Marroar Gellantara's page

Snowblind wrote:

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

You can be very versatile with a fighter or a rogue if you give them a chance.

Based on what standard?

Here is a fighter at various levels

That's the most "versatile" fighter I can make, and I still rate it as not nearly good enough.

He thinks an 18 starting strength is "cheesed out". Whatever standard he uses, it probably isn't very high.

For a first level guy using standard point buy method? I do think that is cheesing your guy out. You could make a balanced fighter and start with a 16 strength and not have to rely upon dump stats. Instead most people complain that their fighters don't get enough skill points but start with an 8 to 10 intelligence. *sigh*

The fighter I linked ends up with 10 effective skill ranks per level 16 int and started with 18 strength all in a standard point buy.

10 int is not dumping. Dumping is 7 int.

You can be very versatile with a fighter or a rogue if you give them a chance.

Based on what standard?

Here is a fighter at various levels

That's the most "versatile" fighter I can make, and I still rate it as not nearly good enough.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

There has been at least 3 topics that I found on Google that ask about how Underhanded is supposed to work. The consensus is that it's literally useless unless you take quick draw and are a Bandit.

always threatening trait, lookout feat, and a cohort at level 7... this way I don't think you need Bandit... right?

Why did you necro this thread now that rogues don't suck anymore?

When did rogues stop sucking?

Urogue helped, but the class is still kind of garbage. No longer an expert in most fights, but still kind of terra-bad. "Oh let's be good out of combat where casters dominate the narrative and then have substandard combat ability, which combat is the only reason the casters tolerate us mundanes getting a share of the loot"

Look, if your GM is OK with good characters working against many good characters and ALL good deities for some morally neutral notion, then more power to you.

In my campaigns you would have to be very careful to actually maintain that good alignment, because I don't see anti-theism as a just motivator of any-sort in the PF universe (and unlike people in this thread, I'm not going to shoehorn what my exact opinion on this is in our universe at every possible opportunity because that is completely tangential). Merely telling people to give to the poor does nothing to counter demons. It's presumptuous to assume that your code of ethics would be as easy of a divine source for NPCs as actual gods.

By the way...

The fact that you cannot see how someone could oppose something without hurting, oppressing, or killing is again, very exemplary of the destructive mindset I was speaking of earlier.

Weaken those who fight evil.

Evil kills, hurts, and oppresses more often.

Good Religions in PF have clerics, paladins, heal the sick, raise heroes back to life, and stand against the forces of evil. You go around telling people to keep their donations and that they are unneeded weaken these forces for good that actually need support to function. You are personally making the world a worse place with those actions. If you want to anti-theism justly in PF, then you better found and lead a replacement organisation that does the job as good or better.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

idk why someone running around trying to undermine those who protect the multiverse and all that is good would be a good character.

I suppose you think that all characters of the same alignment must likewise always agree, and always agree on the best route to achieving good results? Because that's what it sounds like.

Your character has declared herself the enemy against ALL that prevent demons and devils from overrunning the material plane and destroying all life.

Good characters don't have to agree with each other, but a good character that disagrees with most other good beings and attempts to undermined their good efforts for trivial b+@!@#$#, then that wouldn't make much sense would it?

Your religion = bad theory is objectively not true in PF, so using that as a reason to undermine the efforts of good is evil. Your character does that to evil people too, so I say it balances out.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Being an enemy of good, good people, and good deities would preclude your character from being good in my campaigns.

Wait, people sharing a single alignment axis have to always agree in your campaigns and can never be enemies?

No, but they generally don't despise ALL the deities of their alignment and go out of their way to undermined ALL religions based around their alignment.

When your main motivator, anti-theism, is applied equally regardless of the targets moral impact on the world, then you don't get to claim to be good. Good isn't your motivator, anti-theism is.

If you don't do evil things because of anti-theism (like declare yourself the enemy of the entire host of good aligned outsiders), then you can be good.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Morality is not tied to gods.

Oh yeah it's only their domain. pfffff

If your character went after religions of good deities in one of my campaigns, she couldn't be good. If your character just went around helping people, then she could be good. An anti-theist attitude would put you neutral in my campaigns. Cursing good deities because you blame them for things they weren't responsible for is a fault of your character. Instead of focusing on just evil or reform, she is instead against supporting objectively good entities that control the afterlife of mortals and prevent the forces of evil from overrunning the multiverse. She is free to view herself as good, the divine spells like holy smite may disagree.

