>>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

24,351 to 24,400 of 77,090 << first < prev | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 | 492 | 493 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greetings sir, my name is Jakob and i represent the table top gmaing room in the SoDakcon anime convention in rapid City,SD. I was wondering if Paizo would to help us with that room (it's a little lakcing), any help would be outstanding. Thank You. If you want to get hold of me let me know.


Mersiel also has a rather healthy obsession with knives and stabbing things. It's only healthy in that that it helps her survive.

Contributor

James Jacobs wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
It started out as a joke, but it's becoming real! That is, in the event of a rewrite of the CRB, do you imagine that said rewrite would compile the various variant rules, or completely reboot the rules system? Not that I expect it happen tomorrow, or even within this decade, just wondering.

I'd rather that a 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th and 6th edition of the rules would still allow me to play previous editions' games with as minimum an amount of rebuilding as possible, but while at the same time fixing parts of the game that need fixing.

It would not, I would hope, be a complete reboot.

Nor is it really something I'm ready to really talk much more about at this point.

That's good. The idea of an entire shelf of books worth several hundred dollars suddenly becoming useless is one that I don't particularly like!


Dear Mr. Jacobs,

I am about to start the Carrion Crown adventure path and one of my players wishes to play a Red Mantis Assassin. One of my other players brought up a question regarding their spell casting abilities.

Are RMA's able to cast spells while dual wielding their weapons (i.e. do they interfere with the somatics?) If not, what would an RMA do in the middle of combat?


Hello Mr. Jacobs, I have a gaming question for you. When you're at a table playing, do you roleplay in first person actually speaking as your character(using a different accent, changing tone) or do you do third person and just describe how they say something or speak. I usually use third person, sort of a side effect of being the GM most of the time, but I wanted to hear what the preference of someone who's been doing this a fair bit longer than me was.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Dylos wrote:

We can ask anything here right?

I was looking for information on Iomedae, and I had a couple questions:

Iomedae used to be human before ascending to godhood, what is her last name?

Concerning the Knights of Ozem, I can't find any reference to Ozem outside of the knights, where does the Ozem part come from?

Sometimes, characters don't have last names. Sometimes, they do but we don't reveal those names, because they've done something like become a deity and are now known only by their given name.

As for "Ozem," we've not yet revealed much more about the in-world genesis of that word.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Nicos wrote:

Hi james.

I have a question about red hand of doon, more precicely ozirrandyon (the green dragon in the skull gorge)

I am Dming a pathfinderized versiond of the aventure and i do not know if it would be better to use the stats of ozyrradion given in the aventure or it would be better to use the stats for a young green dragon of the bestiary.

If you're running a pathfinderized version, you should use a green dragon of the same CR as the one in the adventure. Which may mean changing its age category.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

doc the grey wrote:
What race was Tar-Baphon during his life?

Not sure we've revealed that off the top of my head.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Demonskunk wrote:

Does Siege Damage override any type of DR?

for instance: if I shoot a light ballista at a regular run of the mill skeleton, it has a decent chance of surviving the attack, thanks to it's DR/bludgeoning.

This makes sense by the rules, but not by logic.

Shouldn't a ballista deal, like, bludgeoning and piercing to creatures of a certain size? ballista bolts are thick enough that a skeleton's silly DR would be worthless against it's pure girth.

I guess I'm just wondering your thoughts on this particular thing.

Nope; siege damage is normal damage.

That said... a typical skeleton has, what... DR 5/bludgeoning and 4 hit points? While a ballista does 3d8 damage on a hit. On avergae, that shot will do 13.5 points of damage, which is still 8.5 on average after DR kicks in, which is more than twice what's needed to destroy the skeleton.

If you rolled less 9 points of damage with your ballista bolt against the skeleton... that's just the bolt smashing through the side of the ribcage or something like that. And the fact that the skeleton keeps coming at you is what makes undead spooky.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Coridan wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

The fact that we've now got 3 different looks for those guys in print is very very very frustrating for me as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lucent wrote:
Seyltiel is... kind of a sociopath.

Merisel isn't quite fully socialised either. She's got an obsession with stabbing things. The two iconics with elven blood are the ones most seriously screwed up, heads wise. And it's going to take more than spells to change that, because it's not a inflicted insanity, it's a flaw in the roots of their natures.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
donato wrote:
With the future holding Mythic Adventures and Ultimate Campaign, what other ideas would you maybe like to see in rulebook form? Is everything covered or are there a still few things that you are wanting?

