As the title says. Please cancel both the order and my subscription to the AP line.
Search Posts
Getting this popup on a subscription order and I've no idea why. Can someone look into it here or contact me more directly with some expansion on what the problem is?
Hey guys. I noticed that I hadn't gotten my Hells Rebels 3, nor confirmation on Hells,Rebels 4 today. Looking at my account it looks like there was a payment issue on #4 (for some reason trying to default to an older card with no changes on my end), but I see nothing about Hells Rebels 3 being declined or any similar. Can anyone clue me in on this? Thanks.
As the title, please cancel my subscription. Thanks.
Energy Drain and Negative Levels Death Attack inflicting negative levels This subject came up this weekend. The party was setting up to fight a group of Bodaks, warding up with death ward, and were informed by the GM that his reading was that while Death Ward would provide a save bonus (against death attacks) and you would take no penalties from negative levels while it was active, Death Ward would not prevent you from picking up Bodak negative levels from their gaze. In effect, they could still kill you with enough failed saves, and when the death ward wore off you'd have the negative levels you picked up off of failed saves. I'm less interested in arguing the point with the GM, and more interested in whether this is (1) how others would read the rules, (2) whether it is the intended reading, or (3) whether it is simply an unintended side effect of the large nerfs that 3.5 era Death Ward got in Pathfinder. As has come up in the past, the negative levels / energy drain rules are all over the place as is. Any reading of what the CRB has to say vs. what the Bestiary says indicates that at some point there was a disconnect. Was this just another place that rules changes were not smooth / messy? Interested in opinions.
Overall I thought the movie was a little shakier than Fast 5, which was the high water mark for me in the series so far, but this was still a lot of fun. What I really appreciate is you can, as a gamer, view the series as the progression of characters from low levels to high levels, with increasingly grand actions and plots. And the ending. Man the ending. All the feels.
I'm sure I'm not the first with this thought, but I notice that the language of Arcane Apotheosis (of the Sorcerer Arcane Bloodline) is extremely none specific about type of item used. It occurs to me that in many ways, at higher levels (especially combined with things like Robes of Eldritch Heritage) you could use Arcane Apotheosis to power divine wands or staves pretty effectively. Any thoughts? Is the intent that a 20th level arcane bloodline sorcerer can power wands and staves with divine spells by expending spell slots?
Hey guys, can you cancel my current AP subscription? I'll be back around in a few months, but Iron Gods isn't my particular cup of tea. Thanks!
Simple question. RAW would seem to indicate that precise bombs applies only to splash inflicted by bombs, not to splash from items like alchemist fire, liquid ice, acid, ect. Is this a correct reading?
Kind of as the title says. There's a bit in Dead Heart of Xin (Pathfinder 66), but I was wondering if there was anything else in another title I might look at to find out more about how those virtues were defined and examined before they became the Sins the Runelords were so well known for. How were they represented and defined? For instance, was Love supposed to be romantic love? Was it the kind of free love of the 60s, or more traditional monogamy? That sort of thing.
I've kept tabs on AP's to one degree or another going back to RotRL, and own several in totality (and would love to pick up a couple of others). Right before Mummy's Mask started I went ahead and started a subscription, having really enjoyed reading through the last three (Shattered Star, Reign of Winter, and Wrath of the Righteous). The thing is, this AP just isn't doing it for me. It feels almost too safe after what a pair of both mechanically and conceptually ambitious APs (especially RoW with its world hoping, setting changes, ect). The adventures seem to trudge on and in many ways just feel like filler to set up the last chapter or two. At first I thought maybe it was simply the first chapter or too being slow to get going, but after going through three (and hearing from a friend with similar taste that chapter 4 is much of the same)... eh. The entire thing feels very safe, traditional, and almost as a bit of filler in many ways designed to let people cut their teeth (I'm told there are a number of new authors here) and placate people who were up in arms over the last two APs. I was wondering if anyone else got that feeling, or if I'm in the distinct minority on this one. What do you all thing? Good? Bad? Best in years?
Saw This Friday night. Absolutely fantastic. One of the better sci-fi movies I've seen, and not just recently or this year. I wouldn't put it in quite the work of art category, but it's worth seeing and seeing in theaters at that. Tom Cruise as usual puts on a good performance, Emily Blunt pulls off her role with surprising physically for an actress that has usually taken more subdued roles, and movie moves along at a great pace in spite of the time travel shenanigans. Good action, good humor, great monsters, solid plot, and for the most part it avoids jumping the shark. Ya'll should take a look.
