gatherer818's page

Going to be honest, I was really hoping this thread was started by the same guy who started the "My party is eating a Neolithid why are adventurers like this?" thread over in Advice...

Claws are definitely not considered held weapons, but a GM should definitely allow this. Most rules and buffs for PCs aren't written with natural weapons in mind, but things that affect your unarmed strikes should affect natural weapons using the same limbs unless there's a very good reason they shouldn't (such as trying to apply a bonus from your brass knuckles to your claw attacks - you're not hitting with the brass knuckles! But if your entire arm is on fire, that includes your claw, ergo your claw should do fire damage just like your fist, or elbow, or shoulder...).

I swear I saw something in a rulebook somewhere that said something similar, but I can't recall where yet, so for now I can only give you opinion. If I find it, I'll update with rule support.

I know it's not the main point here, but I'd like to point out that detect evil is only a tool, not a foolproof "kill that" marker.

Besides the things that don't show up to detect evil (or only show as faint) but are actually things that needs killing, the bigger problem is the things that DO show up to detect evil but don't need killing.

• Characters who are evil at heart but still manage to live in a society. Evil doesn't necessarily mean murder and torture.
  
• Neutral Clerics of Evil deities
  
• Neutral Clerics of Neutral deities who chose to channel negative energy? I can't remember...
  
• Anyone (including Good adventurers) recently exposed to a serious source of evil, such as destroying an evil artifact.
  
• Anyone (including Good adventurers) currently or recently under the effects of an Evil spell. (Such as if someone misunderstood how to use Corruption Resistance or used a Follow Aura spell to find a Good character, got hit by Undine's Curse or Malediction, infected with Contagion or tortured with Agonize - oh, wait, or had a teammate give them Infernal Healing. Yeah, the best non-combat heal in the game leaves an Evil mark based on the caster's level.)

Paladins should be seriously careful when attacking anything their detect flags as evil, killing many of them is an evil act itself.

I know I'm new to Paizo, but not new to D&D or pathfinder. One trick ponies are actually fun, because combat is only one portion of the game. Plus during combat you can always use your abilities in new ways with creative ideas. I am currently rocking a fighter who is exclusively Longbow specialized and no part of combat has become boring because when you focus on one aspect you can maneuver around and make that aspect fun every combat. Mine is a priest (not cleric) who began as a zealot against certain religions, then became more humble and pious, but he used almost exclusively a longbow. So it is all about how you play it.

4-year necro, not bad. Not sure what caster level you are, but I'm glad you cast the res when you did, wouldn't have been long before you had to bump up to true res just to get the thread moving again ^_^

Spellbooks take damage from fire like any other object. A spellbook might survive where a scroll wouldn't just by virtue of its size, though, since thicker items have higher hp.

If it was soaked in oil and not protected somehow or extinguished, it'll take 2d3 damage from the fire over 2 rounds. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/goods-and-services/herbs-oils-other-subst ances/#TOC-Oil-Lamp

Paper has 2 hp per inch of thickness. A scroll therefore probably only has 1 hp and is destroyed, but a spellbook has a chance. One-inch thick - destroyed. Two-inches thick has nearly a 50/50 chance, Three-inches is only destroyed if both dice come up 3. Thicker is fine. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/damaging-objects/

If it's leather-bound and was only splattered (not "soaked") in oil, the leather's hardness may apply, and the GM may halve the damage (you normally halve energy damage like fire or cold against objects, unless the GM considers that object to be weak against that energy type, like paper and fire...). That ensures the book survives. Likewise for a scroll in a case of some sort.

Wands are typically treated wood, and should halve damage from fire. With hardness 5 and 10 hp, they're basically immune to ordinary lamp oil.

I hope that helps!

I'm dying laughing over here. My personal favorite I'm afraid dates me, all the way back to 2e

102) "Save vs. death/disintegration."

People who spend (too much) time on these boards have probably heard of the Ragebred Vivisectionist (optionally additionally Beastmorph) with Feral Mutagen getting 6 natural attacks with sneak attack. I'm interested in giving it a try, however...

