>>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<<

[Mark Seifter]

Ning wrote:

I love you Mark！ and there is an other question：P

A medium rider with a large mount ,Casting Spell：Animal Growth to the mount. The rider will become large or not？ And saddle？ Can he still stay in the saddle？

The rider wouldn't count as equipment, but the saddle would. Presumably riding with a bizarrely-too-large saddle wouldn't be any harder than riding bareback, so I'd say you can still stay in there but probably just don't get the benefits for a saddle that fits.

[Mark Seifter]

swoosh wrote:

I think the worst thing about full attacks is the weird anti-progression you get with them: That is to say, leveling up is supposed to be about making your character better and more capable, but for fighters and other martials that don't gain innate access to pounce, you actually get less and less mobile the higher your level and it feels really wrong that the fighter is never better at darting around a battlefield than it is right at level 1.

A special mention for Swashbucklers here. I'll never understand how Paizo could take an archetype that so thoroughly exemplifies the mobile swordfighter in fiction and turn around and not give it any options so it ends up being one of the least mobile classes in the entire game.

Yeah, I'm with you. Actually in my interview they wanted me to demonstrate my designer-fu by saying what my least favorite aspect of the rules is and why, and I picked the full attack dynamic. Monster hp is rising at a rate that's close to linear (while theoretically both Con and HD will be rising, in practice, the Con difference is small and rises and falls unpredictably) while damage in a full attack rises with increased level based on damage per hit (which itself sometimes rises in more than one way by level, especially depending on the character class), number of attacks (which rises by level), and relative accuracy (which also rises by level for most characters because monster AC increases of generally 1 and occasionally 2 per level account for +1 BAB but not for anything else, while various other bonuses are standard) for a rise that could be up to cubic (but is possibly only quadratic depending on factors like if you managed to hit 95% accuracy on almost all your attacks already, so increased system-math-defying accuracy doesn't do anything). Meanwhile, at the same time that full attacks are rising too quickly, the percentage of damage from a non-full-attack is shrinking to a tinier and tinier percentage of a full attack. And then that whole situation exacerbates archer/gunslinger advantage for being ranged.

[Mark Seifter]

Seannoss wrote:

First, I'd like to thank you and Jiggy for your wonderful to read discussion.

And then I'm wondering if you could weigh in on a mythic question.

The core rules state that you can only take a full round action if you do not take a standard or a move action generally speaking. There are a few mythic abilities that allow extra actions, would taking an extra action prohibit someone from taking a full round action?

I'd say that if you get a whole extra action, mythic or not, you can still take your full round action with your starting standard and move, even though you get the extra action.

[Mark Seifter]

Draco Bahamut wrote:

Hello Mr. Seifter,

I an very impressed by your work and methods, thank you very much for your nice work.

1- I have been thinking about using the research rules from Ultimate Intrigue for Crime Scenes Investigations like the crime scene were a library. Do you think its a fair variation of the rule or there is better ways of doing it ?
And using the research rules for a deep garther information checks within a community or large body of witness ?

2- Do you think there can be 2 spell level s casting classes or this concept of a dabbler is better achieved by multiclassing ?

Thanks!

1) I think those are an awesome way to use those rules. Truly creative and a solid fit. If you wanted to create some examples of each as well as "Additional Elements" like in the intrigue section but specific to your new types of "libraries", I bet you could find a 3pp to publish it.

2) I think once you get down to that little spellcasting, then either multiclassing, as you suggest, or even a class talent chain might be able to handle it. For instance, a phantom thief Unchained rogue can make an amazing 1-level spellcaster, with vast numbers of 1st-level spells per day.

[Mark Seifter]

Forrestfire wrote:

Hello, sorry to bother you, but I was having a discussion with my group about size increases and wondered if you have an answer to this conundrum or know if it's been answered somewhere?

Can someone's combined size increases (between real and virtual ones) increase their size for weapon damage past Colossal? Strong Jaw seems to imply that it would stop (becuase it's got an alternate clause for what happens in that situation), and the previous rules were fairly vague about it. The FAQ on size increases has damage increasing in steps based on size, but doesn't state in either direction if sizes past Colossal exist, so I've been wondering how that works.

Strong jaw's alternate clause is based on the fact that you'd bypass strong jaw's chart, and it happens to be conveniently true that once an attack does 2 or more d6 or d8, going up two sizes or virtual sizes always doubles it. With the new and improved mega-chart in the FAQ that Rysky describes, you can now handle size increases and virtual size increases as far as you need them!

