Manly-man teapot's page

The confirmation roll is an attack roll. Obscure fact: "attack roll" is a defined term, meaning the sum of your die roll and your attack bonus. Therefore, "use die roll, add completely different bonus" is not supported by the text.

Draconic Defender does work by RAW I will concede that, but it is obviously against the intent of the feat.

Doesn't work by RAW either, because you don't count as your own ally if that wouldn't make sense in the context. That's official rules.

"Should I take levels of Core Rogue?". You already know the answer to that.

The recent ill-considered ban on swift actions made Nauseated a lot more powerful.

It's been a while since I sat down at a Society game, and I'm out of touch with rules changes. The ranger archetypes Skirmisher and Trophy Hunter... are they allowed? I want to say they are, but would prefer someone with more current knowledge than myself confirming it.

Thanks!

Trophy hunter, IIRC, is the gun archetype for ranger. Most gun archetypes are not allowed, for some odd reason.

The correct tool is the additional resources list, as you know. The easy tool is archives of nethys, search for X, filter society-legal only.

To sum up, there are AFAICT three different things being discussed in this thread.

1: Can half-elves take elf AFCB? Answer: yes.

2: Can halv-elves use Multitalented to take AFCB? Also yes.

3: Can you take AFCB using your character level instead of relevant class level? Of course not. It's on the same page of the rulebook that says you can't take actions while dead.

What decides when fluff is meaningful to the rules? Your say so? You cant pick and choose to follow it when you feel like. It is either meaningful or it isn't. If it is meaningful, the game breaks and cant be played, or it isn't meaningful, and thus everything works fine.

Excluded middle fallacy.

Here's a third possible, but not exclusive, position: "Fluff doesn't contradict rules, but informs judgment calls in corner cases, and can create details that fall below the resolution of the rules text."

Manly-man teapot wrote:

So, Calth, having failed to produce the rule you were challenged to point out, are you willing to concede that "what material is a weapon made of" is up to a common-sense judgment call?

Uh, no. I showed you where to find what material a weapon is made up of. If you cant read the equipment rules, that's not my fault.

No, you showed me the hardness and hit points. All we know about a longsword is that it's a "blade" (and how do we even know that?), and because of that, it has a hardness of 10. From there on, you extrapolate to assume that it must be made of iron or steel, because iron or steel also has a hardness of 10. Not only are you committing a basic logic fallacy, you're also using a method that tells us that muskets are made out of wood.

Confusing the issue, some of the variant channels don't make much sense. The Undeath variant does literally nothing.

Manufactured weapons are defined to be made of a given material, natural weapons are not. So a natural weapon is not a metal weapon, unless an ability alters that, and neither angelic flesh or metallic wings change that. Fluff is fluff, and is not rules text, and is often contradictory to the actual rules.

Are they now? Please show me that definition. In fact, please tell me what a longsword is made of and how you know.

30 years of history, including f@#*ing plenty of paizo-published modules, have characters casting spells like Suggestion stealthily.

If there's any justice in the world, the "arcane spellcaster level" line will be changed to read "level in a class granting a familiar" or something along those lines.

Especially since that was what it meant when it was written in the 3.5 PHB.

If you can ready an attack, have the enemy move up to you, attack and step away, leaving them swinging their dick in the air because you reacted to "end of the move action", the game becomes very silly.

Starting with a Water Naga, I assume a Sahuagin torso on a naga snake body? Start with the water naga stat block, add claw attacks, blood frenzy and shark telepathy from the sahuagin. Reduce the damage of the bite attack to 1d6 and lose the poison. The full attack is either claw/claw/bite/secondary tail, or armed attack + secondary bite, secondary tail.

Then add either actual sorcerer class levels, or HD of aberration that progresses sorcerer casting, depending on your vision of the creature.

CR is 7 + the added levels/HD. Slightly lowballed, but the natural attacks are not that important to a level 12+ sorcerer.

Just wanting to point out the difference between a trained animal and an animal companion, as I have heard them used interchangeably in this tread and they are not.

