MrNastyButler's page

I look forward to early Season 4. I suspect around Halloween to really see it come out.

Been very busy with work and found out about the non-sanctioning of Edgewatch. Very disappointing to hear that and more disappointing to hear that items in it will be achievement point purchase gated.

While I see many people talking about the trigger, I then have to ask this. If the trap is a basic save and since you take no damage from it with a critical save, is it an atmosphere you can not breath in them? Since it is a basic save and you will take no damage with the chance of no interruption in breathing, does the trigger go off?

Does air bubble trigger off poison gas from traps? I read it and it seems to only be off areas you can't breath, but poison gas does not kill by suffocation but poison damage. So does it trigger?

It was an abyssal fungi. I can not find the stats for the monster and I think it was written up just for the module.

But looking at the green hag does kind of clear it up a bit. The ability was written as I had wrote it with out the at will part.

Why would a blind and deaf person be considered a threat to a caster? They could just walk right up and knife them, thus negating the issue of casting an illusion on that person. Or even just cantrip them to death since the blind person would not know the location of the attack since you can just move each turn after you cast a cantrip and would not be able to hear them move to pinpoint the location.

Also, you might want to read up on Temporary Immunity if you are pondering if you can temporarily blind and deafen your self to an illusion.
-----------------
Temporary Immunity
Source Core Rulebook pg. 453 1.1
Some effects grant you immunity to the same effect for a set amount of time. If an effect grants you temporary immunity, repeated applications of that effect don’t affect you for as long as the temporary immunity lasts. Unless the effect says it applies only to a certain creature’s ability, it doesn’t matter who created the effect. For example, the blindness spell says, “The target is temporarily immune to blindness for 1 minute.” If anyone casts blindness on that creature again before 1 minute passes, the spell has no effect.

Temporary immunity doesn’t prevent or end ongoing effects of the source of the temporary immunity. For instance, if an ability makes you frightened and you then gain temporary immunity to the ability, you don’t immediately lose the frightened condition due to the immunity you just gained—you simply don’t become frightened if you’re targeted by the ability again before the immunity ends.
------------------
If you want to say "i blind and deafen myself to disbelieve the Illusion to gain those immunities" you can not. You would still be affected by the illusion that was cast before you immuned yourself. You would be immune to auditory and visual spells after you do that action to blind and deafen yourself though. But the original one, would still affect you as normal and you then have penalties to not seeing or hearing it.

My players have been telling me that fights are a bit to easy when I run them. I sat down with one of my players to see if I could make them a bit tougher and they agreed.

Going through the monsters, they asked why I was only the Innate spell once a day. I looked up innate spells and it says you do it once a day usually. I then looked at the monster and was written as:

Divine Innate Spells DC 16 Attack +6 2nd Darkness

They stated I should be able to cast that multiple times since there is /1. That didn't make sense to me. They can only cast that Darkness spell once a day right?

Screaming doesn't negate sound. Sound still happens. You would have to hit the exact pitch of the opposing sound to negate it. Maybe a performance where you hold one note.

Screaming requires air in your lungs. You also require air to breath and live. Once you expel all the air, you are going to be going to suffocation rules unless you breath in. Those rules are more deadly than a illusion.

You could negate the visual aspect, but that would not mean you pass it's save. You are just choosing to close your eyes and avoid interacting with it. With out interaction with the illusion and it still has the audio tag, you are still being affected by it. And since you are choosing to ignore the interaction option provided to you, you would fail the save.

Being blind and and deaf might provide natural Immunities though. Maybe. But closing your eyes and screaming would not.

That is the usual problem I run into as well with my line of thinking. It's disappointing that we don't even get Riding Dogs as an option for Halflings because they have not step up to provide statement on mount options.

Good morning,

Was looking at the new Cavalier Archetype today and began to ponder a new character into my head. Now, I'm a little fuzzy on how Mounts worked exactly in this system and how they work with Society exactly. I think I'm kind of over thinking things so I wanted some opinions on my thinking. I am going to strip it back to the base thought and make sure this is legal for Society play. Please note Society play and not home game.

A Kobold with the Cavalier Archetype can ride a medium sized Dromaeosaur animal companion.

