Rushley son of Halum's page

207 posts. Organized Play character for Esquin.


RSS

1 to 50 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Airship. Move all your alchemical lab stuff onto your airship.

Or some variation of this, I mean a regular ship will do I guess, but an airship is better.

The Exchange

Cavall wrote:

Ok here's another question.

If you've got fast bombs can you vital strike with a bomb for just an extra d6 on the one you throw?

Seems a nice way to make a single bomb have some punch without blowing the supply.

Yeah but its 1 extra d6, you're better off fast bombing things into sometime next century. By the time you hit higher levels the bomb supply issues stop being an issue. The amount of damage you can pump out and the number of bombs you have kinda negate the whole problem. Even if you don't kill an enemy you end up stacking so many bomb related debuffs and damage on the enemy that your allies can clean up the survivors no problem.

Also pretty sure you can't vital strike and fast bomb at the same time, just to address that.

The Exchange

I'd say no.

Charging requires a straight line, moving from the wall to the floor would require a turn. The idea behind it being a straight line is that you need all that time to build up momentum, the turn at the floor would ruin that.

You can potentially however just charge along the wall and hit the guy from there. Especially if you have a lance or other reach weapon.

The Exchange

Amon Cull wrote:
Just an update, I have spoken to my VO, and he will be handling the situation. I have actually played another game since with the same GM, and despite a small argument about how he cannot, in fact, change the way a PCs ability works because he doesn't like it, it went well. As for the actual Scenario, I really like it and am looking forward to running it again, as both a player and GM. Also, this thread took a hilarious turn, and made my day.

It is sounding more and more like this guy needs to go back to GM school. Just out of curiosity what was the ability disagreement? You should probably pass this onto the VO as well.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Did you just necro a thread that had been dead for 5 months to tell someone that the discussion still had meaning even when factually the information contained in this thread is no longer useful or even interesting because there are a dozen other threads and 3 guides that give him an answer.

The Exchange

Kinda my point Vic....

But thank you John and Slanky for actually trying to logic out the reason behind it. I still don't think that making it +3 was the best call. I think stopping it stacking with mighty fists might have been the better option.

But John if you could consider other additional options in terms of equipment rebuilding for this instance that would certainly help. Theres gaps that the current rules around this change don't address.

The Exchange

I'd still like some kind of answer as to why the change was even made.

And John, you saying "This raises a point I hadn't considered" doesn't really address the issue unless you give people an option to actually resolve it.

The amulet of mighty fists only goes part way to solving the issue. Theres still been a dramatic change made for seemingly no reason. We as players are now left trying to work out how to get our characters to keep working effectively. Unarmed strike characters are already tricky enough to make work. I don't understand how removing an option and forcing all unarmed characters to take an amulet of mighty fists really helps anyone. Aren't more options good?

What is the logic here?

The Exchange

Selling back my current amulet of natural armor for half price seems frankly pointlessly punitive.

I can't sell back enough to get the brawling enchantment without making the character even less effective.

Already have weapon focus unarmed strike but theres not much point to having it now so I'll probably need to retrain that as well.

Fixing the character is going to take significantly more trouble than its worth.

I'm just pissed, the change makes no sense. I've asked so many times about the justification for it and no one seems able to offer one.

The Exchange

KingOfAnything wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Hmm wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Am I missing something? I did not think a full rebuild was an option?

Full rebuild may not be. But having a chance to look over his equipment may be. There may be other options that might work for him.

Again you're making the key mistake of assuming I care about the PFS design team tells me to do. I don't. Not at all anymore.
Maybe take a day to realize this is all just a game we play together...

Exactly. It's just a game. The guide says that I can rebuild after dramatic changes. Following the rules given by the dev team on what I can do with this armor I'm not actually able to use an amulet of mighty fists or replace the cost of the armor. So i'm taking the "dramatic changes to a character" rebuild option.

The Exchange

Hmm wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Am I missing something? I did not think a full rebuild was an option?

Full rebuild may not be. But having a chance to look over his equipment may be. There may be other options that might work for him.

Again you're making the key mistake of assuming I care about the PFS design team tells me to do. I don't. Not at all anymore.

The Exchange

Also Big Norse Wolf the post you directed me to is just a general "PFS doesn't drive errata" comment. I'm looking for the outline of why they made these particular changes and what the problems were that needed fixing.

The Exchange

Oh yeah I can have a level 8 character with no magical attacks and terrible to hit.

