Thief

Razz's page

1,516 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,516 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Richard Leonhart wrote:

I only buy books if they go to at least second printing, but I don't think UC has more errors than UM or any other book.

However there are a lot of things that need a FAQ entry (reload, firearms and thelike) and I wait till then to use those specific things.

Thank you for giving me an honest and respectful reply to a mere question I was curious about.

Unlike SOME posters on this thread...

Gorbacz can learn something from folks like you. :D


Gorbacz wrote:
If we're talking about "throwing babies out with the bathwater" and over-reacting in general, I believe that this thread needs to be remembered.

This is why we need an ignore list here, as another thread brought up. I find it funny you manage to over exaggerate just a few sentences of mine into some hyped up frenzied fiasco. Good job being a troll! :D


Anguish wrote:

What a masochistic concept. OMFG there are two - maybe three - things in the entire book that I can't or shouldn't run as written... quick... discard the entire book.

Razz, look, use what you want from this book and from any other book. Use it as written unless you think it's broken. Don't worry about what other people on errata threads think is wrong; if you can't tell, it's not broken. Just use the couple hundred pages of text and if you happen to run into a problem at the table, resolve it then, like everything else.

This is definitely a "throw the baby out with the bath-water" thread.

I take it you haven't seen the errata thread have you? UM wasn't too bad, and SKR has been FAQing it.

But UC is looking unusable. There're big errors or much needed FAQs on almost every other page it seems.

Don't believe me, check the errata thread and see if you can defend that one.


Curious as to how many here have chosen to put this book aside until an errata file is soon put together, considering the huge amount of errors in the book there are?


James Jacobs wrote:

1) 5-foot-steps look more and more ridiculous.

Anymore ridiculous than 5-foot stepping around a field with 5+ Huge/Gargantuan/Colossal creatures at high level play? (which is pretty common if you have any hope of challenging canny PCs at those levels)

James Jacobs wrote:
2) Calculating diagonal movement gets more and more easy to get confused with.

It's one box. You move the box diagonal, which is anytime it has to cross a square from one corner to another, how is that harder than any other size?

James Jacobs wrote:
3) Hard to make affordable miniatures.

Ah, now here's the real answer I was looking for. Do we REALLY have to have minis for such a creature to begin with? Minis can't be all that profitable, are they? I don't know any GM that really uses them due to costs, using mapmaking software on computers/laptops is much simpler and cost effective these days. But that's besides the point, the point I am making is...MUST it be a mini if it exists in play? Is there a binding contract for such a thing?

James Jacobs wrote:

4) Difficult to place on a map that still works for Medium sized characters—once a map needs to be bigger than an average battlemap for a single monster to fit or move around on... lame.

Define average battlemap. Because I have had plenty of times where the PCs don't necessarily conform to the edges of the battlemap as if they were in some sort of prison demiplane. I've had to copy maps, mix the terrain a little, and connect them just in case one of them decides to run off 200+ ft. and make longbow or fireball shots, or if their 70 ft.+ monk decides to double move to lure enemies away to fight elsewhere, etc. Any DM needs to be ready when a PC "fights off the map" so to speak.

The only solid reason I see is the miniatures one, and even that's arbitrary.


Congrats, Paizo, not using this book till the errata is out. Clearly this book is splitting the book's seams with errors!


Oh fey animal template, sweet :D


Foghammer wrote:
Vendis wrote:
General combat doesn't count as a distraction in terms of granting you Stealth check. In this, anyone wanting to use stealth is unable to. A'course, in situations in which concealment is available, they can, but that's a moot point to this discussion - it's specifically about combat.

Why do you want or even need to use stealth in combat?

Give us a compelling reason as to why a rogue would need to be stealthy once combat has been initiated.

If he wants to get a good flanking position, he should use acrobatics.

If he wants to run away, he should use the withdraw action and run like hell, though honestly, I can't think of a way for him to keep from drawing any attacks of opportunity ALL of the time.

If he's going for the lever in the wizard's throne room, then he doesn't have to be in combat, and the DM has to set up the room for stealth to be viable.

So tell me what application you have in mind for using stealth in combat. I can't see a single one, because what I understand of stealth is that the entire purpose is to AVOID CONFLICT.

I've had players use it during combat. Let me name a few scenarios:

1) Character was a blind samurai, battling a rogue medusa. She was using Stealth to maneuver around him and get off attacks and he was having problems pinpointing the square she was in.

