Onyxlion's page

Onyxlion wrote:

Honestly I really don't see that. In fact the more you guys talk to more it seems you guys are "control jerk" that only want an passable in game excuse to be jerks. I just don't see how it's so much incredibly harder to do the exact same things to the summoner. You keep talking about RP restrictions being some god DM tool to "hahaha now you have zero powers tool". Who plays in your games that you constantly do these things to? It sounds awful to constant go against such adversarial gms. I in all my years as DM/Player have never had or been subject to such things, it just seems to counter the point of the...

Let me give you an example from a different system I played last night.

The party was sent in to rescue 3 of their friends from an interment camp. In the process one of them planted and detonated C4 all over the compound to target heavy weapons. Detonating high explosives near a civilian population has consequences and a lot of people died.

After knowing this, he proceeded to set up several more, killing over half the civilians they could have rescued. I'm running a game about hero's and so fate [an in game mechanic] cut him off from his powers for a short period of time.

It was agreed this was acceptable because the character was acting -badly.- He stopped and the character actually started talking about looking for redemption, etc...

Now imagine your typical many-armed flying pounce murder machine and player. They don't care about the story, they don't care about the nameless npc's. They care that they are raking in the damage per round and nothing short of the GM shouting ''rocks fall'' [or specifically targeting them] is going to stop them. Because they have found a vastly OP mechanic with no restriction and no killswitch.

Unchained made that restriction, that kill switch. Now the problem players will probably wander around looking for the next OP thing, sure. Those that like the class will adapt and new, creative eidolons will emerge.

Unchained literally changed nothing. The APG eidolon has an alignment and has free will, it doesn't have to help it can refuse. All you guys have done is demonize a class in which ever single one of your problems happens with every other class. I just don't get why you guys feel it's so hard to gm the class. Well I'm done with this for awhile because all you guy are doing is saying "but it's so hard for me to be a jerk to a summoner for reason".

Onyxlion, it IS stated in the CRB rules, but in a rather unclear manner. One in which clearly leads to this confusion.

This is appears to be the beginning of the Devs attempts to clear that up. Perhaps an actual FAQ on the topic is required rather than a 'stealth FAQ' in Pathfinder Unchained.

As for it being arbitrary, all rules are arbitrary. Many do not make sense (in the non-rules sense of make sense). I don't do get into discussions on whether a rule makes sense (in a non-rules sense form of makes sense) or not on the rules forum. In the rules forum I try to stick to rules discussions.

Edit: not at all, you can still make multiple maintain checks. Just not on the turn you initiated the grapple. This actually makes maintain a potentially viable option. (Such as cases where a creature releases the grapple in order to get a new full attack sequence with grab.)

As written no you can not, you only get the chance at the start of your turn period. It says so the way you view it, nothing gets around that at the start. The 2 rules below limit you to only 1 taken your way you don't get any more only that one or release period.

1-If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.

2-Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)

Onyxlion wrote:

Its cool I like debating being called out at times when unfounded assumptions is the right thing to do.

My ultimate point was and you said it yourself you have unlimited resources in which to act yet you keep claiming for some reason the summoner is beyond all you can do. To me it weakens your claim that they are over powered by some how being beyond your control.

All your examples are literally all fiat which in turn works on the summoner as well. Nothing you suggested wouldn't work on them and actually be more potent.

Well if it both can't wear armor and armor interferes both raw which wins because it says both?

1. Non of my examples were fiat. They were all legitimate ways, to trick you or force you into metal armor.

It's not that the summoner is beyond my control as a GM, the point is that saying ''I can make a druid just as bad'' is pointless because the druid comes with restrictions that quite honestly is a pretty easy kill switch.

If I want to kill/disable the summoner I will too. I'll just have a harder time at it. It doesn't have a glaring achilles heel... til now.

2. The Eidolon plain flat can't wear armor. Not may not. Not is prohibited. It can not wear armor. That's the wonderful world of RAW.

3. So by RAW the animal companion doesn't have a defined amount of slots. Meaning it's up to GM discretion.

All of them where fiat, thousands of imps isn't common sorry bud, and none of them would be trivial against a fighting druid. In fact most of fail miserably, baring as I said extreme gm fiat. From the way you guys tell it, its as simple as rolling a single dice as a standard action and bam commoner. In fact if I played in your games I would constantly do the same to everyone of your npcs, even use the fact that armor shuts down eidolons without actually having them wear it.

