Psyren's page

Circumstance bonuses can stack if they are from different circumstances. More importantly, Covering Fire and Harrying Fire apply to different things - the former increases an ally's AC relative to an enemy, while the latter increases an ally's attack bonus relative to an enemy. So two wisps can provide both of these bonuses, just like two allies could.

Most classes have a "buffing round" where they activate abilities, ready weapons, cast spells etc before the shooting and beating starts. Activate your Haste Circuit during that. For example, an Envoy can use Get 'Em or a Mechanic can use Overcharge during this window. Then the following round, they can start full-attacking.

Do you mean creature immunities, such as what a construct or swarm is immune to? You can find this info in Alien Archive starting on pg. 152

I think I got it - thanks Isaac!

Thanks! Yeah, B made the most sense to me too.

For Line weapons though, it's closer to A right? I roll a single attack, and then apply it to everyone in the line?

I was a bit confused by the Blast Weapons entry, specifically by the "Each attack" clause. The entry states:

Blast

This weapon fires in a cone that extends only to its first range increment. You can’t use it to attack creatures beyond that range. For each attack you make with a weapon with the blast special property, roll one attack against each target in the cone, starting with those closest to you. Each attack takes a –2 penalty in addition to other penalties, such as the penalty to all attacks during a full attack. Roll damage only once for all targets. If you roll one or more critical hits, roll the extra critical damage only once (or any other special effects on a critical hit that require you to roll) and apply it to each creature against which you score a critical hit. You can’t avoid shooting at allies in the cone, nor can you shoot any creature more than once.

Attacks with blast weapons ignore concealment. A blast weapon doesn’t benefit from feats or abilities that increase the damage of a single attack (such as the operative’s trick attack). Ammunition for blast weapons is designed for blast attacks, so you spend the usage amount only once for each cone of attacks.

So let's say I make one attack with a blast weapon (e.g. a vortex scattergun.) There are 5 enemies (A,B,C,D,E) in my weapon's 30 ft. cone firing area; A is 10ft. away, B is 15ft. away, and the rest are at the edge of the cone.

I see three possible readings:

1) I roll a single attack against everyone in the cone at -2.
2) I roll 5 different attacks (one each against A,B,C,D,E) each at -2.
3) I roll one attack against A at -2, then B at -4, C at -6, D at -8, and E at -10.

Could anyone tell me which is right? Or am I off-base and none of them are right? How does this change if I full-attack?

Paladrone wrote:

Usually speaking, if someone wants to pass on a message to their Deity they just pray. That's kind of the point of praying.

True, but there's nothing that says praying has any actual means of reaching your deity as far as I am aware.

Problem is, Summon Creature doesn't say that either. So either way you're outside of the rules and depending on your GM/deity being nice to you.

Anyway, I agree with SirShua's take on the mechanics. Summoning in SF is closer to pulling planar energy and then shaping it into a generic denizen of that plane, than it is calling 1-800-AZATA and getting a specific being while they're in the shower or whatnot. That's closer to how Calling works (specifically, Planar Binding) than Summon Creature. It's also why called creatures can actually die, because they're actually here unlike summons.

Uncanny Mobility is basically necessary for melee Operatives for this reason.

I see the confusion; "equal amount of damage" could mean the total incoming after the reduction (the 9) or the reduction amount itself (the 1).

FAQing as I'm not sure either.

I acknowledge that for some, starting with noticeably weaker characters than average can be a feature rather than a bug. For me though, I like the idea that I'm playing the way the designers intended, rather than setting up additional obstacles in my path to success (or conversely, with a supernormal character, making the game too easy.)

My advice, if you're not afraid of module spoilers, is to find a campaign journal or podcast of another Starfinder group. You can learn a LOT about the game and the setting just by watching/listening to another group play through it. On a long drive recently my bf and I fired up a Dead Suns podcast by a group called the Sidequest Inn and they have all kinds of humorous yet informative asides where they talk about Absalom Station, Castrovel, races in SF and various other setting fluff stuff.

Basically, if reading all of it proves daunting, try a different medium! Then you might approach the written material with a fresh eye having digested it more easily in another form.

The word "cheating" might have been unnecessarily inflammatory. Yes, nobody should play with people who are fudging their rolls, especially rolls that will have an impact for the length of the campaign.

