Sarenrae

TrinitysEnd's page

Organized Play Member. 302 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.


RSS

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonVixen wrote:
blahpers wrote:
RoseCrown wrote:
CrimsonVixen wrote:

And the we have the issue of succubus lovers, concubines, and harems. <snip>

I may be missing some other option, but it seems that either Succubi are chaste asexual seducers, or they can control the drain.

Just wanted to chime in that I support this logic.

A succubus that cannot control her Energy Drain makes little to no sense to me.
Never read The Dresden Files, I take it?
But is Dresden Files written with that element in mind, or are people keeping Succubi harems, summoning them for flings, and having fun or falling in love?

As someone pointed out above, their Change Shape would remove this ability and allow them to do the things people would do with a harem without killing them. But as I said, I've always been more of a fan of the "May" drain rather than "Does" drain. And I always remove this restriction in my games if I use them (which was... Once or Twice. No grappling happened though.).


Morality varies group to group. Some believe that killing people isn't actually evil because humans are a blight. Others believe killing only good creatures is evil. Or others vary even more so. It sounds more like you just need to sit down with your group and ask them what they feel is morally right and wrong and share your opinions and work with them rather than come and ask the rules of morality (which there are only a few listed examples: cannibalism, killing for pay (Assassin), and so on).


Relevant information that answers the questions with the right answer of: Typically only Disarm, Trip, and Sunder can be used with a weapon.

Edit: Trip Weapons (Weapons with the Trip feature) may also be used for Drag and Reposition.


Zarius wrote:

I'm with Ultrace here... While it could, conceivably, take-ten, guaranteeing you a +3 every time, it's still an intelligent item with entirely it's own will. It's not Bob The Skull, which has it's own intelligence, but takes on it's owner's general state of will. From a purely mechanical stand point, it's better to get the +4, and enchant it on, say, your alchemy kit.

From a purely FLUFF stand, it's freaking awesome. I might actually talk to my GM about doing something like this for my main...

You can't take ten while Aiding Another on a skill: "You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chyrone wrote:

T'is a fine day when you then reveal to be a faceless creature.

Lookie here, no lips! No lips = no passionate kisses for you!

Well, they never did say where she needs to put her lips. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do know that at least one Dev has said (unofficially) that it always occurs. I myself like the concept of the needs to be conscious camp. But, the thing is even in the succubus entry, it says it does, not that it may. Which is very strict wording of "Always." But yeah, I prefer the sometimes but the rules seem to suggest the always. Though... if we want to be exact, technically, only the kiss drains energy: "A succubus drains energy from a mortal she lures into an act of passion, such as a kiss. An unwilling victim must be grappled before the succubus can use this ability. The succubus's kiss bestows one negative level." But if we use that as just one example rather than a complete list, the wording is very clear that it isn't something they can just turn off.


I would say that yes the Warpriest Sacred Weapon applies to it, but no Str doesn't. And yes, it can affect spells (so long as it counts as a weapon), as it says: "This increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the weapon, and doesn’t apply to alchemical items, bombs, or other weapons that only deal energy damage." Nowhere does it say no to spells. In fact I made a stupid build around this through the use of a trait to get Ray of Frost, use the Alchemical components to make it 1d3 piercing or something like that plus one cold. Was it a good build? No. But it was funny.

As for the second thing, there is a thing for Arcane Casters (which you mentioned), but False Focus doesn't apply to divine spells, which would mean even dipping one level won't help. And that's the only one I know.


There is a blog post that talks about this. It gets 3 tricks per point of int. Also, it may learn a language, doesn't mean it knows one immediately. Furthermore, it doesn't get any other benefit from a high intelligence but for feats, potentially skills (if you can get to 10 int), and the tricks. Link to the Blog Post. Link to Dev response on tricks


2 people marked this as a favorite.
toastedamphibian wrote:

DC 15 is "hear the details of a whispered coversation". Bows really are not that quiet.

By game terms, it is "the sounds of battle". -10. +5 for terrible conditions,+5 for distracted.

