Murdock Mudeater's page

4,119 posts. Alias of paxmiles.


1 to 50 of 4,119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Gooding wrote:

So an envoy is good at all aspects of buffing/debuffing

A soldier/solarion are good at all aspects of combat
An operative is good at all aspects of skill monkeying
But a mystic/technomancer shouldn’t be good at all aspects of casting spells?

Am I following you correctly?


And those other classes have the same issues.

A Soldier has to pick which stats they want to focus on. The stats they pick determine which weapons work best for them. You won't find a soldier that is good at ALL aspects of combat, but they are able to be very good in an area of combat, maybe a few, but not everything. All the classes are like this.

A Mystic/Technomancer, by the limition of their limited spells known alone, should already be specializing in the spells that work best for their character.

Regarding spellcaster builds, the general ones are as follows:

1) Attack Vs AC ranged build (High dex)

2) Attack Vs AC melee build (High Str)

3) Spells that rely on DC build (High Casting Stat)

4) Harmless Spell build (no need to focus on any stat, since harmless spells usually don't need to hit or have spell DC)

And that's it. You can usually mix a focus to cover 2 or 3 of these, but speading your attributes too thin makes the other builds less effective.

Additionally, in Starfinder, there is the need to consider Starship Combat and how your character's build can fit in there.

Scarab Sages


Scarab Sages

Played my Mystic (Healer) yesterday and was wishing I had taken Reflecting Armor. It's a full round action to heal all my allies, so I have no actions to spare on attacks or Guarded Steps. At one point, I was attacked by a melee character. Low Level encounter, so I was fine, but I did get knocked down to 2 points HP in one attack (I only have 10 HP and 6 Stamina) and I had no melee weapon equipped to react with. Reflecting Armor would likely have dropped the attacker. Instead, I had to slowly withdraw while self healing.

Scarab Sages

Robert Gooding wrote:
Using str for melee and dex for ranged and int/wis for save dcs would make it impossible to make a caster that could hit reliably especially since their save dcs fall behind monster saves so badly at high levels

Most spells that require an attack roll don't require a save, if you haven't noticed. This is true in pathfinder too.

There are a few exceptions.

Fatigue requires both an attack roll and a DC, but Fatigue specifically grants the option to use Wisdom instead of Strength on the attack roll.

Magic Missile has no save or attack roll.

Probably some others. The main thing is that most spellcasters will focus on EITHER high DC or in easy spell attack rolls (High Str or Dex, often not both). High attack rolls makes using normal weapons easier, while high DC has it's own moments of glory.

Pathfinder and Starfinder alike, do not allow characters to be good at everything, even within their own class. This promotes diversity in character creation, which is good.

Scarab Sages

Robert Gooding wrote:
None of that helps for spells

You are incorrect, debuffs do help spells function. They indirectly increase the DC of spells or the roll needed to hit with attacks.

For example, if I target the enemy with a Stickybomb, it will Entangle my opponent. An Entangled opponent is notably -2 Reflex.

-2 Reflex makes the save DC of Overheat effectively +2 over how it would function on a non-entangled opponent. You could further boost the effective DC of Overheat by using Intimindation to apply the shaken condition (notably -2 to all saves), so now the target is -4 reflex, or rather you are effectively casting at +4 DC.

Entangled also lowers AC by 2, which in turn makes spells like Jolting Surge or Energy Ray more effective.

A prone opponent that was also entangled would be -6 to their melee AC, so Jolting Surge could easily attack most opponents with only minor.

Scarab Sages

Sunder Combat maneuver says "Weapon or Object easily drawn." Do the rules intententionally deny the option to sunder an opponent's worn armor?

Scarab Sages

Robert Gooding wrote:

Using str for melee and dex for ranged and int/wis for save dcs would make it impossible to make a caster that could hit reliably especially since their save dcs fall behind monster saves so badly at high levels

You have to pick your targets wisely. Starfinder isn't set up so a spellcaster can be the offensive tank that they can be in pathfinder. Think of the spellcaster as more a support character, like Gandalf, who occasionally brings the hurt with magic, but mostly uses spells in a support capacity.

You should still be using a weapon for most combats. Weapons are just cheaper than spells and, in Starfinder, they are more offensively impressive.