I received a payment method declined for this, and I'm not really sure why. Further, when I've attempted to try the method again nothing has happened. Finally, I have no option to simply cancel the order and try and place it again. Is there any way you guys can manually rerun the payment method on it from your end, or provide any indication of why it isn't being accepted? It's the same card I've used for the vast majority of my payments with Paizo, and there absolutely is money in the account. Thanks.
This came up on another thread, but I haven't seen any commentary by a designer about it. The exact wording of the archmage path ability Mythic Spellpower is as follows: "You have a pool of magical power you can draw upon for casting mythic spells. Up to twice per day, you can use this power to cast a mythic spell without expending any uses of mythic power. You can select this ability up to three times; each time you do, you gain two additional uses of this ability per day." My reading was that it basically gave you two extra uses of mythic power that could only be used to power mythic spells, but I've seen several people suggest differently. They argue that what this means is that you can use Mythic Spellpower to pay for the entire cost of casting a mythic spell, even an augmented one, with a single use. For example, you could cast an cast an augmented mythic time stop (something normally requiring 4 uses of mythic power) by expending a single use of Mythic Spellpower. I'm curious as to which is the correct interpretation, because right now I can see a RAW / RAI argument for both. Any chance I can get some FAQ marks so we can get an official answer?
Reading through the playtest classes I'm struck by a couple things. First, the majority of the classes seem pretty freaking awesome. I'd really not expected much from this book, but it seems ready to throw my expectations on their head. Second, I'm not really sure why the multiclassing limitations were introduced (at least in the majority of cases). I can sort of see the argument with the bloodrager (adding in a dash of barbarian with rage powers might be over the top), but the majority of these classes seem like they wouldn't be unbalanced even if they multiclassed with their cousins. This is especially true in the case of something like Arcanist / wizard / sorcerer, which seems like it would end up flatly worse than the alternative. Anyway, this leaves me curious as to what the reasoning was behind the multiclassing limitations. Is it purely a flavor thing? Is there a balance concern I'm not seeing? Is it simply an attempt to nip a ton of potential balance problems in the bud? I don't expect an answer, but I'd love one. Very interested in what is going on inside those devious designer brains.
When paging through the copies of the Worldwound Incursion at my local bookstore yesterday I noticed something odd - they had the Pathfinder Journal portion and the city info printed twice, back to back (in a journal, city, journal, city pattern). The copies seemed completely identical. Was there a misprinting with some of these issues? Anyone else noticed this?
I'm curious about this item, which was reworked in Ultimate Equipment from its original version in the Advanced Players Guide. In the APG the Alchemist Kit was required to create bombs and such, costs 25gp, and weighed 5lbs Source In Ultimate Equipment the Alchemy Crafting Kit is mentioned as being the new name for the Alchemist Kit, costs 25gp, and weighs 50lbs. Source I'm curious as to which is the intended weight, and which is in error. My assumption is that the 5lb weight is correct, since 50lbs basically means an alchemist has to return to civilization to prepare extracts / bombs (or travel by wagon or with pack animals), but I'd love an official or semi-official answer. I know this came up on the Ultimate Equipment Errata thread, but I found no real answer there on this (rather than general discussion about small weight discrepancies on kits in general) there and nothing in the FAQ. Since this is an item that an alchemist pretty much has to have, I consider it a slightly larger deal than the few pounds of wiggle room in kits.
Alright, so the only text in which the idea of being limited to one spell per round appears in is in regards to quickened spells. It shows up both in the combat and magic sections, and reads as follows: "A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round." Now, this was something I'd never really noticed or played any attention to. It's a piece of text that goes back to at least 3.5 and seems to have been kind of a hanging commentary left over from an earlier rules draft. However, this came up during the Mythic Playtest, and JB had this to day: "There is some text, in the sections that talk about casting quickened or swift spells, that notes that you are limited to only casting one spell per round (calling such spells out as an exception). As of this time, lets stick with that rule and say that amazing initiative does not let you cast an extra spell. We can clarify the language to work that way it is intended later." Link So, here we are later. The rule for amazing initiative in the final release of the mythic rules has a specific exception barring it from being used for an extra spell per round. My question is, should this allusion to another rule (1 spell per round) be taken as an actual rule, or is it just extra text? Is the intention of the PF designers that things like Hero Points and Heroic Finale should not allow a spellcaster to cast more than 1 spell per round (barring quicken)? As a followup question, how does this 'rule' work with things like arcane surge, which take your swift action? Does this mean an arcane surging archmage can only cast one spell that round, since it takes his swift action and he isn't allowed to cast another spell except through the use of a swift action (quicken spell)? That seems like a kick in the quad. I'd love a Dev response or FAQ, as it's generated quite a discussion in my home game.
