theGlitch's page

Then it escapes me why when used as an ammunition its attack is resolved as a normal ranged attack.

I kinda knew the answer before asking as this is a case of "too good to be true".
I'm just a bit perplexed as to why they specified that you can use it as a ranged touch attack (as it doesn't deal any damage on its own) instead of saying what deuxhero said...

While rummaging around the internet i found this little thing called Caltrop Bead.

The wielder may throw this small, dense iron sphere as a ranged touch attack (with a 10-foot range increment) or use it as a sling bullet. Upon striking a solid object, a caltrop bead explodes into caltrops in a 10-foot-radius burst. A creature directly hit by a caltrop bead takes 2d4 points of piercing damage, and adjacent creatures take 1d4 points of damage as the bead suddenly bursts. Caltrops created by a caltrop bead remain for 1 hour before disappearing.

My question is: is it still a ranged touch attack if i use it as a sling ammunition?

*Salty photon torpedo annihilates the cover, wei ji and everything in a 2 miles radius.

Pathfinder II: the wrath of Khan

Maybe a shortened, comedic version of pathfinder, without all the bloat and nonsense that spawned here and there. Pathfinder Abridged.

We need to appeal to a younger audience, so we should give it a more t00bular name: Pathfinder XTREME!

Pathfinder: Battle Royal Edition (preorder now!)

Waydiscoverer

Ah yes, constructive criticism and a valid alternative...
Your post lacks both.
EDIT: I believe we're going a bit OT now.

People tend to be against that kind of character because of the Drizz't syndrome.
Try adding some kind of twist to it, like a cursed glamered suit of armor that changes into pervy/unappropriated garments at random times (or not so random, if the suit is intelligent and acts as a phylactery of the incubus wicked and perverted nature).

I found that adding comedic/interesting RP elements helps in sugaring the pill.

the act of making an undead or becoming one might be an evil act for most. but at the same time a vampire, mummy, ghost, lich or other intelligent undead has the potential to redeem themselves within their undead state. they can do good and eventually become good.

Ok, now THAT is another pair of shoes. Though difficult, an intelligent undead can try and redeem itself. It is probably a very rare event, about as possible as a demon becoming good. *wink

undeath can also be a reward from a deity.

Lady Vol approves.

How about a Locus swarm? The swarm is driven over large areas to feed to sustain itself destroying wast areas of land and upset the ecosystem until it sorts itself out. Would mindless swarms then we considered evil?

Its been stated by JJ and some devs that casting a evil spell is considered evil, and in some situation even do a dent in the characters alignment. Theres a spell that could summon evil and yet is not considered so is summon creature, or the gate spell. Both have potensial from evil, and from what i reckon they dont change their spell descriptor to evil even if a "Fiendish" or demonic entity is summoned.

As you said, a locust swarm do it to sustain itself, it would die if it didn't eat. A ghoul, which is specifies that eats, does so because its compelled to, but can go without eating for centuries.

All conjuration spell that summon or call creatures get the descriptors [alignment] and/or [element] of the summoned or called creature. Summoning a trumpet archon is a lawful good act, calling a balor is a chaotic evil act.

theGlitch wrote:

graystone wrote:

Debatable as it just gives a bonus to the smite but itself doesn't trigger the smite. Note that is goes out of it's way to mention EVIL dragons. IMO, undead aren't mentioned the same way as they are assumed evil.

Not debatable as the text is quite clear about undead triggering the effect.

No. You cannot Smite a good-aligned ghost because it's not evil, but if you could, it would take 2x the damage on the first hit because it's undead.

The solution is to allow the smite on the good-aligned ghost because it's undead.

The CRB EXPLICITLY says that it deals double damage against [evil] outsiders, evil dragons and undead (regardless their alignment). It does specify that the CHA bonus to the attack roll is exclusively against evil aligned creatures, so this could be used to recognise a non-evil ghost and offer some nice roleplay moments

theGlitch wrote:

graystone wrote:

Makes no sense. If I use the soul of an orphan to make a mundane knife, it's not an EVIL knife. The aligned act doesn't affect the target: an evil spell doesn't cause it's target to be evil.

This makes no sense. Why would using the soul of an orphan be influential in the creation of a mundane knife? If you make a magical knife with said soul you probably are not creating a Bane of the evil outsiders, Merciful Holy knife, but more realistically a sacrificial dagger for some dark ritual. Also if the effect of the spell is to create a creature then yes, an evil spell creates an evil creature (planar binding comes to mind).

Bolded for emphasis.

