Sarenrae

TrinitysEnd's page

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


1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.).


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.


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.


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!


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!


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.


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.


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.


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).


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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this is in the wrong forum. It is not a rules question, but a house rule or advice thing. You are already outside the rules of PF. If your players like how you play it, then all the power to you.

Either way, I've flagged the post as wrong forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is an FAQ on this and White Haired Witches.

FAQ wrote:
Witches of races that do not normally have hair can become white-haired witches, in which case, they supernaturally grow hair.

But for Prehensile Hair Hex, you'd have to ask your GM if they want to follow the White Haired Witch stuff or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:
If SPELL, then doesn't work while polymorphed to change size. If SP/SU ABILITY, then not a SPELL. If Demonic Bulk/Size Alteration/Kinetic Form are SU/SP/SP, then not a SPELL.

Except demonic bulk explicitly functions as an enlarge person spell for all purposes except for specifically stated exceptions. Just like how lead sheeting blocks a scrying spell, and the water sight revelation isn't a scrying spell, but it functions as one and thus is blocked by lead sheeting.

TrinitysEnd wrote:

Other examples that aren't based on a spell are:

Size Alteration (Sp) Transmutation Focus Power (Occultist), Kinetic Form (Sp) Universal Wild Talent (Kineticist), and likely more.

The size alteration focus power specifically states that it functions as enlarge person or reduce person, so the same logic as with demonic bulk would apply. Kinetic form's wording is more ambiguous, but it still falls clearly under the rule that, barring the specifically listed exceptions, "in all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." Spells that change size don't work on polymorphed targets, kinetic form...

I understand that, and I agree that it, though the Scrying could also do with fixing, though my suggested wording of an FAQ would be "If a Spell-like or Supernatural Ability functions as a Spell or functions using any of the Spell Schools (or subschools), it is treated as a spell for the purpose of things it can and cannot do according to the rules within the School and Subschool." Or "In the School and Subschool section of the Magic Chapter, change instances of spell with "spell or effect"." Either would really work as an FAQ answer. Not perfect wording of course, but it's good enough for a little bit of thought.

And so you are right about Size Alteration. I could of sworn I had my glasses on too... :P. Kinetic form is indeed ambiguous, and sorry if I don't necessarily trust the "Spell-like ability is a spell otherwise" line because we've been constantly told it isn't more than we've been told it is. And well, that whole contradictory mess could use cleaning as well.

And yes, this whole thing is.... kind of a mess. I'm glad that we've reached an understanding on that. And that well... A better FAQ question would be "When a Supernatural or other ability functions as another ability, what limitations are imposed on them? For example, Demonic Bulk (Abyssal Bloodrager) and Polymorph Size changes, Water Sight (Oracle Waves Revelation) and Lead Sheeting, and Mockingbird (Vigilante Talent) and Saves."

I added one more, because it annoys me. I'll let you take a gander at it: "The vigilante can mimic almost any sort of voice, or even animal calls and sound effects, and he can throw his voice at a distance. This functions similarly to a combination of the ghost sound, ventriloquism, and vocal alteration spells. A vigilante must be at least 5th level to choose this talent."

Does this allow a save? Cause the spells themselves do, but... It is an Ex, which suggests it is not magical and very real. The rules don't have any support for it not having a save, but having a save doesn't make sense either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, this is further shown by this line "Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like." Which is under Supernatural Abilities in the glossary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Polymorph school has a rule wrote:
In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.
This would block Enlarge whether or not the polymorph changed your size.

Yes that would, but the problem I see there with that language is the fact that it does specifically call out spells. And is under a section called "Casting Spells" and the subsection "Spell Description." Both of which lead to no actual text saying to count Supernatural effects. Should it? I'd definitely agree. But, it doesn't.

