Master of Shadows's page

484 posts. Alias of Gol Zayvian.


1 to 50 of 484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

I don't necessarily disagree, of true it was a poor word choice for the author, the reason I hit the FAQ button

Shadow Lodge

dragonhunterq wrote:
Engulf is specifically a creature ability. Aqueous Orb is not a creature.

grappling is a creature ability as well, yet black tentacles can grapple. aqueous orb engulfs.

Shadow Lodge

Freezing Sphere.

Shadow Lodge

This spell is super muddy. A prime example of a poorly written rule. I will FAQ.

My personal take based on the RAW is that anything in the path is engulfed, entangled & subject to the rules for holding breath/drowning (as per suffocation from engulf + being wholly submerged). With the only concern being should you make the intuitive leap that the spell's reflex save rules override the general rule for engulf that uses a strength based save and shunts aside those who pass it.
However, it wouldn't be the first time a sloppy writer used a rules charged term like engulf as part of descriptive text unintentionally. Hence I will FAQ it.
Also, I wonder if this can be used to destroy vampires? Does that still happen after three rounds of submersion in this rules set?

Shadow Lodge

What about bloodrager, they get to cast while blood raging.
[edit]worthwhile notion, but upon further reading, it's only good foe bloodrager spells.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If it were me, I'd just use Prestidigitation to make the saltwater seem clean, and then watch as everyone on the crew goes mad from drinking it...

Shadow Lodge

I call shenanigans on this thread; which is odd because usually I'm the trouble maker.

The rules are pretty clear, I would go so far as to say that the sentence "Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." is just another example of Paizo restating what we already know. It's pointless word bloat, and can be easily removed from future editions to make room for the many, many other far more important clarifications (like Sneak attack and spells for example).

Shadow Lodge

To do what you're asking would require only a 2 level dip into the Arcane Archer prestige class at a loss of one level of spell casting. But it would allow you to use your arrows to shoot AOE spells that do not require attack rolls normally.

Shadow Lodge

Fairly certain that the component ouch itself is a mundane object and doesn't detect as magical on its own from a rules standpoint. Maybe if the wizard is carrying extraordinary components in it, but the base item no. However, feats like eschew materials will make this tactic less than stellar. If your GM is like me, it's likely to only be effective once against any given caster, so don't leave him alive if possible.

Edit: It may not be particularly effective then, at least not as more than a temporary measure. The sequence of events goes like this; you steal the component pouch on your turn, he takes a 5' step out of your reach and casts teleport on his action (verbal components only). When next you meet, he will be prepared for you. And if you think it unlikely to happen that way, let me just say that I have never in 20 years made a caster without some form of teleportation magic beginning as early as possible.

Shadow Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Making yourself 5 times better than the trip fighter for 1 feat is just nuts.

1 check. Its on a per creature basis.

Even if we go by a "per creature" basis, your argument still falls flat upon itself, because a Wizard can trip 5 (or 7, make it an Intensified Magic Missile) creatures from ridiculous ranges all at once, whereas the Trip Martial is limited to maybe 20 feet. Tack that on with the "I don't have to follow the Size limitation rules crap" that the Martial has to follow, and it turns out to be superior in every which way.

The only thing I have to say to that is this: Welcome to Caster/Martial disparity. You're just gonna have to suck up the factor that even a damn Wizard is a better Trip Build than a typical Martial, because that's just how the game is currently made.

Getting back on track and serious for a little bit, I can see how it can be one single trigger, since it's worded as "If," meaning it can be parsed as a Yes or No conformation.

However, "If" doesn't exclude the "Per" basis that the other interpretation can draw from, so either reading could be correct; especially if we subscribe to the Holding the Charge rules as an example in regards to "If" a touch attack to deliver the spell misses with the likes of Chill Touch.

I have to say, that caster/martial disparity has been the norm since second edition maybe earlier. Wizards have always been able to say 'everything you can do, I can do better.' and they've said it about every aspect of the game except healing. This is nothing mew. And 5 trip attempts from a magic missile is not off the charts in this regard.

"BigNorseWolf= wrote:

One perfectly raw reading keeps it to a dull roar.

One perfectly raw reading cranks it up to 11.

Use the first one.

One reading is correct, and inline with every print edition of magic missile since the dawn of time, and follows the most natural reading of the rules in question, with no tricks, gimics, or oddball parsing. The other reading just doesn't meet any of those tests, and relies on referencing an FAQ that has nothing to do with the current question.