Yes it does its the summoner himself, how do people not know this. One knowledge check tells you its a eidolon, the glowing ruin shows you the summoner.

It also says by raw armor interferes with the eidolon period that's RAW too, hell maybe he doesn't have to wear it for it to interfere but it interferes no getting around it.

What Mark Seifter states is that before he began to work at Paizo he didn't know some things about grappling and was educated by Jason (the lead designer).

He goes on to state that the clause stating that maintain checks cannot be done in the round you initiate them was included (by him presumably) because he saw a need to express (and clarify) that rule to people that were missing it in the CRB.

So yes, the Devs do intend for maintain checks to be only on the round after you initiate the grapple.

Thank you for supplying the link Onyxlion. It quite clearly states why the statement that maintain cannot be performed on the turn you initiate a grapple was included in Pathfinder Unchained.

Yet it is still no where stated in the rules, if they issue that blog post maybe then we'll have an answer. No conclusions where came to even after that post.

Honestly to me it makes zero sense on having to wait, it just seems arbitrary. Why do you feel waiting is appropriate, not rules wise but sense wise?

Edit: As stated a few post ago it also means you can only grapple once a turn ever no matter your feats.

Onyxlion wrote:

All your examples are literally all fiat which in turn works on the summoner as well. Nothing you suggested wouldn't work on them and actually be more potent.

My "teach me druidic" response was largely meant to be silly (even if it would work RAW) but you missed the underlying point. The point is that divine casters, including Druids, are less of a problem in most games because their players have RP rules to follow. Not only does this give the GM another lever to keep the game on track, it actively discourages the kind of players who like to be disruptive from taking those classes to begin with.

And in a sense that is exactly what Unchained Summoner does, pushes it a bit towards being divine. Slapping an alignment/ethos on the eidolon is a way of giving the GM more control. You know that line in Ultimate Campaign about how the summoner and their eidolon can occasionally have an antagonistic relationship? The Unchained eidolon gets more of an excuse to do that if the GM thinks the player is being uppity.

The Eidolon, like all companions, is actually an NPC under the GM's control. This is a way of reinforcing that and setting the player's baseline expectations lower than they were in terms of the control they should have. It is empowering the GM, which is what the rules are supposed to be doing. After all, without GMs, you have no players.

Honestly I really don't see that. In fact the more you guys talk to more it seems you guys are "control jerk" that only want an passable in game excuse to be jerks. I just don't see how it's so much incredibly harder to do the exact same things to the summoner. You keep talking about RP restrictions being some god DM tool to "hahaha now you have zero powers tool". Who plays in your games that you constantly do these things to? It sounds awful to constant go against such adversarial gms. I in all my years as DM/Player have never had or been subject to such things, it just seems to counter the point of the game.

I found the thread where they talk about not really understanding how grapple works.

Another Grapple Thread

Mark comments about it around halfway down the thread.

@Onyxlion

1. I could think of a number of situations to get the armor on. While you sleep, a powerful illusion to make it look like a shirt, a dimensional dervish grappler that forces you into one, a hundred imps casting suggestion [you'll roll a 1 eventually]... should I go on? I'm the Gm, I have unlimited resources at my disposal. The point is not how, the point is I can take away all your powers.

2. By RAW, an Eidolon can not wear armor. Period. You can't put it on the eidolon. Doesn't it make sense? Not really, but if we're doing the bubbled void ''X is stronger/just as bad as Y cause blah...''

2.5 Let's say it did work and you put armor on the Eidolon. Great. It's dismisses it, it poofs back to the home plane and takes off the armor. Then the summoner casts Summon Eidolon. Woot. [If you argue that the summoner can't even dismiss the eidolon, okay. Summoner drops unconscious, Eidolon automatically disappears.]

2.6 Even if the armor on the Eidolon worked, you can still force the Druid to teach you druidic or... alignment shift. Act a little too lawful, ah shucks there goes your powers. Little too chaotic, ah shucks... You've still got 2 gaping Achilles heels the summoner doesn't.

3. Thank you for apologizing. Sorry If I tend to get a little... aggressive when debating.

Its cool I like debating being called out at times when unfounded assumptions is the right thing to do.

My ultimate point was and you said it yourself you have unlimited resources in which to act yet you keep claiming for some reason the summoner is beyond all you can do. To me it weakens your claim that they are over powered by some how being beyond your control.