The ability being talked about is Demonic Bulk, an Su ability from Abyssal Bloodrager, that states "At 4th level, when entering a bloodrage, you can choose to grow one size category larger than your base size (as enlarge person) even if you aren’t humanoid." So while Enlarge is blocked normally because it is a spell, Demonic Bulk isn't. If it were to be from the FAQ's blocking or Enlarge's block ("Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.") then it wouldn't work.

Something that says "This does not work on Humans" isn't blocked just because I am disguised as a Human and am actually an Elf. Just as entering an AMF doesn't stop a fighter from having his bravery, as it is an Ex and not an Su or Sp.

So, James, as you told Lady-J, if you want the rules to support that, you should start your own thread and FAQ it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, they were saying that when one supernatural ability that functions as a spell (in this case a Transmutation (polymorph) spell). That it uses all the rules that spell includes, including the rules in the Transmutation (polymorph) section.

This is the truth because when you wildshape into an animal, your gear merges, you lose the ability to talk, and more. It also doesn't stack with all the same things that spell doesn't stack with, including other polymorph spells and spells that alter your size.

They are not saying Supernatural Abilities are spells, they are saying Supernatural abilities that function as spells follow all of the rules that spell follows, including ones in their spell type rules, like Polymorph, shadow, glamer, and more. This includes where they can and cannot work. If an ability stated "This doesn't stack with haste", if a supernatural ability gave you an effect that said "This functions as haste." It doesn't stack with them, even though the ability isn't haste, it functions as it for all intents and purposes.

What your question from the original thread should have been is "If I use a Polymorph effect like Beast Shape to take the shape of a creature the same size as me, does that count as a size increase for the purpose of Enlarge Person or the Size Stacking FAQ?"

As for my opinion on that discussion, this line plays an effect from the FAQ "As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies." Enlarge Person would work on someone shapeshifted into something the same size as them, as they overlap and not stack. Take the highest. If you were shapeshifted into a creature one size or more larger than yourself, Enlarge Person would do nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I actually really like the Hornbow as a GM since it gets archers (those using the hornbow and those who aren't) to really think about range.

Since the longbow archer can always have a significant accuracy bonus over the hornbow archer that's shooting at them if they just stand further back. You only need to be in your 4th range increment for the hornbow user to be outside their max range.

"Archers want to move sometimes instead of just standing there like turrets" is a very good thing.

Most of my battlemaps are not 400 ft though, so while yes, that is a good thing they do, but most players are limited by the fact that they are in a building, dungeon, or pass where they can't necessarily stand 400 ft away and shoot. This is a problem a lot of archers face, and I've played the archer that had to move about firing in melee and I've played the archer that gets to play it safe in the backline.

The hornbow, while a great way to force the players into distance combat, only works against other archers or ranged people. The barbarian with his axe either twiddles his thumbs or charges in. The rogue juggles his daggers. And the bard sings for an audience of one, if you even have an archer or ranged person.

But for the most part, the battle map is 150 ft at most. The largest one I've played on was 510ft, and luckily had Extreme range on my kineticist. But that situation is rare in most games, and sure, you can set it up, but it punishes all the other players, and that's to say your player doesn't have one of these themselves! Or that the party can even understand the weakness of the weapon without metagame knowledge. If it's a bow you've never seen used, how do you know it isn't just a better version of your bow?

All in all, I disagree that the Hornbow causes the moving archer scenario. It just causes metagame knowledge, players that don't do anything for a fight, and is extremely unlikely unless you set up a large scene like this. Which, as stated, will end with the party that is melee dying as they charge in like normal unless they metagame it or you familiarize them with the bow first. Which then leads them to do nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, This FAQ makes it clear that if you use two hands to attack with a weapon, you don't get an offhand or second attack.

I know this is the Hands of Effort FAQ a lot of people dislike though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mars Roma wrote:

Up to until the post about Kinetic Blasts having an Effective Spell Level, I was discussing how the existing rules worked.

did you not read my last post, did you not read the suggested Errata I made? Not hard for someone who has read the entire thread to gleam what can be done from there. Here, Just take this and repurpose it for a FAQ. Sorry I made an example, thought it would make things simpler.

