Man in Ice

Negative Zer0's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse 86 posts (106 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 12 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

3 people marked this as a favorite.

None of the 4 categories really fit for this so putting it here:

PLEASE optimize pregens. Now I'm not saying make them min maxed or anything like that but there is a happy medium between min maxing and making pregens some of the worst characters that see play at a table.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

23 people marked this as a favorite.

MAKE ITEMS ON CHRONICLE SHEETS MATTER!

I dont care how this is done but sotp filling chronicle sheets with completely useless crap that can already be purchased. Either give a discount, or have a unique item or something just stop with the useless clutter.

Sovereign Court

Are there still delays for Gencon reporting. (2017)
I only have 1 table reported so far out of 7.
Do we have any word on what the issue is? (just trying to be informed not impatient)

Sovereign Court

The Towel should fill the role of the cloak of resistance.

Sovereign Court

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

All I wanna know is if going melee is not a death sentence since while you charge tbe frontline with your stun baton or some s+!%, your opponents have machineguns for hands. And eyes. And other appendages. Lots of things are improved by replacing it with only more guns...

Your opponents are gunborgs.

So basically, what madman would do that? Are they some kind of space knight? Do they have a space steed to ride into space battle against space...vikings... or something. Is a barbarian more or less useful in space? Will we finally get ranged sneak attacking implemented or are the rogue equivalent in Starfinder (we will call them Smugglers for now) even worse due to system holdover?

Time will tell.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tytiJ6AJmos/maxresdefault.jpg

Sovereign Court

Quote:

Definition of voice

sound produced by vertebrates by means of lungs, larynx, or syrinx

the sound or sounds uttered through the mouth of living creatures

the faculty or power of uttering sounds through the mouth by the controlled expulsion of air

a range of such sounds distinctive to one person, or to a type of person or animal

Speech and Humans are refereed to in the definition because we are most familiar with it and so it's used as an example. This does not make them the same thing. The definition of voice in the English language includes sounds made by animals

It seems they went out of their way to NOT include speech/spoken when describing this ability. They used syllables as one example which while this is distinctive to speech makes it seem like the sound matters more than the words, then they use shout as another example which can be words but doesn't have to be, finally the actual ability itself refers to a requirement of sound. They had AMPLE opportunity to write spoken or speech or verbal anywhere in these paragraphs yet they didn't once do so.

It seems fully intentional to me that this was written this way.

Sovereign Court

Verbal (V)
A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.

Compelling Voice (Su)
A vox can focus the sound of his voice

My contention is that these are no where near the same thing.
One requires SPOKEN INCARNATION the other simply requires SOUND.

Sovereign Court

I'm not saying I can cast spells.
I'm saying I should be able to use the alternate version of the mesmer's stare.

Sovereign Court

From sibilant whispers to overwhelming imprecations that resonate with the force of pure will, a vox unleashes the power of his mind with every silken syllable and shattering shout.

Compelling voice: sound of his voice

sounds, syllables and shouts
There is nothing about spoken words.
If a human can use shouts why cant the fox use it's grunts, howls, etc.

I know I'm going to face some push back on this (which is why I came here to argue instead of doing it at a table) but I do not see anything RAW that prevents this.

Quote:
Wounding Word isn't a light weapon, so Piranah Strike doesn't work. Deadly aim doesn't work because it prohibits touch attacks.

Wounding word: Alternatively, he can make a single attack with a melee weapon as a standard action, adding the listed sonic damage to the damage dealt by his weapon on a successful attack

It's adding dmg to the bite attack which counts as a light weapon

Sovereign Court

So I'm posting this because I stated it out while trying to decide if I want to go
Mesmer Fox
Voxy Fox (Gains 1d6+lvl dmg 7/day)

Must be PFS legal - Still trying to figure out what kind of table variation I will encounter.
Compelling Voice: A vox can focus the sound of his voice on one creature within 30 feet.
The target does not need to be able to understand what the vox is saying, but does need to be able to hear the sound of the vox's voice.
Is there any reason why RAW would not allow me to use the foxes howls to fulfill these requirements?

