaime stolen property and render thieves unresserectable. If interested in becoming a retainor please consult with the clerk behind the desk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Psyren wrote:


1) Their example uses guns, which are specifically the slowest ranged attack out there. That's not "any ranged combat build" by any stretch of the imagination.

2) Their "recommendation" was explicitly a "suggestion." This board has a habit of throwing the spirit of the rules out to adhere to their letter and this is just another expression of that.

1a) The examples use: speaking, dropping prone, dropping weapon/shield, creasing to concentrate, dismount (w/ ride check), and reloading a firearm (w/ appropriate feats and equipment). That's a fairly diverse list of free actions that doesn't appear to be focused on firearms in particular.

1b) Firearms have the same reload speeds as crossbows in game mechanic terms. So I don't find firearms to be the slowest ranged attack. Rather they are inferior to bows, which are ONLY ranged weapon the functions without additional game mechanic support (quickdraw, rapid reload, warslinger etc) for character with multiple attacks.

2) If someone makes a suggestion you think is terrible, is it bad to tell the person you think its terrible? My suggestion is that people entirely ignore this FAQ entry, because its bad for the game to set a hard cap on reasonable free actions.

If you edit the FAQ, and ignore the examples and reasonable guidelines then its fine. But as it stands, I see very few people defending the idea of taking away reloads(or any of the other examples of free actions) if a character should use an unrelated free action such as speaking.

I am not really opposed to killing off the gunslinger class or firearms. I think it was a really novel way that Paizo presented them. But if they aren't working out as expected, and the feeling is they are bad for the game, then kill them off. Pass them off like piecemeal armor or words of power, as idea or concepts but not worth including in future book/products. Attacking them through use of free actions disrupts a lot of other parts of the game that I do not feel are problematic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If not a single person is going follow the guideline given in response to the FAQ its not a good guideline.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's not intended to limit bows or crossbows, but there has been some abuse in certain firearms combos, and (because there's "no limit" to how many free actions you can take in a round) some GMs feel they aren't empowered to set limits on how many crazy gun-related actions they can take in a round.

If this is the case I think the wording of FAQ is extremely poorly written. The FAQ appears to me to target free actions across the board, from speech to firearms. I see nothing in the FAQ that would lead me to believe other ammunition using devices or other attack patterns using repetitive free actions (like thrown weapons) would not be included.

I find this to be an terrible suggestion to how Pathfinder should be played. And if a GM told me he was enforcing this FAQ any where near as written I would decline to play any ranged martial character.

I despise the double barrel gun mechanic and weapon cords but I find this FAQ a disaster in the making even if it is an attempt to fix items I perceive as problems with the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yes a raging barbarian can use Arcane Strike.

Concentration is a game term for maintaining a spell. So you can't maintain a silent image while raging.

Patience, is less well defined. My definition is anything that requires more than 1 round of action. ie you can't treat a disease with a heal check. Using sense motive to discern secret messages while raging probably wouldn't fly with me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

People can't intentionally end there movement in an illegal square, so that's probably a no to intentionally squeezing.

Its functionally a 15' radius sphere effect. If everyone is one the same ground level, its 24 max targets. Though if everyone could fly in sphere formation its its up to 80 medium sized targets in a 15' radius.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vincent The Dark wrote:
I am kind of guessing what you guys would say, but can a monk/magus combine Flurry of Blows with Spell Combat. I am thinking two attacks with the same weapon from the flurry and a spell from the spell combat. Doable or not?

They are both different full round actions and thus, you can't do both at once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Incorporeal can be frustrating. Especially based on how GMs occasionally run them. Note if in an object they can only detect adjacent squares. And they can't move through an object larger than them. Also the unnatural aura might have told you something was up if you brought an animal within 30'. Detect evil might have been warranted as well depending on the environment.

Death ward makes you immune to energy drain. So if you got a death ward on the target before he died, then he should have survived unless the 1d8 damage killed him.

That said I don't think 52 HP (or 104 effecitve) is overmuch. And 2 levels per attack, means it took 5 standard actions to kill something. How many things do you target with 5 of your parties standard/full action survive?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Covert it all to diamond dust so its more useful and doesn't have a weight. Trade/Goods gems trade at full value so there really is no reason to carry coinage. Dust can be broken down to gold piece increments so its perfect for making change. Really the only reason to use coins is to advertise your support for whomever has there image stamped upon the disc.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>