Where are you getting this from? It seems like a rather arbitrary addition to spell text that you just made up to support your own views.
If casting Animate Dead is evil because it has the [Evil] tag, that means the caster takes a hit towards evil to their alignment, but it doesn't logically hold that it's the reason that the undead animated are evil.
If that were the case, Infernal Healing would turn the people healed by it evil too, but no one's making that argument.

When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

An evil spell creates an evil creature.

Rysky wrote:

graystone wrote:

Rysky wrote:

All those examples need to eat though.

Take that up with TheGlitch...

theGlitch wrote:

[Edit] An eternal hunger or unquenchable thirt is unnatural and, expecially if it damages life, evil.

His claim is that it's the hunger/thirst that's evil, not the need to eat.

"Eternal/unquenchable" is pretty different than needing to eat vastly more or die.

Always having the need to eat vs always feeling you have the need to eat isn't really different IMO. You aren't eating to be 'bad' or 'evil' in either case, you're eating to fill a primal need.

It's evil if you do it even though you don't need to.

theGlitch: we're just going in circles so I'll just say I 100% disagree with your entire last post but I'm not going point by point anymore. I saw nothing that disproves anything in my last post to you.

Aww and here i thought we were finally getting somewhere. Oh well, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

Debatable as it just gives a bonus to the smite but itself doesn't trigger the smite. Note that is goes out of it's way to mention EVIL dragons. IMO, undead aren't mentioned the same way as they are assumed evil.

Not debatable as the text is quite clear about undead triggering the effect.

Incursion: totally disagree. All evidence points to the incursion itself as the cause/driving force and not the undead themselves.

While i agree that the curse itself is what causes the undead to come out of their graves, it says that it makes them more tactically savvy, so they can kill better, not that it makes them evil (since they already are).

Makes no sense. If I use the soul of an orphan to make a mundane knife, it's not an EVIL knife. The aligned act doesn't affect the target: an evil spell doesn't cause it's target to be evil.

This makes no sense. Why would using the soul of an orphan be influential in the creation of a mundane knife? If you make a magical knife with said soul you probably are not creating a Bane of the evil outsiders, Merciful Holy knife, but more realistically a sacrificial dagger for some dark ritual. Also if the effect of the spell is to create a creature then yes, an evil spell creates an evil creature (planar binding comes to mind).

This makes NO sense. It's a kill bot with a neutral alignment JUST like you wanted. WHo CARES about bugs: it's irrelevant. You seem to write it off because it doesn't align with your views.

Secondly, there is NO indication of age in the writeup. As/is a brand new one has a neutral alignment and murders everything in sight. What's even MORE interesting is that they are intelligent, murder everything in sight AND are neutral.

As far as i have read there are no robot production facilities on Golarion, so no new robots. Also, as Rysky said, they are most probably responding to Unity, a LE quasi-god, so they are not in control of their actions.

So you concede that your point on animals is meaningless? Attacking because of hunger is fine so if you make undead always hungry...

Undead hunger is metaphorical (except for vampires) so yeah, the point per se is kinda null. Still cheers for the examples.

For once I agree with greystone and arent animals kinda evil?They hunt and kill to eat and they are not mindless.

Death to all the meat-eaters, for they kill others. But wait, aren't there studies that prove that plants "feel" and know that they are being eaten (and in Golarion there are non-mindless plants)? death to all the living-eaters.

HWalsh wrote:

For most players having an evil enemy that is clearly evil that they get to fight can be a lot of fun.

But mindless undead aren't that kind of evil: they are just wandering around and killing things. Literally nothing changes about the reason you kill them if their alignment changes.

If smite is a factor, there is no reason it couldn't work without the alignment: just reword the ability a bit to say "If this target is evil [or undead]."

It already does:

If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possess.

Now, regarding your previous post.

When you DO read the link, you see it actually doesn't bolster your argument.

i DID read the article and i say that it bolsters my argument as

one of the most terrifying of all supernatural disasters is the undead uprising—the dead emerging from their graves to claim the living.

"to claim the living" sounds a bit more evil than "to wander about".

It's the "power behind the incursion" that gives them the get up and kill.

Which means that undeads don't just exist, but are brought back by unnatural means (but this instance is the closest i found about "spontaneous" undeads).

Why does "spontaneously" matter? does that mean created undead aren't evil? If I create and order the undead to not kill do they spontaneously turn neutral?