Stats
STR 8
DEX 19
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 16

Level 1
Urban Barbarian
Feat: Extra Rage
Rage (+4dex 12rnd/Day)

Level 2
Mouser (swashbuckler)
Swashbuckler Finesse

Level 3
Vox Mesmerist
Feat: Piranha Strike

Level 4
Vox Mesmerist

Level 5
Vox Mesmerist
Feat: Fox Form
Wounding Word (15DC with -2 will)
Bold Stare: Disorientation

Level 5 example:

Stats (as Fox)
STR 6
DEX 26
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 18 (16 if you cant afford headband yet)

Attack (7/day)
Raging Sonic Piranha Strike
+14 1d3+2d6+17
23 AC and -2 to one target's attack

Acrobatics +18
Bluff +11
Disguise +10
Stealth +24

Tricks 5/day
Fearsome Guise, Meek Facade (effectively adds 6ac to ally with mouser combo)

From here on most levels will be in mesmer with the ability to pick up the second barb level if you feel it necessary. An alternative is to take Defensive Strategist trait.

Sovereign Court

So lets look at an easy example of Undercasting:
You have a level 6 Psychic
One of your 3rd level spells is Mind Thrust III
You do not have Mind Thrust I or II in your spell list at all.

With undercasting this means you can Cast Mind Thrust III as Mind Thrust II and in doing so they use a 2nd level spell slot and do damage as Mind Thrust II. You can also cast Mind Thrust III as Mind Thrust I and use a level 1 spell slot.

So here's where the question comes in, I have Magical Lineage on Mind Thrust III. I undercast Mindthrust III as Mind thrust II and apply Disruptive Meta Magic. Dose lineage still affect this cast?

I imagine the answer is NO but I wanted to ask to be sure.

Undercasting:

Some psychic spells can be undercast. This means that
the spellcaster can cast the spell at the level that he
knows, or as any lower-level version of that spell, using
the appropriate spell slot. When a spellcaster undercasts
a spell, it is treated exactly like the lower-level version,
including when determining its effect, saving throw, and
other variables. For example, a psychic spellcaster who
adds ego whip III to his list of spells known can cast it as
ego whip I, II, or III. If he casts it as ego whip I, it is treated
in all ways as that spell; it uses the text and the saving
throw DC for that spell, and requires him to expend a
3rd-level spell slot.
Whenever a spontaneous spellcaster adds a spell to
his list of spells known that can be undercast, he can
immediately learn a spell in place of each lower-level
version of that spell he knows. In essence, he loses each
earlier version and can replace it with another spell of the
same level that is on his spell list.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

Any kind sole out there willing to give up an Oread boon.

I don't usually like to ask for handouts but the last 3 conventions I went I struck out on every dice roll as far as getting any boons so I'm 0/3 at conventions and have no trade.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

Robert Hetherington wrote:
It's working fine for me this morning. If you were trying to login I hadn't approved your registration until just now.

I created a new account for a different reason. I had forgotten my username and was unable to login. ever sense I get this instead of the website even if I navigate directly to the login screen

(In chrome and FF blank page, in IE the error above)

AkA: exceed the number of tries to login and the site bans your IP permanently (had this issue in excess of a month now). I can access the site just fine from my phone.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

Keep getting this:

The website declined to show this webpage

HTTP 403

Most likely causes:
•This website requires you to log in.

This error (HTTP 403 Forbidden) means that Internet Explorer was able to connect to the website, but it does not have permission to view the webpage.

For more information about HTTP errors, see Help.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

99% of items on chronicle sheets are a [censored] waste of ink as you can buy them anyway. For flavor reasons it's neat to see the items you found written out but for mechanical PFS reasons they are useless the vast majority of the time.

In any situation where the items/boons are sometime unique I would say you should always err on the side of players if in doubt since scenarios can only ever be played once. This doesn;t mean always give them everythign all the time. In Z...D...'s example above where it is specifically calling for a check to find X. Failing that check should defiantly not give whatever it is.

