someweirdguy's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. 129 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd argue that "throwing magical bolts of deadly energy at people to determine if they're a good person" isn't really a Good action. In fact, in terms of the laws of most civilized areas, I'd assume doing so would be considered at minimum assault and lead to the perpetrator being thrown in jail.

Look at it this way, there are plenty of horrible people in the world who haven't committed horrendous enough acts to get themselves thrown in jail. Do they deserve death?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tribon wrote:
someweirdguy wrote:
If you had something like Cleave (which doesn't have the attack trait) and took out one of your opponents, wouldn't you need to care about your MAP?
Cleave has you make a Strike, which does have the Attack trait, so that wouldn't work. It seems like the clause about your MAP is unnecessary.

You're right. I'd forgotten that Subordinate Actions still have their usual traits.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you had something like Cleave (which doesn't have the attack trait) and took out one of your opponents, wouldn't you need to care about your MAP?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Blave wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:

So this leads on to the next relevant question - if you get granted the same type of unarmed attack from two different sources, and they both give access to feats that reference them, do you have to choose each time you attack which set of feats apply, or do they all apply?

For example, if I make an animal instinct (wolf) barbarian razortooth goblin, and take the fang sharpener feat, do I have;
Two jaws unarmed attacks to choose from, one of which has the trip trait, the other of which does persistent bleed damage

Or

One jaws unarmed attack, which has the trip trait and does persistent bleed damage.

You'd have two jaws attacks, each with its own traits and damage die size.

That was my first thought, but was hoping someone had found something somewhere that said otherwise.

Its annoying if it works that way as the barbarian subclass that is focused on biting should probably work better on an ancestry & heritage combo that is also focused on biting.

Technically, you shouldn't be able to use your Goblin bite while Raging as an Animal Instinct Barbarian that gets a Bite attack because your Rage gets the Morph trait. That means you're morphing your head into an animalistic version and wouldn't have your normal bite.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think the fact that they only refer to attacking objects once and the rest of the time just talk about damaging or destroying them is purposeful.

If they use the same formula as 1E, items are automatically hit by anything but a natural 1, and since critical immunity is still a thing (although far rarer), I think it likely that they just intended for you to just automatically deal damage against objects. They didn't clarify it well, but that seems to be the intent.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Johnny Angel wrote:

Are there NPC creation rules similar to the ones for the old 3.5? I'm not seeing any such in the Core Rulebook. Back when I made an Excel chargen for the original Pathfinder, it could also be used to implement the subsystem designed specifically for quick-and-dirty NPC generation and generate a stat block you could bring to the table.

I'm looking at the prospect of putting together an Excel chargen for Starfinder, but I'd want to start from scratch because the previous one was built on Office 2003, and it seems like it'd be better to make a clean start. So, you know, it'd be a lot of work.

The NPC and monster creation rules are in the Alien Archive.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Looks like everyone here agees with my interpretation of the rules. As has been said, someone was trying to argue that you were affecting the weapon, and not the crew action, so you could do it because you were "wielding" the ship weapon. Pointing out that the word wield is never used in the Starship combat chapter did nothing to dissuade him, and he said he wouldn't change his opinion until there was official word. I just wanted to get more input from others before fully writing him off as a troll.

Hi, sabelonada. If you're who I think you are, I'm the one who suggested we just stop feeding the troll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There's a debate going on in a Starfinder Facebook group about the Technomancer Hack Empowered Weapon and Starship weapons. I'm going to copy/paste the original question, and I'll save my commentary for after others have answered.

Original question wrote:

Dumb Technomancer question. For their powers that affect weapons, such as the Empowered Weapon magic hack, can these be used to affect/modify starship weapons?

EDIT: This would be for Starfinder Society play so if you could cite a source or forum post by a developer or someone in authority, that would be helpful. Thanks!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
They also have a maximum level of item they can be applied to, and the price is set according to THAT level.

That's how all fusions work. Either buy a higher level seal you can use on multiple items, or buy a fusion and spend money based on item level each time you transfer it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you plan on doing a lot of transferring of Fusions, just get Fusion Seals. They cost 110% of what the Fusion would cost, but can be moved as much as you want. Only downside is that they take 24 hours to become active after they're moved.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Wouldn't the "These unarmed attacks don’t benefit from other abilities that apply specifically to unarmed attacks (such as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat)" text of Hammer Fist preclude Weapon Specialization though?