The DC to hear the sound of a bowstring being pulled back is a DC 25. So, average archer that is about 30 ft away while you are distracted has a DC 33 perception to hear them fire an arrow. Note that it is "Hear the sounds of Battle" not combat. This is because most battles are loud with YELLING and metal clanging on metal. An assassin slitting someones throat is not "the sounds of battle" nor is an archer picking you off from the distance.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:

While not exactly part of normal rules, this feat does imply that without it you must have it in hand: Mythic Scribe Scroll

Mythic Scribe Scroll wrote:
Additionally, you can cast a spell from a scroll in your possession without having it in hand. As long as it is on your person, or in containers on your person, you may use a scroll.

Considering that the feat say "Additionally, you can cast a spell from a scroll in your possession without having it in hand." while the actual requirement is "To activate a scroll, a spellcaster must read the spell written on it." I take that as a simplified way to say "without the need to be able to read the scroll".

It can be meant as an explanation of how a scroll is read, but there are a few adventures where you find stuff that work like scrolls but is actually a stone monolith, wooden tablet or other items. So I take it with the benefit of doubt.

How is without having it in hand in any way simpler than without needing to read it?

I think you're stretching on intent there.

17 characters instead of 37. And that can be enough to get an extra row of text.

But more important (I noticed that just now):

Section 15: Copyright Notice

Mythic Options: The Missing Core Feats. © 2013, Owen K.C. Stephens; Author: Owen K.C. Stephens

Third party products have no effect on the rules of Pathfinder.

Odd, it was listed in the paizo section. My fault for not checking that more closely. Typically d20 at least gets that right.


While not exactly part of normal rules, this feat does imply that without it you must have it in hand: Mythic Scribe Scroll

Mythic Scribe Scroll wrote:
Additionally, you can cast a spell from a scroll in your possession without having it in hand. As long as it is on your person, or in containers on your person, you may use a scroll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How has this week gone for you? And since you probably won't get to this until at least tomorrow, TGIF!


Also a note, it says it functions as Greater Polymorph, which begins: "This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing; the spell has no effect on unwilling creatures..." Note that this is not in the "Target" section of the spell and nothing in PaO changes this as far as I am aware. Is this the intent? I cannot say. Only that technically, it only works on willing creatures (though unwilling objects are still screwed, even though they can't be willing or unwilling...).


Xenocrat wrote:
graystone wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
What were you trying to link to ?

I'm not sure why you're quoting me...

However, I can answer: it's a link to a monster in the bestiary 6, the Whisperer, that has the feat Improved Critical (touch).

The developer of that book doesn't have the best grasp on the rules. It's a mistake.

I think that comment is pretty rude. He has stated though that monsters built in it are not always designed to fit within the players being able to follow the same rules. He believes a creature shouldn't be restricted to the same things players are. Or at least, that is the gist I have gotten from his responses. He is always free to correct me on that.

As for how damning that creature is? I'd say not at all. Just because certain creatures can twf with no penalties, doesn't mean a human can. In this case, the creature breaks the rule and it can do that. As it isn't a player character. After all, they also don't get full HP on the first HD or the same amount of wealth or... I can go on to show where they don't follow other PC rules, but I don't think it's worth listing them all. If this was a more widely done case, I'd say it is possible that it was intended, but with only one or a slight handful more, it's not really proof.


You also normally cannot attack in the middle of a move. However, mounted combat rules fall short on clarifying this. However, the fact that ride-by attack exists suggests you can't normally attack in the middle of your mounts move (in fact, it even states for ranged that it has to be in the middle of the move; for double move and run).

So... What does that mean for you? Well, besides the fact that mounted combat rules need a rewrite? That you likely cannot have both you and the horse spring attack. I as a GM though, would probably just let you have your horse attack once. You are, after all, limiting yourself to one attack anyways and it's not like it's broken. But you'd need to speak to your GM to allow that.


It specifically states it must make a move action. When you charge, the mount also charges, thus that wouldn't work either.


"When you are mounted and use the charge action," seems to suggest that your horse would need to be riding another horse while you ride it to do that. I was going to suggest maybe Spring Attack on the Horse and some minor GM fiat magic. But that'd require your GM allowing it to work (as spring attack doesn't work on a charge).