All your examples are literally all fiat which in turn works on the summoner as well. Nothing you suggested wouldn't work on them and actually be more potent.

Well if it both can't wear armor and armor interferes both raw which wins because it says both?

Ravingdork wrote:

Oh eidolons certainly are more versatile. I just don't think they beat animal companions in raw numbers (attack roll modifiers, damage values, etc.) as often as many people seem to think. It's easy to forget that eidolons don't often have the magical item support that animal companions often do, among other things.

Yet Eidolons theoretically have as many slots as a character, assuming the summoner isn't using that spot. Animal companions are limited to a number of slots depending on it's type. Kind of half dozen of 1, 6 of another.

Animal slots are only limited in PFS, not in the base game.

If the Eidolon has all the available items then I would never need to ever attack the eidolon, 1 or 2 rounds on the summoner and both are gone.

No hes speaking to me in reference to what I've said. I also think that the issue is that greater grapple is supposed to change the action once grappled but not while you aren't grappled. So it would always be a standard action to start a grapple but once grappled it changes to a move. I felt the unchained action economy fixed this by separating them but it seems people read sentences wildly different.

For PFS ask the gm the question of interpretation before you start and either choose to play that game or not.

edit: Also PFS doesn't use stamina so it that feat rewrite shouldn't effect PFS.

Onyxlion, I begin to see your problem. You are thinking it needs to exclude things. Pathfinder is a game of inclusion. If it doesn't say you can do it, then you cannot without GM fiat.

The rule states when it can be used, it does not need exclusionary text. It is quite clear. It is like most other abilities which state when they can be used, they do not need exclusionary text to indicate the myriad ways they cannot be used.

I do not see it as statement that controls use only that it forces use under certain conditions. Because if that where the case none of the rules as written would let you make more than one no matter the action cost because you can only do a grapple check at the start of your turn. If that is the case you could only ever take one grapple action.

Edit - Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)

The above statement as written and through your interpretations means the only grapple check is a maintain and therefore can only happen once no matter what the feats say since there is no other grapple action.

Onyxlion,

I cannot see how you arrive that conclusion. It clearly tells you when to use it. I believe you are reading into it what you want to read into it.

As for your egg question, it is the wrong question. You are asking the equivalent of 'take this action or end the grapple'. Not the equivalent of "if you select this action when do you take this action?".

The actual, relevant, question is "If you select 1 egg, when do you eat the egg?" The answer is "at the start of the day".

Similarly, "If you select "this action" when do you use it? At the start of each subsequent turn."

There is NOTHING here that states you can use it when it is not "the start of each subsequent turn".

Finally, I will ask one more time, please cite the Dev that stated that the wording in Pathfinder Unchained is incorrect. This will be the third time I have asked you since you made the claim.

Nope as stated it doesn't exclude anything, its a separate sentence. Like in a program if its false it would keep going down the line, as noted by the periods for each terminating statement. It is not a time keeping statement. If it was it would have continued that statement and expanded upon it, it did not.

Also I never said he said it was wrong only he said he really didn't know. I don't know where it's at because its been months and I don't remember which thread it was in the stamina thread or the other grapple thread which is the same old argument.

Do whatever you want, read it, however you want I'm done since its just been the same thing for the past page of posts.

1. Never get in an arms race with a GM, they will win. I don't need GM fiat to do it.

2. That line says nothing about intent. Of course draping it over you isn't wearing because there is a mechanical description of wearing something. Now if you apply the armor bonus to you, you're wearing whether you decided to wear it or not.

3. The point you're missing is the very vital Achilles heel in the druid. It has an alignment restriction, it has a code. Can't where metal armor, can't teach druidic to people, must be Neutral.

Vanilla summoner has none, or at least none that the druid doesn't share. Even if you dismiss/banish an eidolon, it comes back with the casting of 1 simple spell.

Quoting ''A druid can do X, Y, Z too'' isn't an argument for summoners until the summoner has an equally strong Achilles heel. Oh hey unchained summoner, welcome to the pool.

1. Um yes I will if hes is trying to rules me into something then yes there better be non fiat rules or he is just being a jerk plan and simple. So again how are you making me wear it? What rules? You are literally just making up stuff and saying it balanced. Just because you would let your players do it doesn't mean I would. I can see why you have such problems its not an arms race you are just as much responsible to the rules as your players even fiats should be agreed upon before the game starts.

