Taube's page

There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.

Let me ask you a simple question: If I ask you to not bring any non-kosher food to my place when gaming, would you comply to my request or not?

In the same vain, if I ask you to not ruin another players fun, why should that be any different?

See, where I come from, there´s a term in common use by gamers: "Barbie Gaming". That means: You can think about your characters options, play through riddles and solutions, fantasize about what could be possible.
And then leave all that garbade at home when you head to the gaming table and respect what the guys there want to play and how to play it.

Can other classes do the things a rogue can do and better? Sure. Why does it matter? Can you not be a functional member of a party if you're not the best in the party? Again someone has to be the worst.

I think there´re two different things at work here:

To be honest, when a wizard player would start using a wand of knock, I´d politelly ask him to refrain from the if the rogue player is present, at the second infringement on the rogues niche I´d kick tha wizard player out.

Therefore: There can never be a "weakest" class.

(Of course, people who are well below average would not be invited to join adventuring groups, so trying to represent the full range of humanity is probably not helpful.)

Pretty much: This.

The rogue doesn’t have to better than any other class, The game is not only about killing stuff, but the game is a lot about killing stuff, especially at higher levels. If you are not good at killing stuff, you need to bring utility to the party, be it buffs, divination or whatever. At higher levels just relying on skills isn’t enough.

IMHO the rogue works best as a preventive class. Disarming a nasty trap right before combat starts or during combat? Rounding out those skills no-one else wanted to invest in but are campaign specific (happens a lot in adventure paths nowadays)? Help flank and finish of a monster before the monster can dish out the pain?

Anti magic field oder mage´s disjunction traps right before or actually in combat shouldn´t be so scarce, especially not around players who try to kill other players´ fun by trying to occupy their niche.

@tsuruki:

Not very much, as those changes are worth nearly nothing.
Also, I predict that the player of the sorcerer/wizard/witch will flipp you the bird.

PS - Follow-up question: in neither case do I get a Greater Rage, right? That is a class feature of barbarians, not a feature of rage itself, or at least that's how I've always seen it.

It´s a class feature of the barbarian, so you´re right, no way to see that.

@Samasboy1

Are you trying to create some universal rules there from scratch? Ok, then the Large Longsword shouldn´t cost 30 gp (see Weapon size and cost) but should be a "longsword" and cost 15 gp, because Samasboy1 said so?

If a place has a shop owner that is a wizard and able to do +5 enchantments, he is powerful enough to solve the city's problem that gives the PCs their quest. Why risk these guys if you have such a powerful wizard in the city just running a shop? If there is a magic store, likely it is a low level wizard or just a shop keeper ordering stuff in from people picking off of bodies and tomb raiders. And again, if it is just a shopkeeper looking for a quick buck, chances are he doesn't understand cursed magic items. Throw those in there sometimes as they are really fun and makes players cautious about the apparent +5 enchanted item in a store.

That is based on the thought that the rules are the basis for a simulation and reflect anything in universe at all.

It is not necessarily conscious discharging, because touching something besides yourself will discharge the charge. Whether you want it to or not.

Can anyone explain why a charge should discharge if you hit an illusion?

Only a shadow spell is at least partially real, so otherwise hitting something that isn't there isn't actually hitting anything. Seems to me like it shouldn't discharge.

You either hold the spell or discharge the spell. The is nothing unconscious or accidental about it. It is all up to you, the user/caster of the touch spell.

It could be even weirder.
Remember: One of the basics of this kind of divination spells is that stronger auras overlap weaker ones, right?

Casting a Guards and Wards Spell on a Dungeon actually gives quite a bit of background "noise" (the constant aura) for other spells´ auras to "hide behinde".

It is your conscious choice to disarchae a spell or not. Holding a charge and touching anything (like scratching your head) doesn´t disarche a spell either. If an illusion fools you and you attack it, _you_ discharge the spell at the target. (Note: Illusions have an AC of 10...)

In my experience (and therefoer opinion), the method used during character generation will have a very strong and long-lasting influence on a later adventure or campaign.

Harsh rolls (3d6 in order) or low(ish) PB (PB15) during shared character creation can lead to incredible teamwork because people know they´ve got to work together to offset low attributes.

