Zarzuakar's page

Unfortunately, I've yet to have my stuff ship out, so I still don't have access to the PDF. Is there any chance that someone might be able to post what the Wolf Style feats do? They sound rather interesting.

I'm unsure as to how you may have gotten the impression that I was disagreeing with my GM. Even my GM was unsure, and we came to a good agreement. I never said that I was arguing with him, or that I was taking him for granted. I am fully aware that he puts in a lot of time, primarily because we switch off GMing, and brain storm together.

Right now, we've decided that it's going to work half way-- instead of full on deflecting the attack, it's going to essentially half the attack damage, like magic attacks only do half damage to incorporeal creatures. If anyone else has any thoughts, or any official rulings, cool! But until then, we'll probably just work with this one.

Which is what I thought, at first, but then I found this:

Faq

It specifically calls out a ghoul's claw (a natural attack, not a weapon attack, technically speaking), and a touch spell. So, operating off of those examples, I can see a touch attack as working for the requirements of Crane Wing.

Hey folks,

Recently, in a session, we ran into a situation where my Monk with Crane Wing was fighting a couple of Shadows. We're unsure whether or not Crane Wing would affect an incorporeal touch attack. My Monk's unarmed strikes DO count as magical(using an amulet of mighty fists), which can affect incorporeal creatures, albeit at half damage. However, the fists aren't ghost touch, so they don't fully affect incorporeal creatures.

So, my question is, can a Monk whose fists count as magic deflect incorporeal touch attacks?

Dot

Dot, to buy when I get home from work.

It could be argued that she saw this coming, and knew that she could accidentally change things for the worse if she were to intervene earlier. However, by allowing inquisitors to eat their brand name Big Brother O's, and continue the pursecution, events were allowed to unfold in such a way that the PCs were in the right place at the right time, and were able to become the Mythic Heroes they need to be. If I remember correctly, Deskari has been waiting for the right moment to spring this trap. Perhaps by allowing innocents to die, and allowing Deskari to see this, made it so Deskari would spring said trap. That way, instead of decades more war and suffering, the PCs would be able to solve this sooner rather than later. Again, 'Gods work in mysterious ways'. It's how I would swing it, at least, if my players ask.

Nope, sorry... 1 scroll per day... just like any other magic item. Cost has no basis.

Page 549 of Pathfinder core book. Left column, towards the bottom.

"Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day."

Whoops, my bad. In which case, my group is going to conveniently overlook that final bit. I'll agree that creating a cantrip scroll, and it being all I can make that day, is silly. However, with the fact that we're ignoring the rule of one a day, it only reconfirms the fact that we wouldn't use the spell you're proposing. That's still too much, in our opinion. A wizard that takes the scroll master archetype would get way too much use out of it.

You can create up to 4 scrolls a day, depending on the cost. If the cost of the scroll is 250gp or less, it only takes 2 hours to scribe the scroll. Mind you, you can only ever devote 8 hours a day to item creation, so 4 is the most you can make.

Scribe Scroll

While 250gp doesn't allow you to do much, the idea of crafting 8 scrolls in a day with your spell could be rather... Impressive, to say the least. I wouldn't let my players have it.

Deft Shootist Deed

With that, you don't provoke AoOs when you fire in combat. Otherwise, smart manuvering with team mates, combined with a healthy appreciation of magical defenses.

Dot, for Halloween. My group likes to do a one shot adventure every halloween. :)

Yes.

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

So, all of the spells you've listed would break invisibility, so long as an enemy is in the spell. In the case of Create Pit, it wouldn't break invisibility if you cast it in front of the enemy, so it wouldn't affect the enemy. And if you were to cast Darkness on yourself, far away enough that the darkness effect didn't over lap the enemy, you'd be fine. But casting Darkness on the weapon an enemy is holding would break it, as the enemy is within the effect of the spell.

Why bother with a permanent spell? If you're a spellslinger, just stick with something simple like Mage Armor. Lasts an hour a level, and doesn't cost 2500gp each time you need to cast it on yourself, in case someone dispels it. I've no doubt it would work as you mentioned, but I wouldn't be willing to pay for it.

I'm fairly certain that, while it was not specifically planned to work alongside the Permanency spell, the fact that you can have spells lasting for hours, even days on yourself, was taken into consideration.

Dot for exploitation later

Actually...

Impart Mind

From the Inner Sea Magic guide. At least it's an hour a level as opposed to a round a level.

