Skylancer4's page

4,302 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,302 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

If a GM rules that the barrier doesn't block the attack then it isn't 'cover'.

Just because there is something between attacker and target does not mean that thing automatically grants cover. Otherwise, air or water would provide cover.

If a material has hp/hardness in some book (just to cover splat books like Ult Equip etc), it is cover (by examples given - walls with large holes and the like). If it is a physical obstruction between you and the target, it is cover (as evidenced by water providing cover). It is pretty well defined in that way. Cover may be abstract, but it isn't that abstract.

If a GM wants to house rule / hand wave otherwise, that is what they are doing. That doesn't change what the rules actually state.

Val'bryn2 wrote:
Personally, for something like this, I'ld see about having the glass (or paper) grant concealment, rather than actual cover, though maybe the glass would act as DR for the attack.

In the vast majority of cases it is largely irrelevant. The first attack will do enough damage to destroy 'fragile' cover. The second attack is going to be able to strike the opponent.

Cevah wrote:

There is another point of view on flanking. That it is a positional thing, per the English language. That the flanking bonus only applies to melee attacks, and that the position only can get sneak attacks.

Most people do not take this view. I don't play it, but think it is RAW. While there have been FAQs, I don't think they have actually stated that flanking only applies to melee, because they refer to a section of text under question rather than spell it out. Many say I am wrong.


Mostly because you are, and they have.

Probably would have been more appropriate to start a post in the suggestion/homebrew/houserules and put in a link there saying 'hey look at this'.

When posting in the Rules Forum people are interested how things actually work, not how random people would run it in their game if rules weren't an issue because they don't like them.

Oh, the roving bands of murder hobos...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Let's say you are shooting at a target behind an invisible paper screen, then.

Mechanically the result is the same.

Total cover. Destroy enough of the cover or if the cover has large enough holes, and it will allow you to hit the target.

This last example is more tricky as the cover is invisible and so you are unable to tell where said damage (missing portions) would be.


Relevant rule wrote:

Total Cover

If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.

Long story short, you cannot even attack the target.

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Let's say you see an enemy behind a pane of glass and shoot at them with a ranged weapon. What happens?

Mechanically, you hit the glass and will probably/hopefully destroy the window allowing your next attack to strike the target.

The window blocks line of effect (which makes a difference for targeting) within the rule set. The glass is effectively complete/total cover.

Lord Foul II wrote:

Except I am in control of the grapple

I am touching them
They cannot avoid touching me
If they could they wouldn't need to teleport away

Irrelevant, as the caster has the choice of taking you along, or not, if you are unwilling. Their choice, not yours, is the determining factor. The caster's intent is what matters, not yours.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I think this is deserving of an FAQ. There's no clear rule distinguishing whether "touched creatures" means "targets deliberately touched" or "anything currently touching you".

I can only disagree, the caster is who determines what happens. If they intentionally touch (aka target them directly) a target AND that target is willing, then it works.

Someone grappling a target isn't the same as the caster touching them for purposes of targeting a spell (unless spelled out in the actual write up of the spell, a la Shocking Grasp where unintended/indirect touching causes a discharge).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:

Shatter Defenses has always been one of the gotos for ranged sneak attack.

1.Get the enemy shaken, frightened, or panicked (Enforcer works well for this: Shaken for a number of rounds equal to non-lethal damage dealt)

2.Attack them once

3.Go to town.

If you can convince one of your party members to help set you up, this gets a lot easier. Also, if you have a way to keep enemies afraid you can just keep re-activating Shatter Defenses with every attack.

It's not perfect, but ranged SA is hard.

Gunslingers in particular don't have a huge number of skill points to put into Intimidate, though, making Dazzling Display just a tax if you're not going to specialize in that yourself, and poor little Kobolds need all the feats they can get since Bushwacker trades away bonus feats for the sneak attack. Intimidate is a Class Skill and you do need 5 points in it to qualify for the Prestige Class, however, so it might be okay.

Rogues, Ninja, and Slayers have it easier: all three have more skill points, Ninja actually use Charisma in their Class Features, and Slayers get their Studied Target bonus on Intimidate at 7th level.

Come to think of it, Empty Quiver Flexibility might allow you to make your Sneak Shot attacks in melee (not certain, but maybe), meaning you wouldn't just be restricted to first-round sneak attack damage.

But all this wouldn't be necessary if threatening the opponent let you get a ranged sneak attack, whether through a separate melee weapon threatening or through feats that let you threaten with a ranged weapon.

Ranged combat is already what most consider a "powerful" combat form. Easy ranged SA would make it ridiculous. Fights would be over before they started and it would be no fun for anyone besides the person playing a tactical nuke. Just to put things in perspective. There are more than a few reasons to not implement what you are looking to do, if you step back and look at the forest instead of the tree.

