Sarrion's page

And evil souls would follow suit even if they are not atheists?

It is in my understanding Golarion does not have a whole lot of atheists, so as per the question above, what happens to their souls when they die? Do they go to Hell or the Abyss to be tortured for an eternity? Or do they go to the plan of their deity?

Thanks!

I use it for initial levels and then to qualify for cleaving finish. Mmm love me some cleaving finish.

Track the arrows. We would always forget to track arrows with our characters and that's what made it over powered. If the archer character is making 5 attacks per round (manyshot, rapid shot, 2 iterative attacks and a hasted attack), he should be out of shots in 4 rounds without a magical quiver. Also, utilize terrain more to give creatures cover or concealment. It doesn't mean you have to do it all the time, but do it enough that other people have a chance to get into position.

Another way to balance against buffing PC's is to have enemy NPC's buff too. Disposable items are very handy to put a kink in the plans of the players. Potions of true strike and tanglefoot bags help to give the mooks some effectiveness.

Also, try to eliminate the 15 minute adventure day. Sure, there will be large single encounters some days or maybe just a handful. Though when the party decides to raid the liches crypt, they should have to conserve their resources instead of going full nova on the first encounter. If the group decides to take a rest period (especially inside the dungeon) then have inhabitants reinforce the area, or have them build traps to ambush the party.

The magus can hit because of his arcane accuracy and buffing his weapon using the arcane pool. The rogue, well i'm not too sure how the rogue hits, he can purchase slightly better weapons and is not spreading his stats out quite as thin. Really he might have a bonus 10% chance over the monk of hitting, if you make a ranged rogue, he can get a little bit more from pointblank shot and some magic items. Bards get buffs that they can share with the party and they have archetypes that focus on hitting.

Depending on the party set up I would recommend the monk taking gang up, but that's an investment of two feats and three stat points to get a +2 in flanking circumstances.

Fornication armor sounds fun..

That's what I was thinking too. I think the arrow is acting as delivery so you would just roll the hit for each one like regular spell strike with a touch spell. Now if they mean any spell that required line of effect to affect a creature (which is possible) that opens the door to a lot more spells.

Edit:that should take away the reflex save since it is being delivered via touch.

Anyone have some insight on this?

This could be a dumb question but, what are the referencing in the Magus Myrmidarch Ranged Spell Strike ability which says:

The only line of effect spells i can think of right now are dragon breath, when you use the line breath weapon and lightning bolt. Are there spells with multiple lines of effect?

I get the ray portion already. Thanks!

Well said Cheapy, though a little level headed for these forums...outside of PFS I don't see why people can't work with their gm's to enhance monk items to level of playability that is desired. My current gm works with all the players to help provide a fun experience. As long as we don't try to make broken characters he is very flexible with custom rules.

OP: No I haven't had a chance to try it out yet and I think that it hampers the summoner when compared to the druid since the druid has some spells too beef up his animal companions capabilities. ie Strong Jaw.

I would like to see a reduced list that an eidolon could use such as rings, amulets, boots and bracers. Just throwing some ideas out there as a fully equipped eidolon could become game breaking.

Another idea would be to have a feat that allows the eidolon and summoner to both use a magic item in the same slot or possibly two slots. It could be based off charisma (force of will) and it strengthens the bond between summoner and eidolon, give it three ranks or just make it a re-purchasable feat that can apply to a new slot each time.

Sarrion wrote:

Unfortunately a paladins power comes from some very narrow guidelines which can create a lot of potential "lawful stupid" hurdles.

I think the very narrow guidelines allow snarky GM's the latitude to create the "lawful stupid" hurldles personally :p

We need the Pallys Handbook PF Edition... just rebadge the 2nd ed one and we are good to go!

It can be an excuse for GM's to be jerks and it can also create a situation where a GM feels that he needs to over-examine every action that the player does (which I have done before).

The paladin code and lawful good restriction brings with it a more role-playing conscious play style. If you step on a crack you break your back and the debate lies in, what exactly is a crack to the player and GM? The GM needs to collaborate with the player, once that's done the expectations have been created and the player needs to respect them (as well as the GM).