[Mark Seifter]

Mythic 1/2-Dragon Gestalt Jiggy wrote:

I JUST SNIPED THE 5,000TH POST OF YOUR THREAD. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?

I dunno, I guess mythic gestalt and partially draconic.

[Mizuno Qenido]

"Lightning Reload (Ex): At 11th level, as long as the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point, she can reload a single barrel of a one-handed or two-handed firearm as a swift action once per round. If she has the Rapid Reload feat or is using an alchemical cartridge (or both), she can reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action each round instead. Furthermore, using this deed does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

So assuming I have rapid reload and am using regular rounds (Not cartridges), reloading with lightning reload is a free action. However, the description says that you can only do it once a round. Is this correct or can you use it for as many free actions as your GM allows in a turn?

I.e., is the purpose of lightning reload to allow you to Full Attack with rapid reload and without cartridges/with cartridges and without rapid reload, or is it just meant to be one free reload per turn?

[Mark Seifter]

Mizuno Qenido wrote:

"Lightning Reload (Ex): At 11th level, as long as the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point, she can reload a single barrel of a one-handed or two-handed firearm as a swift action once per round. If she has the Rapid Reload feat or is using an alchemical cartridge (or both), she can reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action each round instead. Furthermore, using this deed does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

So assuming I have rapid reload and am using regular rounds (Not cartridges), reloading with lightning reload is a free action. However, the description says that you can only do it once a round. Is this correct or can you use it for as many free actions as your GM allows in a turn?

I.e., is the purpose of lightning reload to allow you to Full Attack with rapid reload and without cartridges/with cartridges and without rapid reload, or is it just meant to be one free reload per turn?

It's stated to be a 1/round free action, so it looks like it isn't in itself sufficient to provide a full attack (though it could be a way to use fewer alchemical cartridges, I guess, to lower misfire chances).

[Lou Diamond]

Mark, IMO adamantine, mithril and other special materials should add to AC as well as gibing DR or being lighter. For instance Mithril as seen in Lord of the Rings not only was very light but prevented Frodo from being run through by the cave troll spear. I think these metals not adding an ac bonus is an artifact of bad rules not written by Pazio and just not updated. Have you ever read any of the accounts of the battle of Agincourt? They talk about the suits of well made [IE Masterwork] that the Nobles wore stopping both arrows and crossbow bolts. Most of the Nobles that were killed in the battle died from being thrown from dead horses and being stuck in the mud and being hacked to death by swords and axes.

But I digress, I think Mithril should give a +3 material bonus to AC as well as being 1/2 the weight of steel and adamantine should give a +5 material bonus to AC and DR/-5 bumping up the DR by 2. This IMO would justify the huge price charged for adamantine.

[Mark Seifter]

Lou Diamond wrote:

Mark, IMO adamantine, mithril and other special materials should add to AC as well as gibing DR or being lighter. For instance Mithril as seen in Lord of the Rings not only was very light but prevented Frodo from being run through by the cave troll spear. I think these metals not adding an ac bonus is an artifact of bad rules not written by Pazio and just not updated. Have you ever read any of the accounts of the battle of Agincourt? They talk about the suits of well made [IE Masterwork] that the Nobles wore stopping both arrows and crossbow bolts. Most of the Nobles that were killed in the battle died from being thrown from dead horses and being stuck in the mud and being hacked to death by swords and axes.

But I digress, I think Mithril should give a +3 material bonus to AC as well as being 1/2 the weight of steel and adamantine should give a +5 material bonus to AC and DR/-5 bumping up the DR by 2. This IMO would justify the huge price charged for adamantine.

It's a reasonable simulationist idea; probably the balanced way to do as you suggest would be to go back to something similar to earlier editions and have mithral always be +3 (and cost 9000 more) and have adamantine always be +5 (and cost 25000 more).

[Forrestfire]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Forrestfire wrote:

Hello, sorry to bother you, but I was having a discussion with my group about size increases and wondered if you have an answer to this conundrum or know if it's been answered somewhere?

Can someone's combined size increases (between real and virtual ones) increase their size for weapon damage past Colossal? Strong Jaw seems to imply that it would stop (becuase it's got an alternate clause for what happens in that situation), and the previous rules were fairly vague about it. The FAQ on size increases has damage increasing in steps based on size, but doesn't state in either direction if sizes past Colossal exist, so I've been wondering how that works.