DropBearHunter wrote:

The duration is given as 1 round per level and the dazzled effect lasts one round.

Does this mean the spell deals continuous damage?
Acid Arrow is given as an example for continuous damage in the concentration check description on page 206 and has a duration of round/level but it is not renewed each round.

It's not continuous damage. You may make one attack each round, as a move action (no roll required), and that person must make a save against the firework. If they fail the save, they are dazzled and take 1d4 fire damage. Next round, you fire it again, designating a new target for the next firework (or the same one if you really hate that one goblin).

So rather than continuous damage, it's one attack a round that deals small amounts of damage but can effectively, at higher levels, deal 20d4 damage. Just over the course of 20 rounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"SLAs only provoke if they take an action to cast (and like spells, swift and immediate actions also don't provoke)." - Mark Seifter

Furthermore, SLAs use all the rules for spells except where they don't so immediate action SLAs fall under spells rules of swift and immediate action spells which don't provoke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Want to say thanks for answering all of my questions! And add on a new question! Do your fingers hurt from responding to so many people? I hope your day went well though!


Flagged for wrong forum. As it is a Third Party book and should be in the third party section. They'll be able to help you out more there.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Linkified FAQ

Whoops... I must really be tired! Thank you! I could have sworn I had done that right too. Even clicked preview...


call1me1sandwich wrote:

Hey paizo,

I already know about this:
"Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells."

That is not what my question is about. I want to know what you feel if you fail your saving throw against a spell that has no obvious physical effects or if that spell simply has no saving throw. I know that a "Terrible Remorse" should be obvious because it makes you feel terrible, but what about a spell that gives you bad luck like "Ill Omen"?

Picture this: A witch with silent spell, still spell, and eschew materials (or a Psychic with none of these feats) casts "Ill Omen" on someone. Does the creature somehow know that it was afflicted with a negative effect?

All spells have a visual effect. So people know you are casting magic. It isn't explained in any of the books, but was errata'd in by an [url]FAQ[/url].

That FAQ wrote:

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

So, if you cast a spell on someone, that means the spell has a visual effect and they can realize they were cast upon. Stealth Mages wept in October of 2015. As for feeling something? Ask your GM, rules aren't clear on that, but you can definitely see it.


Prof. Löwenzahn wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:
I second the "nah." Just because you've attached a tooth to a sword doesn't make the tooth count as the sword. It's just attached to a sword, still a tooth. Just because you put a skull on your hat, doesn't make it your hat. I can list more and more examples of this. The implement is still the hide wrapped around a sword's hilt. It does not suddenly become the sword. Integrate just means to combine or put something together. But, the ability is just looking for the trophy, not the thing you shoved the trophy on.

Yeah, you got a point there. I thought some more about the subject and think I got a way to make it work. It's true that it would not be enough to attach the trophy to a weapon.

For the requirement of having weapon/shield and Monster Parts work we need to make a weapon and shield completely out of monster parts.

Shield is pretty easy, there are several listed special material out of hide (Hide fulfilling the abjuration requirement).

Weapon might be a bit more difficult, so you need to find a monster that consists of a proper material (some plant creature for wood, some iron golem for metal and so on). The Harvest Parts feat states that in rare circumstances metal is a valid resource you can get out of a monster. So craft a sword from it and there you go.

I did not check the other panoply requirements, but the Trapping of the Warrior panoply would be possible.

You can also use Bone. Personally, I think Trappings of the Warrior was the worst thing they could add for Occultist. Full BAB 6th level caster with the only drawback that you have to wear a shield. Makes me just feel dirty thinking of it. But hey, people have their own desires.

Stupid Rant:

Also for that shield drawback, just slap on a buckler, grab Unhindering Shield and profit. Or just carry a shield on your back if you don't want to get Shield Focus and Unhindering. Nothing says it needs to be equipped, only that you can direct it at people. Such a stupid thing to add. I ban Trappings of the Warrior in my games because it just shouldn't have existed.
Poorly balanced. Sorry if the author reads this, but Occultist is my favorite class and that literally makes it one of the best Gishes. Only downside of it is Action Economy, but Variable Bane,
Full BAB, and more. But that's me. Others are free to do what they want with it.


