anthonydido's page

anthonydido wrote:

Zartust wrote:

Here is a sample calendar I've put together to help me better figure out when the different events in the AP occur.

https://app.fantasy-calendar.com/calendars/cd7eb7c3ecfb284f7b6e5b50333c98f8

Have you built this calendar out any further yet?

I am hoping to get it all filled in once I receive the last physical copy of the AP

Is it built any further than your original post? I just started running my campaign and the hardest thing I'm having trouble with is the time aspects and when to run certain encounters. The AP doesn't give much guidance.

How are those of us that are looking to play certain scenarios at certain times or wanting to play with friends supposed to get into our games. How many people weren't able to get games? Is it really that many that you have to leave out 2 seats PER TABLE for them? I was planning to play the 10-11 soldier tier for the special with a friend but now I can't even sign up cause it's capped at 24 slots (6 tables I assume). Seems like you're alienating a good portion of your ticket base by capping the tables at 4. My buddy happened to get in and sign up as soon as it went live and I can't join him at ANY of the games he's in because they are all capped at 4 and there was only one table at the time slot. Why punish those of us who already bought tickets and want to plan ahead? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

This goes against every PFS coordination that I've ever seen. Anywhere I have played there is always some sort of system in place that you have to sign up for games. If you don't sign up you're not guaranteed a spot, period. Everyone should know this by now and if you don't then you don't play PFS very often. Why are people who essentially aren't signing up for games being given a pass or being coddled to at the expense of those of us who are trying to sign up? You aren't going to please everyone but you could at least please the majority that know they have to sign up to guarantee a spot. Especially since this is how it was always done at every Paizocon I have been to and I've never heard of an exorbitant amount of people not being able to get into something as a walkin. I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be able to pick and choose to the extent that you are making it if you fail to sign up and just walk in to play.

Since I'm not able to make it to Paizocon this year I may try and make it up there again. I'll let you know soon.

Oh, no....

Where are the New Orleans people?

We're coming! Get your liver ready!

Is the any time from this ability meant to be any one time or is it every time? In other words can the target reroll all the D20 rolls or just one?

I would read it as any one time.

I don't see how it can be interpreted that way. It clearly says "any time the target rolls a d20". It doesn't say "the next time the target rolls a d20" or "any one time the target rolls a d20".

This is the rules forum not the homebrew forum so please stick to actual rules and not how you would run it.

Here is what the Mercy class feature says (bolded mine):

Mercy (Su): At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, a paladin can select one mercy. Each mercy adds an effect to the paladin's lay on hands ability. Whenever the paladin uses lay on hands to heal damage to one target, the target also receives the additional effects from all of the mercies possessed by the paladin. A mercy can remove a condition caused by a curse, disease, or poison without curing the affliction. Such conditions return after 1 hour unless the mercy actually removes the affliction that causes the condition.

It specifically calls out healing so any mercies a paladin has cannot be used when using LoH offensively.

The question that needs to be answered is, in regards to "if the creature is evil", does that mean a creature with an alignment of either LE, NE, or CE, or does it mean a creature with one of those alignments or the evil subtype?

If "evil creture" means a creature with an evil alignment, then the succubus Lazar suggested would not be affected by Smite Evil. But it "evil creature" means evil alignment or the evil subtype, then the succubus would be affected.

Here is the relevant info as it pertains to this side-discussion:

Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned.

So it works just as LazarX states.

There is really nothing to read into here. Smite evil only works on evil targets. If the target is not evil you get no benefits from the ability...period.

Why does there need to be consistency? They are two different spells.

Imagine the poor monk. At 5th level, with 5 ranks in acrobatics, +3 class skill, +4 from increased speed, +5 from High Jump, and let's say a +3 from Dex. He cannot jump less than twenty feet?

Exactly my point!

Said monk has +20 acrobatics and needs to jump over a 5-foot gap from one platform to another. According to some of the posters here it is literally impossible for him to just make a 5-foot jump. So he is sooooo good at acrobatics yet he can't control himself?

THAT'S UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS!!

There are typos and unintended wordings in the rules from time to time. It happens. Some common sense has to be used also when conferring intent of the rules.

