Marcos Farabellus

MrCab's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Dedicated Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 118 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm still not sure what to make of the constant number of spell slots. Lower level utility slots were always great in bulk. Resist Energy, extra Mage Armor for the Monk without worrying about Scorching Ray (which itself was still a nice 12d6 fire), lots of good buffs down there. I can see it as "oh hey we want you to need these less", but then that needs to be followed through on, or the complexity of gaining fire resistance just went to everyone else picking a class feat instead of the Wizard saying "hocus pocus fire nope-us"

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
DM Livgin wrote:

Love the school power, I'm imagining the wizard using the Diviner's Sight power three times in the same turn to fortify his team as they prepare to charge a mummy or basilisk.

Will we rearrange the spell saves so that is lists Critical Success, Success, Failure, Critical Failure?

I'm very excited about the gradient of actions available with the three action system and the variable action spells/abilities.

Except you can only have Diviner Sight 1 active at a time

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
It comes down to wanting a stat block that covers 99% of the time, while this stat block covers 85% of the time. Why do I need to know the ogre's carrying capacity? Most of the time I don't, but what about if the PCs charm it, or talk to it and make it an ally? And then ask it to carry or lift stuff cause it's strong?

Doing basic math to determine it has a 20 is not that hard.

Unless it's actually a 21.
Assuming that monsters have even numbered stats is not especially difficult or onerous.

Unless that gets codified, many GMs will declare monsters have odd numbered stats, making any level of -(odd number) to a stat less effective.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:

Honestly, one thing I like about 4e was the easiness of monster design. One thing I hate about 3.X/PF1 was fiddly, overly-complex monster design.

There's absolutely no need for monsters to have feats, numerous tables and rules accounting for generating stats, and so on.
As Paizo has presented these stat blocks, I think my main complain about PF1 is gone. It functions clearly, it has the information I need, and it can be as tactically complex as I like. That's terrific!
I think one should look this article as it is, and it's awesome :)

Edit: Also, giving keywords such as arcane or evocation to magical abilities is a great way to identify them when this matters ^^

Simplified monsters work fine for plug and play, but if you want to do any level of modification to a stat block, it's still nice to know where things came from. Even if as GM you simply declared a monster to have an ability, you inevitably get into a discussion about how a monster is allowed to do a thing. Not that you can't invoke rule 0, but it's nice to be able to back things up

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm a little put off by the lack of ability scores. I saw a few posts (this thread is way too long to dig through now) about ability damage, but it seems like that is an entire suite of spells/poisons/abilities that need to get tweaked if we don't know the monster's ability scores. If the game wants to go to just using modifiers, why have ability scores at all? The only purpose left would be to make a player gain 2 ability score points (assuming a PF1 every 4 levels thing) to get a +1 modifier.

Other little things:
- Is the listing of Chaotic and Evil next to Humanoid and Giant implying that Ogres have the Chaotic and Evil subtypes now?
- The Javelin does not list Piercing as a damage type. Editing mistake?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If there is errata, can the wording of Mythic Combat Reflexes be clarified?

Mythic Combar Reflexes wrote:
Benefit: You can make any number of additional attacks of opportunity per round. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to, until the start of your next turn, make attacks of opportunity against foes you've already made attacks of opportunity against this round if they provoke attacks of opportunity from you by moving.

In the rule as written, expending mythic power is useless; You can already take multiple attacks of opportunity for multiple opportunities (spell casting, moving, greater trip), and this does not explicitly override the rule of 1 AoO per move (it only says you can make attacks against people that move, which you can already do by RAW). Many posts of the forums and my own interpretation of the rule as intended is that this should be 1 AoO provoked per threatened square left, as opposed to the normal 1 AoO cap from movement per turn. Is that in fact the correct interpretation?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
MrSin wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

Doing some thread necro on the off chance it gets us an answer.

I'm trying ti convince myself that a Kapenia Dancer/Spell dancer is legal. I think that it is, My main argument is that the Kensai has the IDENTICAL wording for armor proficiency but gets something cool at L7 and 13. So they didn't think that he automatically lost the ability.

Well, not sure if it helps, but the d20pfsrd version says this. Not willing to dig through errata today myself.