EDIT: Hm, guess that's only for things apply specifially to unarmed strikes, whereas weapon specialization in this case applies to basic melee weapons in general. I guess it does work.

Thanks! I've re-adjusted his damage.

S'all good. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't reading it wrong. Love your stuff and enjoy seeing the characters you create.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:

"Because augmentations are coded to your body, it’s not possible to resell an old augmentation, nor can you reimplant one into a different person."

So, the answer is 100% of the price, because augmentations have to be built/grown for the recipient, and there's thus no such thing as a "salvaged" augmentation.

And yet we already have a printed adventure where an uninstalled datajack is part of the reward the PCs are given.
If we assume it hadn't been installed in another person previously, then it might be that the intention is that the reward is the data jack and the person sets you up with someone who will install it for free.

It's sent as part of a reward via courier bot in the SFS Commencement adventure. There's no comment on installation.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

NEW CHARACTER!

Nosskimanus Sunborn, Veskarium demolisher and escaped amnesiac - N male vesk soldier 7 (mercenary theme, armor storm fighting style)

A half-insane mercenary with a penchant for "over doing it," Nossk is one of the few lucky enough to survive the wrath of of the monster, Char. Left traumatized by the encounter, he now seeks to once again find his place in the world while picking up the pieces of his shattered soul.

Nossk prefers close quarters fighting with devastating weapons, such as his flamethrower or chainsaw, relying on his familial powered armor to protect him all the while.

Shouldn't his unarmed strikes be doing 1d4+15 damage? 4 Strength, 2 Melee Striker, 2 Hammer Fist (because of Melee Striker), and 7 Weapon Specialization.

Using Vesk Natural Weapons, he'd be doing more static damage (1d3+16 due to the special Weapon Specialization adding 3 instead of Hammer Fist's 2), but his dice damage would never scale.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm pretty sure the caveat about abilities not affecting star combat actions is to prevent an Envoy from giving extra actions, a mechanic from empowering shields, etc.

Regardless, the Channel Skill and other such bonuses modify your skill check and not the specific space combat action, and as such shouldn't fall under that rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I find it interesting that people are focusing on the 4 skill DCs that are specifically meant to be the pinnacle of ability and exceedingly difficult to pull off - Orders, Flyby, Patching a wrecked system, and Overpower.

Not counting the actions that are based on enemy Tier and such, at level 20 18 of the 22 potential Crew Actions are DC 55 or less.

If you're in a fight at level 20, your character is going to have chosen a ship role and be focused on that role, and a check at that level in a skill they're good at will be able to make those checks most of the time.

The 70 is a scary number, but it is incredibly rare and is supposed to be hard to pull off. You aren't expected to be able to fix wrecked systems every turn or give people a second action every turn.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There's also the fact that the ONLY downside to trying a Combat Maneuver is not doing damage in the round.

There's no attack of opportunity.

You don't get tripped or disarmed if you fail either of those checks. You just don't do damage for a round.

That's it. Zero downside aside from no damage. They had to make them harder when they removed the downsides.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
citricking wrote:
The serum's are insight bonuses, so it doesn't matter that they're cheap, pretty much everyone will get at least a +2 insight bonus anyways.

You're right. I assumed they were an enhancement bonus and didn't read close enough. So -2 to my earlier assessments, but still totally doable numbers.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
sunderedhero wrote:
someweirdguy wrote:

Skill checks are simply when you use a skill. Any and all modifiers you would add outside of a starship, you add when you are in a starship. There's no reason not to.

Also, every class except for Solarions and Soldiers can get a bonus to skills that are relevant to starship combat. There's nothing making Envoys and Operatives solely effective in starship combat. In fact, Star Shaman Mystics are far better pilots than Envoys, and they're just as good as Operatives.

One would think, but "Class features and items affect crew actions only if specifically noted in the class feature or item." (p322) So nope, by RAW none of those work.

It's not affecting the crew action. It's modifying the character making the crew action. There's a difference.

