Pax Miles's page

Organized Play Member. 254 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:

Dispel magic is is part of how counterspellying normally work. It is a specific way to counterspell, like using a directly opposite spell, but it is part of the normal rules about counterspelling.

In in game reality it is way more common to use Dispel magic to counterspell than the same spell that was cast or a spell that is the direct opposite, so saying that using dispel magic isn't part of the "normal" way of counterspelling is disingenuous.
Pax Miles wrote:
Anyway, sounds like we agree in how counterspelling works, even if we minorly disagree in the way it should be worded.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Pax Miles wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Pax Miles wrote:

For counterspelling, the GM is correct, counterspelling is a standard (or less) action. Spells that take longer to cast can't normally be countered.

Can you cite a rule that say that?

You can counterspell any spell, regardless of the casting time required by the spell.

What you need is a ready action for counterspelling.

You need to ready the action to counterspell, sure, but then you need to be able to cast the spell with that readied action.

You can counterspell with dispel magic. 1 standard action, no problem.

Any spell can counterpelled, regardless of casting time.

What you are arguing is that spell with a casting time longer than a standard action can't be used to counterspell, and that is a completely different argument.

No, you are misreading and reacting to a point I didn't make. I didn't get that before, but it's clear now.

I said spells with a casting time of greater than a standard action can't "normally" be counterspelled. By normally, I was refering to the process of counterspelling via casting the same spell to counterspell - that would be normal counterspelling.

Dispel Magic is an exception to how counterspelling normally works, as is the improved counterspell feat, or the quicken metamagic feat. And there are many others. Yes, any spell can be countered, but normal counterspelling isn't able to counter spells with high casting times due to the limitation on readied actions.

Anyway, sounds like we agree in how counterspelling works, even if we minorly disagree in the way it should be worded.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Pax Miles wrote:

For counterspelling, the GM is correct, counterspelling is a standard (or less) action. Spells that take longer to cast can't normally be countered.

Can you cite a rule that say that?

You can counterspell any spell, regardless of the casting time required by the spell.

What you need is a ready action for counterspelling.

You need to ready the action to counterspell, sure, but then you need to be able to cast the spell with that readied action.

Sorry, can't really quote on this device. In the Magic Section of the CRB, under Counterspells, the section covers it pretty well. Basically:

1. Ready to counterspell. Readying is a standard action.
2. As a free action, perform a spellcraft check to ID a cast spell.
3. Having successfully IDed the spell, you may spend your readied action to cast the spell you intend to use as a counterspell.
4. Having successfully cast your counterspell, and it being an eligible spell for counterspelling, the opposing spell is negated.

Step 3 is still a readied action. Counterspelling isn't an exception to how readied actions function. You can take a Move, Standard, or Swift action as a readied action.

So the only eligible spells for counterspelling, normally, are those that have these casting times of move, standard, or swift actions.

If you have the means to increase the types of actions that can be attempted while readying, then you could apply a broader selection of spells to counterspell. Likewise, if you can reduce the casting time to something that can be attempted as a standard action, you can counterspell that way.

It is also notable that the free action to ID spells with spellcraft, step 2, while required for counterspelling, is not unique to counterspelling, and is a check any character trained in spellcraft may attempt as a free action when any character casts a spell.

Furthermore, readying to counterspell doesn't force the caster to counterspell the first spell they ID. They can choose, each time they ID, if that's the spell they want to use their readied action on.

souldreamer wrote:
What about constructs? Are they considered creatures?

In Pathfinder, Constructs are the creature version of objects.

Bloodrealm wrote:
At the very least the shaken effect is mind-affecting. Shaken is a fear condition and all fear conditions (including Intimidate to demoralize) are fear effects, and all fear effects are mind-affecting effects. It's ambiguous as to whether the entire thing is mind-affecting, since it doesn't mention it with game language.

+1 to this. Shaken is a mind affecting condition, so can't apply to undead or constructs without additional rules specifying such a reaction.

Anyway, to the OP, my understanding is that Pathfinder spellcasting works like those anime where casting a spell has a glowing hex/rune/writting appear by the caster, making it very obvious that they are casting a spell. Somatic spells also require the caster to move their body and verbal spells also require the caster to voice aspects of the spell. But even a still and silent spell has this glowing and obvious manifestation. And spellcraft checks are based on observing this.

Not a huge fan of handling spellcasting like this, but I understand and agree with their point regarding game balance. Making spellcasting completely undetectable would be a disaster in rules.

Zarius wrote:
Associated question... if you have access to a given spell as a Spell-like ability, can THAT be used to counterspell?