2. Armor Bonus - The number noted here is the eidolon’s base total armor bonus. This bonus may be split between an armor bonus and a natural armor bonus, as decided by the summoner. This number is modified by the eidolon’s base form and some options available through its evolution pool. An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor interferes with the summoner’s connection to the eidolon.

If you can magically do it to my druid you should have zero problems doing it to that eidolon, hell by what it says that summoner wouldn't be able to get it back until it was freed.

I also apologize for presuming.

Onyxlion, lets try this again:

Pathfinder Unchained p105 wrote:

Continue a Grapple (2 Acts): You continue a grapple. If you initiated the grapple, you must either take this action at the start of each subsequent turn or end the grapple as a free action. When you take this action, you attempt a grapple combat maneuver check with a +5 bonus. If you’re successful, you can either move, deal damage to, or pin the creature you are grappling. Alternatively, you can attempt to tie up the creature with a rope.

What does this bolded line mean? Well, it has several parts

What is "this action"?
Answer: the Continue a Grapple action

Who can perform "this action"?
Answer: The person that initiated the grapple

When do you use "this action"?
Answer: At the start of each subsequent turn

What happens if you don't use "this action"?
Answer: You must spend a free action to end the grapple.

It does not state that you can use "this action" (Continue a Grapple) in the round you initiated the grapple. Because it does not state that, you cannot use it in the round that you initiated the grapple.

This cannot be reasonably read to mean anything else. Now, if you want to use it in the round you initiated the grapple there must be a rule that counters the quoted rule. Do you have such an example?

Pathfinder Unchained, in two places, limits maintaining (continuing) a grapple to rounds AFTER the grapple was initiated.

It is there, black and white.

Now, whether that applies to non-Pathfinder Unchained is up to individuals to decide, but I believe it does provide some context.

That line is there solely to show that you must use a grapple action in any round you want to continue grappling nothing more. It sets a minimum not a max nor does it set a time frame. Why? Because it is a singular if statement, it is not tied to the rest of the section nor does it preclude using the rest of the section. Again I ask you "At the start of the day you must eat zero or 1 egg". How many eggs can you eat?

Ravingdork wrote:

Psyren wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I still stand by my statement that organized society adventure design is a much worse problem (in that it helps to create the lop-sized situations you describe) than the even the original summoner.

Even if you're right about this, here's the thing - Summoner is the only class that's had these kind of organized play issues. So even if it's a shortcoming of the format itself that makes them seem stronger than they really are, it's still easier to approach the issue by tweaking one class than it is tweaking every module and scenario they've ever released or will release.

I'm failing to see how this is any different than druids, who can have companions who can pounce or fly as well.

No animal companion comes near to an APG eidolon.

Stat one up and I will at the very least equal it.

Dominate Person, "teach me druidic." Now you're a commoner :P

Really, this is irrelevant. Again, building a super-druid (and definitely a "super-animal companion") is much, much harder than building a Super-Eidolon. Taking a machete to the EP goes a long way to resolving that.

Again nit picky, you could just do the same to the summoner. And this whole forcing thing is also moot, doesn't work guys and if you as a gm are using it then you are straight up dicks period.

It's not hard, you can literally change your AC with zero consequences baring time spend training as much as you want. Get tired of your lion, bam now I have a dino.

Edit: I do play the summoner over the druid. Your agreement is the self defeating one imo. You say the summoner is just crazy op yet the druid does everything the summoner does plus more all at the same time but claim the druid is fine nothing wrong with it. This is illogical and doesn't make sense to the rest of us.

''A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.''

Doesn't have anything to do with whether they willingly put it on.

Okay just because you drape it over me doesn't mean I'm wearing it, that line is about intent not contact. If you forcibly strap it to me it doesn't mean I'm wearing it, it's nothing more that a blanket which isn't excluded by the rules. You are doing nothing but trying to nit pick. In fact good luck trying to do it to me while I'm flying in the air, while both my summons and animal companion eat you, and I rain spell death upon you. Sorry bud you don't win this fight unless you gm fiat it period, what rules are you getting that shirt on me? In fact using your fiat there's nothing stopping you from doing the same to the eidolon and causing it do disappear.

And I'm sorry, but while I agree sometimes the summoner's player-made flavors are annoying, they are no where near as annoying as what the Eidolon is capable of [especially since they are capable of it at very low levels].