It does nothing to armor, to shields, or anything else but what Toasted put. It triples your carry weight. It doesn't do anything else.


Ant haul doesn't do anything to a shield or armor, or even your character's underwear. All it does is increase carrying capacity. I'm assuming you are asking if it reduces Armor Check Penalty? As that was what was being talked about above. The answer to that is a solid no. As Armor Check Penalty has nothing to do with the weight of the armor/shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as I am aware, a splash weapon is anything the rules declare is a splash weapon. Kind of like how things are a light weapon when declared as such. The act of throwing something doesn't make it a splash weapon, even if it splashes places. As for what your GM or what you want to classify is a splash weapon (if you are the GM), that can vary.

I could throw an empty glass bottle at someone that'd do damage and shatter into glass that might damage others nearby, but it's not a splash weapon if the item doesn't call it one.


Atalius wrote:
does ant haul take away the weight of the Shield? or is it also considered "armor" and thus ant haul like plate mail armor would not work.

One, holy Necro batman. Two, I don't understand your question. Ant Haul doesn't reduce item's weight. It just makes you able to carry more weight.


What is your favorite non-knife/dagger weapon? Like maybe a sap? Crossbow?

Do you like to play pranks? If so, what is your favorite one to play on the other iconics (or just one or two since there are a lot now...)?


By RAW, nothing has changed, and technically grappling them forces them to be moved adjacent, even if they were at the furthest distance. You will be in uncharted waters (or in other words "ask your GM"). If you are in a PFS like game, make sure to talk to the GM before the game.

Now, for what I do, I don't force moving adjacent (cause that can cause someone to fly very far...) and I make it so that the DC to break out is 10+BAB+Con+Dex+Misc CMD Modifiers (Such as from feats, abilities, or whatever). However, the rules do not support this as far as I am aware and you will need to speak to your GM to know what they'd prefer to go with.


If hardness applied to fire for wood, then a fire log (hardness 5 with 60 or 120 hp depending on which way you look at the log as the thickness) would on average never burn out. Whereas a quick google search shows that some woods (that I would never make a quarterstaff out of mind you) like pine and fir (softwoods) burn in about 4 minutes. For that firelog, that'd burn on average (assuming 1d6 fire dmg) of ~17-34 rounds. Which comes to almost 1-1/2 to 3-1/2 minutes. A little short of 4 minutes on the longer side, but it'd burn. Now on a hardwood (such as oak or apple) can burn for longer (not quite as long as those duraflame logs of 3 hours). As to how to get them up there? Well if we we do apply hardness to them (but allowed them to do full damage or otherwise they'd never even have a chance to burn), we'll need to make a few assumptions. For one, we'll assume that every 6 rolls you get a 6 at least once. This would get you a log that'd burn for something like 30 minutes to about 1-1/6th hours. Assuming perfect probability (and that I can do math). I don't know how accurate that is for harder woods as I couldn't find average burn times for those logs, just that those Duraflame logs burned longer. First world problems, right?

Now, that seems reasonable for that, and a staff would likely be a hardwood (unless your GM says that quarterstaff you picked up in the forest was a soft pine/fir. It was free after all, right?). So I do backtrack my previous answer to replace with this. Enchanting a hardwood quarterstaff would make it have 7 hardness. Assuming a 1d6 fire damage ability, this would mean the staff would stay relatively safe and not have a problem. Just if it was made of softwood, fire will eat it up faster than butter on a sunny day, so note to self, never make a softwood torch...


*Thelith wrote:
Hardness would not stop fire damage. So just enchanting wood wouldn't help. Why not just cast continual flame?

This, because fire burns wood, as stated by the rules, this would probably ignore hardness and do full damage.

