Svartalfar

Shadowlords's page

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 339 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 339 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Joana wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Torag and Rovagug are both gone in the gap with Golarion. Every other deity from pathfinder is still active, although they are not all core.
Huh. This desperately makes me want to run a game in a duotheistic Golarion, wherever it's hiding.

See im picturing some kind of prison break on Rovagugs side, so all the gods did what they could to contain the beast. this involved making Golarion disappear, like putting the planet in some kind of prison plane of existence but a god needed to stay behind to slow the beast or keep fighting him so he doesnt escape and Torag stayed to fight him and now Rovagug and Torag are locked in a eternal battle on the world of Golarion. Good vs evil, Law vs Chaos.

Now insert factions of mortals still living on the planet in the middle of this eternal struggle and the only 2 gods in their existence is Torag and Rovagug.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

In regards to changing rules and having everyone buy into it and so we are all on the same page at the table, I have put together a binder that my group has come to refer to as the black book or the DM's Binder, in which i have typed up and printed out all the rule changes / clarifications that I or any of my players have come up with over our years of playing. Before it gets printed and put in the binder the majority of the group has to be on board with the change and understand why its getting changed, until its printed out we play as written in the core books.

This has worked out really well for everyone as rule changes are written down and easily accessible by all the players and when an issue comes up in game we can either refer to the Binder or the core book and either add to the binder, edit something in the binder or leave it as it is in the core book.

perhaps you should try to take up a similar method if you disagree with a lot of the rules currently presented in the system, this doesn't require you to comb through the rules and write up a whole new rule book, just as you play and as things come up in game, be like this is how i envision this working instead and write up a little change.

Like This:
Charge,
As per the current rules you need line of sight on a target before charging on your turn.

My change is if you had seen your target the round prior then you can attempt the charge at that square he was in.

or you charge a square instead of a target whether you can see the target or not. both these methods still require you to roll % to hit chance if they had concealment or some other cover as normal.

type it up printed out and put it in a folder and label it "my house rules".

I too love pathfinder and the system its presented around, i don't think its perfect, i also doubt i could have done a better job at creating a better system, but when me or my group finds an issue or something we want to change and do differently we have a system in place to do these changes and to make sure everyone is aware and on the same page with everything. this system works out so well for my group we all use the same house rules no matter who is running the game.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

so for those of us who just discovered fog god games and missed out on the kick starter when could i purchase the book book?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

So looking though the other norlands saga comments i found my questions answered. I am updating my post in that regards.

Greg A. Vaughan wrote:

Great review, Endzeitgeist! Thanks a bunch!

Two comments:

1. While it is fair to mention that it does not support the mass combat rules of Ultimate Campaign, I must point out that it was completed before Ultimate Campaign was out, so we were not able to use it. Which brings up Point #2 in regards to that and all the questions there have been about NS5.

2. The end of piece-mealing the awesomeness that is Kenneth Spencer's Northlands Saga has come. I don't have a set date yet, but hopefully later this year, Frog God Games will be releasing The Northlands Saga Complete. What is The Northlands Saga Complete you ask? Why it is two books in one. The first book is the Northlands Saga Campaign Guide, an extensive look at the many kingdoms huddled around the frigid North Sea, their peoples, their gods, a gazetteer of their towns and countrysides, extensive regional encounter generators, new PC races, feats, magic, and archetypes, and a host of new monsters. The second part of The Northlands Saga Complete is The Northlands Saga adventure path: NS1-NS10. A complete adventure path following the course of the PCs' wyrd through the harsh Northlands. It will include reissued NS1-4 updated with material from the new campaign guide plus some new encounters added just to spice them up, plus NS5-NS10 as all-new adventures to continue the players' epic campaign. Oh, and did I mention that included with the adventure path is NS0, a triple-length adventure for levels 1-4 to bring your PCs up to the 5-7 level range presented in NS1? I don't remember if I did or not. Oh well.

So that's the news. I don't know exactly when it'll release, I just managed to get other projects out of the way so I could devote the time to this one a couple months ago, but here's where it stands:

Campaign Guide (60,000 words) - DONE
NS0 (45,000 words) - DONE
NS1 (2,500 words added, 17,500 total) - DONE
NS2 (2,500 words added, 17,500 total) - DONE
NS3 (20,000 words) update nearly done
NS4 (20,000 words) next to be updated
NS5 (30,000 words) - DONE
NS6 (15,000 words) - getting started this month
NS7 (15,000 words) - half done
NS8 (15,000 words) - 90% done
NS9 (15,000 words) - pending
NS10 (15,000 words) - pending

I want to have the whole thing written before we start giving release date details since it dragged out so much as a series, but it is the project that is currently on my plate, so rest assured it is coming. It should weigh in at around 400-500 pages or so, I'm guessing. And maybe we'll even get to add in some of that Ultimate Campaign siege stuff. :-)

Anyway, I don't want to take the spotlight away from Endzeitgeist's excellent review, but we've been quiet on this topic for a long time and I wanted to let everyone know where it's headed and that the end is near! Thanks to everyone who has enjoyed the Northlands Saga so far, and here's to many more adventures there!