"This is Leo the Leopard, my animal companion". How are you going to check whether that's true or Leo is just a trained animal?

For the Inquisitor that takes the Conversion Inquisition:

I don't see a duration if the enemy fails, or any limitation other than what can be hinted at other than what I stated before. I could see this being a game over for any humanoid villain that the party encounters unless declares it fails by GM fiat.

I'm just not sure how far this extends. Would the target become a cohort? Wouldn't this create a huge amount of plot/character issues for the target? As worded, it looks very much like a instant and permanent 'underling' spell.

You have GOT to be trolling me.

Galnörag wrote:

Why in a world where the gods channel power into mortals, and mortals with study can wield nearly the power of the gods, and horrors beyond mention roam the wilds, would a well behaved bear upset the guards?

Why in a world of nukes, machine guns, tanks, and jets would you not be allowed to take a lion into a kindergarten?

You are making the wrong comparison. You, personally, didn't park you armed VTOL jet in the street. I, personally, am not known to have plenty of (and be willing to solve disputes with) nuclear weapons. Therefore, you and I are not allowed to bring our pet lions into the kindergarten.

Halfling Juggler. Rogue (Makeshift Scrapper) 1. High Dex, good Cha. Feats: Skill Focus (Bluff). Traits: Clumsy Slave, Surprise Weapon. Skills: Bluff (9+cha), Sleight of Hand (for juggling).

Schtick: Be nothing but a harmless entertainer. Throw improvised saps for 1d4+1d6 (SA), then bluff people into believing it was an accident, so you can do it again.

You make some s#%# up, since you're already arbitrarily f*~*ing their character.

A fight CR= APL should use like 25% of their daily resources.

....but is usually a walk in the park.

I wasn't talking about the moral or ethical decision to use it on a 'monster' particularly on a personal level, people poison vermin, insects, etc. by the drove in our world. But if you and I go seeking some highly lethal substance you can bet your last dollar that the powers that be will not generally just fork it over without all sorts of 'red tape' and that avoiding such is going to carry its own repercussions. All I was really aiming at was actions should have consequences and acquiring and manufacturing something of that nature generally provokes a strong response from, as you put it, the folks with swords.

But you and I live in highly structured world where small sums will purchase weapons and substances way, way above what is "level appropriate" for us.

Manly-man teapot wrote:

Man what.

Once you've decided to kill someone, that's the end of your moral considerations. There's no moral high ground to killing someone with a sword versus killing them with a vial of poison.

Uhh, that is considered extremely false by people, organizations, and cultures across the world and throughout history.

Most of whom had swords, and had their meals served to them by people who didn't have swords.

But no-one in history has ever dealt with the situation we're discussing. I recognize the moral and ethical difference between looking a man in the eye as you put your sword where your mouth is and risk your life to kill him, and you feel his death in your muscles; versus making a decision in private that leads to his death later. I also recognize the difference between a rifle and poison gas. But neither of those distinctions are relevant to the fight being discussed.

Never mind campaign issues (which may or may not exist) concerning the moral and ethical considerations of manufacturing and using such deadly substances. I highly suggest such do exist and consequences for ignoring them as well.

Man what.

Once you've decided to kill someone, that's the end of your moral considerations. There's no moral high ground to killing someone with a sword versus killing them with a vial of poison.

Seems to be the only weapon like this, the Morningstar deals both Bludgeoning and Piercing damage.

How does this interact with the rules? I can't seem to find the particular page, but I recall someone saying it affects DR in a certain way that makes it disadvantageous to deal two types at once. Can't seem to find this directly covered in my rulebook, though it's probably somewhere and I just can't find it.

Weapon qualities, p. 144.

It's clearly a GM issue, not a paladin issue. The GM, for some reason, won't let abilities of any kind work if he can help it.

If you're not going to solve the problem, you can go into an arms race with your b#%*~@*@ cheater GM. That means no abilities that provide saves (which NPCs will never fail), or anything else dependent on the enemy.

For Paladins specifically, the Stonelord and Iroran Paladins replace Smite Evil with alignment-independent abilities. So does the Tranquil Guardian, but that allows a save.