Regarding spells, you can lower enemy saves/AC via other debuffs (magic or otherwise), which allows your spells to have better results. Starfinder is definitely designed to use more synergy than Pathfinder - it doesn't reward direct, unsupported attacks against full strength enemies.

And you don't need to trick them per say, just perform actions that encourage the opponent to make logical choices. For example, shooting at them with ranged attacks encourages opponents to drop prone (for the +4 AC vs ranged attacks), once they are prone, a low BAB character with a subpar strength shouldn't have too much trouble delivering a melee tab. If not enough, add another debuff. Perhaps entangle them with a sticky bomb. It shouldn't be too hard to debuff enemies enough where melee attacks are easy for any class.

Scarab Sages

RumpinRufus wrote:
I just want to bring up again how ridiculous this is. Any pleb can now use the strategy of "I run into the other room and throw a coat over my head and sit real still," and you have to have a minimum +20 Perception to find them on a natural 20.

Okay, but this is Starfinder, not pathfinder. You run into a room I cannot see, and I toss a grenade into that room. I don't need to find you. I have easy access to area of effect weapons.

Knowing you are in a general area is good enough if I have hostile intentions. I don't need to find you.

And in real life, you could run into a room beyond my sight. If I try to follow but you are hiding in the next room and real still, it would be hard to find you.

If this becomes an issue, the GM could impose a Perception (Search) check to locate good hiding spots. This would require players to burn a move action in the next room to find a spot valid for hiding in. A cunning player could do this ahead of time and just remember where the good hiding spots were.

But yes, you could run into a room and hide behind the drapes, or behind coats in a walk-in closet, and if you stood still enough it may take them some time to locate you.

Scarab Sages

Kvetchus wrote:

I see, so Paizo basically screwed up in their wording and backtracked. Fair enough.

I guess in that case, I'm unclear on what "worse effect" really means. Is it simply that spells that are designed to damage constructs can also damage androids?

Or is it simply that we should consider them both humanoids AND constructs across the board, such that anything that would effect a humanoid OR anything that effects a construct can effect androids? That is to say, disregard the end of that sentence in the android race description and have it just read:

For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both humanoids and constructs

Androids are Humanoids. As per humanoids, they are living creatures. They are humanoids in all respects.

They have special rules where "effects targeting creatures by type" androids count as BOTH humanoids and contructs. If there are two effects, one for each creature type, androids count as the worse of the two.

So for raise dead, as I read it, yes, they are a valid target because they are living creatures and the spell targets based on living creatures. The spell not functionings on constructs doesn't constitute an effect targeting based on creature type.

Likewise, Androids are not immune to spells which don't affect constructs, like Deep Slumber.

Scarab Sages

Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! wrote:
Fair enough. Terrible was probably too strong a word. I just feel that without stopping any damage magic missile, supercharge weapon, and overheat are much better alternatives. Spending a precious spell slot on this is rough.


Magic Missile still requires an action. So if you wanted to obliterate something in a round, being able to hit them with 5-10 force damage via a reaction AND still cast magic missile would make for a higher DPS round.

In alternative, you could use this to attack an additional target in a given round.

Additionally, this spell doesn't require being able to see the target (as far as I can tell), which means it works just fine against invisible or sniping opponents. Granted, you do have to be able to survive the attack that damages you in order to use it, so it certainly isn't perfect.

I will also note that this is one of very few damaging 1st level Mystic spells. So even if it is less impressive to a Technomancer, it has an angle with Mystics.

My Mystic (Healer) will be taking this spell at 2nd level (First level is dedicated to Mystic Cure, Remove Lesser Condition and Life Bubble).

Scarab Sages

whew wrote:
Ammunition (page 168) wrote:
Weapons that use standard ammunition (arrows, charges, darts, mini-rockets, petrol, rounds, scattergun shells, etc.) are sold preloaded.

So the stats shown in the tables are the stats for loaded weapons.

Not sure if this logic follows, but I did miss that quote and it does explain why some of these weapons are so expensive.

The real question arrises when the weapon has a bulk of L and the ammunition has a bulk of 1...

The Flame Pistol, for example, has a Bulk of L and as far as I can tell, there is no lighter ammunition than the standard Petrol Tank at bulk 1.