That rule is to exclude someone from trying to cast a spell on an enemy ship or use a mechanic's Boost Shield trick on starship shields. That's not to exclude modifiers to skills, and my statement is bolstered by the earlier mentioned statements from designers stating that both Expertise and Operative's Edge work in starship combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kiln Norn wrote:

Also weird do you use haste potions every fight? I don't.

Besides that this doesn't touch on the fact that there is no progression, I'm supposed to get better, not stay the same. Also you only get to DC 10 encourage if you have the appropriate skill.

There's plenty of progression. It's just that your ship is getting better as well. A great analogy I saw elsewhere was that an average guy getting into an Indy car will not be able to control it at all, but a trained driver will. Despite that, even expert race car drivers have accidents on occasion.

A Tier 1 ship is an off the assembly line Mustang. Nice, but standard.

A Tier 20 ship is a custom made high performance machine that can only be wrangled by the best of the best.

Edit - Forgot to address the Haste potion question. I may not use a haste potion every fight, but I expect my party cleric or wizard to be casting some kind of spell to buff the party or debuff the enemy every fight. Also, at 475 credits, an enhancement serum is a drop in the bucket to a level 15 player with 500,000 credits to their name.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:

Serums do not specify that they affect crew actions, so they don't. Even if they did, their benefit is an Insight bonus that doesn't stack with Skill Focus. Expertise and Operative's Edge don't apply either.

Having them apply would probably be a bad solution. You'd be setting up difficulties so that only Envoys and Operatives have any hope of being relevant in mid to high level starship combat, when the whole point of having different crew roles was to get everyone involved.

Uhhh, crew actions with checks are all worded as "a (skill name) check

(DC = X)". Enhancement serums state "The creature gains a +2 insight bonus to X and Y checks". Expertise states you add the 1d6 to "checks" with the relevant skills. Operatives Edge states you add it to "skill checks". Skill checks are simply when you use a skill. Any and all modifiers you would add outside of a starship, you add when you are in a starship. There's no reason not to.

Also, every class except for Solarions and Soldiers can get a bonus to skills that are relevant to starship combat. There's nothing making Envoys and Operatives solely effective in starship combat. In fact, Star Shaman Mystics are far better pilots than Envoys, and they're just as good as Operatives.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kiln Norn wrote:

You might be right in some situations there. But you error into adding in the computer for everyone.

15 ranks. 15
3 class skill. 18
7 from the stat. 25
2 from Captain, if he makes it. 27
2 Serum 29
2 Lashunta Ysoki Shirren 31
1 Pilot with ace pilot. 32
3 Skill focus. 35

That does make things possible without a computer. Somewhat.

-1 if you aren't a pilot, the only relevant theme.
-2 if your captain falls his check, or wants to say, grant a free action to someone (tell me how to roll a DC 70 at level 20).
-2 if you aren't the perfect race. Shirren for captain, Ysoki for engineer, or an optimising Lashunta.

Serums I hadn't taken into account but that would be like shooting up adrenaline before every military engagement and shouldn't be a standard.

So... -2.

So still a problem. Also with a duonode +8 computer your optimizing for that. It also doesn't change that the 20+2×tier and 10+3×tier are impossible at tier 20. Though an unofficial errata now says operative edge and envoy dice now work.

Ok, let's break down your criticisms.

The computer bonuses should be prioritized to people who will be making the hardest checks. That's going to be 2 of 5 roles each turn. Is the pilot going to do a stunt or a sharp turn? If not, then he doesn't need to use the computer. Captain can just do a DC 10 to Encourage someone and never touch the computers. If one person does a sure thing check, that means half of the remaining checks can get the computer bonus. Heck, you could just have a +5 trinode instead of a +8 duonode and have 3 of the checks each round getting a +5 instead.

Skill Focus is the lowest possible bonus you can get from insight. Multiple classes get bonuses to Bluff, Computers, Engineering, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Piloting that exceed the +3 from Skill Focus. Star Shaman Mystics are some of the best pilots around, with a +5 Insight bonus at level 15. Only Solarions and Soldiers miss out on the bonuses to at least a couple relevant skills. Heck, Operatives can take Skill Focus to allow them to take 10 with any skill. That will allow them to easily make sure they can get the most common DCs (10 and 15 + 2xTier) by using the +5 computer I suggested above (without the Captain, Race, and Theme bonuses, they'll get exactly 45).

