moderately unhelpful clickbait titles?
Yeah, years on the internet has taught me that if you put enough information in the title, a lot of people will chime in without ever reading the post... kinda how you just did, but being completely serious.
Search Posts
By 1, that still doesn't justify the action+spell point, and if you do that and then cast a spell that benefits for the bonus you usually don't have actions left to concentrate, so in normal circumstances it's either one of the other. If the duration was 1 minute instead of 1 round we might be onto something, but as is it's pretty much worthless.
Also, i realized a lot of their bloodline powers are not very good, ie. Ancestral Surge: An action and a Spell Point for... the ability for that turn to expend another action and another Spell Point in increasing the duration of a spell in one round. What the hell?
The spell list itself should be reworked, and if in that rework they add mor illusion and enchantment spells (because fey) maybe they can kill two birds with one stone.
Leaving the other problems you mentioned aside (they are important as well, but i have nothing to comment right now) this looks less like a "who is considered an ally" problem (which is still the same as in PF1) and more like a legacy from and earlier draft of the book in which Ret Strike only triggered on a crit. This is similar to how we have a General Feat that gives us one Lore skill of our choice as a signature skil... despite de fact that all lore skills are signature for everyone. However, both feats do something else, so it might just be a matter of removing the legacy text from them. In any case, all cases like those should be found and fixed as soon as posible.
I agree with all of this. Untill now, i did'nt even realize they loose the 6th and 10th level feats for their bloodline powers. God, that's an awful idea, and i feel the need to remark how bad it is. I agree 100% the sorcerer should instead have 6th and 10th level feats to get the advanced and greater bloodline powers, not getting them if they so choose. But i also want to call atention to one other problem that's been bugging me since the playtest came out, how is it that the Fey bloodline has barely any access to enchantment and illusion spells? The descendant of the notorious tricksters can't cast those? Among the spells they should have, the most egregious one to not have access to is Invisibility, you know, the one spell most archetypical fey, can cast as will. I understand how, going by name alone, fey and primal sound like a good match, but once you get into the spell list, it's obvious it's not representative of what the lineage of most fey would give. Sure, you have some fey like the dryads which are more in tune with nature and thus it makes sense their descendants would have the Primal spell list, but to me they seem like a minority when compared with the rest. I think they should make the Fey bloodline give Occult spells instead, or at least your choice of occult or primal.
In contrast you dont change things just to change them. You don't need to expand the Paladin. You say we shouldn't keep traditions. I say we don't need to change the game just because some people don't like how things are.For many of us, this is the last piece of original D&D that still exists. Nothing else is even recognizable. So radically changed that side-by-side you couldn't tell they were the same thing without the name.But that's a good thing, or else we'd be playing AD&D. You don't really need to keep something just for the sake of keeping it, you always try to change and improve things, that is precisely the reason new versions are made. If what you want is the elements of the original, you can go back to play that, a new version is never gonna keep you from that, (as a matter of fact, i'm probably gonna keep playing PF1 for a looong time) but don't let nostalgia rule over what can and can't be done in the new version. What? i didn't say anything about changing it just to change it, or just because some people don't like the way it is, and to imply that i said that is dishonest at best. I have given my reasons on why i think doing so will improve the game without taking anything away, what i said in your quote is just me explaining why i don't think "we should keep it because it's the last piece of the original" is a valid argument against what i'm saying
Except Anti-Paladins already exist in D&D and PF, and they always have the same kind of powers, so using the Champion class as an umbrella under which both fit in adds or substracts nothing at all and just simplifies things. Also, in PF there are Grey Paladins and Tyrant Anti-Paladins, so it's already pretty open. For many of us, this is the last piece of original D&D that still exists. Nothing else is even recognizable. So radically changed that side-by-side you couldn't tell they were the same thing without the name. But that's a good thing, or else we'd be playing AD&D. You don't really need to keep something just for the sake of keeping it, you always try to change and improve things, that is precisely the reason new versions are made. If what you want is the elements of the original, you can go back to play that, a new version is never gonna keep you from that, (as a matter of fact, i'm probably gonna keep playing PF1 for a looong time) but don't let nostalgia rule over what can and can't be done in the new version.
