Search Posts
Fair points. Having a flying mount will be fun for a while. And as long as I'm 80' off the ground, I can shadowjump down off of it. :) All that said, maybe a straight Rogue 1/Ranger 16 is the easist build (and keeps my flying mount tenable). The barbarian levels actually sync nicely with the shadowdancer uncanny dodge bump, and get rid of the repetitive Ranger abilities. How many favoured enemies do you need? :) As for the other ranger abilities like camofluage etc, the shadowdancer gets hide in plain sight. So it's simply better, faster. All that said, I know it's a dog's breakfast, but it's not wholly illogical which is why I'm toying with it still.
Okay...I'm reading all your comments. The direction I'm leaning is this: Rogue (1)
Sub-optimal perhaps, but flavourful. So if you can still help me despite the dogs-breakfast of multiclassing, I need your help on CORE ONLY Feats. My focus(es) are...
In short: dex based feats that will help in combat/archery. The feats I already have in mind are: PBS, Precise Shot, Weapon Finesse, Sable Company Marine. Any other dex based feats to help my sneaky/dexterous archer/shadowjumper?
Let's assume that these are my first seven levels: Rogue (trap finding is what is needed here)
etc.. So the build I'm going for is sneaky, flying mounted (sometimes)... AND I want to go melee rather than ranged. What's next? Do I prestige into Duelist?
We're looking at 16 levels.
Core Only. :(
Hey everyone, I'm playing a core game and my party needs a rogue. And I want to play a rogue. But I know it's a bit of a weak class. I want to make my rogue memorable and handy in a fight. So: how do I build a great rouge/fighter (using Core only) and should I prestige into Shadowdancer or Duelist? Using 20 point build. Any and all input welcome. If you know if a thread/link that already address this issue, please point me to it! Thanks.
That's an interesting build! The reason I want Arcane Archer is just to do something different. Also, I like the idea of firing off an antimagic field at the foe. :) One point of clarification for me: I thought Arcane Archer was Charisma dependent for DCs. It's not. So I might just go Wizard-build vs. Sorcerer-Build. :)
I'm considering two builds for my core Arcane Archer. Please help me decide which one's better. Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight 3/ Arcane Archer 3/ Eldritch Knight 2
Fighter 1/ Sorcerer 6/ Eldritch Knight 2/ Arcane Archer 4 etc.
So which is worse: Is Multi-Ability Dependency OR slower BAB slower spell access? Once I have that figured out, I can tinker some more.
Hey everyone, I'm hoping to get to New York City this summer. I'm looking for two things: 1) How do I find all the PFS games in NYC?
Any and all suggestions are welcome and appreciated! Thanks.
You've nailed it Murdock. The Samurai has such flavour. But it's woefully under-represented (even comapred to the Cavalier). The fact Monstrous Mount opens up the door to such cool creatures...but keeps the door closed to a mundane beast like a tiger... Again, I weep. And if I'm not mistaken, Tigers can be purchased as riding animals in the Animal Archive...so what gives? Give us a feat like this: Exotic Mount: "You are permitted to purchase any mount listed on page XXXX of the Animal Archive that is listed as a riding animal. This feature alters the Samurai "Mount" Feature."
A Samurai that can ride a tiger mount WITHOUT having to be a Cavalier Beast Rider that is "reflavoured" as a Samurai... I can't believe with all the sourcebooks in Pathfinder, such a simple request isn't legal for the oft-ignored and under-sourced Samurai class. I weep silently, Paizo mocks me from afar...
That's what I figured. Now the problem gets more complex: My player wants to take a warpriest with the Sacred Weapon choice of "natural weapon". So, it appears my player is using the category of "natural weapon" as though it was equivalent to all natural weapons being one type of weapon. In short: if my player's warpriest wants to make "natural weapon" his Sacred Weapon, he needs to choose either claw or bite at level 1, right?
