MeanMutton's page

turing85 wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

Please refrain from putting "FAQ request" in your title.

hmmm, I feel like this is something that, for the most part is, ludicrous. Almost all FAQ request threads have been made with the express intent of putting a nice bow on an issue and making it clear and concise on what rules affect the issue and then requesting a FAQ on it.

likewise, i'm not going to FAQ a post unless the poster intends for it to be used as FAQ content.

I feel that the "don't post FAQ request threads" is entirely out of touch on why they're really made. If a thread generates a item that is a potential FAQ candidate I believe the responsible thing to do is to make a seperate thread expressly to generate buzz on getting it FAQed.

Likewise, if they don't care about the quantity of FAQs then there's no real reason to have the FAQ system in the first place.

it feels like a lame reason to discourage FAQing.

I also feel I need to post this. regardless on whether it is on topic or not.

They're not saying "don't post FAQ request threads". They're saying "don't put 'FAQ REQUEST' in the title of your rules discussion threads".

Can you turn off the toughness feat? If so, could dominate monster be used to force someone to turn off toughness?

That's very clearly "obviously self destructive" so Dominate would be right out.

In a recent feat we had a discussion about a feat saying "Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell ..." against "You can choose to take a –1 penalty ...".

I think you can always choose not to use a feat it you want (naturally you lose both the benefit and possible drawbacks) while the other poster thought that if it lack the "You can choose" text you are forced to sue it.

Someone know if there is a official ruling?

I know of no rule that supports the idea that you can selectively turn off feats that explicitly say things like "Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell".

DmRrostarr wrote:

You fought a Huge dragon which means you get a choice of the following:
large mwk hide + a shield
medium mwk banded mail + a shield
small mwk half-plate + a shield
tiny mwk full plate + a shield

Yes, I understand that's the rule, but the rule is DUMB.

If you understand the rule then why are you posting a question about the rule in the rules forum?

I am running ROTRL and I have a question on reading their creatures stat blocks. On top it says something like Thistletop Commandos (Goblin Ranger 1) (2) and to the left it says CR 1. Now does that mean their both together worth a CR 1 encounter or is it two CR 1 encounters. The only reason i ask is because they reference a page previous where a Goblin Commando (Goblin Ranger 1) was a CR 1 encounter. Im confused because i thought adding a PC glass brings a cr 1/3 to cr 1/2. Now i understand that having pc equivalent gear can raise the CR which is probably how the first Goblin Commando was a CR 1 by himself. But if it is two Goblin Commandos and they are together considered one Cr 1 encounter meaning cr 1/2 each. Do i need to lower their gear that is referenced in the printed adventure. Thanks for the help.

A piece of advice that will save you a TON of work. Run the AP as written, ignore XP, and just tell the PCs they level up when the AP says to level up. It'll make for WAY less paperwork.

CWheezy wrote:

Hello, who said you get access to the item?

Any way, the rules on magic have been posted and are perfectly clear in this case. There is no cost listed for the material components for infernal healing, therefore all you need is a spell component pouch or eschew materials. It doesn't matter that there is an unrelated item that costs money, the rules do not say "spells that have a material component without a listed cost are negligible (just kidding ignore this statement and look up everything to make sure)", the rule is "spells with a material component without a listed cost are negligible"

Your logic is completely faulty.

Unholy Water does have a price. Just because it's not listed on that spell doesn't make it free.

1 drop of devil's blood does not have a price and thus would be covered by a spell component pouch or eschew materials.

Wow. Huge nerf to gauntlets here. And once again a significant game change buried in arbitrary threads on the forums.

If it's not in a book, in an errata, or in a FAQ then it's not official rules.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Sigh, why it has refreshed and deleted everything?

Let's check the Giant Octopus against a typical CR 8 monster

Typical values:
hp 100 AC 21 primary attack +15 secondary attack +11 average damage (for a creature with high damage) 35 Primary ability DC 19 Secondary 12 high save +11, low save +7

Giant octopus - CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 81,5 Poison DC 17 fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 17 Saves CR 8

Now the same but with only 1 constrict attack:

Giant octopus CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 50 Poison DC 17fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 11 Saves CR 8

The potential damage of a giant octopus that constrict with each attack is that of a CR 17 monster, constricting only once it is that of a CR 11 monster.

Ever assuming that its attack bonus will keep the damage down when it meet higher CR characters the damage is out of scale for a creature of its CR.

