I'm mostly sure I read a statement that Paizo was going to make the module maps interactive. They would work backwards towards older modules.
Assuming I'm not imagining things is this still an ongoing project? If so is there an estimated date of completion.
PS: This supposed to included PF 1 modules from what I understood.
Disclaimer: This might belong in general discussion.
I've noticed over the years that many of the disagreements about the rules come down to whether those debating see the rules as "What the devs intended" vs "These words are used and intent doesn't matter".
When I first got here most people were going by intent, but that was over 10 years ago.
However if I'm helping someone in the forums and they don't specify I'd like to know what PoV I should use.
I've searched online and I have no answer so I'm asking here. Was the partnership with Owlbear or whatever they're called a one game commitment, or do they have exclusive rights to making Paizo games for X number of games or X number of years?
I'm not going to say anything positive or negative about the arrangement either way. I'm just curious.
I wanted some other opinions on this.
I've never felt like the drow noble had enough of an advantage over the basic drow race or any of the standard PC races to count it as a +1 to the CR of the creature. It's effectively trading a class level.<---That is my current view.
If the drow noble had see in darkness that might warrant it, at least in areas of darkness.
If there is a strategy that you can use with nobles that make them more effective that normal drow then I'm all ears.
I know about the increased SR. I don't care for the book version. I do allow monsters to drop it as an immediate action so it doesn't interfere with friendly spells. However it stays down until the beginning of their next turn. Otherwise I see it as a trap ability, particularly for monsters/creatures that work in a party.
PS: I did't put this in the homebrew section because the goal of this post is not so much for me to change any rules, but see if others are running drow nobles in a way that I'm not, and then I'll see what I'll do about the race.
The stat block has the Kyton with poison as one of it's special attacks, but there is no poison description.
Is the poison being listed a typo, or was there supposed to be a poison added, but it never got added?
Interlocutor stat block:
LE Large outsider (evil, extraplanar, kyton, lawful)
Init +7; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +23
AC 26, touch 13, flat-footed 22 (+3 Dex, +1 dodge, +13 natural, –1 size)
hp 147 (14d10+70); regeneration 5 (good weapons and spells, silver weapons)
Fort +14, Ref +9, Will +17
DR 10/silver or good; Immune cold; SR 23
Speed 40 ft.
Melee 4 claws +20 (1d8+7/19–20 plus bleed)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks bleed (1d6), poison, rend (2 claws, 1d8+7), surgical strikes, unnerving gaze (30 ft.; DC 22)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 14th; concentration +19)
At will—bleed (DC 15), plane shift (from the Material Plane to the Plane of Shadow Plane, self only), stabilize
3/day—cure serious wounds, restoration
1/day—breath of life
Str 24, Dex 17, Con 21, Int 15, Wis 22, Cha 20
Base Atk +14; CMB +22; CMD 36 (38 vs. trip)
Feats Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack
Skills Heal +23, Intimidate +22, Knowledge (arcana, local, religion) +9, Knowledge (dungeoneering, nature, planes) +12, Perception +23, Sense Motive +23, Stealth +16
Languages Common, Infernal
Environment any (Plane of Shadow)
Organization solitary, pair, or gang (3–5)
Surgical Strikes (Ex) An interlocutor's claws threaten a critical hit on a roll of 19–20. On a successful critical hit, that claw deals 2d6 bleed damage rather than 1d6.
Unnerving Gaze (Ex) A creature that succumbs to an eremite's unnerving gaze becomes staggered for 1 round as it becomes convinced that it recognizes some of its own body parts entangled in the interlocutor's body.
I'm posting this so it can be FAQ'd and fixed, hopefully making one of the final rounds of FAQ's before Paizo moves 100% over to PF2.
The arcana skill says "Once you discover that an item, location, or
What does Paizo mean by "ongoing", and what is the time need to identify a spell as it's being cast?
I have more questions, but I'll stop here to avoid having too many topics under one post.
I haven't read the book from cover to cover so I may have overlooked the information.
At the bottom of page 301 it says "Blindsight is a precise sense other than vision, such as echolocation, that a creature can use to perceive details in a
After "As", which makes it seem like the description should go to the next page, it doesn't continue. Of course "As" could be something that was never intended to be printed.
In PF illusion spells were foiled by spellcraft, and low level detect spells such as detect magic and detect <insert alignment>.
During a recent live playtest this was stated:
"The only way the illusion is detected is if it is lower-level than the detection spell. If it is of the same level, it is unnoticed."
I personally welcome this change. I know detect magic too 3 round to foil an illusion, but now they'll be better off.
Does anyone else think this was a good idea?
Many of the definitions that were printed in 3.5 didn't make it over to Pathfinder despite them having the same meaning.
I think that if we port PF 1.0 game terms and 3.5 legacy game terms over to PF 2.0 they should be in the glossary.
I would also like for common verbage such as "precision damage" that appear a lot, to have an actual place in the glossary.
While we're at it we need to do something to separate flavor text from mechanical text and clarify that flavor text is not rules text, and it's mutable(aka artistic interpretation) more than anything that is to be followed.