The fact that you'd need Errata to make it align with what you want means that the rules don't support that reading. No one is trying to attack you, we are trying to explain to you why it doesn't work the way you want it to. We've quoted the rules, given all the arguments, and more, but it's still not enough apparently.

I'm going to bow out of this as the answer has been stated a dozen times. And there is no point continuing it again and again. I wish you luck on getting the Errata you want Mars, but please take a breather. Grab a cup of cocoa and please stop viewing every post as daggers trying to enter your spleen.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My opinion is that RAW, you cannot. As per the same reasons Mark Seifter gave. Reading over this, I've only seen Mars try to say that Caster Level is Character Level. To which I respond, no it isn't. Caster Level is equal to Character level, but Character level isn't equal to Caster Level. For example, at level 17, if you selected both options as same as starting element, you get +1 Caster Level. This then makes Caster Level equal Character Level + 1. But you are not suddenly a level 18. You only get a +1 Caster Level for where it matters (SR piercing or dispel or similar).

Quote, that you posted, but ignored the second half:
"The composite blast’s caster level is equal to the average of the caster levels of both participants and deals damage as the appropriate composite blast created by a kineticist of that level"

If Class Level equaled Caster Level, that second bolded line wouldn't be necessary. What this says is that the damage is based on Class Level. Not Caster Level.

Quotes on the rules text has already been stated above. Believe me or not, but at this point you are wanting it to be, and refusing to look at the evidence disproving everything you are saying. Caster Level and Class Level are not interchangeable. Varisian Tattoo feat does not make a caster one level higher, nor does the Orange Ioun stone. They are two entirely different mechanics and while they typically correlate, they do not always.

While I would love for what you said to be true, as then you could theoretically get up to 11d6 damage at level 20 by staying the same element (As well as get everything a level earlier), that does not work by the rules. As it would break so many things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:

No. "Instead" means "ignore the previous method of gaining additional attacks, this is how natural weapons work"...That's not how English grammar works when the word "Instead" is used at the beginning of one sentence immediately following another.

(It's no wonder these rules are F-balls confusing to parse by literate people.)

As an English major, that instead just means: Instead of the normal. So read it like this: "Instead of gaining additional attacks from increased BAB,..." That is what the literate and linguistic people read it as and is understood by the english language.

Furthermore, the last sentence I left quoted, is EXTREMELY rude and states that everyone telling you that you are wrong and the rules work as they are stated, is illiterate. As they understood it clearly. That is not how you should approach assistance on this website.

TLDR: Jeraa is right. English states what Jeraa said is right. You are just being rude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is actually an error on Archives of Nethys and D20pfsrd.

PRD wrote:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A steelblood gains proficiency with heavy armor. A steelblood can cast bloodrager spells while wearing heavy armor without incurring an arcane spell failure chance. This ability alters the bloodrager's armor proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not trying to be rude Gisher, but some minor errors.

Step 4-6 is listed as step 3. In the Corrosive entry, you forgot the 315 gold.

Otherwise, really well described (far more detailed than my 3 step process).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On my reading, it ignores immunity. Immunity normally says "You ignore this." But Furious Finish states even if you normally wouldn't be, which includes immunity. So that supersedes immunity. Now, I'd tie it into the Rage's fatigue. So you are fatigued for number of rounds raged x2.

If they meant it to be just ignoring the feature at 17th level, it would specify it by saying something like: "you are fatigued (even if you have the Tireless Fatigue Barbarian class feature)."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Link to FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Bodyguard: The Bodyguard feat says that I can spend one of my attacks of opportunity to aid another the AC of an adjacent ally, but it doesn’t say one way or the other whether this removes other restrictions on aid another? Particularly, do I need to threaten the attacking enemy? Also, has that enemy provoked an attack of opportunity from me?