OTOH, I´ve seen it way too often that very high(ish) point buy values or really lucky rolls led to players who were over-protecting of their "luck" characters and steered them as far from danger as possible.

It should discharge.

It depends on how long you´ll want to play this charakter. An Inquisitor with the Rage Domain has quite a nasty potential, especially since the Extra Rage Power feat is always an option to ramp up said potential.

Ah pretty versatile TWF Cavalier that came up as part of a Best-TWF-Build challange in one of the forums I regularly contribute to:

It's not a PFS restriction. There are no rules for retraining Familiars.

Actually, it states in the opening text of Animal Feats: "Feats that are meant for familiars can be switched out for a familiar's default feats (as listed in the familiar's statistics) if the familiar meets the prerequisites. Such feat replacements must be made when the PC first acquires a new familiar"

It states in Familiars: "If a familiar is dismissed, lost, or dies, it can be replaced 1 week later through a specialized ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete."

Therefore: It is possible to dismiss a Familiar. After the compulsory week of waiting, you can get a new familiar with the swapped feat.

@wraithstrike:

Get back to re-reading the Discriptors used in Illusion spells. Especially, check Patterns and the Mind-Affecting effect that comes along with every Pattern.

"Nothing to see here, no danger, no magic, no auras no nothing". When the mind-affecting component of this kicks in, your charakter thinks this is right and proper and there is "Nothing to see here, no danger, no magic, no auras no nothing". That also means your charakter doesn´t fully register what detect magic tells him because he is already affected by the illusion.

That´s also why in most cases with the better illusions, the target/victim of the illusion has to make a save against the mind-affecting effect or simply fall for the illusion full force until later real interaction.

No need to protect that school of magic even further, just rethink on how best to use the lower-level (mostly figment) stuff.

The Ouroboros - Two entwined serpents eating each other. When the command word ist spoken, the searpents writhe and trash, swallowing eatch other even more savagely until they engulf their owner, who vanishes into nothing.
Lesser version: A simple Vanish spell, followed by a temp. hp buff on becoming visible again.
Greater version: The Tattoo casts Maze on the owner. After reentry into the real word, the owner gains a number of temp. hp egal to 10 per round he was away.

There´s a spell I consider to be a good concept but with a flawed and broken execution: Collaborative Thaumaturgy. (Pathfinder Society Primer)

In my group I´ve got two casters with improved familiars and they handed those critters some wand with the spell. Now, the list of potential Meta Magic Feats ain´t huge and thankfully lacks stuff like Dazing Spell, but the slot-efficiency of the casters raised to new highs.

Still waiting on someone to post a Rogue build they don't think can be made better by making it another class...

At the end of the day, that´s a non-point.

The less control the players have on how their adventuring day(s) will work out, how many encounters, if and when to rest an regain ressources, the more the game does change and a class like the rogue, who only has one ressource to manage, hp, can shine whilst other classes simply have to conserve their ressources for when they count the most.

Nefreet wrote:

Animal Archive introduced a handful of feats (Critical Conduit is my favorite) that can be swapped out for a Familiar's default feats. Beast Bonded Witches and custom Homunculi are two other ways to add variety to your Familiar. Outside of those options you're stuck with the base creature.

Can the familiar use the retraining rules?

Simply dismiss it an call a new one, this time with the feats you want.

Differentiate hard between "everyday" magic items und "special" stuff.
Keep the WBL system as it is but handle it out of play, via email or such stuff, so that the business-like nature of standard equipment stays away from the gaming table, therewhile putting a higher emphasis und the exotic and wonderful stuff that has been found during the actual game.

@Kryptik:

Du you know the addage: perception shapes reality?

By the rules there is no auto-disbelieving an illusion unless someone helps you with it. So, when someone uses a divination spell to sniff out an illusion, the caster still has to make his save to disblieve the illusion himself, stuff like detect magic do _not_ help here because, coming back to that addage, what the players know and how the characters perceive the reality around themselves are two completelly different things.
In other words: the detect spell must be wrong, there´s a wall there.

Just for a laugh, take a look at ultimate magic, there´s a bard masterpiece that let´s the bard create illusionary buldings, bridges and so on with nice consequences for people who start to disbelieve them.