And you would be wrong.

Gods are subject to alignment in D&D/Pathfinder. They do not determine it. They may be paragons of an alignment but that's not particularly special. Paladins, for example, need no gods and they are champions of Good itself.

Good in D&D/Pathfinder is Altruism, respecting life, and concern for the dignity of sentient creatures. Evil is hurting, oppressing, and killing. Do more of the former rather than the latter and you are Good. There is no argument to be made otherwise. Criticizing deities and the religions surrounding them and offering alternate options is not evil. There isn't even an argument to be made.

Being an enemy of good, good people, and good deities would preclude your character from being good in my campaigns.

If she isn't as strictly anti-theist as you've alluded her to being then she may get to be good.

idk why someone running around trying to undermine those who protect the multiverse and all that is good would be a good character.

Morality is not tied to gods.

Oh yeah it's only their domain. pfffff

If your character went after religions of good deities in one of my campaigns, she couldn't be good. If your character just went around helping people, then she could be good. An anti-theist attitude would put you neutral in my campaigns. Cursing good deities because you blame them for things they weren't responsible for is a fault of your character. Instead of focusing on just evil or reform, she is instead against supporting objectively good entities that control the afterlife of mortals and prevent the forces of evil from overrunning the multiverse. She is free to view herself as good, the divine spells like holy smite may disagree.

You know maybe I shouldn't complain about stereotypes when the person attacking people because of them is also enforcing a stereotype.

The cleric of atheism should be true neutral. If your character is against both objective physical manifestations of evil, good, law, chaos, and neutrality, then I would think that sticks you in the middle on PF's objective morality scale regardless of the moral weight you would give the concept in the real world.

It's not people assuming my affiliation is evil that disgusts me. It's reading my holy texts and confirming it that's the problem.

Which texts, the ones heavy with idiom or the ones heavy with metaphor? Are these the same text about a deity who didn't write anything down himself?

I get fascinated that a book mainly about life advice is taken with such moral weight. If God said, "Don't stick your hand in fire" you would get people claiming warmth is evil and moving to Canada.

I usually use a dictionary myself. A word that means a lot to me is responsibility. When the title you have taken means something evil to others because those sharing your title have committed atrocities against them, it's your responsibility to either change that by pressing the weights in the other direction through action or find a new title, because do you really want to spread confusion and be a part of those evils over a simple word?

I don't believe it is your responsibility. If people want to assume you are evil over a word then that is their problem. If the assumption of evil bothers you then use a different word.

I personally do not feel morally responsible to preemptively correct the stereotypes about me. I'll correct the stereotype when it comes up, mainly because I always enjoy those conversations. My crossdressing bisexual lifestyle is not what most assume as something that can coincide with religion X. "Oh but they hate you!" Well those people are dying off and the world at large is listening to them less and less.

To tie it back to the topic. This why I think atheist cleric is fine, regardless of how some atheist don't approve of others using that word to mean strong belief and a code of ethics. No one owns a word. People are allowed to use it to mean different things. They aren't wrong. At worst they may be confusing people.

I think it's perfectly rational to assume certain things about people ascribing to a religion that prescribes certain things.

Sadly, it isn't rational to assume that.

Words mean different things to different people.

Now I guess we need to discuss if it's okay for the religion can claim the good actions of the few, while demanding that it cannot be blamed for the evil actions of the "few".

No, the point is not to assume things about PEOPLE.

A religion isn't a single entity with thoughts and beliefs. It's label that is thrown onto people and any connotations associated with it are basically stereotypes. A single entity with thoughts and beliefs that religious people would definitively want to share is a God. To criticize one is to first accept its existence, because if it doesn't exist then it doesn't have thoughts or beliefs to criticize.

No, I would get into a real life or death battle to protect another human being. Is that so hard to understand? Is that so unfathomable? Especially if there are eight others in my group. Eight people can subdue a person a lot easier than the victim can protect themselves.

It's one thing to say you would. It's another to actually do it. It's also entirely different to expect everyone in that position to do the same and judge those who wouldn't.

However, given that I'm just one person and not a particularly wealthy one at that, I've got only my words and actions. I can hope my words work, and I hope my actions live up to them when they don't.

So you can absolve yourself of guilt, but people you've never talked to or have never heard speak about the topic must be in silent agreement?