It depends. Mostly for the fact they are generally smaller than a staff, spear or bow. Or wider than a javelin (guard) or arrow (same reason).

It could go both ways legitimately, as written.

LucyG92 wrote:

BigDTBone -

I have no problem with things being expensive, I just didn't want to arbitrarily add extra cost to an item that should otherwise be cheaper (as per the rules for item creation). As it is, people have confirmed that the original estimation was correct, so that's fine.

But I don't think that any item that silences a mage should cost more just because it, well, stops them from casting spells. I'm not meaning to be argumentative or anything, just trying to explain my reasoning.

When the spell you are basing it off of isn't effectively permanent and the item requires no 'maintenance' (re-upping the ability aka re-casting the spell) you cannot consider them the same any more. The 'balance' becomes off as you are changing the effective power of the original concept. The game isn't balanced around total denial of character abilities (barring hit points) for good reason, and if you don't understand that, you probably shouldn't be messing with magic item creation. When denial happens, it comes with time limits, specific circumstances, comes from valuable and limited daily resources etc. Not a simple item you slap on the character mid combat.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, at that price (48k), anyone can activate the manacles, even without putting them on someone. It also works in a radius, rather than effecting only a single target.

That's way better than the item as described, which is limited by being forced to grapple the target, and only works on that specific target. I don't actually know how much that should reduce the cost, but it seems like it should be by quite a bit, actually. Those are both pretty big limitations as opposed to the hypothetical 'ring of silence' that lacks them.

It depends on your perception of the item again. You cannot price an item out on how you want it to work in one specific situation. You have to price it out in every possible situation, because it will be used in all situations where it is applicable. That is why some items have prices people don't necessarily agree with.

Situation A : Super useful.
Situation B : 'Sorta' useful.
Situation C : Not useful but not hazardous.
Situation D : Hazardous to the user.

How do you price it?

There is a reason that magic items have no hard and fast rules, and is considered more art than a science. Not everyone understands the fundamentals and 'gets' what is required to do it in every situation. It just isn't an easy thing to explain, especially when what you think of as a detriment doesn't come into play. An opponent's defenses can't be used to weigh in on a price of an item. It doesn't matter because it changes from opponent to opponent and from user to user. There are characters who can grapple and pin in a round, so the item should be more expensive? No, it just doesn't work that way.

LucyG92 wrote:

He wants to know whether you could reduce the cost by allowing a save?

Manacles of Cooperation would work; I think 'don't speak' is a reasonable request. Though DC11 Will save is very low.

Is there some sort of formula regarding altering/adding save DCs to adjust the cost?

Maybe try another approach?

At this point you really need to sit down and determine why exactly you want this item and figure out if there is another way to get a similar result (different path, same destination). Mechanically an item that screws over every caster class in existence should be expensive, especially as they tend to be susceptible to close combat (CMD tends to not be high) which is exactly how you plan on making use of them (pin to manacle them). PFRPG removed a lot of the save or die mechanics, this is basically reintroducing them in a way, which goes against the entire premise of the game. Removing access to class abilities both easily and effectively permanently should be expensive if not out right disallowed.

Instead of taking the 'easy' way out (manacles of silence), maybe you can try to focus down to what exactly you are trying to do and research other avenues to that effect. Way more often than not, you end up realizing what your intent is, was either out of line (broken/powerful) or not what you thought it might have been (and figure out other ways to get what you want). Or occasionally you realize the game doesn't let you do what you wanted to, for a reason.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Maybe he could settle for the existing Manacles of Cooperation? Not quite what he's looking for but maybe close enough (even better in some ways).

Your math is correct, BTW.

Seems nearly useless against a caster, any mage will easily beat a DC 11 Will Save.
Manacles of Cooperation wrote:
These tight iron cuffs can fit over the wrists of any Large or smaller humanoid. When placed on a helpless humanoid, they make the captive more docile and compliant. The prisoner never attempts to escape of its own volition and agrees to any reasonable request unless it succeeds at a DC 11 Will saving throw.

I was reading that as "the prisoner (never attempts to escape) and (agrees to any reasonable request unless it saves)" but I suppose it could be the other way. That would explain the low price. :-(

LucyG92 wrote:
Is there some sort of formula regarding altering/adding save DCs to adjust the cost?
No, and I don't know why not. You'd have to wing it.

Because in 90%+ of the situations where a save means anything, they are already making one. Price alteration for introducing a save would complicate things (a save where none existed) or allow you to reduce price on something further with a "useless" save with no meaningful impact. Both of those points are counter to the design goals of PFRPG, most poignantly to streamline game play and better balance the 3.5 rule set.

Well the other side of that is, silence is usually a bad thing for everyone in the area. I'm assuming you are just targeting the person being restricted with the spell and this particular item. That selective targeting is worth a huge amount in many cases (as it isn't something you can do in many situations) and carries no penalty to you or your party (where the spell is a blanket effect and can screw you and yours over if not prepared for it).