This may have already been answered, but I couldn't find anything right away. Does Vital Strike and a Full Attack Action work together? As per Vital Strike, "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage". Does a Full Attack Action not count as an 'attack action'?

From what I've found, it sounds like it does not. This does not offend me in any way, shape, or form. I'm just hoping for clarification. Especially when combined with this tidbit on Full Attacks: "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round."

To me, this sounds like you have to clarify whether or not you are taking a standard action/full attack action to begin with. For example, if Vital Strike is only a standard action, and not full round, someone couldn't start a round with a Vital Strike attack then follow up with a full round of attacks. Is this correct?

I apologize if this question has already been answered-- I just have a Paladin running around enlarged half the time with an impact greatsword. I want to make sure the damage she is dealing is legitimate.

There seems to be a lack of consensus on how this works

Show me the lack of consensus. It's looking like everyone here is agreeing that ray spells don't hurt swarms, since it targets individual creatures, and not a mass of creatures. So, feel free to post links showing this lack of consensus, or quote people.

The point is, you don't require a target to shoot a ray... you can just shoot it. Based on that, the spell doesn't require a specific number of creatures to target.

Okay, think of it this way. That scorching ray you just shot hit a wasp in a wasp swarm. You did not aim at the wasp, but at the wall behind the wasp swarm, using the arguments that you've already presented. The moment that scorching ray hits a living creature, the ray is discharged/used, or whatever you want to call it, and all 4D6 damage is unloaded on the poor little thing. No energy left over to touch the rest of the swarm, unless the wasp has countless shield other spells cast on it by every other inexplicably clerical wasp in the swarm. The energy does not branch out, just as your sword does not spontaneously create a crap ton of miniature sword wielding warriors attacking the other wasps when you swing it.

Dot, in case there's ever official clarification.

My first time DMing, I ended up with 7 characters in the group, partially because my players would spread the word around the workplace and other people got interested. I originally only wanted four. Problem was that there were also animal companions, familiars, and multiple cohorts (some prestige classes required the leadership feat, and I didn't have enough experience to understand the consequences of allowing it). There was an average of 10 figures on the PC's side during every combat.

The problems I discovered with this were A. Slowed down time like mad. A simple fight could take almost an hour, partially because no one planned out what they were going to do ahead of time, and B. They could handle any skill check or situation I ever threw at them-- there was never a challenge.

I prefer 4-5 now, with a rare 6th guest player.

During an old campaign, I certainly had to establish a 'No Electronics' policy-- no one would pay attention, then during their turn, they would require me to repeat what happened in the previous round before they would do anything. Which would then make everyone else bored. So they'd pull out their electronics. And repeat the cycle.

I made it clear about half way through the game that if you were there to game, you were there to play my game. Anything else, and we did not need you there. Mind you, I also asked them about their characters to try to best keep them interested, but only one person actually ever gave me anything.

If you're particularly close with your buddies, and they won't be extremely offended, you can try bringing an airsoft gun to your meets. I had a buddy who would shoot his players if they got out of hand. Only had to do it for a few meets before people caught on. ;)

I personally enjoy illusion spells, but if the GM is going to rule otherwise, you may pick a different game to use them. I've got a GM who's convinced that there's no way an illusion is 'real enough' to fool a person, despite whether or not the person fails a save. Buri's right, you shouldn't have to save against it. But GM can rule otherwise, sadly.

Oh god, I just realized, don't let him come up with the idea of using Intensified on it. With trait and intensified, at level 10th, you have 10d6 energy damage +daze as level one spell.

Actually, Intensified only increases the maximum damage dice by 5 levels, meaning that the 'max level' would be 15. Since Ear Piercing Scream does 1D6/two caster levels, maxing out at 5D6 at level 10, adding five more levels would just make it 7D6 at level 14/15. So, it'd be annoying, but not worth it in the end.

Daemons like to use souls to enchant items. They even discuss how much certain souls are considered to be worth. Not exactly good fluff for a good aligned game, but still fun nonetheless.

Scroll down until you hit The Soul Trade.

Otherwise, I've seen crushed various gems, poultices, liquids, etc.

I know my cousin, for a good long time, thought that whatever level caster you were was what level spells you could cast. So, a 9th level Wizard was slinging around 9th level spells. Admittedly, he was young, but still made for some terrifying stories.