Shadow Lodge

Chess Pwn, how would you adjudicate toppling spell on a spiritual weapon?

Shadow Lodge

Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
Why do you think your interpretation (admittedly, obviously the most straight-forward interpretation) of the written rule is in any way more officially right than actual official interpretation?
Is there an FAQ? Because if not, there is no official interpretation.
The developer makes it official for pfs only.

Was under the impression that only books (supplements), errata, and FAQ's were official for pfs. Can you point me to the source that says developer posts are good too, because that would change alot.

Shadow Lodge

Casual Viking wrote:
Why do you think your interpretation (admittedly, obviously the most straight-forward interpretation) of the written rule is in any way more officially right than actual official interpretation?

Is there an FAQ? Because if not, there is no official interpretation.

Shadow Lodge

Rogar Stonebow wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
You're right, that is the important sentence. If somebody simplifies away the critical information for the issue, that can lead to the incorrect conclusion being made. Force vectors are composed of force and direction, and if you throw out literally half of the relevant info for the problem, then it shouldn't be surprising if you end up with the wrong answers.
Why are you being so rude? Assuming the missiles are coming from the same source they'll have the same trajectory so my oversimplified description is exactly right for this situation.

Does anyone remember the opening scene from one of the old baldur's gate or waterdeep rpg games where the main bad guy faces off against your mentor? He casts a max level magic missile and it isn't a single missile hitting the target, it's a ton of tiny missiles that fan out and move around coming in and slamming into the target from different angles.

That is how I see magic missile working.

that's just it, the approach vector of the magic missiles has been left up to the imagination of the casting player, and in all media forms to date we've seen it be either as described above, or as a stream of missiles that strike one after another in rapid fire succession. None of which is particularly relevant except to note that it lends credence and context to the multiple missiles = multiple trips approach. Albeit credence with no real substance having nothing to do with rules and every thing to do with artistic license.

Also, I find it interesting to note that if you check the comba logs for those games, you'll note that even though it would be easier and lighter on processes involved to code it as 5d4+5 regardless of the spell animation used, they still code it as rolling 1d4+1 five times resulting in five entries in the combat log.

Shadow Lodge

you're almost entirely correct, however SR specifically calls out that if you pass or fail against a given creature: A. That result applies only to that creature; B. The result stands for every time the creature encounters the spell.
So in your examples it works like this:
1. Targets selected, SR made for glabrezu, if pass all take damage trip for each, if fail, all others take damage, trips for them.
2. 5 missiles strike glabrezu, check SR, if first one fails, all fail, if first passes, all pass deal damage and trigger 5 trip attempts.

Shadow Lodge


Shadow Lodge

The reasonable assumption I make every time I read a feat or class ability that may have an effect based on the target of the spell is to substitute the word 'target' in the descriptive text with whatever is printed in the target(s) space of the stat block at the beginning of the spell description. I do this because it is the natural thing to do when the feat uses the singular target but does not specify that it can only be applied to spells with one target. Because this is the easiest most natural assumption, I'm fairly certain it's the way every one would have it function if not for that blasted sneak attack FAQ working contrary to the natural assumption in the case of sneak.

Shadow Lodge

Grey_Mage wrote:


You have a penchant for RAW as you advocated for it in the face of common sense in the smite evil with magic missile thread.

The wording here is unambigous. The metamagic is on the spell not the missile.

Did the target take damage, get moved, or fail a save vs a force effect? If yes, you get a trip attempt from the SPELL.

Break it down for me exactly how you're parsing it to come to that conclusion. I am happy to entertain your interpretation, I just can't understand how you came to it. And Please for the love of all that is sacred, try to do so without citing the sneak attack FAQ Even if it was meant to be a balance point (which I agree it probably was) it is a balance point for multiple sneak attacks only and there fore not relevant to any other situation in which you might receive a benefit applied to multiple effects of a spell.

I come to my conclusion because of this:

Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.
And this: [qoute]For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile—two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher.If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature...

Multiple Missiles Ergo Multiple Impacts and Multiple Damage Rolls = Multiple Trip Checks.

Essentially every time a missile hits (read Impacts if you need to)you must check the feat, the feat then asks; was damage dealt, a save failed, or the target moved? If yes, then trip, if no, then don't.

Grey_Mage wrote:

You have a penchant for RAW as you advocated for it in the face of common sense in the smite evil with magic missile thread.