Is that correct for Society play?

Thank you.

Sad that our store might not get it due to the pandemic.

Could focus on Intimidate and Athletics to control enemies. Seems kind of interesting in it's own odd way. Since you have no way of attacking. You would be able to still damage enemies, if you can get a critical on a trip.

I'm not sure my thinking on this is going to work and was wanting some feed back on it. I'm going by RAW so no homebrew stuff or anything 3rd party.

Situation:
A Wild Shape Druid takes the feats to get Monk Archetype with the Mountain Stance. Can he use it in conjunction with Wild Shape? If so, what does he gain and not gain?

From what I can gleam, he would have to use the falling stone unarmed attacks at a 1d8 and would gain the status bonus of +4 to AC along with the circumstance bonus to defenses against Shove or Trip. He would not lose any AC from having a +0 dex as the AC value from the shifted forms does not list dex as a value to be calculated. I can't tell if he would be able to use the Handwraps to augment the falling stone unarmed attack since he would be shifted but the Handwraps would be augmenting the stance attack and not the animal form attack. As a persistent ability maybe?

Something about my thinking on this seems off and I can't quite put my finger on it to see where I'm going wrong on it.

I'm thinking now that it's an incompatibility with the lines of attack. But does the polymorphed state over ride the stance state?

Why is the PDF for this one more expensive than the PDF for the main rulebook, while the physical copy is cheaper than the physical copy of the main rulebook?

I'm not against the paladin being a flat +2 bonus to saves but the thing that gets me is it only triggers against spells. Why just spells?

I'm also confused if the paladin gets the +1 ac bonus from Lay on Hands if they use it on themselves.

Decided to focus on just one class for the playtest and Paladins, finally having a concrete code, made my choice. But somethings seems odd about them so I wanted to ask "is this right"?

When a paladin uses Lay on Hands, the spell grants a +1 conditional bonus to AC but only if the target is an ally. Does the paladin gain this or not? I ask because if he does, he would be considered an "ally" to himself and if he is considered an "ally" to himself he would be allowed to use Retributive Strike when someone strikes him as he is an "ally".

I would think that the conditional bonus would apply regardless of ally or not. But if it does make him an ally to himself, it would make him more proactive in combat as he can use Retributive Strike to protect himself, which is kind of cool but I don't think that is what they were thinking.

Another thing, is Divine Grace suppose to only work against spells? In the past, it was a flat bonus to all your saves regardless of spell, trap, etc. But now it only activates with spells being the trigger. Is it suppose to be like that?

Any word on what is legal for Society play yet?

Micheal Smith wrote:

If there is then I will beyond pissed. I hate the whole concept of raffles, pay to win. I hate how booms are distributed this way. A lot of people can’t afford to do that. Myself being one.

But the point of the boon is to say "Thank you" to those who donate to the charity. Are you saying everyone should get the boon whether or not they donate? Not that I am saying I agree with them being distributed using a raffle or not, but wondering how to reconcile that someone who cannot afford to buy a raffle ticket and therefore cannot afford to donate to the charity should get the incentive for doing so.

I'd really like to see both options be viable. Regardless of what the reward is, it helps a good cause and both ways could help generate more funds than just one.

Are the race boons only available by raffle chance? No chance of donating more to the charity to guarantee get it? I like Extra Life a lot and have no problem doing it. I'd just like to know if I can skip the random factor of the raffle.

I'd like to thank everyone for all the information and ideas. I am going to go with the Arcanist class. I found it offered abilities that I liked the most and allowed me to mitigate some of the things I dislike about spells. Mainly being locked into a set of them each day with no ability to adapt or change. In addition, I liked the meta magics abilities power points options.

As for the suggestion of the necromancer, it was shot down by our DM before. He's not a fan of the "evil" energy thing. But it was on my list of interesting Arcane character ideas.

Back to the original question...

When you say your group needs an arcane caster, our question is: what for? Answering that one should point to one of the classes in question.

The group wants it cause they like to have as many roles as possible cover. Their opinion not mine, respectively.

I am looking at it more from the perspective of the versatility and usefulness the arcane spells bring to a party. We currently have a cleric, barbarian, rogue, archer. I don't have a character finalized so I'm looking at the arcane as per their request and to challenge myself to branch out.