Greg

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Also a miniature that was produced for the cannon golem shows the cannon replaces an arm. all artwork from the adventure path the cannon golem appears in, to the bestiary, to the figure, to the comics and novels depict the cannon golem having its arm replaced. that doesn't mean you cant create your cannon golem to have a shoulder mounted cannon or a chest cannon.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

well in the lore of pathfinder shadowcasters are usually Illusionist wizards with a level of cleric dedicated to zon kuthon, take the shadow domain.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

The cardboard corners are great and need to be used more often, i hate packing peanuts and we really need to move away from them. They are purely and plainly just a pain for us on the receiving end.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I am Reviving this thread as packing peanuts are still in use 6 years later and think we really do need an alternate packing material.

Pretty much every other company i buy books or items from has moved away from packing peanuts to alternate packing materials. Packing peanuts are just a mess to deal with and a hassle to get rid of, after one box i feel like i have to vacuum the entire room because of all the little pieces that static cling to everything and get spread around everywhere while unpacking.

shrink wrapping books to cardboard backers or using air pillows is the most popular method for shipping books from almost every other shipping realtor.

I enjoy getting the books and shipments every month for my subscriptions but then as soon as i open the box i am filled with dread as i see all these peanuts i now have to deal with. instead of being able to open the box and take the books out to read, i have to carefully remove them to try to keep the peanuts from getting everywhere then clean off every book from the clinging peanuts, and then dispose of the peanuts and box in a non messy way, and half the time still have to take a vacuum to the room to get rid of the ones that escaped containment. It is a hassle i would rather not have to deal with, but that im sure other people share the same issue.

/first world problems, i know... but i thought i would share

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I am the same way but i also help on both sides of it. I will call a player out just as easily as calling the DM out (I usually refrain from calling the DM out in the middle of a judgement call or ruling and tell him in a down period) But at the same time i will also inform people the players of beneficial uses of certain rules in situations that will help them out that they didn't know about. I will also inform the DM of these same things if they need it lol. 2 of these instances get groans and "come on you trying to get us killed" from the party and 2 of these get "Oh cool thanks didn't know that, you just probably saved us" from the party.

Its a act of balance and picking battles on what matters too. If a player does more actions then would be allowed by rules on his turn to accomplish something cool, i wont steal his thunder from him for that turn but comment off hand after the game or during a break that was to many actions. If the same player or multiple people start abusing that and doing to many actions i will say ok guys calm down a bit that is to many actions, remember this is all you have for 1 turn as what you can do.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

the planes of positive and negative energy are not tied to any alignment. I play it as such, I also did a cleric rewrite and that clerics choose a plane to associate themselves with and they can cast that as normal, but they can also channel the other one at twice the cost of normal.

I also changed Paladins Lay on hands to be holy energy instead of positive energy so that it heals like it does already and can deal damage to undead and evil outsiders.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

that is interesting.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Name of PC: Edward
Class/Level: Alchemist
Adventure: Book 1
Catalyst: Vargouille
Story: Got hit with the kiss of the vargouille when exploring the tunnels alone, fought it off then was embarrassed of the whole thing so he hid what actually happened from the party. Party finished the dungeon then went to sleep, he woke up the next day almost transformed and they rushed about trying to save him but ultimately failed. Edward's Head popped off and he was now a vargouille as well.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Just a Mort wrote:

I will disagree with you on animal companions. I've been trying PFS scenarios on gestalt, often I run into DR, or fail a willsave on animal companions. Gets even worse at higher levels.

Reincarnated druid does not have access to restoration so I don't know how you're removing neg levels from reincarnating.

Are divine spell casting services not a thing? scrolls? friendly neighborhood cleric you give a few thousand gold to.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

What? Is it just me or does this post make no sense? There is no context to what you are saying. I have no idea what you are getting at or trying to talk about.

What i got from this:
1. You are waiting for your book to show up and taking a break from playing.
2. you have a player who cheats with his dice.
3. there is another player who does something and his name is significant for some reason.
4. it is a 3 person game, 2 players and a DM and you are playing a DMPC (which is usually poorly advised and not encouraged).
5. you basically invented an oracle because you didn't know they existed.