Strong jaw's alternate clause is based on the fact that you'd bypass strong jaw's chart, and it happens to be conveniently true that once an attack does 2 or more d6 or d8, going up two sizes or virtual sizes always doubles it. With the new and improved mega-chart in the FAQ that Rysky describes, you can now handle size increases and virtual size increases as far as you need them!

That is good to know, thanks!

[TrinitysEnd]

Another question for you! This one about an Alchemist; Beastmorph to be exact. I've searched and searched and searched and couldn't find an answer for this, so I was hoping you could help.

Beastmorph has Beastform Mutagen, Improved BM, Greater BM, and Grand BM.

Do the abilities stack? So does a level 14 Beastmorph Alchemist get 1 from Alter Self, 2 from Beast Shape 1, 3 from Beast Shape 2, and 4 from Beast Shape 3? Or does it replace the previous one, giving only 4 abilities at level 14?

Thanks for taking time to look over this! And I hope you've been having a good week!

Edit: Almost forgot! How are the abilities, such as Poison and Web, calculated? Using the monster rules? Or do you treat it as a SLA and use Cha?

[Chess Pwn]

Hey I have a question. So you're the kineticist guy. Does all kineticist material now go through you, or do other members of your team review kineticist material and make decisions without consulting you?

(This may not really be applicable if your work environment isn't set up to ever have the opportunity of my situation coming up.)

[swoosh]

Would you (and your team) ever consider relaxing archetype stacking rules to allow for more combinations?

I see a lot of my players frustrated by archetypes that don't stack for seemingly nonsensical reasons because while the things they replace technically stack, they do so in tangential ways that don't hold up under less legalistic and more logical scrutiny.

Combinations like Bladebound and Hexcrafter, which both alter Arcana but in a way that does not conflict meaningfully at all. Or Shadow Caller + Broodmaster Summoner, one of them changes the mechanics of the eidolon and the other changes its appearance, but that still makes them incompatible.

And so on.

Obviously since it's a home game I can just houserule the silliness away and I've even Society play let characters like that slide just because the RAW is drifting toward drown-healing levels of silly in many of these examples, but still curious if the design team has ever looked at fixing these problems.

[Renkosuke]

Hi Mark! Long time no questions :P

Here's a quick one: Do the extra dice from Kinetic Fist get multiplied on a critical hit? From what i heard, "extra dice" to an attack are never multiplied on critical, but I can't find the source of that rule anywhere (I might just not be looking hard enough though...). I can see how this makes sense with stuff like Bane and Sneak Attack, but considering how the extra dice on Kinetic Fist are essentially an Ascetics main source of variable damage, it didn't make too much sense to me.

How would you rule this, conforming to PFS standards?

[Mark Seifter]

Speaking of AMAs, the design team has a Reddit AMA tomorrow for any Horror Adventures questions:

[N N 959]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Quote:

(in my experience, many messageboard posts actually come from the direction on axis #4/#5 of "cannot or will not ban or adjust from as-written" which necessarily prevents them from being in the state you describe).

Yep, typically (in my experience) it tends to be "cannot" more often than "will not", but yes.

Yep, I knew you knew there's lots of nuance,...

First, let me think you for sharing your thoughts. It's extremely encouraging to have someone at Paizo engage in the discussion at all. Second, apologies if you're burned out on this topic or have moved past it. I've now just read through the back and forth. It's clear you've thought or at least are able to think about this topic on many levels and in-depth. But your responses read as an attempt rationalize the problem in a way that suggests there's nothing Paizo can/should do about it. From a customer complaint perspective, I would have loved to read:

"Yes, C/MD is a problem that we're aware of and agree exists. As we move forward with future products, we've instituted a process whereby we attempt to evaluate the impact of new content/rules."

It's insightful to read your analysis in the ways in which the C/MD can manifest itself. Much if not all of it seems accurate. The part I was hoping you'd cover is how/what Paizo is doing to mitigate it. However, I get the sense based on your posts that within Paizo, there isn't a core belief that a problem exists, or rather C/MD is not a systemic problem, it's an emergent property based on play style: Group A experiences this because they do X and Group B does not experience it because the do Y.