This is my take on it. So for the specific season 4 scenario in question here short of them fleeing from that room I see absolutely no reason they wouldn't find the items. No perception check means even a blind character would trip over it.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

dumping con is choice so I don't consider that a valid point [not trying to be a dick just don't see that as relevant].

3d8+3 is just too much damage from a single attack to throw at a lvl 1. The character had at lest 10 hp which is pretty good for a lvl 1 (d8 with 12con) and i still knocked him to negative 4 with inflict moderate wounds. The average damage on 2d8+3 is 12. Unless your playing a con based character this will nuke any lvl 1 character but wont kill them (most of the time). The potential for a oneshot kill is just to high on 3d8+3.

one thing i did forget was the doll would have to move into the targets square but they had already taken an AoO when the doll cast and missed so it would not have mattered.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

Jim Groves wrote:

I am always delighted to see this scenario still has legs after all this time.

Years from now, the Frostfur gang will still be the happy memory for me about how I got started freelancing. My pardons for the flaws, it was the very first one. :)

I know this thread is old but I just ran this and was one of my favorite ones so far. (ran at tier 1-2)

My only gripe is the doll. This could have been an awsome encounter and instead I had to fudge the one attack and then as written the doll basically does nothing else. I dumbed down the inflict serius wounds to inflict moderate (2d8 vs 3d8). I don't give a [censored] what the PFS rules are in this case if I rolled the extra d8 it would have been a player death (and they were at full health). As it is inflict moderate was enough to take them into the negative in one shot forcing stabilize rolls and the party to immediately respond to prevent that player from dying. Oh sh!t moment was fully accomplished without a needless player death.

Despite the doll being rather dull the spellcaster in the group succeeded the spellcraft check and identified the first spell spell the doll cast after it was floating around in the air. The total look of confusion after they had just seen the doll take out the one character with inflict wounds and start "flying" around the battlefield only to be followed by casting a prestidigitation was priceless.

For anyone running this I strongly recommend using inflict moderate if the target is lvl 1 and only using the inflict serious wounds if they are level 2. Again I know this is contrary to PFS rules but oneshotting a lvl 1 character at full health is just bad GMing PFS or not. Now if that same level 1 didn't heal in-between encounters and the inflict moderate kills them when combined with previous damage, well then they learned a valuable lesson about healing after every encounter and that's fair game in my book.

Ranting aside this is an excellent one to run and if the doll encounter had been more exciting this would be rated #1 for me. (as a side note the higher tier defiantly looks like it does this. I may have to run it again when I get a GM star or even run it without credit because it was that good.)

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:


Is there a reverse of this?
Each scenario followed by all the maps it uses.
Done. It is on the second tab, Maps by Scenario.

So came to see about trying to get this done tonight and alas you already completed it. Damn you for being too helpful.

Joking aside this is amazingly helpful, for those that don't own every map and scenario ever (I know, Blasphemy!).

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

Shouldn't be hard to reverse engineer from this document. Maybe I'll give it a whack if i can find free time this week.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

apologies you are correct

This is really useful by the way.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent, New York—Syracuse aka Negative Zer0

[Deleted]

Is there a reverse of this?
Each scenario followed by all the maps it uses.

Sovereign Court

@slothsy Thanks haven't ever actually been waiting for a scenario before. Usually other PDF stuff I have looked for on day one (Ex: player companions) releases early to mid day (thus would be out by now). So it is good to know this "delay" on scenarios is normal.

That said my original comment was mostly tongue in cheek

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So did you all forget you were releasing this today and just went home early for New Years? I mean I like the bar as much as the next guy but come on now. :-(

@Duncan don't worry it will use at least 2-3 out of print flip mats

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

@valantrix I could be wrong but I think controversial items appear more often.