Damaging Objects wrote:

Energy Attacks

Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This seems like an advice thread and not a rules one. This all has to do with GM style, and while I rest heavily in the camp of "Tell the player" because if they get it or not, I don't particularly care. My players know if something like that happens, OOC knowledge isn't IC knowledge. And they play it well. Asking if they can roll a heal, arcana, or so on to notice the effects is fine. And I typically give it to players that want it as a Not An Action just to speed things along. The goal isn't to inhibit the players or slow down gameplay, but to make it more fun. But, the goal of your group is to figure out what you all prefer. Is it better/faster to have the GM say "Fort save VS Poison" or if it is faster for the player to list off all results of the die he/she might have had depending on the effect. In my experience, people prefer the former. Your experience may differ.


That's a valid point, Blaphers, but nowhere in the rules is that supported (for either of our points). Nothing calls them out to overlap or not to overlap. I'd argue that the intent is not to allow one to do that, and point to how Bracers of Armor and the like function to that. But you are right, my slot thing doesn't quite fit because of the fact that Mage Armor doesn't occupy a slot (though, as we similarly see with this question, it would raise questions of whether a +1 Heavy Fortification Haramaki is shut off completely or only the armor bonus is superseded with even a basic mage armor. So I guess this could use an FAQ).

However, the best answer you are going to get Rylden, unless this gets FAQ'd, is talk to your GM. You'll find the forums are divided on the issue, as is my understanding from previous discussions similar to this. If you plan to use this in play, the only opinion that matters is your GMs and if you plan to do this in PFS... Expect table variation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally like it as it makes it so that those spells are not far more powerful than a Hold Person, for example. If it didn't have that, the DC instantly goes up by (in most cases) at least 5 and can make it so that the odds, which were already slim (Let's say a DC 15) is now a DC of effectively 20, assuming 10 dex. That is a huge penalty. By having it at full Dex it still leaves it possible and doesn't power up the spell. It's kind of why a lot of people hate Con Poisons (besides the obvious "It can kill me!"). It's harder to resist the more you fail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The citation is that you only have one magical armor slot. You cannot have more than one in each slot, so you use the highest. It is under the Magic Items chapter of the PRD. You'll need to scroll down to Magic Items on the body which states "A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This FAQ seems to suggest the opposite.

FAQ wrote:

Reflex Saves: If I’m paralyzed, held, dying, or otherwise completely immobilized or insensate, can I still attempt a Reflex save?

Yes, you can still attempt a Reflex save, but since your Dexterity is set to 0, you’ll have to replace your Dexterity bonus with a –5 penalty, so you’re not likely to succeed. If you do succeed, it might be due to the power of your cloak of resistance, a good angle for cover, or even luck. Either way, follow the rules of the spell for a successful Reflex save, even if this would change your space, like create pit. However, you lose evasion in these circumstances. If you are under the influence of a rare effect that causes you to be immobilized or insensate and allows ongoing Reflex saves to escape the effect, as an exception to the rule, you can use your full Dexterity bonus (instead of a –5 penalty) for the purpose of attempting those ongoing saves only, since your full Dexterity is at work within the confines of the spell, trying to break free.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I second the "nah." Just because you've attached a tooth to a sword doesn't make the tooth count as the sword. It's just attached to a sword, still a tooth. Just because you put a skull on your hat, doesn't make it your hat. I can list more and more examples of this. The implement is still the hide wrapped around a sword's hilt. It does not suddenly become the sword. Integrate just means to combine or put something together. But, the ability is just looking for the trophy, not the thing you shoved the trophy on.


Cavall wrote:

The skald allows anyone with rage to use theirs over a skalds. It is still rage in the ability "when the urban barbarian rages"

So I would say you're good to go

It actually doesn't say that.

Inspired Rage wrote:
If an ally has her own rage class ability (such as barbarian’s rage, bloodrager’s bloodrage, or skald’s inspired rage), she may use the Strength, Constitution, and Will saving throw bonuses, as well as AC penalties, based on her own ability and level instead of those from the skald (still suffering no fatigue afterward). However, inspired rage does not allow the ally to activate abilities dependent on other rage class abilities, such as rage powers, blood casting, or bloodrager bloodlines; the ally must activate her own rage class ability in order to use these features.

So it technically has to be one of the following, but I'd say speak with the GM and see what their opinion is.


Sarissa uses the rules for 15ft cones.