I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

Diego wasn't doing simulations. Diego was comparing the stats of a giant octopus to what the stats of a CR 8 creature should be based on the baselines provided by Paizo.

Also, I would strongly caution your last line of criticism when you lead off with a statement that you don't understand what he's doing. Diego's analysis was much more useful and compelling that what you had provided.

Just looks for builds you see a lot (to often) that your kinda bored with and tired of seeing.

Mine:
1. Small race mounted combat characters, the rules on this are so broken it's practically cheating.

Halfling dual welding rogues. So tired of seeing this character.

Hyper-optimized save-or-suck sorcerer

Skulls and Shackles fits your requirements to a "t". There are TONS of role-play opportunities, lots of characters who stick with you from the very beginning of the campaign, and it's great fun for the players.

We're currently playing it in a VERY evil campaign but you could go all the way in the opposite fashion and have it be a "Privateer" type party.

It's hard to justify killing helpless people, and prisoners that surrender to you. But it is not impossible that that party's actions are not unforgivable, even if not justifiable.

There were no prisoners who surrendered in any of the OP's scenarios. There were enemies who were unconscious.

Even then, Paizo's material has shown that this is not only consistent with a lawful good alignment but explicitly consistent with the paladin's code of conduct.

Look at Torag's Paladin Code: "Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families."

Look at Sarenrae's Paladin Code: "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."

The confused condition does not change your designation as an ally.

Well, you ARE the one who wants to parse normal speech as rules with foe and ally.

"Ally" and "foe" are not well-defined game terms. What causes you to be an ally or foe is purely GM's discretion.

Honestly, I think the tier system has done give huge amounts of harm to the easy the game is thought about.

I have a player who has built for Coup de Graces, I am a bit confused on when one is considered helpless.

Is a character helpless only when unconscious? Or can one be considered helpless if they are prone or for some reason can't move?

A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.

So when you are in one of those specific situations, you're helpless.

Since the churches of Abadar act as banks, their tellers would be clerics with spells like Fairness, Abadar's Truthtelling, and Augury. They'd likely have wizards they hire to act as notaries with Arcane Mark (since that's a unique mark per wizard) and they're likely to have experts in spotting physical forgeries which are aided by magic.

I'd imagine that it would be very, very difficult to defraud them and they would NOT take kindly to you trying.

Be careful. Some people think calling yourself a paladin even if you aren't getting the benefits is 'Reskinning', which is outlawed. Others think you just can't call yourself a paladin unless that's your class or some unspecified doom will befall us all.

I don't play PFS so I didn't know this was a rule but seriously - a guy can't in-character call himself a paladin? Really? That's... ridiculous.

Sorry to piggyback this thread, but what are the best ways of getting rid of Protection From Good (Evil)?

I have a Witch who wants to use the Possesion spells. Dispel Magic targets the higher level buffs first, but the only buff she cares about is Prot from Good, she can beat their SR and saves.

You can target a spell with Dispel Magic:

You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.

For example: The class features of Monks and Brawlers grant them the ability to make unarmed strikes with any portion of their anatomy, otherwise they also always require a hand, even if you possess the Unarmed Strike Feat.

This is an incorrect point that I see repeated here over and over. They can NOT attack with "any portion of their anatomy". They can explicitly use fist, elbows, knees, and feet.

A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

This is interesting in that it explicitly denies them from being able to use their Monk Unarmed Strike class ability with headbutts, which are allowed under regular (non-Monk class ability) unarmed strike rules.

That is the exact FAQ I am seeking clarification regarding, because two other FAQs state that I may free my off-hand as a Free Action, and the core rulebook specifically states that I my take free actions during other actions without listing any exceptions.

Also did you even read my post before replying? I said "conditions under which a character may not use their off-hand to make an attack with if it is free?"

I am aware that my off-hand is not free while making an attack with a Greatsword, the issue is that I can free my off-hand as a Free Action.

I don't understand what clarification you could possibly want that is more clear than that single word sentence in the FAQ saying "No" when the exact question you are asking is being asked.

thenovalord wrote:

We use between 1% and 5% for Galorian. I think almost every settlement in every AP has a spellcaster. The setting is very high magic

So almost everywhere should have ample created water, wholesome food, etc.

An ap, by definition does not represent a standard scenario. It's a situation arranged to specifically be a adventure, including having magical resources and the like available. Not every small village need have a magic user - just the ones the pcs happen to be visiting. I submit that 'but an adventure path has it 'to not be a proper benchmark for the world at large.