There's a LOT more to cover. Psioncs is an obvious nomination. Science fantasy is another. So is rules for steampunk stuff. Or even shifting away from rules-focused hardcovers and toward Golarion-focused ones. Those are just a few off the top of my head. We've got PLENTY of more ideas beyond those for future hardcovers. Doing only 3 to 4 hardcovers a year is a great way to spread things out.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Johnico wrote:

One of my players asked me this earlier today, while planning out the magic stuff he wants to get his hands on:

Can you enchant the shield part of a klar with the bashing special ability and, if so, does that make the damaging part of it (which says it is treated as an attack with shield spikes) also get improved?

For that matter, would the bashing enhancement improve a shield's damage that has shield spikes on it, and to what if it does?

If you make a klar a bashing weapon, you basically do nothing but give yourself a new attack option. The bashing quality enhances your shield bash attack with a klar, but does nothing for the klar's blade. Likewise, adding bashing to a shield with spikes does nothing to the shield spike damage, since bashing is a shield magic quality and spikes are not shields, but are in fact weapons.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
JMD031 wrote:
As a mental health therapist...I disagree about Diplomacy used in this sense. Sense motive certainly, but I honestly think Bluff is the better skill. Seems a bit awkward but if you think about it, therapy is all about convincing the person that they are not abnormal.
And as a game designer, I'd say Sense Motive is the best solution here, because there's already PLENTY of reasons to take ranks in Bluff and in Diplomacy.

I know you don't like much adding new professions, but this wouldn't be the best case of a Profession (mental health therapist) skill, with the possibility to use Bluff, Sense Motive and maybe even diplomacy to lower the skill check DC?

Making it a profession skill would mean that it would be taken by NPC mostly or very dedicated players and that seem appropriate to me. Playing the psychiatrist in a D&D game seem a bit odd, we are here to play heroes, not therapists.

I actually don't mind adding new professions or crafts to those skills. I don't like adding Knowledge or Perform types without major thinking done about the addition though.

And since Profession doesn't help physical damage really, I wouldn't say that it could help mental damage.

In fact, if you're running a campaign where madness and sanity and mental damage and the like is more common, it might almost make sense to add a new skill just for that to the game... something like Psychoanalysis or whatever.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

deuxhero wrote:
Can a Lore oracle with both the Lore Keeper ("You may use your Charisma modifier instead of your Intelligence modifier on all Knowledge checks.") and Focused Trance ("When you come out of your trance, you may make a single Intelligence-based skill check with a +20 circumstance bonus.") Revelations use Focused Trance on Knowledge checks?

Nope; at the point you swap out your Intelligence bonus for Charisma bonuses, those skills are now Charisma-based skill checks for you and as such are no longer viable choices for Focused Trance.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

I suspect that it'll last about a month or so. After that, folks will still be welcome to play with the playtest as normal, and while we'll be watching, we won't be as involved in hands-on feedback.

While organic growth in a mythic campaign would be good information to gain... There won't be time to do a normal mythic campaign before the book goes to the printer. And the design of the book will need to be done well before that, even.

What I'm hoping for instead is folks to just playtest various levels of character builds against various powerful monsters. How the mythic tiers power you up for fighting tougher foes is my primary interest.

A month seem terribly short for something that will have a so fundamental impact on the game.

You need someone like Ravindork that will try to find the weaknesses in the system.
Some of the thing I have heard trouble me as they will have a big impact, especially in groups that are larger than the 4 man party used as a baseline.

If the choice is between a rushed rule system and delaying the Wrath of the Righteous and the hardbound I would vote for the second option, but I realize that it will not be the best choice for Paizo.

James Jacobs wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Only a month? Ick, there probably won't even be time for my campaigns to get to mythic levels then because we weren't planning on introducing them until near level 20. I'll have to look at the rules and decide on whether or not I want to introduce them earlier I guess, hmm.

Again... the best way to help in this case is NOT to playtest how adding the mythic rules affects an ongoing campaign.

It's to playtest specific builds of characters against mythic monsters and short adventures that are NOT attached to ongoing campaigns.

I'm much less interested in finding out how the mythic rules impact a home game than I am in finding out what CR of monster is a good threat to use against, say, a party composed of 16th level tier 7 characters.

You are interested in testing by a large than normal group? Let's say 6 PC?

Existing stand alone modules against short home-made adventures?

A month does seem terrible short, which is why I'm nervous. But since it's 100% open and public and not limited, the chances of having someone like Ravingdork troubleshoot the rules is pretty high.