I really like Beastmorph (I can get Pounce with 6 natural weapons? Yes please!), but I don't care for trading away my persistent mutagen, since my combat style kind of relies on my mutagen being active. Is there a way I can get that back?

I've never seen an example of the build past level 3. I imagine without magical weapons (besides the Amulet) it probably trails off even harder than most martials, but it's got sneak attack and extracts to make up for that, at least in part. Where do I take it after level 3? I'm kind of lost on this one...

The game I'm thinking of using this build in intends to go Mythic. I'm even more lost on what to do with my mythic stuff. Trickster path, or Champion? There's no Mythic version of Improved Natural Weapon - what do I do with my mythic feats?

...so, yeah, I really hope you guys can help me out some. I have other concepts I can go with if I can't figure this one out, but I'm on a bit of a time crunch, so I'm entreating you for assistance.

Gatherer818 wrote:

Unless there is some reason the character cannot use his Perception skill at this point (checking the body triggered a modify memory spell that made him forget what kinds of insects and how many there were, AND one of the other party members has driven them off with a smokestick or a spell so they're no longer there to study; or, say, the character has been attacked by someone wanting to prevent him from studying the body too closely), refusing to allow it makes absolutely no sense. "You can't see because you're a doctor."

....and is metagaming.

Horsefeathers.

His character is starting to be extra suspicious because the DM told his player that something was up. His character has no reason to do that. The character is trying to act on information from the player that the character should not have. Thats metagaming, the kind that qualifies as cheating. (not the acceptable breaks from reality kind of metagaming like NOT killing your party members when you character really would try to kill them or running into a dungeon with a random bag of mixed nuts)

What information he shouldn't have? If he's capable of inferring those kinds of details from looking at insects or whatever, then he's capable of doing so (and should receive a check to try). If he's not capable of doing so, then why did you offer him a chance to try in the first place?

Honestly.. why DID you offer options in the first place? Rather than saying "you can roll Heal or Perception", just say "do you want to try to determine the time of death?" and let the player come up with what to do. They'll probably try Heal first if they're trained, but if that doesn't work, Knowledge(nature) to see if they can determine anything based on knowledge of the insects eating the corpse would be a creative and awesome attempt. That way there's no "metagaming" (we're clearly not going to agree on that issue) AND the player is engaged with the game, instead of simply being offered options and rolling dice.

He says, "Oh, I'll make a Perception check instead, because you offered me that choice," and I'll say that's metagaming.

So is not playing an Evil character in PFS. So is not playing a Vivisectionist because it's banned. So is making a check in the first place, you should just say "my character uses his medical knowledge to determine the victim's time of death", there are no dice involved in that. Except, you shouldn't say "my character" because that's meta as well....

Metagaming isn't a crime. Metagaming isn't against the rules. Metagaming is literally required from all players at all times. If you reference your character sheet, roll dice, speak out of character, or check the mechanics of a spell or feat, you're metagaming.

Unless there is some reason the character cannot use his Perception skill at this point (checking the body triggered a modify memory spell that made him forget what kinds of insects and how many there were, AND one of the other party members has driven them off with a smokestick or a spell so they're no longer there to study; or, say, the character has been attacked by someone wanting to prevent him from studying the body too closely), refusing to allow it makes absolutely no sense. "You can't see because you're a doctor."

....and is metagaming.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There's also no point in maxing out a caster stat when your main role is buffing.

It can be if you keep a couple of sparsely used, but extremely useful spells that allow saves. Cacophonous Call is an example. My bard may spend 97% of his time buffing, but when the need arises to whip out "the call" I want to make sure it is effective. Not all buff characters are strictly buff. Many also de-buff and most of those controller-type spells allow a save.

Do note that cacophonous call is illegal for the aforementioned Core Campaign bard to learn or cast, of course.