This already begins to get tricky when taking the Point Buy Budget into Account.

I actually don´t think so.
Compare the HD entries for animal companion and familiar. It clearly states the direkt number of extra HD the animal companion gets, while stating for the familiar that it acts like it had more HD (Master or Familiar, whichever is better) for HD-based effects.
For me, this says that HD-based stuff like poison doesn´t skale up.

As for beast shape: I think "legacy item" beats general rules in some cases, especially when talking about a creature whose stats have been around so long and which should work as usual. So Boar shape is ok, but an exception to the rules.

So let me guess: You want to drop some hexes, turn invisible and cackle around?
As cackle keeps renewing your offensive hexes, there should be no difference between renewing and reusing the hex as an offensive means.

I stand corrected, on max hp at level 1, but this was not an actual rule before the 5th printing of the rule book. So for the first 4 prints of the CRB it was the exact same as 2nd edition and 3.X. 3.x introduced the max hp at first level in RPGA organized play. It was more than likely carried over in the PFS and then added as official rule in the 5th printing to make the game a little easier at 1st level for non organized play.

No. Having a first printing CRB in hand right now, check common terms, page 12, Hit Points (hp): "A creature gains maximum hit points if its first Hit Die roll is for a character class level."

Aha. I stand corrected, then. Not really up to speed on all the splat books. Seems like an unnecessary nerf to me, but there ya' go. Glad to be playing with a GM that allows familiars to take any feats they qualify for, then, I guess. :) I mean, most of them get Weapon Finesse which as a feat does literally nothing for most familiars.

Than be glad you haven´t seen Improved Familiar totally abused. Just had a player come up with the notion of reworking a Lyrakien to be a heavy UMD user with swapping the Feats and Skills so the familiar could effectivelly carry and usw a wand and a staff and act as a buff-bot.

Would an Imp still get his Poison (Ex) applied when attacking with weapons instead of his natural attack?

Edit: And are there any guidelines for weapon cost of a tiny weapon? There is a handy chart for unusually sized weapon damage, but no info on how much these weapons would actually cost. Would it just be the regular price?

The poison is a feature of the Imp, so no, w/o a suitabel enhancement on the weapon, it can´t use it.

As for the cost, simple compare with the next weapon on the list having that kind of damage. IIRC a skaled-down greatsword should be a d6 weapon and cost as much as a short sword.

Just out of curiosity: How should a puny level 0 spell like detect magic ever beat a spell, especially one with the Glammer, Pattern or Phantasm Descriptor, that tells your direct senses that to experience? Especially the mind-influencing input from those spells should overwrite every information that detect magic gives you. When it says to your eyes _and_ brain that there is no hole in the floor, than your mind shuts out the info that there is an magic aura coming from a hole in the floor.

That is the power of the besser class of illusions and also why there are better spells for detecting those than detect magic.

Looking at a feat like Spell Sponge, we find this:

Spell Sponge wrote:

Special: Feats that are meant for familiars can be switched out for a familiar's default feats (as listed in the familiar's statistics) if the familiar meets the prerequisites. Such feat replacements must be made when the PC first acquires a new familiar, and-like all new feats from supplemental sources-the new feats should be approved by the GM before being integrated into play.

But this seems to say that you can swap only the feats that the Familiar possess normally (2 for Imp), and that you can only do it with these special "Familiar Feats" (which there are only a tiny handful of, and they aren't that good).

I think the practice of Swapping Feats gained from racial HD started with some suggestions on how to customize monsters and the issue got more confused with bonus feats being marked with an "B".

But as there´s no rule allowing the swapping an Animal Archive even rules aganst it, I guess it should be spelled out in the Bestiary FAQs that swapping feats is not intended.

Typo, I meant spell trigger, not completion.

But still: It just says that you must emulate having the spell on your spells list and nothing else. The given example for that ist a 3rd level Paladin who could use a Paladin Spell Trigger Item this way w/o actually being able to cast a spell (yet).

So, the FAQ tells us to use the Spell in the Version it comes first, meaning wizard before sorcerer, cleric before oracle and to disregard this only if it´s a sorc/oracle-only spell.