So mentally erase "cheating" from what I wrote and substitute Dracomicron's post instead - rolling for stats can introduce notable inequity through no fault or intention of the playgroup. The guy who rolled 16 16 18 14 10 10 is just going to be that much stronger than the one with 14 12 8 11 13 12, without having to do anything wrong. Point Buy eradicates that possibility and feels much fairer.

I would love a 3rd or 4th-level caster, some kind of melee/casting hybrid, occupying a design space between the Solarian and the Mystic. I'd also like a magic-using Soldier, which could also use 3rd or 4th-level spells.

A class I would highly enjoy would be a conversion of the Medium - i.e. a "5th-man" that can swap roles regularly for the party's needs, at the risk of falling under the GM's influence in some way.

1) If you're going to go around failing will saves, there are a lot worse things you could be hit with than Slow, especially as a melee character. In other words, keep your saves boosted.

2) As noted there are multiple ways for your party (or you) to deal with this spell. For instance, Haste Circuits are right there in core, get one.

3) Thrown weapons use Str to both hit and do damage - pack some as backup. Melee should not be your only out.

Starfinder Gods. An entire book on gods and religion in the interstellar future.

This. With NO stat blocks for deities please. But include herald/aspect/avatar/church information definitely.

My wishlist would also include:

- A magic-focused sourcebook as noted above.

- A races book that gives us more info on every playable race thus far, both in core and AA, plus some timeshifted ones from Golarion, and a couple of new faces?

- Melee/Ranged/Magic Tactics Toolbox-style supplements with feat chains, unique gear, and class options and for each combat approach.

- Variant Multiclassing as a scaling alternative to the various dabbler feats.

- Some flavor of Mythic for the truly ridiculous campaigns (completely optional) to go nuts with.

- (Much later on) some form of "Starfinder Unchained" featuring all the wonkier rules they want to test drive, including the stuff that proves popular in PF2, like alternate action economy.

In the past I've understood why some folks might have preferred rolling. Point Buy systems are usually unintuitive for newer players, with costs that change as you invest points into scores, and encouraging "dumping" stats down to 7 or even 5, which then get roleplayed inconsistently. Many of us had to just go online and find point buy calculators for our characters, especially in 3.5.

Starfinder fixed both of those problems - even if you do try to "dump" your stats below 8, doing so gives you no extra points to spend elsewhere, so there is no longer any incentive to do it. And point assignment is always a very simple 1:1 ratio, which is very easy to explain to newcomers.

So to me, there's no excuse whatsoever not to use point buy. If I want PCs to be more powerful than the baseline, I can just increase the PB amount, without having to introduce the swinginess and cheating potential of stat rolling, or the rigidity and agency loss of array assignment.

Thanks for the reply! So readying to interrupt doesn't work on standard action spells? You said it was confirmed - could you show me where?

I've seen threads go either way on this one, so I wanted to check if there was a clarification from the devs that I might have missed.

An enemy caster is at range with no cover/concealment; he's about to cast something nasty. The party doesn't have a melee near him to AoO and disrupt his spellcast, but I have my gun out. Can I ready an action to try shooting him instead?

CRB 331 suggests yes: "You are most at risk of taking damage while casting when a spell’s casting time is 1 round or longer, you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast."

CRB 249 suggests no: "If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event."

For me, the best way for both of these passages to mesh is that "begins to cast" is a valid trigger for my readied action. My shot will go off immediately after that trigger, but before the spell itself, thus having a chance to disrupt it.

Is this right? If not, is there any way for a noncaster to disrupt a spell at range?

Talked a "bald" conversation. lol

Why I am so bald.

Understood now - thank you both!

@Sauce: That's what I thought at first too, but the first entry does specify grenades as well - see the first sentence:

"With a thrown weapon or a grenade, you can make a ranged attack at a target..."

EDIT: same response to Gary.
EDIT 2: Oh I think I see what you mean. You're saying that the "target" in the first entry, when applied to a grenade, is referring only to a grid intersection. Is that right?

There is a contradiction in the rulebook about this that I was hoping to get clarity on. Both passages are on SF-CRB pg. 245.