It's one thing if the gold cost is a drop in the bucket. It's something totally different if, as the OP mentioned, it would literally drain every gold piece from every character in the party. In the first case, a GM still can't REQUIRE you to pay for someone else's raise dead, but can certainly look at you with "really?" eyebrows if you refuse. In the second case, a quick cost-benefit analysis probably indicates that unless the dead PC is simply the most useful party member ever and the reason he died was that the GM grudge'd him for single-handedly making every encounter look like its 5 CR lower than actual, it's probably time to roll up a newbie.

I have been DMing since 1st ed AD&D. Most of you are D&D newbees to me. I am a DMing machine - a Construct, and thus immune to criticals; You're backstab was flatulent.

:-)

A) this isn't about D&D, it's about Pathfinder.

Furthermore, your spamming of tons of individual posts rather than use of a single post, often with the SAME TEXT even, and just saying "You're wrong see above" or "you are D&D newbees (sic) to me." isn't constructive, isn't proof of anything, and is likely to be perceived as trolling.

In my opinion, Faerie Fire alters the appearance (in a non-physical but perceivable way, per the rules for figments) of the target, ergo it is copied by Mirror Image and therefore doesn't ruin the defensive spell.

Faerie Fire is already a very powerful spell for its level, overcoming many other spells and effects including various forms of darkness (mostly natural, but there are some light-lowering racial and class-based SLAs that count as first or zero-th level), blur and invisibility (in fact, it and Glitterdust are THE go-to spells for invisible opponents), and mundane concealment. Further, it's useful enough in a narrative sense to find corner cases where creative players can get an unlisted benefit from using Faerie Fire in an unexpected way. I don't think it needs yet another buff to allow it to overcome Mirror Image as well.

Paraphrased: "If a spell is more powerful than every other spell at its level, it should be evaluated to be moved up to the next spell level." Right now, as a first-level spell, Faerie Fire is pretty near the very top of first-level as-is. It generally defeats all mundane and first-level or lower magical darkness or concealment effects, and specifically defeats several higher-level magics ranging in power from second-level (blur) all the way up to eighth-level (fine, call it seventh, Mass Invis is only eighth when cast by a Trickery Domain Cleric).

Conversely, for a spellcaster expecting to be attacked more than once or twice during the combat, there's presently little reason for a caster with a choice to choose Mirror Image over Blur. While it provides superior protection against the first few attacks, it quickly fades to nothing while Blur keeps on keeping-on, additionally disincentivizing attacking the protected caster (while Mirror Image specifically calls out the caster as a good target, since even your misses will have the positive effect of basically dispelling a second-level defensive spell. When else can a martial do that with just their full-attack?). Working against Faerie Fire (especially in a campaign where the players expect to face drow often) brings the two spells a little closer together in power and slightly limits the Faerie Fire's status as a "super-spell", especially when your enemies have it as one of a huge suite of racial SLAs that basically turn their newborn children into semi-competent third-level sorcerers.

Apologies that this grew into a wall of text. I did my best not to make it sound like a personal attack, 2HD, but I'm afraid it may be perceived that way anyway. If so, I'm sorry for that as well, and will endeavor to do better in the future.

So I skipped pages 2 and 3, because SKR answered the question already. I think someone confused Mr. Reynolds (Developer, Contributor, Design Team Member) with Mr. Jacobs (Creator of the Golarion Campaign Setting). Mr. Jacobs is the one who said several times that he "isn't a rules guy", he's "just" the guy who created 90%+ of Golarion (hence the reason Clerics in PFS play can't be dedicated to a cause instead of a deity despite the Core Rulebook saying they can; because lots of lore in Golarion breaks if Clerics don't have to worship a deity).

Mr. Reynolds is (was, I guess, now...) very much a "rules guy", and unless he's overridden by Mr. Bulmahn, his clarifications were definitive. Players may take 10 or take 20 on Disguise checks, provided they have the time and aren't presently in a situation that prevents the general take 10 or take 20 rules. You can rule otherwise for your home games, but the Rules-As-Intended are clear for default Pathfinder.

Characters can be deleted? I looked for a way to do so but haven't been able to find it yet. :/ it might be super-obvious and I just overlooked it... *searches again* Ah, of course, the Character Sheet page. That actually WAS obvious.