You at no point talked about the game in anyway or had spoilers of any kind. you had no context for people to talk about and the title is misleading.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5Di6-kGB8dad01HOWF0VGZvanM?usp=sha ring

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I found an excel based character sheet and then spent time modifying it to my own liking, it has proven to be the best decision yet to give to my players.

1. when used on the computer the formulas auto filled in the information.

2. each player could modify it to their own needs if they choose to.

3 i could print out blank sheets of it for people with out a computer to use at the table.

4. as we all use it more we all find things on the sheet we want to modify so the sheet slowly evolves overtime and with the party as a group.

my players love the excel sheet that i have for a characters now, it has gone through so many changes and face lifts over the last 2-3 years since we started using it.

Personally i have moved away from using the excel character sheet or even a standard character sheet for that matter and started to just type up my characters in a stat block like presented in the bestiary or adventure paths. it has made all my characters sheets a more usable medium for me and i can modify it to accommodate each class and all my abilities.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

a key point here is to not tell the players how to solve the problem. they should have a firmer grasp on their characters abilities then you do and how to use them in this situation. They know were they are needing to go and have materials around to use to get there. If they dont figure it out in a timely manner or seem stuck, then throw the merfolks at them and either capture them or help them with the aquatic races, but they would "lose" their ship. its the way of life and adventure.

Last time i played a pirate game i lost over a dozen ships over the course of the campaign and at one point ever single item and gold piece i owned. yea it sucked and was annoying but its a game and the story progressed and it makes for a fun tale now of how i recovered and what i learned from the situation.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I personally get more use out of the flip maps then the map packs. I think the map packs have come in handy once or twice and then it was only a tile or 2 that was used, but i end up using 1 or 2 flip maps every session. I pretty much have each one available from flip maps and map packs from pazio.

Storage wise the flip maps are much easier to store and use. The map packs can get mixed up if your not careful about putting them back in there box, and the box can get old or run down from use requiring you to find an alternate method to store them so they do not get mixed up with other map packs.

Flip maps are also dry erase so you can make markings and draw out your own stuff on them as you see fit and then just wipe them clean. the map packs are not.

so over all i put more value on the flip maps then the map packs.

I would suggest getting the flip maps for actual play field, and to look into the map packs for accents on the play field. like the tents one, or the cart one, to add on top of the flip map as a movable tile piece that normally wouldn't stay in one spot.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Never noticed the discrepancy before, i always treated adamantine as being able to bypass 20 or less. but it doesn't make sense really that adamantine can ignore its own hardness. the weapon or items both being made of adamantine would practically destroy each other in the process of hitting one another.

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
But can an adamantine golem overcome DR/adamantine?

trying to stir the pot i see. Good job. i like you.

Phylotus wrote:

As already noted, the adamantine golem question as discussed in another thread, perhaps there would be a more appropriate place to bring this conversation, as it is not about whether adamatine bypasses 20 or just less than 20.

Edit: Here is said thread.

lol i thoroughly enjoyed that thread. Thank you for the reminiscing.

Its threads like the golem one that let me see who is sensible or not.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
I absolutely don't picture a sewn cloth bag as a cylinder. It's a rectangle, 2x4' when laid flat. Imagine a pillow case made of tougher fabric and with with a draw string to close the open end.

Exactly this. Pillow case with shoulder straps. Also any and all depictions of bags of holding and handy haversacks do not have them as perfect cylinders. they look like generic adventuring packs, rectangular in shape.

As for the fullness of the bag, nothing is listed but in general fantasy there are 2 methods that are used in multiple forms of media from books to movies / tv shows.
1. the fuller the extra dimensional space is the fuller the bag looks from the outside.
2. the bag always looks empty from the outside no matter how much is put in.

Stuffing a bag into a smaller bag is general life things so would not be defined by the rules. Have you ever been camping? I have 3 sleeping bags and a waterproof sleeping bag cover stuffed into a sack that measures less then 1 cubic foot in size when it is all inside.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Philo Pharynx wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

My question is can you cast it while flat footed against an attack you don't know about.

I had a player get attacked from an invisible / hidden foe, in a non combat situation the player was in (walking around in a library).

He interjects the attack with i cast windy escape, after he had failed his perception checks and was reading a book.

I denied him and he got a little annoyed that i "took his abilities away"

From my side of it, you didn't know you were getting attacked until the sword was already halfway through your shoulder so how could you windy escape out of the way...

The rules say explicitly that you cannot use immediate actions while flat-footed. It's under the definition of immediate action.

I actually did not know the rules spelt that out. I just tried to logic it for that situation. Its nice to know that the rules do sometimes follow logic. Thank you.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

My question is can you cast it while flat footed against an attack you don't know about.

I had a player get attacked from an invisible / hidden foe, in a non combat situation the player was in (walking around in a library).