The settlement rules indicate that every single settlement does have a spellcaster.

The issue here isn't the power level of the character - it's all the pets on the table. Just redo the character as a blaster wizard or stick with a martial character doing hundreds of points of damage a round. You can be super effective and overpowered without being disruptive.

Bottom line, I've never found a way to logically reconcile the settlement rules

Pathfinder's base ruleset expects a very, very, very common level of magic, much higher than any other fantasy game, movie, book, etc., that I'm familiar with.

Why four times more martial characters? There are significantly more spellcasting classes than there are non-spellcasting classes.

The number of classes don't represent the number of people in them.

The 3.X DMG actually had rules for generating a class break down for a settlement. Seven Days to the Grave even references the rules for this, in a sidebar explaining that less than 0.1% of Korvosa's population is capable to magically curing disease. (Or to be more precise, out of a population of 18,486 people, only about a dozen of them can remove disease.)

Huh.

And those rules apparently aren't available under the OGL. I'd always wondered why they weren't ported over to Pathfinder, and the answer is "they couldn't be."

Okay then.

Pathfinder has done quite a few things to make magic more readily available than it was in D&D 3.5 - all wizards get Scribe Scroll, DCs for creating magic items are now trivial, settlement rules show that every settlement has a wide range of available spellcasters and magic items. It's as high-magic a system as any RPG I've seen.

In nearly every AP I've seen, GMed, or played, you need to add some "mooks" to encounters when there's a single opponent - something that makes sense to be part of the AP, eats away at player action economy, but doesn't significantly alter survivability.

The Adept is an NPC spellcaster so some of those NPCs you're talking about are spellcasters.

I know of no rule that says that 95% of all characters in a setting must have only NPC classes.

The settlements rules demonstrate that there is a spellcaster in every single settlement, no matter how small. It also demonstrates that there are magic items for sale in every single settlement, no matter how small. Thus magic would be incredibly common, particularly among certain races - nearly every gnome, for instance, can cast spells.

...Hitting the guy next to you doesn't do much. They aren't likely to be carrying anything dangerous, so it will just be an unarmed punch, and may miss regardless....

Commoners are very unlikely to be wearing armor but are incredibly likely to be carrying something dangerous - a woodcutter is probably carrying an axe, a hunter is probably carrying a bow, carpenters doubtless have saws and hammers, miners would have pick-axes, merchants likely have a small weapon to protect them from thieves, pretty much everyone would have a dagger for general protection and overall utility, and pretty much any hunk of wood would make a pretty good club.

Honestly, the longer I play and the older I get... the more I think the old tried and true "roll 3d6 for each stat in front of everybody" method is best. Although 4d6 and discard the lowest is fine, too.

It results in unusually powerful characters infrequently, stops stat min/maxing (which can ruin a party, especially when everyone is INT 8), it's fair, and it encourages clever design of a character around what you have to work with, rather than making a designer character for power.

Random stats promote RP, IMO.

Actually - the lack of fairness is the greatest problem. You can still have that one person who starts with a 17 or 18 and tosses it into intelligence and plays a game busting wizard but you can also have someone who has nothing better than a 14 and has to figure out where to put a 5.

My heart is overcome with sadness for the poor nine level casters, burdened with these weak abilities, they will never be able to meaningfully contribute.

Why can't casters have only really really super nice things?

Honestly, I'm more annoyed at all the crap I have to weed through on my Herolab character sheet that I'll never, ever use than anything.

Since there was some discussion on equivalent point buy of a 4d6 drop 6 roll, I decided to try it out. I rolled 10,000 characters attribute arrays using that method. Since that allows for stats below the minimum starting stats in a point buy method, I used the following for the very small numbers: 6 -6 points; 5 -8 points; 4 -10 points; 3 -12 points.

My results:
Minimum: -19
Maximum: 64
Mean Average: 18.94
10th Percentile: 5
20th Percentile: 9
30th Percentile: 13
40th Percentile: 16
50th Percentile: 19
60th Percentile: 21
70th Percentile: 24
80th Percentile: 28
90th Percentile: 34
95th Percentile: 38
99th Percentile: 47

I will be joining a small group playing in RoW. The GM got pretty excited when I mentioned the thought of an Alchemist and is nudging me in that direction all though I looked at many options.

He is letting us use any non 3rd party books. 25 point buy. I will be joining at 4th level. Wanting to weigh the pros and cons of either Tiefling or Goblin.