It matters because, as far as Golarion is concerned, Ghost ((un)naturally occuring ones) can be non-evil. Created undeads are evil because the process of creating undeads is evil. The only exception IMO are some (very few) vampires (mainly those who were good when they were alive) after their vampiric creator is vanquished.

ANNIHILATOR, N Gargantuan construct (robot)

"The enormous and formidable annihilator robots roam old ruins and wastelands, ridding them of all life and civilization. They smash structures, slaughter creatures both sentient and bestial, and scorch plant life to ashes. When rampaging, an annihilator indiscriminately destroys rather than following the meticulous approach many other robots take with their work."

Numerian robots are the result of technology gone awry after who knows how much time of bugs accumulating in their programming. As there isn't any newly built robot to compare, i don't consider them a valid proof.

This doesn't bolster your argument either. Recall what you said about animals? "Neutral animals only attack if hungry or menaced." If attacking when your hungry is acceptable behaviour than a creature that's always hungry could attack all the time and be neutral if we go by your logic. ;)

Give me an example of a always hungry neutral creature and i will consider this paragraf.

I May Fall

RWBY is love.

On topic you shouldn't fall because the first to act was the pin that clearly used power word kill and failed (mainly because it cannot utter the command), so you are perefectly justified.

theGlitch wrote:

It's an interesting question. I would tend to say yes, but one must exercize caution when comparing induced and intrinsic behavior.

If we compare a mindless undead to a mindless vermin what would the difference be? That undead actively seek out other things for the purpose of destruction? Or is their purpose more similar to that of the vermin that have a instinct of feeding, even despite undead not normally gain a benefit for this. (Skeletons in this example, tho most under undead seem to feed on some aspect of living beings.)

As far as i've seen uncontrolled mindless undead tend to wander the area where they have arisen, killing everyone that comes too close. If by some chance their normal area of wander takes some but not all an inhabited area they could expand to kill those that are close to the area, but not too far (as probably their existance is bound to some profane effect around their graves). Refer to Undead Uprising.

It's an interesting question. I would tend to say yes, but one must exercize caution when comparing induced and intrinsic behavior.

Neutral animals only attack if hungry or menaced.
Mindless undeads attack people unless specifically ordered not to by their creator, that's evil in my book.

Meanwhile Seoni just traipsing about the dungeon in her "mage armor".

#castermartialdisparity2018

All while getting the bonus of a chainshirt without any of the mali for level/hours. #truedisparity indeed

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't think "when I am splattered with gore and viscera from the ogre I just finished disemboweling" is really a good time to be sexy.

You're right. Dragon gore is far more suited to my skin tone. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )

It goes quite well with your natural complexion. I myself am a mechanical being, so it would probably get stuck in my gears and clog everything. My maker hasn't done a very good job in creating me (*sad beep)

theGlitch wrote:

Also, as i reread all the armor entries in PF 1ed, i see no such thing as a statted bikini-mail or boob-plate, so every argument is kinda silly. You can't ask people not to imagine things the way they like, just as people don't ask you to come out of your comfort zone (which you have all the rights to have). Not everyone is a pervert, some of us even prefer more historically accurate representation of certain suits of armor (and/or weapon).

Yeah, if your GM hands out a suit of chain mail and a picture of bikini mail and says it must look like that, it might be time to get a new GM.

It would indeed be the time to get a new one, as i'm playing a half-orc MALE fighter... although it could mean that it's easier and quicker to don, and much more breathable.

Also, as i reread all the armor entries in PF 1ed, i see no such thing as a statted bikini-mail or boob-plate, so every argument is kinda silly. You can't ask people not to imagine things the way they like, just as people don't ask you to come out of your comfort zone (which you have all the rights to have). Not everyone is a pervert, some of us even prefer more historically accurate representation of certain suits of armor (and/or weapon).

But what if a woman in a fantasy world is fine and comfortable wearing said chainmail bikini (expecially if magically enhanced)? Wouldn't demanding a more prudish outfit limit her freedom of expression and showing herself as she liked?

worldhopper wrote:

Two-handed bombs is not set in stone! (per the Twitch stream, just now)

Yup, per your feedback (and honestly since some of us thought they were 1-handed all along), we're making them 1-handed. Thanks everyone! As always, we're looking to incorporate your feedback as we can.

No, please, PLEASE don't make them one handed items. It makes sense that you need two hands to activate them (and only one to CARRY). As you need two hands to operate a crossbow (one to carry and shoot and one to reload). I don't want to see builds with "dual-wielding" bombs or simalar monstruosities.

EDIT: at least make it so it's not immediately available: make it like a nth level feat that allows you to use them with one hand.