Example an item that "always" gets upvoted shows up less because they know its good

and item that always gets downvoted shows up less because they know it sucks

an item that constantly gets upvoted and downvoted needs to be pared against as many things as possible to determine where it lies

This would be my guess as to how the items are comming up

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

Thanks covent I was wondering the same thing

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

I'm seeing a large number of repeats

[Redacted] Blade - 6 times
[Redacted] Sowrd of [Redacted] - 4 times
Rod of [Redacted] - 3 times
Rod of [Redacted] - 3 times
[Redacted] Rod - 2 times
Ring of [Redacted] -2 times
Knife of [Redacted] - 4 times
[Redacted] Ring - 4 times
[Redacted] Ring - 3 times

With less than 100 votes

in 5 more votes 2 of the above items repeated again and a 2 new items repeated

[Redacted] Blade - 6 times
[Redacted] Sowrd of [Redacted] - 4 times
Rod of [Redacted] - 4 times
Rod of [Redacted] - 3 times
[Redacted] Rod - 2 times
Ring of [Redacted] -2 times
Knife of [Redacted] - 4 times
[Redacted] Ring - 4 times
[Redacted] Ring - 4 times
[Redacted] - 2 times
[Redacted] - 2 times

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

Mage Evolving wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:

if your weapon has something along the lines of:

This +1 mace of no other abilities becomes a +3 mace of face melting when a bard with, perform: whimsical fart, wields it"
the other item is going to win almost every time.

This mechanic of: this useless overpriced item instantly becomes the godly item of @$$ kickery only when X class uses it and for no other reason, is being WAY over used.

this.

good to see I'm not the only one that thinks this

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

if your weapon has something along the lines of:
This +1 mace of no other abilities becomes a +3 mace of face melting when a bard with, perform: whimsical fart, wields it"
the other item is going to win almost every time.

This mechanic this useless overpriced item instantly becomes the godly item of @$$ kickery only when X class uses it and for no other reason is being WAY over used.

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

No what I'm saying is I keep getting repeats. I've seen 3 different items 5 times each now and i have less votes than you.

I haven't seen my item but that's not what I'm grumbling about.

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

Anthony Adam wrote:

Ping, Star Voter is mine :)

100 votes exactly, 177 unique items seen, greatest repeat seen count 4 (a ring).

So my luck just sucks good to know

Also just got:

This +3 ability, ability, ability, ability sword ....

Sigh

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

cwslyclgh wrote:

shrug through my first 125 votes the most I saw a given item was 3 times (although there were 5 different items I saw 3 times)... after 238 votes the most I have seen any given item is 6 times (only one item so far). it actually seems better then last year as far as repeats go.

I've now seen the same piece of armor 5 times

The same weapon 6 times
The same ring 5 times

This is stupid

Sovereign Court Star Voter Season 8

So i've seen one item 5 times
A second item 4 times
I've voted on < 30 pairs of items

They really need to do some work on whatever algorithm shows items.

Sovereign Court

The lack of Favored Class Bonuses for ARG is rather disappointing.

They easily could have used a different format in ACG where they listed them for core races only saved a ton of space and added them in the original book, but they had a second book coming so I just assumed it would be in ACO. Well ya it's not there either.

Are there any plans at all to add these at some point?

Sovereign Court

David knott 242 wrote:

I am not so sure that the developers did intend for the Unsworn Shaman to qualify for Extra Hex -- in fact, from the wording about spirit vs. wandering spirit in the text of the feat, I would conclude that they are not meant to qualify because they have no associated non-wandering spirit to get Hexes from. Every one of the Unsworn's hexes can be changed daily, so those hexes have far more in common with Wandering Hexes than "normal" Hexes -- and the Extra Hex feat specifically says that the added Hex is a fixed choice that is added to your "normal" Hexes rather than your Wandering Hexes.

Extra hex was a bad example but as worded this archtype doesn't qualify for any feats that require hex or any items or spells.

Sovereign Court

The difference is this isn't a similarly named ability its a situation where it directly conflicts.

"This ability replaces spirit and hex"

There are other classes/archetypes that have this same thing and when this happens it does indeed cut them off from that class feature. When they still want them to qualify they have specifically added lines like "X still qualifies as Y for the purpose of selecting feats" when such a line does not appear then you can't.

RAI - it seems pretty damn obvious that simply forgot to include a line: "Minor spirit qualifies as Hex for the purpose of meeting prerequisites" There is a precedent for this in other archetypes.
RAW - Without the above line the ability doesn't meet the Prerequisite HEX again this is due to an established precedent set by other archetypes.