The first quote says you can hit people with grenades:

Ranged Attacks with a Thrown Weapon

With a thrown weapon or a grenade, you can make a ranged
attack at a target that is within the weapon’s maximum range
and in your line of effect (see page 271). You add your Strength
modifier to your ranged attack rolls with a thrown weapon, and to
your damage rolls with weapons with the thrown special property.
Do not add your Strength modifier to damage rolls with grenades.

The second says you target grid intersections rather than people:

Targeting a Grid Intersection

When using a thrown weapon that has an area effect, such as a
grenade, you target a specific grid intersection on a tactical battle
map, rather than a specific creature. Treat this as a ranged attack
against AC 5.

Note that it does not say "you can instead target a grid intersection" like Pathfinder does - it just says "you target a grid intersection" which sounds like you have no choice. Which one is right? And if it's the former, are you targeting their full KAC? Can you crit?

It also prevents the "christmas tree effect" - whereby the GM feels obligated to make magic extremely common in order for characters to keep up with the game's math. Basically this allows magic to be kept rare and special (if the GM chooses) and technology is used to pick up the slack.

Haven't done a poor binding yet. But that's because I avoid it, and make sure I can hit the rolls consistently. Green Glomairah might eventually destroy the streak though.

There's a feat in the book that keeps you from falling under their influence unless you fail the check by 5 or more. Speaking personally though, getting Influenced is half the fun, and it makes my GM like the system more too.

Can someone give me an idea of how this plays? I have it and have read it but don't quite grok how it will play. I guess I'm looking for specific examples in play of what a pact binder did. What role did they play in the party and how did they stack up against the other standard character classes?

Have you ever played the Binder from D&D 3.5's Tome of Magic? It's basically that, but powered up to keep pace with Pathfinder's higher floor.

It's a very fun class; they can change the role they play in the party drastically on a day-by-day basis, which makes them a perfect 5th man. Need an additional sneak, or an off-tank, or a backup caster, they can do all that. The downside is also fun - the spirits you take on have their own ideas about what you should be doing with your time, so if you make a poor pact the GM gets to mess with you in subtle ways.

As for what they excel at - you need high Charisma to be a good Pactmaker, and they are very practiced at negotiating, so they make a very useful party face. I have a handbook to the class that I'm (slowly) updating with all the new content that should help people figure out what they can do.

Can't wait! I've been excited for a NWN successor for the longest time. I hope there will be mod support as well, I wouldn't mind porting in some 3.5 classes like the Warlock.

Revelation of Brilliance at first level is definitely a good idea. Does it let you add both Int and Cha to knowledge checks, or does it merely swap the stat?

Getting a 16 and an 18 by 4th level isn't exactly easy; just two 16s at 1st level uses up the entirety of your 20 point buy, leaving a 10 in your Con and Dex, both of which you'll likely need more of if you plan to survive to reach 4th level. More realistically you're probably looking at 14 Int at most, and that's without considering a gish Pactmaker who wants some physical stats.

There's also the issue of getting through 4 levels with a single spirit and constellation to begin with. Milo isn't particularly strong; even in a game with firearms, he doesn't give you a lot to work with offensively besides basic proficiency, while in a game without firearms, you already have the crossbow proficiency he grants. But picking a different spirit locks you out of the Scholar aspects.

I wouldn't mind even just starting the game with 2 spirits. You could use Milo during low-combat days and then pick a more combat oriented one like Forash or Marat to be your combat spirit. Starting with 3 spirits would be even better, but 2 could work.

Specifically, researching one of a spirit's four tasks takes eight hours of work per-level of the spirit. So, if you can do eight hours a day, then 1st-level spirits can let you do a check every day, 2nd-level spirits every two days, and so on. You can accelerate it by increasing the DC, too, which honestly isn't going to be a problem if you use the method above.

That's 8 hours per task if you're not actively adventuring though, and it also assumes you succeed every time. Considering that you probably won't have downtime right at the start of a campaign and you're looking at a minimum DC 26 check at 1st level, that's definitely not a given. Then every failure adds at least another day, more than that if you're trying to adventure at the same time...

I definitely appreciate the "fail bonus" - it reminds me of Diablo's "pity timer" for legendaries, where the rising drop rate with every failure guarantees you'll succeed eventually. It's rough though when even the example shows how likely you are to fail and need more than one week of research. Most APs have multiple encounters happening in the first week (RotR for example), during which time you'll have been stuck with a single spirit and constellation.

