You know what else is official? A Paizo publication. Specifically one which covers rules. Which this named publication does, and is more recent than the relevant FAQ entry.
The FAQ entry specifically addresses the Pathfinder Rules Reference Cards in relation to "hearing something somewhere online". It does not at all reference this more recent publication. This could be confusing.
I think that the FAQ should be updated to reflect the new and more recent publication which currently stands in opposition. So, yes, they should say that the FAQ is still correct. Or say that the new publication is correct. Because it's unclear. That is the purpose of issuing a FAQ entry.
Nothing you have said has dismissed any of my points or concerns regarding this. It is still a contradiction in official documentation which has not been addressed, and one of those publications is more recent than the other.
This should be addressed in the FAQ.
Chess Pwn wrote:
The book had gone to printing already when the FAQ was made, so they couldn't change the book. I can't remember which thread it was in, but they commented that the FAQ is the correct answer.
It would be nice if the FAQ, which is official, could reflect this. As it stands, the FAQ does not acknowledge this discrepancy, and a thread does not suffice as official (especially when it's a thread that can't be found), nor does it serve as a replacement for the FAQ. Else, why even have the FAQ?
Hence, the purpose of this thread for FAQ request.
If you agree that the FAQ does not properly address this inconsistency, please click FAQ on my OP.
Protection from Evil is a level one spell, so the minimum caster level is actually 1.
So the formula estimation (at minimum caster level possible) would be [Spell level 1 x Caster level 1 x 2000 x 2(for being minute per level)] = 4000. Crafting is at half cost, so it could be crafted for 2000 (unless you're being charged full price by the crafter, hehehe).
Level three is merely the minimum for taking Craft Wondrous Items.
The minimum caster level is based on the level of spell used. The minimum level needed to cast that spell. Obviously, you can choose to craft an item with a higher caster level (for stronger effect or other reasons).
Chess Pwn wrote:
The FAQ still stands, this was even brought up before and they mentioned that it was too late to fix the book.
Where in the FAQ is this clarified? That is my concern. The FAQ entry was published BEFORE the new book. Thus it brings the existing FAQ into question. Because the FAQ has been changed before to overturn an existing FAQ interpretation, and may very likely change again. This is a directly contradictory recent publication made after the FAQ entry. Thus is my question and request for the FAQ to address it.
A recently published (February 2015) Paizo book, called Pathfinder Strategy Guide has specifically written and illustrated rules on page 128 regarding threatened areas and attacks of opportunity with a reach weapon.
These written and illustrated rules conflict with the FAQ entry regarding threatened areas and attacks of opportunity with a reach weapon. The FAQ was meant to address some questions about the Pathfinder Rules Reference Cards.
The FAQ entry was added in December of 2014. However, the Pathfinder Strategy Guide was published in February of 2015, which is more recent than the FAQ.
This seems to be an explicit contradiction in two official Paizo documents. The Pathfinder Strategy Guide is the most recent. If the Pathfinder Strategy Guide treatment of reach is to be considered the official stance on reach and threatened areas, the FAQ must be updated to maintain consistency and clarity of Paizo resources. If it does not, and the current FAQ entry reflects the official stance on reach and threatened areas, the FAQ must be updated to address and clarify this contradiction (as well as updating any further printings of said book).
The FAQ entry was meant to clarify the cards, but now we have a different, more recent, publication from Paizo which contradicts the cards as well as the current FAQ entry on reach and threatened areas.
Please click FAQ on this post to get this contradiction addressed in the FAQ. I don't have any particular opinion on which is to be used, but think there should be clarity in this case. This case is extra confusing because we have an older published FAQ decision in contradiction to a newer published Paizo book. This is not a thread to debate which is preferential. This is to address a contradiction in official stances which I do not currently see specifically addressed in the FAQ.
Thanks, and happy rolling.
I could probably contribute to the thread better if I understood what a “caster AD” would be in Pathfinder terms. I get the impression that maybe the OP is looking for an unarmored martial PC who fights mostly mooks? Is that accurate, or is my lack of gaming vocabulary leading me astray here?