He interjects the attack with i cast windy escape, after he had failed his perception checks and was reading a book.

I denied him and he got a little annoyed that i "took his abilities away"

From my side of it, you didn't know you were getting attacked until the sword was already halfway through your shoulder so how could you windy escape out of the way...

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

If you can not use your own imagination to come up with your own narrative for abilities like this, and with out a doubt if you have problems with evasion and reflex you are going to have issues with many other parts of the game. Then that's not a problem with the game but a problem with you. trying to force the narrative into the mechanics are not going to fix your problem.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Actually it's not that hard. They could have said you need to have something you can take cover behind, you can drop prone (and actually be prone with all the penalties), or cover yourself with gear (and have that gear damaged), but they didn't. They don't need to be very specific.

That is the mechanics spelling out the narrative... thus limiting your own narrative and imagination. That is an extremely slippery slope that leads to, "the rules do not say that this works in this specific case so now i can not do it". which in turn leads to problems and not a fun gaming experience because now everything has to be spelled out in the rules for every circumstance.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

you seem adamant about not wanting to hear a believable way one could avoid it. honestly read any high fantasy novel that deals with magic and lore the same way D&D does, and the authors spell it out clear as day how the characters avoid spells and traps and all manner of things our characters avoid every time we play.

"I really don't care, but none of those things actually matter."

honestly you seem angry at this fact and cynical at the game for being fantasy.

you seem to be looking at the game on a pure mechanical point and numbers and not trying to find flair and fantasy in a novelization of your actions and the story presented to you.

No, I'm adamant that the explanation at least roughly matches the mechanics. Explanations that involve hiding behind/in something, cover yourself with something etc completely miss that the ability works even if none of those things can be done. Explanations of moving out of the way don't make sense if you character doesn't move out of their square.

I'm fine wit descriptions saying you jump out of the way, if mechanically it worked as someone in this thread described where you use up your actions from you next turn to move out of the way and landed prone. It would make the ability much weaker (not actually desired) but then the ability would make some sense.

My problem is that the majority of explanations do not at all match the mechanics of the game.

The one explanation that makes some sense is "the fireball doesn't actually fit the whole area equally at the same time and the rogue ducks into the space where it isn't".

It seems you want the narrative to match the mechanics or the mechanics to spell out the narrative and thus limit your own imagination. Alot of the mechanics and abilities are left vague within the game (in a narrative sense of how it exactly works) so that the players and DM can provide their own narrative and imagination to the story that fits with what was provided by the DM or the book. In a story or narrative sense Every evasion of a spell is going to be evaded differently depending on what the current environment is and what setting you are in, what equipment you have and so forth. there is no way for a mechanic to spell out every possible situation for imagination. in the same regards every reflex same is going to be different as well depending on were you are and what not, sometime it will be a dodge roll sometimes it will merely be bringing something up in front of you to block.

In the case of moving to dodge for evasion or reflex, the movement could be confined to your own square, you have a full 5ft by 5ft square to use, for a quick doge roll or side step that's plenty of room.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

One perfectly flat featureless planes with vegetation no more than an inch tall doesn’t occur naturally. Even flatland has some contours to them, and unless you are constantly mowing the field’s vegetation grows higher than a few inches, and then there are rocks and other thing to break up the plane. The other thing the rogue can hide behind is other party members. Wizards aren’t the only one who can use the BSF for their own benefit. And finally there are the items the rogue has with him. Maybe he uses his cloak to setup a draft that deflects the flame, or maybe he has a quarter staff spinning faster enough to act create a breeze just strong enough to deflect the flame. The rogue could also use some of his mundane gear to stop the attack. Does it really matter if your ordinary tunic gains the broken condition?

The only way I see it being a problem is if you are all alone, completely naked, carrying absolutely nothing, in a room with absolutely nothing. If that is the case why does anyone even get a save for half? This brings up my next point. Why do people not have a hard time with the idea that someone can save for half damage, but have problems with evasion? If there is no way to evade the flames why is anyone getting a save?

It's not relevant if it's natural or not. My point is that Evasion would work perfectly fine even if the rogue is naked in the middle of the plane of air floating in nothingness, save for the air. So explanations that rely on using something for cover, hiding in or behind something, etc are not acceptable because lacking all those things the ability works. If that's how you want to flavor it I really don't care, but none of those things actually matter. The ability just works. When you try to justify it by saying he hides behind his cloak or something else you are creating a premise that the rogue needs something to hide behind for the ability to work, and that is untrue.

As to the second point, I agree that its unintuitive that there is a...

you seem adamant about not wanting to hear a believable way one could avoid it. honestly read any high fantasy novel that deals with magic and lore the same way D&D does, and the authors spell it out clear as day how the characters avoid spells and traps and all manner of things our characters avoid every time we play.