Hey everyone, If my character can attack with two claws and one bite, does "weapon focus" cover all three natural attacks, or must I take "weapon focus: Claw" and "weapon focus: Bite" separately? I can't find a citation that indicates that each different type of natural attack requires a separate weapon focus feat. Please advise.
Hi Mr. Jacobs, I've been researching the relationship between magic enhancement bonuses and overcoming DR. My question: what is the cosmological reason for why magic bonuses overcome DR for specific materials? That is:
Why in this order? Note: I read an article from 1977 (The Dragon Magazine Volume 1, Number 8) by Gary Gygax arguing that there was a relationship between a creature existing on varying planes simultaneously and the magical bonuses needed for cutting through that number of planes (so a +5 would cut through five planes of existence, thus touch all of the creature that exists contemporaneously on 5 planes). Is any of this true in Pathfinder still?
Hi Mr. Compton, I've been researching the relationship between magic enhancement bonuses and overcoming DR. My question: what is the cosmological reason for why magic bonuses overcome DR for specific materials? That is:
Why in this order? Note: I read an article from 1977 (The Dragon Magazine Volume 1, Number 8) by Gary Gygax arguing that there was a relationship between a creature existing on varying planes simultaneously and the magical bonuses needed for cutting through that number of planes (so a +5 would cut through five planes of existence, thus touch all of the creature that exists contemporaneously on 5 planes). Is any of this true in Pathfinder still?
You could even do that across a couple sittings, as long as those characters aren't used for another scenario in between. Ahhh! Okay. I was misreading it. Thank you. This clarifies the situation. Thank you both.
Hi everyone. I'm trying to get my new players to become GMs. My strategy is to give them each a section of a multi-stage PFS sanctioned "Quest". That way, they have a short reading and a short time behind the GM screen. My question: is it PFS legal for me to have GMs/Players rotate at the same table, doing the same Quest? Thanks in advance for your insight.
2) PC says, "Nope' and walks through as though it were nothing. I think we agree on most of these points: a) As long as the PC is spending the time to interact, then reasonable allowances for disbelief could be made.b) Indeed, depending on the sort of talking the PC was doing with the guard. If they were just shouting at the guard, it might not work. Trying to interact (key word!) with the guard through conversation, then...that would count. Note also: imagine my wizard tries to hide his fellow PC in an illusory box. The poor PC in the illusory box would have to touch the box etc (interact/move action) before the disbelieve Will save could be done. If the PC wished to stay in the box and use it as cover while firing his arrows through the box, he'd have to successfully disbelieve the illusion with a will save. If he failed the Will Save, he couldn't see through the illusion. He could fire through total concealment, and then disbelieve, according to our discussion. What a mess illusions can be!
Not so. If they saw an illusion of a guard standing still, they might try talking to the guard. That's an interaction. If they decided to sneak past the guard, that's not an interaction (as noted in those articles I linked).
I don't know. They what's the point in the saving throw to disbelieve? I suppose as long as the player isn't doing it instantaneously (that is, as long as they're spending time to attack/inspect) then, sure. But it has to eat up time/actions so that the illusion isn't simply disregarded.example:
That certainly wouldn't make sense.
Okay! No problem. But the PC must spent the requisite time interacting with it. Then yes. But it's not automatic. there must be some action used that shows meaningful interaction and thoughtfulness is taking place.
The player IS in charge of the character, but they have to follow the rules as written around illusions. As I'm starting to see, interaction and disbelief isn't only about the saving throw, it's about time spent and actions spent. As long as the PC isn't simply ignoring the illusion out-of-hand, then I think reasonable accommodations can be made by GM and PC alike. Also, asking the PC, "Why would your character do that?" is wholly fair. "I'm just feeling like shooting at a wall/waling into walls for fun." Doesn't make a lot of sense. Saying a player can do anything they want as a way of getting around a sensible/reasonable rule is where the game gets silly and unfair to the illusionist. The PC must have a reason for being suspicious that there's an illusion in play before they just start firing at walls or walking into them.