Creating every second encounter as a no win situation for the paladin is being a jerk. Though if every couple of months the GM presents a moral dilemma that the paladin player needs to really think through, that's not going to be a bad thing. Heck, I think it's an opportunity for the paladin player to shine and give a twist for the whole party to deal with.

The same philosophy should be applied to all players in the party despite their classes not having alignment restrictions. Rogues should have to deal with maintaining their reputations if they plan to have a network of contacts, etc.

Though all of this is futile if you don't want to play a role playing intensive campaign. If you're content with lawful good being "generally good", then that's your choice and everyone involved needs to establish that tone from the get go.

I completely agree and they are aggravating situations to be in, my point isn't that it's easy to deal with. The fact is lying breaks the default code of a paladin. Maybe there is a loophole in the paladin code having to willfully commit a lie. An example being that the paladin has to lie under duress because his action would cause immediate irreparable harm to an innocent which would violate his code if he tells the truth. Now this could lead to the paladin confronting the persecutors or handing himself over to protect the innocent.

The code of conduct and ex-paladin core rule book text states that paladins lose their powers if they break their code, which includes lying.

A bluff to feint in combat is not a lie, it is a offensive combat maneuver designed to give you an advantage.

If you are stone walling someone by using silence, I personally would not call that a lie because you are avoiding confrontation.

Unfortunately a paladins power comes from some very narrow guidelines which can create a lot of potential "lawful stupid" hurdles. It isn't always clear where a paladins power comes from but the core rule book does explicitly state how a paladin can lose their powers. An honorable lie is still a lie, so if the paladin willfully goes against his or her code then the powers are lost.

To make things run smoother the GM and player need to clearly recognize how much the code is going to dictate for the paladin in order to avoid issues. With PFS, i would say the games arbitrator is going to dictate this in any ways he/she sees fit.

Ipad 3 and Iphone 4

I would love to see a character sheet app for the tablet (ipad), from what i heard it was in development and 99% done but then it dissappeared.

It could be modular so we would need to buy content (ala Herolab) but please provide a complete product when you release those modules. Herolab has flopped in this regard because of software limitations they created.

Here's looking forward to what comes out!

I know this has been discussed in the past but it's been a year or so since i've seen anything on it.

Other than the crit and fumble decks, is there any chance that Paizo is going to be releasing a character sheet App for the iPad and/or tablet pc's?

Yeah I have no problem with the party members doing the damage. It's more having something to do.

Okay guys and girls i'm looking for some insight towards what spells my Wizard should be casting because I've got this problem of becoming incredibly bored during combat. Currently we are level 4.

To start off he is a Divination specialist with a focus on conjuration spells for battlefield control. I tend to memorize a couple glitterdust, grease, magic missile and enlarge person.. I've got Acid Splash for a little bit of offense when i run out of spells and there can be anywhere from 1 to 6 encounters in a day.

I know that the sustainability tends to increase around level 7. Is there any suggestions people can make for the interim to make the levelling process less mind numbingly boring?

Right now i tend to throw out a glitterdust at the beginning of combat and maybe a grease to trip up more persistent opponents.

Currently the campaign is very frugal when it comes to gold/supplies, nevermind shops (we're playing serpents skull) which are non-existent. Should I perhaps be crafting scrolls to supplement my spell casting?

Do you think a push towards crafting a ring of wizardry makes more sense?

Rage Powers (Ex)

As a barbarian gains levels, she learns to use her rage in new ways. Starting at 2nd level, a barbarian gains a rage power. She gains another rage power for every two levels of barbarian attained after 2nd level. A barbarian gains the benefits of rage powers only while raging, and some of these powers require the barbarian to take an action first. Unless otherwise noted, a barbarian cannot select an individual power more than once.

So you have to be raging to gain the benefits of superstition.