Google Christian gay shelters and hit the first link

If a member of my group was doing a thing that was hurting someone else, I would do everything I could in my power to stop my friend from hurting them and do everything I could to help them.

Wouldn't that be the expected, rational thing to do?

Calling the police isn't good enough? What are you going to do? Pull out your gun? Stab him? Your ex-friend is in a murder rage. I do not believe you are obligated to get in a life or death battle just to maintain group prestige.

What you are describing is the basis to the concept known as collective punishment. That has never lead to good places. Following your logic, all humans are garbage. You specifically are silently encouraging all religious behavior because you haven't done everything in your power to stop it. Unless a few internet post on a forum dedicated to a miscellaneous game in a niche genre is the extent of your power.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

At the moment, two religions I've read about during my search for reference on the subject, that don't seem to have innately destructive tendencies, include Buddhism and Deism. I'll see if I can expand the list (though the major religions are right out).

My hometown is home to many Chin refugees from oppressive Buddhist governments. They were given the option to convert, die, or flee.

People may be quick to point out that Buddhism itself does not encourage such behavior, but as we all know, the actions of a few define the entire worth of a religion.

An interesting point. Thanks for bringing it up! It reminds me to discuss one of the other reasons I think most religions are probably lots and lots of badwrongfun.

The funny thing is that yes, the actions of a few DO define the entire worth of any religion more often than not, and here's why.

Pretend my religion says many good things and attempts to present itself as a religion of peace and such (like Serenrae). Now I'm a bad egg in that basket. I murder, commit violence, oppress, and hurt others in the name of peace and goodness. If I am a rogue from the norms of my religion, then those who are the norm should stand up and drive me out. But if they don't, and my goddess is still granting me spells, then they are collaborators. They are accepting my behavior or are too cowardly to do anything about it.

Any resemblance to real world religions is both coincidental and yet entirely expected.

EDIT: Put another way, if a you're a group of dudes 10 men strong, and one of your group attacks someone, mugs them, beats them up, and pisses on them, you cannot claim innocence by saying "Oh, we're totally innocent. We just watched our friend deliver an inhuman and degrading beating to a random stranger outside of our group. We didn't actually do it ourselves". Inaction and acceptance of evil isn't an argument that's particularly convincing.

I'm confused. Do you want religious people to force people to worship a certain way or not?

Your edit: You may be obligated to call the police and give honest testimony. You would also be obligated to not call them your friend. (But that doesn't stop them from calling you friend) I would not say that you are obligated to kill your ex-friend or brainwash them into holding the same beliefs you do to prevent misconduct.

At the moment, two religions I've read about during my search for reference on the subject, that don't seem to have innately destructive tendencies, include Buddhism and Deism. I'll see if I can expand the list (though the major religions are right out).

My hometown is home to many Chin refugees from oppressive Buddhist governments. They were given the option to convert, die, or flee.

People may be quick to point out that Buddhism itself does not encourage such behavior, but as we all know, the actions of a few define the entire worth of a religion.

What always irks me when folks go on about the evils of religion is that they almost always exclusively talk about Christianity and maybe Islam while denouncing all religion everywhere. People do realize that those aren't the only two religions in the world, don't they?

If you are going to talk about religion, you might as well talk about the right one.

Just as much fun as seeing religious people keeping up their claim that atheism is "just another religion, so there".

Do people really feel like they have to do that?

They need to try using my system:
1. Do they believe in our Lord and savior Jesus?
2. Are they wrong? != answer to 1.
3. Don't be belligerent about your own rightness. Worst case scenario, more room in heaven for you.
4. Do not be so insecure of your beliefs that you feel like you need to be able to convert people with the reasoning behind your beliefs.

NOTE: System may not work for people who are wrong :P

andreww wrote:

Quote:

This single ability puts a whole new spin on martial caster disparity conversations when using strict RAW.

The only spin I see from doing such a thing is that in order to compete at all with casters a martial character has to become a caster. Nothing about a martial characters class abilities is adding anything to the debate here.

That is pretty much the entire martial/caster debate established right there. To compete with a caster you must become one.

I've been laughing about that for a while now. You are absolutey correct.

DSP psionics seems to address this issue. Both the caster and martial concept are polluted by the other.

The martials without anysort of "spellcasting" still conjure psionic weapons and/or armor with various associated effects that allow them to stay relevant in higher levels. The downside for added utility and diversified defensive capabilities was a dialing back on DPR. Fighters are still better at full attacking than soulknifes and aegi at high levels.