D20PFSRD wrote:
A bladed scarf dancer is not proficient with armor or shields and suffers the normal arcane spell failure chance when casting magus spells while armored.

(Zombie thread revived by suddenly needing this answer myself)

The base class for Magus also says "Like any other arcane spellcaster, a magus wearing medium armor, heavy armor, or a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure." at first level. But at 7th level, it says "At 7th level, a magus gains proficiency with medium armor." and it overrides the original 1st level statements.

As written, it sounds like the Kapenia Dancer gains Medium Armor at 7th level since nothing says you lose that ability. There's no mention of the feat, only "You're proficient", so I see no reason to mention pre-reqs to that feat. Is that intended? Almost certainly not, but it's definitely what's written.

I also just checked the PDF of the book in My Downloads. Last update is from before the original post here was made. No errata that I see either. Where is the errata?

How To Use The Rules Forums, Sticky wrote:

Some FAQ threads get marked as "Answered in errata." What does that mean?

Sometimes a player finds a problem in an older printing of a book and flags a question about that text. If Paizo has fixed the problem by changing that text in a later printing, the staff clears that FAQ candidate from the queue and marks the question as “Answered in errata.” You can download free errata for Paizo books from the My Downloads section of the website

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

So let's take these three feats, give them (and combat reflexes and a reasonable dex bonus) to 3 medium sized PCs all standing in a line. They walk up to a medium sized thing s they all are adjacent to each other and all threaten it with a scimitar (a non-reach weapon). The PC "in the middle" (and as such adjacent to both alies) swings and crits to set off the proposed chain.

They all have Gang Up, so all are considered flanking. They have Outflank, and are Gang-up-flanking, so the PCs on the outside get an AoO (it actually doesn't matter who makes the original attack, they're all flanking anyway so they all get an AoO). This gives the original attacker an AoO because of Paired Opportunists, because they are adjacent to an ally that the enemy provoked an AoO from.

This is where the immediate chain ends because of the wording of Paired Opportunists on d20pfsrd.

Paired Opportunists wrote:
Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them

It doesn't say "If an ally gets an AoO you get an AoO". It says an enemy that provokes from an ally also provokes from you. That single provocation can't grant two AoOs to any ally, because no second opportunity has arisen (until one of your allies crits on their AoO, causing Outflank to trigger all over again as long as everyone has enough Combat Reflaxes to keep this going). All three would receive the +4 bonus from Paired Opportunists on all AoOs.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Looking at some things, maybe you're not asking the correct question...

Simply posessing another diety's holy symbols does not prevent you from casting spells with your own holy symbol.

That said, you cannot actually use another diety's holy symbol to cast a spell by RAW. Anything otherwise, good or bad as an idea, is a house rule.

I suppose someone could also create some sort of cursed holy symbol that would allow other things to happen, but these would be custom magic items and not "just a holy symbol".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Many things that take a swift action take that action for balance purposes. If you want to chang ethat, you get to examine all of those cases and decide which ones you can only do once in a round, like casting quickened spells (which already says you only get one because multiple spells in a round can be broken. The ones that aren't as broken are already less than a standard action anyway).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The ring is not available. Use the item that already exists (bracers).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Just seconding what a lot of people here have already said. Strength is the damage melee combat stat. Dex is the dodge things move quickly stat. Part of game balance is that these are two different stats.

Although I guess one could argue that it's unfair that strength is useful for breaking picking locks without using a feat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Definitely not unless you want it to. Artifacts are meant to be hard to get rid of. Your campaign, your rules for ridiculously powerful items.

Even if he wants to make the argument that Mage's Disjunction is there, the same rules as disjunction would apply - it's still a small % chance (minimum for a 9th leel spell in fact), and the chance of an interested outsider noticing would definitely be in play. Plus the artifact would get a will save. What's an artifact's will save? Technically I guess it's 2 + half its caster level. Since artifacts are insanely powerful and up to GM fiat anyway, it's easy to say its CL 40, so it has a +22 bonus on a DC 23 save and that artifacts can pass saves on a 1, or otherwise get to roll twice. It's also easy to make the % chance rolls secretly. You could allow its destruction and have a demon lord get pretty pissed at the party. You could easily say it fails to disjoin the artifact anyway. This is countering a ridiculous argument with an even more ridiculous one though and I suppose we should be civil.