An analogy is that Paizo makes two cars or its sanctioned race tracks. A red car with a top speed of 100 mph. And a blue car with a top speed of 50 miles an hour. When the customers complain that the red car is always going to win the race, we are told that's only true if the those driving the red car go full throttle. If the red car doesn't take a full tank of gas, then the blue car sometimes wins. Or if the red car has to use worn out tires, or....you get the idea. Sure, anyone who wants to have red and blue cars race together, can modify the track, the conditions, the drivers, etc so that the red car's advantage is eliminated. But those who want to drive a blue car aren't serviced by that response.

Jiggy talks about the little things about C/MD that tend to drive home the problem, citing endure elements. Your response was that the the "fighter" suggested IC ways to reduce the need to use the spell. But that doesn't make the Fighter class more capable because someone playing a fighter made the suggestion. My response is that what if the party needed to travel during the day? While it's great that there are sometimes ways to mitigate the C/MD, the fact that we are talking about mitigating it is the problem. I haven't seen much written about the Ranger/Rogue disparity, or the Monk/Rogue Disparity.

Here's a stat I'd love to see: Number of deaths with an all caster party vs an all martial party on hard mode with the same players? Has Paizo tried that experiment in PFS? Let me ask you, Mark,]is there a disparity level from those statistics at which Paizo would take affirmative steps start leveling the playing field? I guess a better way to ask the question is what would it take for Paizo to agree there was a problem and address it?

I think it's fair to say that I have been skeptical about a lot of the C/MD discussions. Like many here, I've read the Tier rankings posts by Jared on Brilliant Gameologist and even had PM discussions with him. Jared claimed he devised the analysis as an aid for GMs so that they could be proactive about banning classes that would wreck the game. One thing that should be readily obvious to anyone who read the rankings is that it is directly correlated to spell casting ability. But in reality, I think he did many a disservice because he inaccurately identifies the problem or rather doesn't acknowledge the distinction between having a caster class and the spells available to the caster..

The problem, imo, isn't the classes, it's the spells. A wizard is only as powerful as the spells that are at her disposal. As you may recall, Jared's ranking is based on a contrived set of trials. Several tasks are presented to each class and then people theory craft on the ease with which each class can complete the tasks. But the test is bogus because it the tasks are known ahead of time and the comparisons are based on the casters being able to choose any spell available to the class in order to complete the task. So really the test is which class does the best with perfect knowledge?

So it's easy to pick apart Tier ranking and discredit its validity based on its contrived circumstances. For example, if we tell the wizard we're going to fight a battle underwater and we end up fighting in the desert, the wizard may be loaded up with a bunch of useless spells e.g. water breathing instead of fireball. But, it's not that simple. Because at higher levels, the wizard can have more and more spells available and be prepared for a wider gamut of experiences. Combine that with metamagic rods and you can have Mage Armor lasting 14 hour before level 10. It takes a a bona fide war before Varsuvius seems to run out of spells. Has Xykon ever run out of spells?

The place where I feel the C/MD most acutely or rather where I feel it slaps us in the face is the lack of apparent restriction on spells compared with the heavy handed restrictions on martial mechanics. The whole spiked shield and bashing is a perfect example. Paizo invented the idea that "as if" dice don't stack. 3.x clearly allowed spiked shields and bashing to stack. But then we have James Jacobs tell us that a 2d6 "offhand" weapon is wrongfun. But when you do any type of comprehensive empirical evaluation of a 2d6 bashing shield, it's no more effective than plenty of other options given feat cost, item cost, and alternative options. Yet, based on Jacobs response, there is clearly some unwritten rule about what an off-hand weapon can and cannot do. Let's add to that, all the hands of effort rules, which we find out are part of an unwritten rule about how much strength bonus we can add to an attack.

Now, let's contrast that with spells. Are there unwritten rules that tell us how much damage a 1st level spell can do? What about a 9th level spell? I think the problem is that the very nature of spells is that they are "magic" and inherently aren't required to follow rules. When I first started playing Pathfinder, I noticed Cleave was nerfed, perhaps because it was too good not to choose? Were there corresponding nerfs to any spells?

My point is that I'm trying to understand why martial power creep is so heavily restricted but spell power is not. It's as if martial's get screwed because the box within which they exist is easy to define and enforce, where as spells don't have that clearly defined box and the designers don't have any rigorous way to test or compare spells.