But here is the real meat. Try not playing low level, low power, or low magic. As just ban it if you don't like it. I don't get this thing where you hate it but allow it. If you don't like it and it doesn't fix your low power world the just ban it saying you don't like it.

-Raises eyebrow-

Do you know how much system mastery it requires to make an Op druid... a lot more than it takes to make an Op summoner. Btw... go ahead and make an Op druid. I'll kick it's ass with a chain shirt.

It's also incredibly... I don't even know the word for it... to try and pass off actual criticism of a class as ''Gm's are control freaks.'' If a Gm wants to make things conform to how they feel it should, they just fracking will. Now grant it, it's easier to please a player with exceptions rather than restrictions.

Well unless you hold they character down and forcibly make him wear it, even then that still wouldn't violate the druid oath since you didn't voluntarily wear it.

That said most are, in fact it comes with the territory else you really are a gm. I also didn't say there was anything wrong with controlling your game, just that they are using the wrong excused for what is actually wrong.

Additionally, Pathfinder Unchained clearly limits Continue (maintain) a Grapple checks to subsequent rounds.

It does not say that.

Finally, the Greater Grapple feat under the stamina rules also states that maintain checks only occur on subsequent rounds and even uses phrasing that indicates that is the normal stance.

I'll give you this one but even if it does unchained just breaks even.

Edit: If I say to you that "At the start of the day you must eat zero or 1 egg". How many eggs can you eat?

You don't think they watch forums where these things are debated? Do you think they hear 10 comments about summoners and go ''hey, maybe we should make a whole book and fix that.''

They're going off many, many, many complaints. They're looking at boards and comments from both sides. Perhaps even better, they are getting PFS GM feedback, which let's be honest is about twice as good as PFS player feedback.

I think you want to believe it was just the loudest couple of whiners, but it's not.

I think the people who debate are in the vast minority of the people who play overall, therefore the loudest on the forums and such do get more weight. I mean why would you complain if you don't see anything wrong? Which means that data is lost.

But here's the thing - what you're basically saying here is that the folks claiming Paizo nerfed the wrong aspect of the class were wrong. Because the summons weren't changed at all, so if you need a purely combat-focused eidolon in order for your summoner to "not die" because "dead characters don't have flavor," you can just have him rely on summons instead and then build whatever eidolon you want for out of combat. So are the summons adequate, or aren't they? And if they're adequate in a fight, even strong, then it doesn't matter that the eidolon kicks less ass than before.

This is why I imagine the naysayers in this thread are so hard to follow, there's too much vacillating between positions to be taken seriously.

There isn't though. I also haven't stated a stance in this thread. I do think they butchered the original intent of the class which was build your own monster from scratch. You can build a completely functional unchained summoner but it has a distinct lack of feel from the purpose of the original. In fact imo they should have banned the original and make a whole new class, new name and everything. Only for pfs of course.

This lego monster part of the summoner is what most gms have with the class. It's not how strong the class is its they gm isn't in control and the rules require over site. They aren't quite as straight forward as an animal companion. I feel most gms are honest with why they dislike the class and hark to it being op where in fact it isn't. I could make a druid of nightmares in which you'd beg to have a summoner instead but that's not the point. Most gms have a image of how things should go in game and a "what ever the crap I want it to be" infringes on them.

This is why summons/animal companions don't bother them even if it does the exact same thing. It's only perception nothing more. At the end of the day the summoner itself is the weak link, always has been.

I have to agree with RavingDork on their AP design. Most if not all Aps are written with complete novices in mind. Sp the BBEGS are designed very poorly imo. So much so that even a group that does modest optimization can easily defeat almost anything thrown at them. The Summoner or even SM spell does not help the situation. Yes I know I can change the npcs but I buy APS to save time on game prep. Not add more.

I don't mind a nerf when it's requested by those in the community who play with all the rules. PFS that has it's own rules imo should not be dictating what can or cannot be allowed in terms of rules, classes, feats etc. Maybe it's because what comes across as broken usually ends up being a overreaction by some of the fanbase. Sometimes it is broken. Usually it's not imo. A remember someone complaining that a Cleric with Mythic levels could feed a entire army. Well what do you expect when your at that level. To be casting the same boring spell effects.

Couldn't agree more. I honestly ban very very few things when I run, as well as usually run at superhero levels of power because that's what our group likes. To date I've really only had a problem with one thing and that was the mythic version of cloud kill. I have not found an issue present in any class that's more powerful than a druid, wizard, or cleric. In fact most are considerably weaker than those. I usually let people build what they want, baring thematic games, and then adapt the story to them.