Simply put, you are well within your rights to straight up tell the player "It's not going to work".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Jadeite wrote:
Yeah, but compared to other templates with HD based CR modifiers like half-fiend, Man-eating animal offers very little.

The GM is always the final arbiter of XP awarded, regardless of what CR anything might have. Beyond that, the template is as written.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mechanical Pear wrote:

True Talk. Thanks :)

That means, this guy has to only pay 750 gp for such a wand, compared to 4500 gp, as long as he can find a Pally that crafts it for him.

The key part here is "As long as he can find a Pally who crasts for him". One of the reasons you normally find wands priced at the Wizard/Cleric/Druid caster levels in the game world is that typically only full spell casters will spend feats on item crafting. Members of other classes will spend feats on more combat oriented things. Otherwise Everyone would get lower level wands of things, as you are suggesting here.

Typically allowing this should be reserved for a PC paladin, or at least a cohort or other follower, who spends the feat to craft wands. Otherwise we start muching with item pricing balance. There's another thread out here somewhere that lists the prefered class for creating an item as Wizard if the spell is on the Wizard spell list, then Cleric otherwise, then Druid, and some combination of "the rest". It would follow that Golarion typically functions like this unless something interesting has happened.

But then, the GM is always right, so as long as the group has fun, it doesn't matter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
I believe it is a 3rd party product.

Nope, it's in Adventure Path #74, Sword of Valor.

Blood of Baphomet:
The Blood of Baphomet is on page 89, and under various circumstances, grants "The Man-Eating Template". The section for Creating a Man-eating animal is on the same page.

Since the template does not change the number of hit dice, only the type of hit dice, use the creature's original hit dice number before scaling CR as described in the CR section of the template. Many templates scale CR according to the creature's hit dice, so this is normal.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If you don't have 78 but have 77...

Adventure Path 77 Treasury:
"Dawnflower's Kiss" on page 62 also has a listed slot of "Weapon"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think it's just noting that the magic items listed are weapons, as opposed to wonderous items. There isn't a true slot for weapons, though the usual restrictions on how many weapons a character can use at once would apply (number of limbs, actions needed to draw weapons, etc).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Huh? A +5 enhancement bonus has a market price of 50,000gp--25,000gp if you make it yourself.

Hence, using wish in this fashion is largely a waste.

Good point! The wish does at least still save the cost of the base masterwork weapon though. Those 308 gold pieces might come in handy!

Of course this assumes someone has craft magic arms and armor, and has 50 days of free time to enchant the new weapon (minus the time whatever coperative crafting feats they have might have saves). The wish is instantaneous.

cmastah wrote:
Alternatively, in a pinch, you could cast wish and make a foe's oversized weapon one size category larger and now he can't use it :P

As an attended object, I'm guessing the opponent's weapon would receive a save against this effect.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The PRD says the touch attack that's part of the spell is a free action. "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." A free action is an action, and you can take no more actions after Dimension Door, so no Shocking Grasp until your next turn.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It should probably depend on the spell. Use your judgement as GM, and remember that it's a fantasy game. This doesn't mean people don't occasionally break out the laws of thermodynamics to determine if create water cast at height X in temerature Y at pressure Z will cause the created water to become a block of ice before it strikes the frost giant's head, but it's best not to bog down the rules with exact scientific answers. Do what makes sense and is fun for everyone.

Floating disk can probably only carry by weight. Spells that specifically carry things are probably stuck with the weight of an object by gravity. That said, in 0 gravity, does the spell actually "tie down" the item?

Shatter probably only works by mass. Otherwise you could shatter asteroids and stray planets, which would be silly.

Telekenisis applies force, which accelerates mass. This should only work by mass, since otherwise someone will start arguing they can move planets around in 0 G where the planet doesn't really have weight. I leave explanations as to what a planet's weight is relative to its star up to astrophysicists. That said, continuous telekenisis on an asteroid would eventually set it on the right course if nothing else was imparting force upon it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
You could have created a new, appropriately-sized +5 weapon for nearly the same price.