I'm fairly certain he had a typo omitting the "n" in "and", based on the following forward slash with the word "or" immediately after. The confusion is understandable.
Although he's not my favorite character, he's liked by many, including myself, and I'm sure he's someone's favorite. Guts from Berserk is absolutely not a caster and pretty much unarmored for the majority of the current series (trying to avoid spoilers).
There are many more examples. Your thread is bad and you should feel bad.
Arcane Trickster -> More spellcastery rogue.
Shadowdancer -> More non-spellcastery rogue.
Both will give you teleportation stuff and illusions, though Trickster will give you more of both.
For the Arcane Trickster, use Conjuration(Teleportation) Wizard as your school specialization and you will have a minor teleportation as a swift action. It ends your turn and you won't go too far, but there is the dimensional agility line of feats if you REALLY want them.
Yeah, fair enough, but you're talking about BEYOND first level. I'm only and ONLY talking about first level.
And if we go that route, you can actually go all the way to 9th level casting starting with just a 10 INT and only relatively mild inconvenience. Now, the first three levels will be rough with only cantrips, but soon as you hit 4 you can put that point into INT. You're also likely to have a +2 INT item at that time or even before as one of your first magic items hopefully, giving you a 13, which will do until level 7. At 7, you could possibly invest extra (almost all your gold) into getting a +4 INT item, setting you up for a good while, or just tough it out until level 8, for your second stat boost, giving you 14 INT. By level 9 you should definitely have gotten a +4 int item, giving you 16 INT. Now you're set until 13. By the time you get to 13th level, you already got a +1 INT for the level 12 bonus, which brings you to 17 INT and takes care of seventh level casting. By the time you get to 15th level, you should have been able to upgrade to a +6 INT item, bringing you to 19 INT! And you're set.
Now, obviously, the most difficult part is levels 1-3, but those are already kind of rough, and if you find an INT +2 item early on or buy one early on you can solve it as soon as later into level 1 or by the time you get to level 2.
But remember, I was only talking about just first level Wizard. So at least 11 is what you 'should' have. But if you plan to do the long haul, you can man up and go as low as 10 with only mild inconvenience.
Note: The above advice is not recommended for anyone, ever, unless you like playing something deliberately gimped and silly. Which I do sometimes enjoy. Even if you want to be a gish. Just don't do it. Please.
Note: If you were rolling randomly for stats and 10 was your highest stat, feel free to follow the above advice in order to make the most of a bad situation, and hey, worst case you'll just die and get to make a new character. Best case you'll become one of the greatest Wizards to ever make a living with... modest... stats.
Such a big companion has some practical downsides though...
Even better than that, once you get to level 9 (although the spell still has some, if very limited, value).
Advanced Race Guide Alternate FCB for Elf Summoner wrote:
The amount of time the summoner must spend to summon his eidolon is reduced by 1 round, to a minimum of 1 round.
Eidolon Share Spells wrote:
Share Spells (Ex)
The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list.
This ability does not allow the eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.
You forgot one of the most important parts of the Rogue class. It provides an absurdly large amount of skill points (note that this is actually a good thing), enabling one to easily be able to afford to use all of the skills he had described. While other classes CAN invest in those skills, they do so at great cost by comparison.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I used the word "dragons" because puns are a thing.
Casual Viking wrote:
Be level 10, and use the good ability of the archetype?
I was reading through the whole thing again because it's been a while and I was just thinking it's kind of blah for losing Arcane Bond (one of ANY SPELL YOU WANT to cast per day is not worth replacing to get the stuff, or all the familiar shenanigans if that's your style) but then saw the level ten ability which replaces the level ten bonus feat, and that alone made me think it might just be worth it. Just think about the veritable arsenal of scrolls you could cart around and use. Magic Missile is now 5d4+5 unerring for the low low price of just 12.5 GP per casting (I know there might be far better examples)! And you can do that with any level one spell! Even level two spells are ripe for the picking at 75 GP per casting! And they won't count against your limit for the day, and you get full value out of them!
It's almost worth giving up Arcane Bond. Almost. Well, maybe it is. Certainly if I started near tenth level or after tenth level it might be worth it.
