Prestige classes, spells known, and bloodline spells


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

didn't see it, and it was just updated...:(

Project Manager

Removed a bunch of "bump" posts. Don't bump threads.


Jessica Price wrote:
Removed a bunch of "bump" posts. Don't bump threads.

well...that's a first


Jessica Price wrote:
Removed a bunch of "bump" posts. Don't bump threads.

.... Wut?

Shadow Lodge

Jessica Price wrote:
Removed a bunch of "bump" posts. Don't bump threads.

Perhaps we were getting a bit obnoxious with the bumping. My apologies on behalf of all of us.


I will apologize for the derail.


so now that I see fresh blood on the forums, anybody else want to weigh in?


Faq updated again...


design teams on a roll, lets get those FAQs people so that this will be settled once and for all. by the by this also determines what is misprinted in the NPC codex.


I'm actually surprised by the ruling on retraining (even though I posted that the nearest precedent (Fighter retraining) allowed you to retrain to a feat you didn't qualify for originally.

So who knows what direction a ruling on this one will go. :P


Xaratherus wrote:

I'm actually surprised by the ruling on retraining (even though I posted that the nearest precedent (Fighter retraining) allowed you to retrain to a feat you didn't qualify for originally.

So who knows what direction a ruling on this one will go. :P

half of me hopes I am wrong for some decent EK builds, the other half worries about what early level cheese combined with such a ruling could push the MT into synergy territory. either way I don't expect them to go for it.


no takers on the Faq huh...


and now weapon cords got FAQ'd, come on people it should only take a few more FAQ clicks.


It did? I'm not seeing any new posts by the PDT...


they are move actions now, it's being changed in upcoming printings. They removed the recommended amount of free actions as well. no more gunslinger cheese.
edit:link

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
and now weapon cords got FAQ'd, come on people it should only take a few more FAQ clicks.

There are other threads with more FAQ clicks, so they don't always answer the highest FAQ click first.

I imagine there will be some that get clicks they don't feel the need to answer because the confusion comes from some of us being overly pedantic.


James Risner wrote:
Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
and now weapon cords got FAQ'd, come on people it should only take a few more FAQ clicks.

There are other threads with more FAQ clicks, so they don't always answer the highest FAQ click first.

I imagine there will be some that get clicks they don't feel the need to answer because the confusion comes from some of us being overly pedantic.

They have a status for that actually - it's "No response required".

My guess is that there's either a split within the design staff on how this should work, or they're planning on answering the question in an upcoming release.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:

they are move actions now, it's being changed in upcoming printings. They removed the recommended amount of free actions as well. no more gunslinger cheese.

edit:link

No more cheap cheese. Now they have to wait until they can afford a Glove of Storing.

Shadow Lodge

And FAQ updated yet again.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
And FAQ updated yet again.

:'(


Do you think if I baked a cake and sent it to them, then this might be moved up on the docket? Or will sucking up make them mad...


You can bake a cake and send it to me. I like cake.

Unfortunately, I have no power to move this up on the docket.

But still, I like cake. mmm mmm good

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The cake is a lie.


Looking at the most recent FAQs I'm shocked there aren't more threads about the weapon cord nerf.

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:
Looking at the most recent FAQs I'm shocked there aren't more threads about the weapon cord nerf.

The weapon cord nerf was a suggestion to fix the gunslinger in lieu of the free action faq.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Looking at the most recent FAQs I'm shocked there aren't more threads about the weapon cord nerf.
The weapon cord nerf was a suggestion to fix the gunslinger in lieu of the free action faq.

I'm guessing that the folks most likely to have complained - the dual-wielding double-barreled pistoleros - were probably too busy retraining their characters to complain... ;)


Talonhawke wrote:
Looking at the most recent FAQs I'm shocked there aren't more threads about the weapon cord nerf.