Your best bet is to scour the magic items already published for something that does what you are looking for to make a price comparison, if you feel it is too high. You say it is too high, another player would be happy to drop that much to silence a single target without save or SR. It is perspective.

Activation is still leaps and bounds different from just "using" the item (aka wearing it). The default for rings was already mentioned in the OP/Request, command word activation.

The ring states it needs to be activated, the specific rules of magic rings states this would be a command word activation. Some rings (IE Ring of Protection) are use activated, providing a continuous benefit while worn. The fact that a ring states 'activation' with no other criteria or specifics, would make the action whatever 'magic rings' default to. There is a distinct difference between 'while worn the wearer is invisible' and 'when activated the ring makes the wearer invisible'. Mechanically the first is what a use activated item would read, the second is where the magic ring write up comes in.

SorrySleeping wrote:

There is only one thing with the Aegis that as it doesn't stack, unless I am missing something.

Expansion augmented gives you two actual size increases.
Powerful Build increases weapon die and cmb/cmd, no actual size increases.
Augmented weapon increases weapon damage die but does not stack with any increased sizes (only GM ruling that has changed).
Elemental Flux stance earth makes your weapon deal damage as if it were one (and eventually two) sizes larger.

This is 6 effective size increases for damage doe, buy only two actual size increases.

If I am remembering the FAQ correctly only the largest of any increase takes effect.

Expansion, powerful build should be fine (actual increases, medium creature with a large weapon becomes large creature with a huge weapon - expansion states the increase occurs to gear etc). If you lose powerful build you are stuck with a big weapon though, which could be annoying. Effective increases like the augmented weapon and the stance would not stack. That would mean the feat and the stance are redundant (until the stance starts to give 2 bumps), they do the same thing, make the weapon 'effectively' larger.

Best case scenario you get 5 increases at 15th level Aegis (first opportunity to take the second Increased Size customization). At level 8 you have 2 from Powerful Build and the Elemental stance. You get access to the first size customization at 9 (so 3) and the stance will grant it's second increase at IL 10 (4 total).

You could get access to Expansion as a power through the power stone repository and the casting customizations BUT then you need to carry around a handful of power stones with Expansion in them incase you want to swap customizations or some how get screwed over and have to redo your choices. The earliest that happens is 11 (ML needs to be 7 for the double expansion).

Quantum Steve wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
If my party was fighting a Drow, and one of us, after having to roll a Will save, announced that the Drow is actually a fair maiden, I think the consensus would be that the party member in question, in fact, failed their Will save.
Sadly a metagame response, but typical to most tables I imagine.
Assuming the maiden that only he can see is a trick is not metagaming.

Without any sort of in game banter/conversation to realize the difference (as characters don't share instantaneous perceptions between themselves). It absolutely is.

Quantum Steve wrote:
If my party was fighting a Drow, and one of us, after having to roll a Will save, announced that the Drow is actually a fair maiden, I think the consensus would be that the party member in question, in fact, failed their Will save.

Sadly a metagame response, but typical to most tables I imagine.

Galtrug wrote:
Still, turning someone into an orc, drow, duergar, goblin, or countless other things might work. Its true those interacting would get saves, but commoner might have a tendency to fail it while someone firing arrows at them might not be allowed one. It just seems odd you could radically alter one's appearance without their consent or allowing them the chance to resist.

Don't let them touch you?

And again it is an illusion, which in certain circumstances can be powerful. But it won't hold under scrutiny, even with commoners. It isn't like there is only one chance to save, every interaction will prompt a roll. And once one person makes the roll, the rest can get bonuses to their rolls. It won't last.

Milo v3 wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Gee, sorry, I was off by 2 years. That seems to have basically been a playtest for 4E anyway.

*Tries to find a single at-will/encounter/daily maneuver in ToB or PoW*


Bad Milo! There is that feat that lets you do that thing once per day.... /s

Galtrug wrote:
I understand disguise other is meant to help your allies blend in in various situations, but couldn't one conceivably use this as a no-save means to make anyone appear as some horrible monster and cause a lynch mob?

No, read the spell, it is a bit more limited.

Basically +/- 1 foot to height. Thin or fat and maintain type (which is the main sticking point in your question). Then multiple and repeated saves for interaction (voice primarily).

Chickengun wrote:
Undone wrote:

Vicious: When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder. Only melee weapons can be vicious.

The way I read this is that the 2d6 are untyped energy damage and the 1d6 damage is untyped and unspecified but appears physical. Is this correct? Can vicious weapons be reduced by damage reduction?

I would rule it in the only way that makes sense to me.

I believe the Vicious weapon property is subject to damage reduction on both ends of the stick; as it produces an extra 2d6 of whatever damage type the weapon inflicts. Sword? 2d6 Slashing. Warhammer? 2d6 Bludgeoning.