2) Character used obscuring mist spell, did a Bluff check to create a diversion, then used the mists to hide in. Either sneaks away or sneaks up on an enemy.

3) Rogue character creates diversion to hide with Bluff, then Stealths away. Comes around from a different vantage point to sneak up on enemies that thought he was gone.


James Jacobs wrote:
Razz wrote:

Colossal is not limited to 30 by 30 last I checked. It actually says 30+. So I don't see why you guys would be afraid to throw in a 50 ft./30 ft. or a 90 ft./40 ft. or whatever.

You'd be surprised how big our battlemaps can get. When I have to send five Huge and ten Large monsters at a high level group, you can bet there's room for at least 1 Godzilla sized beast.

Or is there some other reason we don't know of?

The fact that the bigger something gets, the weirder the game mechanics get is pretty much it.

Any different than a 30 by 30 space other than more opportunities for flanking and easier to hit with area spells? What are the bad mechanics to it that I don't see?


Agreed. I'm against squeezing monsters onto one page, also. You end up doing a lot of monsters injustice, especially the high CR ones. There were a number of monsters in Bestiary 2 that deserved more special abilities but had maybe 1 or 2, even as a high CR monster. I'd rather monsters take up 2 pages if they're going to be bad ass.


Colossal is not limited to 30 by 30 last I checked. It actually says 30+. So I don't see why you guys would be afraid to throw in a 50 ft./30 ft. or a 90 ft./40 ft. or whatever.

You'd be surprised how big our battlemaps can get. When I have to send five Huge and ten Large monsters at a high level group, you can bet there's room for at least 1 Godzilla sized beast.

Or is there some other reason we don't know of?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He stated they're using the "Invisible" condition to make it easier to remember any modifications, it is NOT invisibility, per say.

See Invisibility (and the like) are magicks that pierce through illusions that conceal. The idea of being stealthy is your movement is so inconspicuous, the targets simply just don't perceive you yet. See Invisibility and the like don't increase your Perception, they just unveil what's magically hidden from sight.

Stealth isn't magical, it's a skill. Meaning you've mastered methods and techniques to stay out of sight and to move with little to no noise in order for your enemy to accept you as nothing to notice as any threat (or to not notice you at all). See Invisibility has nothing to do with that.


Male

I'm looking for a Play by Post forum that allows Private threads only (as in I invite the players in, others can't enter or can only watch) that also has a dice roller built in.

Where can I find such a site?


chopswil wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I've added a bunch of FAQ items about many of the significant issues from this thread. I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM for the eventual reprint.

These new FAQS don't address things that don't affect rules, such as transposed Components/Casting Time lines, missing punctuation after the Saving Throw line, a word not being bolded, and so on. It also doesn't address things that are obvious and don't affect gameplay (like how the <i>overwhelming grief</i> spell's Duration line should say "(see text)" because the description says you can try to save again to break the spell). I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM as well, I'm just not going to make separate FAQ entries for little issues like this. I'll probably also do a compiled "these are the 'lost' spell references in the book, here are their replacements" post.

Significant issues remaining include:
* What to do with the witch's scar hex
* Animal speaker bard loses fascinate but keeps other performances that require fascinate
* Oath against the wyrm weaknesses
* Bioconstruct modification: heart and magical healing
* Synthesist healing and eidolon evolutions
* sample spellbooks not including cost of blank spellbook

If you're doing spells with missing Components sections then don't forget Fickle Winds,Battlemind, Blood Crow Strike, Share Memory, and Spit Venom.

Can we get a FAQ on the bolded spells ASAP? Kind of hard to cast these spells without knowing the components to the spell >.>


Klebert L. Hall wrote:
Razz wrote:
Errata after new printing is unfair

You're looking for "fair"!?

Your life must be full of disappointments.
-Kle.

Really? Last I checked, if I have a damaged product then I take it back and either get it fixed or replaced with a new one, at no cost. Why should I not hold a digital book to the same standards?

I understand they have a lot of work to do, but I have seen that work already done by the Ultimate Combat errata thread, all they need to do is sift it and compile it at this point. I just don't see why, after spending money on it, that I have to wait close to a year for the fixes to be uploaded?


Gorbacz wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Razz, they can do quarterly updates to errata once they are ahead of schedule. As of right now, I'm pretty sure they are working hard at keeping even with the workload.
Yeah, that's the snark-less version of what I was trying to post. Thanks, TOZ.