Let me shed some light on this statement:

I am myself a d20 and pathfinder compatible designer. As such it is very important to me to have a thorough understanding of how people read and understand the rules especially in instances where I read them in a way that is clearly different from some one else and would have significant impact on the way they or I play the game were an official ruling to come down on one side of the argument or another. The more I can understand how different interpretations arise the more likely I am to be able to avoid those kinds of issues when writing my own content. Do I think its possible to avoid these conflicts entirely, of course not, but I do think a vast majority of what is wrong could have been caught earlier on if understanding how rules are read was given a higher priority when generating new content.

So please, for my sake and for the sake of any like me, if at all possible use explicit citations from the PRD whether its in the rules for applying feats to spells, the feat, or the spell itself. But if the only support you can provide for your argument is the FAQ for sneak attack, say that too, but understand why we argue that it's inapplicable.

Shadow Lodge

Crimeo wrote:
Why exactly are we equating the Trip attempt from Toppling Spell, to Sneak Attack?

They both trigger on damage, its the same underlying issue and source of problem. And nothing in particular about the FAQ seems to logically have to do with the precision part of it, rather it seems pretty obviously intended to be addressing the "multiple triggering bonuses" aspect of it.

And stuff like toppling spell obviously wasn't written for niche cases like this, so this is our best hint at what the intention was here. But if you want to ignore it because it's not precisely the same named ability, that's your prerogative.

it actually makes perfect sense for the FAQ to be about the precision aspect. Lets try a real world example. If you carefully take aim and then shoot someone 5 times with a semi-automatic pistol, only your first shot will land where you aim because both recoil and the targets physical response to being shot will significantly reduce your accuracy and lower the stopping power of later rounds.

Shadow Lodge

There is no connection, That FAQ is relevant only to sneak attack, and it was only applied to sneak attack because sneak attack is precision damage. It is the straw man argument always brought to the table any time someone has a question about whether or not various on damage effects can be triggered multiple times by magic missile. It is always wrong and always irrelevant.

Toppling spell isn't triggered by the spell, but by the effects of the spell, ie damage, failed save, or movement. Each time any of those events happens, due to a single spell effect (ie missile, ray, bust etc...) a new trip attempt is allowed.

Shadow Lodge

If Paizo wants to FAQ it so that each additional missile grants an aid another bonus to the trip attempt of the first missile, then I'd be fine with that (it would certainly streamline the dice rolling). Until they do, by RAW each missile is its own effect, deals its own damage, and would in turn trigger its own trip attempt.

Shadow Lodge

Crimeo wrote:
Yes you roll it 5 times, but since they all hit at once, that creature only takes damage once (the sum of all the damage rolls applying simultaneously).

By that same logic, if 5 fighters all tried to trip a character at the same time, they would collectively get only one trip attempt.

Shadow Lodge

The spell hits up to 5 targets, one per missile. Each missile is targeted independently of the others, either by selecting a new target for it, or by selecting the same target as 1 or more other missiles. Because each missile is a separate and distinct effect of the spell in its own right, each missile will result in a check.
You never roll 5d4+5 against one target, you roll 1d4+1 five times against five targets which can all be the same individual, or separate.

Shadow Lodge

There was a time when Paralysis and grappling outright prevented reflex saves. I miss that time.

Shadow Lodge

Cool questions, great character concept. The only thing i can speak to at the moment is, remember the act of creating undead is ALWAYS evil.

Shadow Lodge

Jeraa wrote:

This entire issue comes up because Paizo decided to change the rules from 3.5. 3.5 clearly stated you needed to see the components of the spell to identify it as it was cast. Pathfinder changes it so it says you need to see the spell as it is cast.

3.5 implies spells have no visual indication, as it is the components that matter for identification.
Pathfinder implies spells do have some sort of visual indication, as the components used (or lack there of) have no bearing on identification.

This is quite possibly the single worst bad decision Pd in the design of this game. Sure Still spell and silent spell are great for casting while bound and gagged, but the only reason I (and I would suspect a great many other caster players) ever took those feats was to conceal spell casting from others. It makes campaign settings where magic use is forbidden nearly impossible to play in as a caster.

Shadow Lodge

alexd1976 wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.

If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.

I'm not so sure about that. Could you provide a source or citation for this claim?


Moving provokes. It never stipulates that you WANTED to move.

Overthinking it is just silly.

Would you argue that a dominated person being told to run past an enemy wouldn't provoke?

This is not a citation. Feel free to look at the OP to see what citations look like.

The text of the rule says that there are two types of actions[emphasis mine] that provoke attacks of opportunity; moving, and performing a distracting attack.