My suggestion would be to italicize flavor text.
For spells the flavor text can be over the mechanical text, like it is for feats.
It also stops GM's from trying to use flavor text against a player and claim "it's the rules". Of course as the GM he can make any rules he wants, but pretending it's official rules should not be encouraged.
Have there been any good crossbow builds on here?
Multiclassing is ok. I will even do the DPR math if someone has links. I just don't want to dig through every Pathfinder book in existence since I'm not even currently in a position to create a new character for an actual game.
There are two bloodline arcanas that are in dispute right now.
As always the specific FAQ question is bolded below.
Impossible Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Constructs are susceptible to your enchantment (compulsion) spells as if they were not mindaffecting. Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
Undead Bloodline: "Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."
The examples below are not going to account for mind effecting spells since there is no disagreement there.
Belief 1: Any spell that effect living creatures now effects constructs or undead. As an example Ray of Exhaustion would work because living things can be exhausted, even though normally undead and constructs are immune to it.
brilliant inspiration wrote:
slay living wrote:
Here is the specific FAQ question.
Does the Impossible Bloodline Arcana, and the Undead Bloodline Arcana allow constructs and undead to be effected by spells they would normally be immune to just because that effect would work against a living creature? Or is the intent only for things such as Brilliant Inspiration to effect them, which specifically calls out living creatures?
PS: Feel free to answer these in separate FAQ's. Since they are similar I just put them both into one FAQ.
The question has come up in this thread concerning mindless creatures using spells and SLA's. Some mindless creatures can use spells and SLA, but these are the original forms of the creatures.
Can a creature such as a dragon that naturally has spells and/or SLA's, but was altered by the skeleton or zombie template use them?
The question to be FAQ'd is the bolded question.
I know Paizo will not give an official answer, and I understand why. Some people will just nitpick it to death based on what Paizo does with PF does in the future, and based on their own preferences.
Did any of you try to come up with anything yet?
For now I am torn between coming up with something. It is really an idea I had over 10 years ago, but never finished fleshing out, and just looking at SF as its own thing, just like if I was playing a Star Wars game I would ignore any time before those civilizations had space travel.
There is a question in this post about the step up feat.
The idea is that some think you can use the Step Up feat even if you can't see the opponent move, nor did you have any other method of knowing they moved.
As always the actual FAQ question I am posting is in bold.
Can a character who can't perceive(likely see) the action of the opponent that the ability allows them to react to use that ability if that ability is reaction based.
Examples are the Step Up feat which react to movement or similar abilities such as Opportune Parry and Riposte which allow reactions to an attack.
The argument from what I understand is that Step Up does not specifically say you have to perceive the opponent to use the feat. The counter argument is that you can't react to a foe you can't perceive. The same logic(you don't need to perceive them) would likely apply to other abilities for those who say perceiving is not a factor.
Examples of abilities this FAQ would effect:
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach. This deed's cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the number of panache points a deed costs.
The actual FAQ question is bolded.
Do the figments created by mirror image gain the benefit of effects that give a miss chance to the caster if the images and the caster are both visible to the attacker?
Viewpoint 2: You always get to destroy the images if you roll high enough on the d20 attack roll. Only if the caster is randomly chosen does miss chance come into play.
Blur is a good spell to use as an example.
If an attack of opportunity disrupts your action can you change your action if the initial action can't be completed?
If I decide to move, and get tripped can I use that move action to do something else instead, such as stand up?
This has cone up several times, and no answer has been given. I know how I think it works, but that won't settle any debates. As always the actual FAQ question will be at the bottom of this post.
The rules state the following.
This just gives us the knowledge that the invisible creature is somewhere in the area.
The rules then go on to tell us how to find the actual square the creature is in instead of just knowing it is around.
So now we know it is a base DC of 40 to find the square before any other modifiers come into play.
However it doesn't end there.
Invisibility table wrote:
That pushed the base DC up to 60 if they are not moving.
Once again this tale is still not over. If you are using stealth you also get to add your stealth roll to either the +40 or +60 DC
Invisibility table wrote:
So the DC is either 40+stealth or 60+stealth.
The above is not counting other modifiers that can give a penalty to the perception DC such as being in combat or moving at full speed.
The actual FAQ question is bolded at the bottom.
One argument is that the sneak attack damage is completely separate from the spell damage.
Another argument is that sneak attack damage deals whatever type of damage the spell deals and is therefore part of the spell's damage.
In addition this FAQ has a save for a fireball with sneak attack added which makes it seem like it could be part of the spell's damage.
Of course this could also be a special case for this PrC, and not a general rule for any other instance of sneak attack being combined with spells.
Do metamagic feats such as empower and maximize apply to the sneak attack damage that occurs when it is used with a spell?
The actual question is bolded at the bottom. Everything else is just evidence to support a possible point.
In addition I do not have access to the Ultimate Intrigue so if it has more information I do not have it.
Whatever you think the answer is I would like for you to press the FAQ button. Thanks.
The CRB says:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
However "observable stimulus" has never really ever been explained.