I'm interested in ALL feedback, though. But particularly for 4 player groups.

And don't worry about how we handle the results of the playtest. That's our job to worry about. Your job is to give us feedback on the game and the clarity of the rules and all that. :-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

JMD031 wrote:

I believe in this instance, Magic would pretty much replace medication for mental health. Magic could help with short term assistance that will require regular "doses" of the magic to ensure the patient remains stable. Therapy is like Diego says and best done "behind the scenes".

I should ask a question...

Do any of the iconics have any mental disorders?

Mental disorders are not a core part of the game. They're covered in the GameMastery Guide, and are treated the same as diseases and poisons and curses in a lot of ways—they're afflictions.

Whether or not any of the iconics have mental hangups or the like is up to interpretation, but they do not have "schizophrenia" any more than they have "rabies" or "leprosy" or "snake bite" or "mummy rot." That is to say... they don't until they do.


Why is it so hard to play a rogue archer, wouldn't it be hard to pinpoint the sniper, and it's something I and probably other people have wanted to try but found out you were not effective.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

JoelF847 wrote:
What are the imperial dragon's breath weapons? The Bestiary 3 doesn't say, only what type of damage they do.

They are a classic example of the rules taking up too much room for us to be able to include flavor text, and an excellent argument for doing away with the needless complexity of true dragon aging categories.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jello Ninja wrote:
Greetings sir, my name is Jakob and i represent the table top gmaing room in the SoDakcon anime convention in rapid City,SD. I was wondering if Paizo would to help us with that room (it's a little lakcing), any help would be outstanding. Thank You. If you want to get hold of me let me know.

You'll want to talk with our Organized Play department—I don't really have much to do at all with conventions except for going to 2 of them a year (PaizoCon and Gen Con) as a guest and a booth worker.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Ninjaofthesea wrote:

Dear Mr. Jacobs,

I am about to start the Carrion Crown adventure path and one of my players wishes to play a Red Mantis Assassin. One of my other players brought up a question regarding their spell casting abilities.

Are RMA's able to cast spells while dual wielding their weapons (i.e. do they interfere with the somatics?) If not, what would an RMA do in the middle of combat?

A red mantis assassin needs hands free to cast spells. Once they're slashing away with both blades, the time for spellcasting is over. They generally use spells to prepare for combat (either by buffing or by manipulating reality with illusions) or as ranged combat options. Once melee begins, they generally shouldn't be casting spells. They COULD if they wanted (likely by sheathing one of their blades), and in fact they can still work quite well with one blade and a hand free for spellcasting... but that's not normal for them.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ChaoticAngel97 wrote:
Hello Mr. Jacobs, I have a gaming question for you. When you're at a table playing, do you roleplay in first person actually speaking as your character(using a different accent, changing tone) or do you do third person and just describe how they say something or speak. I usually use third person, sort of a side effect of being the GM most of the time, but I wanted to hear what the preference of someone who's been doing this a fair bit longer than me was.

I almost always roleplay in 1st person. I almost never roleplay in 3rd person, and on the rare extent that I do, it feels really weird. I almost never use weird voices or accents for my PCs, because I'd get tired using a voice or accent not my own too quickly.

As a GM, I actually do a split, but once it's established what NPC I'm playing, I'll roleplay in 1st person. I often use accents and the like for NPCs when I'm the GM.

Liberty's Edge

Did you get a Goblin Plushie? If so, what did you name it?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

I did not get a goblin plushie. I'm proud of them and of how successful they are, but I'm not a fan, personally, of how they look.


James Jacobs wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
What race was Tar-Baphon during his life?
Not sure we've revealed that off the top of my head.

According to Inner Sea Magic, it says Tar-Baphon is a NE male Varisian lich necromancer 20+. So I guess his ethnicity is Human (Varisian)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
donato wrote:
With the future holding Mythic Adventures and Ultimate Campaign, what other ideas would you maybe like to see in rulebook form? Is everything covered or are there a still few things that you are wanting?
There's a LOT more to cover. Psioncs is an obvious nomination. Science fantasy is another. So is rules for steampunk stuff. Or even shifting away from rules-focused hardcovers and toward Golarion-focused ones. Those are just a few off the top of my head. We've got PLENTY of more ideas beyond those for future hardcovers. Doing only 3 to 4 hardcovers a year is a great way to spread things out.

THIS, SO MUCH THIS! I knew the science fantasy was something coming down the pipes with Numeria bouncing around here but had no clue you were interested in steampunk stuff. Ohh I'm all a twitter now and I blame you james.