I'm going to add one other thought that I'd love to hear you weigh in on. You talk about 4e and its parallel class structure as way to engender "balance.". One of the things I loved about AD&D is that the classes were not balanced. Wizards were pitiful at low levels and then were world conquerers at high level. As a wizard, based on available modules, you were lucky to get good spells by high level if you lived that long. Remember, wizards had 1d4 hit points. No favored class bonsus, no Toughness, you didn't get a CON bonus to hit points unless your score was like 15 or something, and you needed nearly double the experience points to level compared with a fighter and you never got new spells just for leveling.

Pathfinder comes along and thanks to 3.x gave everyone the same XP table, improved caster hit points, and allows the casters to automatically get new spells just for leveling. What's more, PF added unlimited cantrips. And none of this was accompanied by an reduction in spell power or, any corresponding increase in martial power.

I recall reading a blog by Monty Cook where he seemed to take credit for vastly improving casters in D&D 3.x, but what are the chances they got it right? What are the chances that the improvements were just perfect and were not in need of adjustment?

Please excuse all the typos

[MichaelCullen]

What happens if someone with source severance (arcane, CL 18) walks into a wall of Suppresion (CL 19)? What happens to other spells in the area if they are CL 20?

(Wall of Suppresion does not effect spells with higher caster levels but source severance does)

[PokeyCA]

MichaelCullen wrote:

What happens if someone with source severance (arcane, CL 18) walks into a wall of Suppresion (CL 19)? What happens to other spells in the area if they are CL 20?

(Wall of Suppresion does not effect spells with higher caster levels but source severance does)

My personal take on this would be to treat them both as anti-magic fields and they both work. Therefore the only worry would be the CL20 spells, which only Arcane would be affected by Source Severance.

[Lou Diamond]

Mark, could Pazio make official rules for firearms constructed from special materials. Firearms made of mithril and adamantine should be more resistant to misfires and explosions from misfires.

In real life most misfires were caused by repeated reloads being fired at ounce. It has been found that muzzle loaded fire arms being fired in mass formations that sometimes an infantry man might not realize that he had not fired his weapon and continued to load it, until it misfired and exploded. The only misfires that I know of that were caused by material failure were in the civil war were caused by a unscrupulous contractor that produced muskets made of cheap metal that had a high misfire rate and repeatedly exploded killing many union troops.

Most material failures in modern fire arms are caused by hot loading bullets. putting more powder in a round than the weapons breach is rated for.

[GhostwheelX]

Hey Mark,

An inquisitor's Bane ability says that it can only be used as follows:

"At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift action... This ability only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon."

Would an inquisitor with Improved Unarmed Strike be able to apply this ability to their unarmed strike?

Thanks!

[Rysky]

GhostwheelX wrote:

Hey Mark,

An inquisitor's Bane ability says that it can only be used as follows:

"At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift action... This ability only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon."

Would an inquisitor with Improved Unarmed Strike be able to apply this ability to their unarmed strike?

Thanks!

Why wouldn't they?

[GhostwheelX]

Rysky wrote:

GhostwheelX wrote:

Hey Mark,

An inquisitor's Bane ability says that it can only be used as follows:

"At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift action... This ability only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon."

Would an inquisitor with Improved Unarmed Strike be able to apply this ability to their unarmed strike?

Thanks!

Why wouldn't they?

My DM said that because it only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon, it doesn't use with unarmed strikes, so I wanted to get clarification.

[Rysky]

GhostwheelX wrote:

Rysky wrote:

GhostwheelX wrote:

Hey Mark,

An inquisitor's Bane ability says that it can only be used as follows:

"At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift action... This ability only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon."

Would an inquisitor with Improved Unarmed Strike be able to apply this ability to their unarmed strike?

Thanks!

Why wouldn't they?

My DM said that because it only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon, it doesn't use with unarmed strikes, so I wanted to get clarification.

-_-

Unarmed Strikes are weapons. Unless you get dismembered you are wielding said weapon.

Does your GM also not allow it work for Natural Attack Inquisitors?

[GhostwheelX]

Rysky wrote:

GhostwheelX wrote:

Rysky wrote:

GhostwheelX wrote:

Hey Mark,

An inquisitor's Bane ability says that it can only be used as follows:

"At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift action... This ability only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon."

Would an inquisitor with Improved Unarmed Strike be able to apply this ability to their unarmed strike?

Thanks!

Why wouldn't they?

My DM said that because it only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon, it doesn't use with unarmed strikes, so I wanted to get clarification.