EDIT: Also, I said this isn't about the Paladin name, change the class to "Champion" and let the Paladin be the LG version. Can we please stop discussing the word paladin?Since we're talking about Paladins, not really? Now, as other people are saying, that class could be called "Champion", a divine martial class which forces you to choose a code of conduct upon taking it, and those who chose the Paladin code of conduct are considered Paladins, and same with Anti-Paladins, Liberatots, Tyrants, or whatever you wanna call the rest. To me Paladin is just fine, but I don't really care about the nomenclature, this discussion was never about that. What this was about is opening the mechanics and lore of the divine warrior to more than just LG, which most people seem to agree with, so please, let's stop discussing about naming. It's not about the paladin name, it's about the lore and mechanics of the class, so i don't care if the class is called "Champion" and Paladins are Champions with a Paladin Code of Conduct (which would require LG) while the other champions are called different things.
and those champions can be called paladins if they so chooseSeeing as how to a bunch of us Paladin means "hero", not "champion of [whatever]" that's a sticking point. I'm sure a CE orc chieftain can be considered a hero by his subordinates, or even other orcs in other clans. But anyway, ignoring the definition of paladin and inventing your own seems like a you problem. EDIT: Also, I said this isn't about the Paladin name, change the class to "Champion" and let the Paladin be the LG version. Can we please stop discussing the word paladin?
But Paladins and anti-paladins are two sides of the same coin: warriors with unfaltering devotion to their ideals and deity, for which they are rewarded with divine powers, including the ability to channel their deity's energy through their hands and enhancing their presence to the point it becomes a supernatural aura. Both lore-wise and mechanic-wise, they're one and the same, there's no difference that stems from anything other than the deity and ideal they choose to pursue, so it makes sense for them to be under the same base class. Now, as other people are saying, that class could be called "Champion", a divine martial class which forces you to choose a code of conduct upon taking it, and those who chose the Paladin code of conduct are considered Paladins, and same with Anti-Paladins, Liberatots, Tyrants, or whatever you wanna call the rest. To me Paladin is just fine, but I don't really care about the nomenclature, this discussion was never about that. What this was about is opening the mechanics and lore of the divine warrior to more than just LG, which most people seem to agree with, so please, let's stop discussing about naming.
First, yes, yes and yes, any religion and alingment can have divine champions to fight for them, and those champions can be called paladins if they so choose. Aditionally, paladins of other alingments have been done in D&D 3.5, D&D 4, D&D 5 and Pathfinder 1 (in 3.5 and Pathfinder, outside of the Core book, but it's been done). The concept of this class and it's mechanics being tied to just LG is, as i said in my first post, outdated, just like restricting classes by race. Also also, "I don't like this it shouldn't be like this" doesn't really make for a good argument. Second, just changing feats and powers (and codes of conduct, of course) is the way to go, because that remarks how similar yet different they can be. The example you made about the antipaladin is perfect, because their powers are equal but oposite you can tell they're two sides of the same coin, as i said earlier, and it makes sense they'd gain equivalent powers, as their source is the same: their code and their faith.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin Definition of paladin
This might be an unpopular opinion, but i think restricting Paladins to Lawful Good is outdated, unnecessary, and makes them far less interesting. One of my favourite books in D&D 3.5 was the Unearthed Arcana, which introduced the Paladins of Slaughter, Freedom and Tyranny, of alignments CE, CB and LE respectively. Just like the LG paladin, they are living embodiments of their respective alignments carried pretty much to the extreme, and, to me, that's what being a paladin means. I do not see a reason we can't have that as part of the base class of the Paladin, all Paizo would need to do is remove the restriction for the base class (or change so it can be LG, CG, CE or LE), change some powers and feats to work differently depending on the alignment of the character (like we have for clerics) and maybe create alignment restricted feats (for instance, maybe they can have feats like "Aura of Fear" which would require you to be Evil, while others like "Oath of Freedom" need you to be specifically CG). Sure, this means revisiting and tweaking the whole class, but it makes for much more interesting paladins, and, therefore, much more interesting characters, as we can now explore how those characters with extreme unfaltering alignments interact with the world. Adittionally, given the current archetype system, implementing it at a later date would be pretty much impossible unless they are released as separate base classes. For all those reasons, Paizo, please consider allowing paladins of different alingments.