Also, I played with a guy who thought that if you had combat reflexes, and were ever provoked, you got a number of attacks on that person equal to your dex mod. So, a level 4 character provoked an attack from a level 2 rogue, and got hit 5 times at full attack bonus. Even when we tried to explain it to him, he refused to hear it because that's how he prefered to run his rogues. He also ruled that you had to make a reflex save to drop prone to avoid being hit by your ally's 'Whirlwind' attack. Otherwise, you were hit. By the giant orc man. I didn't much like this guy.

Just remembered; we had an incredibly incompetant fighter in that group with no concept of battlefield positioning. You don't move to stand directly inbetween the two creatures with 3 attacks each, each attack doing 3D6 damage. Needless to say, he was torn limb from limb. As these creatures were personal creations, I told the group that clawed limbs just kind of eviscerated him. They were also still around the dwarves at that time, who had offered resurrection magic at half price-- this fighter tended to die a lot.

Wizard: I grab his liver, and go find the head Dwarf on this ship.
GM: Alright, you find him. He looks mildly confused at the piece of meat in your hand.
Dwarf: Aye, Elf, what be ye--
Wizard: I slap him in the face with the liver, and say, "FIX HIM."

The Liver Slap incident is still mentioned from time to time, and this was about 4 years ago.

An old group of mine that I GMed for was quite entertaining from time to time. While there were many good jokes and one liners, my favorite is still from the druid and wizard in one fight.

The party is fighting alongside dwarves against an evil, undead army inside a very large cave system. A vampire priestess, complete which amazingly good looks and ample assets, has been dislodged from her mount, and is approaching them on foot.

Druid: What is she wearing?
GM: Um. Low cut gown, split on the sides to allow a lot of leg?
Druid: I cast 'Turn Rock to Mirror'.

Group laughed quite a bit at that.

Also, this is the fight where the priestess had originally been mounted on a zombie dragon. And, while the cave was wide and long, it wasn't particularly tall-- maybe about 20 feet taller than the dragon.

Wizard: It's a zombie dragon?
GM: Yes.
Wizard: I cast 'Control Undead'. It's mindless, doesn't get a save. I tell it to jump.

dot

If the Wizard is going to be doing more of the battlefield control, I might advise trying to lean yourself towards Damage. I usually play my druids differently, so you'll have to wait for me to actually make any viable recommendations, but it sounds like the group could use more damage than control.

With the Fighter, he'll be able to take care of himself for the most part. Maybe not a ton of damage, but he'll be something of a beast.

With a Rogue, especially working in tandem with Magus or Fighter, he'll be able to flank and help out with the damage dealing end of things.

Magi are just monsters. They'll be focusing more on damage, but he'll always be trying to close in with the opponent.

If the Wizard is going to be more concerned with debuffing and controlling the movement of the baddies, I think ranged damage support would round out the party. I'll have to look over what materials would work, though.

Edit: For now, definitely take other people's opinions over mine.

Dot. Sorry, no access to my materials to make suggestions.

Edit: Out of curiousity, do you know what the Wizard is going to roll out with in terms of spells? Have they specialized at all?

I've got a good friend who tends to play rules lawyer in one of my games. He's a great guy, and very intelligent, but it frustrates me for a few reason.

On a more childish level, I'm extremely intelligent, and know the game extremely well. There are times he presents his rulings in such a way that feels insulting.

In addition, a lot of the time I'm micromanaging a dozen different things and trying to get it all to run smoothly that I often can't pull up the pages he's referencing, so I can't even check to make sure he isn't fudging things in his favor.

Finally, because there are times being a GM gets boring. I grew up in a homebrew environment, so we were used to changing small rules here or there to help develop story, or to make sure the GM doesn't end up hating the campaign. When I have a rules lawyer call me out on something, I can't do that nearly as easily. Besides, you have to be careful. If a GM has made a call, and you tell him he's wrong, you undermine him. Tell him after the meets? Let him know that, if he wants to run it such and such a way, that's cool, but the rules are actually written THIS way.

While not exactly hilarious jokes, there are some relatively clever ones here: http://www.weregeek.com/2011/06/21/

As for gags and pranks, I don't know for sure. Maybe I'll come up with something later, then post it here. Keep in mind, though, that Gnomes are rather nuts in their own way. I've got a Gnome Bard in one of my games that collects beetles, and tends to fixate on new things. The things that she's done has left us laughing and shaking our heads.

I'm sticking with my 'I'm against it as a rule, but there are always exceptions' statement from before. Besides, what does it ultimately matter? If you don't agree, and they can't be druids, ever, then don't allow it in your games. If you do agree, and think it can happen occasionally, knock yourself out. While the D&D world seemed to be busy trying to build its own mythos and story, Pathfinder seems to take more influences from various myths and stories. Pick which part of these legends you care to play up. Or make your own. I played in a ton of homebrew games before I ever picked up a module or adventure path, or what have you, so my view point may be skewed.