Sovereign Court

Avatar-1 wrote:
In case it's not clear, Unsworn Shaman gets witch hexes from the first line in Minor Spirit, and regular Shaman gets it because of the "Witch Hex" hex that Anzyr quoted.

This discussion isn't if unsworn can use witch hexes.

This is obvious of course they can use witch hexes.

They however don't have HEX as a class feature as HEX is replaced by the class ability Minor Spirit.

Minor spirit does not meet the Prerequisites for feats, spells, and items, that require HEX.

Quote:
At 1st level, the unsworn shaman also forms a temporary bond with a minor spirit each day, granting her access to a witch hex of her choosing

This is no different from the Warpriest using the Clerics spell list. This doesn't magically make the Warpriest a cleric for the purpose of Prerequisites on feats and items. This is a bad example because I don;t know if items or feats the have Prerequisites: Cleric even exists but you get the point. Just because the word hex appears in Minor Spirit, does not make you qualify for feats that require Hex.

Sovereign Court

@Anzyr: The entire point of this thread is discussing if the archtype qualifies for FEATS, SPELLS, and ITEMS that have requirement HEX.

I assumed that your original response was in the context of the discussion and that you are claiming the archetype does have access to these in which case I am pointing out this is wrong per RAW.

RAW in this case is completely stupid but that's why this is an FAQ because it's my opinion that this is a mistake not an intended penalty for the archtype.

Sovereign Court

Heimdall666 wrote:
Onyxlion: They are not intended to be hexless, as to use a Witch hex you must have Hex as a class feature, it's an catch-22 error within the text. You can't giveth and then taketh away...For correction, they should either say, "You can use all hexes" or "You may only select Witch hexes" and stop screwing around.

You're just making s~#~ up because RAI is so obvious:

Witches are granted hexes by the class ability HEX.

In contrast the unsworn are granted hexs by the class ability Minor Spirit.

Minor Spirit /= Hex and does not not fulfill Hex requirements.

citricking wrote:

They can get Spirit Talker which adds a new wandering hex.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spirit-talker

No they dont as they do not meet the Prerequisites:

Hex class feature; shaman level 6th or witch level 6th.

Unworn DO NOT HAVE Hex per RAW.

This is the entire reason for this thread being an FAQ.

The raw is obvius: no HEX

The RAI is equally obvius: they should have some line that basically says, "This ability counts as having HEX for the purposes of meeting prerequisites".

This seems like a mistake and not an intentional decision to cut them off from all of the feats and items that this class needs. But even if we all agree this is a mistake it doesnt change the way it works until it gets addressed (at least for PFS)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Anzyr wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:

In the absence of an FAQ or a dev post, I'm going with the RAI here; I'm pretty sure that if you are using "hexes" that you qualify for spells/feats/items that require hex. If a player was at my table, I'd be fine with it. I understand there might be table variation.

The big advantage with this archetype is the ability to use witch hexes at all.

Uh... Shamans can default use Witch Hexes. Just not Major or Grand Hexes, something which the Unsworn Shaman Archetype does nothing to change. The only benefit is that your Witch Hexes are flexible (which isn't that useful since there's a limited number of "good" ones). To be honest default Shaman is best Shaman.

You are completely wrong:

Minor Spirit (Su)

At 1st level, the unsworn shaman also forms a temporary bond with a minor spirit each day, granting her access to a witch hex of her choosing, but not a major hex or a grand hex. She must make this selection each day when she prepares her spells for the day. Until she changes the minor spirit, she continues to have access to the witch hex. At 2nd level, she can instead select a hex from one of her wandering spirits selected for that day. If she selects a witch hex, she treats her shaman level as her witch level, and uses her Wisdom in place of her Intelligence for the purpose of that hex.

She can make temporary bonds with two minor spirits (thus gaining two hexes) at 4th level, and with one additional minor spirit (and hex) every 4 levels thereafter.

This ability replaces spirit and hex.