Untyped damage access seems a little too incredible for a +1 enchantment even if you are eating half of the benefit, and though exploitable to a degree (barbarians reducing the penalty of the damage with DR), you have to keep in mind that if interpreted this way it should be subject to DR from enemies as well. Unless you have a vibrating adamantine lightsaber of course.

Price +1 bonus
Aura moderate necromancy; CL 9th; Weight —


This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.

Well, the only thing to say is, you would be wrong. The enchantment states it is untyped damage. Not "extra damage" like sneak attack damage is, which incidentally has been specifically called out to act like you are trying to make the property work. It is pretty much the only time an interaction like that happens and is rare/possibly unique in the game for it. This is no different than flaming, additional damage that has nothing at all to do with the weapon. Untyped energy damage (which is not reduced by DR, energy damage is the umbrella of resistances) instead of fire damage (same point about DR vs resist) above and totally separate from weapon damage.

And it only seems powerful until you do 2 points of damage to the enemy but suffer 6 unmitigated damage for the attack. Or you realize that the full attack action will probably drop you, which leaves you in the rather crappy position of being unable to use your 'main' weapon.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
I don't know how large PFS is,
I suspect that it's large enough to be a critical factor on whether Paizo keeps it's doors open.

It also arbitrarily disallows content written by their own company, effectively removing a portion of sales.

The sales happen because of the rule set and overall quality of content, not because of PFS. Be honest, the people who play PFRPG are those gamers who had no desire at all to play glorified board games (effectively what 4e was), of which there were many. It was great if you were playing with a younger crowd, as it was simplistic. But that grows old fast, and you go looking for something a bit more 'meaty' and fulfilling.

Even if there was no PFS, they would still be making sales, most likely almost as much as if there was. As I mentioned before, all the people I've played with have never played PFS. Not because it isn't around (I can walk into the local gaming store 2 blocks away and find people playing or go to one of several colleges in the area to find a gaming 'society'). But we all buy PFRPG books. 'Gaming' has been a 'thing' looooonnnngg before organized play was. Hell personally speaking, the only reason I even got into PF was the quality and depth of the APs, not the 3.5 house rules published as core rules, to be completely honest. Whatever issues the rules had, the group was perfectly capable of handling, we didn't need PF to 'fix' anything.

PFS maybe the driving force behind errata/FAQs of things after publishing them. But I am quite certain people vastly overrate it as a driving force for sales. Gamers are going to game, organization or not.

I don't know how large PFS is, no one I know plays it, nor have any groups I've played in (the last 26 years of personal gaming) not allowed house rules or 3pp content. I would like to see numbers which make up this 'sizeable' segment, beyond vocal posters on forums. The entire point of pen and paper games was to let the creativity flow, as they say.

That being said, if you choose to play in organized play or in a group that disallows content, you have no complaints. That is your choice. Putting it on Paizo to make a whole new class that was taken to, when all they wanted was a 2 column archetype, is putting your hopes a bit high. Expect to have them crushed.

They don't want to address the problems. That is why they stopped allowing it in PFS after several FAQs/errata on it. What makes you think they want to sink more time into it, to make it a functional full class, than they have already done? By dumping it from PFS they removed the necessity to further support it because they know that any groups that wanted to use it, would rule how it worked at the table without their input.

If you play PFS, you know you cannot play one, that is on you. You choose to play 'there'.
If your group won't let you play one, that is also on you, you choose to play with that group.
Making choices that leave you SoL, is a personal issue. Expecting the company to revisit something that was basically a 'loss' because you are unable to play it until they do so because of your choices.. is rather dumb.

Don't get me wrong it would be nice if they did, but I highly doubt it is in the works. Aegis is available right now, is significantly better balanced and infinitely less convoluted (and functional without errata/FAQ) than what we do have from Paizo. I won't be replying to this discussion any more as it does nothing to further or help the OP.

Snowlilly wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.
Synthesist needs to be redone as a full class, and the archetype shelved.
Well, as my post indicated, that has been done.
Third party sources don't help a large segment of the player base.

Something is better than nothing, especially when it is better thought out and more balanced than the original, which isn't an option.

If you are talking PFS, it is a moot point as it isn't an option and the likelihood of it being redone is... slim to say the least. Which is more a problem with agreeing to play 'organized play' and the restrictions that come with that type of game. You cannot realistically complain when something is banned, as you signed up fully aware those restrictions were possible. Nothing anyone does outside of Paizo can "help" that "segment" of gamers, and as a business sinking man hours and money into something that was a problem doesn't make much sense.

The class exists for people who want to use it, those it can help. And it doesn't sound like the OP is in a restrictive PFS scenario from what they have said, so it is definitely something they should at least look at.

Snowlilly wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.
Synthesist needs to be redone as a full class, and the archetype shelved.

Well, as my post indicated, that has been done.

As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.