You still need to fulfill all requirements of aid another, including threatening the attacking enemy. Bodyguard uses up one of your attacks of opportunity for the round, but the enemy hasn’t provoked an attack of opportunity from you, nor are you making one (which is relevant for abilities like Paired Opportunist).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just stumbled upon this today and I have to say... Wow. Like this is so amazing and fantastic. I'd been using this other Fanmap for some time, but they added in a bunch of stuff to "fill the void" and I dislike using it because I don't know what actually exists and what doesn't.

But just wow! Amazing work! And now I am following your work!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, just stop feeding the troll. You've all pointed out the rules to him. He's just blatantly hung up on the idea that a move action is movement. It's not, we all know this, but he doesn't or is just drawing this out.

He's insulted people, blatantly ignored rules, and declared others aren't listening to him when he's not listening to others.

Moorningstaar, if you are indeed not a troll. Please see reason and rules where it's been posted. Movement =/= Move action. And it is by SQUARES not areas.

THE RULES wrote:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.

Now, I suggest just letting this thread die. Or pray a mod locks it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except he was talking about it in the post and explaining the reasons why he marked that post as No Response Necessary. The rules as written and as intended are exactly what he said in the post. Unless it says in the feat, you cannot take it a second time. You can, through classes, gain a feat a second time, which is clarified don't stack. But you've not shown us a single line saying "You can take a feat more than once" as a general rule. You have shown us "If you somehow have a feat twice...," but that never specifies the ability to take it twice.

You are not playing by RAW. You are playing by House Rules. As this is a Rules Forum, it is the job of the posters to answer what the rules are. If you want to ignore the rules, you can, but that is what you are doing, ignoring the rules.

Edit: Link to the thread he was talking about


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

See Ultimate Combat, Feats section, "Special" definition:

"Special: This line lists special features of the feat, such as, but not limited to, whether or not you can take the feat more than once, or whether the feat allows members of specific classes to gain additional benefits."

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

For Scott since he seemed to miss it. I've bolded the relevant parts. Though Talon also brings up another valid point.

Do you have a link per chance? @Talonhawke

It is in the PRD.

On this page.

While I should have included that link in my post, I was referring to Talonhawke's quote for the link to that. Which I went and found: Sean's Post.

As to answer whether SKR is able to answer the rules. He was the Paizo Designer Team of back then. In a sense, he used to be the person to post the rule answers and FAQs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

See Ultimate Combat, Feats section, "Special" definition:

"Special: This line lists special features of the feat, such as, but not limited to, whether or not you can take the feat more than once, or whether the feat allows members of specific classes to gain additional benefits."

They really should have put that language in the core rulebook as well.

For Scott since he seemed to miss it. I've bolded the relevant parts. Though Talon also brings up another valid point.

Do you have a link per chance? @Talonhawke


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of Reincarnation, but I'd also throw in a bit of other things to help balance it out and make it so the party doesn't feel too screwed.

My ideas would be to make it so they reincarnate, roll randomly or GM choice doesn't matter, and have the items temporarily without magic. The Wish Granter than states that should the companions want their bodies back to being their normal form, you have to do one job for each companion and he will return you to your normal body. Then with the Magic Items, have it so he will only have the magic work while doing his jobs, and at any point they try to cheat him, do something against him, or don't do what he has asked, the items stop working. And once they complete all the jobs (Should be Number of Companions + 1 or 2) the items are returned back to normal for the party.

These jobs should be dangerous, hard, but should also tie in with the story. Gives a plot hook without being too detrimental to the party, and still punishes them for their reckless wishes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bearinjapan wrote:

In my campaign an archenemy knocked the level 4 witch unconscious and kidnapped her compsognathus familiar. The thief fled to a small town (1,200 population) and was hiding with the familiar (sealed in a box) in a warehouse when the PCs arrived at the town in hot pursuit.