It says no hands. Yeah, i know, i'm blind, idk how i missed that before.
Title. Shield spell gives you "a shield of force" but, the way i see it, it acts like a regular shield, which means it uses your shield proficiency. This means most characters that are gonna want to use it actually get a penalty for doing so, since they're likely untrained in it unless the use feats for that. Maye i'm wrong and doesn't use the shield proficiency at all, but in my opinion it should do like mage armor and specify it uses unarmored proficiency, or at the very least say you're proficient with that shield. Also, it would be nice if it said whether it needs to be held in a hand or not, as that can be a major difference if you're gonna cast something afterwards.
I think the idea of scrapping existing PCs is as terrible as it gets. I really don't see an issue with creating general conversion rules for 1st ed characters, and letting us carry them over.
But also consider a caster’s shield. At least for a little extra utility that is. The problem with that is that it still has spell failiure chance...
EDIT: Nvm, i am dumb, i was thinking about the convention rewards, this is different.
I have a couple of questions about Flaming Sphere and similar spells (aggressive thundercloud, aqueous orb, etc.) and i was hoping you could help me. I'm sure it's already been answered, but i seem to be unable to find it, so sorry if you've already been asked this. 1- If you don't use your move action to move the sphere, does it still "attack" the creatures sharing the same square? 2- If the answer to that is no, then the next question is in order: if you cast it (standard action) and summon it directly in someone's space, does it attack that someone as a part of the casting or do you need to also expend your move action to do so? 3- What happens to creatures that enter/pass through a square containing a sphere? Thank you in advance.
The problem is it IS in the rules questions forum, with no answer, that's why i decided to try luck here XDDDD.How do kinetic blasts with burn cost (because of an infusion or being a composite blast) interact with the Conductive weapon ability? Do you pay the burn once as normal, twice (because you are expending two uses) or none (as you are not using the blast)? It seems clear that you can use infusions, as if you use the right element(s) they are still spell-like abilities that require ranged touch attacks (or melee touch, if you use Kinetic Blade to use it in a melee weapon), but the interaction with the burn is not entirely clear.Good question for the rules boards. I've not yet read one word of the kineticist class and have no idea how the class works... unlikely to change, too, until either I play one as a PC (very unlikely), have a player play one in a game I'm running (relatively unlikely), or have to develop one or put one in an adventure (most likely, but still not super likely). WOW thank you, i didn't know that! I only knew about this thread and i feel like such a newbie (because i am XD).
How do kinetic blasts with burn cost (because of an infusion or being a composite blast) interact with the Conductive weapon ability? Do you pay the burn once as normal, twice (because you are expending two uses) or none (as you are not using the blast)? It seems clear that you can use infusions, as if you use the right element(s) they are still spell-like abilities that require ranged touch attacks (or melee touch, if you use Kinetic Blade to use it in a melee weapon), but the interaction with the burn is not entirely clear.Good question for the rules boards. I've not yet read one word of the kineticist class and have no idea how the class works... unlikely to change, too, until either I play one as a PC (very unlikely), have a player play one in a game I'm running (relatively unlikely), or have to develop one or put one in an adventure (most likely, but still not super likely). The problem is it IS in the rules questions forum, with no answer, that's why i decided to try luck here XDDDD.
How do kinetic blasts with burn cost (because of an infusion or being a composite blast) interact with the Conductive weapon ability? Do you pay the burn once as normal, twice (because you are expending two uses) or none (as you are not using the blast)? It seems clear that you can use infusions, as if you use the right element(s) they are still spell-like abilities that require ranged touch attacks (or melee touch, if you use Kinetic Blade to use it in a melee weapon), but the interaction with the burn is not entirely clear.
Yes, you can use the talents and blasts during rage or bloodrage. You can't, however, gather power, as it requires concentration.
The point is: You don't make two flurries, you make one, and gain the benefits from both classes, because they all proc "when you make a flurry of blows". If there was no period between the first part and the rest, you would be right, but there is, so those are different sentences, and the second sentence in each class feature uses the same wording as Feinting Flurry, so if you can get the extra attack from the regular flurry AND forgo the first one to feint without having to use Full-Attack actions to use Flurry of Blows twice, then you can also get the extra attack from the Unchained Monk's ability. Here's how it goes, first, you make a FAA to make a FoB.
