Wolfwood82's page

IMO the Alchemists bomb is volatile but requires impact to explode. The reason there are discoveries like Delay Bomb suggests that adding a fuse to the bomb is a special action.

However Nefreet has an excellent point, the alchemist bomb ability is supernatural, is there for magical, and that would include the vial it was put in.

TBH the DM that runs my games actually tried this one on me with my alchemist. Fortunately my alchemist snipes with a magical crossbow and doesn't throw vials, so I got away with it because there was an impact that caused an explosion.

To answer other questions, his personality towards me is questionable but he does not have a great personality to begin with.

He has stated his awareness of certain habits of his, which I accept and ignore. That being he likes to deliver bits of information to people as if it was the most obvious thing in the world.

His personality is something of a micro-bully (I suspect it's more subconscious then conscious). He pretends to know a lot of things, memorizing and repeating useless tidbits of information. He is quick to point out the mistakes of others and extremely defensive when his own mistakes are pointed out, part of the problem between us I suspect. If I play dumb and ignorant things would go more smoothly, obviously. He will join any discussion, even regarding subjects of which he knows nothing about, and inevitably turns those subjects into arguments if anyone disagrees with him on the matter. And as I said, he does not concede points unless out numbered.

To summarize, I kinda compare him to forum trolls. A lot of what he says is more or less geared towards raising someone else's ire. He's no better when he is a player, argues with DMs over everything he disagrees with, regardless of RAW or the DMs wishes.

Politically speaking, my best friend and I are sort of the "new comers" to this group. We met this guy and the other player at our table through another friend. And they have been gaming together for decades, so my friend and I are probably out voted.

A pretty picture, this is not. He is/was a friend so his faults outside of game are immediately on my ignore list, I do not fault people for being themselves. Writing them all out now is something of a slap in the face to me, but it is the honest truth. He's nice enough when you agree with him, when you aren't discussing anything with anyone else terribly important or that you have extensive knowledge or experience with, or when you don't point out his many mistakes. In short, be stupid and ignorant and he likes you just fine... I guess...

Seems like we’re getting a little carried away with demonizing this GM. Honestly, A creature with no eyes that had Blindsight could very well be immune to feint....

My understanding of feint mirrors JJ's. If the target can perceive you, and has an intelligence score, you can feint it. Blindsight not only allows this target to perceive you, it allows this target to perceive you as clearly as if he could see you (no AC penalty, no miss chance, and no flat-footed).

This means that, as I see it, you can feint a blind target. If all you do is suddenly shout out, that target's attention is drawn to your words, not your actions.

If the target has improved blind fighting, or blind sight, or blind sense, or relies on hearing rather then eyesight, shouting as you attack overpowers the sound of your movement with the sound of your voice, rendering your victim effectively blind to the attack.

The core principle behind a feint is to perform a misleading action to convince your opponent that either an attack is not imminent, or that one is coming from a direction that it is not.

How much good does feinting a blind target do? Not much, since he is flat footed anyway. That is unless both the feinter and a partner have the Improved Feint Partner feat, which grants a free AoO to the partner.

In this case, I distract my target in some way shape or form to allow my partner to get in a quick shot.

If I take the normal -4 penalty because the target was not a humanoid (it was undead), I'd be fine with that. My case is that virtually everything with an intelligence score should be a fair feint target, unless something specifically states "you are immune to feints", as some rogue abilities do I believe.

Unless the DM is allowing the other players to do things he doesn't alllow you to do or is changing his mind on rulings when a player other than you presents the argument, I'm not sure I understand why you appear to feel so personally slighted when you and the DM disagree about the rules.

You have a point, however I've considered it pretty carefully. 2 years I have sat on this issue. 2 years considering, weighing, testing, and noting.

I understand there is always a possibility of bias thinking affecting how I perceive things. This is why I asked my friend who plays with us. Why I asked friends and co-workers about this situation. Why I do my best to explain the situation as fully as possible. And why I have come to forums filled with total strangers such as yourself to attempt to explain the problem and read opinions of fellow gamers and DMs. Because I am well aware that I could always be wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I respect and accept your suggestion and opinion on the matter. I've just been considering these things for years, not hours.