Personally I'd choose to play a druid 9 times out of 10 over a summoner. Why? Because I feel that after low tier levels summoner loses way to much versus a druid. The only time I'd consider it is in a low power, low magic game but I'm also of the opinion that companions should scale to the power level of the game and not be static. Which brings us to why I think some have a dislike for the summoner, they play low power, low magic, low level games. Games which beef stated companions are much more powerful relative to the pcs. Games in which I've played/gm where the marital has good to great all around stats have always been a success for them, yet in lower powered games the tend to suffer and struggle.

Onyxlion wrote:

Actually most business decisions are based on the loudest negative feedback not data. In fact even in the face of hard data most people will still hold the false opinion, in most cases hold it even more passionately.

Feedback is data. Feedback generally comes from experiences. The more experiences, the louder the feedback. Companies don't listen to the one angry, yelling nerd. They listen to to the many, many, many upset customers. If a couple hundred/thousand/large number of customers are saying something needs attention, there might just be fire under that smoke.

I think you overestimate what you consider data. They in fact do listen to the "one angry, yelling nerd" because all the others who play and have no issue don't have an issue to find a way to report. In most cases the loud minority forces change on the majority because the majority didn't think there was a problem.

i will probably do that but i wanted to not have to houserule the thing, and i want to know why i have to

You have to because they didn't print a mythic version. Same reason they didn't print mythic versions of a lot of other spells. You might not like it, I don't either, but nothing you can do about it and the reason x spell was chosen over y is honestly moot. This holds true for why certain feats don't have a mythic version.

I do know that there are some 3pp books that have more mythic spells so if you want someone else's rule then check them out.

a) It's a reasonable claim to make. Pathfinder is a business, and Society-play even more so; business decisions are generally made based on data.

Actually most business decisions are based on the loudest negative feedback not data. In fact even in the face of hard data most people will still hold the false opinion, in most cases hold it even more passionately.

Ravingdork wrote:

Too bad the unsummoner did almost nothing to fix any of the problems you mentioned.

If it kicks exactly as much ass as before as easily as before, then what in Hades are you folks complaining about? Continue to stomp PFS with the UnSummoner until they both get banned (or "clarified" into oblivion), then.

I think the point of most is that you ultimately end up with all of them being nothing but a combat beast with zero room for flavor. That the actual bases wont matter and they will all be the same in order t get the most out of it. No sense in choosing flavor over function when you only have room for function. Dead characters don't have flavor.

OnyxLion, actually, it does.

Pathfinder Unchained wrote:

Continue a Grapple (2 Acts): You continue a grapple. If you initiated the grapple, you must either take this action at the start of each subsequent turn or end the grapple as a free action. When you take this action, you attempt a grapple combat maneuver check with a +5 bonus. If you’re successful, you can either move, deal damage to, or pin the creature you are grappling. Alternatively, you can attempt to tie up the creature with a rope.

Clearly the only option to continue (maintain) a grapple according to "Continue a Grapple" is to use it in subsequent turns as defined in the rule. If you are going to change that you must have text that changes that.

The stamina system, which restates some of the feats, then goes on to state what is clearly a basic premise of the system, that you still cannot use a maintain check on the turn you initiate a grapple.

OnyxLion, I do want to thank you for making me look at Pathfinder Unchained. It pretty clearly indicates that the Devs intend maintain checks to be 'rounds after'.

Even the guy who wrote that feat admitted he didn't really know how it worked so whatever. You are also wildly misreading that statement. The whole statement is "If you initiated the grapple, you must either take this action at the start of each subsequent turn or end the grapple as a free action."

Edit: I agree with you. Heck even unchained has both sides.

Onyxlion, keep reading. It does :)

Pathfinder Unchained p121 wrote:

Greater Grapple (Combat): After you take a move action to successfully maintain a grapple, you can spend 5 stamina points before the end of your turn to maintain that grapple as a swift action. This allows you to make up to three grapple checks to maintain a grapple during a round, but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.

In fact the guy who wrote that said he put that in there because that's how the thought it worked, in fact that's the only place it occurs in the whole of pathfinder.