Mind-controlling PCs to FORCE them to adapt to his playstyle? Yeah, he violated the 'don't be a ****' rule first, so his feelings are ultimately irrelevant, as he disregarded everyone else's.
Well, that is a fairly blatant ignoring of the "don't be a dick" unspoken rule.
However, the first time that it happened, you should have clearly said to the player at the table AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED that not only would you allow it (because clearly you did), but that it would have a consequence both on his alignment (if he wasn't already evil, because doing that to someone who is supposed to be a companion and ally is... well, it's not 'good' - even if the effect isn't immediate but as a warning in case he plans to make it a common event for him to do), and a consequence on how the OTHER CHARACTERS react to his action and treat him. Remember that Charm Person lets the person remember everything that happened while they were under the compulsion, as do most compulsion effects. Including the fact that this person just forced you to act against your nature, in a deliberate attempt to exert dominance over you simply because of a disagreement, yet still pretends to be your friend and travel with you.
And after telling him all of that right then and there, I would have very calmly and quietly asked him if he really wanted to do that, and asked if he wanted to change his mind (I would give him a free retcon to avoid being a dick here). After he makes his choice, it's obvious what is to follow.
Yeah, that ain't gonna fly for me. But the problem is YOURS. You allowed it. You let it fester. Good going, DM.
An opportunity to teach everyone at the table more depth to the game as well as the value of consequences and measured actions in approach was wasted and instead you group-lynched someone for it.
When I first joined my group, everyone was an absolute optimizer, combat was everything, and you weren't a wizard unless you threw fireballs 24/7. I quietly went about my business, playing the game the way I always have played it, and kicked ass. A few years later and I'm seeing the guy who mocked me the most for my play style getting giddy to play exactly the way I had been playing when I first joined. We talk excitedly with each other about the cool stuff he can do, and I'm seeing him play more builds with more variance and depth to it. And everyone else seems to have warmed to the play style too.
Be the change you want to see in your group. Don't lead a lynch mob needlessly. Instead, you seemed to have apathetically left a sore to get infected and grow into this writhing pustule which you then felt had to be popped, and then blamed the sore for getting disgusting and then making such a mess which you had to clean up.
Sorry, but it is precisely BECAUSE you are the DM here that I really can't see eye to eye with your view here. I see this from another angle. One in which you have failed your group. And for that, I am sorry.
D&D can work well also as a game about "hugging unicorns or playing a hippy form of Batman" and I've done it a couple of time myself.
As have I. Not in Pathfinder (It was 2nd AD&D), and not with my current group, but I've hugged a unicorn (at great risk for the attempt) and played a somewhat hippy take on Batman (remember bards can do almost anything, and with style).
Even in my current group which heavily favors combat and such, we don't go murderhobo, at least not for no reason.
There are no "generic" professions or a "Profession (All)". To allow that, your DM would have to say that it is accepted as a house rule (thus making specific professions absolutely obsolete because everyone could be all professions for the same exact investment). Additionally, the Profession skill is Wisdom-based, not Charisma-based, unless you have an ability that makes it Charisma-based (and usually that would only be for one specific profession. And my advice to any DM asked this would be to say a big, fat "NO!".
I've never understood why you would do the measuring tape thing. If it's all still restricted to exact lengths and areas... then why did you get rid of the convenient and speedy grid system?
Tape measure might actually be faster and more convenient. No more counting out squares or precisely following area of effect rules while drawing out a spell effect. Spells with a radius make more sense now, and movement can be more fluid. Also, with a tape measure, you can just hold out the length of what you can move and instantly see the distance you can go.
You would have to somewhat clarify flanking, however, but I think that wouldn't be too hard.
I think it might be pretty fun. The square grid system produces some incredibly awkward results occasionally.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Pre-Weapon Master's Handbook, it was generally agreed that one should always pick a fighter archetype because you never lost anything useful.
Eh, Armor Training could be seen as incredibly useful and is dropped by far too many archetypes for my liking.
Although I generally agree with the sentiment that the archetypes provide lots of really neat, unique, often incredibly useful changes that could allow you to do more and feel less bland.