I find it rather silly to think someone can't control how far they jump. I know roughly (within a few feet) how far I can jump with a running start and I can easily choose not to go that full distance by not running as fast or by jumping higher, not farther. It's basic physics.

Stop parsing the rules verbage and use some common sense.

Spellbook and familiar (witch), yes. They both follow the same general procedure and require a Spellcraft roll of 15+spell level. You just can't use them yet.

Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

Witch's Familiar:

Learn from a Scroll: A witch can use a scroll to teach her familiar a new spell. This process takes 1 hour per level of the spell to be learned, during which time the scroll is burned and its ashes used to create a special brew or powder that is consumed by the familiar. This process destroys the scroll. At the end of this time, the witch must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If the check fails, the process went awry in some way and the spell is not learned, although the scroll is still consumed.

I would say definitely not to the spells known list mainly because of this clause (pulled from the sorcerer class description). Spells known are a fixed number barring certain magic items.

(Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by her Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.)

I agree with Jiggy on this. You can shoot an arrow next to (along) a wall without going "through" it.

They are different and it works as you think. If something says "as a full-attack action" then you can't combine it with anything and it is its own action. It it says "when taking a full-attack action" then the only time you could do it is when you are taking a full-attack action, i.e. the Rapid Shot feat.

So yes, you could flurry and fight defensively. You would gain +2 AC for the round but all of those flurry attacks would suffer a -4 penalty. Otherwise known as flurry of misses. :)

Edit: Also, Spell Combat is a full-round action, not a full-attack action. Meaning you can't even move (other than a 5-foot step) while performing Spell combat.

You can't squeeze intentionally, so you can't enlarge.

This is flat out wrong.

Here is the section on squeezing in the CRB:

Squeezing: In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC.

When a Large creature (which normally takes up 4 squares) squeezes into a space that's 1 square wide, the creature's miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between the 2 squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.

A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can't end its movement in an occupied square.

To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space's width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can't attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

OK, so it looks like AFK E&E is a go. They can support 100+ people and are eager to receive us. More info to come.

I called the hotel and found out that the pool closes at 10PM and you cannot have glass around the pool (for those who drink). If there are any specific questions just let me know and I'll call and ask them.

If any locals want to try and coordinate something with any other venues then do what you can and keep me in touch so I can post details when they become available (or just post them yourself). For what it's worth it doesn't have to be a local, but they tend to know the area better.

Q. Can you use the free action touch attack from casting a melee touch spell (in the same round) after partial movement and still finish your movement after?

For example, can you cast Shocking Grasp, move 15' to within reach of the enemy, attempt the free touch attack, then move another 15' to complete movement?

There has been some recent discussion on whether this is possible with arguments on both sides. Here are some threads that discuss this:

Deliver touch similar to spring attack?
Wizard Touch Spells
Touch Spells - Free Touch Attack Questions

Arguments in favor say that because it is a free action and free actions can be combined with other actions normally that you can do it.

Arguments against cite language from the normal condition listed with the Spring Attack feat as rules against any attack mid-movement. Also that the rules for touch spells in combat give a restrictive list of when the attack can happen: "You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target."

It seems that this question has come up enough times that it could be FAQ worthy.

Please hit the FAQ button if you agree.

But it's not a complete list of things that you can do. It is only a list of when you are allowed to move. That's it. For example, if you want rules for standard actions you don't look in the quick actions area do you? You are trying to say that sentence governs something that is not even mentioned in it (move actions, free actions, etc).

Spring attack sets a precedence that normally you cannot move before and after an attack. It may be a free action but it is still a touch attack. The reason it is a free action is so that you don't have to take another standard in order to cast then touch attack on the target in the same turn.

OK, lets knock the easiest ones out first.

Stops only compulsions delivered by touch attack

The only mention of touch attacks in the spell description is concerning summoned creatures so this is false.

Stops illusions that are affecting the mind (would have a will save)

There is nothing in the spell description that says anything about illusions so this is false.

OK, now to the rest.

Stops all compulsions

Stops only things that actually take you over like dominate

No, the spell clearly says it only blocks things from evil creatures. There is also a FAQ that says as much:

Protection From Evil: Does the "protection against possession and mental control" aspect work against non-evil controlling spells and effects?