"I really don't care, but none of those things actually matter."

honestly you seem angry at this fact and cynical at the game for being fantasy.

you seem to be looking at the game on a pure mechanical point and numbers and not trying to find flair and fantasy in a novelization of your actions and the story presented to you.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Looks like he is new and was browsing for stuff and came across it, probably did not realize it was a 3 year old thread when he posted.

My house rule is if you roll 3 nat 20s in a row you crit and do max damage (as if you rolled max on each dice) and bypass dr

this has happend a few times and is an awesome feeling for everyone at the table when it happens

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

War-hammer
Noqual Material (+1 Damage vs undead and Constructs)
Undead bane +2 attack +2d6 damage
holy +2d6 damage

+1 Noqual Undead Bane holy War-hammer ~55,500 Gp
vs Undead +3 (1d8 + 4d6 +4) before adding any bonuses from your character

Other good Weapon Enchants
Disruption (undead must make a will save or be destroyed)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Lawful Neutral will still qualify for both.
The way iv run my green faith Fighter was to just take the Druid Weapon and Armor proficiency restrictions (with heavy armor) and played him as a sort of ranger druid type without spells, just the nature aspect.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

An immediate action though is an action that interrupts and stops all other actions until the immediate action is finished, an AoO is an immediate action but you can not have immediate actions interrupting immediate actions. Otherwise we plunge into chaos. lol. as that is how i understand it at least. I do not have any specific rules on hand to back me up just my understanding of how i think it works.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Line all the walls with a lead sheet, prevents scrying magic.
Magically treat all the walls to strengthen them.
Mummys mask AP has some descriptor text on the magic used on the flying pyramid to prevent teleportation and Scrying, its layering of a couple spells and then permanency. It is not technically allowed per the rules the the AP did it so it is a good place to start.
If you cant have a flying fortress, make an underground fortress.
Trap every entrance with a teleportaion circle into a death pit of despair.
Simulacrum everyone. Multiple times. they maintain your fortress.
Start work on making your army. Of adamantine Golems. And Cannon Golems.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

The thread that questioned it back in 2011 ended pretty quickly with everyone agreeing that the ability works as we have said it does.
Bards can make all Knowledge (everything) skill checks untrained against any DC.

This is why bringing it up again is a non issue, as it has been discussed already and a conclusion has been made previously, and a conclusion has been made again in the multiple pages of this thread. you just fail to see it or dislike the conclusion or actively want to cause problems and start arguments.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

So....

Currently everyone can make untrained Knowledge checks with a DC of 10 or less, the level 1 commoner can make an untrained Knowledge check (but will only succeed if the DC is 10 or less).

If you have a single point in the skill you can make trained knowledge checks and attempt to pass any DC.

"A bard adds half his class level (minimum 1) to all Knowledge skill checks and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained."

but wait we can already make untrained knowledge (all) checks we just couldn't get above DC 10..

to go by the OP and Cevah way would mean that the bolded section has no additional meaning and they just wasted word space to reiterate what they could have already done anyway.

instead it means we can make "all Knowledge skill checks" (those above DC 10) cause that was the limit before. we do not need to be trained to know stuff above DC 10 if we have bardic knowledge.

Cevah and OP are being intellectually dishonest to start a nonsensical discussion about a non issue. this is not the spirit of the rules forms and they are purposefully starting arguments for the sake of arguing.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Are you trying to tell me chain gauntlets don't exist in the game?

Because they'd be the gauntlets that are included with any standard set of chain mail, you know.

Just gauntlets, you're trying to make it seem as if they don't exist, now? And the only style of gauntlets is the ones that come with full plate? Because that's even more incredulous.

==Aelryinth

Everything i have been referencing is in regards to Full Plate and The Plate Gauntlets that come with full plate and/or the gauntlets that are on the weapon table. You came up with Chain gauntlets all on your own..

Now Chain gauntlets do exist but there are no rules for them in the rule books so we clearly cannot use them according to you and your previous statements.

Now ... We use an Adamantine Chain Shirt or Adamantine Chain Mail (same concept, chain links and all) as an improvised weapon to beat a creature with that has DR adamantine, are we able to get past its DR? now we use the same thing as an improvised thrown weapon against the same creature. Do we get through its DR?

Same thing in regards to hardness. What happens?

My bet is it gets past DR and gets past Hardness because Adamantine rules say so.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Yondu wrote:

Reading all the posts, I still need a clarification : If I use the arm of an adamantine golem to bash the head of a Stoneskin'd Magician, does it count as Adamantine or not ..... ????