I'm surprised that (EDIT: in dnd/pf1) they chose conjuration for cure/inflict, since it's a form of energy manipulation more than summoning/creation. In my opinion it would have made more sense if it was evocation since we are dealing with raw energy, but for simplicity sake i'm fine with them being classified as necromantic spells.

Necromancy is already used for negative energy, so why shouldn't it manipulate positive energy as well? The point of necromancy is to have power over life and death, conjuration is for summoning and dimensional stuff (teleport, plane shift and so on).

Why aren't Spell Points and Resonance one and the same? It would be one less thing to keep track of. *shrug*

Because otherwise how would casters be able to be on par with fighters ability to raise their shield and gain <shield bonus> to reflex saves at 14th level?

Tangent101 wrote:

Spell Tiers sounds awesome. Better than Spell Circles. :)

In my group, we use Order as the in-character descriptor. For example: "I'm capable of casting spells of the third order."

But what if i'm a chaotic sorcerer?

It has recently come to my attention the loop: Nature final revelation (become animal)->Feeblemind->Awaken->Nature final revelation(become plant)->etcetera that apparently allowes the oracle to gain unlimited racial HD. Has this ever been officially addressed?

Omnius wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

This.

It's not playing goblin that makes a player disruptive.

Playing a kender is not what disrupts games.

Kender attract people who want to use them as an excuse to be disruptive.

That's still on the player then, not the Kender, not the Goblin. It's how the player chooses to play them.

Violent people will do damafe regardless of what they have at their disposal, buuut having a gun makes its really easy to harm and/or kill. Problem players will be problem players regardless of the options, but some options are more attractive than others.

BACKSTAB! (Well, not really, but it's far more fun to shout than SNEAK ATTACK!)

You know that shouting it makes it 66.7% less powerful?

Steve Geddes wrote:

Sales is a big part of it, I suspect.

Goblin themed products do well in their regular product lines and in their licensed stuff.

I bet dragons and white walkers sell a lot of GoT swag as well, but you wouldn’t want one as a PC in a GoT game.

I’d vote for Tieflings and Aasimars as core ancestries. (And maybe make them less ridiculously good than in P1...)

I fear dragons are more a kind of merch for the company run by the wizards that live near the shoreline

Midnight Anarch wrote:

PF2's goblins are the newest incarnation of Drizzt Do'Urdens at the table. You know what I'm talking about here.

It's not so much that goblins-as-core may give license to gray-area players, which is a minor but real consideration. It's that Paizo is ruining the lore and core appeal that made Pathfinder goblins attractive to players in the first place. And just like stupid drow, they did it to tap into some "mass marketing" appeal of them as a playable race.

Seems like a bad idea that Paizo, for some reason, positively adores.

What confuses me is that Goblins are playable in PF1 and there's a ton of archetypes and feats just for them and no one cared or cares. Suddenly they're playable in PF2 and it's everywhere.

And what confuses me is that many people seem to not understand the difference between playable race and CORE race. I don't mind having goblin pc stats in the bestiary or PF2 ARG; i mind that goblins go from pests you kill at first level to gain exp (with the OCCASIONAL goblin adventurer/NPC that stands out from the mass) to socially accepted race of lovable critters.

Krinn wrote:

Goblins are a no for me as well. Honestly I can't see a role for a goblin in party other than comic relief, if not disruptive play for the sake of it. Also, goblins always had a charisma penalty, so why remove that penalty and have a bonus instead? Cha bonus with Wis penalty just screams comic relief, when those pests are dangerous as a whole.

Unless I'm playing in a setting that displays them as civilized, playable characters (Eberron comes to mind), that "ancestry" is a core feature that won't belong in my games.
I'd rather have Aasimar, Tiefling and Genasi in core, or perhaps a new race like a construct one.

It's kind of a lack of imagination if you can't see them beyond jokes or disruptions.

There can certainly be light-hearted moments, but there's no reason you couldn't have a Goblin character with a striking character motivation and gripping past that leads into an emotional character arc.

As for why Charisma?

"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."

There are multiple aspects to Charisma. While many might not find them visually attractive in the traditional sense or amazing leaders normally, they exude personality, and they can both draw and hold attention quite well with said personality (an aspect of one's personal magnetism).

Or, to put it more simply, it's their character's charm and quirks compensating for their lack of non-traditional beauty.

If you have to pick a mental stat to give to Goblins, Charisma seems like the best fit.