Also, please remember I won't have access to 9th level spells. We are ending at level 16.

I have been reading up on this Arcanist class. It is rather interesting. I like that I can swap stuff out on the fly with power points.

You've got your skills, support, and buffer in the Bard

I know about the Bardic performance for Bards but what other support do they have? As I stated, I'm not very familiar with arcane characters full range of abilities. I have not seen a bard in any parties I've played with before so I do not have much of a frame of reference on them. As for roles I'm comfortable with, normally I'm in the thick of combat melee range. I want to try and broaden my self on roles so I am open to support, skills, buffer, damager, controller (never seen one of these before), or other role.

You don't want the enemy to save against your spells , you want to play an arcane character with utility in and out of combats...heh just play a summoner.

I thought ray wizards did not have to worry themselves as much about saves instead of just hitting touch AC and penetrating SR? I admit, I don't have any experience with arcane characters and I could be wrong on this.

I have considered a summoner and have seen them played before. They are interesting. I assume they are similar to a druid in play?

Greetings,

I am looking for guidance on building an arcane character. The group I plays with needs one but I am very unfamiliar with them. My normal go to is martial characters with a little bit of divine characters now and again.

I've look at the Magus and did like it. But I want advice about expanding out beyond my normal go to of melee or archery style. I'd like some advice on creating an Arcane character.

Often I see Arcane characters as either utility people with little combat or full on total combat and no utility.

I'd like to figure out how to make a character that has options in combat and options out of combat. I like the idea of attacking targets at range but do not enjoy the idea of them getting a save against my spells nor getting into hand to hand to cast spells. I'm not a fan of crafting and I doubt we will have time to craft our on stuff. We are permitted guns but only early age firearms.

We are building the characters at a 15 point build and we are allowed to make custom races with a max of 12 points. We are permitted all classes published by Paizo that are not in playtest. Currently we are at level 3 but plan to end the game around level 16.

If you could offer guidance it would be appreciated. I want to try to figure out other Arcane characters for me to play and hope the community here could make suggestions or advice for me.

Thank you for any assistance you can offer,

Mr. Nasty Butler

-If- Gen con moves, I'd like to see it move more to the east coast. Just so I can attend it more regularly.

10) You arrive at the Ramblehouse bound and gagged in a box with a note addressed to Cham Larringfass stating, "Have fun".

The cleric is run by a 13 year old boy with a voice that cracks saying, "I'm the tank!" over and over.

So is Society going to still give the re-rolls for bring various pieces of merchandise to the table? Like shirts and such cause I'd like to see that being done away with.

As a player, I am kind of indifferent about the new push. Could be fun, could be annoying, could be neither, and I could never encounter it. I'll just let the dice fall where they land and move forward with games I can find in my area.

EDIT: Thought it was funny that the illustration chosen for the post features the Witch which is not core. XD

Aaah that reference does clarify it nicely. Thank you both for the information.

Correct, these are the feats from the Ranged Tactics Toolbox as I only know of them appearing in that piece of literature and being legal for Pathfinder Society usage.

Ranged Disarm

Benefit(s): As a full-round action, you can attempt to perform a disarm combat maneuver with any ranged weapon at a –2 penalty. Add your Dexterity modifier to your CMB in place of your Strength modifier and apply range penalties to your combat maneuver check, doubling the penalties from range increments. If your target is more than 30 feet away, you take an additional –2 penalty. If the disarm attempt is successful, the target also takes damage as if you had made a successful attack with that weapon. You cannot be disarmed by failing this disarm attempt.

So then anything that would add to my attack roll, Precise Shot for this example, would then apply into my Combat Maneuver roll?

Precise Shot: Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty on your attack roll.

And to take this a step further, if one takes Improved Disarm and has Ranged Disarm, would they incur a attack of opportunity when making a disarm combat maneuver if done with in a threaten square with a ranged weapon or would the wording of the feat negate that attack of opportunity as it specifies directly that you avoid it?

Improved Disarm: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a disarm combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to disarm a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to disarm you.

Hello,

I wanted to verify something about the Ranged Disarm and Ranged Trip feats. I am looking to use them in a home game and in Pathfinder Society.