Onyxlion, keep reading. It does :)

Pathfinder Unchained p121 wrote:

Greater Grapple (Combat): After you take a move action to successfully maintain a grapple, you can spend 5 stamina points before the end of your turn to maintain that grapple as a swift action. This allows you to make up to three grapple checks to maintain a grapple during a round, but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.

Continue a Grapple (2 Acts): You continue a grapple. If

It has zero stipulation on when it can be used. With this version I don't even need rapid grapple, greater lets me to 2 more grapple checks that same round.

Onyxlion, so if you are going by Pathfinder Unchained's "true intent" how can you still have the stance you illustrated in your post?

Pathfinder Unchained absolutely states that maintain a grapple cannot be done until the round after you initiate it.

Note: Pathfinder Unchained is a significant modification to the rules system and I am not advocating it as 'the rules' for the purposes of this discussion. I am only stating that if you are going to use it as 'true intent' then you cannot use Greater Grapple during the round you initiate the grapple.

"As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices). If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)."

It sure doesn't, it only tells you that you either have to do this to continue to grapple or release. Also note the use of maintain and the switch to continue.

Edit: Misread your post.

It's clearly unclear if even the developers are in disagreement on the issue. That means you need to ask yourself two questions before deciding which way to rule for your table: 1) Will this make the game more fun for our table, and 2) why shouldn't martials get to have nice things?

This is true even across other parts of the game, non explicit writing is one of the biggest issues in this game. My friends rag on me about my dislike for non defined key words in the game, such as pummeling style using the word punch.

My take on it is this. There is no "initiate" or "maintain" its all just grapple and these words, which are not defined, are used to illustrate state. Initiate is the not yet grapple while maintain is the grappled state, also there technically is a controller state as well but people tend to leave that out. Also note the controller can choose as a free action to not be grappling anymore.

So if you take it as a grapple is a standard action if you are in control of the grapple and choose to continue grappling then you must devote a grapple check to this, its stated that any successful grapple check maintains which means maintain isn't an action of it's self its a consequence. This means maintain isn't an action itself but apart of the grapple check. This is also why maintain isn't an option under grapple and why you choose to do a grapple action and if you succeed then it also maintains.

This means I could use the bushwhacked and greater grapple feats to tie up a person in 1 round even without mythic.

Note: If you peer into the unchained action economy section and look at grapple to me that version shows the true intent of what it's supposed to be.

I would rule that casting while you are inside one is a no go. Casting into one should be fine though since its not effected by the anti-magic.

If you have access to a white wolf changeling book you can get a butt ton of ideas for how the fey world could look.

http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Arcadia_(WOD)

If you want something like this Unchained has a limited magic section where everything is minimum level on the spells, it also has a section in which they can make a check to boost it to normal caster level.

Some mythic spells can overcome resistances and immunity, you should check those out.

Well it could be borrowed time but that takes a subsequent turn or Control Time but that's 9th level. My actual guess is that they tried stacking the accelerate effect word twice; so either they misses the no stacking of the same word subtypes in this case a time word, or they knew and did it anyway.

What level? Also off the top of my head 2 extra actions aren't possible, could be a misunderstanding of the slots and effect words combine.

Yeah it should work but take note that only touch attack spell-like or supernatural abilities are the only ones that work with conductive so your physical blasts won't

Personally I really like the concept and mechanics of an Unchained Barbarian Android it makes me think of Armitage The Thrid. In fact I'm just happy I can make undead barbarians now.

Hm this is a good question. How close are spell-likes to spells that relate to feats? Going to delve further in to this.

My 1st thought in relation to boosting caster level is to abuse the Coven hex since it's the most potent caster level boost to stack. This has also been made extremely easy with the addition of VMC - witch.

Onyxlion wrote:

I'm going to have to side with Puna'chong on this one. You could even go so far as to set it, the pilfered things, out for him. The easiest way to the teach someone is through your kind actions, punishment and words mean little to one who doesn't choose to listen. If him stealing is them problem, give him permission then he isn't stealing. You show him that you respect him in order to teach him respect. This could be a very nice in character roleplaying opportunity.

...Wha... No. You don't enable thieves. What you just described is probably the most passive-aggressive thing I've read in this thread so far. If the player playing the wizard is actively trying to be the sneak-thief mage, enabling him isn't going to make him change, it's going to escalate things.