Yeah thats a great idea......

Also as has been pointed out, the game is supposed to be fun. I don't find having my character nerfed by such an extent to be fun.

The Exchange

Hmm wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
I'm asking here because this is a thread made by a developer. Making new threads with these questions rarely gets a response, even rarer that you'd get a response with an actual answer.

I find this an interesting perspective because the developers on these boards are incredibly active. I'm not sure if John Compton actually sleeps. I have no idea when he finds time to write all the scenarios that he puts together for PFS. My guess? He has a ring of sustenance.

As much as I personally dislike the errata / FAQ cycle, I respect how much Paizo's employees have made themselves available to all of us. And I love the way that John Compton, Tonya and Linda have listened to us, trying to make this process as painless as possible.

Hmm

EDITED to ADD:

Would you like help rebuilding your character? There are a lot of bright people in the advice forums who probably would be willing to help!

Oh so they've given a response to "Why did you do this" Awesome. Can you link me?

As for the rebuild. No i'm fine. Im going to make some kind of unarmed striking travel domain cleric I think. Starting at level 8 should make that much easier than the slow slog to higher level domain powers.

The Exchange

Actually Jeff I don't.

I have a half dozen game systems running down at my local store. I'm just pissed that I wasted so much money on a bloated mess before realising.

The Exchange

If they wanted to make the transition painless then they would give more thought to the changes being made. Not just slapping some ACG style paint over it and calling it a half finished poorly tested day.

Frankly, what they want to be dealing with while packing for Paizocon isn't my concern. The idea that the whole office shuts down for cons has always seemed fairly odd to me.

I appreciate that I should have a point and I do.

While producing more and more books that have dramatic power increases it makes no sense to depower earlier books and items. It further makes no sense to take away what is actually a fairly fundamental part of plenty of characters in this manner. My brawler is basically ineffective now because I can't sell enough to buy the enhancement without ruining the character but I also can't buy an amulet of mighty fists because my neck slot is already filled. So I have a useless character floating around. So my options are;
1. Ignore the errata.
2. Rebuild fully.
3. Don't play one of my favourite characters anymore.

Only 1 of those is a legal option and frankly its not fair. As you said, the brawler no longer as a reason to brawl.

As for the other thread there. Have we actually gotten a response yet?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm asking here because this is a thread made by a developer. Making new threads with these questions rarely gets a response, even rarer that you'd get a response with an actual answer.

The Exchange

Can we ask what the reasoning was behind some of these changes? They seem fairly arbitrary given how long they've been established as they were. And given the fairly dramatic power creep of more recent books im not sure I understand the logic of downgrading the power level of older items.

So, any answer for what these changes were made?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I determine if someone should be an alchemist is the same way I determine if they should be a gnome.

"Are you an alchemist?"
"Yes - Good. keep doing that."; or
"No - Then be an alchemist."

It's like asking if you should be batman. If you are Batman, great. If you're not then you should probably start being Batman.

But seriously, if you're only after the poison creation then don't. They're too costly even as an alchemist. Theres a few ways around it but it isn't worth it.

Now mutagens. That could be fun.

The Exchange

This does however open up some interesting ideas for opening volley....

Excuse me. Need to build a Kasatha. Question though, 4 rapiers and 4 launchers. Too much?

Oh with clustered shots! Oh man this is gonna be awesome.

The Exchange

Do not write posts like that. It's poor formatting and frankly annoying.

The Mutagenic mauler uses his Brawler level as his effective alchemist level for the mutagen's advancement. This would not normally mean they stack. However I note that this archetype seems to be an exception to that rule.

I would however maintain that the archetype of one class cannot influence the class features of a different class. So a Cleric archetype cannot influence the channeling of a Life Oracle for example.

You're right in saying that the Beast morph doesn't explicitly replace the mutagen ability. But this was also created when there were no archetypes that removed the mutagen ability. There is however a precedent to say that a mutagen cannot be influenced by multiple class features or discoveries.

Ultimately while the levels of the brawler and alchemist stack for the determining the time period of the mutagen I think that is where the link ends. If this is a home game feel free to discuss it with your GM however rules as written this simply shouldn't work.

There are a few exceptions to what i've outlined above, however they are explicitly stated in the rules. These apply to a few very specific prestige classes and certain arcane casting archetypes. But Generally you cannot alter a classes core features with the archetype from a different class. Thats not how the rules work.