That being said, you may want to look at d20pfsrd. There is a psionic class that isn't really 'psionic-dependant' and allows you to do the same concept. The Aegis' mechanics are less problematic and more defined as it is a whole class, not a tack on to an existing one. There are maybe 3-4 abilities that even reference the psionic point rules so it is very very easy to transplant into a non-psionic game.

That all being said, RAW your GM has the right of it, it is a bonus feat and the write up makes it clear the eidolon doesn't get those. You (the summoner) could take the feat normally, but would only have it when "suited up" like many other feats that are taken using temporary class abilities as prerequisites.

Azothath wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

The text from spell completion:

Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.

spell trigger is found under wands:

Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.)
Wondrous items aren't actually 'casting' a spell, so casting times for the spell used to create the item is irrelevant. Now, you can of course use casting times to modify the cost of an item, because custom items are GM fiat anyways.


this item is not a Wand and does not use Craft Wand. BTW - a wand of Enlarge Person takes a round to activate...
the last paragraph is, well, just statements...

It also sounds like it doesn't have a slot so should have a price increase.

Shinoskay wrote:

My DM doesnt like any spell system outside of the basic, so all psionics are a no go, he doesnt like psychic or occult either... but I love the Idea of the Soulbolt and I want something like that, I just cant find anything that isnt the soulbolt.

I will check out the elemental Annihilator, Kinetiscist may work but I dont remember what system they use. Magus is ok but I am not looking for Melee, mostly ranged.

The basic premise of soulbolt is to shoot things with magic (a weapon in it's case). Core class wise, you are looking at some sort of caster who specializes in ranged spells essentially. Either that or some martial who focuses on ranged weapons. You just need to decide on which mechanics you want, smaller consistent damage (magic weapons with ammunition) or larger spike damage (spells with limited uses). After that it is really "fluff" or flavor that you apply with description. Just about any GM who doesn't hate an idea will happily let you describe things any way you want as long as it doesn't alter the mechanics (and therefore change the balance).

As for the kineticist it uses a "pool" system with 'burn' to function. It isn't really like any other system in core. Magus has a ranged archetype as well. Magus would probably be my choice in your situation.

I actually pushed to use the cards in our home games because the games devolved into rocket tag. We have decent to good optimization in the party so when using modules/APs it was pretty bad, crit weapons with multiple attacks would decimate enemies. The deck was a move to reduce damage output and make the game a bit less lopsided. Our normal GM wasn't 100% sure about it in the start (everyone likes big numbers) but has since implemented it in every game he runs since so even he has come to "like" it and understand what it did for the game.

As for the DC, there are a few cards that are brutal, and that is intentional. The vast majority of the cards are effects or hindrances that don't end the combat. But they did add one card for each attack type that is just nasty, and that is the one that you are hoping to get, that makes investment in to crit feats worthwhile (pulling 3 cards and getting to choose decap? Sign me up, those feats are paying off).

Think about this way, crit damage isn't typically avoidable, decapitation is. If you were playing without the crit deck there would be no save, just "poof" fine red mist. A harsh DC is better than "oh that roll was high, you are unconscious/dead now".

I'll take the save over being mushed with no recourse the vast majority of time (crit cards typically don't kill unless the PC is being stupid), where as that spike from crit damage will catch you unawares and do you in way more often than not.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:

So, we ran through a large room and into a small barracks bedroom. Our wizard knew the landscape outside and had been in combat outside for a while. We had some time to look over the bigger outer room before retreating.

In the smaller bedroom with no line of sight outside, can our wizard cast stonecall outside of the bedroom?

Why don't you have line of sight?
Presumably because of a closed door.

Presumably doesn't cut it when the answer depends on the situation.

upho wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
1) Eldritch Archer, ranged weapons typically require 2 hands to use thus all the hoop-la about stating you don't need a free hand when using your (singular) bonded weapon. Using a weapon that circumvents this (a revolver for example) doesn't follow the design assumptions. Guns are a part of the game, yes. The vast majority of material isn't actually written with them being assumed as implemented however. Things get hinky when you put them into the mix on a good day.
So don't throw guns into the mix. Use for example hand crossbows or one of the quite large number of one-handed thrown weapons to test your argument instead. Meaning I would've agreed with this reasoning if one-handed guns actually stood out as the only ranged weapons not requiring two hands. Hence I do find it a bit odd to assume a designer would write a strictly ranged version of Spell Combat as if the rules for fighting with two weapons and the many one-handed ranged weapons simply didn't exist, regardless of whether guns are "assumed as implemented" or not.

Hand crossbows would limit you to two attacks, as you need a hand to reload 'core'. And that is assuming it was preloaded and in hand ready to shoot.

Thrown weapons limit you to how many you have (effectively needing multiple enchanted weapons to work effectively), again 'core'.