No, spell-like abilities can't be used to counterspell, or be counterspelled.

That said, if you had Dispel Magic as a spell-like ability, you could use it as per the spell's description, which includes the dispel check version of counterspelling.

Agree that counterspelling is often inferior to other options. And it's merits are rather conditional. But was answering the OP's questions.

I think a GM could design encounters to encourage counterspelling, and in doing so, would improve the viability of the tactic.

For example, they'd start by making casters common in regular encounters. Then having the caster NPCs cast lower level spells whenever possible, since the main merit of counterspelling is found when a higher level caster uses low level spells (because normal counterspelling doesn't use caster level). Furthermore, having high level casters take metamagic versions of low level spells, rather than preparing high level spells, since metamagic feats don't affect spells for counterspelling purposes.

Suggest move to advice.

Krky77 wrote:
Since Mammoth Lance is currently out of my price range, what other magic effects would work well on a lance? Something traditional, like Keen or Menacing or is there a more creative effect to be placed on a lance? Any suggestion would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

I believe you can upgrade to a named magic item, provided you don't alter the item. So you could start with a +1 lance, then upgrade to a +2 lance, and then, finally, upgrade to the mammoth lance. There's no discount per say, but you don't have to sell the old weapon to buy the new one, so it's discounted in that respect.

Anyway, for lance effects, it would depend how you use it and your build. If its the weapon you always use, I suggest an upgrade to make it better against creatures that the lance is typically bad against. Ghost Touch is a good one to have. Rusting is also a good one for your main weapon. Bane is a favorite, but also rather conditional.

I love the Vicious property, but that one will kill you if use it often. So for a lance only used with mounted charges, Vicious could be amazing, but I wouldn't recommend with anything more than 1 attack per round (I've done it with two-weapon fighting before, and it's great for damage but incapacitated my character in one round).

For PFS, Quenching can be extremely useful, just due to the sheer number of scenarios that involve putting out spreading fires.

Irontruth wrote:
It's not actually an impasse. Even the people "disagreeing" agree with how the rule SHOULD be interpreted.

It's an impasse in the respect that the parties disagree and have reached a point where neither side is budging from their beliefs. In such a debate, there is no victory to be had. You can wait for circumstances to change, but there's no present solution which will cause all parties to agree.

Runehacking wrote:

Funny thing, though... my character was a witch who had both the spell sleep and the slumber hex... I reffered to my spell, but technically, I could cast sleep in a standard action as per slumber :P (but I'm guessing spell-like abilities can't counterspell actual spells?)

Hmmm, I didn't have dispel magic at the time (am planning to get it eventually, though)... but you're saying it *is* possible to counter a 1 round spell using dispel magic? Because that would still answer my quesion... of whenever or not it is somehow possible...

Spell-like abilties can't be countered or be used to counterspell (though I think if you had dispel magic as a spell-like ability, you could still counterspell with it as per the spell description).

The Improved Counterspell feat can be used to allow a standard action spell of the same School, but 1+ levels higher, to be used to counterspell a 1 round casting spell. So, against Sleep, as a 1st level Enchantment it could be countered by Zone of Truth, a 2nd level Enchantment.

Dispel Magic if you look at the third option, at the very bottom, it expains use for counterspelling. Unlike normal counterspelling, using Dispel Magic requires a Dispel check.

And this matters because a dispel check is based on caster level, while normal counterspelling doesn't require caster levels. So a 1st level character can counterspell a 20th level character's magic missile without any die rolling (they'd still have to ID the spell). But the dispel check is D20+your caster level vs 11+their caster level, so dispelling substancially higher level caster's spells is near impossible with Dispel Magic.

Greater Dispel Magic counterspells with +4 to the check, and there are two feats to further improved Dispel Checks: Dispel Focus and Greater Dispel Focus.

stormRunner47 wrote:

I'm sure these rules have been discussed extensively already. I have read several forums with convoluted answers. So here are a few questions with examples. (All rules references will be to material on d20pfsrd).

1) The Perception skill mentions DC modifiers for Perception Modifiers. What about opposed rolls like Stealth? Is an opposed roll a DC and do modifiers like Distracted, Distance to Source, and Through a Wall become bonuses to the opposes Stealth roll?

2)Line of Sight...Is it assumed that every PC, NPC with its eyes open has full 360° 'line of sight? Are there any rulings or precedences on the reality that many creatures have limited fields of vision?

-Say a thief wanted to sneak by a guard. There is no cover. It is normal light. By Pathfinder rules, without cover or concealment, Stealth checks aren't usually possible. Does having ones back turned grant concealment to creatures behind them and allow them to make Stealth checks?