Sarrion wrote:

For comparison, loading a cross bow and then firing the said crossbow in combat provokes two attacks of opportunity. The first is for loading and the second is for firing of the crossbow.

One may load the crossbow, then walk around before taking the separate action to fire.

Much like one may cast a melee touch spell, then move and then take a separate action to deliver it.

Now don't focus too much on the word 'action' but rather focus on the word 'separate'.

Then compare this to a ranged touch spell like acid arrow or scorching ray. One cannot even do the following: cast a ranged touch spell, take a 5' step and then make the ranged attack with it. Rather the two things- casting the ranged attack spell and making the ranged attack are not separable.

What Jason put into the rules does not say that casting a ranged touch spell is multiple opportunities. Rather even if such a spell is cast defensively the act is still going to provoke AN attack of opportunity. Anymore is reading into the rules what you want to read there.

-James

The way i was interpreting the spell was that two actions occur. First you cast the spell going through your somatic and verbal gestures, that is attack of opportunity number one. The second is actually performing the ranged attack against a target which results in another attack of opportunity.

The problem that i have with the wording of the spell is that it is essentially granting two actions for one standard action by casting the spell.

Ignoring that and trying not to read into the rules too deeply...

If you cast defensively and then fire the scorching ray, then by all rights you would provoke an attack of opportunity for making a ranged touch attack. When that happens the attack of opportunity is an immediate action that occurs prior to making your ranged touch attack. If this is the case then the attack of opportunity could potentially disrupt the spell because it hasn't been fully cast until the ranged attack is resolved.

Is that a fair assessment?

So in the end the lesson of the day would be..don't cast scorching ray when threatened by an enemy.

Scorching Ray should generate at least two attacks of opportunity if the caster is not casting defensively and is threatened by an enemey.

First AoO is generated by the character actually casting the spell while threated, which is listed on the chart.

Second AoO is generated by making a ranged (touch) attack while threatened, which is also listed on the chart.

For comparison, loading a cross bow and then firing the said crossbow in combat provokes two attacks of opportunity. The first is for loading and the second is for firing of the crossbow.

The wording that adds confusion is "all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously." This of course means that the spells attack(s) is rolled at the same time and as per the chart each ranged attack would provoke it's own attack of opportunity.

So it appears by RAW, you provoke for each ray fired because they are all rolled separately. I don't agree with the ruling becuase my mind draws the image of how scorching ray works differently, but that doesn't change what the rules actually say.

@LazarX - Here's hoping his oath doesn't go that far. I'll just have to investigate ingame to get a good feel for it.

@Kobold - I think it could make for some really good roleplaying and want to stray away from any ultimatums.

If a wizard has an evil familiar (for example an imp), would the party paladin have to kill it?

The Wizard in question is not evil.

Just to be clear the intent of having the imp familiar is not to perform evil acts while staying neutral. It actually has to do with the characters history in the campaign, I just don't want to present my characters plot device only to have it murdered in the first session.

Also, if he's throwing the net at an enemy in combat that's a -4 to hit and if there is anything in the way granting soft cover (ie an ally) then the enemy gets an additional +4 to AC. So that's an effective 14 AC base touch for the enemy (with no dex modifiers or deflection) with a -8 to hit for the bard. A level 5 bard with decent dex (16 and inspire courage) would have a +3 to hit touch ac, -1 to hit if the enemy is in combat and the enemy has a 14AC base touch if there is any soft cover. That's a roll of 15 or higher to entangle, yeah i'd be comfortable with that.

Like Cheapy said, the net only has 5 hit points and if any enemies are adjacent to the bard when he throws the net, they get an attack of opportunity.

Nice thing about pit spells is that you can use your summons to bullrush enemies into them and they get no save if you are successful. Now you just need to communicate that with the summons some how.

Sarrion wrote:

Thanks for the input. It was a gray area for me because the paladin didn't attempt to negotiate at all with the captors. I really like Itchy's recommendation of having the player write up his paladin's code. This can clear up a lot of the gray area as well.