Likewise "casters" get easier access to AC, temp health, DR, blasting, and many other straightforward solutions to problems. The downside is that there is not nearly as many exploits and tricky RAW "spells" for psionics. They are not expected to exploit the system.

When was the last time you saw a high level wizard rain magical destruction down on foes or slam a foe into a wall with his mind?
When was the last time you saw a high level fighter actually get within melee reach of a dragon?

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Eschew Materials wrote:

Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Also, the Quick Draw feat lets you draw a weapon even if you have no free hands or other prehensile limbs! It says, "You can draw a weapon as a free action..." It's granting you the ability to draw weapons even if you would otherwise be physically incapable of drawing weapons! After all, the ability to physically draw weapons is not a prerequisite for this feat, and the feat explicitly grants you that ability! If you have no available hands, you can just telekinetically draw your weapons!

Well, either that or an ability that says, "You can do X without doing Y," is granting you the ability to ignore Y whenever you do X, not also granting you the ability to do X. But that's crazy talk. That argument assumes that the English language grants readers the latitude to consider context and common sense when determining which of two clauses within a sentence is dependent upon the other. And, as we all know, the English language is an infinitely precise computer language, any sentence of which can have only one meaning when parsed, regardless of context.

Huh.

That is a fair point.

I'm still pondering over the exact implications of this. But I want to commend you on forming an actual argument instead of frothing at the mouth going "nuh uh".

EDIT: Someone did point out that this feat does give you an action to cast spells. SO although you can cast spells, you have no action to actually spend casting spells.

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.

5) There's already plenty of RAW ways to break the game. Ones that don't need finding loopholes in mythic rules using convoluted munchkin logic to work. No player would use this "loophole" unless they were intentionally trying to break the game. No GM would allow such an obvious attempt to break the game.

No really?

Of course no one would actually do this. That doesn't make it munchkin logic or any other sort of derogatory name-calling logic.

I am more impressed by the people willing to decrease their literacy for the sole purpose of rejecting a RAW quirk.

While it does say you can cast any arcane spell and thus a fighter could do that you would need to make up a bunch of house rules just to make it work(what is the CL? What sets the DCs? etc)

It's basically just a bad turn of phrase that even an extremely permissive GM would have make a bunch of judgement calls on to have it function.

It's actually pretty simple.

You have no CL and you have no relevant bonus to the DC of spells. Plenty of spells are plenty strong without either of those (because spellcasting is just a tad broken).

Now having an SLA gives you both a CL and scales it off your cha. But that only follows from the nonsense FAQ the devs gave about SLAs. You couldn't actually interpret that from the rules.

I like how people try to change how English works rather than accept a Non-RAI RAW mistake.

Mythics are just packed full of nonsense RAW. GM interpretations are mandatory to run the base game, not to mention mythics.

Well the relevant ability score for fighters is strength.

Therefore DC = 10 + str + spell level!

But if we are being consistent, then the DC for fighter spells would be 10+spell level because they were not listed as having a relevant ability score nor does the fighter class give them one.
If they get a CL through an SLA and the SLA is cha based then the relevant ability score would be cha.

WWWW wrote:

Hmm, this is a neat trick.

Though what would be the attribute for the save DC calculation. I am unaware of where, if anywhere, pathfinder might have listed casting stat DC priority.

That comes from individual class features. At best your DCs are looking at 10+spell level.

Obviously your spells have no DC.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

"As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot."

Oh look it lets you cast a spell!

Without expending a slot. So if you can't cast a spell in the first place, the ability does nothing for you.

That is not how words work.

Glad we're in agreement. It doesn't say it gives the ability to cast spells to people who can't cast spells.

So it doesn't.

Get over it.

"As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot."

Oh look it lets you cast a spell!
Amazing! It is like it says you can do that word for word.

Reading.

No one is forcing you to reply.

No one is forcing you either.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

The ability says you can cast spells.

It says you can spend a point to cast a spell without expending a slot. It doesn't say "you gain the ability to cast a spell". You still need to be able to cast spells in the first place.

I don't see how you could read it that way.

I've noticed.

I have this bad habit of believing that words mean what they do.

Abilities do what they say they do.

Get over it.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

The ability says you can cast spells.

It says you can spend a point to cast a spell without expending a slot. It doesn't say "you gain the ability to cast a spell". You still need to be able to cast spells in the first place.