So, i've been doing some research, and it looks like there is nothing preventing this two to stack. Please, allow me to explain before posting an opinion. Let's start with the Elemental Ascetic class feature, Elemental Flurry. It says that it can make a Flurry of Blows,as the Monk class feature, and that one starts with the following line: Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. Incidentally, the Unchained Monk class feature starts with the same line. So they both gives you access to a kind of action called "flurry of blows", which is performed as a full-round attack, right? This line is identical in both features, so there is no reason to think they are different kind of actions. Now, the remaining text of both features is different. The monk one says: So it gives you a number of bonuses that apply when you make a flurry of blows. Now, the unchained monk says. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects). So it looks like it grants you a different set of bonuses that proc while performing a FoB. As far as i can see, the wording is the same as the Feinting Flurry feat: While using flurry of blows to make melee attacks, you can forgo your first attack to make a Bluff check to feint. This means those 3 abilities work the same way: you ask yourself if you are making a Flurry of Blows: if the answer is yes, all of this effects will trigger (as long as you have them), that is, if you manage to get both the Unchained Monk and the Regular Monk flurry of blows (like multiclassing Unchained Monk and Elemental Ascetic), and you make a flurry of blows you will have 3 attacks, at a -2 each (and if you have the Feinting Flurry feat, you can forgo the first one to make a feint). The RAW in all of this seems to stand, so the question is: is there anything that will make this not work? Any FaQ i missed or weird interaction i did not count on? Because if there is not, we might finally have a way to play an Elemental Ascetic that does not completely suck.
EDIT: Looks like i've been ninja'd. Still, i'll leave what i wrote.
Keep in mind that the quoted rules only mention the loss of altitude because of damaged wings, it would not apply if, let's say, you cast "Deep Slumber" on a flying creature. Maybe it will provoke, maybe it won't, but if it doesn't, it won't be because of that line. Also, it's worth mentioning that, yet again, the rulebook has to specifically point out that tis specific kind of involuntary movement doesn't provoke. That doesn't automaticly mean that they do unles stated otherwise, but makes me wonder, if that is not the case, wouldn't it have been easier to point it out in the general rules for AoO's, istead of pointing it out in every single case? I mean, just add "Only movement willingly performed by the creature provokes." or somethinh like that. I wonder why they didn't.
OK, besides whether you are right about this or not, i don't like what you did there. You can't just quote out of context, answer that little segment and pretend you are right. I mean, I see your point, as i said in the first post, both sides have good arguments, and i understand why you think only actions provoke, but let's repeat what you just said, this time quoting a little bit more of what BigNorseWolf said:
Do you see how ridiculous it sounds? Note that i did nothing but expanding the quote with the previous line BigNorseWolf wrote, i did not make it up, nor i took it out of context. Wen they wrote that brick thing, they were not talking about your logic behind "Falling does not provoke", but the logic behind "Only actions provoke", and then the firs thing you say is exactly that. Yeah, that's absurd. A good point would have been "That's not the logic i'm using. This is a rulebook, everything that is a rule has to be stated, that's how rulebooks work. The book says "actions provoke", but it doesn't say a word about not actions. While in real world that wouldn't mean it does not happen, like stating a brick hurts doesn't mean an anvil desn't, in a rulebook a rule has to be written down. The rule for AoO's only talks about actions, you can't just assume non-actions also provoke more than you can assume fighters can cast spells because it doesn't say they can't." And yes, you would have been right if you said that. And now, because i'm Caothic Neutral, and because i love arguing, let's talk about actions. Specifically, Is falling not an action? I can recall i've heard at least 3 times "falling is a free action" (or, "as a free action, i fall", as i once heard from a levitating character that wanted to quickly get to the ground). EDIT: I found it, this is one of the times i've read it: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?103358-3-X-Ways-to-get-Pounce -or-Free-Movement And even if it is not (which i doubt), just for the sake of discussion, the rules about AoO are placed BEFORE "action" is even defined as a game term, so we might just take the dictionary's definition of action, and "falling" sure is. Ok, that might be a little far fetched, but let me put it this way, let's assume for a second they wanted some non-action to provoke. if you were a game designer and had to rewrite this sentence:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square. In a way that it includes both actions and non-actions, how would you do that? What would you replace the word actions with? Two kinds of what can provoke? Two kinds of things? it is not easy, if possible at all. That's why i say the word "action" might, just might be an actual use of the word as defined in the dictionary (where pretty much anything is an action) in this case, rather than a reference to a game term. There will always be good arguments one way or the other, and therefore some people will play it as if it provoked, and some people might play it as if it doesn't, that's why i wan't this FAQ'ed ASAP.