So, I GM'ed a Module. It allowed me to fill in Prestige for each player, but not XP (and not Prestige for myself). Some players received 2 XP, 3 PP, and 2/3rds gold (for attending one of two sessions), while the others received 3 XP, 4 PP, and full gold (for attending both sessions). My own character should have received 3 XP, 4 PP. The character tracking in "My PFS" shows me as having earned 2 PP for the session (and nothing tracks my XP, as far as I can tell). Should I just ignore it and carry on, or is something that can/should be fixed?

Also: Two of my players were replaying the module - which is fine, as it's a Tier 1-2 sanctioned module, making it replayable per the Guide to Organized Play. However, in Event Reporting, it says they don't get Prestige for the event because they've played the Module before. Is this something I should do something about?

Hi all,

My group is about to figure out what the transport tokens are for. The problem is, one of the characters speaks Azlanti. I guess this character will then also know what the runes for each level look like. Does this mean they can teleport to any level they wish, without having visited the levels?

If it works like this, I would like to devise some workaround, so that the players are not allow to 'skip ahead' in the dungeon.

My understanding, from reading and re-reading the descriptions, is that the runes are NOT Azlanti, and are not numbers either. When you find them on parchment, there is a label in Azlanti with the floor number on that parchment.

Emphasis mine.

This, and other comments strewn through the module, indicate that the runes are actually the names of the levels in the original language of the Builder, and the labels are just labels so the Azlants that took over the place for a while knew which floor was which. Likely, the runes themselves refer to the attributes of the levels, but in a language no PC has a chance of knowing.

Feedback: Social trait Criminal and Liberty's Edge Faction trait Rousing Oratory do not seem to have an option to select which skill they make a class skill for you, and none of the skills become class skills. I'm assuming this probably holds true for most or all of the "pick a skill, it gains X and becomes a class skill" traits.

Kinetic Chirugeon (I may not have spelled that right) archetype doesn't seem to limit the Kineticist using it to Water or Aether elements.

I've been looking everywhere for a character creator or rules source that automatically limit me to PFS-legal options, because it gets really, REALLY tiresome having to check the additional resources page every time I add a trait or consider a feat or spell. (Or race... was building a Kinetic Chirugeon and discovered absolutely none of the +Dex, +Con races are PFS legal T_T)

If this character generator has a) all the PFS legal stuff (or at least, is working towards it, I get it's in early development), and b) none of the non-PFS-legal stuff (or at least an option to turn that stuff off so I can't accidentally select it), I would absolutely LOVE to try it out.

I'll test every rules interaction and corner case I can think of while I play with it and report the ones that don't work right ^_^

redacted 1: “Advanded celestial cthulhu”

redacted 2: Is there a Half-Tarrasque template you can add to it?

redacted 1: Fun fact: You can totally make a CR 25 challenge using 33,000 hedgehogs

redacted 2: How about a Cthulhu swarm? What is the CR on that?

I had a GM decide an adult red dragon wasn't difficult enough, but instead of figuring out the stats for one age category higher, he decided to just give it the half-black dragon template. The dragon was the only survivor. First campaign in a while we've actually played to the end, even if it wasn't the end we had planned.

I really, really dislike when people assume that because I start building a character by deciding on a mechanical theme, that my characters obviously cannot be interesting or fun to play (or fun to play with). The mechanics are the skeleton on which I can build an interesting personality. I've seen people try to focus on just the "fluff" and just do whatever for the mechanics at the end; they usually don't make any sense. "My character is a strong, silent swordsman." ...He's Str 7 Cha 19 with no sword proficiencies, because after you finished working on his personality you threw a dart at a board full of sticky notes with class names and hit Arcanist. And, since you think Archetypes are the very definition of bad-wrong-fun (I have honestly encountered this opinion), you didn't even think to give him the Bladebound Arcanist AT.