-And looking at Perception DC modifiers would the sneaking creature get a +20 because they are effectively invisible to the creature whose back is turned?

3) Per the Perception rules, Perception checks can be either reactive, made in response to observable stimulus, or intentional. It seems realistic that every reactive Perception roll should be made with the Distracted penalty (if your not actively, intentionally perceiving, you're doing something else and so should be considered distracted).

1: Yes, perception modifiers apply to opposed perception checks.

2: You can always make the stealth checks, even while observed. The stealth check will fail against targets observing, sure, but the stealth skill doesn't grant knowledge that they are being observed, so the check is still made. Otherwise, Party members would prevent the stealth skill from functioning.

Anyway, yes, creatures have 360 degree vision for the purposes of observing stealth in pathfinder. So, no, the guard can still observe you with their back turned. If the guard were actively closing their eyes or blindfolded, you'd be invisible.

Sneaking by the guard requires concealment of some such. If lighting isn't providing concealment, you'd need to make some to sneak by the guard. A smoke stick, for example, would provide concealment within it's cloud, so you could use those in order to sneak past a guarded position.

All that said, the guard doesn't have to react if they observe you via perception. They can sense motive you to decide if you present a threat, or perhaps are just trying to get by unnoticed. Depends how dutiful the guard is and in what their specific orders are in guarding their position.

3) The reactive is usually used when opposed skills interact. For example, when first encounting a disguised creature, you'd use the reactive. For distracted, it's more when you are actively doing something else that requires your undivided attention. Like if you were in combat in an alley, you'd be distracted from noticing the stealthy observer watching the fight from the rooftops. It merely being reactive isn't enough, you have to be distracted by something else which you are focusing on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

55 posts this time. This is an impasse, you are at. Give up. Ask your respective GMs and go with their ruling.

Runehacking wrote:

A while ago, I found myself in a questionable situation. It might be a bad example, but still up for debate as much as the whole principle.

The situation was as follows;
A (fey) create that we were fighting decided to spellcast, wich we promtly identified as "sleep". This is a spell that costs a round to cast, so it was still being cast after his turn was over. Now, this happened some time back, so I can't remember if this fey had spend a move action before it started casting or not, but for the sake of argument, let's say it didn't.
Since the spell wouldn't active until it was the fey's turn, and my party got quite scared because we were in shallow water and not in a position to move away from each other that much, on my turn, I asked if I could try to counterspell it. We had already identified the spell; it was still being cast and I also had the spell on my list.
Unfortunatly, the GM ruled I could not because it would also take me a round to cast it; if I had wanted to counterspell it, I should have readied an action according to the rules.

Now, what's not up for debate is this situation; my GM ruled no, and that's that.
But what I'm wondering is the rules around counterspelling a spell that's already being cast. For example, What if it's a full round spell, and the caster has already spend a move action, deciding to cast over the course of his next turn... Would it be possible to counterspell without readying an action, simply by casting the same spell on your own full round? -assuming you identified the spell.

Okay, so for starters, GM did the spellcraft check early. They'd spend their round and when it ended, you'd get a spellcraft check. You could still see them prepping a spell, but you don't get the spellcraft check until they cast it. You can witness them preparing a spell and ready to counterspell.

For counterspelling, the GM is correct, counterspelling is a standard (or less) action. Spells that take longer to cast can't normally be countered. So against 1 round casting spells, if you had the means to cast the same spell in less time, you could counter it. Metamagic feats also don't count for the purposes of which spell is which, so a Maximized Magic Missile can be countered by a regular Magic Missile.

And, for the record, you need to have the spell prepared (or known for spontaneous casters), merely having it on your list isn't enough. Counterspelling requires casting the spell, so you "burn" your own spells in order to counter their spells.

That said, if you have access to Dispel Magic, you can use that spell in place of the actual spell, for the purpose of counterspelling. Dispel Magic is a standard action to cast.

Diego Rossi wrote:

One of the problems of a lot of medieval rulers and lords was that they were very well trained in warfare but badly trained in managing the land, the people and the economy. In pathfinder being a "high level monk or brawler that crushes magical assassins" require training, lots of it. It is not something you acquire with the title.

While not necessarily antithetic, being at the same time a competent lord and a good combatant with high saves is difficult. And then, in any administration system, you need competent high level advisors.

Well, for rulers, a low level character with a decent number of powerful magic items sounds about right. You're right, you'd also have advisors, some of which may be high level, and as a leader, they may be able to call upon higher level advisors should a situation require them (like a king could call upon the local temple/church leaders, which are likely decent level clerics).