Actually, a new +5 weapon would cost twice as much at 50K. Spending a pidly 25K on a Wish to change the base weapon seems like a good idea economically.

Really it's up to you if you want to allow it. That said, permanently changing the size of a weapon seems like a reasonable thing to do with a wish.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

From Deciphering Magical Writing in Core Rule Book chapter 9:

Deciphering Magical Writing wrote:
To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in another’s spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell’s level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

(emphasis mine) I would take that to mean you can always decipher your own scrolls. That said, saying the character immediately uses Read Magic on their scroll works just as well for most character that can prepare any old spell.

Quick edit/addition - "Divine spells can be written and deciphered like arcane spells (see Arcane Magical Writings)." So Clerics can also decipher their own scrolls.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Remy Balster wrote:

Hrm...

This thread made me wonder...

Exotic animals cost quite a pretty penny, right? Some of them fetch thousands of gold even.

What if a druid were to go out and grab themselves an animal companion, bring it to town, release and sell it... then go get another.

They could potentially make thousands of gold per day, if they were near enough to the right environment... seems broken, no?

This is where the GM is supposed to step in and politely tell the creative player they're doing something wrong.

- The moment the Druid declares the animal not its companion, it is a wild animal that will likely rebel against its capture with 0 training. This could easily backfire on the Druid.

- In order to do this daily, the Druid is likely in an area where said animal is common, making it less common. If the Druid is telepoting around, it's posible a local conservationist group hears about it and sets out to stop the Druid from poaching.

- This would likely be considered, at the very least, a Not-Good act. Hope your alignment is in order.

- Lastly and perhaps most importantly, selling animals sounds like something that would go against the general ethos of a Druid. A GM would be within their rights to give you a warning and strip you of Druid-dom.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It should be noted that "combat trained" horses fetch a better price than non-combat trained ones. If you really wanted to flex those Handle Animal skill ranks, you could take a some downtime and train the horses for battle and make another 50 gold on the sale price of a horse. It stands to reason a small allowance could be thrown on top of half price for some training as a house rule, but there is no listed price I can see for an animal trained with any other tricks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lyniaer wrote:

What if the owner of said item 'wants' to get rid of the item?

Like, say, a shackled prisoner who needs help breaking his bonds or a slave needed help removing his magicked collar? Is the item considered attended then?

By the most technical reading of the rules, it would be attended. On the other hand, you can willingly fail a save, or not try to dodge an attack, in which case the item's attendedness in the case of shackles actually works against it; the wearer would hold the shackles out to be hit, not move them out of the way of an effect that allows a save, etc. In that case, the item is probably more vulnerable to an effect than an unattended item.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
ryric wrote:
You have to really want the flavor of the PrC to go into it now, instead of it just being "What you do after level 5." It's now actually a choice where you give something up either way.

That's how I think of them. You really have to want the flavor options they offer over mechanics. And even then, not all of them do flavor substantially better than the base classes that gain access to them.

For instance, the Assassin prestiege class. It gets poison use and a death attack (that improves as he levels). Now poison use can be a flavorful thing, but there are rogue archetypes that get poison use and plenty of rogue talents that make it more useful than the ability the Assassin gets. The dark clothing and stelath and other flavorful things you would imagine as an assassin aren't really built into the class significantly except for his death attack. So you have to really want that imagery of the death attack to pick up the class, in my opinion. And even without it is still very possible for a rogue to be every bit as much an assassin as the prestiege class is.

Remember when Assassin got arcane spells in 3.5? Those were the good old days...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:

Honestly, I just think it's missing a, "Light armor does not reduce your speed" tagline. Leaving "light" out of the sentence that says, "Medium and Heavy armors reduce your speed," but also including number values in the "Speed" column seem to contradict each other with the RAI.

All they had to do is stick a, "Light armor does not affect your speed" tagline, just like they have for Shields. :)

Technically, the table is correct. No where does say that 30 ft is a max speed. What the table says is that a character with a speed of 30 feet can move 30 feet in light armor, which it true. It doens't say anything about a character with a move speed of 40 feet (a barbarian), 35 feet (I think there's a feat that gives you an extra 5 feet), or 60 feet (haste).