Which is why I don't ignore his posts and do so to yours. Don't see how I'm raging...last I checked, emotions and inflections of voice cannot be interpreted accurately through the Internet. Unless emoticons are used. Maybe we should all use them to avoid unnecessary sarcasm?


Joe Wells wrote:
The FAQs have evolved into errata-in-progress.

See, now that's progress! They don't have to modify the PDFs everytime something pops. But when there's huge chunks people are pouring out and it's been a whole year with nothing to show for it, yeah, someone needs to just do it and stop procrastinating. What exactly is the long wait for?

Bestiary 2 has been out almost a year I think and still no errata doc to show for it? Personally, I believe errata should be done once a quarter. The first one after the 1st month the book is released, because you already have a 5+ page thread pointing out the errors by that point.


knightnday wrote:
Razz wrote:


Instead you have several dozen of us here pointing out errors and no fast answers after a release. A lot of us have games to run and we can't have them come to a screeching halt waiting on a correction for weeks or months.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but why does your game have to come to a halt? As the GM and players of the game, you have the ability and right to make a call on the issue. If/when the folks here make a call you can check it out; in the meantime, your game goes on and everyone is happy.

edited to add: I might just be naive, but this is what we did when there wasn't the internet and boards like this. You make a decision and move on.

It comes to a halt when something is missing from a feat or spell or archetype feature and have nothing to work on to help us fill in the blank and move on. Just look at the UM and UC errata threads, I can point out dozens that can cause a game to halt.

Stuff like Antagonize, yeah, we have no choice but to make a call. Stuff like the two Rogue talents that do the same thing, yeah, we'd probably ignore the UC one and keep the PF Corebook one in such a case, until they fix the UC one sometime this century.


Gorbacz wrote:
Razz wrote:

Someone offered a perfect solution to this...why won't Paizo go through with it...?

Take a couple dozen of hardcore rules lawyers, make them sign an NDA, have them point out the errors. I am sure many folks here will do it as volunteer work if money is an issue.

Instead you have several dozen of us here pointing out errors and no fast answers after a release. A lot of us have games to run and we can't have them come to a screeching halt waiting on a correction for weeks or months.

Oh totally, let's have a review committee of Ravingdork, LilithsThrall, TOZ, Cirno, MiB, Cartigan, Hogarth, Treantmonk and 3.5 Loyalist try to sit down and agree on something.

Not necessarily agree on anything. Pointing out errata. For things like Antagonize from UM, the two rogue talents that do the same exact thing but are named different and one is a normal talent and one is advanced, etc. That's what I meant. They would have no responsibility in what or how the content should be, just to point out the error that's in the content already decided on to be published. Then Paizo fixes them before printing the books.

I'm sure they'd have a lot less errors if they did that.


I'm told errata isn't released for download unless a new printing is done.

That sounds ludicrous to me. What if there is no new print run? Does that mean no fixes to errors?

What if a new print run doesn't happen for months? Why must we wait that long, those of us that have it? It's silly.

It's like sending in my TV to get fixed but the company says ,"We can't fix it until all these models of TV are sold out of stock and our improved model is manufactured."


Someone offered a perfect solution to this...why won't Paizo go through with it...?

Take a couple dozen of hardcore rules lawyers, make them sign an NDA, have them point out the errors. I am sure many folks here will do it as volunteer work if money is an issue.

Instead you have several dozen of us here pointing out errors and no fast answers after a release. A lot of us have games to run and we can't have them come to a screeching halt waiting on a correction for weeks or months.


Have they even released errata for this yet? Why the long wait? We've done most of the work for them all this time, it seems >< Paizo's getting rather lazy with the fixes. It's so simple to do, in fact, a couple of work days at the most to fix it by just perusing this thread.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

SEE HERE

As for previous editions, it sounds like they'll do hardcopies as one of the other statements was that they're still trying to figure out how to price their PDF's.

Wait, are they simply reprinting old edition books again? Or they going to create new books for older editions? I hope it's the latter...that'd be the best news I've ever heard from WotC! :D


Mynameisjake wrote:
Mok wrote:


Mule Cords out the APG fix the encumbrance problem just fine with +8 Strength for encumbrance purposes, and for only 1000gp to boot!