Time to get a new GM.

Yeah, no archetype or house rule is going to solve your problem.

I would go with a single caster-class that provides both *flavors* of spells, despite being all arcane or all divine. A Shaman, being a divine caster, can cast a nice chunk of arcane-flavored spells.

Well, there's the option of just straight playing it. CR 3 means 3 levels, and you get your +4/+4/+2/+2/+0/-2 stat modifiers with your first class level. Halfway to level 6 (total, when you would be halfway to class level 3), you level up as your level modifier goes from 3 to 2, but it doesn't fall any further. Play Unchained Rogue and go on a nice murder spree. Seems a bit high-powered, though. Note that your fire breath and fear gaze don't level up.

Race builder, hm...
Fey (2)
Low-light Vision (0)
Small (0)
Frightening Gaze, hmmm....Frightful Gaze is 6 RP and much, much better, but then again it's also pretty undercosted. 4 points for Frightening Gaze.
Magic, it's 5 RP for the Passwall ability, and the others look similar to Enclave Protector at 2 points (Non-detection is better than Pass Without Trace, call it about even).
Vault is a pretty nifty ability. I'd put it at 4 or 6 points, because the ability to evade AoO is very, very useful. Going with 4 after checking the other 6 RP abilities.

So far, it's 17 RP, and we still don't have ability scores, stealth bonus, sneak attack or fire breath. Take Camouflage for +4 Stealth (Urban) (1 rp), spend 2 RP on ability scores, and forget the breath weapon and sneak attack, you're at 20 RP and should pay one level for that until the party is level 6.

Manly-man teapot wrote:

Offer them good Reflex and Will saves in return. It's a good deal, it powers-up a weak character, and it doesn't skew expectations by letting them crawl really far ahead in a feat tree.

Cool. Would you give them the feats Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes? Or just a non-specific bonus to those 2 saves?

TBH, I would probably let them use the good save progression: +2 at level 1, +½ per level, instead of the bad save progression (+1/3) from the table. It's a straight power-up, and that's deliberate. If you want to be more Rules-as-written-y, giving them Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes at least opens up later feats in those chains.

I'd welcome a conversion book/table that would handle:

- Unchained versions of Chained Monk archetypes
- Unchained versions for rogue talents in softcovers
- Unchained versions for rage powers in softcovers

I'm not really read into the summoner, but I'm sure something similar applies.

I'd buy that. Especially if it also has archetypes for a better Unchained Summoner (the casting nerf was long overdue but the Unchained Eidolon just shat the bed without actually fixing anything).

Given that the trait explicitly spells out uses that are not covered, I'd interpret it to cover those uses that are not excluded.

It's an immediate action, which means you use it on someone else's turn, and it consumes your swift action on your next turn.

It provides a bonus on one roll only.

Your distinctions are completely arbitrary. Spells known or bonus combat feats are not valid, but Rogue and Investigator Talents, usually considered worth less than a feat each, are ok?

2) does it pass it's save throw?
The spell does not allow a save throw. (this step still applies mechanically).

3) Spell resistance has been passed, and the save has failed (automatically). the effects of the spell apply.

No, this question is the result of a group of engineers who play D&D.

We dissect every spells wording and how it applies mechanically.

Then you're the kind of engineers who ban electrical cars for not having particle filters in the emission. You have saving throws ass-backwards and your methodology is sloppy as hell. Seriously, what kind of liberal arts major equates "n/a" to "failed"?

It doesn't get any spells. Nor do any of the other VMCs.

DominusMegadeus wrote:

How can you have 15 years of RPG experience and not even look at the PF Bard before dismissing it?

Perhaps because in said 15 years I've never owned or purchased a Pathfinder book so I'm going off my AD&D knowledge...

How can any human make assumptions, never verify they are correct, and get accusatory given their own imaginations?

Do you honestly think that you are the reasonable party in this disagreement, Adrian?

Ghostbusters was never a kid's movie about busting ghosts in the first place. That's like saying 28 Days Later was about zombies.