Wandering Spirit (Su)

At 2nd level, the unsworn shaman gains access to the wandering spirit class feature. At 10th level, she gains the abilities listed in the greater version of her wandering spirit. At 18th level, she gains the abilities listed in the true version of her wandering spirit.

Additionally, at 6th level, she also gains a second wandering spirit, gaining the abilities listed in the greater version of that spirit at 14th level, and the abilities listed in the true version at 20th level.

This ability alters wandering spirit and replaces wandering hex.

Unsword Shaman Loses Hex as a class feature. They still have hexs but do not have the HEX ability for the purposes of meeting requirements for feats, items, etc.

Ex: An unsworn shaman can not take the feat [Extra Hex] by RAW and thus by PFS rules.

Now I still maintain that this is completly stupid and most likely a mistake but that is how it is written.

Sovereign Court

Protection from possession and mental control (as protection from evil).

Immunity from possession and mental control created by evil creatures or objects.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:

For those that don't think it requires a roll why do you get to flat out ignore the first line of the ability and if it was meant to be immunity as an always on effect why does the resonate ability not say:

"Immunity from possession and mental control created by evil creatures or objects"

The fact I was able to sum up exactly how some people are claiming this item works in almost the same number of words as saying (as protection from evil) is yet another reason why I think they meant for this to be a re-roll ability. Otherwise there was no need to sya as protection from evil if they ONLY mechanic they wanted was the immunity.

There are absolutely merits to both arguments. I can very easily see why people can think it's just meant to be an always on immunity. But this isn't the one and only way to interpret how this thing works.

Again, the actual spell is not constantly in effect. That is why that language is in the spell. The clear spindle is constantly in effect, so that language never applies.

You are claiming they used "(as protection from evil)"

To only reference the BOLD section:

Quote:

First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves. Both these bonuses apply against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures.

Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person). This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.

Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by evil summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Summoned creatures that are not evil are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell Resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.

When "Immunity from possession and mental control created by evil creatures or objects" would have accomplished the same exact goal without referencing one of the longest spells in the rule book.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those that don't think it requires a roll why do you get to flat out ignore the first line of the ability and if it was meant to be immunity as an always on effect why does the resonate ability not say:

"Immunity from possession and mental control created by evil creatures or objects"

The fact I was able to sum up exactly how some people are claiming this item works in almost the same number of words as saying (as protection from evil) is yet another reason why I think they meant for this to be a re-roll ability. Otherwise there was no need to sya as protection from evil if they ONLY mechanic they wanted was the immunity.

There are absolutely merits to both arguments. I can very easily see why people can think it's just meant to be an always on immunity. But this isn't the one and only way to interpret how this thing works.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
The FAQ is likely we are going to get. It's just a strange case because the reroll language is almost certainly referring to a PC *already controlled* who gets prot evil cast on them. This situation is IMPOSSIBLE with the clear spindle resonance, as the spell is always functional.

The opposing school of thought is failing the first will save basically triggers the resonate ability which functions as if protection from evil had been cast on you. So you would indeed then trigger a second save. If successful you trigger immunity against that one source of the spell/ability. The main supporting factor for this is a spindle stone that grants only a +1 to will saves (you can select any one save but for arguments sake you selected will) costs 3,400. So for 4,000 you get a reroll and a +2 but it's only on some will saves. This seems way more in line with the costs of the other ioun stone.

Both interpretation have their merits and neither party is technically right or wrong to say it works they way they think it does. This is the entire reason the FAQ exists. It's not like this was some one off question that came up in a single game ever. This has been an ongoing recurring debate, is an item used by many players, and they need to finally answer how this stupid thing works, or ban it from PFS.

Sovereign Court

The Human Diversion wrote:

Ok, I've gone through all the posts in this thread, and I saw the reference to another thread where Mike Brock said that the socketed Clear Spindle stone only gave a +2 bonus a re-roll on charms and compulsions ... is there an official ruling on that? Are people just taking that as PFS gospel because it's Mike Brock? What is the official, de-facto, absolute ruling on this item at this point in time?

How does it work against Charm Person? Dominate Person? Confusion? Murderous Command? Terrible Remorse?