Both make horrible options as written in the core rules (if not impossible), for the ability. If you have two hand crossbows you end up unable to make 4 attacks (2+2) as you cannot reload. It effectively isn't an option. The only effective way to make work is firearms as they come with a capacity beyond 1 (which is why I put revolver), as a basic weapon.

Sure there are splat books that expand on options, but that doesn't mean the designer knew of them and took them into consideration when writing the archtype, and actually assuming the designer knew of everything is a really stupid thing to do. But that is more an issue of "power creep" and splats vs anything else. Which again reinforces the whole "if I need this thing from this book, and this thing from that book, and use this from this book, I can make this work because it is a grey area", aka twisting/stretching things beyond the expectations/assumptions they were written under.

Ranged combat is generally not mixed with two weapon fighting, as evidenced by the whole Rapid shot, muli shot, etc feats. There is little to no reason to assume it would be a default option when designing something for ranged combat despite your objection or finding it odd. Which is just another of many 'red flags' about the concept.

Quexlaw wrote:

Good day to you guys,

I'm starting my first real Pathfinder campaign (I played one before but it didn't take the rules very seriously) and our GM wants to only use the CRB, the APG and the ACG, as well as UC as rulebooks.
However, after checking the APG, I decided to become an Inquisitor. After checking the inquisitions and other things, I noticed something weird though; most of the inquisitions aren't even from the APG, but from many different books! The ability "bane" is also from UE, not APG! I already asked our (inexperienced) GM and he said that it would be okay to make an exception, so that I could use bane even though it's technically not from the APG (but Inquisitor is and it is said that the Inquisitor has bane in APG..), and now I notice that most inquisitions, THE inquisitor domains basically, aren't even choosable if strictly sticking to the APG?

So, is there some kind of "general rule of thumb" how to handle those interdependent rulebooks? Would you strictly say "no" to all those inquisitions and abilities that are written in the APG but detailed in different books or would you say "yes", simply because the APG states them to be available? And if so, how about "choosing" things that are described in the APG, such as inquisitions? I mean, it would be weird to tell the player to choose a domain or inquisition and then providing like two or three different inquisitions, when most of them don't even provide new mechanics. For example, I wanted to play an Inquisitor who worships the Truth as an ideal, therefore the Inquisition of Truth would be an amazing fit and would be fun to use as well.

Find appropriate items in the books allowed and forget anything outside of them, strictly speaking. This often leads to "re-flavoring" the flavor text (not mechanics) to fit desired taste, but it still comes down to 'if it isn't in one of those books you don't get it'.

SorrySleeping wrote:

So, we ran through a large room and into a small barracks bedroom. Our wizard knew the landscape outside and had been in combat outside for a while. We had some time to look over the bigger outer room before retreating.

In the smaller bedroom with no line of sight outside, can our wizard cast stonecall outside of the bedroom?

Why don't you have line of sight?

1) Eldritch Archer, ranged weapons typically require 2 hands to use thus all the hoop-la about stating you don't need a free hand when using your (singular) bonded weapon. Using a weapon that circumvents this (a revolver for example) doesn't follow the design assumptions. Guns are a part of the game, yes. The vast majority of material isn't actually written with them being assumed as implemented however. Things get hinky when you put them into the mix on a good day.

2) You are pushing into the grey area of intent as well. Magus are all about using that one weapon meshed with magical skill. Not a multiple weapon blur of destruction with magic. Do the rules outright say it? No. But absolutely everything thing published for them follows that design, what you are doing is basically looking for loop holes/justification for the idea because it doesn't explicitly say you cannot do it.

With those two things in mind, I would have to say no you cannot do it.

I am 100% certain the free hand requirement isn't being removed for you to have a free hand available to do whatever you want with it. It is there because the archetype would be unusable in the core rules for the intended weapons without it. You are effectively "stretching" the rules beyond the intent to get your desired effect. Context is an important part of the game, just like a conversation, take it out of it's context and things can be drastically different.

Re-rolls are nice but not necessary. Play the character you want, let them learn the game.

Klorox wrote:

So, if I want the gauntlets of my Adamantine Full Plate armor to be adamantine, do I have to pay 6K gp in addition to the 15K and some that the armor already cost me?

If the armor is magical, do I have to get them enchanted separately to be able to punch with magical bonuses?

If you want to punch things and have the damage go through DR adamantine, yeah.

The game already has a precedent for something that is both armor and weapon, shields. You don't get a discount or to ignore the costs associated with using it one way or the other. You have to "pay" for your advantages gained. A +2 shield isn't a +2 weapon, unless you invested into making it that way (either through buying the effect or investing in class features which facilitate it functioning that way).

6002gp would cover being able to TWF with gauntlets. Tack on whatever magical enhancements you wanted per gauntlet as written now (barring an FAQ/errata).

Yondu wrote:

Heavy Armor and some medium armors comes with gauntlets, so if the armor is made of special materials, the gauntlets as part of the armor are made of special materials, as nothing else is written against this...