There is a dramatic difference when HE use to ask ME about whether or not I knew a rule off the top of my head. Usually my response was "no" because it was not something directly related to my character. I do feel that I should darn well know the rules governing my character and what I intend to do with it. So I read up on feint, and knew what does or does not make a target "feintable".

I would like to add that I have had Improved Two Weapon Feint for a bit, tried feinting every target I could, have never once successfully feinted a target, save for one that didn't have a Dex bonus anyway. My Bluff bonus to feint is +29 I think.

Preaching to the choire... As I said that is just 2 examples. I think I've forgotten more "bad calls" then I can remember, mostly because I do tend to get over this stuff pretty quick. It is just a game after all. My estimation is that, for at least the past year, we've gamed at least once a week (twice a week for a time), and every single game has had a disagreement of some sort. From 2 years to 1 year ago it's been a gradual degrade from fun to aggravating.

The ones that can be proven by RAW or that I actually agree with the logic behind, I immediately accept the call and continue without issue.

Most of the time I sit down, shut up, and glower for the rest of the night... I hate those nights.... Being forced into a position where I know I'm acting like a child, but can't help it because DM said so. And for even weaker reasons or no reason at all.

Problem is I see this guy as a bully of sorts. He won't back down unless out numbered in any sort of confrontation. And even then it is always "grudgingly", so talking to him one on one is all but impossible.

As I said, I hate being a jerk. I really hate having to choose between serious argument (that excludes but affects friends in the room), or bending over for it.

The angel was undead, which obviously puts intelligence score into question. I asked if it was a potential feint target and he said he didn't know. So I asked if it had an intelligence score, he checked as he said "yes", then said "you don't know". So I admit I don't know if it actually had an intelligence score. It's his careful 8 minutes of research and reasoning that leads me to believe that yes it had an intelligence score, yes my roll was high enough, but no it wasn't susceptible to feint because it doesn't use it's eyes.

Sorry for the constant rant. I am trying to be as fair as possible in my retelling, providing as much detail as I can with as little bias as possible.

Also yes bookrat, he does have lots of "reason" and "logic". Most of which I dismiss as either irrelevant or so far off the beaten path as to not be worth responding to.

Vials of Holy Water will sail right through incorporeal creatures (stated in description of Holy Water), so I imagine bombs would do the same.

I'm not sure the bombs splash is considered a magical effect, though I believe it is. If so then if you aimed for the square that the creature was in with the intent to deal splash damage, it would do half (or quarter after Reflex).

My Alchemist used the discovery that allows him to infuse bomb properties into ammunition, then fired said ammo from a magical crossbow which allowed the full bomb effect to hit for half damage + arrow damage.

If there are aspiring game developers who are attempting to write a P&P RPG, would you have any advice to give them? Would Paizo be willing to publish such games in the future if presented with a promising product?

He did state that I could instead attack the thing with my first attack, instead of attempt to feint it, because he was making that call.

I spent a good 3 minutes thinking about whether or not I would walk away though. In the end, it had an AC of 32, my bonuses ranged from +29 to +19 at the lowest iterative, and I turned it into hamburger before I rolled out my 4th attack, it wasn't "game breaking" enough at the time. The only real reason I was feinting it was because my feint partner (his character) had improved feint partner and I wanted to give her the AoO that came with it (role play reasons). That and, despite my +27 bluff, I had yet to successfully feint anything....

I have a decent Reflex and wore a ring of evasion at the time. Inquisitors also treat Will and Fort saves the same way Rogues with Evasion treat Reflex saves. Part of why I feel it's so cheesey to do.

That and my Inquisitor is a Guardian, and hiding behind a spell every combat doesn't seem very "Guardiany".

I do thank you for your response :D

If I'm holding the charge on a Cure Critical Wounds spell and I try to hit an undead with it as part of a full attack and miss, can I use my final attack to heal myself instead?

I like how you point out a serious potentially game breaking flaw in the logic of the discussion, and no one notices....

For the most part I agree that you should always be able to touch/strike/damage yourself.

There is probably historical backing too it. Celtic berserkers probably carved themselves before combat to kick up the adrenaline.