Though for a king, or other big leader, the big danger is not in killing them, but in the disaster that occurs when they die. The country falls to chaos, likely resulting in a bad situation for everyone living in that country's borders (and maybe nearby countries). Kings (and other leaders) should never be slain without need.

Hjard wrote:

The moment you summon your swarm of frogs to fight the swarm of mosquitoes the game will slow down, camera zooms in and focus on the epic battle of 300 frogs vs 30.000 mosquitoes.

Frog leads rousing their troops with a motivating croak. Mosquitoes buzzing menacingly in the background. Then lines start to clash mosquitoes start dying in droves but there is simply no end to them. Frogs start dying too (mostly exploding from overfeeding I suppose). An impressive battle playing out with few survivors at the and.

All at the same time your character spends to scratch his but or something like that.

So the failure here is that individual Toads/frogs lack a natural attack. So those poor toads are striking with unarmed strikes at -4 on top of their already lacking melee profile. Can't find rules for individual mosquitoes, but I'm betting they at least have bite attack...

As an aside, never understood why mindless undead don't attach eachother. They don't exactly have any sensory abilities to differenciate between living and dead, and it's not like Evil is inherently allied with other evil (usually the opposite). Seems like mindless undead, not actively controlled, would just destroy eachother.

Stalarious wrote:
Ok so my buddy has a large creature and likes to throw rocks. However I find it hard to believe that he can only throw it 5ft away from his reach before he starts to get a penalty. So is there a rule I don't see about the range of thrown weapons for large creatures?

The rules are definitely bias against creatures that are larger than medium and smaller than small.

There's also a ton of feats, traits, and archetypes to optimize thrown weapons, including increasing their range.

Regarding throwing rocks, not sure how you are doing it. There's a Rock Throwing (Ex) in the bestiary, but as mentioned above, it has 120ft of range. Otherwise, it would be an improvised thrown weapon, which means -4 to attack without the Throw Anything feat and has a range increment of 10ft. Improvised thrown rocks are a really crappy option....

If I encounter an enemy swarm, so I summon my own swarm to deal with them, can they attack eachother? Where is this found?

Anguish wrote:
Lice don't provide cover.

Lice would provide soft cover if your Fine PC had lice between them and their Fine target....

I do see your point.

I still think it's weird that making a golem isn't evil, but making animated skeletons is evil. I mean, in both cases, you are basically making robots. Materials is the difference.

And I totally see where digging up people from their graves would be evil, but if you were in area with an excess of unburied corpses, like a battlefield, and war itself isn't regarded as evil, then it seems like animating the dead wouldn't be evil.

Just seems like if my wizard lives in an area with lots of lumber, I'd make wood golems. If I lived in an area with lots of corpses, I'd make undead. Neither strike me as being more imoral than the other. And lumber is made of tree corpses....

LordKailas wrote:

As for your argument of not "Phoenix downing" undead to death, I don't know, all the heal spells hurt undead and the save or die spells start at 4th level; raise dead is 5th level. So, I doubt it's a balance issue. Speaking of Raise Dead (which all these spells are based on), while it doesn't have a save, it says that if you don't want it to affect you then it doesn't. In essence it does have a save and you have to willingly forfeit your save against the spell for it to work on you. So, even if it did function against undead, it wouldn't kill them because the undead doesn't want to be killed.

The soul isn't in the undead. If the soul is unwilling to return to the vessel, it doesn't work. But the vessel doesn't get a save, as written, only the soul.

If you cast resurrection on a undead creature and it were allowed to affect them, the creature's whose made undead would be given the choice to return, and in deciding to return, would destroy the undead creature by resurrecting the creature whose body it was.

So if the undead creature is like a lich, and it's their own soul in their own body, then it would probably fail unless the lich decided they wanted to live again (which could be a real problem for the players...).

On the other hand, if it was something like a Skeletal Ancient Silver Dragon, might just be easier to resurrect it than to fight it.

Pgv wrote:

Ciao everyone!

It's my first post here. I'm writing from Italy (so please bear some patience for the grammar...) to make a couple of questions.
1. We are 9th level characters and our druid has a white tiger as his animal companion. The question here is: how many attacks and how many grapple attempts is the tiger allowed to make? I am not sure about the wording of the Multiattack ability, so it would be great if anyone could elaborate a bit about the in charge (with pounce) Attack.
2. One of the PC's has the Leadership feat. Who is to pay for the equipment of the cohort..? The PC or the whole party? Is there some specific rule?