When the witch was a mile from the town I told her that she had regained the empathic link with the familiar and that it was in the town.
BUT would the witch be able to know exactly which building the familiar is being kept captive in by using empathic link? (remember the familiar has been locked in a box and has no idea where it is since being kidnapped)
I've been looking in the books and online but cannot find an answer.
(In the game I had to make an instant decision as GM, so I allowed the witch to home in on the precise warehouse, but I think I may have made a mistake. I need to know for future reference.)

Even if not direct locations, you could suggest the witch "Triangulate" the familiar by approaching from the north, marking where the feeling started on a map, doing so from the SE and SW and such, until they have a center point, allowing them to track to the general location of the familiar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had asked Mark about that a bit ago, here was his response (Someone may have stated this already):

Myself then Mark wrote:

TrinitysEnd wrote:

I've seen a lot of posts and everything with people talking about this, but I've never found a definitive answer. Just people's interpretations of the rule.
But, can you Masterwork an Improvised Weapon? Does a Mithral or Adamantine Improvised weapon receive a +1 to hit? Furthermore, can you enchant an Improvised Weapon (Without using special abilities like Sohei and the likes)?

Mark Seifter wrote:
It seems like you can't masterwork or enhance them in those ways. If you built, say a ladle, out of adamantine, it wouldn't be crafted as an adamantine weapon, but instead by weight as an "other item" that you then use as an improvised weapon, so in that regard it probably wouldn't get other attributes specific to adamantine weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:

So I just noticed this, but it's really rustled my jimmies and I have to ask a Developer about this.

Why does the Occultist get a useless Conjuration Implement Resonant Power?

** spoiler omitted **

Going through all the Conjuration Spells an Occultist can get normally, the list of spells that work are as follows:
Glitterdust - Level 2
Major Creation (But only for Rare Metals) - Level 4
Pocketful of Vipers (Likely doesn't work. But if it does, only for when the spell is discharged?) - Level 3

And that is it.

Was this supposed to have more use and then just never did?

Mark's previous answer to this question.

Thank you Gisher! Still kind of sad, but at least that answers it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:

I was doing some reading for a new character and found this Empyreal Lord. Seemed pretty interesting, but I was very confused by the second boon.

"2: Swamp Healer (Sp) You can cast empowered heal 1/day."

Now, to my knowledge, Empowered does nothing on Heal as it has no Variable effects (Dice Rolls). So is this just Heal with a useless Metamagic slapped on?

If you feel it's weird, I recomend hitting the FAQ button.

**EDIT**

Empower Spell wrote:

All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half, including bonuses to those dice rolls.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.

I take what I said before back; the bolded portion means an Empowered Heal does nothing different compared to a regular Heal.

Correct, which is why I would like it clarified that this does do something. So I ask that you please hit the FAQ or spread the word or something!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trish Megistos wrote:
I would just treat it as 15 per caster level.

While houserules are fine, I would like to know if there is any rules precedent of this being able to work as written (And I would definitely encourage it to be 15 per caster level, going to a max of 225).


8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was doing some reading for a new character and found this Empyreal Lord. Seemed pretty interesting, but I was very confused by the second boon.

"2: Swamp Healer (Sp) You can cast empowered heal 1/day."

Now, to my knowledge, Empowered does nothing on Heal as it has no Variable effects (Dice Rolls). So is this just Heal with a useless Metamagic slapped on?

If you feel it's weird, I recomend hitting the FAQ button.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I just noticed this, but it's really rustled my jimmies and I have to ask a Developer about this.

Why does the Occultist get a useless Conjuration Implement Resonant Power?

Resonant Power:
Casting Focus (Su): The implement empowers the bearer’s ties to the worlds beyond, allowing his spells to maintain their power for a longer period of time. The bearer can add the implement as an additional focus component to any conjuration spell he casts that has a duration measured in rounds per level. If he does so, he adds 1 to his caster level for every 2 points of mental focus stored in the implement (to a maximum bonus equal to your occultist level). This increase applies only when determining the duration of the spell. Apply this increase after other effects that adjust a spell’s duration, such as Extend Spell.