Regarding serums, do you say that potions and buff spells in Pathfinder shouldn't be used every fight? Because serums are exactly the same as potions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So, I know some of the people here are also commenting on the Starfinder subreddit, but for those that aren't, here's a little math I did about Skill Checks on ships. I just picked level 15 because it is relatively high but not max level.

Just doing a quick look at level 15, an average character will have a check bonus of at least +37 on important checks, with a max around +53.

At that level, the DCs for the book checks are as follows -
10+2*tier -> 40
15+2*tier -> 45
20+2*tier -> 50
10+3*tier -> 55

This means, for the majority of checks, you'll have a decently good chance of making your checks, and even the hardest are far from impossible. I don't see the need for a change.

Here's the breakdown of where I got the numbers:
Skill ranks - +15
Class Skill - +3
Ability score (assuming a 20 in the score and having one of your enhancement bonuses there) - +6-8
Computer (reasonable to assume a +8/+8 computer at this point to allow pilot and one other to get the bonus each round) - +8
Demand or Encourage - +2 or +4
Serum (they're ridiculously cheap at this point and work for everything but piloting and attack rolls) - +2
Race - 0 or +2
Theme - 0 or +1
Class bonuses or Skill Focus (these range from +3 for Skill focus to a max of 1d8+2 for Envoy, and everyone should have a bonus to at least one of their chosen role's skills) - +3-10


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Wallsingham wrote:
Is your 'Master Link' still working? I get a blank page when I click on it. I was looking for some artwork for a campaign and loved the saved images you had!
It looks like it's working fine to me. Is anyone else having any trouble with it?

Opens fine for me as well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As recommended above, Aether is a good choice for your Expanded Element for the flavor of Jedi.

Alternatively, you could take Air again to give you access to the Thunderstorm Composite Blast for the damage boost.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hazrond wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Hazrond wrote:
So heres something that hasn't come up yet i think, if you apply an composite infusion like aetheric or gravitic does it make a simple blast into a composite? Or is it simply a basic with a fancy infusion?
Aetheric boost and gravitic boosts are not infusions; they're composite blasts. They don't prevent you from using either of the types of infusion on that blast.

yeah, i can see how that sounded confusing

Basically, what im asking is if, say, i play an Aetherkineticist who expands into Void, taking gravity blast when taking say, TK Blast and adding Gravitic Boost, does it deal damage as a composite blast or no? and since you have both Gravitic Boost and Aetheric Boost can you apply both to the TK Blast? Or is it considered composite and therefore you have to wait till 15?

You can add one to your blast.

You can do an Aetheric Telekinetic Blast, an Aetheric Gravity Blast, a Gravitic Telekinetic Blast, or a Gravitic Gravity Blast.

All of those would do damage as a simple blast boosted with those abilities.

At level 15, you could combine them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tayse wrote:

Another idea I have relies on an unknown synergy between cornered fury and burn

There is no synergy between cornered fury and burn. Nonlethal Damage is separate from your Hit Points.

If you have 100 Hit Points, 10HD, and you've taken 5 Burn, you have 100 Hit Points and 50 nonlethal damage. While you can only take 51 points of Damage before going unconscious, you still have the full 100 Hit Points, and you are not at half of your Hit Points.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Guys... Guys... Guys...

Darkness Snake Blast!

Darkness Snake Blast!

Darkness Infusion:
Treat each square of the path of your ranged attack kinetic blast, the target square of your melee attack kinetic blast, or the area of your area of effect kinetic blast as the center of a darkness effect that lasts until the end of your next turn.

This can be done with a Move action Gather for free at level 8 and create GIANT areas of darkness. If your party is optimized for that kind of combat with you, havoc can be wreaked. This gets even sillier if you go with the Greater version of Darkness Infusion (which becomes free with a Move action Gather at level 14) and start turning all the normal light to supernatural darkness instead of just dim light.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd say it is both.

The wording of "all benefits from her new expanded element as listed above" leads me to believe that.