The Exchange

It depends on the kind of activity being performed.

I'd advise against this though. If you want a mount get a construct rider alchemist. Using your homonculus as a mount ruins it's ability to function as it's intended to because of how mounts operate.

The Exchange

If an archetype changes a class ability then you cannot also take another archetype that changes the same class ability or feature.

An archetype impacts the class you take it for, so it cannot be used to change the class features of another class.

As for taking an alchemist discovery to alter a mutagen when the mutagen itself is sourced from another class, I would also say no. A few classes and archetypes give features that specifically impact other classes, but I don't think discoveries would work that way.

So in short. No. More to the point actually the Promethean alchemist actually prohibits you from even taking the mutagen discovery so while id let you take a level of mutagenic mauler I would use that as the reasoning for discoveries not impacting on it.

The Exchange

Also you're loosing the Alchemist variant of throw anything. This doesn't stop you from using your bombs, but it does take away the bonus's and the int damage. Even picking up the throw anything feat won't give you int to damage again, unless your DM rules otherwise.

But yeah, Brew potion refers to the specific ability to brew potions. It doesn't effect your extracts or mutagens or your ability to create alchemical items with craft alchemy.

Construct rider takes away your mutagen and limits your available extract slots by 1 per level also.

The Exchange

Spell combat benefits from haste but they are 2 separate full round/full attack actions. I don't believe they're intended to operate together and would suggest that they can't.

Either way I would advise not trying to create a build that tries, it will cause too many headaches for the GM.

If this is a home game character however consider talking about it with your GM and group. You may be able to come up with a solution as the idea is an interesting one. But yeah as a rule i'd say no.

The Exchange

The description of the puzzle maze makes no sense in context of the map provided. I'm frankly disappointed and confused. I know i'm a bit late to the review party here but this alone is enough to give it a huge hit to stars. Im trying to prep this for a con and frankly it's absurd that something that is such utter nonsense made it into a scenario.

The Exchange

darth_gator wrote:

False. "Share Spells" specifically states that you can cast spells with a target of "YOU" on your eidolon, even if the spell wouldn't normally affect a creature of the eidolon's type. Enlarge Person doesn't have a target of "YOU," it has a target of "One Humanoid Creature." See the difference?

See Invisibility has a target of "You," allowing you to share it with an eidolon.

This is a pretty simple concept. Spells target specific things. "Share Spells" allows you to cast spells on your eidolon you otherwise can't cast on any other creatures, because other creatures aren't you. If there weren't a large number of spells that have a target of "You" specifically, then the "Share Spells" feature wouldn't specifically state that shared spells must target "You."

Like it or not, that's RAW.

"The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list."

Stop omitting parts of the rules that you find inconvenient. There are 2 sentences there which clearly operate independently of each other. Enlarge person works.

The Exchange

Actually Secret Wizard you're wrong about 2.

A flurry specifically states that it makes use of hands, feet, foreheads, elbows, your shoulder. Well ok i'm paraphrasing but basically it uses all manner of body parts.

So for 2. You can continue to use unarmed strikes while wielding a shield in two hands.

Additionally, if you have quick draw, you can start a flurry with the shield, using two hands, then for the second attack you can let go of the shield with one hand, draw a new weapon and use that as both letting go of the shield and drawing a new weapon would be free actions so long as you have quick draw. The arm on which the shield is actually equipped however cannot make use of other weapons.

The Exchange

No of course not. You simply choose not to use shield slam. However I would suggest you need to nominate if you're using it or not prior to the attack role.

The Exchange

Sadly people change, life changes. Sometimes games just fizzle out. That's the nature of it.

You kinda just need to accept it, or risk loosing friends because you're getting upset by it.

The Exchange

outshyn wrote:
Auke Teeninga wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Thanks. I still don't get it though. Although I cannot buy the PDF, I can see the stat block on pfsprep, and if I were running that BBEG, then even without the extra monsters, I would wipe the floor with a level 6 PC. How would you not?

** spoiler omitted **

Sorry i'll expand a bit. I didn't nearly solo it totally alone but I didn't need much in the way of help.

Spoiler:
We had a silence spell running that had me as the focus. That was something that made a big difference. All I needed to do was get near it for 1 standard actions. Now I couldn't pull that off but as a level 6 against a level 12 encounter I can way closer than I should have been able to, and in the end it took a wall of force to stop me. Nothing else thrown out was doing the job.