Don't forget that the Cords take up the shoulder's slot, thus preventing the use of a Cloak of Resistance.

There are rules for adding other magic item abilities to an existing item. Just make it a Mule Cord of Resistance +5 and now it has the properties of both items. Costly, but effective.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

No pun intended but I have a big problem with this spell.

A player casted it on an ally. Problem is, there isn't enough space. But it's not from objects or room size --- it's because of creatures being in the way for him to take up a 10 foot space. The spell says make a Strength check if objects were in the way, but nothing for creatures.

So what happens? I doubt he stops growing, I doubt he's constrained, also. I don't think it allows a free bull rush or knocking everyone prone. There's gotta be some ruling on this somewhere?


Stefan Hill wrote:

Thanks for the replies. I think the fact I'm not of the Manga/Amine generation means I take more stock in gravity than some. Now IF this was a magic effect, I can roll with that, it being magic and all. But this Dragonball-Z (or whatever the latest fad is) school of martial combat just gives me the chills.

I 'can' explain it but it's silly none the less. Let's get extreme and say a 90' creature, blinding/deafening or sickening possible? Hmmmmm. Not on my GM watch. But then I'm house-ruling and I dislike doing that, been 99.999998% RAW since Red Box (the first one). These feats for me should ONLY apply to your size +1 (i.e. L for an M sized person) humaniod - anything else becomes difficult to justify. As I say mechanically a nice idea but for me they drag me out of imnmersion because they reek (to me) or mechanics included for mechanics sake.

S.

That's the cool thing, now, and I'm quite surprised many Tabletop Gamers still feel this way (considering 99% of the game is pure fantasy anyway, what's wrong with anime/manga convention of fantasy battles? Is it really that different?)

Want a little bit more, I guess, "reality"? Check out the video game series, God of War, that'll help show you how 20th+ level and up warriors battle giant enemies.


Gary Teter wrote:

Wait, what?

I thought this was a thread about the future of Paizo.

Let's take all non-future-of-Paizo talk somewhere else, please.

The future of Paizo, I believe, is the introduction of a legit method to allow one to take only some of an archetype's features instead of the whole package.


Look at all those error-ridden Ultimate Combat books. Hope to see a huge errata file soon.


So it's simple.

Paizo needs to open up a branch in Japan and produce D&D content for Pathfinder there and we Americans can purchase the PDFs.

Problem solved.


Golden-Esque wrote:


When I quoted Fepriest, he specifically said that he allows his player's to essentially dissect Archetypes, allowing them to pick and choose which abilities they gained from the Archetype. Technically speaking, if you read the Cross-Blooded Archetype, the benefits and the drawbacks are completely separate abilities within the Archetype, so under his rules, I could take all of the benefits (picking and choosing between bloodline powers) without any of the negatives (diminished spellcasting and -2 Will). I was sarcastically pointing out why allowing people to pick all of the caramels out of an archetype's box of chocolates is a poor choice to make as a GM. The ironic part about it is that Sorcerer Bloodline abilities tend to be fairly weak as it is, as their power comes from spellcasting and not from the bloodlines (a reason why the Cross-Blood bloodline is pretty lackluster) so allowing this change is not a big deal at all in terms of balance. Such action would, of course, lead to a world where every sorcerer is a mutt.

Totally not what I got from that, I still don't get it. I'm reading the archetype. It's a special case where you're not trading in a host of class features for a host of different class features, you're choosing abilities from 2 bloodlines for a drawback. I'm pretty sure his players are suffering the drawback. I don't see why not.

Golden-Esque wrote:
From what I have noticed, 'optimizer' never take archetypes for one simple reason; the trade off is never good enough for them. I can't think of a single archetype in the books that isn't balanced; most involve trading away the generalist abilities of the base class for more specific abilities. You trade some spellcasting for more flexible bloodlines, you trade specialization with a bunch of weapons for just one or with...

You seem to be ignoring my examples. So I'll ask you a question then after I clear things up again.

One of my players has a grapple-themed monk. He wants everything to make his monk the master grappler. Here comes the Maneuver Master. The 1st-level ability lets him trade Flurry of Blows for Flurry of Maneuvers, which is perfect for his Monk to be better at grappling (btw, this is not for min-maxing, it's for RP purpose as well) and is willing to trade in Flurry of Blows for it.