We just need to summon Mark here to give us the WoM on it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sin is delicious and very similar to a Kineticist I just made for an NPC in my campaign. I really like her book.

I think her DCS might need to be bumped up by 1 (Expanded Element at 15).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sphynx wrote:
Temeritas wrote:

One question. Why are you taking the combat casting feat ?

Even if you suppress the AOO provoked by the SLA you should still provoke an AOO by either the ranged attack or the ranged touch attack.

That means the feat would only help against foes with combat reflexes. Which is why i would rather take weapon focus instead of combat casting.

I don't agree with this. The attack of opportunity is for "Performing a Distracting Act". Whether it's casting a spell, performing a spell-like ability or shooting a bow, it's the single "Act". Once I perform that "Act" (regardless of how many items that it might match on the Actions in Combat chart), there is only a single attack against me, and the Combat Casting gives me a +4 to defense against that roll. It's not like they then get another attack without the +4 to see if maybe the Ranged attack got me... since the SLA AoO missed.

You're doing two different actions there - Cast a Spell (which provokes attacks of opportunity) and Attack(Ranged) (which also provokes and attack of opportunity).

Just like getting two attacks of opportunity with Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp, you are triggering two attacks of opportunity.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

AMAZING NEW CHARACTER

I have a VERY special treat for you all tonight:

Arbutus, Prince of Flowers - 18th-level ghoran phytokineticist

A kineticist who controls freaking PLANTS and TREES and FLOWERS! Courtesy of the recently released Occult Origins.

Face death by petal bloom! Mwahahahaha!

I have been wanting to make this character for nearly 20 years. Paizo has finally made that possible for me. *cries*

** spoiler omitted **

I'm still trying to work out all the possible combos for this guy. Perhaps you can help me list some of them out?

This is one of the times I kick myself for not being a subscriber to Pathfinder stuff. I REALLY want Occult Origins in my hands right now.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cao Phen wrote:
A kinectist is unable to use a Kinetic Blast when inside a Antimagic Field since it is a spell-like ability. Would it also prevent a Kinetic Blast from doing damage if shot from outside the field?

Can you cast a spell like Scorching Ray into an antimagic field (I'm genuinely unsure, as it has never come up in a game I've played). I'd rule the exact same way for Kinetic Blast.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mellok wrote:

What concerns me about this interpretation of infusion specialization is that the Elemental Ascetic can never use a composite full attack without taking burn. The same would go for a blade or whip specialist. If you do take the ability away for infusion specialization to absorb the cost of composite blasts then damage of kineticists plummets as you can never, before lvl 16, combine metas with any composite without taking burn or taking multiple rounds which wastes the double damage of composites and opens you up to interruption.

If you can move action gather power to empower a meta blast at level 8 for 0 burn then kineticist damage is fine, if not the house of cards falls down and you are limited to a small handful of rounds a day you can perform at peak and that's wizard territory without the versatility.

It's not taking anything away or interpreting. It's reading the wording of the abilities of the class.

Your complaint boils down to "I can't apply every option the class gets every round without penalty." Other than the Fighter, I can't think of any class that can do everything available to them in a single round.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mellok wrote:
Texas Snyper wrote:


Infusion specialization only applies to infusions, not composite blasts. Composite blasts don't really become useful or worthwhile until 16 when you get composite specialization to reduce their cost to 1. Until then you get more bang for your burn reduction buck by going for stacking your infusions with infusion specialization, empower, and gather power.

Are you sure about this, I believe Mark has clearly stated that infusion specialization and super charge combine to reduce the total burn cost of any blast, simple or composite. That includes form and substance infusions, blast and metas other wise double blast or quicken could never be used without taking burn.

The only thing you can not avoid taking burn from are utility talents.

Right, they combine, but you can't use the reduction from Infusion Specialist to reduce the cost of the Composite or Metakinesis itself.

If you only apply 1 burn of Infusion but have Infusion Specialization 3, then you are wasting 2 points of Infusion Specialization. You can't use those extra two points to pay for a Composite Blast.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Made some changes to Raijin (sorry about the typo earlier) based on some suggestions from these boards. Also added a secondary elemental overflow stat block, as well as some badass new art.