No. The spell says "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects." So if a chaotic neutral enemy casts charm person on you, protection from evil doesn't have any effect because neither the spell nor the caster is evil.

Stops compulsions from evil casters

Stops only things like dominate from evil outsiders
Stops confusion since it takes away your ability to decide
Does not stop confusion since the caster can’t control the actions
Stops charm/suggestion because the caster now has some measure of control over you
Does not stop charm/suggestion since the caster doesn’t control your actions just adjusted your attitude a little bit
Etc…

There is a FAQ for these as well:

Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

In the future you'd be better off checking the FAQ's before browsing the forums.

Regardless of what the FAQ says, I always rule that it breaks the incorporeal's DR regardless since it is just another form of DR.

That's a houserule. This is the rules forum, not the houserules forum.

The damage mitigation of incorporeal creatures has nothing to do with DR. DR is for weapon damage (and in some cases spells that deal damage as a weapon). The paladin's smite ability only bypasses DR, not any other forms of damage mitigation a creature may have.

It can be done. I disagree with Zuxius's opinion that it can't be personable while also being large. In fact I think it quite the opposite. A larger turnout just means more people you could potentially meet. Case in point, last year was my first Paizocon and I went to Kyle's shindig (which easily had a hundred people or so). I met quite a few people there that I talked to and ended up bumping into them later during the con.

Let's focus our efforts and use this thread to try and make this happen successfully and not try to compare it with how it used to be. The con has changed and grown and thus so must any attempt at a meet and greet also change.

It's probably never going to be like it used to be with only 20-50 people total at the con because Paizo has grown by leaps and bounds since then. I'm not trying to create anything like what Kyle did. I just want to organize one or more locations that people can go to if they want to mingle, chat or maybe even game with other enthusiasts and con-goers.

There is a lot of SPAM by this vikashnathji account going around this forum. Could the powers that be please ban this person? Thank you.

Anthony DiDomenico wrote:

Another point of contention.

If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?

what Intimidate wrote:

This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.

Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.

what intimidate doesn't wrote:

This skill includes verbal threats or displays of prowess.

Meaning it only requires one of the conditions to work (but both is lagniappe).

I know it's also quite possible (as I'm sure most developers probably aren't English majors, not that it's required for this) that the language wasn't scrutinized during development. Probably more of a reason to FAQ it.

INCLUDES

Also, see my example with escape artist.

Also, let's understand fluff does not equal rules. It's fluff. Move onto the rules.

The fluff is part of the rules. It is a basic description or a TL;DR if you will. It's not going to say something that isn't true as it pertains to how something works so you can't just ignore it. Usually I find that the fluff is stated in a more vague way while it is clarified further upon reading the full description.

@trollbill - I can see both interpretations. Maybe this is something that should be clarified a bit being as how demoralize has specific language but the basic intimidate check does not. Was that intentional? Was the way intimidate works supposed to be implied in some way? Might be FAQ-worthy.

I base my argument mostly on the language for demoralize as I see it as a lesser version of intimidate to shift attitude.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Linky

Franks, sir.

Could you cite where the shaken condition is defined as a fear condition? I worry you are confusing shaken for being a condition under possible results of fear effects.

It says it right in the description of shaken

Shaken: A shaken character takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.

OK, answer me this. How did you know you even beat the DC? You couldn't have possibly known what the DC was without having metagame knowledge of said creature. Which goes back to my earlier question: If th GM would have simply said "it didn't work" would you still be this antagonistic?

I also want to reiterate that this is a ROLE-PLAYING game first and foremost. The ROLL-PLAYING is just a means to an end and a mechanical way to describe what is taking place. The rolls are by no means the end-all be-all of this game.

The GM has every right to alter things in such a way to make it enjoyable to everyone (even somewhat in PFS). Maybe he didn't want you to get sole enjoyment from the encounter and wanted the group to fight it so everyone could have fun but decided to let you role-play it anyway so you could have some fun with that (which apparently you didn't).

You keep trying to compare roleplaying skills (diplomacy and intimidate) to skills/abilities that are strictly mechanical (disable divice and trip). The two can't be compared for the argument you are trying to convey (which I don't really know what it is anymore).