My characters' personalities and backgrounds inform AND are informed by their stats and feats. My latest feat-class feature-exotic weapon combo I've dreamed up is usually not a instant-win for all level-appropriate encounters, it's a quirk that (grants some advantage, yes, but...) ensures my character is still memorable and unique even during combat. No one remembers every martial character that puts out enough DPR to matter at the mid-levels; everyone remembers the Zen Archer Monk abusing Combat Patrol and Snap Shot to threaten the entire battlefield and protect all his allies, spamming Ranged Trip and Ranged Disarm on any opponent who dares move or cast a spell.

Admittedly, I've never actually played the Combat Patrol Zen Archer, but it's an awesome idea I got from a friend. I have played the crit-focused shaman with Mythic Flame Blade getting his crit range out to 9-20 (and grabbing teamwork feats to grant allies bonuses when I crit), the Fey-bloodline Sorcerer-sniper using the Kobold Magazine sniper rifle (before Ultimate Combat's firearms were released) to fire Charm Person spells into a town from a half-mile away, and the neutral-aligned Negative Channeling Aasimar Cleric using the Aasimar-unique channeling feats as a brand of high-dpr battlefield control.

And the biggest thing is - this is how I have fun playing Pathfinder. Figuring out a character's personality based on the trick that inspired their creation - the Cleric had been raised by their super-strict, super-disapproving Angelic father, and the conversion to an evil deity (but still doing good deeds using her evil powers) on Golarion was her form of teenage rebellion. Making characters my friends will still talk about long after the campaign has ended or the character retired - "Oh man remember that one time your Archer saved my Wizard by bouncing a shot off John's tank's helmet and pinning the werewolf's arm to my horse?"

Apologies for the wall of text, but the mindset that people who build powerful characters are incapable of playing the game "right" put me in a ranting mood. My friends like that I (and one other guy at the table) minmax, since it means we can carry combat in case their less-optimized ideas don't work out like they hoped. I like when their characters take the time to thank mine for pulling their hoops out of the fire. We all have fun our own ways. And if that means Combat Patrol with a 140 ft move speed to generate a threatened area bigger than your boring 20x20 dungeon rooms and generic Fighter-Wizard-Cleric done-a-million-times-before party, then so be it.

During a prison break, the players knifed a guard. Mending and Prestidigitation fixed the uniform so a player could Disguise... a few room-clears later, the entire party is in uniform, complaining that their wardens made sub-optimal weapon and armor choices while outfitting their guards.

I don't think OP's intent was to spark a detailed analysis of every game reason that his monk might out-damage a ranger with a level of barbarian. I believe he was just bragging a bit and saying it can happen. Not every thread has to be a place where you tell people exactly how they're playing the game wrong.

However, if rage was making the character miss more often, with a very strange archetype, there IS a problem :P I'm 95% sure that the OP meant Power Attack, and/or there's a houserule in play (or maybe just the ranger doing it for flavor) where raging characters MUST use Power Attack if they have it.

I've always read it as "the new spell dispels the old AND still applies to the target normally", although this thread makes me wonder. I too will nominate the OP for inclusion in an FAQ (not that my opinion is a huge deal on these boards, but one more voice can't hurt). I'm also not sure whether I'd apply the dispel effect of slow (against haste) regardless of the save/SR of the target.... I can't find rules that say it definitely works one way or the other, but my interpretation of the opposite effects rules still makes me lean to my original interpretation.

I'm thinking this too, but not finding anything definitive. By the exact wording in the Overrun, Trample, and Improved Overrun descriptions, it seems like having Improved Overrun on a trampler would negate the AoOs for trampling (but not the movement!) AND the reflex saves... which seems slightly OP to me. But it seems to work by RAW.

Unless your group plays strictly RAW though, likely your DM would rule that it forces them to always choose "avoid" and never attempt the AoO for your Tramples, even though the Improved Overrun feat says that it makes targets unable to attempt to avoid you, it would just be overpowered, even with a two-feat cost to get there.

So, by my analysis, Rules As Written: YES, it negates BOTH the AoO AND the Reflex save for trample; Rules As Intended: YES, it negates the AoO but NOT the Reflex save.