I don't see how you could read it that way.

To cast a spell, you must have the ability to cast spells. Fighters don't get that ability. You can rule it however you want, that's my ruling.

The ability says you can cast spells.

I wouldn't rule that it works. But it does by RAW.

Mathius wrote:

I wonder how Andreww will rule on this in our fight. If you use it. I can see the minimal level rule going either way.

By the way I agree with you about sno cones.

In a home game I would go with Scythia idea and even if you can crank it all the way to CL 9 or something it is still not a big deal unless you level 3 mt 1 or something. WBL should make that difficult anyway.

He said no.

Of course he did, he has a caster bias.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

The various traits give you a CL for that SLA/those SLAs only. They're explicit in that regard.

False.

SLAs qualify you for magic item crafting feats. But an SLA may be considered spont casting, thus crippling this trick.

Houserules are irrelevant to RAW.

Key word was maybe.

"pell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.

A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature's caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier.

Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

Format: At will—burning hands (DC 13); Location: Spell-Like Abilities."

I don't see anything that gives you slots or spontaneous casting by name.

As long as your SLA is arcane then that is your arcane caster level as per FAQ. Therefore all spells you cast with this mythic ability work off that caster level.

*The main thing here is that that SLA faq was silly

The various traits give you a CL for that SLA/those SLAs only. They're explicit in that regard.

False.

SLAs qualify you for magic item crafting feats. But an SLA may be considered spont casting, thus crippling this trick.

Since you don't have a CL, then most of the spells you can cast will be really weak.

For example you can dimension door farther than you can teleport.

*slow claps*

Can you make an Archer as good as Lars who would also not be able to survive falling out of a plane while drinking gallons of cyanide?

Video

How would I mimic this real person's abilities with PF mechanics?

Mr Feeny wrote:

If your GM allows it, there is a calculator on Android that does a pretty good job of quickly finding solutions to sacred geometry.

Is there a version of this for a plain, ol' Windows PC? :P

Eclispe android emulator.

Mathius wrote:

Does scribe scroll count as crafting feat?

Yes. It's a feat that allows you to craft a kind of magic item, listed with the item creation feats. How could someone possibly think it's not a crafting feat?

Idk perhaps any wizard that does not have 220,000 gold in scrolls.

Trogdar wrote:

Sure, but if leadership is a valid option, then there is no reason for the wizard not to take it as it is obviously the best in slot feat. All of the wizards other minions will come directly from class features, which prevents them from muddying the waters.

But best in slot spells are fine, yeah?

Are those spells really a wizard class feature?

Both sorcerers and arcanist can take them. Some even argue that the shaman can have them.

Just one example Aasimar ages are different in Golarion and APs than in the advance race guide.

PRD and setting specific Pathfinder are very different things.

Cerberus Seven wrote:

I think his point is that Golarion =/= Pathfinder. Inner Sea Gods/Combat/Magic and other such regional specific books, as well as all the adventure paths, offer setting specific options. That's why they're not in the PRD. Same with blood money (from an adventure path) and Sacred Geometry (from a campaign setting book). If you want to compare the system itself, which is setup to run games on worlds other than Golarion, well, that's what the core product line in the PRD is for.

To rephrase the same statement then: Books published by the owner of Pathfinder that say Pathfinder on the cover with the official Pathfinder logo are not Pathfinder?

I... would like to hear that from Marroar Gellantara if that's what his point is.

Did you read sacred geometry?

Pummeling Charge is in the PRD, and so is divine protection and quicken spell rods.

I fail to see your point.

Read this feat again and tell me all "PF material" should be the assumed default standard.

It is also entirely possible for be people to act in different capacities at different times.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Eh this contest is already using non-PRD material as if it is more legitimate than 3rd party or homebrew. It holds no relevance to my games.

It is definately more relevant than PRD. Pathfinder is the game as it exists in totality as published by its creators. That includes all Paizo product lines.

I really think that no leadership and no custom items are a big problem but I'm willing to deal.

The PRD are the rule books written by the rule devs. The other material is written by creative devs.

The PRD is Pathfinder, while the other material is just pathfinder in golarion or other settings.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

You don't have to spend the points, you can save up.

In pathfinder, you can't save up anything for later.

You can't save up feats, skill ranks, spells chosen when you level, etc...

So unless Spellcasting has a specific text that goes against the general rule, it can't be saved up.

You know how and why you are full of it.