No it is not, it is specifying that a Bull Rush maneuver doesn't provoke, and then stating the exception to said rule, just like it does a couple of lines earlier, where it says that you provoke AoO when performing the maneuver unless you have Improved Bull Rush.You're ignoring the fact that regular Bull Rush specifically states that it doesn't provoke, so that's why Greater has to say it does. So, reversing your argument, if involuntary movement doesn't provoke, why does regular Bull Rush have to specifically say that it doesn't?Does anyone actually have a source that says involuntary movement doesn't provoke, or do some just considered it implied because some involuntary movement specifically doesn't provoke?There would be no point in Greater Bull Rush if involuntary movement provoked. Drag and repositions maneuvers work the same way. Only with the Greater version of the relevant feat do you cause them to incur AoOs as part of their involuntary movement. And said maneuvers specifically states so, which doesn't mean ALL involuntary movement works that way (if anything, the fact that they had to write that down implies it's not the general rule, but an exception).
Does anyone actually have a source that says involuntary movement doesn't provoke, or do some just considered it implied because some involuntary movement specifically doesn't provoke?There would be no point in Greater Bull Rush if involuntary movement provoked. You're ignoring the fact that regular Bull Rush specifically states that it doesn't provoke, so that's why Greater has to say it does. So, reversing your argument, if involuntary movement doesn't provoke, why does regular Bull Rush have to specifically say that it doesn't?
It seems i was unclear, i'm not talking about falling "prone", i'm talking about descending movement due to gravity, the kind that usually results in falling damage (even if you use Acrobatics to avoid falling prone). Falling prone does not make you leave a threatened square, therefore it does not provoke. Falling from the air to the ground, however, passes trhough (enters and then leaves) many squares, and any number of those might be threatened, in which case, it is unclear if said movement provokes an AoO. You are correct about dispelling Fly, i didn't remember that. Maybe i should have used another example, like a flying creature affected by "sleep" or similar effects. Anyway, falling slowly should not make much of a difference about this: You are still entering and leaving squares, therefore it should be the same: either both provoke or both don't, the speed doesn't matter (after all, a dwarf moving 20 ft and an air elemental flying 100 ft both porvoke if they pass through a threatened square, right?
So... This came up pretty recently in my local PFS group. I won't say which side i'm with, but, truth be told, both points of view had pretty decent points. I've browsed a little bit, and it seems there is not an official answer to this, and the few times it's been asked in the forums, there was not a deffinitive conclussion. So, in my pursue of an answer, i'm asking: "Does a creature provoke an Attack of Oportunity by falling through a square threatened by an enemy?" To make this simple, I would like to break it down in two different cases, as there might be different answers for each one:
- B) The creature is forced to fall (like a caster getting their "fly" dispelled). I'd also like to make a request: Please, mark this as FAQ, i would REALLY like to see an official rulling on this. Thank you for your time and for your answers.
You can if you can make more tahn 1 move action + 1 standard action in the same turn, though (i think there was a spell that gave you an extra movement action each turn, right?), as the move-action-gathered power lastst until the end of your turn.
I was thinking about making an Elemental Ascetic, and i stumbled upon one dilema... RAW, unless i'm reading it wrong (which is not that unlikely, as english is not my first language), it looks like it's "Elemental Flurry" feature won't allow the kineticist to take feats which require "Flurry of Blows", but i feel like it should. Am i reading it wrong? Is it really that way? And, if it is, is it intentional? PS: I play PFS, so please don't tell me to ask my GM. I know i'd allow it as a GM, but i need to know the official thing.
Can you get feats that require "Flurry of blows" with an Elemental Ascetic. I' guessing not, but i don't loose anything for asking.
|