Also, no mention of a Caster Attribute means: Use your own. Spells do funktion even with lower Casting Attributes, they just suck at it ;)

I´d re-check the Spell and compare it to other spells with similiar function, like Arcane Sight.
Keep in mind that an illusion can be the result auf a spell that has been cast und therefore it is about detecting the spellcasting, not the illusion and here the aura does fade and is harder to identify.
Permanent Illusion, otoh, should always have their auras masked, else it would be pointless, right?

I think the biggest problem here is with the Casting Attribute. Staves use Spell Completion and Spell Completion, as it stands, is nor depending on the Casting Attribute bur on the Ability to have the Spell on the Spell List. So, using UMD you´re checking to see if you get the Spell Completion thing off, then if the Caster Level ist higher than the basic caster level of the staff itself and that´s it.
I don´t see where it is necessary to emulate a certain attribute nor where you could do this.

@Cardinal Chunder:

Nah. There is a difference between explaining someone how to play his charakter and how a system works.

The game systeme most people around here are used to is one of those where something is either on your charakter sheet or you simply can´t do it. Better still, if you´re not really good at it, it harms you (best example: Cooking. Yes, it can actually lead to food poisoning and knowing how that systems skills work, that can happen quite easily.)

So it´s necessary to explain the differences and talk about the assumptions people have on how to play a game.

This is something where I have to disagree with you. I believe that a character's stats should be a reflection of your own character's backstory and behaviour. It's much more fun to get a character concept and then try to stat it out than to roll a generic min-maxed wizard (which we're all perfectly capable of) and play that. It's good exercise in roleplaying, and stats based off of a character concept are never necessarily "bad".

I can only partially agree to this.

As an example: Start of Wormwood Mutiny. One player made a Half-Elvish Gunslinger with STR 14 (Guns have recoil!) and more or less all other Stats at 12. Skill were Athletics, two Craft and two Profession skills, all solely connected to a backstory that didn´t matter, Feat was Two-Weapon Fighting to portray the ability to wield a pistol and a dagger at the same time, ´cause that´s cool and the SKill Focus set on Perform (Singing) so he could sing along with the party bard. No Armor ´cause that went against the picture in his head.

Ok, that is decent thinking on transporting an image of a charakter into the game, no problem here, commendable, really, but it isn´t a working charakter.

As we still had time, I took that player aside and wanted to talk his choices through with him, so he could more easily enjoy his charakter in a combat heavy game like an adventure path. He seriously told me that he´d need to have those stats and skill pouints or else he couldn´t reach immersion into the game. I told him that he could simply describe singing alongside the bard, that no roll would be necessary to do this. This was commented like this: If no roll was necessary, I can´t know how good my charakter performs at singing which leaves me at no clue how to decide how he sang. That I countered by: Mate, it´s your charakter, it´s your choice!
At that answer the guy practically turned 180 degrees and left the game, as that was not good roleplaying.

Funny, that. In my experience "Worst PC" nearly always goes hand in hand with players who can´t disconnect "roleplay" and charakter stats.
It´s a common thing in my erea (where neither Pathfinder nor any D&D edition is the premier rpg in the market) to see a lot of player´s who need to see things translated to stats or they can´t connect to a charakter.
"Hm.. I play an average Human, those guys can cook, so I need Craft: Cooking to show that, maybe he´s a good cook? Skill Focus could show that. He can´t be an adventurer all his life, so maybe Profession: Inn Keeper? Yes, that should do it...."
(Plus: games are more Story-driven around here. It s nearly unthinkable that an player charakter could die in combat as the story would end right there. That leads to people acting stupid in tactical combat as they know nothing bad will happen).

So, most of the time, every new player I have at my table recreates the "Worst PC ever" from scratch, mostly the "Former Apprentice" who can´t do ****.

I´d say the "problem" with AD&D was that it was more like a piece of art than a piece of design.
It build on an "upgraded" the former edition in such a way that there were many delightful fiddly bits, but not too much coherent thought behind it.
It is very dependent on players and gms with a working common sense and the ability to communicate, wheares newer designs like 3E/PF tried to shift that as far over to the rules as possible.