It then goes on tobe how the action of moving, and the action of performing a distracting action cause the AoO to be triggered.

My understanding is that the only time character movement constitutes an action per the rules, is if it uses up the action economy of their turn. Forced movement does not do this. In your example of Dominate, is a little different in that when dominated, the character follows your orders on his initiative and using his own action economy. Dominate and similar effects are not at issue, and are not relevant to the discussion.

Shadow Lodge

alexd1976 wrote:

If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.

If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.

Alex, Do you have a citation to support that? because the rules I've quoted above aren't the clearest, but lean heavily in the direction of AoO not being triggered by compulsory movement. If this is un true, it can be a total game changer for casters who have innumerable ways to force enemies to move out of the space they threaten or the space threatened by others.

For example A Magus with Force Punch would immediately get a free melee attack on his target if they fail their save. and with enough levels and the proper 5 foot step, he could grant it to his allies as well, allowing 1 or more of them to take AoO as the target flies past.

Shadow Lodge

Any thoughts on greater bull rush from the OP?

Shadow Lodge

Qaianna wrote:

I'm going to guess this never got an official mention because the kind of person to cast Hydraulic Push isn't the kind to have the three feats needed to trigger an exception.

A part of me actually wouldn't mind if the feats to improve combat manoeuvres applied to spells that did the same thing, simply due to how many you're having to use, and for some taking a practically useless feat (Power Attack, and how many wizards bother with that?). A three feat tax to trigger the ability on a class that isn't really pointing that direction, doesn't seem too harsh.

But I'm also not able to imagine how this could be abused. I'm leaning towards 'It'd be OK if it doesn't get too cheesy'. Remember, the feats that trigger those attacks of opportunity on involuntary movement are towards the end of some feat trees.

A Magus might, and I bring this up because I have played in the old d20 star wars RPG which was broken by the fact that you could use the force to hurl your opponents out of your threat range and through that of your lightsaber wielding companions and everyone got free attacks on them. It is why when D&D released 4th edition, the attacks of opportunity expressly called out forced movement as not being a trigger.

In pathfinder, I think with a careful reading of the rule, you can come to the conclusion that it isn't possible except in very occasional circumstances (ie Greater Bullrush). However it is no where near as cut and dried as "Forced movement never triggers attack of opportunity." Which verbiage they would have plenty of room to fit in the book if they cut all the wasted text from bulrush and telekinesis.

Shadow Lodge

Goddity wrote:
By forced movement we mean "was pushed" and not "mind control", right?

Basically yes, What I mean specifically is Was moved by outside agency that does not take up any action economy the character so moved. A Dominated character commanded to move would do so at their own initiative step in the round, and using their own action economy, so for my purpose we would disregard that (and like scenarios).

I guess a simpler way to put it would be:

Does this:

Emphasis Mine" wrote:
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.

Mean explicitly that this:

Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

Applies only to actions taken by the triggering character that count toward his action economy, or should it be applied to any moving out of a threatened space except where explicitly noted otherwise such as Bulrush or Telekinesis (which is really just the same as bulrush but with range)?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I was reading the Attack of Opportunity rules, which I have presented in spoiler in their entirety:

Attack of Opportunity:
Attacks of Opportunity

Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.

Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity bonus to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

For the purpose of this thread, I would like to discuss this portion specifically:

Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.

Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

In these General rules, the way I understand them is that in order to trigger an attack of opportunity, the triggering character must of their own volition take some kind of action which falls into the pathfinder action economy. Of the available actions only certain kinds trigger, Movement (not 5' steps) that carries the character out of threatened territory; misc other stuff not pertinent to this post.

The question I have is, this leads me to believe that forced movement does not on its own provoke attacks of opportunity, am I correct in that assumption?

The reason I ask is that certain abilities (feats, spells, etc...) specifically call out that they do not cause the target to provoke when moved. Is this needless verbiage, or does it mean that forced movement does provoke whenever that specific text is absent (my vote is needless verbiage)?

Additionally: Greater Bullrush:

Your bull rush attacks throw enemies off balance.

Prerequisites: Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6, Str 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Bull Rush. Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).

Normal: Creatures moved by bull rush do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Can this feat be used for bull rushes that are not initiated through the normal combat maneuver process? For example, with any spell etc that causes an opponent to be moved as though they were bull rushed (excluding Telekinesis which specifically says you can't).