Scarab Sages

It's not terrible. It has a long enough duration and requires no real effort on your end. So cast before combat and use it to "discourage" attacks against your person. And it does deal a solid 5-10 force damage without requiring anything more than a reaction.

Definitely more impressive on characters with more health (just because your more likely to survive it's use...). So the higher level you are, the more useful this spell will be. Not recommended as a starting spell.

But I agree, the name is very misleading.

Scarab Sages

Does the weapon have the same bulk fully loaded as it does empty? Or do we add the ammunition to the weapon?

For example, a Flame Rifle has a bulk of 1. It requires Petrol. A standard Petrol Tank has a Bulk of 1. So is loaded Flame Rifle bulk 2?

No angle here, just trying to figure out the bulk of my weapons.

Scarab Sages

Meh, I don't see a big issue here, at least regarding the Needle Pistol/Rifle. Doesn't really need a better item level.

At higher levels, the Needle Pistol will still do low damage, but you will be able to afford better serums which reliably heal much more than the damage dealt.

And I don't think the Needle Pistol/Rifle is really the best method for a healer to deliver healing. Seems like one of the more expensive ways, since each "miss" with the weapon wastes the serum.

I will note that there is strong potential for use of the "Called" fusion (level 1) with a needle pistol loaded for each situation in your backpack. Need a MK 3 serum? Just "Call" it to your hand as a swift action and shoot.

Scarab Sages

Gypsy Priest wrote:

At first I thought myself clever, that I could load a needler pistol with health serum and "shoot" members of my party from a distance to provide benefit. But seems more likely, based on a literal application of the rules, that while (at level 1 serum) it would boost 1d8, the pistol itself would cause 1d4 damage. Meaning, to use the needler in this way could actually cause more harm to an ally than help.

Any ideas, advice, ruling?

Unclear and I've been debating the same thing. As I read it, yea, you have to damage allies to heal them via the needler pistol. Though it should still function if the target's DR is greater than the actual damage dealt.

The key thing here, that I've determined, is that the Pistol Damage applies to their SP first, while the healing can only heal HP (as per magical and technological healing on page 251). So, in theory, they could have SP to spare, but lack HP, and you could use the pistol in this manner.

The other key thing here is that you still have to shoot your ally in order to make this work. You don't auto-hit as far as I read, so armored allies may be near impossible to heal this way.

Scarab Sages

Abraham spalding wrote:
You could also put the merciful fusion on it if you are worried about killing people while trying to help them.

I've been unclear on this. Needler Pistol has an Item Level of 1, so I can't apply a Merciful Fusion (Fusion level 2) because it exceeds my item level. Right?

Scarab Sages

GreatNPowerfulAahz wrote:
Not sure if there is a specific ruling on this, but could a Drow become a Mystic with the Star Shaman connection? I mean how would you function with turning to light, even shedding just normal light (which acts as bright light) with the whole "Light Blindness" property of the race? Any thoughts or recollections that might help explain if this is possible?

Agree with Pithica42, not seeing a reason you'd need to turn it on.

But as written, you'd gain an ability that would blind youself and other drow around you (which could have it's uses). I suggest the Blindfight Feat, if going this route.

Doesn't seem like a smart build, but if RPing a character that had no control over their powers, this could make for a fun character.

Scarab Sages

KapaaIan wrote:
To that end, how about taking the logical step and if a character is at or below a certain point when they return to the station, they are able to be healed or their afflictions for free?

Free medical in space is called Quarantine...

Scarab Sages

Ultrace wrote:
Local is my least favorite Knowledge skill to GM for. It doesn't seem to imply that the character spends any time gathering this information, they just know it. Someone with 10 ranks in this skill just inexplicably knows about local customs and such wherever they go? Even, as this thread indicates, on another plane of existence?

Any character with any knowledge skill should be buying books and studying them in their downtime. Knowledge skills represent previously learned knowledge that is recalled when the check is required.

Knowledge local covers Laws, Customs, Traditions, Humanoids, Inhabitants, and Legends.

And the PC doesn't "in explicably" know these things. "They recall reading a story about...."

Additionally, if a particular bit of information isn't something the PC could have read about, since it's brand new, then the PC doesn't get a knowledge check or only is given a generic knowledge check for things similar.