Damn it there should be a way to take a feat or something to get Armor Training back.
You shouldn't have gone for an intimidation, you should have just said what you needed. Either they're all idiots or they'll give you a listen. For added effect, you should have just stood there tapping your feet with arms crossed until they realized it was pointless and stopped. Then you could try to tell them what idiots they were, and then when you get to speak with the ruler you could intimidate him THEN with hopefully a situational bonus regarding what the morons on the wall did when you tell him about it.
Heresy! We must purge you!
Seriously, "fast" zombies ruins absolutely everything that makes zombies what they are, and what makes them so dreadful. It ruins the whole concept.
I get the feeling that you did not seem to understand anything of what I had been saying. My apologies if I did not properly express myself, leading to your confusion.
Additionally, you CAN know something about a game without having played it. I seriously can't believe that you are suggesting otherwise.
Well, PFS is much more restrictive, demanding of a universal setting and expectation, and eliminates some unique options which are not entirely game breaking.
So my answer is no.
It is, however, a good chassis for a particular type of Pathfinder game and a relatively fair standard of comparison for game breaking and overall fairness. Because that's what it attempts to achieve.
So it's a decent guideline in some cases and particularly for possibly new DMs. However, I don't think it should be the global standard for the game and could introduce unnecessarily restrictive settings and possibilities.
Grain of salt, I have not actually played a PFS game, but I am somewhat aware of how it works and what kind of game it produces.
Don't increase the hp just because. Give extra defenses and environmental advantages, as well as encounter support (in other words give him some minions to appropriately provide increased difficulty without seeming unfairly buffed). Also, crit fishing on a BBEG is almost insisting on supporting the rocket tag effect. Instead, have them use an impact weapon for extra damage, give them reach and nice combat abilities so that any approach on him is dangerous and difficult (since it's clear that he's a melee type) and must be regarded with caution or possibly deadly otherwise. Give them defenses other than AC.
You can give the appearance of danger and deadly ability without playing the rocket tag game yourself.
Also, you can do all of the above while giving just a slight HP boost in comparison. Instead of 10x the HP, maybe just double what is normal, if you absolutely think it must be done.
Also, you can use skinsend and simulacrum and other interesting things to let them THINK they have conquered the danger and then surprise them later.
There is so much you can do other than slapping on more HPs and buying into the rocket tag principles. Be better. Be clever. Be fun.
(I also find it incidentally interesting that you used the term rocket tag which I used to describe a one-session 11th level game wherein the GM promised to be ruthless and challenging. The PCs other than myself were built to be absolute deliverers of pain, while I built to be a complete and endless font of life. It worked out alright, but only because I focused so exclusively on being an indomitable heal source. What I'm trying to say is that rocket tag is only fun in an online FPS when everyone knows they're going to be playing rocket tag.)
It's clearly based on INT. Or STR. Some might say DEX.
Joking aside, I find it's best to have it determined separately, either decided by the player themselves, or randomly rolled (typically 1-100). Charisma is NOT the beauty stat. It is primarily force of will, leadership, personality, likability, and only appearance in a minor way. It does not mean you are beautiful necessarily. You could just "look" trustworthy, or "look" like someone who knows what everybody should do.
There is a reason why CHA is the stat for an Undead creature's life force.
Does ammunition fired from a magical projectile weapon gain the benefits of the weapons magical enhancement or abilities?
Diego Rossi wrote:
My post clearly indicated that it was still just a +5 weapon. However I was getting the extra bane damage for being a human (2d6 bane damage). I did not, in any way, suggest that I would get a +7 weapon.
Making a slinger has been something I've always wanted and liked, and this just makes it even easier to do with all kinds of classes! Also, now you can make a halfling slinger with the warslinger trait and not worry about provoking on reloads, without needing to spend two feats that they shouldn't have to spend on anyway.
Still, glad this is happening. Most importantly that it lets you use all of the types of slings for it.