Shadow Lodge

Gwen Smith wrote:
Merm7th wrote:
I know how the glove's and touch attacks work. For the exact same question in a non-magic senario. If I'm wield two short swords and wearing gauntlets, and the target is more seceptible to bludgeoning, do I need to drop a sword to hit with the gauntlet?

Merm7th, I think this question got lost in the ongoing argument.

I would let you hold the sword in your hand while using the gauntlet to hit the target. If you had a bulky, awkwardly-shaped, or delicate item in your hand, I might make you drop it, but I can't see that being a problem for a short sword (assuming you don't have a basket hilt on it).

This again brings up the fundamental difference between making a touch attack, and making an unarmed strike. What you describe sounds like an unarmed strike to me (hitting with the gauntlet) where a simple touch attack would deal no damage of its own and requires only a single finger (or other appendage) brush the target with the most minimal of contact.

I personally would rule you can do either of those things as part of a full attack. Its not hard to hold a sword and extend a finger or 2 off of the hilt in order to touch something. It's what makes opposable thumbs worth having.

Shadow Lodge

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Don't accuse others of not bothering to read the rules when you read only the part that seems to say what you want and then ignore the rest of the rules.

This! +1

Shadow Lodge

Devilkiller wrote:
Is there anything in the description of the Gloves which leads you to conclude that they need to be activated repeatedly rather than just being turned on or off?

Exactly, they are activated by command word one time when you first put them on (or arguably at the start of combat if you don't want to deal acid damage every single time you touch a mundane object in your day to day life depending upon whether or not your GM wants to argue that incidental touches count as touch attacks).

Shadow Lodge

Where is the springloaded wrist sheath from? I looked in Arms and equipment and technology guide, but didn't find it.

Shadow Lodge

This is how I feel as well, IM(not so)HO The spell is not what's being affected. It's the target of the smite that is being affected. He takes the extra damage dealt to him on every damage roll regardless of source.

Shadow Lodge

Snorb wrote:

Freddy the Fighter: Ugh. What a fight. Good thing Erik can heal.

Erik the Cleric: Good thing we brought that paladin dog, too.

Paladog: Bark.

Rita the Rogue: Too bad about Barto, though.

Erik the Cleric: Oh, he'll be fine. I cast Fabricate to replace what he lost.

Barto the Bard: (in Captain Pike's chair from "The Menagerie, Part I and II") (OK Google jingle) [vocoder] I hate you guys.

Freddy: See? He'll be just fine.

Barto: (OK Google jingle) [vocoder] My life is hell. Fed through a tube that sticks through me, just like a wartime novelty. Tied to a machine that makes me be, cut this life off from me.

Rita: ...His singing's almost as bad minus his vocal chords.


Shadow Lodge

Brother Crimeo speaks the truth. Each missile is a seperate source of damage rolled independently. Therefor, each missile benefits from smite.

Shadow Lodge

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Encumbrance nazi GMs are usually bad GMs in my experience.

When my players finish buying gear, I give them a quick look over to make sure nobody is being ridiculous (like a 5 strength halfling wearing full plate and carrying a tower shield), and then I usually just get them a bag of holding ASAP so I can stick to RAW while not worrying about carrying capacity.

Seems to me, that for PFS you sort of have to be an 'Everything Nazi'. Outside of PFS, there is a style of survivalist roleplay taht can be quite fun, if you lay down the expectations up front. I do enjoy those games as a player, but not necessarily every time.

Shadow Lodge

My personal take is that there are 2 times when those rules can be fun.

The first is those one of adventures you run because you know the players will not be reusing those characters, and it ads an exciting element of wtf to combat.

The second is when instituted situationally for example only using them during important and climactic moments in the game, or in the BBEG fight. This is particularly effective when you're the sort of GM like me who like to use recurring villains. in which case the debilitating effects go both ways.

Additionally if instituting such a system, it would be a good idea to offer a way to get prosthetic replacements. especially replacements that come with a bonus. Like a golem hand with a strength bonus, or that acts like a normal hand wearing a glove of storing. It may require a fairbit of homebrewed craftsmanship on the part of the GM, but it can be rewarding in that it adds interesting quirks and flavor to the players.

'He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil..."
-Obi Wan Kenobi

Shadow Lodge

2nd edition AD&D had some cool DM refrence screens with rules for critical hit locations that included permanent injury. however, there is always things like regeneration magic to help get around them.

Shadow Lodge

Claxon wrote:

I'm not sure that's the case. The knowledge checks are definitely based on the creatures type. So ostensibly you're identifying the creatures type and specific species, which allows you to know weaknesses specific to such creatures.