You might want to note that his Thundering DC goes up by 1 when Overflow is active.

Also, while Eel Hide is thematically appropriate, he could use Dark Leaf Armor to grant himself an extra +1 AC with Overflow (also cheaper). I guess it's just a question of extra AC or great thematic flavor.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd put at least 3 points into burn each day.

This might seem counter-intuitive to survival, but remember that you get Size Bonuses to your physical stats by doing so. That 3 Burn is actually only 2*HD effective HP in damage because you are boosting your Con by 2 which offsets 1*HD nonlethal. So, you've actually got a +4 Attack and +7 Damage by taking 3 burn. That will also boost your AC, Ref, and Fort by 1.

If you take a full 5 Burn to get all possibly bonuses, you will be getting a +4 to either Con or Dex and +2 to the other physical stats. As such, for taking an effective 36 damage (if you're boosting your Con by 4) you'll get +5 Attack +10 Damage (with a +2 Fort and +1 AC and Ref). If you boost your Dex instead of Con, you'll have an effective 48 nonlethal damage and your damage would only be +9, but you'd get +6 attack instead (with a +1 Fort and +2 AC and Ref).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:

I brought this up earlier, but no one seemed to notice.

PRD wrote:

Fireball

A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

Is a Fireball considered a ranged weapon when you try to send it through a narrow passage? Or is it considered a ranged weapon all the time and the attack roll is just handwaived if you're aiming for an unobstructed spot?

Sure, you treat it is a weapon when you're trying to send it through a narrow passage, and if you roll a 20, then you can critically hit the opening and deal double the 0 damage that missing the barrier does.

Also, for people who were stating that Ranged Attack and Ranged Touch Attack are two different things, Touch Attacks are listed in the AC portion of the combat chapter, and as such are actually a modification of what AC you're bonuses are relevant against the attack and not a modification of the attack itself.

For a hilarious reference, there are a total of 5 spells in Core with Ranged Touch in their description that aren't a ray or weapon-like in terms of creating a "bolt" "arrow" or "Splash Weapon" with their effect.

Those spells are - Acid Splash (missile is debatable as a weapon), Animate Rope (you touch to hit with the rope and try to trip), Fireball (ranged touch to NOT hit a barrier with a small opening you're shooting through), Meteor Swarm (Ranged touch to hit with the meteors), and Produce Flame (which actually says "Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon." and it is thus treated as a weapon).

So, that said, we have one debatable cantrip, two that don't deal damage, one that is explicitly done as a thrown weapon, and a level 9 spell.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah. As I said, it probably doesn't matter much for him, but it is a frustrating thing that gimped the build I was working on.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tels wrote:

Since I can't seem to upload stuff your shared folder, I figure I'd just use mine. This is my first attempt at creating a Kineticist since the release, and I think I got everything correct with him.

For those curious, he was built using the Heroic NPC stat array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) and designed for a campaign using the Fast XP track.

Genbu, the Earthen King.

I realized something frustrating today while making a similar build... you can't use Kinetic Whip (or Blade) with Spring Attack. You can only use Kinetic Blade/Whip "as part of an attack action, a charge action, or a full-attack action" and Spring Attack is a Full round action. Whirlwind attack still works, as it is a Full-attack action.

I did find a fun option to use instead - Improved Trip, Fury's Fall, and Greater Trip with a Bowling Whip. For Genbu, it would give a +27 CMB to his Trip check and a free AoO when they fall prone. Also, as the Kinetic Whip would still be considered Bowling for the round, you could make trip attacks against any enemies that provoke.

It isn't a huge thing, as Genbu already has Whirlwind Attack, but for people building a Kineticist, having several levels with a feat that does nothing (Spring Attack) might not be desirable.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Avoron wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Haste and BoF specifically call out similar effects that don't stack (the extra attacks), and then go on further to say the entirety of the spells do not stack with each other. Was this just poor writing on the part of the developers? Possibly. But I believe that last line actually means something that is more relevant than "normal stacking rules apply".