I'm curious, are there any items in pathfinder outside of a scarab of protection that can protect against negative levels and energy drain?
Let me preface this by saying that I'm aware that there is a prevailing theory on these boards (and others) that tends to argue that offense is defense. It is theory craft that applies in many games and many circumstances, but it isn't anything I'm interested in hearing about here. The nature of the game that I play in, the people I play with, and the overall tone of the game is such that while offense is important, defensive options have increasingly become important. Resurrection magic’s are rare, enemies are often nebulous and unclear until they make a move, and I’m relatively attached to a long term PC. Anyway, that said, I’m curious as to what people view as some of the best defensive items, especially the kind that are likely to be overlooked. The party just hit 15th level, and in the somewhat immediate future I should have something on the order of ~40-60k to spend in item purchases and crafting. This will mark by far the largest amount of cash on hand I've had to spend in the course of the game, and the first time in the last three years of play that I've had a chance to really customize magic item choices with crafting and purchases instead of relying heavily on items looted from enemies. I’m currently playing a 15th level arcane spellcaster (wizard). There are a few house rules in place, the most important of which in this circumstance is likely the bundling of all crafting feats into a singe feat that only provides a 25% discount on crafting items – instead half price. What this means is generally I can craft anything, but it costs a bit more. The following are my applicable defense stats: Defense
Applicable Items cloak of resistance +3, monk's belt, ring of evasion My largest concern is the low saves – especially the fortitude save – though the relatively low armor class has also bit me in the ass on occasion. I’m particularly interested in passive defenses, but active means that can be used as swift or immediate actions aren't terrible despite what is a relatively high drain on my action economy at present. While active defenses like mirror image can be great against a single target, they fall flat against larger groups which the party fights with some frequency or when we are unable to buff before the encounter begins (also a frequent problem). As an example of such, we’re in the process of cleaning up an encounter with ~50 or so martial attackers using javelins and blades, ~20 or so low level wizards using wands of magic missile and scorching ray (at caster level 9th and 7th respectively), ~15 assassins fighting under the cover of greater invisibility and mirror image, and one enemy wizard between level 11 and 14. In this encounter the party has been peppered with javelins for five or six rounds and tough enemy attack bonuses aren't great (probably somewhere in the +10-12 range) they’re sufficient to put on a lot of damage in the scene of things given the numbers deployed. While I don’t think there’s much hope of ever putting an AC out of range of high end attackers, it would be nice if I wasn't vulnerable to low end attrition. My current thoughts on spending are as follows: Upgrading the cloak of resistance to +5, snagging an amulet of natural armor (probably +2), and maybe snagging a luckblade for the 1/day reroll and +1 bonus on saves that stacks with the cloak. I’m interested if anyone has other thoughts on the matter, or if there are any obvious options I’ve overlooked. As it stands I've been using extended heroism spells to help make up some of the difference on saving throws, spamming shield spells to keep my AC a little more competitive, and leaning heavily on quickened mirror images. I'm curious as to what other people have come up with. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
So, looking at this spell (and its errata so you can't take 10) I'm left asking under what circumstances it is assumed a PC might cast it? High chance of a single poor roll taking you out of the game as a factor for weeks to months? That seems pretty harsh for a large chance of getting a lie as an answer. Is there something I'm missing here that redeems this spell in some way, because by my reading it isn't even ability drain or something similar that can be explicitly removed by restoration / heal / greater restoration / break enchantment. By a RAW reading there is literally no way to remove the penalties for the duration. Is that intended, or were there supposed to be ways of 'curing' casters afflicted by the spell outside of wish / miracle? Just wondering, because I can't ever see it being cast at any table I've been at.