For example, a knowledge check to ID an NPC's race could ID them as Human, but you wouldn't know about their immunity to fire, since humans aren't normally immune to fire. Likewise, you could do a knowledge local check to recall information about a race's customs, but that information might not have any bearing if the given NPC isn't following their race's customs.

Scarab Sages

SlimGauge wrote:
If they have magic weapons or can affect incorporeal some other way, attacking the spectral hand itself would (slowly) work.

Spectral Hand only has 1-4 HP. Magic Missile would decimate it very quickly (if the GM rules it is a valid target). Really, any damaging ability that doesn't require an attack roll or grant saves will harm this quickly.

The main concern with attacking spectral hand is that it has very high AC (10+8size+4natural+INT mod of the caster) in addition to being incorporeal. So with an 18 INT wizard, Spectral hand has 26 AC and 22 Touch AC. I know, not high for a fighter, but high for a creature with only d4 HP. It also has Improved Evasion.

The secondary concern with attacking a spectral hand is that it isn't a creature, while it also isn't an item. A whole bunch of screwy rules lawyering potential with this one. On the one hand, this means the caster can't buff it very easily, on the other hand, means a whole ton of common offensive spells can't target it (like magic missile) and it's even iffy if PCs can attack it with weapons. I know, obviously it can be attacked, but RAW doesn't really support that, despite the description strongly implying that it can be attacked.

Scarab Sages

Although it would be broken pretty quick, it would make more logical sense within the concept of armor spikes if the extra 1d6 (no STR bonus) was dealt whenever a grapple was attempted by or against you, or whenever you/they attempted to maintain the grapple.

Protection against grapple by stabbing them with spikes, does seem like the intended function of armor spikes. I know I'd reconsider a grapple attack if I took damage each time I tried. Grab and Swallow Whole would also be affected.

Then, additionally, you could opt to use it as a weapon when damaging after maintaining a grapple, or as a weapon normally. This damage would be D6+Str.

I don't think is this is supported by the written rules, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the intention behind those poorly written rules.

Scarab Sages

Oddman80 wrote:

Now... how do my players defeat such a foe? i suppose readied actions to make ranged attacks (or readied "partial charges") towards the square the spectral hand returns to as soon as the hand returns. I suppose that for the party to take that tactic, they would need to make a spellcraft check to show they knew how the spell functioned. That could work... Faeryfire/Glitterdust to negate the stealth would be smart at that point...

Am i missing anything?

Traps are often a good solution for invisible foes that move around. The Rune Domain 1st level ability, Bear Traps, Caltrops, or Grease.

Another valid tactic when dealing with a foe you can't see, is to attempt equal the playing field by becoming invisible yourself. This can be done in two ways. First is just to cast invisibility on yourself. The other option is to make the opponent unable to see you like via Blindness, Darkess, or Obscuring Mist. Pathfinder has an annoying limitation on most attacks where being able to see the target is required to target them. Doesn't really solve the problem of not being able to see your opponent, but may make them stop attacking (and them attacking is probably the larger issue).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not that I really think this thread needs to be longer, but I did find an interesting magic item on topic: Gutbite Belt. The notable feature is that it seems to imply that armor spikes damage the opponent whenever they gain the grapple condition...

Scarab Sages

No special plans, just curious. Can a Paladin wield a Sword of Life Stealing? Not sure why they couldn't, just seems like a very un-paladin-like weapon name. Only spell required in creation is Enervation, which despite being Necromancy and a negative energy effect, is a non-evil spell.

Scarab Sages

Flashblade wrote:

Question does what it says on the tin. Consider for example a Frost Giant: as per the Skeleton template, the resulting skeletal Frost Giant would drop the giant subtype but retain the cold subtype. The cold subtype ordinarily confers cold immunity and vulnerability to fire to the resulting creature; however, in this very similar question it has been contested how and whether a subtype's Defensive Abilities and Weaknesses are conferred to a skeleton.

As this is a Rules Question, please limit responses to citations of official developer feedback, errata, published material, and unambiguously transferable rules-as-written.

That is your thread, being used as a supporting arguement for your thread. Are you looking for a specific answer that you are fishing for? Sounds like you are trying to manipulate the threads.