It is very possible that Diplomacy and/or Intimidate doesn't work on certain creatures or NPCs no matter how good you roll. Just because you beat the DC doesn't mean that you can shift their attitude or cause them to fear you (intimidate). It is also very situational.

I would also like to point out that the intimidate skill says "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." This, to me, means they have to see you for it to even work.

I agree that the GMs reason for it not working was wrong and very poorly stated.

Aside from the rules-specificity of this thread, as pointed out already, if you have a problem with this GM you should bring it up to your VC or to Mike Brock if the GM happens to be your VC.

They are all separate spells. They lump them together like that because they all operate the same with the only difference being what they protect from.

You don't memorize "protection from good/evil/chaos/law" and pick one when cast. You memorize protection from evil, protection from good, protection from chaos or protection from law.

Roll attack and damage dice at the same time. Roll multiple attacks as well, just let me know which color dice are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.

Know your bonuses to attack and damage beforehand (at least mostly) so it doesn't take 5 minutes to add it up.

Be ready when your turn comes up.

Don't run other people's characters. Let them make their own decisions, good or bad. Let me remind them of certain actions they could take. It's usually much easier coming from the GM than another player, especially a stranger.

Remind me of ongoing effects or anything else I may have forgotten.

Accept my rules decisions. We can talk about it later (unless it's a life or death matter).

Overall...be prepared. I hate having to loan out pencils and paper and even minis sometimes.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

Another GM paranoid trick but requires a screen.

Want to make players paranoid? Grab a bunch of dice but make the damage dice special (like all of your red d6 but you grab a fist full of dice.) Roll all the dice for a horrendous noise, then lament your bad dice luck and announce the damage. Your players will simultaneously panic at the racket and breathe a sign of relief at your luck.

I love this! I'm going to have to try it some time.

Player: *rolls dice* "All three hit, 84 damage."

GM: "Wait, but what did you do?"

Player: "Full-attacked."

GM: "How do you know you hit with all three attacks?"

Player: "Well they were all in excess of X."

GM: "Yeah, but now he's out of Point-Blank range, has cover, is prone which gives +4 versus ranged attacks, [list continues], so what did you actually roll on those attacks?"

Player: "Oh, okay. Let's see, it was X, Y and Z."

GM: "Only one of those hit. You need to announce your rolls, because things can change."

Player: "Okay, sure, no problem."

Rest of the night...

Player: *rolls dice* "All three hit, XX damage..."

Ugh...I really hate this!

On the flip side though I love rolling outrageous numbers to hit (knowing full well they hit) and asking "Does a 52 hit?"

I also hate what someone else mentioned about spells when a player just says "monster x needs to roll a will save".

OK, what spell is it? What's the DC?

I had a player complain one time that I get to see their dice but I hide mine. I said "Yup, I'm the GM. That's how I roll." (<== See what i did there?)

EDIT: Ok, based on the FAQ about rays and how it states spiritual weapon in it and on the wording for the judgements I would have to say that the judgements would affect the spiritual weapon.

anthonydido wrote:

I disagree. Cure spells are channeled positive energy. It says so in the spell description:

Cure Light Wounds wrote:

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

So cure spells would do full damage or half if they make the save.

I found this.

Q: Does positive energy from Channel Energy only cause half damage to Incorporeal undead?

A: (Jason Bulmahn 12/1/09) As for this particular issue, there is nothing in the rules exempting channel energy from being reduced by the incorporeal UMR (universal monster rule). Using the rules as written, this means that it is reduced. That said it probably should not be, but that is a matter I will take up when we get to errata for that book.

Update: The Universal Monster Rules for Incorporeal creatures updated the rules to reflect that Channel Energy is NOT reduced by 50%.

He seems to be referencing the Channel Energy ability, not the positive energy from CLW. Does this change anything?

That answers my question then. The one I quoted seems to be the correct version and they just haven't errata'd the bestiaries yet.

Now, that question seems to be directed towards the Channel Energy ability but the "channel energy" in the incorporeal description is not capitalized so to me it is referencing all channeled energy, not just the ability.

There is one line that refutes your logic that you missed:

...Magic items are not affected by an area dispel.