1. Half-orcs. Why do half orcs get shorted race points relative to every other race? Couldn’t they get a bonus feat, bonus skill points, or something? Is there a reason this race has to be the worst in every edition of the game in the CRB? I’ll also chime in with the thought that their ability score bonuses are terrible. +2 Str, -2 any mental, +2 any other might solve both problems. 2. Why do oracles receive a bad fortitude save? We are talking about a class that is already hands down worse than a cleric. Bad spell progression (sorcerer), few spells known despite the divine list, worse primary casting score, and just for giggles lets gimp their fortitude saves. What the hell? 3. Why do witches get the short end of the stick with regard to spells per day compared to literally ever single primary caster in the game? Why don’t they get patron spells like clerics get domain spells? Wouldn’t that make sense, and actually create a reason to possibly take some of the awful patrons that add to the witch list 7 or 8 spells already on the witch list? Come on now. Also, why are they shorted things like lesser restoration, beast form, and other iconic witch powers? I don’t understand the reasoning behind most of the witch list, but they honestly feel like the worst primary caster around. 4. Why must multiclass spellcasters be terrible? This one goes back to 3.5, but really, it’s impossible to play a truly multiclassed spellcaster without it being flat out worse than any single classed character – or any multiclassed martial character. You add options that are ineffective, while splitting ability scores, wealth, and feats between multiple focuses. Awful. On top of that you fall behind in caster level (which weakens even utility magic), spells per day, and spell level available. Awful. Why has there been no attempt to fix this, or even make it remotely playable. I understand wanting pure 1-20 builds in a single class to be attractive, but making other concepts unplayable is a terrible way to do it. 5. Lets talk about cross-blooded. Seems like an awesome cool archtype, until you realize you fall two full levels behind clerics, wizards, and witchs in spell access, and a full level behind oracles and other sorcerers at well. Congrats, you get your first 6th level spell when wizards have had 7th for a level and sorcerers have had 6th for a level. Have fun with that. You also eat it on will saves. The good news, you get an extra bloodline arcane, one extra class skill, and an expanded group of options for feats and bloodline abilities (though not more actual feats or abilities). This seems like a terrible trade for 9 spells known and -2 will, even before you take into consideration that the 9 lost spells are often your only spells of a given level. A 14th level crossblooded sorcerer knowns 2 6th level spells and 0 7th. A 16th level crossblooded sorcerer knows 3 and two respectively (and no 8th). That sounds like twelve kinds of fun. 6. Why is the human favorite class option for the oracle and sorcerer flat out better than every other? I happen to think it’s a good option that adds a lot of flexibility to the classes, but I lament that only a single race has the option. Seems like everyone else gets the short end of the stick. 7. Why did we change save or die spells from ‘everyone save or die’ to ‘PCs save or die?’ These spells are unlikely to one shot any appropriate CR opponent, but are likely to kill PCs (especially those most subject to them). Who thought that was a good change to make? It’s like the designers were halfway towards making them more fun at tables, then abruptly stopped. 8. Why did we fold together move silently and stealth, listen, search and spot, gather information and diplomacy, and tumble and jump, but not swim, jump, and climb? It’s like someone decided “lets make the most popular and used skills easier to get, but keep the less frequently used skills as stand alones. Seriously, this one baffles me on so many levels. 9. Why are the flames, stone, waves, and wind final revelations for the oracle so bad? In all honesty, the moment I saw these I felt I must have read something wrong. I know myself and others gave feedback on this problem during the playtest, so I’m curious as to what the thought process was on keeping them as is. How do these options meaningfully affect the game in the same way as any other class’ capstone? 10. Why do Sorcerers get their capstone 4 levels before everyone else via Robes of Arcane Heritage? I don’t necessarily think the option is overpowered (especially given the fact that they are still a level behind every other core caster in spell access for an unknown reason), but I’m curious as to why they got special treatment compared to everyone else. 11. How do designers think rings of revelation are likely to be encountered in the game? The incredibly specific limitations on their uses (have to be an oracle, have to have the proper revelations, have to be the proper level) seem designed as a giant screw you. That they also sit outside of use magic device also vexes me. 12. Why do transmuters get nicer things than other wizards? Annihilation spec’s seem like one of the hands down best pieces of wizard gear ever published. Why don’t other specializations get similarly nice things? Again, this isn’t so much a matter of OP, as it is favoring certain builds that are already quite powerful. 13. Why did Paizo make an effort to reduce save or die / save or suck spells, then begin adding options for them that are really powerful such as persistent spell in later books? 14. Why are so many bloodline abilities and arcanas so bad? I’m looking at you Starsoul sorcerer with your dazzled (-1 attacks and perception) on a failed save arcane. 15. Why was the SLA option for summoners in the APG beta removed and replaced in UM with a terrible limitied choice SLA option instead? Is there a reason the skill / spellcaster option was removed from the summoner in place of a one size fits all melee brute selection? I recall a bit of outcry over wish and limited wish with the ability (which required the investment of virtually all evolution points), but was every other option so strong as to require a complete removal? 16. As touched on above, why do so many witch patrons grant spells that are already on the witch list? Is this just oversight by developers or is there some secret benefit I’m missing? Portents – REALLY? 8 out of 9 already on the list? How is that not a waste of space? To be clear, I'm not looking for responses that say "house rule if you have a problem". That's been done in most games I play in. I am simply curious as to why certain rules were done they way they were.