It could probably be worded better, but the table itself is fine.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Technically allowable? Probably. but the animal has free enough will that it would eventually possibly resent what's going on. This would basically be an end run around the leadership feat that many GMs would shoot down early on ad not allow.

That said, a funny idea might be to talk to a group of friends ahead of time and have friends playing animals with free will not "under your control", but otherwise working with a Druid you are playing as a normal party.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Sounds like they can't summon anything, since as you quoted the spell, "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yeah...to not allow Diehard to affect Non-lethal damage as a knockout point is silly. That said there's some updates to be made to the rules here. You shouldn't be able to poke someone for 1 non-lethal to knock them out when they're in the negatives already. Acting while in the "non-lethal negative" range, for lack of a better term, could possibly deal lethal damage as the cost for acting.

That said, there would also need to be another limit for damage. Someone shouldn't be able to stay concious, forever immune to falling unconcious from non-lethal, just because of the Die Hard feat. I guess HP + CON is the way to go, but we are in uncharted RAW territory here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Symbol of Death states "When triggered, a symbol of death kills one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst)". As a burst effect, "It can’t affect c­reatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners)." (Chapter 9, Aiming a spell, Area section)

So nope, it won't affect the party through the door.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What RedDogMT said.

Falling from a climb leaves you prone. Unless you have a way to stand up fast, the climb attempt is a move, getting up is a move, unless you can do one of those as a swift action you are out of actions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yup. Same as any other attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It's already been covered a lot in here, but here's my 2 cents, which involves the words "house rules" a lot.

This would be treated as a feint, so you would be rolling bluff against either 10 + your opponent's Base Attack Bonus + Wisdom, or 10 + your opponent's sense motive modifier. If you fool them, you are prone, but they believe you to be unconcious. I would probably also give the opponent a circumstance bonus if you still had high HP for you still looking healthy (if they scratched you for 1 HP and you had 90% of your HP left, you're not exactly a bloody mess). This would probably only work once per combat too, to avoid having players do nothing but claim to be unconcious. Worst case, an intelligent monster would simply "make sure" the second time around, and swing the axe one more time on the prone "dead" opponent.

That said, this is also allowing an action out of sequence in exchange for an escape. The balancing factor is that you're prone...which works for a while before not being much of a balancing factor at all to the full BAB classes. This type of ability might make for an interesting feat, but isn't core rules right now. So in the end, you probably just end up prone and might be able to trick the opponent into thinking you're unconcious, but nothing more.

House ruling it, they would probably be surprised enough to not swing when you get up, but then be aware of you and be able to hit you. There is nothing stopping you from grappling while prone, though you would have a -4 penalty on the roll (prone says -4 on attack rolls, and combat manuvers call for "an attack roll" in da rules). Unless it was a particularly dexy character, you would likely be taking the bigger penalty. Moreover, if they had uncanny dodge, you would just have a -4 penalty and they wouldn't lose dex.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

From the section on Carrying Capacity in chapter 7 of the core rule book:

Quote:
If your character is wearing armor, use the worse figure (from armor or from load) for each category. Do not stack the penalties.

Emphasis mine. So you don't get slowed down an additional 10 feet, you just use the slower of the two speeds - speed after encumberance from armor, or speed after encumberance from carrying a lot of stuff.

Grand Lodge Dedicated Voter Season 7

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Feros wrote:
Torc of the Master Wood Cutter

I'm with Feros on this one. Flavorful, but niche.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Just for reference, I think this got added in the third or fourth printing of the core rules. Definitely there now though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
MrCab wrote:
Lots of magic traps have a trigger of being seen.

Wizard: I can detect magic

Rogue: I can tell the difference between a trap and a fake aura
GM: It doesn't matter. The trap goes off as soon as you see it.
The players of the late rogue and wizard look meaningfully at each other, collect their things, dump their beer over the GM's upholstery, and slam the door so hard collectible plates crash off of the walls when they leave. They are still not the biggest jerks in the group.

There is no excuse to ever publish or use something that by design does not permit reaction other than that the writer has no concept of what the word game means or the GM is a power tripping jerk.

Eh hem:

MrCab wrote:
Only the Rogue (or something else with trapfinding) can approach this trap without triggering it.