In other news can you say if Tar-Baphon is a half-orc or not at least? A friend of mine has it in his head that he's referenced as such and I could have sworn that if he wasn't human he surely wasn't half-orc.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Are most Contract devils loyal to a particular lord in hell or do their services pass back and forth between lords as they are needed?


1. Does tongues allow you to read languages as well as speak them?

2. What does enthrall do besides distract a bunch of people? Can the caster make the audience do something?

3. When I mention specific spells (like enthrall above) should I capitalize them?

4. Where are you in Way of the Wicked?

5. What was daily life like in Eurythnia? Also, will we be getting more information on Thassilon?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Odraude wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
What race was Tar-Baphon during his life?
Not sure we've revealed that off the top of my head.
According to Inner Sea Magic, it says Tar-Baphon is a NE male Varisian lich necromancer 20+. So I guess his ethnicity is Human (Varisian)

There ya go!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

doc the grey wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
donato wrote:
With the future holding Mythic Adventures and Ultimate Campaign, what other ideas would you maybe like to see in rulebook form? Is everything covered or are there a still few things that you are wanting?
There's a LOT more to cover. Psioncs is an obvious nomination. Science fantasy is another. So is rules for steampunk stuff. Or even shifting away from rules-focused hardcovers and toward Golarion-focused ones. Those are just a few off the top of my head. We've got PLENTY of more ideas beyond those for future hardcovers. Doing only 3 to 4 hardcovers a year is a great way to spread things out.

THIS, SO MUCH THIS! I knew the science fantasy was something coming down the pipes with Numeria bouncing around here but had no clue you were interested in steampunk stuff. Ohh I'm all a twitter now and I blame you james.

In other news can you say if Tar-Baphon is a half-orc or not at least? A friend of mine has it in his head that he's referenced as such and I could have sworn that if he wasn't human he surely wasn't half-orc.

He's Varisian. Not a half-orc. He certainly used orcs as one of his tools against his enemies though.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

AlgaeNymph wrote:

1. Does tongues allow you to read languages as well as speak them?

2. What does enthrall do besides distract a bunch of people? Can the caster make the audience do something?

3. When I mention specific spells (like enthrall above) should I capitalize them?

4. Where are you in Way of the Wicked?

5. What was daily life like in Eurythnia? Also, will we be getting more information on Thassilon?

1) Nope; to read a language you need comprehend languages.

2) You can't make them do things—the point of the spell is, well... to enthrall.

3) Nope. In print, we italicize spell names. We never capitalize them except in the rare cases where a proper noun is included in the spell, in which case we capitalize the proper noun but nothing else.

4) We just made it across the bridge onto the mainland.

5) There'll be bits and pieces of Thassilon revealed in Shattered Star, but for now, the article in "Lost Kingdoms" is the bulk of what we have to say about Thassilon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The Bestiary Duergar seem to have Stonecunning, and a +4 racial bonus to stealth.

The Advanced Race Guide Duergar write-up does not mention either.

Which one is correct?

I am playing a Duergar right now, so I would very much like to know.

Silver Crusade

Can a spellcaster detect illusion aura of invisibility spell by using detect magic?

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Hi James

Someone mentioned that Reign of Winter will be visiting Triaxus AND Verces? I know Triaxus is confirmed, but hadn't heard anything about Verces. Is this true, or merely wishful thinking?

We've not revealed all the secrets yet of where Reign of Winter's adventures will be going. As a result, some folks are guessing or mis-interpreting rumors or facts.

I can confirm this, though. Reign of Winter only visits two planets in Golarion's solar system, one of which is Golarion.

So, three planets total then? Will we be getting to finally visit that planet that you have continually mentioned exists in the same material plane as Golarion?

In AP #71 Maybe?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

blackbloodtroll wrote:

The Bestiary Duergar seem to have Stonecunning, and a +4 racial bonus to stealth.

The Advanced Race Guide Duergar write-up does not mention either.

Which one is correct?

I am playing a Duergar right now, so I would very much like to know.

I guess it depends on if you're playing a PC or an NPC.

The version in the Bestiary is correct, though, so if you want to play a PC duergar that adds those two elements, that's relatively easy to add those two additional qualities, isn't it?

Contributor

Stratagemini wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Hi James

Someone mentioned that Reign of Winter will be visiting Triaxus AND Verces? I know Triaxus is confirmed, but hadn't heard anything about Verces. Is this true, or merely wishful thinking?