The Paladin isn't required to negotiate with evil. He's required to defeat evil and protect it's victims. Aside from that it's a pretty wide choice as to how it's done.

Holy thread necro! Absolutely the paladin is supposed to stop evil, etc. The method of execution should be dependant upon the evil being presented as well. In this case the barbarians had taken the hostages because they were given as a part of a deal between nations. The barbarians themselves were not evil, but chaotic, this was a part of their tradition (the exchange of women when forming an alliance).

Ahh I see what you mean now Jiggy. Thanks!

Sarrion wrote:

Oh I got it all. By RAW it's accurate and it just makes me think it's dumb. Reason is, now there's a special case on top of a special case in order to make all of this work. A new form of attacking was made specifically for disarming without a "weapon".

It still doesnt work because of the above two reasons, you still used the limb to disarm even if its unarmed and you still cant retroactively change the attack routine you choose when you started.

I'm not saying that my original idea for natural attacks and weapon attacks works. I'm saying that I understand what Jiggy is saying about the weaponless attack.

Oh I got it all. By RAW it's accurate and it just makes me think it's dumb. Reason is, now there's a special case on top of a special case in order to make all of this work. A new form of attacking was made specifically for disarming without a "weapon".

Sorry, you're losing me on this. If I make a CMB check, to do a disarm, I am using a weapon as per Sean's post. That unarmed strike is now a weapon (even if i don't have improved unarmed strike). I can't do a CMB with a touch attack, so i'm not sure how else it can work.

@Jiggy, So how do you make a non-weapon combat maneuver when everything is considered a weapon?

@mplindustries

Ah, i see now the natural attack section restricting those limbs for being used with a weapon. I was looking under the monster rules at first for natural attacks, thus confusing some of it. Thanks for the clarification.

@Jiggy

Interesting, i didn't realize that unarmed strikes and natural attacks would be considered actual weapons. I'm trying to find the actual wording for that because the only reference i saw was under the spell Magic Weapon. That seems to muddy the waters a bit because then i could cast lead blades on natural attacks.

I guess that's the first part of the issue as well. I assume that the successful disarm when not weilding a weapon means that you manage to wrestle/swipe the weapon from the persons hand instead of just having it tossed to the ground.

What is the definition of "automatically"? ;)

I already know that if a barbarian uses natural attacks in conjunction with iterative weapon attacks, the natural weapons become secondary attacks (resulting in a -5 to hit).

My question pertains to this scenario:

Barbarian pounces with natural attacks using Beast Totem (Greater)and does his first claw attack and then a successful disarm maneuver using his second claw attack. Since he is not using a weapon to perform this maneuver he can automatically pick up the weapon (free action implied?). Can the barbarian then continue by using that weapon against the target with his iterative attacks since he can do a full attack action on a charge? Are there any penalties to be applied?

The barbarian has already used his natural attacks and if he hadn't successfully disarmed he would not have been able to make the iterative attacks. This is why i am unsure how you would apply penalties, if at all.

Charging:

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

There's two interpretations that could happen from this.

First is that the charge doesn't happen because the path the cavalry are travelling through is obstructed by a space that slows movement.

The second is that the first row would hit the first five feet of spike stones/growth and then would stop as the charge has been interrupted. The rest of the cavalry would be blocked by the group in front.

Now if the cavalry are simply double moving in to the spike growth area, there is no reason for them to stop other than when they take damage. The horses would rear up and blood would be all over the place. At that point they would likely stop their movements.

Also, why does the new replacement defender have to be MORE deadly? That doesn't make any sense. It's just as likely to be a little weaker or even non-existent.

Well it doesn't necessarily have to be a stronger enemy, you're right there. It should be an obstacle that can effectively replicate the same role that the original golem was filling. If that is in the form of a creature, magical trap or dungeon construction then that has been done.

Well RD, it could go in a few different directions. To avoid a time paradox the wish would either exclude you from losing knowledge of the afformentioned adamantine golem and thus you have expended the wish knowing you have averted danger. The function of the spell has essentially become nullification.