Indeed. But even if they assume it's an illusion they still can't tell on their own that's its real or not unless they interact with it. They can't auto disbelieve. They still have to make a saving throw even if they have a hunch it's an illusion. And if they fail the saving throw, they have to assume it's real.
I've had rogues who buy chalk, and draw it down the wall in dungeons, both to prevent getting lost/backtracked, and because they will find a fake wall when their hand goes through it instead of drawing a line.But why are they drawing a line right up to the wall? :)And if they did, they'd still have to roll to disbelieve their senses because they have minds that can be fooled. If they failed their save, they'd think, "that was weird, I'm losing my mind" not, "It's an illusion!" because that would mean they're getting the benefit of a successful save instead of a failed one. Absolutely! Now that I know that there would be 100% constant contact with the wall, that's different. I thought the PCs were drawing on the floor for some reason and came to a wall and tried drawing through the wall. Apologies.
Also, hitting an illusion would automatically disprove the illusion, but illusions have AC, so you have to hit the AC of the illusion or else you'd fail to disbelieve.Does shooting an arrow through the illusory wall not count as hitting it? Does the archer have to specifically test the wall with an arrow instead? Even with that, that is still the exact outcome I described before. Archer shoots the wall (instead of at a square he thought an enemy was at) and thus succeeds in automatically disproving the illusion. Wall has what, a whopping 10 - (Size mod), I think he'll hit it. If the Archer is told, "hey it's an illusion" the archer would have to spend some sort of action to disbelieve but would get the +4 benefit to the saving throw. Upon spending the appropriate action (move action? Not sure...) they succeeded in their saving throw, the figment would become a translucent outline and the archer would fire through unhindered. If the archer was not told it was an illusion the archer would have to interact to disbelieve. Just firing an arrow at it would imply the archer already disbelieves before interaction. So, they'd have to spend an action to disbelieve. If they failed the save, they'd think it's real. If they were ornery, they could fire at the "wall" (a strange thing to do to a wall they believe is real! Sounds pretty meta-gamey to me...and going against the rules of illusion interaction entirely!). BUT in theory, if the arrow hit the AC, the archer would interact and therefore get a saving throw...or auto-disbelieve (I'd have to re-read the article to know for sure).
As an aside, WotC had a four part article series entitled: "All about Illusions" that does answer quite a few of the problems on this thread. For example, spending time poking around an illusion (like an illusory wall) would eventually be enough to allow for disbelief. But the action and time must be taken. It's not instantaneous. Also, hitting an illusion would automatically disprove the illusion, but illusions have AC, so you have to hit the AC of the illusion or else you'd fail to disbelieve. Please find parts 1-4 in the links below.
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a
Note: as per the original question posed, the Spellcraft of an illusion spell being cast is not mentioned in the above articles. Interaction remains the prerequisite for almost all cases.
Nothing is stopping you from trying to move through every wall you see on the off-chance ones an illusion. I disagree here. If I failed my save (thus, I believe it's a real wall), I can't just say, "well, just in case it's not real I'll try walking through it anyway". Because I failed my save I believe it's real. By just deciding to try walking through it after I failed my save, I'm intentionally circumventing the rules and ignoring my saving throw failure. I've had rogues who buy chalk, and draw it down the wall in dungeons, both to prevent getting lost/backtracked, and because they will find a fake wall when their hand goes through it instead of drawing a line. But why are they drawing a line right up to the wall? :)And if they did, they'd still have to roll to disbelieve their senses because they have minds that can be fooled. If they failed their save, they'd think, "that was weird, I'm losing my mind" not, "It's an illusion!" because that would mean they're getting the benefit of a successful save instead of a failed one.
I want to go back to the original situation because something just struck me: 1) My spell caster casts "silent image" in plain view of an opponent.