1. Multiattack doesn't affect how many attacks they can make, it just lowers the penalty for secondary attacks with natural weapons. If your Tiger has no secondary attacks, then it would have no effect.

2. Up to the party, or the PC, or to a very nice GM. They might come with gear, but the GM may also have them start at 1st level in your care, and then you level them with the party. I suggest selecting cohorts based on who is willing to equip them (if anyone). Go with a Sorcerer, Monk or Rogue if no one is willing pay for their gear, as those classes remain functional without any gear.

Remember, too, that Slings, Clubs, and Quarterstaves are all free. Sling bullets cost, but slings can use found (free) rocks for a small penalty as described for slings.

Another option is the Catch Off Guard or Throw Anything Feats, so you can equip your followers with found objects. Torches make great weapons and are very useful to have a follower carry for the party.

bhampton wrote:
I do agree with the use of feeblemind as a base though, and it does state that it knows who it's friends are.

Says "Friends," not party members. That was one of my points from before, is that the lower intelligence isn't going to know about complex things like the mission they are on or why this group formed, but they will recall feeling good or bad about creatures encountered, so if Party isn't a group of friends (quite often the case for the characters to be RPed as just working together for a common goal), then the low INT transformation may make it hard for them to trust eachother.

I deleted that last post because I thought it was going too dark. Perhaps reply to the one I didn't delete?

50 posts since my last visit. Still can't agree you are at an impasse?

LordKailas wrote:
Pax Miles wrote:
Depends how you look at it. I see the issue being one of matching the soul to a given vessel (as in your mortal body). For that, you need the vessel. If the vessel is currently filled with negative energy, you can't really put the sould back in there, so you can't ressurrect. But the undead creation isn't really messing with the soul, at least in the case of basic skeletons, the spell is just messing with the vessel.
except, it's not just "messing with the vessel" as you put it. I could alternatively, take your body chop it up into tiny bits and burn those bits to ash and in both the case of reincarnate and true resurrection (which are the spells I quoted) I can bring you back to life, because the state of the body doesn't matter. Both spells specifically create a new body for the creature.

The state of the body does matter. If body's state didn't matter, it would work on undead versions of the body. See Resurrection

And in fairness, I suspect the reason it doesn't work on undead is more game mechanics, as it doesn't allow saves, so if it did work on undead, this would be a great way for high level characters to defeat even higher level undead. So it works on undead that have been destroyed, but not on "functional" undead.

@bhampton: Your dog is a trained animal. Every pet, is a trained animal. Not the same to suggest that a trained animal is the same as a regular animal. I know pathfinder doesn't do this outside of ranger companions, but I do think that most pets, like trained dogs, should actually have INT 3 or 4.

I don't know, I think it would be fun to RP the baleful polymorph, but in terms of reducing the intelligence, I'd defer to the other spell that drops INT to 1: Feeblemind

LordKailas wrote:
bhampton wrote:
I don't think animate dead uses a soul to animate the undead, just negative energy.

The Resurrection spells seem to indicate that this is the case.

Depends how you look at it. I see the issue being one of matching the soul to a given vessel (as in your mortal body). For that, you need the vessel. If the vessel is currently filled with negative energy, you can't really put the sould back in there, so you can't ressurrect. But the undead creation isn't really messing with the soul, at least in the case of basic skeletons, the spell is just messing with the vessel.

That said, I think there are many undead creations that do use the soul. A lich, for example, is about binding your soul to your dead flesh. And I don't if that's evil, since you are really only performing the act upon youself. I suppose if suicide is evil, then making yourself into a lich seems equally evil, since you are basically killing yourself...dunno. Personally don't think suicide is evil, but I know others disagree sometimes and it's more an opinion.

1) Does not being able to be tracked mean that you cannot be located via scent?

2) What terrain type is the classic Dungeon? Like a mummy's tomb or a labrynth.

Durell wrote:
Hi, I just got back from PFS tonight and I was wondering if anyone knew the answer/had noticed this before. Currently I'm playing a Halfling Inquisitor of Desna with the Travel Domian and I just hit lvl 2. Got Fleet of Foot as an alternate trait so he's moving at 40 ft. Pretty good for a small character particularly a ranged character. I was flipping through some of the martial classes to give him some more combat abilities when I noticed something. My question is if I end up dipping into Barbarian and get fast movement would that give me 50 ft at LVL 2????? That can't be right/ stacked that way it...can it?

They can indeed be stacked like this. It is notable that speed reductions from encumberance and armor increase as your speed increases. There's a table in the Additional Rules section of the CRB called "Armor and Encumberance for other base speeds" which covers this.