Are they masterwork armor ? Yes
Are they masterwork weapon ? I'm not sure of it as they were build as armor not weapon ( shields are also the case of having a offense and defense function, and need separate "masterworking" to be a weapon and an armor)
Are they of special material ? Yes, as they are part of a special material armor.
So saying they are not because it's OP, it is not RAW but only interpretation.

For me it comes down to:

1) Objects of a particular material aren't 100% that material. The rules for special materials state that they need to be majority of said material. That means the "business" parts for it's function have to be, but nothing else. Can you take your gauntlets off and still maintain your AC? Not integral to the armor's operation then. It follows that parts that aren't integral to the operation of the object would not be of the expensive material.

2) Did you pay the appropriate "cost" for the advantage provided by it?
In this case no, you did not pay (or otherwise invest) for the advantage you seek for free. The game tells you when you get something, once there is a line stating "this counts as a special material when you attack with it when acquired with a suit of armor" or some such, you get it. There is no such line.

Those two points, hit on both the pertinent "rule" (special materials don't mean 100% construction of that materia) and intent (free stuff because it doesn't say it doesn't work that way and makes "sense").

If it mattered enough to make a difference for s build I was planning, I would just make sure to toss the extra gold value onto the armor for both gauntlets to be of the particular material when I bought it. No questions at all on that case.

"Cleric" covers A LOT of ground. And being a versatile class with spheres and spells, they can do quite a bit besides "heal bot". You might get a better response if you qualified the specifics of what it means to you.

NoTongue wrote:

It's one of those Path of War classes.

Had a look at the ability. DR does not apply.

DR applies to damage from weapons and the odd spell or ability that does piercing, slashing or bludgeoning damage.

This is as you described, untyped damage that automatically affects someone who has been targeted by this ability. Normally this thing would be typed to explain how they where getting damage, curse, mind affect, force, etc but it's not (probably because it's 3rd party), not a major game breaker or anything, nice ability.

To be fair, if 3PP is allowed it isn't PFS and so it works the way the DM wants it to. It is actually a fairly powerful ability in a low power game (15 pt buy and the like) so I definitely could see a DM limiting it to keep someone from wiping the board every fight.

@OP You aren't running an "organizated" play type game where things need to be more stringent rules wise. Be thankful the GM is letting you play PoW (many won't as it is a straight upgrade on all martial classes, core classes are pretty crappy in comparison). Instead of coming here asking how, you should be talking to the GM with the understanding that maybe they just don't want it deal with "free" damage that kills half the encounters with no recourse. It is the type of situation that might end up with you no longer being able to play the class anymore if you really push the subject. Dealing with DR vs one ability or not being able to play the character? I know which one I would choose.

Scorch_13 wrote:

A CR 3 vs. 1st level party can be a bit brutal, but action economy should be ok.

The biggest pain that I see is the DR 5/ Cold Iron. The experienced players should have cold iron weapons as they are very cheap. The newbies may not yet understand Damage types and resistances. This would be a good time to role play out that the dryad saw that the Forlarren had to use a cold iron blade.

To incorporate this into the game you could slip it into when the characters ask her about the creature that evicted her from her home.

She could say something like:

"It used nasty items to make its magic! From what I could see, it was not normal steel that the implements were made of that it used in its blood magic rituals. It looked to be the kind of metal that is anathema to my kind. My beguiling magics had no effect on it, I think that the creature might be one of my kind. If so, I keep a small pile of cold iron (distance weapon) and a cold iron (melee weapon) in a hidden stash."

1d4 Javelins tipped with cold iron and a cold iron rapier would be appropriate in my estimation.

This would let the characters know about 2 things, cold iron does full damage, and that the creature is currently a fey type.

Beyond that, the swarms are a bit of an annoyance if anyone doesn't have burning hands or an alchemist flask.

A knowledge check could just as easily provide the information, taking 20 (assuming they have the appropriate skill) would probably be enough. They have both the druid and time (foreshadowing).

@OP: It would probably come down to how you did character creation. There is a world of difference between 15 and 20, even more so with 4d6 drop lowest, etc. An 18 STR makes it much less problematic for the 1st level fighter. Also, never forget the power of Aid Another when it comes to AC at low levels. It would make the hit roll 11+ and basically a straight roll of the damage dice for that same fighter.

Shinoskay wrote:
are there any classes, none psionic, that can do the same thing, or similar, as the archer mind blade archetype? (I dont recall the archetypes name).

What are you looking for?

The Kensai archetype focuses on one weapon and has access to spells for buffs (to emulate blade skills). It gains max weapon damage a few times a day (to emulate psychic strike).