The problem is, he does not want to lose, and doesn't agree that he HAS to lose, Still Mind, Slow Fall, Purity of Body, Diamond Body and Quivering Palm for the rest of the features. He doesn't really care about the rest of those alternate features and feels his character is better expressed keeping the original features. But according to Archetypes, you HAVE NO CHOICE but to be stuck with them. Conclusion, not player friendly since the game is, after all, based on giving players the options and not hardcore locking them into anything they don't want.

How is that customization? It's shoehorning and it's not there for balance because I'd like to see a character put together with my suggestion and be more imbalanced than the umpteenth other killer combos I've seen when actually following the rules. What you have not offered was a solution to the problem (which in my opinion I see as a problem) other than belittling what I have proved to be a problem (not just my players, but clearly someone else here and their players have the same issue).

Not asking for Paizo to change the rules, but to consider a compromise via a feat cost.


Golden-Esque wrote:
Fepriest wrote:
On Archetypes and balance: I am of the opinion that, should you choose an archetype, you do not have to go the "all-or-nothin'" route. If you like the third level ability of a given archetype, but none of the others, I see nothing wrong with selecting only that one, and continuing on your merry way; the differences it will make in the long run are so negligible that it's silly to argue over. I'll even let my players choose two archetypes, so long as the abilities the archetypes are replacing do not overlap.
So you're telling me that if I play in your campaigns, you'd let my Sorcerer take the Crossblooded Bloodline archetype, where I could select everything I wanted and choose not to take the archetype's drawbacks (diminished spellcasting is technically an ability granted by the archetype after all)? Wow, sir, you are a very kind GM! A GM with a poor eye for balance, but kind nevertheless. To be fair, this is an extreme example of what we're talking about, but a perfect example nevertheless of why you should not mess with the packaging.

How does he not get the drawbacks? If someone only took Crossblooded Bloodline, they would also get the drawbacks because that particular Archetype is different than all the others in that it doesn't replace anything, it actually lets you choose which ability from which bloodline you would like to have.

I totally agree with what that poster is saying. Treat archetype class features as WotC Alternate Features where you trade on a one-to-one basis. Someone has yet to prove to me how Archetypes are Player-Friendly, because all my players have reacted rather hostile towards archetypes. They feel it doesn't let them optimize at all and they're shoehorned into losing class features they don't want to lose in replacement for one, maybe two, features they do want to have.

Like my example above, one of my players has a grapple-themed monk. He wants the 1st level ability ONLY in Manuever Master. He does not want to lose practically ALL his other monk abilities for that one feature that will grant him the kind of Monk he desires. Sadly, he stuck with regular ol' Monk. I think it's a shame Paizo created a subsystem of classes with no room for customization at all.

This is where PrC are fun for my players. They know what they're getting into and they can choose how far in it they want to go and stop at anytime. Not so with archetypes.

Archetypes = NPC friendly. That's it. It definitely helps DMs make variable types of NPCs of the same class, but Player-Friendly it is not.

The solution is simple: Let them choose. If, for example, my friend chose the 1st-level Maneuver Master feature, he'd take it, have it replace whatever it's meant to replace (Flurry of Blows, in this case) and then continue with the rest of the class acquiring his wholeness of body, diamond body, etc. Another solution is for Paizo to allow a feat, call it "Substitute Feature" feat where each time you take the feat you can choose any archetype feature and get all its benefits (and drawbacks).

Simple.

I don't see the game imbalance in that at all. Instead, what Paizo created, was something more akin to 4E's shoehorning "Paragon Paths", which no player really desires.


sieylianna wrote:
Razz wrote:
That's because of two things. The first is that many of the archetypes would have made better as prestige classes. The second issue is the "all or nothing" crap. You can't individually choose alternate features, you have to take the entire package or not. This has turned archetypes off to all of my players because they will find that perfect ability to work with their character, only to find out that they must lose out on other class abilities they want to keep as opposed to just replacing the one the feature replaces.
I agree on the whole package issue. I was looking at the Oracle archetypes for one of my characters. Not only are you required to take specific revelations as part of the archetype, but it also replaces your entire bonus spell list. Seer, for instance, dictates your 1st and 3rd level revelations and redoes your spell list. The result is best suited to NPC's.

Exactly my point.

I have a player with a grapple-themed monk. The 1st level feature for Maneuver Master is all he wants but he wanted to keep his other monk abilities that the rest of the archetype replaces. He doesn't understand why wanting one ability is going to shoehorn him into other things he feels does not fit his character. Where's the customization!?