For the above quote, I suspect that the ruling might be that when you cast CCW, you make a touch attack as part of casting the spell which requires a standard. If you miss, you technically hold that charge until it is discharged, if on the next round you choose to full attack and use the very last iterative attack to touch yourself instead of attack your foe, it's still the same spell and discharges into you instead of your target.

Casting the spell requires a standard action, touching the target becomes an incidental that is part of casting the spell. So as long as you hold the charge, I see no reason why you can't touch either the target or yourself as an iterative attack, or that it really would break the game to do so. The standard action to cast the spell is still being taken, so it remains balanced.

I also view the terms "enemy, opponent, ally" as non-mechanical terms. It's not typically important who or what an "opponent" is. These are terms that the writers use to distinguish "targets".

A spell that affects all "enemies" affects all targets the caster designates as enemy, and can include other party members or the caster itself if the caster wishes. The caster is typically an ally to the caster, this means that spells that target "an ally" can target the caster or anyone the caster designates as an ally.

For example I can use Litany of Escape on a friend who is being grappled, but not the enemy who is grappling my friend, despite that both potential targets have the grappled condition. This is because Litany of Escape specifically states "one willing creature that is grappled". Note that it does NOT state "One Ally", which is a sign that the writers are aware of the potential for a player to change who is and is not an ally.

Talk to him about it. Say that it feels like you are being targeted by unfair rules.

If he's unwilling to discuss this as a mature adult, then you have one of the following choices:

1) Put up with it
2) walk from the table and get better friends
3) start your own game where you are the GM (or at least someone who is not him runs the game)
4) ask everyone around the table to kick him and only him
5) do what I did and propose a rule change the the entire game: the GM is *not* the final arbiter of the rules, but is rather just one voice of everyone at the table where everyone makes a decision together whenever a rules argument comes up. I find this works the best and puts everyone at equal footing, ensuring that if the GM changes the rules, it's a rule change that everyone is ok with. If the GM makes a bunch of house rules, then it ensures everyone wants to play that kind of game.

Not everyone likes #5, and that's ok. I simply don't play at tables where someone needs to feel that they rule over me because they have the title of GM.

Thanks for the response. I actually suggested 5 to a friend who hosts the game at his house. He's been my vent, knows my frustrations, and also agrees that the DM is abusing his powers and apparently singling me out.

Problem is, neither of us are super confrontational. And we are both old school D&D players with that rule ingrained. Fighting tradition is traditionally hard.

I believe the majority of my issues aren't so much that I'm getting screwed in the game. I feel more insulted that someone I thought of as a friend (haven't for a while now), COULD do this to me.

I currently have a level 15 Inquisitor of Iomedae, at Mythic Tier 6.

He has the Invisibility spell, and the Greater Invisibility spell. He also has a Legendary item with the Undetectable quality.

My question is pretty basic. How detectable IS undetectable? Does this quality specifically affect magical or supernatural forms of detection? Or does it literally make me undetectable while I am invisible?

I've only taken advantage of this mechanic twice, largely because it is so potentially broken as hell. The second time I used it was actually in combat, and the DM ruled that I was so undetectable that I could not even verbally communicate with the rest of the party.

I'd like some insight and clarification on this. The combination of Greater Invisibility and Undetectable literally makes you impossible to beat, as long as you play your hand right. Combined with feats like Spring Attack or Lunge, you would be impossible to locate and attack.

Thoughts?

First off, I understand and accept that the DM has the final say regarding rules.

However I feel that, over the past 2 years at least, the DM that heads up the games I play in is abusing this rule specifically to spite me. This occurs in games outside of pathfinder, however we mostly play pathfinder.

What I'm looking for is advice I guess. I don't really want to walk away from the table, or be a jerk and tell the guy off. All I really want to do is play the game and enjoy time with friends.

It just gets a little hard when everything, regardless of whether or not RAW supports my case or it helps/hinders the rest of the party, is judged more by the fact that I'm presenting the case then what is actually presented.

Case in point. I attempt to feint an opponent using the Improved Two Weapon Feint feat. The opponent in question is a headless undead angel with Blind Sight. I believe the angel had an intelligence score which, to my knowledge, is the only real requirement for a target to be feint worthy. DM ruled that the target of my feint was immune to feint because it does not have eyes, and would not react to a feint maneuver. Yes that is literally how he explains it.