No, because it's not an adamantine weapon. It's the arm of an adamantine golem, and by weight, mostly NOT adamantine.

It doesn't share any of the properties of adamantine (hardness, hp, etc), either. IT's a golem's arm.

==Aelryinth

So this is in the same regards as i couldn't pick up a severed human arm that has an adamantine gauntlet and Adamantine full plate still attached to it and use that to bypass DR Adamantine. Right?

Aelryinth wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
so i can take the individual pieces of adamantine full plate and use them as an improvised weapon to bypass DR but once i put a person in that full plate and start swinging that person around as an improvised weapon it no longer counts as adamantine for bypassing DR even though the striking surface and what you are actually getting hit with has not changed at all.
(Apart from there being MORE weight and force behind the blows. , that is ...

exactly. Because a silver tea set, a mithril BP and an adamantine crowbar are all made of special materials and are objects that can be made into improvised weapons.

A human fighter in adamantine armor is a mostly flesh and bone weapon with some metal wrapped around him. He's not an adamantine weapon by ANY stretch of the imagination.

==Aelryinth

Just want to make sure I'm getting your logic correct because it actually does not make any logical sense.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Silver fox = fox made of silver.

I see we are on the same page!

Golden Retriever = retriever made of gold!

Rosy complexion = complexion made of roses!

Bald eagle = eagle with a bald head!

Red Robin = a Robin that is Red!

Since you seem to be stuck on this...

If the fox and Retriever where both constructs then yes i would say the fox is made of silver and the dog is made of gold (and that said dog would retrieve things) in this case they are named as such because they are that color.

If i did not know better and had no other information to go on, i would say a bald eagle was in fact and eagle that happens to be bald, after all there are birds without feathers on their heads, looking at you vultures, but we know they are not because we have other sources to give us more info and we can go an observe these things.

A red robin is actually red...

But within the context of the game, constructs, and golems are named after the materials they are made of so my argument on this matter holds more water then yours does at this point.

Ohhhh, so now there's a trait for constructs that says they get DR Punch of the material they are made of!

Oh, wait, no, there isn't. I guess being a construct doesn't do what you say.

==Aelryinth

Within the context of this post you avoided and ignored what i was actually saying. I was merely pointing out your flawed argument on the naming scheme you tried so hard to disprove. I am a simple man and target one problem at a time.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Silver fox = fox made of silver.

I see we are on the same page!

Golden Retriever = retriever made of gold!

Rosy complexion = complexion made of roses!

Bald eagle = eagle with a bald head!

Red Robin = a Robin that is Red!

Since you seem to be stuck on this...

If the fox and Retriever where both constructs then yes i would say the fox is made of silver and the dog is made of gold (and that said dog would retrieve things) in this case they are named as such because they are that color.

If i did not know better and had no other information to go on, i would say a bald eagle was in fact and eagle that happens to be bald, after all there are birds without feathers on their heads, looking at you vultures, but we know they are not because we have other sources to give us more info and we can go an observe these things.

A red robin is actually red...

But within the context of the game, constructs, and golems are named after the materials they are made of so my argument on this matter holds more water then yours does at this point.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Oddman80 wrote:

I think what most people are upset with Aelryinth about, is his insistence that the ruling which says that an Adamantine Golem cannot bypass DR/Adamantine is RAW, while the ruling that is does bypass is just a house rule that conflicts with RAW. But there isnt enough actual RAW on the matter to make this claim.The rules on this are just flat out missing.

To make a ruling on this issue requires extrapolation - It required inference - It requires assumptions - It requires you make a house rule -REGARDLESS of which way you rule.

you beat me to it in a shorter sweeter way. Although i did try to hit on this a page or two ago.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

He cant deny some one else use of fluff and then use a different part of the fluff to back up his own claims. that's bad argumentation, and so far he has been arguing decently even though we disagree on this subject.

im trying to figure out his side of it but im having trouble.

It seems hes arguing from: If it is not stated in the rules and left ambiguous then you cant do it because it doesn't say you can do it. which i disagree with on a fundamental level.

This is a case of extremely hard RaW look and rules lawyering that just doesnt make sense.

As RaW a adamantine breast plate only imparts a DR-2. It does not ignore hardness or bypass DR if used as a weapon because it was not made as a weapon and is not a weapon according to the rules.

This is a strict reading of the rules.
It does not make sense though so we extrapolate that if the enemy has DR adamantine you must use anything made of adamantine to bypass DR, the breastplate is made of adamantine so it must bypass DR, after all its a blunt improvised weapon at this point...