[T][T][T]
[_][_][_]
[_][_][_]
[_][X][_]

[_][_][T][_]
[_][T][_][_]
[T][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][X]

So you only threaten those squares like that. T = Threaten


Another good question to tack on this, Slaves are possessions, could you use someones slave as a focus? I mean. I'd probably say no and limit possessions to actual objects. I'd probably say that a baby/kid of a person bears likeness but nothing more.


It does neither. The Explosive Bomb discovery sets the radius to 10. It is in a sense doubling it, but it is not doubling blast radius and only has effects on other discoveries that mention it, such as Strafe Bomb. Since Rocket Bomb doesn't mention it, it has no effect on it, leaving the bomb at 20 ft radius.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:
I can. Haste for example..

What I was asking is - can you think of another case with Improved Spell Sharing and a spell shared between the Master and the familiar, where the familiar wouldn't get the exact same spell effect?

Haste doesn't actually fit that category, as it targets selected targets.

But following your suggestion, here is beast speak, replacing "you" with "your familiar".

"When your familiar is in the form of an animal, it can speak normally, and your familiar sounds like its normal self when it speaks."

And what does your familiar normally speak? Not common! So they would sound exactly like whatever animal they are. Leading to the spell not having any effect on the familiar unless you can speak with that animal type constantly and he's polymorphed into another.

Like, your familiar is normally a cat and you have Constant Speak with Animals (Cats only) (There is a trait that does this). Cat gets polymorphed into a dog. Now you can't talk to it, so this spell would allow it to speak as a cat again, allowing you to understand it again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your quote was "Feather Fall as stated is an insurance, so long as it's duration is up you can get knocked off of your flying mount from death defying heights and live." Which suggested that they could have it up prior to them falling off the mount. The spell states in two instances that the Target must be "one Medium or smaller free-falling object or creature/level" and a Duration of "until landing or 1 round/level." Which if you are firmly seated in your mount, you are not falling and are safe and secure enough to be called "landed."

To answer the rest of it, I call it player bashing because of the fact that I find that with only one singular incident (going so far to claim his inexperience was at fault for it), you need to come on here and complain about them, hoping to get others to agree with you, asking for thoughts and opinions. When people answered that they disagreed with you, you responded back and discussion was had (and also where you made your video game comment, which made me chuckle). It was the response after that one that I didn't jive with. For one, the statistics are hard to argue, because we can prove the statistics, it might take a lot of die rolling, but we can prove it. The next was your claim that the ability didn't work because he wasn't able to get within arms reach, which in most cases is if the wall is within or along the border of the 5 ft square they are touching. If the monk, with his nat1, still managed to make it to that square or over (but limited due to your critical failure rules), they are within arm's reach. However, for all that matters, the nat1 could have meant, in your rules, that he didn't even leave his square.

As for your response to number 3, I have found, through personal experiences that many prefer succeeding to failing, and that most prefer not having them, but my personal experience does not mean fact. I can only speak for those I know. But as I have stated before, the only thing that matters is if your group enjoys it. I gave you possible solutions to this problem, and you know best for your group.

As for your statement on what the rules are, we don't know what the exact things you said to the group were, it could be "We are using critical failures for rolls" or it could have been, and likely not from my understanding, "We are using critical failure rules, this can even lead to the loss or nullification of abilities." If the latter, then your player has no reason to complain, if the former, I can understand his complaint. To him, it was likely not about the measly one damage, but the fact that you removed his ability in what he feels in an unjust manner. This may be because of poor description or from something else, I cannot say.

However, your video game comment was not what upset me, it was your bashing of a player for taking fault in your decision and the claim that someone disagreeing with your logic and evidence (through their own, albeit unable to be proven evidence like your own) meant they were not willing to discuss or debate on your terms (which were not stated in the initial post and as you said, you never asked people to agree with you). But you did ask for "Thoughts and opinions" and received them, even if they are not the ones you'd like to see.