It definitely means something. It prohibits the stacking of all of the things between the spells that would normally stack: two dodge bonuses to AC, two untyped bonuses to attack rolls, an enhancement bonus and an untyped bonus to speed. It doesn't affect things that never stacked in the first place.

someweirdguy wrote:
Ok, I've bowed out of most of this part of the conversation, but again, the Same Effect with Differing Results section of the Stacking Effects states that different bonuses from multiple castings of the same spell don't stack.

Wrong.

That's the whole point. It doesn't say that, because its not an issue of stacking. Two differing effects that don't affect the same thing will never stack. Normally they can just happen simultaneously. When they're from multiple uses of the same spell with differing results, they can't.

Same Effect with Differing Results wrote:
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

See? Nothing about stacking.

That's directly from the section under "Stacking Effects" and thus part of the stacking rules.

Also, for another example of non-bonus/penalty effects that are explained as not stacking - Deeper Darkness.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Harliquinn Whiteshadow wrote:

Just to clarify: The Metakinesis before Metakinetic Master can only be reduced by Gather Power and not by Infusion Specialization?

John

Gather Power and Buffer, yes.

Infusion Specialist, no.

Composite Specialist, no.

Metakinetic Master, yes, for the type of metakinesis you chose when you got the ability.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

What you haven't shown is the word 'stack' used for dissimilar effects.

Like a enhancement bonus to wisdom and the effects from being grappled.

Again, you don't have to try and find that specific example, but ANY dissimilar effects being connected by the word 'stack' would be sufficient.

Heck, it wasn't even used to connect a size increase with an effective size increase, even though the word 'stack' was used for each one individually.

Ok, I've bowed out of most of this part of the conversation, but again, the Same Effect with Differing Results section of the Stacking Effects states that different bonuses from multiple castings of the same spell don't stack.

I'd say Fire Shield is one of the main examples of this. You can't have both a Chill Shield and a Warm Shield at the same time if they're both from a casting of the spell.

Also, in a connected example of stack being used in a spell would be in Shield of Dawn. You can't deal damage from both Shield of Dawn and a Fire Shield (even if it is the Chill Shield version). You still get the light from Shield of Dawn and the reduced damage from Fire Shield, but only one of the two would deal damage to those who hit you.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This spiraled far past my initial intent.

Again, I want to state that I agree that you can get benefits from both Haste and Blessing of Fervor at the same time. The "Blessing of Fervor does not stack with Haste" clause is included because the numerical bonuses to attack, AC, etc from both spells is untyped. If the spells were meant to completely cancel each other, there would be no need for the clause before that - "These effects are not cumulative with similar effects, such as those provided by haste or a speed weapon, nor do they actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round."

My entire reasoning for this thread was pointing out the wording of Aspect of the Falcon being different from that of other such spells, as it lumped the changes for crossbows and bows into a single effect (probably just to save space and words), which caused the initial confusion. While I do feel that RAW, the spell still precludes any further increase of the critical, I am willing to fully concede that RAI is otherwise.

I do not feel that the entire spell is invalidated if you use Improved Critical. I do not feel that the stacking rules are anywhere near as convoluted as the arguments in this thread have turned into.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You know what, I give up. I'll go with your reading of things.

I still don't feel that is the way it should be - Aspect of the Falcon, as graystone points out, lumps the change for bows and crossbows into a single effect and then says it doesn't stack.

But you've convinced me, and now I'm going to go make a Bolt Ace that does 17-20/x4 Criticals.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Avoron wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

I was actually agreeing that, in the examples you gave, they explained what stacked and didn't. I'm AGREEING with you on those, and pointing out how they are different from Aspect of the Falcon.

You're reading far more into what I'm saying than what I am actually saying.

I'm actually not reading into the spell as much as Carl is.

I'm saying that Aspect of the Falcon lists a single effect that changes criticals - "the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19-20/x3" - and then states "This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon."

As there is a single effect there, that effect does not stack because the spell says it doesn't.

That's the entirety of what I'm saying.

Heck, you want your Crossbow to be better with Aspect of the Falcon, be a Bolt Ace and get 19-20/x4 criticals (or use Improved Critical as a Bolt Ace without the Aspect of the Falcon and get the 17-20/x3).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
The specific wording of the spell overrides the general stacking rules. It doesn't matter if a spell said "You gain +1 to hit. This does not stack with invisibility." You would not be able to stack that spell with invisibility even though the abilities do not overlap.