Regardless of the fluff text and materials it said it used and the planet wide resource cost in the fluff. since fluff is not rules.
An adamantine golem from its name we can rightly assume it is made of adamantine it doesnt matter the anatomy or breakdown of how it is made and what makes it work.
adamantine golem = golem made of adamantine

The rules lack the text in both direction and you saying you cant do it is just as wrong as us saying we can do it if your basing your argument soloing on the lack of explicit rules.

this is not going to be FaQed or Errated because this is asinine.

The rules are ambiguous in thousands of areas and that we must come up with logical conclusions based off of other things.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

My fist by itself does not beat DR adamantine, but as soon as i put on a adamantine gauntlet it does beat DR adamantine.

The human fighter by itself does not beat DR adamantine when he is being used as an improvised weapon, but as soon as you put on adamantine armor (to cover the body parts that you are striking the target with) it does beat DR adamantine.

these 2 situations are identical, the only difference is the scale at which it is being applied to.

The materials do not magically lose their properties because of these odd situations.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
so i can take the individual pieces of adamantine full plate and use them as an improvised weapon to bypass DR but once i put a person in that full plate and start swinging that person around as an improvised weapon it no longer counts as adamantine for bypassing DR even though the striking surface and what you are actually getting hit with has not changed at all.
(Apart from there being MORE weight and force behind the blows. , that is ...

exactly. Because a silver tea set, a mithril BP and an adamantine crowbar are all made of special materials and are objects that can be made into improvised weapons.

A human fighter in adamantine armor is a mostly flesh and bone weapon with some metal wrapped around him. He's not an adamantine weapon by ANY stretch of the imagination.

==Aelryinth

Im sorry, im stuck on this one point now, that does not make any sense what so ever and i have a hard time believing you genuinely think that. at this point you are using the person in full plate as an improvised weapon. the body is merely the thing holding the full plate together, I could tie it together with a rope and achieve the same thing. the metal is still what is being used as the weapon, the body is just there, now if after awhile the metal parts started flying off and all i was left with was a person not in armor you couldnt bypass DR anymore because there is no more metal.

The same thing can be said about an animated adamantine full plate, in one state it is an object and can bypass DR, in the other state it is a creature and acroding to you can not bypass DR because creatures are not objects and so their qualities do not apply.

An adamantine Golem is just a much bigger, alot stronger, and more powerful version of an animated suit of adamantine full plate. at face value they are both constructs made of adamantine.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

so i can take the individual pieces of adamantine full plate and use them as an improvised weapon to bypass DR but once i put a person in that full plate and start swinging that person around as an improvised weapon it no longer counts as adamantine for bypassing DR even though the striking surface and what you are actually getting hit with has not changed at all.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Ah ok cool, was not aware of the Greater magic weapon nerf.

Back to golem counting as Adamantine.

So if a colossus creature picked up an Adamantine golem and started using it as a weapon like the halfling slinger barbarian archtype or what ever it was called. the golem wouldnt count as Adamantine for DR and hardness purposes?

I just don't see how because the material is now a creature somehow makes the properties of the material no longer relevant.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:


If your interpretation is true, they just shot themselves in the foot, because once again you don't need a +3-+5 weapon to bypass DR, you can GMW your +1 weapon with +4 of other extras on it, and we are right back to where we started. YAY, spellcasters rule again!

It doesn't work that way. That's all there is to it.

==Aelryinth

While i agree with you on the RaW on weapon enhancements i don't see how they would have shot themselves in the foot and we are right back to where we started with the other interpenetration. it would infact just be easier to bypass DR and you wouldn't need a special weapon for DRs.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

You guys are probably putting more thought and effort into figuring out the anatomy of the golem then the original creators did.

Without doing an autopsy of the golem and a breakdown or weights and materials used i would assume that an Adamantine golem would be made mostly of Adamantine. that is not an absurd assumption.

With that said. if said golem used part of his body (His body being made of Adamantine) to attack or damage something then the quality of the material that is striking said object would apply, in the case bypassing hardness less then 20 and overcoming DR Adamantine.

We can then take this and apply it to every other construct or golem made of materials.

Mithral Golem
Cold Iron Golem
Adamantine Cobra
Mithral Cobra
Cold Iron Cobra (Ironically this is the only construct explicitly states it overcomes cold iron DR.... but that seems to be a habit with cold iron Creatures and such in general as they all say explicitly that they overcome cold iron DR...)

Now even though it is not stated explicitly for all other special material constructs (cold Iron excluded) it is a logical assumption that they can over come the DR they are stated to be made of.

Or, you know, you can go by the rules, and only those creatures that have rules in place that state they can pass DR can actually do so.

Because creatures are not weapons or armor and don't follow the same rules.

I'm not saying you can't House Rule this if you think it makes sense...but if they can't punch DR, there's likely a reason why. They aren't weapons, they are creatures.