As skeleton template, you should keep any non-alignment subtypes, so you keep Giant and Cold subtypes when you make a frost giant into a skeleton.

Regarding vulnerability and immunity. They both apply, but look at the math. Provided a creature has both immunity and vulnerability, the same zero for damage will apply. If we add 50% to the damage, then reduce to zero, we have zero damage. If we reduce to zero, then add 50% to that zero, we still have zero. So no need for FAQs on that one.

I will note that having immunity doesn't mean you lose vulnerability, even if functionally, you ignore vulnerability. There are some abilities that negate immunity, and when they do, vulnerability would still apply. The ARG has an ifrit archetype that can reduce immunity to fire to mere fire resistance. If immunity is removed, the vulnerability would apply.

Scarab Sages

Jeraa wrote:

As far as I know, those rules weren't put into any Pathfinder book. They are from the D&D book Unearthed Arcana. And if you are going to use non-Pathfiner material, you could just use the epic rules.

And even with the gestalt rules, you can't be a sorcerer//sorcerer. You can't combine the same class.

Would have sworn they were in Pathfinder a bit ago, but I sure can't find them with my google searches. Could be right, might not be a pathfinder thing.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Flashblade wrote:
This is something I overlooked, and is relevant: without an intelligence score (and lacking the relevant anatomy), a Skeleton normally cannot speak a language. Even if Skeletons do retain spell-casting ability, the inability to speak would prohibit a great number of spells from being cast.

This one is common with undead, but never explained in the rules. There are many abilities which require being able to communicate with undead, but the abillity to do so is never really explained. And it's really all the sensory organs...

They have no eyes, but are not listed as being blind and are even granted Darkvision. They have no tongue, so should not be able to speak. They have skin or nerves, so should have no sense of touch. They have no ears, but lack the deafened condition. They have no nose, so should have no ability to smell anything. They can be Commanded, but lack language and the physical to communicate or be commicated with.

And more so, why do undead have alliegence to other undead? I mean, shouldn't a mindless skeleton be just as motivated to attack adventurers as they are to attack other skeletons? A mindless creature shouldn't be able to distinguish between friend and foe, and certainly not to determine that another skeleton is inherently an ally. And yet, we always see undead working together towards a common goal.

Up to the GM on how to handle Undead. It's really not well explained in the rules.

For example, I sneak up behind a skeleton and put a bucket over it's head. Is it blinded? It has no eyes, so it could be argued to be unaffected. On the other hand, if it doesn't see with those holes where eyes were, how does it see?

Scarab Sages

Flashblade wrote:

is this a pathfinder book? I'm looking online, but can't find it.

Scarab Sages

Not sure which book they are in, but you could also look into Gestalt Character creation. Basically, you have two classes at once, rather than multiclassing. So you could be a Sorcerer and a sorcerer, or a sorcerer and a fighter, but each would functionally be a totally different class which did not share abilities (so 2x sorcerer would have two independent sets of spells per day, two bloodlines which could be differerent or the same, and so forth). Pretty easy to abuse this one, but it can be fun.

I've debated running an adventure where I, the GM, force every player to have Gesalt characters, with one of the two being class I choose which is important to my setting/campaign, and one of their own choosing. I hate the idea of denying players the option to full character customization, but at the same time, it would be really useful to know in advance that all the players will have certain skills/abilities, instead of having to hope that the player needed shows up to the session on a given day.

Scarab Sages

Thread should be in forum for 3rd party content.

But to answer your question, no, I don't think they stack nor do I think they are intended to stack.

The big issue is that both of them make the two handed weapon wieldable in one hand, while neither make the two handed weapon into a one handed weapon. Sure, it counts as such for power attack, but it is outside the written effect of either ability to downgrade a two-handed weapon into a light weapon. GM could still allow it, so you could ask nicely.

Scarab Sages

Flashblade wrote:

Yes, we came to the Rules Questions forum looking for responses grounded in the rules rather than peoples' opinions about what works best;

Unfortunately, the way the this game functions, the best you can do is mostly opinion on how the game functions. Sure, you can find rules and get quotes, but not everyone will play with strict rules as written - most won't. And ultimately, the validity of any rule is up to the GM, which is esentially an opinion of what the rule is. So this game is mostly opinion.