I'm quite content with Goblin as an option (though I wouldn't mind a Svirfneblin as well, Deep Gnomes need love too).

If anything i would have chosen intelligence for a mental stat to give a bonus to. Goblins have a knack for crafting stuff from nothing valuable (it screams intelligence). They know HOW to make fire (+2int), definetly DON'T know WHEN to use it (-2wis), many are pyros, not a particularly magnetic personality trait (no cha alterations).

I did played a goblin rogue once, it was very fun (and surprisingly resilient thanks to his bouncyness), but definetly wasn't a serious character, it was THE plucky comic relief of the group venturing through Rappan Athuk.

My best bet is that waste is handled through those recicling slimes that convert stuff to UPB and the pact worlds law requires a certain amount of those UPB to be donated to automated, solar powered android "factories" that produce a certain (probably small) amount of androids per set amount of time.

Splitting theit summoner in two different classes, or having to choose between eidolon or summon monster seems like a good idea. A character shouldn't be a pokemon trainer AND a digidestined at the same time.

In an eberron game i'm playing in we managed to avoid the need of a dedicated healer (and of other fullcasters) through extensive use of wands, scrolls and potions thanks to my artificer and the rogue using UMD.

I'm for giving mundanes a chance to be more useful than meatshields and trapfinders...

EDIT: by the way a conjurer can easily do those things with summon monster

The resonance rules gives me some hope for a version of the Artificer.

I have been playing a wordfoarforged artificet in an eberron campaign for some time now (about 4 years) and i have been through several iteration of both race and class (it did't help that we tried to introduce psionic/psychic powers WAY before occult adventures). Me and the GM hoped for an official artificer that never came, and finally resigned to a homebrew occultist archetype. We NEED an artificer.

It would be pretty fun if the ancestry/class/skill/general feats allows for a whole group of a single non-full caster class which works effectively.

That would be great, and in its own way it would make magic special again, going from "it's nice i guess, everything else is subpar" to "magic", hopefully without going for magic=moar dice.

Just for clarification, am i reading it correctly? A star shaman instinctively knows his position in the galaxy?

For racial and cultural paragon i use the 3.5 Races of Faerun, an in depth guide to those aspects in what i thing is the setting with the greatest diversity.
With few exceptions (aquatic subraces, ECL>0 subraces) the races presented have almost the same mechanical traits (savage subraces tend to have different weapon proficiency) and are characterized in the descriptive text. Eberron doesn't even have those small mechanical changes, leaving it only to fluff and lore to differenciate (which is something i like).

EDIT: As for ancestry race/background, the parents define the race; the class, skills (background skills in PF1, thanks to pathfinder unchained) and first feat(s if human) define the background. As simple as that.

theGlitch wrote:

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.

Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.

Not the same. Saving throws are the AC vs. spells. If a sword gets through AC, the DM doesn't generally say " oh, sorry, you have to overcome its 'sword resistance'." Why should one have to make a second roll to succeed, when the first one already did? If you want the monster to be harder to affect with magic, give it better saves. Why add another unnecessary dice roll?

Because the same saving throws are used against mundane hazards, such as poison and artillery fire.

I'm for settings which make sense rather than everyone having the same culture regardless of where they live in the world and their history.

In a setting where goblins are a pyromaniac race of (albeit cute and goofy) psychopaths, i think it makes perfect sense to hate them; same goes for giantkin (trolls, ogres etcetera).

In PF1 cultural diversity within the same race was achieved through alternate racial traits and different skillsets. We were even offered some racial subtypes (the ancient subrace) for the core races. I think that's good enough to satisfy every need for diversity.

Could also go with the old school version of it: flat percent chance to simply ignore your spell, whatever it is.

Creatures with 100% resistance were the bane of wizards everywhere. :)

That's just evil.

Now, maybe i should explain better my previous, clearly mocking, post.
Spell Resistance is a "magical armor class", to ask to remove it because you have some bad experience with it is like asking to remove AC because you can't hit your target.

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.
Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.

I'm for the traditional racial ancestral features system. Elves have always been good with swords and bows (and skilled magic users), dwarves have always battled goblinoids (goblins are somewhat dangerous pests and require extermination) and giants (it's a stature enmity). It's their hat . If for some reason a dwarf is not an enemy of all goblins and hasn't been trained with Dwarven weaponry those racial features are swapped with alternatives as provided with the Advanced Race Guide or to GM discretion.

I think it's fair that the CORE rulebook has the basics; further personalization options should be provided on future books.

Does vital transfer hurt the caster in the basic version?