Going through all the Conjuration Spells an Occultist can get normally, the list of spells that work are as follows:
Glitterdust - Level 2
Major Creation (But only for Rare Metals) - Level 4
Pocketful of Vipers (Likely doesn't work. But if it does, only for when the spell is discharged?) - Level 3

And that is it.

Was this supposed to have more use and then just never did?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like people are missing the very key and important rule of Polymorph effects: "While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed."

Now, I recently made a ruling in my own games that polymorphing into an Aquatic Animal on land is a "Hold your breath or die" situation. My reasoning for this is that breathing Air is an Ex ability just like how Scent is an Ex ability. It's Extraordinary for an Aquatic Creature.

Now, people are able to rule differently at their own table, but to me it is nonsensical to allow an Octopus or Squid or Fish the ability to breathe air. And no "It's Magic" is not a reasonable answer. And if it is your answer, I feel bad for martials in your group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Am I reading the Animal Ally feat correctly; could I really have a fighter 10/druid 10 with an animal companion as if he were a 27th-level druid?

17 (character level -3) + 10 (druid levels) = 27

If so, what is the earliest I could have a 20th-level animal companion?

While not an official answer, Mark Seifter recently answered this by saying that you cannot count a level twice, so the druid levels, which give you 10 levels normally, do not count for the Animal Ally Feat. Source


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought maybe three was enough, but I am apparently insatiable! I apologize as I release another question on you. This one, Catfolk Claw Blades.

Are Claw Blades considered the Claws for the purposes of other abilities, such as the Catfolk Slayer Talent Vicious Claws? Which reads:

Vicious Claws wrote:
A catfolk with this talent uses d8s to roll sneak attack damage instead of d6s, but only when she uses her claws to make the sneak attack. A catfolk rogue must have the cat’s claws racial trait before taking this talent.

Thank you once again for your time!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I'm back for a third question! I'm quite sorry for barraging you with all these questions, but otherwise I'll forget. It's about the Elemental Ascetic Kineticist Archetype.

Elemental Wisdom wrote:
An elemental ascetic can use his Wisdom modifier instead of his Constitution modifier to determine the DCs of Constitution-based wild talents, the duration of wild talents with a Constitution-based duration, and his bonus on concentration checks for wild talents. This ability alters the key ability scores of wild talents.

How come it doesn't replace amount of Burn one can take and all other Constitution based class features? I remember you stating above that it was supposed to just not add the damage, which Kinetic Fist doesn't allow, so was this a missed thing, or was this supposed to be replacing with all Wisdom?

Thank you once again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another question for you Mark, as there is some confusing wording on one of the Aether Infusions. Many Throw states that you select a number of targets, but doesn't state you can't select the same target again. Is this intentional? Are Aether Kineticist's supposed to be allowed 17+ blasts at a singular target? Or is it meant to not be allowed to target the same person? As most abilities that don't let you target the same person more than once, state so in it's ability if I am remembering correctly.

Thank you for taking your time once again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey there again! Thank you for the answers to my previous questions! I have another interesting thing that was brought forth to me.

Clerics and Domains particularly ones forced into domains. Some Cleric Archetypes specify that you must take a certain domain, similar to the Merciful Healer. Which states:

Merciful Healer wrote:
Willing Healer: A merciful healer must choose the Healing domain. She does not gain a second domain. If the cleric worships a deity, that deity must be one that grants the Healing domain. A merciful healer must channel positive energy.

Would you be able to take subdomains of the Healing Domain (Such as Restoration, Resurrection, or the new one Medicine?), or is it only base Healing Domain? (And thus would this apply to other ones that force you to take other Domains?)

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>