So if the thing with trapfinding is searching for it, it doesn't go off!

See also - Symbol of Death. It's a long spell description so I won't paste it here, but it can be set to trigger upon being seen, and it can be disarmed by a character with Trapfinding.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
LazarX wrote:

Question 1:

Are you the GM?

If the answer is yes, just make it work the way YOU want it to. That's what we did in the days of old school GMing. It doesn't matter if you do things differently from me, or how James Jacobs would do it in his campaign. He even uses home rules which vary from the core books. Traditionally in the day, EVERY home campaign had such differences... and life was still good.

If you're not the GM, than it's not your problem, unless your character IS a troll, which makes it still the GM's problem.

RAW and RAI readings and rulings are accepted. ;)

The RAI would be that a troll that was nothing more than a puddle of sliced and diced green mush on the ground will get up as soon as its regeneration restores enough HP for that to happen. As a fantasy game, strict adherence to biology is not the intent. Otherwise, trolls wouldn't regerate at all.

Want to kill a troll? Find out if it blends, then touch it with a torch. Or mix its remains with some acid. Don't have fire or acid sources available? I hope your hungry, hit it with stomach acid.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If your GM is complaining about you spamming fireball, your GM needs to learn how to throw Fire Elementals at the party. Or things with evasion. or ready a wall of force for that fireball to slam into 10 feet in front of you, causing you to get stuck in the blast.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm wary of players trying to exploit the abstraction of movement on a grid in rounds to game the system like this. A character that tries to duck around a corner for cover or jump out of the way would still realistically either be exposed to an attack before moving, or suffer a penalty on their own attack from moving away too soon.

That said, letting the character continue to move, or still attack as part of a charge regardless of the other chracter's movement, works almost as well.

Grand Lodge Dedicated Voter Season 7

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Leaning towards keep.

The damage is a little light though, even if this does appear to be more of a story monster than something most parties will actually come into conflict with. Going after the good fey that grants wishes would be a great thing for an evil party to attempt.

Grand Lodge Dedicated Voter Season 7

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
thomax wrote:
Torc of Ample Remedy

When I originally read the item during voting, I passed on it a lot because I didn't like the potential for abuse. I'm taking a look at this now and making an effort to make a better case for that.

Looking at the example given again, Remove Paralysis, Remove Disease, and Remove Poison are all decent spells for a low level cure spell to be swapped out for. It reduces the GM's bag of tricks for trying to catch the PCs off gaurd though, since usually part of a monster's challenge can be the unexpected poison, or another special ability. In the end though, I guess that's not that bad of an idea.

When getting into higher levels or things beyond status ailments this might run into unexpected things. This turns a Cure Moderate into a Lesser Restoration to heal Strength damage. This turns a level 6 Mass Cure Moderate into a Heal spell, restoring at a minimum 110 HP instead of 2d8+11 AND healing many conditions and ability damage. If either of these parties have more than one of the torcs, this is now a Mass Heal or a Mass Lesser Restoration. How does the spell affect spells with an expensive material component? Does a Cure Critical Wounds become a Restoration without a diamond? Greter Restoration from a level 7 cure spell?

I think you have a good concept here for the low level spells that just remove bad status ailments like poison or paralysis. Just keep an eye out for the higher level tricks, or at least mention that expensive material components must somehow be provided. Also keep in mind that an item like this suffers from the same problem 3.5 Polymorph did - the more books that get published, the more power this item gains from new healing spells getting published.

This item didn't stink, it just needs to be thought out more. I like what you said in your comment about the 24 hour limit meaning it's not a "give me your ring for a second" item, I didn't even think of that. Enter again next year!

Grand Lodge Dedicated Voter Season 7

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Paladingeist wrote:

Hello everybody,

I am wondering, if anybody even has seen my Item. And of corse I'm also interested on your opinions.

I have updated the formatting but not the wording. Since I have made this account to enter the competition, I haven't seen the helpful post in the messageboard before entering. *sigh*

Wizard hat

Aura: moderate conjuration and transmutation
CL: 11th
Slot: head
Price: 7,250 gp (1st), 13,000 gp (2nd), 22,000 gp (3th), 38,000 gp (4th), 63,000 gp (5th).
Weight: 1lb.