The Ring of Invisibility is underpriced, it should be 21,600 (2nd level spell x 3rd CL x 1800 command word x 2 duration in minutes)
No, the Ring of Invisibility is indeed over-priced. The duration boost is only for use-activated or continuous (since if it is always-on it costs you extra to make a spell continuous based on its duration). Since the RoI is command word activation and NOT continuous or use-activated, it does not apply.
Since it has no charges or charges per day limitation to reduce its price, you take the full price for a command word activation item at 10,800 [2(spell level) x 3(caster level) x 1800(command word)]. So they added 9,200 to the cost compared to how the item creation guidelines would price it.
Does ammunition fired from a magical projectile weapon gain the benefits of the weapons magical enhancement or abilities?
This thread is still seriously going?
I think I'm going to shoot myself in the head using a +5 Flaming Burst Light Crossbow with a +1 Bane (Human) bolt. That way I kill myself faster having a +5 enhancement bonus, extra flaming damage, and extra bane damage. I may as well count it as a coup-de-grace to ensure maximum burst effect.
Does ammunition fired from a magical projectile weapon gain the benefits of the weapons magical enhancement or abilities?
Actually, by the rules, a +5 weapon would overcome DR for all of the following: cold iron, silver, adamantine, alignment. Additionally, a weapon with certain properties can overcome alignment DR (as appropriate).
The main contention here is that a magical weapon requires the ammunition to possess the exact same properties as it in order to allow the attack to benefit from the properties of... the magical weapon itself.
Magic Weapons wrote:
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies. Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.
This clearly means that you take the most applicable property of either weapon, stacking all but those that provide the same bonus. So if you have a +5 magical bow, but you are firing a +1 bane (dragon) arrow, you are attacking with a +5 magical arrow with the bane (dragon) property. Essentially, this means that you stack all properties shared between the launcher and the ammunition, except for those properties which are exactly the same (you do not add +1 to +3, you simply take it as +3, and you cannot have flaming and flaming, but only one single flaming property). So if I fire a +1 flaming arrow from a +5 longbow, I am essentially firing a +5 flaming arrow, and the attack is treated as such. I'm not quite sure how you could possibly misconstrue the magic weapons rules as to confuse this means of operation.
In short, go for a +5 longbow. Buy your ammunition to support your needs for cheaper, or just buy mundane arrows. The launching weapon imparts its magical bonus onto mundane ammunition. Also, if you are an Arcane Archer, just go for a +5 bow and mundane ammo, and then you can use all of the properties you want!
The rules EXPLICITLY state that you use the higher of the two enhancement bonuses. +5 is higher than +0. So the mundane arrow fired from a +5 bow is treated as a +5 arrow. I'm wondering if you've even read the rules or if you are just trying to kill someone's fun.
An even more to-the-point question is this: What is the point of a magical weapon if you get ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFIT from it, and must use similarly enchanted ammunition? The rules don't support you, and your basic premise doesn't support you. I implore you to re-read the relevant rules and realize that what you are suggesting is inaccurate, and that you need to accept the fact that a magical ranged weapon imparts its properties (unless there is overlap or superior overlap) onto what the ammunition is already considered, even if the ammunition is completely mundane. In fact, that's the most significant point to even GETTING a magical ranged weapon; to make your mundane ammunition count as magical.
Heh, he's a two-weapon warrior, so him using a shield is a non-starter.
You can easily be a two-weapon combatant with the shield as your other weapon.
With just one feat, Improved Shield Bash, you can do two-weapon fighting without losing the shield bonus, and you'll still have most of the benefit of two-weapon fighting. Just one feat. Now, if you have extra (and a Fighter usually does), you can also invest more to be even better, like Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, but that's all it really takes to work.
One thing that made things difficult tonight is that we were fighting a pair of heavy hitters (glabrezus) and he decided to take up a position right between them in order to minimize his need to move. So they tag-teamed him and knocked him unconscious in two rounds.
I just... I don't even...
Yep, my AC is pretty healthy; most of the things we fight need a 20 to hit me if I've had a chance to buff up. I take the point as much as possible.
Ok, so, I'm pretty sure that you're not doing anything wrong. I think he needs a talking-to. Sure, it can be annoying to have to move, I get that (which is why I'm a fan of mobility-friendly feats like Spring Attack and its prerequisites Dodge and Mobility). You know what else is annoying? Being unconscious and unable to do anything, like, you know, damage the enemy.