Another questionable ruling is that a swarm of spiders is immune to a spell that requires a will save, such as Holy Smite, or the destruction variant of Judgement Light. Note he did not say that they were immune to the potential side effects of such spells (the 1d6 rounds of being shaken by Judgement Light, or the blind effect from Holy Smite). He stated that they were immune to the damage caused by these spells because they require a will save.

These are just 2 rulings. The list is too long for me to post, mostly because I feel a bit whiny when I go on too much. In both cases, he had to make an obvious effort to figure out how to explain it.

As far as RAW goes, it could easily be argued that a +1 flaming-burst keen longsword is considered a 'greater' version of a +1 longsword, as there are rules texts concerning how it would be a "+3 equivalent" weapon as for DR.

It could also be easily argued that it is not a 'greater' version.

That said, I don't believe RAI agrees with not being able to add flaming to a weapon.

Now that RAI has been brought up: Disclaimer. The following is 100% opinion.

The rules specifically state that, as far as bypassing most DR goes, the only thing that counts is the actual enhancement bonus. The only exception to this is DR/Epic which is specifically bypassed by "epic weaponry", which anything with more then +6 qualities certainly fits that description.

However, as I've mentioned earlier, the pricing system used for weapons and armor is different from slotted items such as rings and wonderous items. As a result, adding "Keen" to a +1 weapon is a greater version of that weapon, effectively making it a +2 weapon price wise. This follows the strict interpretation of the rules as written in the mythic book.

The price difference between upgrading a +1 ring of protection to a +2 is also wildly different from adding an unrelated quality such as Evasion to it. So it makes perfect sense for them to word it the way they did.

I agree that it would have to be a contested roll.

I disagree that it should be flat out disallowed or discouraged in any way shape or form from the GM or any other player in the group.

Their CHARACTERS might have issues if you are caught.

Reason being, this kind of thing adds an element to the group dynamics. If you are caught but the group values you enough, they let you live and just make sure to watch you more closely, or have you empty your pockets.

I personally would not care if you played your character the way you wanted to. It is entirely possible you as the player wish to play out the thief, but later might have a sudden attack of guilt and decide to confess everything and pay give back what you took... Most of my characters would laugh, the get distracted by something that looks big and mean and fun to kill.

The Avengers don't always play nice with each other. The group "rogue" person is usually the least trusted party member anyway, there is absolutely nothing truly stopping you from having your fun.

I would argue that it could potentially be game breaking if we assume that any ring specific addition can be added to a ring (as an example).

I believe that the best way to look at it is that, as far as rings and other items go, the + value of the item in question is the only upgradable aspect.

You can turn a +1 Ring of Protection into a +2 or better, but you can't simply add "Evasion" to the ring.

That being said, weapons and armor are slightly different in that the special abilities associated with them are often priced as + upgrades.

A +1 Keen Longsword is technically a +2 weapon. In addition to that, weapons and armor are not slotted items, so the rules governing pricing are dramatically different.

In order to add Evasion to a Ring of Sustenance, you have to pay 150% of the value of a Ring of Evasion because Rings are slotted items. However, you can add flat gold piece values to armors, shields, and weapons rather then paying a marked up price for those items.

Additionally a single weapon or armor can only be a maximum of +10, and can only go up to +5 in strait up enhancement bonuses.

So while it isn't game breaking for this to work on weapons and armor, it can make, say, a staff into a spell casting NPC with an entire library of spells it can throw out there. Or be used to make a Ring of Chameleon Evasion Protection +5 Force Shield etc.

If two speed weapons could stack, I honestly see no reason why a TWFer wouldn't gain the same benefit from a haste spell. Given that the haste spell is limited in duration and accessibility, I would venture to say that it's fair either way.

On the flip side, I'm also of the opinion that martial characters are far more potent then magic characters. And adding this level of potency to an already heavily martial spell is probably a bad idea.

Not an expert, but the ability never specifies that it only applies to physical damage. You use it to "block the attack". So any damage that would be delivered to you by a weapon is potentially blocked by this ability.