We've not revealed all the secrets yet of where Reign of Winter's adventures will be going. As a result, some folks are guessing or mis-interpreting rumors or facts.

I can confirm this, though. Reign of Winter only visits two planets in Golarion's solar system, one of which is Golarion.

So, three planets total then? Will we be getting to finally visit that planet that you have continually mentioned exists in the same material plane as Golarion?

In AP #71 Maybe?

Read the next three words after what you have bolded. "One of which is Golarion." That means two planets all together, with one of the two being Golarion.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Yücel Okçu wrote:
Can a spellcaster detect illusion aura of invisibility spell by using detect magic?

Yes... but since it takes 3 rounds of concentration to detect the location and school of an aura, anything that's mobile and invisible has 3 rounds to notice someone staring in their general direction and can then move. If they move before the 2nd round, the magic detector won't even notice the shift of magic aura since he won't have determined the number of magic auras in the area. And even if he DOES manage to get the location and school... he still suffers a 50% miss chance on attacks against the invisible target.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Stratagemini wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Hi James

Someone mentioned that Reign of Winter will be visiting Triaxus AND Verces? I know Triaxus is confirmed, but hadn't heard anything about Verces. Is this true, or merely wishful thinking?

We've not revealed all the secrets yet of where Reign of Winter's adventures will be going. As a result, some folks are guessing or mis-interpreting rumors or facts.

I can confirm this, though. Reign of Winter only visits two planets in Golarion's solar system, one of which is Golarion.

So, three planets total then? Will we be getting to finally visit that planet that you have continually mentioned exists in the same material plane as Golarion?

In AP #71 Maybe?

I can confirm or deny nothing more than what I have already confirmed at this point.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I can confirm this, though. Reign of Winter only visits two planets in Golarion's solar system, one of which is Golarion.

So, three planets total then? Will we be getting to finally visit that planet that you have continually mentioned exists in the same material plane as Golarion?

In AP #71 Maybe?

Read the next three words after what you have bolded. "One of which is Golarion." That means two planets all together, with one of the two being Golarion.

Unless the third planet is not in Golarion's solar system. Which is what I was trying to imply with my bolded words.


Quote:
Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast that day. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast.

Can a Pearl of Power be used by a Cleric (or Druid and I think one Paladin archetype) to recover a domain spell?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

deuxhero wrote:
Quote:
Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast that day. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast.
Can a Pearl of Power be used by a Cleric (or Druid and I think one Paladin archetype) to recover a domain spell?

Yes.


Going forward, will Firearms ever be used by enemies or allies in APs? As a default, or as a suggestion.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:
Going forward, will Firearms ever be used by enemies or allies in APs? As a default, or as a suggestion.

We've used them twice in APs so far...

Spoiler:
1: In the last Skull & Shackles adventure.

2: In the third Shattered Star adventure.

We'll use them again now and then as it feels appropriate.


James Jacobs wrote:
And the fact that the skeleton keeps coming at you is what makes undead spooky.

I can get behind that.


Dear Mr Jacobs,
There seems to be a slight disagreement between my GM and myself regarding the Spiritual Weapon spell, specifically its ability to attack on its own, ignoring cover, concealment, invisibility, mirror images and similar effects when they arise after the casting of the spell (we seem to agree that if these effects are in place at the time of casting and direction - or redirection - of the weapon, they also apply to the spiritual weapon).
To be more specific: my take is that if the caster directs the weapon (a scimitar in this case) against a foe that is not invisible nor concealed et cetera (as above), should the target of the attack gain the invisible/concealed/other condition afterwards that condition does not affect that spiritual weapon, as long as the weapon continues to attack that same foe and provided that it still remains in range and in sight of the caster.
My GM objects that this interpretation would make the spell too powerful for its level since it would effectively give the weapon a form of true sight. He also suggests, based on this section of the spell: "If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, OR IF YOU ARE NOT DIRECTING IT, the weapon returns to you and hovers", that the caster is probably supposed to spend some kind of (free) action every round to direct the weapon, even if it strikes the same foe as the previous round, therefore conditions that affect the caster such as above in the subsequent rounds should also apply to the spiritual weapon.
(If I have misinterpreted or incorrectly stated his take on the matter, my GM will surely correct me since I know he regularly reads this most interesting thread).
I would really appreciate your take and advice on this subject. Thank you very much.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jaime Sommers wrote:

Dear Mr Jacobs,

There seems to be a slight disagreement between my GM and myself regarding the Spiritual Weapon spell, specifically its ability to attack on its own, ignoring cover, concealment, invisibility, mirror images and similar effects when they arise after the casting of the spell (we seem to agree that if these effects are in place at the time of casting and direction - or redirection - of the weapon, they also apply to the spiritual weapon).
To be more specific: my take is that if the caster directs the weapon (a scimitar in this case) against a foe that is not invisible nor concealed et cetera (as above), should the target of the attack gain the invisible/concealed/other condition afterwards that condition does not affect that spiritual weapon, as long as the weapon continues to attack that same foe and provided that it still remains in range and in sight of the caster.
My GM objects that this interpretation would make the spell too powerful for its level since it would effectively give the weapon a form of true sight. He also suggests, based on this section of the spell: "If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, OR IF YOU ARE NOT DIRECTING IT, the weapon returns to you and hovers", that the caster is probably supposed to spend some kind of (free) action every round to direct the weapon, even if it strikes the same foe as the previous round, therefore conditions that affect the caster such as above in the subsequent rounds should also apply to the spiritual weapon.
(If I have misinterpreted or incorrectly stated his take on the matter, my GM will surely correct me since I know he regularly reads this most interesting thread).
I would really appreciate your take and advice on this subject. Thank you very much.

First of all... I'm not your GM. So I can't step in and change the way rulings work in your game. Your GM is the only one who can do that.

The way that spiritual weapon is supposed to work is that it basically gives you an attack against a foe that you want to direct it to attack. Any effect that would normally affect your chances to hit a target (such as mirror image or invisibility or displacement) also affect the attacks of your spiritual weapon, regardless of when those additional defensive effects come into play.

If you direct the spiritual weapon to attack a foe, and then that foe becomes invisible, then the spiritual weapon suffers the normal miss chance against that foe. If you can still see the foe thanks to true sight or see invisibility or whatever, then your spiritual weapon gains that benefit as well.

Once the weapon is attacking a target, you can leave it to attack that target without expending any action to do so. It keeps attacking the target foe each round as long as the target is in range of you.

Grand Lodge

Does the Crane Wing feat apply to all melee attacks or just those from manufactured weapons?

prd wrote:
Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

Would natural attacks and/or unarmed strikes be eligible for deflection using the feat? While not manufactured weapons, they are still melee weapons and count for consideration of being armed.

How about a melee touch attack spell like shocking grasp or inflict XXX wounds?


Pathfinder Card Game, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

dear James, today I come to ask for an advice as you being a writer, player and master all warped in the same mind might be the best person to direct this question to ^^ (hence why i didn't post it on the advice board)

i'm currently running the kingmaker AP to a group, but two "problems" came to be.
The first one that is mostly my fault, since i didn't pay attention enough, is that i rolled an horribly high number of random encounter and didn't realize how much exp my group was getting before the end of their first big journey, i tried to limit the damage by ignoring most of the random encounters after that but they managed to end the first book at lvl 6 is that gonna be a real problem later on? if yes what do you recommend to do?

the second problem is more universal, it comes from a player of mine at the same table, the problem is simple yet complicated, that player is a damned-luck-fiend... he plays a Barb wielding a greataxe, so far all's good, but he roll an average of 1 natural 20 once every 4 rolls and didn't roll under 10 on his hit dice for is last 5 level-ups at first i was thinking he was cheating but no I've carefully checked his rolls, made him roll with my own dices in case his' were loaded, nothing change. it was funny at first but now the other players quickly started to grow seriously tired with it, specialty since it take all the challenge out of the fights, like for instance when they first got out of oleg's post so lvl 1 i rolled an encounter with an owlbear as they were all mounted I naively thought why not it'll scare them a bit and make them more careful it's not a bad thing, he rolled a 20 on initiative and promptly charged the owlbear sending him meet is ancestors on the spot with an other natural 20.
Honestly I'm at wits end on this one.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:

Does the Crane Wing feat apply to all melee attacks or just those from manufactured weapons?

prd wrote:
Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

Would natural attacks and/or unarmed strikes be eligible for deflection using the feat? While not manufactured weapons, they are still melee weapons and count for consideration of being armed.

How about a melee touch attack spell like shocking grasp or inflict XXX wounds?

It works against all melee weapon attacks, including natural weapons and unarmed strikes, but not against melee spell attacks or similar supernatural attacks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Dear James, where did came from the idea of the Speak with Dead spell? Generally those old spells has one fantasy story inspiration, i didin't get which. To make a dead corpse speak with its own dead lips it's very distubrbing...

24,351 to 24,400 of 77,090 << first < prev | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 | 492 | 493 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.