So, apparently the mythic playtest ended like two months ago, without any fan fair or announcement here. No doubt many noticed the complete lack of developer feedback in some time, but I suspect fewer noticed the last line of the product description here. Yeah... Sort of bummed that I've been wasting my time talking to a wall, when a simple post tagged at the top of the mythic playtest forums might have made it clear. Anyway, that was fun (sort of).
On The Concept
I think design and implementation of mythic would be much easier and more rewarding if instead of 1 tier = 1 level design changed to 2 tiers = 1 level. Instead of trying to cram in ten levels of extra power in the system, fit in 5. You are closing a much smaller gap in terms of numbers, and it allows you to focus less on increasing raw power. Mythic Power
The current pure tier formula doesn't work, because it does not acknowledge the assumed increased staying power of higher level characters (who gain mythic late in their career). A 14th level character who gains 3 mythic tiers needs to gain more than a 6th level character out of those same 3 mythic tiers. There is nothing a 14th level character with 6 mythic points is going to be able to do that will make it the equal of a 17th level character in terms of resources, raw power, and options. Whether or not the same can be said with 20 some uses of mythic power or not I can't be certain, but certainly the contest must be closer. Surge
Ability Scores
My suggestion would be to either axe ability score increases or to make them more universal (leaning on the later). Make it a +1 bonus to each ability score instead of +2 to one, or something similar. Hard to Kill
Mythic Flaws
Really, flaws present an interesting set of optional rules for a game, but they need a lot of work. They are not all balanced with each other – and I think that's something that can be used if they are an optional addition. Embrace that they aren't unbalanced, and use that to provide scaling benefits for those who choose them. My preference would be more mythic uses per day/encounter or being treated as a higher mythic tier. A larger pool that shows some more diversity would also be awesome. Include things that are not strictly combat based flaws. Amazing Initiative
Recuperation
Mythic Saves
Force of Will
Unstoppable
Immortal
Legendary Hero
Next up, some mythic feat discussion.
First Mythic Encounter PCs are located here. They are Level 14-15 / Mythic 1. Last night we played through our first mythic encounter - that is encounter against a mythic opponent. The opponent was a 15th or 16th level monk built with a high point buy, a single mythic tier, and a collection of active buff (because he ambushed the party). He was supported by a collection of level 1 or 2 mooks that shared his appearance, adding to confusion early in the fight. Over the course of approximately six rounds the party demolished a couple dozen mooks and were eventually able to overcome their opponent. Though the opponent was specialized for grapple - and was quite successful against the two handed fighter - our sword and board's anti-grapple specializations made him a nightmare for the opponent. The details of the fight are fairly tedious, but I reached the following initial conclusions about mythic. 1. Fleet charge is brokenly good for NPCs and PCs because it allows them to full attack every single round. The damage per round output increase for our fighters was comical compared to their pre-mythic selves. Even against an opponent with an AC in excess of 43 they dealt somewhere near or around 500 damage in the course of two or three rounds. 2. Fleet charge is brokenly good because it allows PCs and NPCs to full attack characters that go out of their way to avoid getting full attacked - like casters. Given that a full attack is generally enough to outright kill a caster this seems problematic. In the past my wizard has been pretty good at keeping a party fighter or other barrier between hard hitting melee characters and herself. Last night had our opponent desired her head I don't know that I could have stopped it short of outright fleeing (and perhaps not even then). 3. NPC opponents with mythic tiers have the power of those tiers exaggerated by the fact that they can and should burn every available mythic point as quickly as possible. Having them draw from the same size daily pool as a character who may fight through 4 or more encounters a day. While one could argue that the same is true of other characters with limited use abilities such as spellcasters or maguses, I would argue that the effect is exaggerated by the ability to burn multiple mythic points a round. 4. Martial characters have plenty of methods of shutting down old spellcaster escape tricks (like dimension door) but there are virtually no additions to caster survivability - which seems problematic. 5. The hit point bonuses provided by mythic tiers don't seem particularly meaningful. Certainly not on par with the vast increases on damage provided.
This ability caused some confusion at the table last weekend. The base ability granted - going without sleep, food, water - is fine, but the recharge is unclear in its effects on characters that prepare spells and is enormously powerful on sorcerers and oracles. First, to the ambiguity. It is unclear whether it recharges expended spells on a prepared caster (e.g. refreshes everything they prepared that morning), refreshes expended slots and allows them to instant reprepare spells (e.g. pick new spells that instantly fill slots), or refreshes expended slots but still requires prepared casters reprepare spells (taking 1 hour). This same problem is present in the 3rd Tier ability recuperation. It specifies that expending a mythic point and resting for 1 hour lets you regain uses of spells per day, but does not specify how this interacts with prepared casters. Are their spell slots instantly refilled, are they allowed to pick new spells, or are they forced to pick new spells and take the time to do so? As to the power of the ability - it effectively allowed the party sorcerer to expend every single high level spell slot he had early in the adventure without any fear of running out of spells - since he could immediately after the combat in which he ran out recharge his entire selection of spells. Part of the problem in this case may have been the application of a single mythic tier to a party of 14th level characters - it extended his already vast resources while not bestowing the same flexibility on other casters they might normally have by high levels in the form of recuperation. In any case, even if the ability receives no balance tweaks it needs to have the language cleaned up.