If you are looking for a free weapon that scales with level, I'm not sure that PFRPG has anything like that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
d'Eon wrote:

Hear, hear! Next the OP will tell us that his GM doesn't allow Swashbucklers because they're so amazing…

Since you mentioned the Qingong archetype, I think it's pretty telling that they straight up rolled it into the Unchained Monk. Even Paizo saw that it was pretty much necessary to be competent.

Also, it slightly bugs me that they called the three-section staff a sansetsukon. Yes, it's an accuratetemr for it, but Golarion doesn't have Japan, why are things given Japanese names?

The same reason they borrow names from everywhere else?

Zarius wrote:
Yeah, that's basically what my GM and I concluded. However, the SPECIFIC fight I was asking about is a monk, so AC = Touch AC unless he chugs a potion of BS or MA.

Irrelevant, you cannot base a game on corner cases, it ends up convoluted and difficult to maintain.

johnlocke90 wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Just to be clear: When are you ever going to be at a flat 20 to pinpoint?

That flat DC 20 hunch is just that - a flat DC 20 - it is never modified. It just tells you you are not alone.

d20+Stealth+20+other modifiers such as distance. You have to roll a 1 and have a negative overall modifier to be easier to pinpoint than 'hunch-ed'.
If your negative modifier is that high, then it should be easy to pinpoint your location, and at that point you don't need to rely on a hunch, you know there is a guy in full plate and a tower shield in the room with you and the clamour is coming from your left and back a bit 15'.

I don't see the problem. Seems to be working fine to me.

I see a problem. Its easier to notice the presence of a high stealth invisible character than it is a non-invisible character.

There is no DC 20 check to notice "something is there" for a visible person.

Because the "visible person" has significantly less advantages than the "invisible" person. The "visible" person cannot be adjacent to you and you be unaware, as they are "visible". No check, just seen.

It is a check to prevent "I win" by virtue of invisibility. Less problem, more thought out rules balancing, to prevent abuse.

Zarius wrote:

SO, I know this is an old thread, but I have a very specific, very similar scenario, and I didn't want to clutter up the forum making a new thread.

Bone Oracle with the Death's Touch Revelation gets a touch attack class ability. It's not an SLA, it's not a spell, but it is still a supernatural ability. The big crux is that I don't think it's a "held charge" ability, since it describes it as a "standard action."
Claws from the Eldritch Heritage (Abyssal) feat.

The upshot here is that my DM is willing to negotiate, and has already finger-wiggled that I could, in theory, use the touch attack in a Full Attack action, with normal iterative and TWF penalties.

Mostly, I'm looking for opinions to establish a line of reasoning to go either direction.

Doesn't work. As a SU (Supernatural ability) they are strictly standard actions unless stated to be otherwise. General rule vs Specific Exception. As such you are using either the SU or making a full round attack. Touch attacks are pretty potent in that they allow you to ignore significant defenses (armor, natural armor, shield - what most creatures rely on) and being combined is pretty rare. There may be one or two situations in PFRPG where they are, but I cannot honestly think of one off the top of my head (the only thing that comes to mind is 3.5 spell which everyone considered broken).

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Good ideas all.

On the flip side I have another question, though not specifically related to the planetar. This could easily be for a neutral or evil creature.

Lets say that diplomacy fails for some reason and you need to push a little harder. Something to the effect of "do what I say or I'll make sure everyone knows your true name."

How would you guarantee that the true name get disseminated around the globe/multiverse should anything happen to you? Some sort of secret timer that goes off should if you don't "hit the button" every so often.

Right now I've got some ideas having to do with multiple simulacra with mind blank and standing orders. There's got to be a better way though.

Maybe a demiplane, created initially high above a densely populated city, protected from scrying and filled with strips of paper with the true name on it. If the timer for that demiplane runs out then everything in the demiplane gets shunted to where the deimplane was initially created. End result is that you have to reset that demiplane every X days or everyone in that city will know the true name of the outsider via true name confetti.

Any other thoughts?

That is pretty much blackmail/borderline enslavement (a whole population of people knowing something like that?), expect to get a smack down from the heavens for thinking you could do such a thing. The planetar has friends, as well as someone to answer to. If they stop answering things they should be doing because of you, expect the person "in charge" to make them more available (and you less problematic for them). Good creatures usually have good relationships, unlike evil creatures who might want to keep this type of thing hush hush lest the information get out that they are vulnerable (and be even more taken advantage of).

Think of it this way, when something "bad" happens do you not commiserate with your friends? And don't your good/close friends offer to help and fix the issue? If you start missing work for mysterious reasons and are on good terms with your boss, wouldn't they pull you aside to find out what is going on? Then offer suggestions, or even bend the rules a little bit to help out if it is potentially serious?

Theliah Strongarm wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

why do you keep trying to ask for this?

It can only ever be done poorly.

Well, I just like the idea more than anything else. Not trying to be a troll on the messageboards.

These are "those things" that you are better off looking at/playing other systems if they are important to you.

1 to 50 of 4,302 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>