For RP the goblin would be fun but I will also need some good reason for him to join the group. The Tiefling has some cool factor because wings, tail, and such.

What are your thoughts?

"For RP the goblin would be fun" To me, that would seal it. Play what would be fun. It is a game after all.

I know this is a post that's probably going to get a lot of pummeling, and feedback like 'You build a Slayer' or 'You go Cleric, summon archons and buff them' or 'You go Barbarian', but... Some relevant changes have come about for fighters (maybe not world shaking changes, but still Advanced Weapon and Armor Training, I'm looking at you) and more options are now on the table I believe.

So, how DO you build a fighter nowadays? I'm thinking your average, run of the mill fighter that picks up whatever weapon (even if a broken chair's leg), and goes to town beating the bad guys with it, while doing a good job at staying alive, and keeping his team alive?

Or are Fighters still not 'worth' building?

Please be gentle - Fighters are my favorite class of all times - I can't really put my finger on why that is exactly (most likely because I'm from the old days when 'Elf' was actually a class), but the truth of it is that I am :D

A fighter doesn't do well with picking up whatever weapon and going to town. The Pathfinder system really rewards specialization and the one thing a fighter can do is get obscene numbers of feats and specialize the hell out of himself.

I'm currently running an AP and the characters are up to 10th level. It's the first time I've seen Pathfinder characters at this level - we usually stick to lower levels.

I won't be playing anything beyond E6 again.

I'm pretty sure a brothel can come up with enough "optional expenses" to meet how ever many gold pieces are in your pocket.

It would not be unreasonable have one like Al Swearengen's Gem Theater in the show Deadwood - a combination of bar, casino, brothel, procurer of illicit goods, etc.

You can't charge more than 1 GP. 1 GP is a week's worth of hard working.

If you're charging more, those ladies/boys wouldn't have any reason to keep doing it, they'll be filthy rich

Based on what they show in that HBO show, the entertainers in real life are making as much in a session (however long that is, they don't really say) as an auto worker is making in a week.

So, not really all that unreasonable.

30 is the highest published CR that I'm aware of for first-party products. Gods in Pathfinder don't have stats, so therefore they don't have CRs either (because if it has stats, it can be killed). Gods do exactly what the GM says they do, whatever that thing may be.

The 1st edition D&D gods had stats. It's cute looking back at them. Here's the stats for Ares if you use the equivalent numbers in Pathfinder (they did weird things for AC, to-hit, etc.):

AC: 22
Hit points: 333
Melee: Spear 2 attacks at +9 to hit, 5d10 damage or 2 attacks at +9 to hit, 3d10 damage

Str: 21
Dex: 25
Con: 24
Int: 20
Wis: 9
Cha: 22

Special attacks: Successful attacks with his spear also cast Cause Fear.

Special defenses: Anti-magic shell at will. Immune to poison and petrification. Equivalent SR is about 25 or so.

One of the other reasons the Fighter gets brought up so much, is that people want to like him. The Fighter was pretty much essential until the drastic nerfs he was hit with in 3rd edition (which have been preserved through 3.5 and into Pathfinder), but there's still books, movies, cartoons, etc. that feature characters people identify as "Fighters", but then they discover that the PF Fighter is arguably the worst class in the game for playing anything that resembles the character they want.

What nerf? The fighter was originally the class you kind of defaulted into when you rolled crappy and couldn't qualify for a real class.

In 1st edition, a ranger and a paladin were both subclasses of the fighter meaning they had every single ability the fighter had plus a bunch of special extra stuff.

In 2nd edition, they added a single thing fighters could do - weapon specialization which gave them a +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and an extra attack every other round. Rangers and paladins got everything else a fighter had plus lots of benefits.

Going from 2nd edition to third edition, a fighter gains proficiency with every single weapon in the game (which they did not previously have; they needed to spend their limited weapon proficiency slots) and they gained a ton of feats.

The only possible nerf was moving from the (entirely optional) non-weapon proficiency system to a more robust skill system. But that also gave them the ability to gain Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, etc., if they really wanted.

Warpriest: I originally thought this was a stupid idea and just butting into an already crowded niche. But now I can see...that my original idea was almost entirely correct, but I did find a way to justify it's place somewhat: The warpriest is to the inquisitor as the magus is to the bard. The magus analog is especially important because the Warpriest swift action buffing is comparable to the Magus' Spell Combat, the difference being that the Magus has both buffs and attack spells to work with from the arcane list while the Warpriest will much more exclusively be using buffs. Unfortunately the Warpriest's oversaturation of swift actions is still annoying (sacred armor and sacred weapon should be able to activate with the same action imo), but we've got the awesome Arsenal Chaplain archetype to alleviate that some.