Regarding your question, I think, techincally, if the source of the spell casting is not a special ability/quality AND if the casting stat for that spell casting isn't reduced to -, then the mindless quality does not affect the ability to cast spells.

That said, the ability to cast spells and the ability to cast spells, can be seperate, and it really depends on how the GM roleplays mindless. Personnally, I don't think I would have a mindless creature ever cast spells, even if they could, just because casting spells would not occur to a mindless creature. They just don't have the mental capacity to remember to cast spells instead of just using their physical body to do things. I'm even on the fence if a mindless creature could use ranged weapons to make ranged attacks. But that's how I would GM it, not how your GM will do it.

GM "Do you want to cast spells?"
Mindless Creature "...."

Scarab Sages

the_move wrote:
Does the Burn! Burn! Burn! feat work with Kinetic Blast, since it's actually considered an psychic instead of a magical source?

Your thinking arcane vs psychic. They are both magic. This is further explained in the rules for "Psychic Magic" as found in the Occult Adventures book.

Scarab Sages

Reduxist wrote:
Can you apply the agile weapon enhancement to the Living Grimoire inquisitor’s book? Since the book is treated line a cold iron light mace in terms of damage, it would be reasonable to believe that it would be eligible for Weapon Finesse.

Living Grimore? Wow, amazing they'd omit adding how many hands it takes to wield the "large ironbound tome" as a weapon. Yeah, as written, I think you have to assume it counts as a light mace sized for you for the purposes of how many hands it requires or for abilities that depend on it being a certain number of hands to wield (like weapon finesse). It really should say....I hope they FAQ this one.

Otherwise, I can seem some conjucture on it being sized for Large Creatures, since it is a "large" ironbound tome, and therefore should have oversized penalties - I'm not advocating this, but I see others reading it that way with a very literal reading.

Scarab Sages

LeMoineNoir wrote:

You can TWF with Unarmed Strikes.

A creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, so only one casting is needed.

Wow, both already FAQed. Thanks. Super helpful.

Scarab Sages

Pretty sure the elemental subtype would be retained (as written). The main thing for the Skeleton template is that is does require a target that has a skeleton, so it won't work on fire elementals, since they are just made of fire. Should work with a dragon just fine.

Looking at your link:

Flashblade wrote:
Question is exactly what it says on the tin. Citation will be needed, as similar unresolved questions have recently been asked on /r/Pathfinder_RPG

Should add the Mindless Trait, by having "INT -" it should have that automatically. The Natural Armor Value should change to +2 instead adding the natural armor the that of the existing create, as already mentioned by another poster in that thread and they are most certainly correct. Everything else looks good as far as I can tell.

Scarab Sages

Really confusing me, but I doubt there's really an official answer out there.

Okay, so can I dual wield two instances of Unarmed Strike? Or rather, is the ability to strike Unarmed considered it's own weapon that can be many weapons, or is Unarmed Strike unable to be wielded twice?

For example, a caster uses Magic Weapon on a Monk's Unarmed Strike. Since the Monk is dual wielding those two unarmed strikes, is only one affected by Magic Weapon, or are they both affected by the same spell?

I know with natural weapons, like paired claws, a spell would need to distinguish which claw it applied to. Regarding unarmed strike, I'm under the impression that it can represent any body part, or even the entire body, of the character, so affecting a single weapon becomes very abstract.

Scarab Sages

toastedamphibian wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Otherwise, yes, I totally agree. It would still be very heavy and it would get very warm, so unlikely something for a wooden wagon to use.

It doesn't look THAT heavy.

Centaur 30 x 24 Coke Forge

Not exactly your typical brick box, but not beyond the limits of Golarion Metallurgy. I don't think magic is necessary.

That forge is powered by coke, not coal. So now we've jumped to 1589 for europe. And, that thing looks very heavy, especially once filled with coal or coke.

Regarding Weight, a quick google search reveals that Coal (not Coke) weighs 47-55lbs per cubic foot. Can't find the weight for coke.

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:
Light Ray and Acid Spit are not Natural Attacks.

Interesting. So... what are they?

Scarab Sages

BadBird wrote:
Are people somehow interpreting what I'm saying as exactly the opposite?