However, I would allow for knowledge local (which already covers humanoids who are most likely to have class levels) to identify class based abilities. However, I don't think this is outright supported by the rules, but I think it's probably a good house rule.

Hmmm, although I could see a lot of different knowledges being used for different classes.
Religion - Any divine casters
Nature - Druids, Rangers, Hunters
Arcana - Any arcane casters
Local - Barbarian, Monk, Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier (other non-magical classes)

And I would probably allow some overlap between skills to identify class abilities as well, using the full 10 + CR of the creature. So you would make a check to identify the creature type, and another to identify class abilities/archetypes.

This is what I would use:

Knowledge Nature to identify animals at the normal DC's, as well as humanoids
Knowledge Arcana for magical beasts, abberations, Dragons, monstrous humanoids and Fey
Knowledge Planes for Elementals, PLane Touched, Demons devils andgels etc...
I would allow Knowledge Arcana to determine if a person is an arcane caster, and maybe if they cast prepared or spontaneously
I would allow Knowledge religion to determine if someone was a divine caster, and maybe if they cast prepared or spontaneously
I would allow knowledge local (maybe history depending on the individual) to determine any specific details of a characters background. I would NEVER allow knowledge to determine the specific class makeup and build details of an opponent. Some things are simply unknowable until you experience them first hand.

[edit] This maybe one area where i deviate from RAW. It just makes sense to me to handle these things this way. fortunately since I am not a PFS GM, i'm free to do so ;)

Shadow Lodge

If you're a low strength build, you should be a long range caster. then you haven't got much to worry about. Also consider carrying wands/scrolls/potions of bulls strength if you're concerned about encumbrance so much.

Shadow Lodge

Skylancer4 wrote:
savokk wrote:
RAW as written indicate that these gloves do not need a standard action to be activated. Calth has the appropriate citations to support this.

Only IF you ignore the default activation rules and assume it is a use activated item. They quoted the rules most pertinent for their argument but failed to quote the rules that state when no activation cost is stated, the default is command word/standard activation.

Ignoring the RAW that contradicts your stance doesn't make you right. It just means you didn't look into the rules well enough.

So far the only person i have seen fail to quote rules to support their argument is you. Feel free to go to and copy paste the specific rule you're referencing. That might make you a tid bit more convincing.

As written, any touch attack made by the wearer of the glove gains the d6 acid damage. Whether the attack is taken as a single standard action, or as part of a full attack action.
I can tell you of an absolute certainty that you can make a number of melee touch attacks each round up to the number of attacks allowed by your base attack bonus as part of a full attack action. Its how caster's have been using chill touch with iterative attacks in the round after casting since the dawn of time.

Shadow Lodge

I think the class you're thinking of is Arcane archer. it can deliver AoE spells with ranged attacks. One of them could cast a fireball from a scroll and have it go off when their arrow hits its target. 'Wrapping the scroll around the arrow' could be your thematic visual for that process.

It is a prestige class though so you would need to take a minimum 1 level in an arcane casting class to satisfy the 'Ability to cast 1st level spells' requirement.

Shadow Lodge

This is why we have Floating Disk

Shadow Lodge

I'm thinking this:

Elf Paladin 9, Arcanist/Sorc/Wiz 1, Arcane Archer 10

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:

Wielder of the silver flame wizard class from Eberron probably is your best bet for multiclassing pal/wizard if you're willing to go 3e.

Lots of overpowered PrC's in Eberron.


I was looking to stay within the realm of PFS legal. However I don't own Unchained so VMC is of the table for me at the moment being not on the PRD yet (if ever).

If I were to go to 3.x, Eberron would not be my first choice, I'm certain that forgotten realms has better choices.

Shadow Lodge

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Malag wrote:

Ah, BNW saves the day! That quote might do the trick.

/bows to BNW

Well it certainly solves the magic missile question since its not on the paladin spell list, but the general questions are still on the table.

Edit: I suppose also a paladin/wizard build could raise the question, but even the best munchkin on the boards couldn't make that build work.

***D*MNI*T Challenge Accepted
I would be damn impressed if you made a viable build with some standard character creation rules.

I am seeking it out now, So far I am striking out on races with Magic Missile SLA's, and Archetypes that would grant magic missile to the paladins spell List, or grant Smite evil to an arcane caster. but I have not given up, I believe where there is a will, there is a way.

1 to 50 of 484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>