I've got an idea for this monster based loosely on Spiderman's Venom. It'll be a symbolic creature and will bond to the first creature it interacts with (likely the party fighter). He'll get a difficult reflex save against it, but if he fails it will take over his body. At that point a few things will happen. -It'll give its host a large boost to natural armor, damage reduction, strength, and con.
The creature will resist any attempt to remove it from its host (by strength checks or anything similar), attacking with the tentacles. If the party resorts to attempting to subdue the host by any other means (lethal attacks, nonlethal, spells) it will seize control of its host and use him to kill those attacking to the best of its ability. It will use the fighter's full attack routine and its natural attacks. Thinking I might allow opposed strength checks each round by the fighter to limit the creature's attacks (unless attacked). What do you guys think? Is using a reflex save legitimate for a creature that takes over the hosts body and forces him to strike as it desires ok?
What was the thinking on this? A capstone that lets you become utterly undetectable for 20 rounds while dealing 10 points of ability score penalty with each sneak attack? Ignoring the insanity that is invisibility that cannot be penetrated even by the most powerful divinations in the game, is opening combat with ten points of ability damage to a fighters strength, dexterity, and constitution even remotely reasonable? How about a caster who now has anything allowing a save out the window, no way to detect the attacker, and is probably buried under his/her gear because of encumbrance? I don't see how a party of, say 16th or 17th level, is supposed to do anything when confronted by this except A. Waste actions trying to beat invisibility with true seeing, sucking sneak attacks all the while, or B. Run like scared children. Am I the only one looking at 10 points of ability damage AND unbeatable invisibility and shaking his head?
How do most perceive these two interacting, particularly in relation to the Dragon Disciple's blood of dragons ability and the entry requirement that demands you have the draconic bloodline. Are you not qualified to enter the class because you are crossblooded (even if draconic is one of your two)? How about in relation to how it specifies you continue to gain bonus spells from the bloodline? Would you read this interpretation to mean that he would be required to take draconic bloodline spells for those levels? Are there any other interactions I'm missing that need to be examined further? My reading tends toward allowing you to take the class with crossblooded, and allowing you to continue to choose which bloodline powers you want at a given level (e.g. you could choose from either bloodline).
How do they interact? Do they boost both bloodlines? Neither? Take for instance, a 16th level Crossblooded Arcane and Dragon blooded sorcerer. Does he get Arcane Apotheosis and Power of Wyrms? Or does he have to choose? Would two items each granting the benefit to one bloodline let him get both, or either? Interested in a rulig and in the opinions of other posters.
I was discussing some monster design with my DM the other day, relating to some foes the party has fought in the last month, and I asserted that most people would probably CR the last couple foes higher than he did. We aren't arguing by any means (don't feel like you are jumping in the middle of the DM/Player dispute) but we're curious as to what others think. Anyway, where would you place the CR of these two monsters? Advanced elite devourer NE Large Undead
AC 40 (+4 armor, +7 Dex, +1 dodge, +15 natural, +4 shield*, -1 size) touch 17, flat-footed 32, combat 37
Speed 30 ft.; fly 20 ft. (perfect)
Abilities Str 34, Dex 24, Con -, Int 23, Wis 22, Cha 29
_____________________________________________________________ Devour Soul (Su) By making a touch attack as a standard action, Rakis-Ka can deal 12d6+20 points of damage as if using a slay living spell. A DC 28 Fortitude save reduces this damage to 3d6+20. The soul of a creature slain by this attack becomes trapped within the devourer's chest. The creature cannot be brought back to life until the devourer's destruction (or a spell deflection—see below) releases its soul. A devourer can hold only one soul at a time. The trapped essence provides a devourer with 5 essence points for each Hit Die possessed by the soul. A devourer must expend essence points when it uses a spell-like ability equal to the spell's level (for sake of ease, spell levels for its spell-like abilities are included in its stats in superscript). At the start of an encounter, a