Definitely seems that way, from the earlier posts. Seems like you were nitpicking the exact wording with an RAW arguement.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:

When casting a spell that affects weapons (has a target: weapon touched, etc), does having the ray ability constitute a valid target for the spell?

Example: Magic Weapon spell and Lantern Archon's ray.

Re-reading your original question, the Lantern Archon, which you didn't link and in doing so, created misunderstand about the topic.

You have Light Ray (Ex), which under closer inspection is a natural attack, not unlike the Giant Slug's Acid Spit (Ex). This attack specifically bypasses DR, but as a non-magical attack, cannot harm incorporeal creatures, so there is some point in making it magical.

This ability should be able to be affected by Magic Fang, but not Magic Weapon, as it is a natural attack, as far as I can tell. It does describe itself as a ray, so if you had weapon focus on rays, that should apply, as would other weapon feats. Ray Shield should also work on unusual ray attack.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:

The funny thing is, most of the "silly" things presented are completely outside the scope of the question I am asking. I have yet to even mention spell based rays. The opening question makes no mention of them at all whatsoever.

There is no real balance issue either. So the level of resistance being presented to the very idea is quite surprising (well, not really).

Is that really the question you were asking? Not mentioning things so there's a lack of clarity in your question is really unhelpful...

So how many of these "non-spell based Rays" exist in the pathfinder ruleset? If your only asking about the Lantern Archon, then the question is really worded to create misunderstanding, since you are really asking: how does the Lantern Archon's ray function in rules, since it's a non-spell ray?

I am under the impression that non-spell rays don't really exist, except in rare circumstances. I'm including spell like abilties in that "non-spell" statement. Even the technology guide's laser weapons aren't techically ray weapons.

Scarab Sages

Take 10 wrote:

I've been on the fence with this method of doing group skill checks - and you do give a very good point of view....

I just wonder/worry about that player who wants to Take 10 ... does that mean they can't then offer to Aid? and are effectively NOT working as part of the group? After all, if they are Taking 10 - but not getting the highest result at the table, they are not rolling to Aid Another... I guess if they are Taking 10 and getting the highest result I could count the other players as Aiding... but that feels odd.

Pretty sure you can take 10 or 20 on aid another checks. Though taking 20 would still require the time to do so, so might not be an option on every check they wanted to aid.

Either way, aid another doesn't affect the "highest roll", they affect the roll that they declare they affect, before it rolls. So very often the player rolling the main, botches it, and the other players buff that to a rather subpar result.

Scarab Sages

Azten wrote: there a way to actively seek to kill someone that does allow for redemption?

Oh, I see your point. Missed it the first time You were asking about what I said regarding need atonement. That one is regarding Sarenrae, not good alignments. Sarenrae teaches redemption, so killing people without giving them the option for redemption seems like something she wouldn't condone and the paladin would need atonement for going against there god's teachings. A Neutral Cleric of Sarenrae could actively seek to kill someone, but they would need to grant the option of redemption.

The dishonorable behaviour doesn't matter to Sarenrae, but would it violate the Paladin's alignment, which is required for the class. So I would drop the lawful aspect of the Paladin's alignment for this.

The act of seeking to create death is non-good behaviour, and premeditated fight to the death certainly qualifies (a duel is premeditated because you agreed to it in advance). So I'd drop the Good aspect of the player's alignment to neutral for this.

So the character would be True Neutral AND require atonement.

And doing this sort of thing all at once, seems like the Player just doesn't grasp Paladins, so I'd give them a talking to. If it seemed clear that this was something that would not happen again, I'm probably let it slide without actually changing their alignment or needing atonement. If they didn't seem to learn from it, I'd ban them from playing paladins at my table (let them recreate that character as a fighter or something). A paladin shouldn't be falling on all fronts over a single encounter, the gradual fall of a paladin is part of their class, but falling quickly like this is something else and should have been addressed in "paladin school." No need to penalize the player for being unable to role play paladins, but at the same time, I don't want them to continue playing paladins.

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:
Um, I said you found it confusing because you literally said it was "kinda confusing".

No, I said two weapon fighting is confusing with regards to unarmed strike. Duel wielding unarmed strike, that is.