The only use archetypes have seen in my games is with NPCs. They are not player friendly at all


Actually, I prefer prestige classes to NOT always be campaign specific. My gaming group really misses prestige classes and we're really starting to hate archetypes a lot.

That's because of two things. The first is that many of the archetypes would have made better as prestige classes. The second issue is the "all or nothing" crap. You can't individually choose alternate features, you have to take the entire package or not. This has turned archetypes off to all of my players because they will find that perfect ability to work with their character, only to find out that they must lose out on other class abilities they want to keep as opposed to just replacing the one the feature replaces.

Unless Paizo gives us a method, like a feat, that allows someone to take just one class feature off an archetype each time the feat is taken, for example, to please everyone.


Might be a carry-over from 2e? I'll have to look at my 2e stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Razz, check your email.

If it's the IP address, it's because we live in the same house as he is renting.

Also, you never replied to my email on the fact that I had a friend (who I am now angered at still) that was on my laptop during a gaming session and shared one of my purchased products with another, who must've then went on, apparently, to share online with my info on it without my knowledge.

Of course you have no proof of that but you also have no proof I am wrong, either. Circumstantial things do happen, after all. I'm angered at such circumstances leading to such a wrongful assumption.


These errors make me second-guess getting a Paizo product lately. That and their untimely fashion of settling these in some FAQ or errata file.


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The Advanced Rogue Talent Confounding Blades does the exact same thing as the Rogue Talent Slow Reactions in the Pathfinder Core book. I assume Confounding Blades was meant to do something else?


I found that by combining some of the Complete Adventurer's Ninja class into the Pathfinder Ninja class by making some of their class features new ninja tricks. Some were redundant with what the PF Ninja already had.

The only one I wasn't able to squeeze in there, which I believe would've been nice to have but was too weak to offer as a ninja trick, was the benefit of receiving +2 bonus to Will saves for keeping at least 1 ki points. Maybe Paizo will offer some sort of Ninja trick along those lines along the way. I also wanted to somehow include the Wisdom bonus to AC, but I guess dipping 1 level of Monk fixes that.

Anyway, here they are. Enjoy!

NEW NINJA TRICKS
Ghost Strike (Su): A ninja can strike incorporeal and ethereal creatures as if they were corporeal. She also can use this ability to strike foes on the Material Plane normally while ethereal. Activating the ghost strike ability is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It affects the next attack made by the ninja, as long as that attack is made before the end of her next turn. Each use of this ability uses up 1 ki point.

Ki Dodge (Su): A ninja can spend one daily use of her ki power to cause an attack against her to miss when it might otherwise hit. When a ninja activates this ability, her outline shifts
and wavers, granting her concealment (20% miss chance) against all attacks for 1 round. Using this ability is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. See invisibility has no effect on concealment granted by the ki dodge ability, but true seeing negates the miss chance. This concealment does not stack with that caused by other effects that grant concealment or by spells such as blink or displacement. Each use of this ability uses up 1 ki point.

NEW NINJA MASTER TRICKS
Improved Poison Use (Ex): A ninja can apply poison to a weapon as a move action. (Normally, applying a poison is a standard action, like applying an oil.)

Ghost Mind (Su): A ninja with this master trick gains a special resistance to spells of the scrying subschool. To detect or see a ninja with such a spell, the caster must make a caster level check (DC 20 + the ninja’s class level). In the case of scrying spells (such as arcane eye) that scan the ninja’s area, a failed check indicates that the spell works but the ninja simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts targeted specifically at the ninja do not work at all if the check fails.

Ghost Walk (Su): A ninja can enter the Ethereal Plane for an extended period of time. This ability functions as the ethereal jaunt spell with a caster level equal to the ninja’s class level. Each use of this ability uses up 2 ki points. The ninja must possess the ghost step ninja trick before selecting this trick.

Greater Ki Dodge (Su): A ninja can spend one daily use of her ki power to cause an attack against her to miss when it might otherwise hit. When a ninja activates this ability, her outline shifts and wavers, granting her total concealment (50% miss chance) against all attacks for 1 round. Using this ability is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. See invisibility has no effect on concealment granted by the greater ki dodge ability, but true seeing negates the miss chance. This concealment does not stack with that caused by other effects that grant concealment or by spells such as blink or displacement. Each use of this ability uses up 1 ki point. The ninja must possess the ki dodge ninja trick before selecting this trick.