devourer generally has 11 essence points available. The trapped essence gains one permanent negative level for every 5 points of essence drained—these negative levels remain if the creature is brought back to life (but they do not stack with any negative levels imparted by being brought back to life). A soul that is completely consumed may only be restored to life by a miracle or wish. The save DC is Charisma-based. Spell Deflection (Su) If any of the following spells are cast at the devourer and overcome its spell resistance, they instead affect a devoured soul: banishment, chaos hammer, confusion, crushing despair, detect thoughts, dispel evil, dominate person, fear, geas/quest, holy word, hypnotism, imprisonment, magic jar, maze, suggestion, trap the soul, or any form of charm or compulsion. While none of these effects harms the soul, the caster makes a DC 28 caster level check when a spell is deflected—success indicates that the trapped soul is released from its prison and the creature whose body it belonged to can now be restored to life as normal. Contingency When Rakis-Ka is reduced to 100 hp, a harm spell activates on his person, and his DR changes to 15/good and adamantine as he takes his true form. Advanced giant brain collector sorcerer 4 CE Huge Aberration (Incorporeal)
AC 35, touch 26, flat footed 35, combat 58
Speed 40 ft., fly 40 ft. (perfect)
Sorcerer Spells Known (Caster level 12th, Concentration +22)
Spell-like Abilities (Caster level 18th, Concentration +28)
Abilities Str 39, Dex 25, Con 28, Int 20, Wis 21, Cha 22
Extract Brain (Su): Will DC 26, full round action every 1d4 rounds. A creature must be within reach of the brain collector's tentacles for this to function. Success deals 1d6 damage and stunned for 1 round. Failure deals 10 Constitution damage and 10 Intelligence damage. A creature slain by this attack has their brain drawn into the neh-thalggu's brain sacs.
Neh-thalggu can augment their powers known list by extracting the brains of psionic and spell-casting creatures. Neh-thalggu can access any power known, spell prepared or spell known from a brain they hold in their sacs. The creature can then manifest them (even spells) with its power points. It can make use of any metamagic or psionics possessed by its brains as well. It is capable of using its power points to fuel metamagic without increasing the spell's level. It pays a number of points equal to what manifesting a power of the metamagic's increase would cost. Multistrike (Ex) A neh-thalggu can strike every opponent within reach with its tentacles. Poison (Ex): Injury, Fort DC 29, 1d2 Str and staggered, (6); cure 2 consecutive saves Incorporeal: A neh-thalggu is treated as incorporeal in all ways, but keeps its Strength score and natural armor (which functions against both incorporeal and touch attacks). Although a physical and solid creature, it remains slightly in sync with multiple dimensions, never fully existing in a single one at a given moment. Ability Drain Fort DC 26 reduces to damage
Some debate has arisen among my group relating to the following line from Summon Monster I "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities." Some have interpreted this as prohibiting summoned creatures from being teleported or transported extradimensionally by a caster (that is to say, I try to dimensional step my summoned creature with me), while others have insisted that it applies only to a summoned creature's own teleportation abilities. Anyone have a clarifying ruling on the matter?
Long drawn out set up in a combat all leads up to the following: we have a PC attempt to grapple a monster that is under the effect of freedom of movement (that we don't know about). DM has the creature "bluff" us into thinking it is grappled to lure us close, but the creature doesn't take any penalty to AC or suffer any limitations on spellcasting. What are various people's thoughts on this? I'm not asking people to say the DM is wrong, I'm just curious as to how other DMs would interpret the ability to do something like this in their own games? For my part I didn't really like it, since my interpretation of freedom of movement has always been that attempts at a grapple autofail, in the sense that your attempts to grab the other guy just fail outright, and that with that in mind I wouldn't let you fake being grappled while suffering no penalties using the spell. DM said it should have been obvious that there was something wrong since it was still throwing spells at us even when "grappled", while I didn't really feel that way (assumed it was using still spell/psionics). Anyway, thoughts?
Am I really the only person that has feelings on this matter?