After reading the section over, I have decided that "week" should be "attempt." Basically, it's like a Craft check. You research for X days, where X is 8 hours per spirit level, and attempt a check. If you fail the check, you get a cumulative bonus the next time that you try that same check for that same component for the spirit you were researching.

That's great news - I'll be sure to add that note as a clarification.

I would personally also treat it as a new Knowledge check, but I can easily see GMs ruling the other way - particularly since I'm just trying to learn the same information as last time. What's worse is that the book says the cumulative bonus stacks "between multiple weeks." Does that mean I have to wait 7 days just to get the bonus from failing? Even the example given in the text of a Pactmaker trying to learn Aza'zati shows that she fails for an entire week before getting the bonus.

This section is a bit unclear, and I feel that any favors you need to ask the GM to grant you to make it work are only going to make it that much harder for them to sign off on you using third-party in the first place. However well-designed and fun it might be, getting some GMs to accept third party can be a pain, and now I need to also ask them to provide my character with tutors, or give me days if not weeks of campaign time to research, or stick seals into the dungeons we're going to, etc...

I personally preferred how it worked in Pact Magic Unbound where your GM could simply choose "Rare" and my Pactmaker would get a couple of different starting spirits as well as some free ones from leveling, making us a little less beholden on the GM's good graces to contribute to a party until we can find or research more. More difficult campaigns can always choose "Scarce" if they want to run hard mode, you-must-find-or-research-all-seals if they want.

Loving this product and very happy to have backed it. I'm updating my handbook with the new spirits and other information.

My two major questions have to do with Researching Spirits and Knowledge Tasks. First - it appears that, if your Pactmaker doesn't complete these tasks, don't have access to another binder or tome to teach you, and doesn't come across a seal while adventuring, you won't learn any new spirits at all. Am I reading this correctly?

Second, even if you do set out to research the knowledge tasks, the DCs seem quite high early on (minimum 26, and you need to make 4 of them to learn a spirit, which appears to take several days even if you're not actively adventuring.) The book mentions getting a +5 bonus to that task every time you fail, but you can't actually retry Knowledge checks until you gain more ranks (since the check represents what you know.) This suggests that whenever you fail a specific task, you need to level up before you can try again. Am I missing something? Should Pactmakers be begging their GMs to make seals, tutors or books available? Can you take 20?

My plan right now is to make Milo of Clyde always be my first-level spirit so I at least have a reroll when trying to learn others, but it's not the most elegant solution, so I'm hoping there's something I've missed.

So a Cleric/Exalted would end up with three 10th-level domains? Seems lame.

You can probably pick one of your earlier domains to make it scale with you through the PrC.

That's.... a good point, I suppose I could pick an existing domain (nothing's stopping me anyway). Of course, then I'd have one 20th domain and one 10th domain, whereas if I just stuck with cleric I'd have two 20th domains instead, so it still seems weak.

A Cleric would not be better off with Evangelist, since it loses spell progression and doesn't scale domains either.

No, reread Evangelist - it progresses ALL class features 9/10. "Aligned Class (Ex)"

Psyren wrote:

If they're going to ignore "the most important rule," then they're going to do that no matter what you play.

Yes, but they are more likely to do it if there is already the idea in the rules.

Well, too bad. That rule existing is better for the health of the game as a whole, than trying to head off every Napoleon Complex GM who wants to abuse it at the pass.

The Exalted PrC from Inner Sea Gods seems intended to make you something of a "super-cleric," by letting you "forge a unique connection to your god." You must worship a specific deity instead of an ideal or pantheon, and have to match your deity's alignment exactly (instead of being one step away); you also have to follow their dogma more rigidly, which includes performing a daily Obedience akin to the Evangelist and Sentinel if you want to keep your abilities. In exchange, you get a third domain from that deity, the ability to perform minor miracles, and a few other goodies.

The problem though seems to be that, for all three of your domains you end up with stunted progression. Say you're a Cleric 10/Exalted 10 - Exalted doesn't appear to advance the domains you already have, and the third one uses your Exalted level (i.e. 10) instead of your caster level (20). So at level 20 you end up with three domains each at 10th level as far as strength, DCs etc. Whereas a regular cleric would only have two domains, but they'd both be 20th level as far as strength.