The Exchange

The issue is there, anyone who's payed out of tier can see it. Characters are just well out of balance with anything that can be thrown at us and still be considered reasonable.

I'll give an example from the Sky Key Solution.

Spoiler:
The final fight, the one that you're not supposed to go anywhere near until after the other tasks. The one that doesn't get leveled down for lower parties, the one the scenario tells the GM to warn players about. We took that on, at level 6-7.

I nearly beat it. If the GM hadn't employed some pretty specific tactics to keep us (well me) from being anywhere near the big bad then i'd have shut it down in 2 rounds and that would have been it.

A level 6 brawler nearly shut down what is apparently a level 13 or 14 caster. That should not be possible. That fight should be totally 1 sided, that we had any hope at all is absurd. I needed to role a 4 to finish that fight. Though it did inspire me to get a dimension door cape.

The Exchange

Don't let a player dictate the rules to you. Let them advise if they disagree but at the end of the day you're the GM, and "Because I said so" is a perfectly valid reason for any rules decision you make. Frankly you don't need to give a rules justification for anything that happens unless you're playing PFS. I've had GM's who straight up decline to explain the background rules of certain effects, instead opting for visual and theatrical descriptions of what's taking place.

I use the above method myself and I've never had a player object.

This isn't about beating the players, if this one player is acting this way then you need to give him a reason not to, while it may annoy him at first lowering a veil of secrecy over your monsters, stats and rolls backed up with good story telling might fix this.

And at the same time if his character is so strong perhaps the solution is a nemesis of some kind, or a story reason to have his powers hampered. Never underestimate the power of story to bring players around.

The Exchange

To me the FAQ is an effort to prevent people using still spell, silent spell and eschew materials to achieve the same result with no need for a bluff check or stealth check of any kind.

I think the best view would be to assume that every spell has some effect that lets the target or those around it know that a spell has been cast. They may not know the effect or the source but they will always be aware that something happened. So you can't walk through a room throwing around detect thoughts without anyone noticing, though they might not notice it's you.

The Exchange

Stealth in combat is difficult but I don't see why not. Consider how you can best use your discoveries to assist in combat without drawing attention.

Poisoners gloves and touch injection can help you buff your allies directly.

The promethean alchemist could potentially make an interesting combination. Where you stealth around and lay down control effects and buffs while your doppelganger does the heavy lifting. The only question I can see here is how promethean would interact with discoveries like tanglefoot bombs, as the archtype replaces bombs.

The Exchange

The key part of the sentence you're looking for is "base damage".

So it increases the 1d6 of a heavy shield then adds other modifiers.

Thats how the rule is written and that is how it works. Base damage is the damage before modifiers and effects such as size, enchantments and enhancements.

The Exchange

Annie Oakleaf wrote:
Acid & Fire.

But limiting yourself to these is somewhat missing the point.

Ghast Wretch flasks,
Impact foam,
Rusting powder,
Smoke sticks,
Defoliant,
Blackfire clay
Alchemical solvent/glue/cement
Blood block

This list gets rather long.

The Exchange

James Jacobs wrote:
Francis Kunkel wrote:
1. Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?
Nope. A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.

Are you out of your mind? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't care what fancy title you have I'm going to ignore all your posts now. Forever.

The Exchange

Considering doing a dex based melee alchemist but I cant seem to get it to work right. It's really feat intensive for not a lot of damage. The biggest issue is that reduce person lowers damage dice and that I can't really two-weapon fight with an alchemist because I need a free hand for bombs/extracts etc.

Any tips? Even just on weapons you think might work? I'm going the weapon finess/slashing grace route because I don't think 3 levels of unchained rogue is worth the loss in spell progression.

The Exchange

Melkiador wrote:
Out of curiosity, can someone post the playtest version?

No. Given that the playtest period is over I think distributing the playtest document, which is substantially the same as the final product, would fall under copyright infringement.

The Exchange

It has 0 burn, so i'd say its just a modifier to your existing basic telekinesis wild talent.

On that, it would be a modifier to what is essentially mage hand. But 5 pounds per 2 levels. Range is close so 25 feet + 5 per level.

And yes you'd need line of sight.

Basic telekinesis answers most of your questions.

The Exchange

Is there a turtle race in any of the books? Or am I stuck with a Nagaji in appropriately themed breast plate?

The Exchange

Stop.