So with your 50ft move speed character with a medium load has only 35ft of movement, still quick for a halfling, but more substancial than a 20ft base speed creature with a medium load.

Blue Rabit wrote:

Spell in question is baleful polymorph (from PC to PC to turn them into a bird or other flying critter)

My group and I are in a sticky spot in a battle we can't win. Time to run away.
We have an out for all but 1 character.

I would like to know the official rule on what happens to someone who is polymorphed into an animal with an intelligence of 1 or 2.

From the rules I could not tell if the transformed player would be able to continue to make rational decisions.

do they:
A) become that animal and no longer care about what they were before or that they NEED TO RUN AWAY
B) retain all memories and plans but lose the ability to communicate and can RUN AWAY to regroup and get the polymorph dispelled.

They would retain memories, but they wouldn't have the capacity to fully understand them. It would in their subconscious, so they'd have a "gut" feeling that they needed to flee. Wouldn't know why, exactly, but they might know the direction to flee to.

The big challenge would be interactions with the party, unless they had really good memories with the party, they'd probably flee from party members too. Because, again, they don't have the capacity to review the memories, just the overall impression that the memories give on a given friend or foe. Especially challenging if the party smells of blood/death or is transformed into predatory creatures.

INT 1 or 2 is plenty for a creature that isn't reliant on needing language, or book smarts, or mechanical understanding, or martial arts, or any other technology. Their body will move just fine and they should have the smarts enough to recognize danger and allies.

On the other hand, things like a sword being a seperate object from the human wielding it will surprise them if they drop or throw it. They'd see the sword and the warrior as one creature that transformed into two creatures when the sword was dropped. Language won't get through, though they might understand the feelings behind the language.

blahpers wrote:

Ghost touch weapons can strike incorporeal foes, not ethereal ones. They're different conditions.

A hypothetical ethereal touch weapon combined with see invisibility would work fine against a blinking foe, per this text:

Blink wrote:

Physical attacks against you have a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-Fight feat doesn't help opponents, since you're ethereal and not merely invisible. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment).

If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. (For an attacker who can both see and strike ethereal creatures, there is no miss chance.) Likewise, your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike.

Blink Says Ethereal creatures ARE Incoporeal creatures.

Ghost Touch weapons Speciafically work "normally" on incorporeal creatures. Furthermore, Ghost Touch weapons are considered to be both Corporeal and Incorporeal

Regarding Animate Dead specificially, I think there is a difference between animating fallen enemies during a descisive battle for a temporary duration and animating corpses that you've dug out of their final resting places just to have a horde of expendable soldiers you take with you everywhere.

Suggest a move to advice forum.

Anyway, Evil spell descriptors depend on your GM. They are technically evil actions to cast and the three strikes rule is a thing, but not all GMs agree with how Paizo handled this, especially when not all evil spells are equal in their vileness.

I'm personally of the opinion that Alignment should be based on how you behave in game, and that the spells you use shouldn't affect this unless you use them in a particually aligned way. Clerics and certain classes do have restrctions on alignment based spells, and that I would enforce, but that's a class feature.

Furthermore, I hate the idea that a character could shift their alignment purposely to evil or good simply by casting spells that "cancel out" their wickness with goodness.

The only exception here, in my opinion, is when you have one of those alignment changing cursed items, but only because that's a fun RP option.

David Richards 595 wrote:

We have a cleric who has chosen the feat Alignment Channel. At the moment they are playing it that every time they channel energy they can choose a different alignment. So one round they choose evil, then the next good. Is this correct as I read it that when they select the feat they choose an alignment and it is then fixed and cannot be changed.

Any help would be appreciated.


I thought it worked one way, but in re-reading, it does seem to contradict itself between the description and the "special" section. I'd leave it up to the GM.

I've always not taken it because as worded in the special section, a Good character that wants to harm evil outsiders and heal good outsiders, requires two different feats, which seems rather unreasonable to me.

I will note that it only affects outsiders with the alignment subtype, so with either interpretation, it remains rather contextual in use. And it still is limited by channels per day, and it uses a feat, and so forth. Not usually a worthwhile ability. Usually a problem with the GM using a certain creature type too often, should their be an issue.

How does Blink interact with Ghost Touch weapons, or other effects that exist simotaneously on both the material and ethereal plane?

So if GM is looking for something easier, the Skeleton Summoner feat from UM could be used.