When the warpriest uses this ability, he can also use his sacred weapon ability as a free action by expending one use of his fervor.

To me, the CN characters are neutral in that they’re not going to go out of their way to help random people or hurt people they care about but they’re chaotic in that they don’t really care about honor, integrity, or fairness. A CN person will have no compulsions about lying, cheating, using drugs, having promiscuous sex, or whatnot in the pursuit of their other goals. A CN person isn’t random or insane.

Chess Pwn wrote:

Whatever you're trying to do. NO

You must use the strong voice to cast a spell.

If you read to the end you would see that I know you have to speak in a clear voice to cast. I just want to clarify where it says I actually have to. Or perhaps point out an error for faqing or errata

Chess Pwn read it to the end. Everyone here did. I'll reiterate: Whateveryou're trying to do, no. Don't do that. Even if the other rule wasn't there, just don't do that.

Haladir wrote:

Perhaps we should shy away from referencing real-world religious figures when talking about game mechanics.

Just sayin'.

This game is thoroughly riddled with mythology: titans, angels, elves, gods, etc. I don't see why references to this particular mythological being should be different from those to any other. Would you have the same concerns about other demi-gods like Hercules or Perseus?

Just sayin'.

I wasn't aware that roughly half the world's population consider Hercules and Perseus to have religious import.

GM 1990 wrote:

At my home game, however, I don't typically allow take 10 for finding or disabling traps. Pits - yes; but anything with a trigger - no. My reason is that the very action of looking for a trap often requires more than just visually inspecting or looking for something. You may need to touch, feel around, wipe away dust and cobwebs, etc to uncover a trigger/tripwire/pressure plate; and that action may set it off.

I go almost exactly the opposite, I'm afraid. I'm fairly explicit that all characters are at all times assumed to be taking 10 if possible to detect traps, ambushes, and the like.. This, in turn, prevents meta-gaming when I ask for Perception rolls, and speeds up play immeasurably. (Nothing grinds the game to a halt like stopping every 10 feet to roll a die.) Players, of course, can ask for a Perception check any time they like....

For ambushes and stuff that's a killer for the players. You've now DRAMATICALLY decreased their chance at avoiding ambushes and traps.

The Sun in Golarion has been defined in the module Distant Worlds. I don't have that module but it appears a few things are clear from the pathfinder wiki:

1) The Sun is not made of plasma but merely fire.
2) Creatures live in it, notably fire elementals, plasma oozes, Efreeti, salamanders, and solar dragons.
3) Things can float on the surface - a wizard has built his own fortress there and there's a collection of cities tied together by magic.

The item description does not say you have to be falling to get the benefit of the immediate action use, but it could be the intent. I will press the FAQ button.

It says "While falling, the bearer can snap and destroy the snapleaf as an immediate action to gain the benefits of feather fall and invisibility."

It gives no other benefits or uses. I don't see any way to read this other than it only works while falling.

bbangerter wrote:

This still lacks RAW support for any rules that say arrows remain sticking in the target after they hit.

It doesn't need RAW support. The GM can make that adjudication on his or her own.

The purpose of the "Rules Questions" forum is to clarify the rules.

Lakesidefantasy wrote:

I guess this undermines the classic technique of casting silence on an arrow or dagger and embedding it into the caster, thus avoiding giving them a Will save.

That's what tanglefoot bags are for...

That is amazing...

Most in this thread seem to interpret the rules in a 'formulaic' or 'programmatic' way. I don't believe that is how RPG rules should be read. Rather, I'm of the school which holds that the rules are attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply;

Pathfinder games are not a model of the real world. They're a very, very rough abstraction. I've played quite a few games which do rather a good job of modelling the real world. They're radically different. If you want Pathfinder to model the real world, you have to change a TON of rules.

Because of that, I'm adamantly, 100%, completely against the idea of "attempting to model the real world and thus real world logic should apply".

Either way, this particular conversation is a rules-forum conversation. The rules are there and don't seem particularly unclear to me. They seem in conflict with the real world a bit that's no different from a hundred other rules - hit points, armor class, firearms, falling damage, environmental rules, energy damage, insanity, confusion, disease, movement rates, drowning, lots and lots of things which would attract my attention on a "real world logic" basis long before a point of damage on a silvered weapon.