If both of the players are up for it (And recognize it may not be as much fun as they'd hope), I'd say go for it. But, everyone else here is right-- there ARE other ways to build that kind of dynamic.

There are plenty of classes and characters that are built to support each other in some way, even if it's not obvious at first. Maybe try to find something like that, and suggest one of those combos for them?

Fun fact; Clerics don't need 8 hours of rest.

'Clerics meditate or pray for their spells. Each cleric must choose a time at which she must spend 1 hour each day in quiet contemplation or supplication to regain her daily allotment of spells. Time spent resting has no effect on whether a cleric can prepare spells.'

So, really, it's just a matter of when the Gorumite decides to prep spells as part of his character. If he prays for it at midnight? Then he's out of luck, as he was busy. At the very worst, the cleric is extra grouchy (And possibly fatigued, depends on GM call) the next day because he didn't sleep because he was trying to teach someone a lesson.

Also, Witch is the best. I get looks from the GMs and even a death threat on my witch for her debuffs... AND SHE DOESN'T EVEN DO ANY DAMAGE!!

I'm serious, except for vomiting swarms and summons, my witch intentionally tries not to do damage, and I believe I am hated more than anyone else at the table.

I've got a Witch in a campaign I'm running. I hate the hexes and spells he has. And now he's discovered Cackle. Misfortune and Fortune just got more painful for me. He's only level 5, but I'd be lying if I haven't occasionally attacked him directly even though I shouldn't just because he's annoyed the crap out of me.

I do know that in the Carrion Crown AP, there was a vampire druid. If I remember correctly (I don't have the material with me here at work), she felt that her vampiric state simply enhanced her predatory behaviour.

As a GM.... You'd have to swing it right. I'm against it as a rule, but there are always exceptions.

I've got a MT, and I have a love/hate relationship with her. On the one hand, I hate just how much I depend on the rest of the group for most of the damage. The fact that the Inquisitor of the party kept up with me in spell levels was especially painful, too. Levels 5 and 6 made me regret ever rolling a MT.

On the other hand, I love the variety of spells I have. I love the fact that I am practically the ultimate buffer, and that my GM will look at me from time to time and shake his head at me due to how beastly I can make the party. I also enjoy the ability to mix and match abilities to get the most out of things. Being able to use my familiar (I'm a cleric/wizard) to deliver touch spells from my cleric is a lot of fun, and the fact that I picked necromancy as my specialization with the Life school means that my heals heal just a little more. I'm also playing in Jade Regent, so due to traits all of my cure spells heal 2 more points than normal. Being able to combine Spectral Hand with my clerical spells means I can heal or buff from across the battlefield.

MT is fun if you have the right mindset to it, in my opinion. Just be prepared to not be so great in the damage department.

I'll also be the first person to admit that I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it, if simply because I grew up playing in circles that considered the GM to be the equivalent of god in the game. We don't question him... Too much. I've certainly had lengthy conversations with one of my GMs about the merits of Illusion Magic. I love it, he tends to underpower them. And now the reason for the thread makes more sense to me, so I do apologize if I had offended. It is good to get some perspective.

It definitely makes sense how you would be frustrated with how that all went down. I know enough about the game that when my GMs pull something out of left field, and it doesn't make sense, I get a little irritable. It sounds like he made one all encompassing ability, which is something I try to avoid. I prefer a combination of things, which tend to make more sense. I'll admit that while the Cleric did do things in a way that make sense, at least to me, that would have been extremely hard to deal with.

Taking a break is probably the best thing you can do. It serves two purposes. 1) You get some time to breath, and next time you go back the encounter is a vaguely annoying experience, rather something to go to war over. 2) It drives it home to the GM just how frustrated you were. If I did something that upset one of my players, and said player decided that he/she could not play for a little while, I'd be mortified (Unless the person was being a baby, which you seem to not be). I'd make damn sure that I did not chase the player away again. Either way, luck be with you, and I sincerely hope your gaming experiences improve.

Not to be mean at all, but we've given you a ton of various ways that the Cleric could have pulled this off. You've even mentioned that the GM has made it easier to come back to life, which I've done when I'm unsure of just how difficult I may accidentally make things. Based on the GM's explanation, it sounds like he could have continued laying into you guys and shot for 5/5 players, but he backed off. I'm kind of under the impression at this point the thread is just for you to vent some steam about how you felt you were being treated unfairly, as opposed to actually trying to figure out what the cleric would have to do to pull it off.