Description: A pointy wizard hat which is a potent aid to all arcane spell caster.
The hat enables an arcane spellcaster to prepare one additional spell of level 0 and one additional spell for every spell level up to the hat limit. Different hats exist for the upper spell level limit from 1st through 5th. For example a Wizard hat (3th) gives an additional spell slot for the spell levels 0, 1st, 2nd and 3th.
In addition the hat can store items like a bag of Holding type II.

Construction:
Requirements: Craft Wondrous Items, secret chest, creator must be able to cast spells of the spell level one level higher as the highest spell level to which this hat gives a bonus slot.
Cost: 3,625 gp (1st), 6,500 gp (2nd), 11,000 gp (3th), 19,000 gp (4th), 31,500 gp (5th).

Thanks for entering all the same (said someone who doesn't work for Paizo). I did see your item while voting.

Now, this item. I'll admit I didn't really look at the pricing of it because it's a little too simple to be Superstar material. This is akin to a ring of wizardry combined with a bag of holding. It's not a bad item honestly, and itmight be an interesting choice whether a Wizard buys this item or a headband of intelligence, but it just doens't have the umph for the contest. I voted for it a few times over the much more obvious spell/feat/ability in a can items, but in the end it was average.

Reach beyond pure numerical boosts, and definitely keep trying next year!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
maouse wrote:

"a move action will only provoke one attack of opportunity from an opponent, regardless of how many threatened squares they move through"

Opponent moves into Barbs area and provokes an AoO. All other squares moved THROUGH (into, out of, past, by, etc...) do NOT provoke. Barb only gets one AoO. But it triggers when they come INTO range, not when they move out of range.

IMHO, the Barb would ONLY get AoO's when this feat gives it to them, and unless they start a combat round with someone closer than the trigger that move away, would not ever get a normal AoO for moving out of a threatened square (ie. they only get ONE AoO per move action, as stated and highlighted above)

But, Unexpected Strike says

Benefit: The barbarian can make an attack of opportunity against a foe that moves into any square threatened by the barbarian, regardless of whether or not that movement would normally provoke an attack of opportunity.

That bit about regardless of normally makes me think the Barbarian gets two attacks of opportunities (Assuming Combat Reflexes of course). Specific rule here trumps the general rule about movement only provoking once. In the worst case, the Barbarian takes the normal AoO for them leaving the 10 feet away square first, and when they enter the 5 feet away square, they make a second AoO becuase they are entitled to it regardless of whether the movement normally provokes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think it has to be allowed, based entirely on the fact that a character that leaves a threatened space first would have already had movement that provoked, but then the ability would trigger because it works regardless of whether it would normally provoke. Seems silly for it to work one way but not another. Definitely feels fishy, but I think it checks out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
wakedown wrote:

Let me reiterate I'm not arguing against you, I'm just trying to see where in the rules we have a clear path to a certain ruling.

Here's what I have (emphasis is mine):

Bonuses wrote:
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”) only the greater bonus granted applies.
Bonus (Armor) wrote:
An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses.
Mage Armor wrote:
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.
If someone is wearing a breastplate and has mage armor cast on them, I look at the above and it would seem that its reasonable that mage armor provides zero bonuses to anything and that only the greater armor bonus (from the breastplate) affects the wearer's armor and renders mage armor useless unless said armor is broken/sundered.

The Mage Armor in this case is worthless unless you are attacekd by something that ignores corporeal armor sources but not force effects, like a ghost. The Mage armor in this case provides a bigger armor bonus against the attack than the armor.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
HaraldKlak wrote:
But there is a somewhat easy fix, if a player tries to do this: The GM is the arbitrator of how many free actions can be done during a single turn. As such you can limit it, but whether 3, 10 or 100 shield can be thrown at once, the rules doesn't help.

This. The GM has authority tel stop a player from enforcing too many free actions in a round. In this case, a simple interpretation would be that you can't throw more shields than you could make attacks in a full attack when hasted.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

At the very least, if it did turn out that an ability specifically crafted to be anti undead was something undead were immune to by the RAW, that would deidedly be an oversight, especially for something in the core rules. This goes double as the Undead type is specifically immune to mind-affecting effects.

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>