I would've made it nicer had they not already merged my wife's account with mine, but I was willing to let that go. Now it's out of hand.


LittleRedNekra wrote:
Razz wrote:


No need for unnecessary sarcasm. I'm simply speaking on behalf of those here that had asked if they'll provide a means for 2 gun wielders to reload. They promised yes, there'll be a feat. I have yet to find it, or anything like it, so far. So I'm simply asking since I am sure many people, including me, need a means to do so.

It was likewise with Ultimate Magic. James quoted saying he was 99 percent sure there'll be a set of guidelines on how to expand the new spellcasting classes spell list with spells not from PF products, and they failed to put it in that book. Which may of us find important, too, since we do use Spell Compendium and other 3PP for spells

You don't get to speak against sarcasm when you're making thin vieled digs, mate.

Maybe the answer is to use a gun that holds more than one bullet in both hands?

And his answer to adding spells from non-PF products might just have been to add them in the book. I guess the idea is to remember that it's not the other game... That and 99 isn't 100

What you're saying is quite different than what they said. See, they practically guaranteed both elements I mentioned to be added to said products, but they were overlooked, strangely. I was merely pointing it out and pointing out, also, it's best for them not to make promises they can't keep.

His answer to UM was practically certain, so we customers have a right to show disappointment and ask for what we were told to be given as so. We do pay for this, after all.


Excuse me, but my friend is pretty pissed off, as am I, for you guys merging his account with mine. He sent an email to you to note his displeasure and is finished purchasing products from you. The only link between me and him was he lacked his credit card since he lost it, so I let him use mine to purchase the PDFs he wanted for his games. Then he got the email from you guys stating that me and him are the same person and you merged our accounts, wrongfully. That's rather ludicrous statement and you have no proof of that. I'm quite appalled at this as is he.

He might consider giving you guys his business again if he gets his account back to normal, otherwise you lost 2 customers.


Loveskud wrote:
LittleRedNekra wrote:
Razz wrote:
Guess the designers are too busy with GenCon to answer my important question. It's funny, too, how all the gunslinger pics have two guns but no means of reloading without dropping one...

Lirianna uses Pepperboxes or Revolvers maybe?

I don't see how your question is "important".

You didn't know? Razz is the King of Internets! Why wouldn't the question be important.

No need for unnecessary sarcasm. I'm simply speaking on behalf of those here that had asked if they'll provide a means for 2 gun wielders to reload. They promised yes, there'll be a feat. I have yet to find it, or anything like it, so far. So I'm simply asking since I am sure many people, including me, need a means to do so.

It was likewise with Ultimate Magic. James quoted saying he was 99 percent sure there'll be a set of guidelines on how to expand the new spellcasting classes spell list with spells not from PF products, and they failed to put it in that book. Which may of us find important, too, since we do use Spell Compendium and other 3PP for spells


Guess the designers are too busy with GenCon to answer my important question. It's funny, too, how all the gunslinger pics have two guns but no means of reloading without dropping one...


Ashanderai wrote:
Razz wrote:
So I'm looking through it now and I am wondering where is the feat one of the designers said there would be so you can reload 2 held guns? Lot of material, can't find it for some reason.
I don't know about a feat, but there is a spell for it... under the "R"s I believe.

Yeah but people mentioned in this thread if there'd be a way for a two-gun wielding character to be able to reload despite his hands being full, and one of the designers (might've been James) had said (not word for word) pretty much "Yes, we intended for there to be a feat just for that purpose."

So where is it?


So I'm looking through it now and I am wondering where is the feat one of the designers said there would be so you can reload 2 held guns? Lot of material, can't find it for some reason.


I just want the spells :D


Ah, I see. So anything Paizo releases you cannot show content on the "crunch" material in it for 2 weeks? I thought it was Open Content once released? Or is there a clause somewhere?


Ah ok, wish there was a notification on that. Thanks.


I came back to check on the thread I had discussing why PFSRD was being so touchy about someone linking to their Ultimate Combat material and it was deleted? What for? It was a legit and curious question.


Someone linked to some Ultimate Combat material PFSRD was posting but now all you see is this:

Ultimate Combat

How does viewing the page delay their work on it? I think it seems rather overdramatic to post that.

1 to 50 of 1,516 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>