If you've got a problem, talk with your GM (which you've already done, but you can continue discussions), not with us. Ultimately, you can bring this thread to the GM's attention, but that's no guarantee he'll change things around or fix his play style. With that being said, feel free to continue chatting with us about the situation-- I've certainly enjoyed chatting about this with my GM buddies. We can certainly see how you'd feel slighted, but each one of us were able to come up with a way to pull off exactly what you experienced with about a minute or two of thinking without access to any of our resources.

I tend to have fairly bright players, and they'll usually think of everything that you're asking for. But Nimon does bring up a good point, in that very few GMs play like other GMs. See what they're used to playing with? Find out what they've experienced in the past. Players run the gamut of complete role players who refuse to metagame to slayers who just want to kill everything. See if you can't figure out where their interests lie.

Level of Shadowdancer for Hide in Plain sight, with a Greater Invisibility spell already on before she popped in. Armor with the Shadow Enchantment, and we just run into issues with the sound. However, Destruction is a 7th level spell. It does not surprise me that it's possible the Cleric developed a spell that made a sort of silenced shell around her. I know there are rules to research your own spells, and create your own. I personally would make this a 5th or 6th level spell, but it is possible. We're talking about a character whose ECL is likely around 15 or 16.

Frankly, at that point I have to ask exactly what you were rolling for Perception, and how many of your party members died? I'm prone to abusing DM powers from time to time, but that's partially to make things more difficult. My players, at the very least, start to get bored when they chew through everything without any trouble. Though I make sure when I do abuse said powers, I don't let people die at the drop of the hat. I want difficulty, not impossibility.

In short, yeah, that was probably an abuse of DM powers. However, there are ways to pull it off. I'd ask the DM what they were trying to accomplish, and if they'd figured out a way beyond 'Because I said so'.

I've only played in a few groups (Getting us all together at the same time is quite difficult), but from everything that I've read, both from core books and outside sources, it suggests that every skill has its time and place. Now, admittedly, some pop up more than others. However, I love just how often a 'useless' skill is useless right up until the moment you need it. Then, it becomes all important, even if just for that fight/encounter/challenge/what have you.

I think there needs to be some give and take between the core rules and house rules. The core rules are more meant to be guidelines rather than full on rules. You will not have a Pathfinder Referee show up to every one of your meets, and scream at you the moment you deviate from the core rules. It is my personal belief that if a player or GM is unable to make a skill be useful, that is partially due to the core rules, and partially due to the failing of said player or GM. I've just recently started up a game where my characters are only 2nd level, and one of them has already made use of 'Profession: Mortician'. Whenever there is a need to interact with a dead body, he can usually tell what did the damage, and how the creature died. Admittedly, Heal is usually used for this exact purpose, but I feel like a Heal check should more be based around taking care of someone and keeping them alive, rather than knowing the exact details of how someone died, or how to prepare the body (It helps that this player is a Cleric of Pharasma). Do I recommend that all other players and GMs play this way? Of course not! But this works for myself and for my players. I'm sure people will tear into this, of course, explaining why my reasoning is wrong, but that's simply because my play style varies from theirs.

Do I believe that some skills are, as currently defined by the rules contained in the core rule book, lacking in ability or usefulness? Of course I do. So, if I were ever in a group that was completely by the book, I wouldn't ever take these skills (Or if I did, it would be for my own smug amusement). But I don't play in those groups. I personally love the craft skills, and while admittedly, everything but Alchemy takes forever (Thank goodness for the Master Alchemist feat), I enjoy even just having the option. I enjoy the fleshing out of my character, as many others have mentioned. I'm also a fan of being able to use it with the Master Craftsman feat, partially because I am more proud and protective of the items I make, but also because those prices get really high later in the game. Not all party spell casters like to take feats that directly benefit the party more than it does themselves.

I do have to mention Appraise. That is my least favorite skill, and the reason I mention it is because that is the skill that is popping up over and over and over again. Yes, it is a pain. But there are some groups and some GMs that actually happen to enjoy using that skill that I've run into. They enjoy the act of haggling. I've met GMs that make it so a character has to choose between two items, and use the appraise skill to help determine what is more valuable-- because they can only take one. Am I saying that Appraise is going to help you fight the scary troll of walking doom? No. But if a character has it, it may pop up from time to time. It depends on the GM.