That sweet potion that the paladin got that would be totally useful when his guts are hanging out? Yeah, wizard drank it when he got a scrape. That rare religious treasure the paladin recovered and intends to either donate or sell to his church for a fair price? Yeah, that baby's going on the black market and the proceeds are going to the wizard. Anything of value or note? Wizard took it.

As mourge40k mentioned, this wizard is doing a bad rogue impression, and needs to learn the #1 rule of being a thief: DON'T STEAL FROM THE PARTY.

Please explain how this is passive or aggressive? How is taking action to personally give him permission passive and/or aggressive?

Selective channel is based on your Charisma modifier, not your caster level, so it wouldn't be affected. Any feat that references your caster level (not class level, like the HD limit of Command Undead referencing your cleric level), would work. I think command undead duplicates control undead in some ways, so it might have some effect.

There isn't a channel feat that uses caster level they are all cleric level, so either it adds to cleric level or it does nothing.

I'm going to have to side with Puna'chong on this one. You could even go so far as to set it, the pilfered things, out for him. The easiest way to the teach someone is through your kind actions, punishment and words mean little to one who doesn't choose to listen. If him stealing is them problem, give him permission then he isn't stealing. You show him that you respect him in order to teach him respect. This could be a very nice in character roleplaying opportunity.

I've let players in my current Rappan Athuk game use which ever rage they like. Have a bloodrager using unchained rage, it's actually a slightly bit less damage overall.

Onyxlion wrote:

Actually as written it makes you completely ineligible for any channel use because channel can't harm and heal at the same time. It only has 4 modes that are exclusive; living-heal, living-harm, undead-heal, undead-harm. The ability makes it so that you don't fit in any of those modes. Note this is only the case for channel energy.

Ignoring the fat that Necromantic Affinity isn't Negative Energy Affinity, you have how Negative Energy Affinity works wrong.

Oh haha good find I wasn't aware of the FAQ on it. I was thinking of the dhampir ability and didn't follow the link so double mistake on me.

Actually as written it makes you completely ineligible for any channel use because channel can't harm and heal at the same time. It only has 4 modes that are exclusive; living-heal, living-harm, undead-heal, undead-harm. The ability makes it so that you don't fit in any of those modes. Note this is only the case for channel energy.

I played an APG Summoner all the way through Eyes of Ten. The only reason I did not pretty much make everyone irrelevant is because I deliberately chose not to do so. I enjoyed playing the character a lot and will definitely miss the class. But it was a nerf bat that definitely needed to be swung, because of all the players that proved unwilling to restrain themselves from taking over the show.

How's that any different than a wizard, cleric, druid, hunter, sorcerer, any other tier 1 & 2 classes? What did the other people play? Where you more optimized? This isn't evidence, I do this with every character I play but that doesn't mean every class I play is broken.

One reason why the APG Summoner is now no longer legal in PFS ;-)

Unless they're grandfathered in, of course.

No it was banned because of the false assumptions that the Summoner is broken. This is just an emulation of how society works, there's a lot of issues in our society that because people think it's an assault on their values they want it to not exist or be allowed. This is even when shown evidence against or said issue exists in other forms, in fact in these situations they usually double down on it's "wrongness".

tldr: Summoner was fine as it was and only an issue in specific cases; such as low point buy, low gold, low magic, or low powered campaigns in general. Though other pet classes have the same if not more benefits of this style campaign.

Besides turning an already top tear class into even more of a powerhouse? No not really. I myself feel that a lot of tier abilities should be available to other paths. There is a lot of concepts missing from mythic but that's what house rules are for. In general shapeshifting mastery is one of the more powerful abilities, you my want to limit to character level + 1/2 tier instead of caster level though.

Also the only thing in mythic I usually ban outright is mythic cloudkill, it's hands downs the best spell in the game. Once powered up only the upper tier of monster even stand a chance.

There are two things to consider one is if you are mythic the other is if you aren't.

If you aren't mythic then it's only useful for effects that don't have a tier aspect or are game breaking despite having a tier aspect. Their are quite a few that fall into this and are worth it imo especially if you have metamagic reducers. I like to use it on long term buffs.

If you ate mythic then you'd use it like a normal mythic spell except that you are saving mythic power for other things or other spells. Again I like to use it for utility.

Lastly I like to leave it as an open choice in games I run even if it's not mythic just so players could have a taste if wanted.

I finally have those gimp files uploaded, I haven't worked on the maps lately so I've only got 3 up. I'm going on a trip tomorrow so I'm going to try to get a few more done on the train ride.