I'm going to be blunt. He did something really, truly, incredibly stupid. Talk to him. Seriously. That simply should not have happened.
How neither the Wizard nor the Sorcerer have decided to get themselves a Ring of Invisibility, especially past level ten, absolutely baffles me.
Also, you are not the only one capable of buffing up defensively. In fact, the Wizard and Sorcerer are both excellent at that.
[rant]Also, the Fighter should be investing in his OWN defense, and not leaving it up to the responsibility of everyone else, especially since he's at a level where he can really afford some nice defensive boosts/options. There are a ton of options available for him at this point, and he really should have already considered them instead of blaming the healer who is working overtime because he thought it would be "cool" to be a glass cannon melee damage dealer.[/rant]
You should talk to the player about this problem, politely. It should not be your problem that the whole party might die of lack of healing (or just run out of healing juice after only one combat) because of the need to babysit one character constantly for healing.
GM Rednal wrote:
if someone with Craft Staff can't make a handy haverstaff that stores items like a handy haversack
I just have to say that sounds like a really cool idea. Touch something with the staff and in it goes, and then just produce what you want from the staff. Certainly more cool than just rooting around in a pack. Plus, it would not be expected. Perfect place to hide stuff.
Either the Cleric or Wizard could use Summon Monster V to summon a creature that can do this for you! Consult your GM to see if any of these would work.
Magma Mephit wrote:
Steam Mephit wrote:
Magma Elemental wrote:
Just a thought. Also, since they're from a lower level list, you can summon multiple mephits instead of just one, and you can summon a huge swarm of small magma elementals since even the small ones have that ability, all for the cost of one Summon Monster V. That might improve your chances.
Channeling is great for out of combat healing, but is also a good patch up for Fireball recovery, and can see uses for ranged healing as well, in emergencies.
To understand the drop-off of channeling power, you need to look at how much the power is increased.
At level 1, it is 1d6. That is our base.
That said, channeling is still nice, and it's basically free healing.
Overall, if you are playing a primarily-casting cleric, investing in channeling isn't too extreme and may be a good option to give you more. If you're a battle cleric, fighting on the front lines, don't bother. It will do its job just fine without any extra help from you. I just recommend not dumping CHA.
It's tough with 5 PCs anyway, not sure why you were even allowed to have as many cohorts as you do, much less any at all with that many PCs. In addition to that, not allowing you to summon is extra BS on top of it all.
It sounds like plenty of damage is being done, so you should focus on buffing, and you can really do it nicely.
Heroes' Feast (level 6 spell) at the beginning of the day for a long-term boost that will carry its value throughout the adventuring day.
Blessing of Fervor (level 4 spell) is amazing. I don't need to say anything, just read what it does.
Prayer (level 3 spell) is awesome, essentially a two-point attack/damage/save/skill swing in your favor (boosts your group by 1 and reduces your enemies by 1). If you're primarily a caster and not a combatant, this should be your every-fight bread and butter, and you can cast it a LOT at your level.
These are just some of the best examples of buffing you can do very well at your level.
You can also influence the battle with offensive spells, as already pointed out. But due to the number of people in combat, I think going the buff route would be amazing, and you can contribute very nicely. Also, everybody will love you.
I have a simple Request, help me make it as broken as possible.
I have a simple suggestion; please don't.
Most efficiently you will put the high rolls in your mental stats and the lower rolls in your physical stats (preferably the 14 which is the highest of the lows as your CON).
Then do whatever. But please don't try to make it broken. It's a fun, flavorful variant which I like that has a bad reputation (admittedly for a reason).
My simplest recommendation is to have it be Bipedal, and avoid the pounce cheese entirely.
Mrs Camelot wrote:
So still spell is a useless feat for a cleric (the idea had been to be able to cast freedom of movement while grappled/paralysed/entangled/held).
I don't know about that, but you can always be a Cleric with the Liberation Domain for some really cool Freedom of Movement Domain Powers if that's your thing!