The original summoning abilities granted by the summoner class were good. Very, very good. Summoning spells that lasted for minutes, took only a round to cast, and which you get in numbers superior to other spellcasters. Quite the potent combination. The response to that combination was easily foreseen. People freaked out, as they usually do whenever any powerful combination is put into play. They ran screaming up and down the boards about how overpowered the class was, how it broke the game, how it turned encounters into pushovers, and how as a result the sky was falling. I'll be blunt, in my work with the class I saw none of these things. I've never seen any spellcaster (ans the summoner is a spellcaster) willing to nova out his resources when he wasn't sure a fight would be forthcoming, yet this was exactly the doomsday situation that others cried about. It is the same problem that many people have with spellcasting classes on the whole. This "if they" argument, is based on the idea of spellcasters burning through vast numbers of resources under ideal circumstances. "If they have multiple rounds to prepare for a fight, and if they cast all their spells before hand, and if they then charge through every room and the foes don't just withdraw until the spells expire, then a spellcaster can 'win' Pathfinder". I didn't buy the argument when applied to spellcasters, and don't buy it when applied to this class. That said, the summoning abilities, combined with a fairly powerful spell list, and a powerful summoned creature might be too much. It is certainly too much as far as the usual (and vocal) chicken little crowd is concerned, and we've all seen how effective they can be at making their position appear to be that of the majority. See what happened to D&D when it became 4E (and the huge success of Pathfinder with the masses who were disgruntled with 4E) if you don't believe me. In the interest of seeing this ability and class remain useful (e.g. not nerfed into obscurity) I humbly offer this compromise on the summoning abilities. Most people have suggested giving up the minute duration summons and retaining the ability to summon more than one creature, and to summon them each as a standard action. This is, on the whole, a fair compromise, and those screaming about how the problem is multi-minute duration summons should have no objection to it. Unfortunately, there is a problem with this, in that it renders summoning for the first several levels (call it 1-3 conservatively) virtually useless for a class themed on summoning. My solution would be to let them add their charisma modifier in rounds to the duration of their summoning spells at first level. The net result would be standard action summoning, not limited to a single creature, with a duration of 1 round/level + summoners charisma modifier.
I love the work done on the Paladin in Pathfinder, the knight in shining armor finally serving as a real knight in shining armor and serious threat to evil foes. There is however one point in the new rules that seems... odd. The Paladin Capstone, Holy Champion, lets a Paladin that is smiting an evil outsider to subject them to a banishment effect that ends the smite upon its resolution. This is pretty cool... except per the wording they have to always banish, and thus end their smite, which is less cool. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the Paladin the option of smiting or banishing? Further, there is no note as to what happens if you are on another plane, for example, the fiend in question's home plane. Perhaps this could be clarified on the errata? It seems kind of odd that a 19th level Paladin is better in a slug fest with a powerful evil outsider than a 20th+ level Paladin.
Just as a thought to the Paizo guys - why is Solid Fog still a 4th level spell? It's almost completely worthless now. No longer meaningfully slows opponents and means you can't attack them at a range as they try to get through. Why is it still level 4?
Looking for players interested in a Pathfinder Beta game every Saturday night running from 6pm-11pm EST. Currently 8th level running through the Savage Tide Adventure Path (Currently The Sea Wyvern's Wake). We play using mIRC (free program) and Maptool. Please post if interested.
Hey guys, one of the games I'm in - this one on Friday Nights running from 5pm until 10pm (EST) is short a couple of players (actually down to two players). We are currently running through a slightly modified version of the STAP currently running through the Sea Wyvern's Wake. Our attempts to recruit additional players have proved frustrating, so I'm expanding the search here. Ideally we are looking for 1-2 players who can commit to showing up. Currently the "party" falls between 7th and 8th level. We are currently using the Pathfinder Beta rules. The party consists of a Human Rogue/Wizard and a Half-Elf Fighter. The game has proved to be pretty heavy on the roleplaying, with extensive NPC relationships developing, so if you're looking for nothing but a hacker and slasher you may be disappointed. That isn't to say there hasn't been extensive combat in the game though. For those interested in joining up you can register and post here indicating your interest. Alternatively if you'd rather know more about the game this link will take you to the board devoted to it which includes full game logs. As I said above, we play from 5pm - 10pm Eastern Time on Friday nights. We play using mIRC as our medium and maptool for combats. Both programs are free. Hope to get some interest.
I'm irritated that the costs for spellbooks have remained as absurdly high as they were in 3.5. I'm similarly annoyed that scribing a spell off a scroll renders the scroll useless. I've got a 6th level wizard going in a game at the moment that just got to spend close to half of his total wealth on buying scrolls then scribing the handful of spells into his spellbook. The double tap on it is what really gets me. Either it should cost 100gp per page with the scroll retaining it's power, or the scroll should be rendered worthless but the scribing should remain the same. I know, this is a small issue to many people, and some view it as the balancing of the wizard, but really, at present it is just annoying and further screws the wizard if he loses his spellbook somehow. You cannot simultaneously rant about how a wizard's strength is his versatility and punish him (severely!) at lower levels for playing to it. Anyway, that's just my two cents on the issue. Get rid of scrolls becoming worthless after scribing, or get rid of the stupid "special incredibly expensive ink" line. |