I don't like Critical Failures, but as I have stated in both of my other replies. What works for your group is all that matters. Talk to the player and try to help assuage their fear that you are there to harm their enjoyment, that the removal of the ability wasn't meant to lessen his fun but to go along with your critical failure rules. If he disagrees with the fact that it removed his ability, try talking to each of the other group members individually, figure their opinion on how they want to go about it from now on, and if they stand to be the only one upset with the rules for that, well, do what you feel best.

I apologize for my passive aggressiveness, but I agree with your player in that the removal of an ability can make a character seem un-enjoyable, especially if it is something you the player really like. I do not apologize for my examples given, if a Monk needs to make an acrobatics check to touch a wall, a spellcaster should be required to make an intelligence or spellcraft check to remember their own spells. Seems only fair since you are punishing the martial for something he should be able to do but letting the casters go on without problems (or so it seems, as you made seem with your last response).


I can. Haste for example, grants up to a +30 bonus, dependent on the person's movement capabilities. If the familiar has 20 ft speed, they only receive an additional 20 feet movement, and thus makes it different between caster and castee.

I see no problem with my interpretation with the feat. Just like any other instance of shared spells among people, treat both targets as targets of the spell, deal with the effects on a person by person basis. Just as a fireball effects all within it, it matters not if one of them has resistance to the other.

In this case, just as the spell is cast upon the familiar originally, the improved version just makes it so the targets are "Self and Familiar." The rules do not clearly state this, but it is a more concise reading of the words, as if the spell was still considered to be targeting you, it would have no effect on the familiar. And thus be wasted, which to me is a bigger issue than the supposed one of my reading.


Lady-J wrote:
we once had a door to a keep we were hiding in that kobolds were trying to get into it was a medium size door and we kept mending it each round it took damage, one of the players then decided they wanted to infuse all the souls of people that were contracted to him that were now dead and unable to settle their debts into the door to give it more hit points, dm rolled randomly for how much hp the door got per soul in front of every one with a d100 rolled near max, door went from having like 60 hit points to having well over 800 hit points giving us enough time to get every one out via a secret passage way it was a funny moment

While an interesting story, Mending has a cast time of ten minutes, and unable to be cast each round on the door, so unless your GM houseruled that, not quite possible.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
NO the intent is to allow the caster to speak their non-shaped language when shaped as an animal.

We agree on that.

However, take the spell Elemental Speech. Do you agree that there is *no* basis to deny a familiar the ability to speak, if the familiar is in the form of an elemental?

Secondly. Share spells is a core class feature. It allows you to share a spell effect that usually applies to the caster, to the familiar.
So, if you think the spell effect is to allow the caster to speak their non shaped language when shaped as an animal, then share spells conveys that exact effect on the familiar.

The rules for share spells changes the rules of the "You" spell to: "The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself." This replaces the Personal with Touch and target with "Your familiar." The target is not still you. So any reference to "You" in the spell is "The Familiar." Just as the You in the spell could be replaced by your character's name when you cast it on yourself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Goemon Sasuke wrote:

The not failing is implied at a certain point, I was typing a rather wordy explanation and comparison to get the point across but the short version of it is, simply using climb; if you have a total modifier of +15, all you need is rope and you can climb anything. And that's by lvl 7 I believe.

#4. It's not that simple though, not everyone rolls this same 1/20 chance. We all have those friends who have notoriously bad rolls at the best/worst of times. People like myself who roll 2-3 crits back to back and people who fall between the median. You can't tell me in the example give though, that both fighters stand the same chance of hitting an AC 15 target. More so when you consider the above mentioned factors; I've seen it with both table dice and dice rolling programs.

#5. But it's not when you consider the wording of each used, apples to oranges and tomatoes. Feather Fall as stated is an insurance, so long as it's duration is up you can get knocked off of your flying mount from death defying heights and live.

Where as Slow-Fall specifically states you have to be able to grab something to slow yourself down. This is like comparing bow combat to firearms. Each are ranged weapons, but they function differently. Just as both Slow-Fall and Feather Fall indeed slow you down, one needs something to slow yourself down with.

#3. I wasn't speaking for myself, but my group as a whole. You're comment here just makes me think you had no intention of waiting for a reply anyway. But from everything I've read over the years it's split pretty evenly down the middle. However, everyone I have played with prefers the risk of failure with exception of this new guy.