==Aelryinth

Again you are taking the absences of rules as a rule itself. just because it does not explicitly state that it does do that does not mean that it doesn't.

In the same regards just because it doesn't say it can does not mean it does. we came to the conclusion it does by a logical assumption that something made of Adamantine would count as Adamantine for the purposes of hardness and DR. does not matter if it is a creature or weapon or object the qualities of the material are still in effect and should apply regardless.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

You guys are probably putting more thought and effort into figuring out the anatomy of the golem then the original creators did.

Without doing an autopsy of the golem and a breakdown or weights and materials used i would assume that an Adamantine golem would be made mostly of Adamantine. that is not an absurd assumption.

With that said. if said golem used part of his body (His body being made of Adamantine) to attack or damage something then the quality of the material that is striking said object would apply, in the case bypassing hardness less then 20 and overcoming DR Adamantine.

We can then take this and apply it to every other conscturct or golem made of materials.

Mithral Golem
Cold Iron Golem
Adamantine Cobra
Mithral Cobra
Cold Iron Cobra (Ironically this is the only construct explicitly states it overcomes cold iron DR.... but that seems to be a habit with cold iron Creatures and such in general as they all say explicitly that they overcome cold iron DR...)

Now even though it is not stated explicitly for all other special material constructs (cold Iron excluded) it is a logical assumption that they can over come the DR they are stated to be made of.

Edit: To add
Lack of rules or absence of wording or clarification is not a rule in itself, just because it does not explicitly say it can do something does not mean that then the rule is that it cant possibly do that. It then comes down to reasonable conclusions that we can infer from the materials at hand.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I would argue as well that if you some how acquired a permanent demiplane from the spell "Create Demiplane" that you can then designate part of the plane as your safe house,

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:

Yeah, some sort of language that gives the shade a round of leniency (if the shade is beyond that distance at the start of its turn, it must move back within that range or dissipate) or allowing you to move the shade with you(whenever you move on your own, such as a five foot step, move action, charge and so on, you may move your shade the same distance in the same direction you moved) would be nice and I don't think overpowering.

As it stands a level 2 shadow caller loses its shade if it takes any kind of movement and that is really clunky.

You can still take movements.

If your shade is in the square directly north of you you can move 10ft north and still have the shade adjacent to you. You basically have to hop scotch with your shade to move and you are restricted to 10ft movements a round until you reach higher levels.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

A shadow caller's shade remains stable while adjacent to the shadow caller, or while up to 5 feet away from the shadow caller for every 5 levels the shadow caller possesses. (so this means at level 20 the shade can be 20ft away without issue) If the shade moves beyond this distance, it is automatically dismissed back to the Shadow Plane (preventing the shade from being summoned back for 24 hours) unless the shadow caller concentrates as per the etheric tether ability. However, if both the shadow caller and shade are in areas of total darkness, the shade can move any distance from the shadow caller. If the shade is beyond its maximum distance and enters an area of dim or brighter illumination, it immediately returns to the Shadow Plane and cannot be summoned for 24 hours.

This ability replaces etheric tether.

So you have to make sure you and the shade close by depending on your level, adjecnt for the first 4 levels then within 1 square for level 5-9 then 2 squares levels 10-14 etc, unless you spend a full round action concentrating. so wile spending that full round action you are allowed a 5 ft step. and the first few levels you have to stagger your movements so you are just 5 foot stepping as well.

I cannot remember if you can ready an action to do a full movement or not so you can remain adjacent.

As a Dm i would consider allowing simultaneous movement just for ease of use, but i do not believe there is anything wrong with how it is now, it restricts how far and fast you can move per round while having your shade out which i think is a feature not a bug in the system, even if i would house rule simultaneous movement. again
this has never came up and i would have to see it in action myself.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

On one side of the table we have the argument:

The act of screaming, the muscle tension, the breath exhalation, the clenching fists and all the other physical aspects your body undergoes when it screams is enough to suite the requirements to negate the penalties of the spell. This is what they have based the logic of this side of the arrangement on, and weather or not the scream can be heard or not is irrelevant as long as all those other physical actions have been taken (as that move action) that would normally produce a scream, then the spell penalties are negated.

The other side of the argument:

Regardless of the physical actions your body undergoes while producing a scream is relevant, it is the actual scream and that it is capable of being measured on some scale, that is the only way to meet the requirement of the spell.

The first argument is how a lot of people would rule it because that seems logical to most.

The second Argument is on the strict RaW side of things and looking for exact clauses, the spell says you must scream and make noise you have not met that requirement so you take penalties regardless of any attempt you have made

This ruling will change from table to table i seriously doubt any devs will weigh in on this

1 to 50 of 339 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>