No complaints for me. I've been on the "ban weapon cords entirely" bandwagon since I first read the item. They're ridiculous on their own, without any pistol-juggling free action reloading nonsense. Having a caster supposedly making precise somatic gestures with his "free" hand that has a four foot sword tied to it has never seemed reasonable to me.


Now that weapon cords are nerfed, please use that Swift Action to hit FAQ on this thread, people.


Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
Do you think if I baked a cake and sent it to them, then this might be moved up on the docket? Or will sucking up make them mad...

Where's my cake?

Shadow Lodge

Quandary wrote:
Now that weapon cords are nerfed, please use that Swift Action to hit FAQ on this thread, people.

If only there wasn't a 1 per post limit :(


Mulgar wrote:
Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
Do you think if I baked a cake and sent it to them, then this might be moved up on the docket? Or will sucking up make them mad...

Where's my cake?

the cake is a lie


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
Do you think if I baked a cake and sent it to them, then this might be moved up on the docket? Or will sucking up make them mad...

Where's my cake?

Never mind the cake; I'm still waiting for my promised Modest Mouse Bloodline.


ZanThrax wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
Do you think if I baked a cake and sent it to them, then this might be moved up on the docket? Or will sucking up make them mad...

Where's my cake?

Never mind the cake; I'm still waiting for my promised Modest Mouse Bloodline.

I'm curious, when was the last post actually talking about the subject?

Even with a myriad of 'bump' posts removed, it's still almost two pages of not talking about it.

Perhaps that is why it is not a priority for the FAQ?

-James

Liberty's Edge

Except what can we say on topic? You're not listening to our arguments, and your arguments aren't effecting us. We could keep saying the same thing over and over, but really isn't 4 pages of that enough? All we can do is wait.

I'm just saddened that such a simple question is taking so long. Especially given that it has this many clicks. Perhaps someone else should make another thread just a bit reworded. . .


ShadowcatX wrote:
Except what can we say on topic? You're not listening to our arguments

I heard them, but the plain text of the PrC goes against it. You wanted to split hairs on what 'known spells' had to be. It seemed as if you had decided upon a conclusion and were working to show it. Moreover, even the places where it spelled out that they were, in fact, known spells was an issue... which if your objection had been true, would not have been the case.

It boils down to the fact that Paizo has added a plethora of ways to add spells known for spontaneous casters.

Back in 3.5 there was perhaps a feat(?) that allowed an additional spell known, but I'm not 100% certain of this (there were magical items that allowed you to treat spells as known spells for that day). Meanwhile, in Pathfinder, there are lots and lots of ways (favored class bonuses, feats, class abilities, bloodline/mystery spells, etc) in which you exceed that table of known spells.

Some you contend are not 'known spells' but function as known spells, while others are expressly stated as such.

I'm fairly certain that there wasn't thought given over to how PrCs were worded in this regard.

The spirit of the spell advancement for these PrCs was, and reads, that they should cast spells just as if they hadn't multiclassed, but rather had continued in their base class. This expressly includes spells known.

Following this spirit, these extra spells known should be granted to those whose PrC advances casting.

Thus to me it seems, both in spirit and written word, as these spells known should advance. After all the wording is about what is advanced, not where it is being advanced.

If a class ability increased effective level of spellcasting say at 10th level, then a character going off to a PrC that advanced casting would qualify just as much as one who stayed in the class. It wouldn't matter under what class ability this increase occurred, just that it would occur if the character had leveled in the original class.

That's the wording. And here is our obligatory post on the actual subject for this page ;)

-James


james maissen wrote:
I heard them, but the plain text of the PrC goes against it.

The existence of the thread proves this statement patently false, James. If the plain text had one and only one possible meaning, then this thread wouldn't exist. That's what you keep refusing to notice\accept.

Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, I recognize that what you claim to be explicitly clear simply cannot be explicitly clear, because if it were, there wouldn't be any disagreement on the matter. The existence of the thread, and the plethora of different opinions, proves that your statement is flat invalid.

251 to 300 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Prestige classes, spells known, and bloodline spells All Messageboards