Or rather, he was fine with it but mad because he thought it would somehow save him 10ft out with nothing to grab.

#4 Actually, I can tell you that the average is almost exactly 5% or 1/20. Over your career, 26 years of it iirc, you have rolled a lot of d20s. We'll just assume that if you played every week of that, you rolled at least 40 times. Or 2,080 times a year, for a total of 54,080. If you were to roll all of that right now, record it down, you'd find that the statistical average of in practice and mathematical amount would be about 5%, or 1/20. Now, it may not be that in every group of 20 rolls that you will get 1 of each die value, which in of itself is incredibly unlikely. But yes, I can say without a doubt, that the odds are that everyone rolls about 5% or 1/20 odds for each result on the die. And the more dice you roll, the closer and more true that gets.

#5 Feather Fall only works if you are falling. If you are on a mount, you are not falling, thus doesn't work. Furthermore, it is unnecessarily pedantic to say that the monk, who was next to a wall, was unable to touch the wall as it is claiming that a creature forgot to breathe and died when they rolled a nat1 on their intelligence check.

#3 Your comments here have shown that you have no intention of having a debate only to have people say you are right, and well, for a bit, I agreed with you, that if your players like it, then that is fine, but if your players don't, then you have a problem. Your solutions are Remove the Player, Find an Agreeable Ruling for Everyone Involved, or Do Nothing. But I don't agree on this senseless bashing of the player who felt that you were punishing him for the most basic of things. Do you have the caster roll a spellcraft each time they cast a spell so they don't forget how to cast? After all, it states they need to memorize their spells, that seems to be intelligence based. I sure don't because I don't want to waste time making people not enjoy playing this Game. What roll do you require to use the toilet? Dexterity to wipe your butt?


graystone wrote:

"she uses the unarmed strike damage of a brawler 4 levels lower". I take this as meaning you use the number from the class chart 4 lower than your level adjusted for size.

So
#1 enlarge changes the chart so yes.
#2 no, it doesn't modify the chart.
#3 No, you get the base die, not bonuses.
#4 No, it's not modifying the chart.

So you check your unarmed damage based on actual size for a generic brawler of 4 levels lower: that's it.

I'm willing to concede that 2 might be right for you (As my logic on it is mediocre at best), but 3 seems nonsensical. As it does modify the chart, and makes your effective level for the chart higher.

"Add 1/4 to the brawler’s effective level to determine her unarmed strike damage."

So Close checks "What is level of the Brawler?" the answer back would be 5 for base level, 6-1/4th for the purpose of unarmed strikes, which is rounded down to 6. Then it checks, "does this pertain to Unarmed strikes?" To which you get the answer, yes.

With your statement that you only get the basic brawler damage, size wouldn't change it either, as that isn't the "Base Dice." As it is only "Brawler 4 levels lower," a GM could say that the Brawler they are using for this example is Tiny or Small and only level 5. It's clear that the intent is that "if you were a brawler four levels lower" and your reading very silly.


graystone wrote:
PS: And as toastedamphibian points out, if we use your logic you can drink an ooze as a standard action since it requires brew potion to use Craft Ooze...

I have to say, this sounds like it'd probably be equivalent to drinking acid, well, depending on the ooze! It is suggested you use a nice Protection from Energy spell first!

On a serious note, pre-requisites do not mean acting as. For example, Improved Overrun uses Power Attack as it's pre-req. At no point are you required to use PA when overruning, nor do you get the bonus to the overrun, unless you also take the negative to hit from actually using PA. Furthermore, nothing in the Construct entry says it is counted as a magical item for the purpose of spells, making that null. You get what you get, nothing more. Nothing less. Feel free to houserule it though, but no, Make Whole does not allow you to "Resurrect" a construct. I'd allow it to repair a broken one to be back together, but it wouldn't make it alive, nor would I let it restore the same personality.

The closest thing to calling it an item is the flavor text saying "A construct is an animated object..." though it doesn't call them magical items. Furthermore, detecting magic doesn't indicate a construct anymore than detecting magic a magical beast, and they have magic in their name!

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