Scarab Sages

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Its really interesting how the OP has had virtually everyone tell him that this needs no clarification as the FAQ/Design Team Clarification cover this, yet they still insist that everyone is wrong and they are the sole correct person.

This is a very silly thread, bordering on ridiculous at this point and I don't think anything productive is going to come from arguing with someone who just says "no, I'm right and you're wrong" to every response.

But if that's the case, then it really doesn't need an FAQ, since the answer obviously that whomever is talking is right and everyone else is wrong...

I think the issue is that it's difficult to picture how this would function within the imaginative rules presented.

I don't see a particular balance issue here, and if anything, use of spells to modify further spells seems counter productive. You'd almost always be better off casting the same spell twice, or casting true strike and then your Ray. But the developers seem clear that they intend rays to count as weapons, so I would allow a +1 Ray if the player really wanted it.

The really big kicker here, is that holding a charge from a touch spell will dissipate if you cast another spell, so the caster can't cast magic weapon on their own Ray, they'd need a second caster...Just seems like a huge waste for two casters to be wasting actions buffing a single ray. But if the players really, really wants a +1 Ray...

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:
My point was in response to you finding it confusing that Monk's bodies can be buffed as a weapon while they can attack multiple times as if they were multiple different weapons.

No, I don't find it confusing, I find it abstract. Casting magic weapon on unarmed strike is pretty straight forward. What this actually looks like is abstract, since unarmed strike rather undefined.

The GM would be within the rules to apply magic weapon only to a specific body part, just as much as the GM could apply it to the entire monk. No idea how I would rule it.

Scarab Sages

Azten wrote: there a way to actively seek to kill someone that does allow for redemption?

A good aligned character shouldn't be seeking to kill anyone. That said, they can certainly have objectives that result in situations where killing is the only option, but causing death should never be the goal for a good character.

Regarding a Duel, yes, that one is simple. Amend the Duel as a Fight to Death OR if your opponent admits defeat.

By having the option to surrender without dying, the fight to the death is not longer about killing the opponent, it's about defeating them. And admiting defeat is a good step towards redemption.

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:
Magic Weapon also targets 50 things of projectiles that are together. So the Monk's body being one "weapon" that's a bunch of weapons together isn't that much out there.

Magic Weapon? Targeting 50 projectiles seems to be only for Greater Magic Weapon, as I read it.

Regardless, for projectiles, they do need to all be in one spot when you cast the spell. You can't target the arrows you don't have when the spell is cast. So I don't know why this would apply to the next 50 rays you cast, rather than only applying the rays present when you cast, whether they count as projectiles or not. But sure, if you have 50 rays with held charges in the same spot when you cast the spell, I suppose Greater Magic Weapon might apply....

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ultrace wrote:

I'm asking this on behalf of a witch for an upcoming game, whose cat familiar is almost certainly going to be taking (very temporary) refuge inside her handy haversack during touch-and-go combat (despite having a higher armor class than the witch herself.)

My question is, how far away is something that's inside a closed bag of holding or a haversack with the flaps down? Presumably it's in a pocket dimension, but is it also considered to be within 1 mile for Empathic Link and the benefit to Stealth? The witch could pull her cat out of the backpack as a move action, but while in the interdimensional space, does it could as being in "arm's reach" for Alertness?

No, they certaintly not consider adjacent or within a mile while in that extra dimension space. In effect, the contents of a bag of holding are nowhere.

While inside, the cat should be unable to determine sounds or smells from outside the haversack, so there's really no way to know when to "disembark" the haversack during combat.

The move action to "retrieve" things from the haversack is only for "items" and wouldn't apply to the cat, who is a creature, not an item. The cat should be able to leave whenever, using their own actions, provoided the haversack isn't sealed shut. That said, I don't think the cat can "poke it's head out" only, as I think entering or leaving the extradimensional space is an all or nothing affair.

Additionally, a living creature can only be inside a bag of holding or handy haversack for 10 minutes before they need to roll for suffocation...

Scarab Sages

Clerics and Druids are both Spontanous Casters and Prepared Casters. They prepare their spells, but then can spontaneously cast inflict/cure/summon nature's ally. I've always considered them counting in both groups, though adding to spells known does nothing for either class, since spells known has no effect on how they cast spells.

1 to 50 of 4,119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>