Actually this ruling is more commonly being ignored.

The most common ruling is:
Flat (no role required) immunity to a spell or effects that possess or exercise mental control from evil sources only.

However you should expect to see some table variation because of the fact this is still a debated issue without any official response.

What constitutes possess or exercise mental control is loosely (I say loosely because some spells still cause debates like the one in this thread) defined in the FAQ:

Quote:

Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

This is unfortunately the only extent to which they have currently addressed this item.

Sovereign Court

Sean says
"As for question #2, the stone-wayfinder resonant power only works on said effects from an evil source, because the resonant power specifically cites protection from evil."

however as the poster claims the writer did not intend for that restriction to carry over He merly wanted to refernce how the ability worked just like protection from chaos states it wors like protection from evil. Basically he just dropped the ball on adding a clarification the same way protection from chaos clarifies that evil sources is chaos sources.

This is by no means absolute proof it just shows the amount of confusion even by pathfinder staff (assuming you believe the poster to be genuine) on how this item works.

Sovereign Court

No I don't mean that post at all. It is a post that claims the opposite and is specifically mentioning the resonate effect and not the braod protection from evil spell.

He states in no uncertain terms that the person claimed the intent was to reference the mechanics of Protection from evil and not the restrictions of evil only.

However I fully admit to it having no credible backing to prove its legitimacy.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The people reading it that way I think are griefing the players unnecessarily. Effects that make people not be able to play are obnoxious enough.

For the record I am not saying you are wrong and I am not saying I am right. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION.

There is yet another poster who claimed to have asked the writer of the book containing this item in person about the evil restriction to which he stated

The reference to (as protection from evil) was meant to reference the mechanics and not the restriction on evil only
I'm paraphrasing because again I cant find the post.

1,000 internet cookies if anyone can find that damn post, been looking for over 2 hours now. This is the interwebs so it's possible said person was lying out their @$$ but if this is indeed correct I think this item is very useful as a +2 reroll against all effects that possess or exercise mental control. I would buy this item absolutely under this premise but at the same time it's not a blanket buy for every character item with these rules either.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:

If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.

If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.

Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:

Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)

It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.

This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).

So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.

For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.

As it has been pointed out, even with the most generous ruling (which I think is the RAW ruling, as I pointed out earlier) this thing's utility continues to decrease. Given the other toys you can put into the wayfinder, it's very hard to pull the trigger on the clear spindle.

The problem with Mike's version is that for a PC that can't make the will save in the first place, it just became basically useless. The way it is now, at most tables, it is a 4K insurance policy for high dpr PCs to not TPK their own group against a relatively narrow set of circumstances. I don't see how that's in any way broken.

With his ruling it's a +2 bonus with some flavor re-roll mechanics and a block all further attempts if you pass. Perfectly in
...

Except for the people that think it does work this way by raw and keep questioning the logic you are using to say no roll is required, hence the many many threads about it.

And the fact a cracked Amber stone costs 3,400 gold and only adds +1 to a single save. Ya adding a re-roll, a +2 to will (conditional) and a secondary blocking effect seems VERY MUCH in line with a cost of 4k.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:

If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.

If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.

Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:

Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)

It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.

This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).

So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.

For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.

As it has been pointed out, even with the most generous ruling (which I think is the RAW ruling, as I pointed out earlier) this thing's utility continues to decrease. Given the other toys you can put into the wayfinder, it's very hard to pull the trigger on the clear spindle.

The problem with Mike's version is that for a PC that can't make the will save in the first place, it just became basically useless. The way it is now, at most tables, it is a 4K insurance policy for high dpr PCs to not TPK their own group against a relatively narrow set of circumstances. I don't see how that's in any way broken.

With his ruling it's a +2 bonus with some flavor re-roll mechanics and a block all further attempts if you pass. Perfectly in line with the cost if you take away the evil requirement.

An item that costs 4k shouldn't be a lvl 20 end gear item. It should lose utility slowly as you go up higher in level.

Sovereign Court

If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.

If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.

Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:

Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)

It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.

This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).

So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.

For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>