Another alternative to look at is that you go through all the castings and expend the materials only to have the spell fizzle or error out because you would be creating a time paradox that cannot be met.

Lastly, the consequences of not having the golem ever made (or wished to be undone) means that the creator(s) of said golem never crafted it but still required defenses so something more insideous has been put there in it's place. Which really kind of screws the party over because (unless the wish returns the resources spent) you are short resources and have another fight to deal with immediately after the golem which should be of equal CR. A more devious DM could infact turn it into a trap of massive destruction, etc.

Really it boils down to how the DM wants to deal with the whole scenario and the different concepts of managing time alteration. I'm not advocating one way or another but the Wish spell is a big opportunity for DM fiat to mess with your plans.

P.S. -The easiest way to deal with it as a DM could also be that he says a new adamantine golem appears, it's just not the one you already destroyed.

Sarrion wrote:

Not to de-rail this thread, but Trinam, how do you think a barbarian could justify the superstition rage power or the superstitious archetype and wear magic items?

The same way a vampiric vampire hunter can exist. Your hoodoo-heebie-jeebie stuff is evil, but it's effective, so I'm going to use it against you all.

EDIT: And I think this thread's been derailed like seventy times already anyway.

Good point. I'm trying to build my RAGESWORDPOUNCE...because i can't quite justify a lance yet.

Not to de-rail this thread, but Trinam, how do you think a barbarian could justify the superstition rage power or the superstitious archetype and wear magic items?

@Trinam - Amen! You'd think this was an exercise in showing how casters suck. Poor rogues are getting lonely...just kidding!

Deathspot, how are you taking two actions in the surprise round? surprise round starts, you either teleport or cast waves of exhaustion. The barbarian also gets to act in this round so it can't simply be assumed that he's just standing there and taking it.

I thought that only applied to sundering weapons Jason? If not then you have helped me with a character concept! thanks!

Ah, interesting to know.

@Jason Nelson - Thanks for adding some versatility to the martial classes via combat maneuvers. I hope that there is another type of ultimate combat book that expands on giving each class more unique skills that are not easily replicated by spells.

Wouldn't AM BARBARIAN see the horde of wizards? If AM BARBARIAN kills 5 wizards, does that cause the wizards leadership score drop by 5 instantly thus causing him to lose close to 50+ followers and 2 cohort levels? Though i guess it could be argued that putting 135 people into the path of a casty hating barbarian isn't killing them but merely putting them in an unfavorable circumstance.

What is AM BARBARIAN's maximum charge distance while mounted?

@trinam - I am looking forward to seeing the guide as I am building a barbarian for the new year.

@thepuregamer - There's no need to be snarky, i'm just going based off what Trinam is showing as AM BARBARIAN's perception versus the "casters". I agree that using leadership in order to gain a superior mount is a crutch. Though I find the primary functions of the barbarian, (being dealing huge amounts of damage AND spell sundering is what makes the barbarian come out ahead in most scenarios.

The problem I have with the proposed counter measures from casters is that it is assumed that AM BARBARIAN is a known threat to the caster before initiative has begun. Second, the schroedingers caster (as it's been labelled), is the caster that has every appropriate spell prepared in the event that a superstitious barbarian flying on a bat is going to come along and smash his face in. Is that truly an expectation for a wizard? Perhaps a cleric could divine this knowledge, but i don't know divination spells all taht well. Lastly, a lot of the casters appear to have all the spells in the core/apg/UM/UC books prepared or known.

I would like to see a barbarian build that is more realistic in it's real world gameplay approach. Riding a 6 HD dire bat is a cool idea, riding a level 17 summoner is ludicrous. I'd like to see how to boost the perception checks into the high 60's and how to maintain good damage without relying on a mount.

As for a caster, i'd like to see something more realistic in terms of spell appliation while adventuring. I find this to be a great exercise in preperation and it helps give ideas for when i eventually play an arcane caster. Though perhaps that is for another thread. Right now I just want to see AM BARBARIAN's build!