Many of use who came from 3.5 assumed that you must intentionally look for a trap or hidden door, but the rules dont really say that.
The unchained book which changes how actions work says the following:
Search: You use Perception to search a room for salient hidden creatures or clues, or you make a detailed search of a 10-foot-square area to detect traps, triggers, hidden objects, or footprints. When you search an area, this action has the complex subtype
That shows evidence that the move action is the intent, but it is not absolute proof.
Later Mark(game rules designer) says:
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
This still does not make it a 100% certifiable rule since it was not actually written that way.
The goal of this post is to get an answer as to whether or not the Unchained book saying that checks for traps and limited to a 10 foot area is accurate.
Now I have to write the question so it can be FAQ'd.
Is it correct that the rules for searching for a trap, hidden door and similar things require a move action, and limit you to checking a 10 foot area?
I am not putting this in the rules section because I am just curious as to how many people enforce this with reach weapons or monsters that have reach.
I have never enforced this, even after I found out about it, and no GM I have played under has ever enforced it. I was wondering if it is strange(abnormal) that I have never seen this enforced or if this is one of those rules that nobody(not literally) cares to use.
Does Dimensional Slide require only a move action or is the intent to actually move(change location) even when not withdrawing?
Dimensional Slide (Su): The arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location. This ability is used as part of a move action or withdraw action, allowing her to move up to 10 feet per arcanist level to any location she can see. This counts as 5 feet of movement. She can only use this ability once per round. She does not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving in this way, but any other movement she attempts as part of her move action provokes as normal.
PS: Withdraw is actually mentioned as a withdraw action<---Just wanted to point out that while it actually uses a full round action it uses that term(withdraw action) in the book. Hopefully this avoids any derails.
A prepared caster such as a wizard or cleric can prepared a lower level spell in a higher level slot.
A spontaneous caster can use a higher level slot to cast a slot level spell.
A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell.
Can the arcanist cast a spell prepared as a 3rd level spell using one of his higher level daily allotment of spells. As an example could I cast fireball(3rd level spell) with one of my daily slots that is assigned to 4th level spells?
It seems as if some people are not clear on how rings are activated so I am posting this FAQ in order to get a final answer.
The ring specific rules for activation are as follows.
Activation: A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually. Some rings have unusual activations, as mentioned in the ring's specific description.
Are the methods to activating a ring limited to command words, the effect continually being in place, and whatever method would be described in a ring's specific description?
If a ring just says it has to be activated, but does not specifically say "on command" or have a special method of activation listed how is that ring activated?
An example of this is the ring of invisibility which just says "By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell".
The specific FAQ question is bolded at the bottom.
The entry in the APG says that "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack".
However, there are traits such as Ease of Faith which do not specifically call out a bonus given by a trait as a trait bonus.
Your mentor, the person who invested your faith in you from an early age, took steps to ensure that you understood that what powers your divine magic is no different than that which powers the magic of other religions. This philosophy makes it easier for you to interact with others who may not share your views. You gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks, and Diplomacy is always a class skill for you.
Are we to assume that all bonuses given by a trait or trait bonuses unless specifically called out as untyped or another type of bonus?Or, is a bonus given by a trait not a trait bonus unless it is specifically identified as a trait bonus in the rules text?
If I gain the ability such as a feat or class feature that allows me to perform an act by using a faster action instead am I restricted to only the faster action?
Examples(the following are not actual abilities that exist officially):
A question has come up a few times on the forums, and the rules don't exactly allow it, but they do hint towards it.
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform
Here is the exact question.
Can you use an action type to perform an act that is normally assigned to an action type that normally takes up less time?
If the answer is yes then I have "bonus considerations" at the bottom of this post.
Can I use a standard or move action to do an act that normally requires a swift action?
Cam I use a standard or move action to do an act that normally requires an immediate action.
Round 1: I use my immediate action to do something. By the rules I lose my swift action on my next turn if the immediate action is taken between turns.
Round 2: I want to use my move or standard action to do an act that normally requires a swift action.
1. "If I can use a move action to perform a swift action can I still do so when I am limited to only a move action such as from the nauseated condition?
2. If I use a Swift action in a round, can I use a Move or Standard action to perform another act that calls for a swift action?
PS: It is understood that a standard action can be used for a move action. This FAQ is more about replacing swift and immediate actions.
Before I get started I want to make a something clear.
1. This post is not about which one is better. More on that below. It will be bolded.
2. If this is in the wrong section feel free to flag it and have it moved to another section.
The phrase "if you roleplayed instead of rollplayed" or any similar phrase is offensive, even if you don't mean for it to be, and it should not be used here. It implies a "one correct way to play the game" perspective. Aligning yourself more or less with the rules or being in character is not a better or worse way to play no matter where you fall on the spectrum. It is only a preference.
If you say or imply that if someone were to be less mechanically efficient and/or worry more about the personality aspect of the character they would have more fun as if it is a fact, that is not much better.
In case anyone wants to try the, "but it's not against the rules or guidelines so it is ok" approach.
community guidelines wrote:
There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!
That is all.
PS: That is not nearly as long as I thought it was going to be.