Here's where we disagree: The archer has been told it's an illusion. If they fire blindly, they no longer need to make the saving throw. The experiment alone is "proof".But that negates the need to interact. The illusion fools the senses. They must interact with it before experimenting. If they know it's an illusion and they interact and fail their save, they are confused, "I'm sure they said it's an illusion, but it seems so real". Then they can experiment to test it, not before. In other words: if the experiment alone is sufficient, what's the point of the +4 bonus? It should be an auto success.
So if you see an illusion spell cast in front of you, you have the choice to just ignore the need to interact just because you've heard of illusions? I don't think so. Knowing it might be an illusion gives you the +4 bonus. Guessing it might be and just testing it removes the need to save entirely. The question is: even if I know it's an illusion, do I have to interact with it? So if I cast a silent image of a wall in front of my archer, and I say "it's just an illusion" my archer doesn't need to save? No. she gets the +4 to the save.
So let me pose another question:
In other words: by living in a magical world, they "predisbelieve" the silent image and just test it out. The problem here is, they bypass the need to interact. Similarly, if the opponent succeeds in their spellcraft check, does that give them the automatic right to walk through the wall without having to convince themselves (via disbelief saving throw) that it's not real?
Makes sense. Why have a specific section on disbelief if it could have been covered in the spellcraft entry. Part of this must also have to do with illusions being mind affecting: even though a creature suspects it's an illusion, their senses are confused...even if they know better... Also explains why mindless creatures aren't impacted by illusions.
Fair enough. Let's look at Phantasmal Killer then. Its spell description states that a Will save is required for disbelief. So:if the target of a Phantasmal Killer spell did a successful Spellcraft check to identify the spell being cast, would the target of the spell be required to make a Will save for disbelief, or would the successful Spellcraft check be considered "Proof" that the Phantasmal Killer isn't real, thus making the Saving Throw unnecessary?
Additionally.... Example: Spellcaster A casts "Invisibility" on themselves. Spellcaster B successfully identifies "Invisibility" being cast. This is Proof that the Spellcaster A isn't really invisible; It's just an illusion. Result: because spellcaster B successfully identifies "Invisibility" as an illusion,(Proof that Invisibility is only an illusion) Spellcaster A is not invisible to Spellcaster B. In summary: identifying the illusion as it is being cast negates the illusion, therefore, Invisibility does not work against those who identify it as it is being cast because a successful spellcraft check constitutes proof. Is that where we're going?
Thanks. So I guess we'll just have to wait on that FAQ then. :)
Here's the situation: A wizard casts "Silent Image". While casting Silent Image, the opponent does a "Spellcraft" check and identifies the spell as it is being cast. The Silent Image spell goes off, creating an illusory wall. Does the successful "spellcraft" check act as "proof" that the illusion is not real: "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." In other words, is identifying the spell as it's being cast(Spellcraft) act as proof that the illusion isn't real, thus eliminating the need for that character to have to make a saving throw? Help. :) Thanks!
Hey GMs, I'm running Thornkeep's "Enigma Vaults" pretty soon. Here's the question:
Can a creature that cannot speak activate a spell (from a scroll) that requires a vocal component?
It's particularly relevant since the tactics section mentions the creature will go invisible first, then on its next turn, begin casting from a scroll. Since the creature can't speak it will be invisible and silent while casting. NOTE: the creature does not have "silent spell" feat.
Thoughts?
Thanks for this and, fair point. Just spit-balling now. What if the model was changed to allow for level 1-12 advancement by releasing scenarios in tiers that overlapped?
Anyway, Paizo knows what they're doing. I just find the hopping around between scenarios/seasons in order to level-up very distracting and a discouragement to verisimilitude. I also like the idea of creating a "season 8" character and running it from start to finish. With say, 24 scenarios released a year, a character could likely use a combination of normal and slow-track to play them all. :) That would be pretty darn satisfying.
One additional question. I was looking over the pattern of how scenarios are released by tier. Why does Paizo release games in what appears to be a haphazard fashion? That is, why not release scenarios in order of tier in order to create a "campaign" feeling? In short: what is the rationale behind the current "haphazard" tier-pattern? What am I missing here?
|