I spoke with a Venture Captain and he could not give me a clear answer, but recommended I come here to verify my findings.

As the feats Ranged Disarm and Ranged Trip state they are Ranged Combat Maneuvers. When used on a target that is in melee you do not factor in the penalties for shooting into combat, as that rule states it only applies to attack rolls, and you do not apply Cover, as that only applies to AC.

Does my reading of the rules appear correct in this manner?

Is Paizo still going to release a players guide for this one or are we required to buy the Giant Slayer's Handbook for the traits?

"True; a gore and bite on the same round is a bit of a stretch."

There is nothing stating that you would not be able to do this in the rules. If a DM stated you could not, it would be more a house rule than an official rule so it would be good to double check that with them.

Could also add on the Fiend Totem, Lesser to get a Gore attack to add to your claws and bite.

RumpinRufus has a good point. It's not sounding like you are enjoying the idea and thus may not be enjoying the game. You might want to bring this up with the GM.

Have you considered a trip/disarm build for a Warpriest? There are two gods that give proficiency with whips and with the combat feats, you can take a number of the trip, serpant lash, and disarm feats pretty easily.

Sometimes, tough GMs need to learn the difference between challenge and enjoyment. I'd say go up against the new dragon he makes. If it wipes the party, it wipes the party. He's got learn that there needs to be balance if he wants people to play his games.

I ran some one off games and asked my GF if she wanted to play. I then made her a character that was simple to understand but could be very helpful, she was a barbarian. She loved it and kept playing, mostly barbarians.

Why did he put his foot in the other guys mouth in the first place?

Hmm, interesting problem. Since Opportune Parry and Riposte lets you make an attack roll as if you are making an attack of opportunity but it is not an actual attack roll that does not do damage, it's hard to state if you crit or not.

I would say in the case of the attack roll to parry, you could not crit that as there is no damage going into play.

The other portions, critical hitting and kill would give you a panache back. Thus leaving you with 3 panache after all is said and done.

That is an unfortunate mistake. Though, I kind of want one of the mistake prints just to have it cause it would be kind of neat to have. Just that collector instinct in me to have it.

Again, this is one of the issues with current (alpha) version of guns and the gunslinger. When the core rules were written, it was assumed that all touch attacks and ranged touch attacks would always come from spells.

Everything in every book and supplement that has been published up to this point (2010 and earlier) is going to be based on this now-flawed assumption.

Guns and the Gunslinger, as they stand right now, are not all that playable. They work, technically, and one can sort-of cobble together a decent character in the low and mid levels, but there are numerous problems, rules conflicts, and unexpected flaws caused or revealed by the current (alpha) rules for Guns and the Gunslinger.

Unless you are already playing a gunslinger, I suggest going with a Ranger or Fighter and using a Heavy Crossbow, at least from a mechanics perceptive.

The developers have said there will be a new set of playtest classes within a week or two. The Crossbow Character should hold you mechanically until then.

I'm actually trying out the Gunslinger in a game already. I'm enjoying it so far and do see some of the limitations and problems with the current design. I do see some interesting potential for the build though.

Jo Bo wrote:

I don't see how a Ranged Touch attack from a firearm would be able to bypass DR. But I could understand the kinetic force of the bullet ignoring DR. I guess I will wait a while to see what the updates to the playtest reveal. Thank you for the information.

I am still trying figure out how firearms are touch attacks. Ignoring Armor Bonuses, maybe, but Natural Armor Bonuses? That just doesn't make sense. At some point skin is just too thick to notice. Some of these creatures have +20 or more Natural Armor bonus (with no DR).

I think they are saying it's a touch attack mainly because of the force of the projectile. A turtle has great natural armor but shooting the shell at a close range will still penetrate a good bit through it. Even with a blackpowder weapon. I thinks that's where they are going with it.

I don't see how a Ranged Touch attack from a firearm would be able to bypass DR. But I could understand the kinetic force of the bullet ignoring DR. I guess I will wait a while to see what the updates to the playtest reveal. Thank you for the information.

I'm been trying to figure something out about firearms I read in a thread. It stated that firearms bypass damage reduction. Is this correct?