Advantage is that feat doesn't use any new rules, it's just summons undead instead of creating them, and the undead summoned are extremely simple to use. Undead summon as with summon monster, and disappear when the duration expires. Really wish paizo had created variants of this feat for the other types of undead. Just a very simple way to implement undead without having to need your PCs to have constant access to corpses.

Technically can't put it in a scroll, but GM could create a scroll that used the feat's rules for a specific monster summon scroll.

So I took a little break. I come back and 90 posts added. Aren't you bored yet? Talking in circles for 90 posts. Clearly this is us at an impasse. Unless Paizo takes a stance, there's really no point in continuing.

I suggest asking on the PFS boards, to see if they'll take a stance for PFS. Probably won't, but that would be a good starting point if there's no FAQ to be found.

Rereading it. Looks like FoM doesn't dispel Hold Person. If, for some reason, the Duration of Hold Person exceeded the duration of FoM, the target should resume being paralyzed after FoM expires.

@diego, you missed my point. If I target a creature with Dominate Person, or Command, and I command them to not move. Is their movement impeded? Seems like it is impeded as much as Hold Person would.

I understand that because FoM grants blanket paralysis immunity, that Hold Person is definitely included.

Regarding tactics, the vast majority of NPCs seem to be mindless or remarkably low intelligence. Seems kinda wrong to give advanced tactics to stupid NPCs.

Though speaking of changes to NPC behavior, is it wrong to add religion to NPCs that mention nothing in their description? Always get's me how godless most NPCs in pathfinder are.

@diego rossi: I think you might be wrong. By your interpretation, FoM overcomes any spell that limits the players ability to move their character. Dominate Person, for example, impedes the player's ability to move their PC, therefore is overcome by FoM.

So while I agree that hold person would fail, just because it uses the phrase "paralyze" and that is specifically countered by FoM, most mental condions that "impair movement" are not countered by FoM. RAW vs RAI. I think the intention is that Hold Person would work on someone subject to FoM, due to it being a mental condition, not a source of physical paralysis. But pathfinder has poor rules for situational immunities, and tends to rather take blanket immunities.

This is correct. Scrolls (and wands) require material costs to be included in their creation. Some get really expensive. And then some are just silly.

A scroll of Bless Water is 50gp.

Mathota wrote:

from the SRD:

The orc subtype is applied to orcs and creatures related to orcs, such as half-orcs. creatures with the orc subtype have darkvision 60 feet and light sensitivity (half-orcs do not have light sensitivity).

So only the abilities listed in the bloodline are the ones you get, because that's all there is to get from this subtype.

Additionally, a character with the Orc subtype counts as an Orc for prerequisites that require being an Orc. They also count as an Orc for enemy abilities that target Orcs, like the Dwarven Hatred racial trait or for Favored Enemies.

So, in example, a Gnome with the Orc bloodine qualifies for Ironhide or Keen Scent.

Gallant Armor wrote:
thaX wrote:
To be quite frank, GA, I am still going to use Power Attack with Non Lethal Damage with my Earth Breaker in PFS. This interpretation you have for this interaction is simply not in line with the rest of the game. It is beyond the scope of what was and is intended, and I only hope you don't have this same confusion on your part with the new ruleset in August of 2019.
The rules don't stop being the rules just because you really want something to work.

This game isn't clear cut enough for this sort of interpretation (Directed at you, Gallant Armor). If a rules interpretation breaks the ruleset, doesn't matter how supported by RAW, that answer is wrong.

Making the game unplayable should not be the goal of rules lawyering.

You want to find some fun loophole, go for it, but if the loophole isn't fun because it just creates arguments, the GM should ban it (if they haven't already).

Your HP and lethal thing. Ignore the RAW for a sec. When playing with others, how do they rule it? Which approach makes the game run smoother? Which approach is easiest to implement? Which approach makes the game more fun?

These games are a democracy. I know, RAW says one thing, but ultimately, people can just quit if they don't like how a rule works, and the players just want to play. So, you can firmly argue RAW and play by yourself, or you can use the rules that make the game fun and play in a group. This doesn't mean ignore the rules as written, but pick your battles - fight the ones that benefit the group, and don't argue as fiercely for the ones that don't benefit the game.

So, back to the debate, how does the ruling that HP isn't non-lethal make the game better? I'm not on either side per say, I just want to have fun while playing. Explain how your arguement makes the game work better and I'll be on your side.

DarkPhoenixx wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
That sounds Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil to me. Fittingly, both of the deities that the text associates the magic item with are Lawful Evil and their followers (especially Asmodeus') would use the item in this exact way.

All alignments use the sword in exactly the same way.