Once it uses stack you have to follow the rules for that. Stacking is about only the highest bonus/minus being added. In your example is it was a +2 will save that didn't stack with invisibility then nothing is checked because there is nothing to stack. The same case happens with keen/improved critical and aspect of the falcon on a crossbow. the spell doesn't effect the threat range (+2 will) and the other keen/improved critical does (inv).

You are literally making a apples vs oranges argument. If it's not affecting the same stat/check, it's not stacking. Nothing in the "specific wording of the spell overrides" that. Nothing alters the general rule by making crit the same stat/check instead ot threat range and multiplier.

James Risner: It doesn't have to. Luck bonuses have that line by default. Secondly, you don't check 'things' for stacking, you check an individual "stat/check as per the rules.

Again, you can have two different things that invalidate one another, and it is still covered in the stacking section.

Example: If you cast Resist Energy selecting Fire, and then cast Resist Energy selecting Cold, you would have cold resistance but not fire resistance per the Same Effect Differing Result.

Thus, you have an instance of Stacking having nothing to do with a bonus type, and in fact being two different bonuses.

This means that when you have a single effect (the change of critical due to Aspect of the Falcon) and it states that the effect doesn't stack with something, then you cannot benefit from both the original effect and the thing that it does not stack with.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To get more specific about some stuff about #3.

Kinetic Blade becomes free as soon as you have Infusion Specialist.

You can choose a Form and Substance Infusion, add their burn cost together, and then reduce it by the amount of Infusion Specialist you have. If you've Gathered Power, you can then reduce the total cost by that amount.

Example: Level 13 Kineticist making an Entangling (2 burn) Deadly Earth (4 burn) would automatically reduce that 6 burn to 3 with his Infusion Specialist, and could then lower it to 1 with having used Supercharge for 2 burn reduction.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

1. Specific trumps general.

2. Stack is often used in reference to increasing critical threat range, and that is not a number added to the roll. The exact wording of Stacking Effects in the SRD is as follows:

Quote:
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

3. The SRD states:

Quote:
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

If you had cast Keen Edge on a pile of Crossbow Bolts, the effect would be rendered irrelevant by Aspect of the Falcon because Aspect of the Falcon states that the critical "becomes 19-20/x3" and does not stack. Therefor, for the duration of Aspect of the Falcon, Keen Edge is irrelevant.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Stacking definition:
Quote:
Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic.
The X3 bonus and the 17-20 bonus both apply to criticals so I can imagine someone might think that those are similar enough that they are both 'one check' or 'one statistic' (though I don't see how they're "added together") in the same way they might (wrongly) think that a weapon with a +2 enhancement bonus and the enhancement bonus from Bull's Strength don't stack.

The thing is, we're talking about a specific situation and not a general.

In general, different things stack.

In this specific situation, they do not because the spell specifically says they do not.

It lists an effect - "the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19–20/×3" - and then says immediately afterwards - "This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Avoron wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...

Every one of those cited rules either lists the exact thing that doesn't stack by separating the effects or goes on to list how the two effects would interact.

For Haste, the effects and restrictions are listed together with unrelated effects in separate paragraphs.

For Double Jeopardy, it has separate sentences listing the effects. Sentence one states you can use it on two weapons, each of which gets one ability. Sentence two states you can put both on one weapon, in which case it increases the threat range. Sentence three says "this effect" (meaning the immediately preceding effect) doesn't stack with Keen/Improved Critical.

For Armor Master, it states that the fortification doesn't stack.

Furs explicitly states what it doesn't stack with.

Etc. down the list.

Then you look at Aspect of the Falcon. The entire effect is listed in a single sentence and not broken into pieces. The exclusionary sentence is "This effect does not stack" not "The increase in critical threat range does not stack". It is explicitly stating what it doesn't stack with.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't actually change your threat range for a crossbow. It matters that "This effect" is "the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19–20/×3" and it doesn't stack with anything that increases threat range.

If the spell read "the damage for your weapon becomes 200d500. This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon." you couldn't add on Improved Critical or keen. It doesn't matter what the actual effect is when it explicitly states that it doesn't stack with something else.

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>