Am I missing something? Does Exalted give you three weak domains instead of two strong ones, and was this intended? Wouldn't a cleric be better off with Evangelist, even though that was the "non-cleric faithful PrC?"

Psyren wrote:

If you're playing with a jerk, it won't matter how "empowered" they are.

The point is that having a specific rule for it puts it into the jerks head more often than they come up with it on their own.

If they're going to ignore "the most important rule," then they're going to do that no matter what you play. You can try to mitigate this by playing something that can't fall or be denied, like a sorcerer, psychic or oracle (so they can't make you fall or steal/sunder your spellbook), but even then, a jerk is probably just going to find another way to screw you over.

Falling is still a useful mechanic; it adds verisimilitude to the setting that a cleric can't simply flout their deity (or ideals) and still enjoy vast amounts of power. If you want to play a game where devotion isn't required to be a devout class, there are probably others out there that will suit your fancy, but I'm glad this isn't one of them.

I guess I'm fortunate that nobody I play with (or am ever likely to play with) is this petty.

My Self wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Mostly because there are actual rules for removing the characters class abilities. So bad GMs feel authorized by the rules to do so.

Yeah, but there's also the most important rule.

A specific rule is much more empowering than 'do whatever you want'.

If you're playing with a jerk, it won't matter how "empowered" they are. Hundreds if not thousands of us read those same rules and haven't felt the need to depower our divine casters for no reason.

No, the warpriest has exactly two blessings, each of which has a minor power and a major power. The question is, are these two abilities (blessings) each of which can do two different things, or are they four abilities (blessing powers), each of which does one thing?

A blessing is a single "thing" that has two aspects, major and minor, so you take it once for each blessing. Making a total of two, not 4.

You're right, I misread it - when it said "major or minor effect" I thought you had to choose one of those to apply it to; rather, the feat applies to the whole blessing and you choose which one your activating as a swift whenever you use it.

For a warpriest to be able to quicken all his blessing effect would he need to take this feat 4 times once for each effect or only 2 one for each "school"?

It applies to an individual blessing (major or minor) within that domain, so you'd need it 4 times to quicken all of them.

You do qualify for Dimensional Agility - if you specifically have DD as a SLA (which Teleportation Mastery gives you) then you qualify for anything that specifically requires ability to cast DD, like DA. See this FAQ about Barghests and DA: [url]http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow[/url]

Ashram wrote:

graystone wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

The bigger question is the confusing issue that the weapon has a 20' range increment and only a 12' rope.

The same way a gauntlet can hit someone 5' away or a scorpion whip grows 10' if you also know how to use a whip. ;)

But, it's a thrown weapon with 20' range increment. So apparently you can fling a 12' rope out to 100'. :v

And? Are Aklys, Harpoons, Kyoketsu shoge and Grappling Hooks any different?

If you want to throw it farther than the rope [+5' for natural reach] you have you have to let go of said rope. I don't see what's confusing.

Even if you rule this way (RAW is still that the 20 is an increment, not a maximum), I'd say the Distance enchantment should allow the rope to stretch to 40'. How? Magic.

For VMC Monk, I would add Ninja as a good choice for a few reasons:

1) Dex-based, so the lack of armor isn't as lethal until you can get your hands on some Bracers of Armor. (Plus, you can simply wear armor as needed and give up the monk features during that time.) You can also UMD a Mage Armor wand fairly early on.

2) Unarmed Strike is worth a ninja trick and a master trick combined.

3) Evasion is worth a ninja trick.

4) Ki Pool stacks with yours for +10 extra ki, equal to 5 feats.

5) AC bonus combos well with your uncanny dodge since you won't lose dodge bonuses.

6) Improved Evasion is worth a master trick.

CBDunkerson wrote:

So, all would be good if they dropped the 'FAQ' and 'errata' terminology and just used something like 'updates' for all of their... updates?

People are WAY too hung up on semantics.

Again, it's not semantics. Updates would be a good term for the rules changes, but that would now leave FAQs misnamed, because some really are just clarifications or confirmation of common interpretations that get asked about a lot.

Updates would be a good sub page. There shouldn't be so many that they require separation by both category and book, merely by book as tabs.