Admixture vials combine extracts. The discovery combines formula. That's how it operates. The idea that an admixture vial would suddenly occupy a higher level is a bit silly. Also consider that as written I don't believe the discovery uses the original slots at all, only the higher slot. Where as admixture vials use the lower slot.

This raises an interesting question about the interactions of boro beads .....

The Exchange

Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Agreed with Vanlo and Protoman. When I flagged that talent, it was not only written wrong (you can always use inspiration on any skill, unlike its implication), but the power it meant to be was fairly niche (going after a skill not on any of those other lists), and it also had an incredibly high prereq level for no perceivable reason. As is, it's a useful addition to the talent list to fill out that small niche, but it's still likely going to be a rare choice.

Thanks for the changes. I think that getting free inspiration for stealth might be nice for a scouting-focused ratfolk investigator that I've been thinking about. It is tricky to fit it in at the early levels, though. So many good talents...

And I'm happy that the errata seems to have only improved the Investigator class.

Edit: I do wish that they had gotten the ability to use spell-trigger items like Alchemists, though.

Yeah Stealth is one of those skills that is useful enough to fill that niche, though the ones that give you lots of skills are just so tempting. I know my investigator has been having trouble picking!

@Your Edit on spell trigger: That was indeed on my list to check, since I had also thought it was an error that it wasn't mentioned and had been allowing investigators to use spell trigger items in my games. Turns out that Stephen, who wrote the investigator, had intentionally removed that line from investigators, so it is intentional that they can't use spell trigger items. That's the reason there wasn't any comment on it; we didn't miss that question.

Ok fine, so some freelancer made that decision intentionally. But do you think that the decision is a good one? The book is broken, you need to be prepared to rewrite it. Not let nonsense cooked up by freelancers dictate your game.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Daring Champion have Precise Strike and Challenge?

Warpriest having only 2 skill points per level (Yes I know it was intentional, but it's a mistake)

Charmed Life taking a swift action. It should be a free action or even permanent.

I've seen the Dev team change classes/feats to make them weaker, why not also make the weak things stronger?

The dev team definitely buffed some weak options in this (Feral Hunter, for example, but also some Shaman options). It may not have been exactly what you were hoping for, but the PDT is definitely making things stronger.

That being said, I'm still sad to see a lot of the nerfs and no fixes for the Eldritch Scion. To be fair, I probably didn't post anything about that Magus archetype in the ACG potential errors.

After four calls for Eldritch Scion stuff showed up in a few hours last night, I rechecked the entire potential errors thread again to see what they meant, and yeah, I couldn't find it. I'd recommend making a FAQ thread for it so we can take a look at it too!

No offence but this is a pretty poor excuse. "You didn't mention it so we didn't know about it."

You had a year, plus the original editing time. You could easily have read the book yourself. You can't put the blame on the consumer when the real issue was, and apparently still is, that no one at paizo bothered to actually look at the content of this book on their own.

The Exchange

Captain Morgan wrote:

Feels like Shield Champion should have gotten more attention than it did, though they did fix a couple of things.

Mostly this makes me sad though. :(

Yeah i'm pretty annoyed at this myself.

It seems like they approached this with the view of preserving the original work of the freelancers as much as possible. They weren't willing to just do away with things unless they had to. And from where I am sitting the company as a whole will suffer as a result.

They should have been willing to first see the book for what it was, the efforts of some fans with a loose understanding of the rules making fantasy classes.

The second, they should have been willing to rip apart and put back together anything that didn't seem quite right.

The Exchange

So make it have a fort save in your games. Int + spell level. Done.

The Exchange

No solution is needed. It's a buffing soell. That's all there is to it.

What exactly is the issue?

The Exchange

No. This is totally utterly and entirely wrong.

Fighting defensively and casting defensively are totally different actions with no relation to each other whatsoever. Looking at the rules you may not even be able to do both at the same time.

The Exchange

So it's gone to the printers but the PDF isn't available yet is that right?

Surely if you're printing a new batch you should be able to put a date on it now?

The Exchange

No,

No,

No,

No,

Probably not but depends on the gm I guess. Dcs of 15 are pretty standard. Some characters can't do certain things. You can't be good at everything, that's just the fact of it. Can you give specific examples? It's not about making you feel marginalised. But you need to understand that different characters have different skills.

Permenancy can't be used in pfs at all.

And don't call out mods for deleting posts. This is a child friendly board intended for friendly discussion. Ultimately if you don't like the game system then no one is forcing you to keep using it. Other systems have other rules.

1 to 50 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>