At my table i play alignments by not "what" character is doing, but for what purpose. If fighter stabs innocent children with sword that is evil, but if he stabs necromancer who spreads the plague in the village its considered good.
Their deity is not good to begin with (Calistria), so alignment change not gonna mess his spells (unless they change to lawful, and believe me this character is anything but lawful).

I am thinking of having a paladin to come to the village and bonk him on the head, but paladins have reputation of "smite makes right".

Stabbing people doesn't enter my book of good behavior. A good character can stab things, but killing doesn't make a character good, no matter what they kill or why they kill it.

A good character should seek to make others into good characters. If they can figure out how to make evil into good, that is winning from a good standpoint. Killing evil should be a last resort for a good character, and even against an evil enemy, they should feel a sense of loss over having to resort to slaying enemies.

That said, a good aligned creature can still kill things and I'm not going to "Mark them down" for slaying evil. I'm just not going to count that as GOOD - they'll have to use other actions to prove their good alignment during play.

Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

"Good" and "evil" are frustrating enough to argue, "law" and "chaos" are not moral positions at all. I say a case could be made for his behavior being any alignment, and while some of the cases might be flimsier than others the real deciding factor in which seems which will be the eloquence with which they are made.

This is particularly difficult to adjudicate for clerics, who can lose their class features if their alignment changes too far. This could lead to bad feelings at the table, if the player thought his actions were one alignment and you thought they were another.

Alignments, in my book, are a philosophy on life. They represent how your character sees the world and influence their perspective. Like a philosophy, alignments are not adjusted by one or two actions, a change in alignment requires the player to behave consistently in a manner that is not of their current alignment.

This addiction topic, as mentioned above, cannot be an isolated instance to affect their alignment. If they just do it once, realize the error (perhaps at suggestion from the GM/their deity), and correct the behavior, there is no need for any alignment adjustment.

But, if over time, the PC behaving consistently as another alignment, it my duty as the GM to adjust this. This should not be a surprise to the PC, they should realize that their behavior doesn't match their alignment.

Regarding clerics, the goal of the alignment restriction is not to punish the PCs. Instead, the character needs to represent their deity by behaving in a manner that is suggested by their alignment.

For Ex-Clerics. As GM, their are two options. First, I could restrict the cleric and nerf their class for playing another alignment. This works if the PC has realized their error and wants to fix it. This is the atonement route.

Alternatively, as GM, I can have the cleric "turn" to another deity that better suits their role played alignment. This method is much more practical for PCs that just can't roleplay the alignment that their deity is supposed to have. No need to penalize a PC that simply wants to play a cleric, but can't seem to role play a particular deity/alignment.

And I highly recommend the Separatist archetype for PCs that want to RP their own variant of an existing Deity. A good class for PCs that want a deity that matches their alignment, but they also want to alter the deity's background to fit their own purposes better.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mallecks wrote:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **...

Stop ignoring the first sentenance of dying. "Dying creatures are unconscious and near death."

Dying is also defined in the Combat section.
"If your HP total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution Score, you're dying."

maouse wrote:

If this person were an Npc doing the same thing, what alignment would they be?

Pushing lawful obedience and getting the citizens addicted to enforce church attendance and self harm?
Most of our murder hobos would detect that LE Cleric a mile off the Chelish border! My devil has a contract for you to sign pastor John.

(These things seem exactly opposite CG)

Additiction by itself isn't really evil. It's actually lawful behaviour, or the roots of, when you create a situation where a community forms around a specific need. Could be drugs and additiction, but could also be safety, a source of food, a mine, or a transportation route (like a river or crossroads).

Cities, with their laws, eventually become things their citizens can't live without. In a sense, a city is addicting by itself. Law and Order becomes an addiction. And that's why cities, kings, and villagers, hire Adventurers to deal with problems, since they are too addicted to their city and it's laws to deal with unusual problems themselves.

That said, if addiction is causing people to hurt themselves, then the cause of that additiction becomes evil. Lawful Evil. Especially if the cause is aware of the issue and not actively seeking to resolve it.

I still suggest a gradual alignment shift, rather than a jump for CG to LE. Sudden jumps should be reserved for possession/curses and other unnatural alignment shifts.

Hasn't come up for me, having a character with both natural blindness and acquiring it from a spell.

I did run a 1st level half-orc barbarian that got hit with Blindness in his first session (Zon Kuthon cleric, darkness domain). Really nasty 1st level encounter, but a reasonable encounter for the party. And my PC was dealing like 25 damage per swing, so I'd didn't really have room to complain about it being unbalanced...still killed that cleric, just took more tries. We had fun.

1 to 50 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>