Call them "Paizo responses" then. There, bam, updates/clarifications/errata/holy writ/legislating from the bench/whatever else you want to call it all fall under that one heading and we can all go to the nearest tavern and render ourselves comatose.

Where does 'FAQratta' stand in the grand order of things for say, a PFS GM?

Is it of *higher* importance than FAQ? Lower?

Is it of *higher* importance than errata? Lower?

If we are going to have such a thing, I kind of need to know to learn about things that may influence my GM style or inform me of things I did not know before.

ie, I need to know what I *need* to know versus 'it'd be kind of nice if you knew this'?

A "FAQratta" response (i.e. "nix that rule, we actually mean for it to work this way, and the text will be changed to reflect that at some point in the future") is still FAQ - it's just a response that happens to involve outright changing or rewording the rule in question rather than selecting an existing interpretation.

For PFS GMs, both kinds of FAQ (choosing an interpretation or changing the wording) are equally binding. Errata is also binding. In the rare cases where they conflict (like the "stat stacking" FAQ conflicting with Dragon Ferocity back in the day), generally this will be cleared up with another FAQ response.

Errata.

As previously stated numerous times in the thread (though possibly deleted), the term "errata" has a specific meaning both for Paizo and publishers in general. It refers to a new printing. Player Companions don't get that, so if you're waiting for errata for those you will never get them. Hence, FAQ.

CBDunkerson wrote:

pipedreamsam wrote:

Can we talk about what a nightmare it is to actually sift through the FAQ for a moment?

While I don't find it that difficult, the FAQs might benefit from a different organizational structure. Maybe something more like the way the PRD layout follows the order of information in the book.

I would kill a goblin to get them all on one page. Trying to figure out which book the authors thought was the relevant one for any particular faq is a pain.

A targeted google search takes care of that - add "site:paizo.com/paizo/faq" after any particular topic (like "sneak attack" or "witch") and you'll find the faqs related to that topic no matter which book they're in.

This is especially important for any recently published books that have serious issues and non-core books that would never receive errata otherwise.

The player companion/module/etc FAQs are already in one place - Golarion FAQ

Nope, racial heritage doesn't work because you have to have the Warslinger racial trait. Racial Heriatage won't let you take that.

Adopted could fix that, but even if it doesn't, Halflings are again intended to be the premier sling-users.

I would rather uMonk had weak fort and its various immunities (like disease and poison) left untouched, rather than weak will. A weak-willed monk just doesn't sit well with me.

Having said that, I do think 14-16 base Wis is easy to get on most unchained monks, and that should cover your will save nicely.

My only complaint about slipslinger style is that it's impossible to make a decent slinger who isn't a halfling.

Or Human, Half-Elf or Half-Orc, thanks to Racial Heritage.

But slings are generally a halfling thing anyway.

What you do in the meantime is up to you. Well actually, it is up to you even after that, of course, but you know what I mean.

Almost - PFS GMs are required to treat the FAQs as law even before the next errata is issued.

But yes, home games are and have always been able to ignore any rulings, clarifications or whatever else they see fit to ignore.

So Bombardment removes the need to what? It seems it does nothing you didn't get from previous feats.

Remember, Grenadier already lets you throw as a free action due to Slip/Warslinger trait any ammo. Gren lets you use alchemy items.

If Bombardment at least let you use Alchemist bombs I could understand, but it literally does nothing new due to RAW.

Bombardment lets you full-attack. Grenadier lets you use alchemical items in your sling (treating them as ammo, i.e. Str to damage + any enhancements from the sling etc.) but only as a standard action; Bombardment removes that restriction and now you can launch a volley of them.

That's what I was thinking - although I hadn't spotted the 1.5STR damage. There also appears to be no penalty for flurry with unchained. The leg style sweep is also nice, but I hope that it would be unnecessary as I will be locking down opponents at 20' or more.

Actually, your Unchained Monk can use the Leg Sweep strike with your kama if you also take Ascetic Style from the recently-released Weapon Master's Handbook. This will give you a free trip attempt with your kama if any of the attacks in your flurry hit.

Personally though, I would use the Spin Kick strike to trip instead. This allows you to target your opponent's flat-footed CMD, making the trip much more likely to succeed.