-_-

Unarmed Strikes are weapons. Unless you get dismembered you are wielding said weapon.

Does your GM also not allow it work for Natural Attack Inquisitors?

Let's wait for Mark to reply so I have an official-ish answer for my DM :-)

[Kalindlara]

GhostwheelX: due to the convention, it may be quite some time before Mr. Seifter can return to this thread.

Just a heads-up. ^_^

[GhostwheelX]

Ah, game is on Friday :-/

So is general consensus until Mark get back that the Bane ability can affect unarmed strikes?

[Rysky]

Yes

[Kalindlara]

I believe so as well. I don't know of anything that suggests otherwise.

As for the "wielded" bit, that term causes a lot of confuseion around here. ^_^

[GhostwheelX]

GM says that general consensus doesn't count, but if Mark replies he'll accept what Mark says. So here's hoping, but otherwise... Oh well.

[captain yesterday]

What a dick. :-)

I honestly can't think of any way it wouldn't work on Unarmed Strike, otherwise you wouldn't have any Irori Inquisitors/dieticians anywhere. :-)

[Rysky]

GhostwheelX wrote:

GM says that general consensus doesn't count, but if Mark replies he'll accept what Mark says. So here's hoping, but otherwise... Oh well.

If Mark says "Listen to the others" will that create a paradox?

[GhostwheelX]

Hey Mark, another question for when you get back, if you'd be so kind.

I took an "uncommon" trick for handle animal that is not on the list. Namely, it is to have my animal move in response to a common event, in this case my character making a melee attack. I have Speak With Animals and my animal companion has an Intelligence score of 3, so my rationale was that I use SWA, explain to my animal companion what I'd like it to do, and during the downtime train it to execute that maneuver (ready to flee in response to my finishing to attack).

This is a Pathfinder Society game, and my GM has stated that this was not allowed, as custom items are not allowed, and ergo custom animal tricks are not allowed. Could you please confirm or deny what he said? Heck, would this even require a trick, or could I "communicate" that intent by guiding with my knees?

tl;dr: In Pathfinder Society, are you allowed to train an animal to do tricks not on the handle animal trick list?

EDIT: Would giving it a point in Linguistics to have it understand Common make any difference?

[Chemlak]

Catches up on thread

Ooh, a damage increase question! I have a soft spot for that FAQ, and I love that it goes (theoretically) infinitely in both directions.

And to help with consensus: unarmed strikes are weapons. They're in the weapon tables. Personally I'd allow it without IUS, but still the AoO.

[Rysky]

Hmm, curious about something, would the Lesser Spirit Totem rage power be able to attack invisible foes?

Spirit Totem, Lesser (Su) wrote:

While raging, the barbarian is surrounded by spirit wisps that harass her foes. These spirits make one slam attack each round against a living foe that is adjacent to the barbarian. This slam attack is made using the barbarian's full base attack bonus, plus the barbarian's Charisma modifier. The slam deals 1d4 points of negative energy damage, plus the barbarian's Charisma modifier.

Rereading it it seems like it's an auto-attack rather than the Babarian having to pinpoint a specific enemy, but I might just be overthinking it due to the thematics of the ability.

[N N 959]

GhostwheelX wrote:

Hey Mark, another question for when you get back, if you'd be so kind.

I took an "uncommon" trick for handle animal that is not on the list. Namely, it is to have my animal move in response to a common event, in this case my character making a melee attack. I have Speak With Animals and my animal companion has an Intelligence score of 3, so my rationale was that I use SWA, explain to my animal companion what I'd like it to do, and during the downtime train it to execute that maneuver (ready to flee in response to my finishing to attack).

This is a Pathfinder Society game, and my GM has stated that this was not allowed, as custom items are not allowed, and ergo custom animal tricks are not allowed. Could you please confirm or deny what he said? Heck, would this even require a trick, or could I "communicate" that intent by guiding with my knees?

tl;dr: In Pathfinder Society, are you allowed to train an animal to do tricks not on the handle animal trick list?

EDIT: Would giving it a point in Linguistics to have it understand Common make any difference?

As someone who plays PFS with a character who also has SWA, I'll offer some data points:

1. You cannot teach an animal uncommon tricks in PFS. You are limited to what's on the list.

2. Technically, per either a FAQ or the Ultimate Campaign, an animal companion is controlled by the GM. The character commands it and the GM decides how the animal responds. Keep in mind, the GM is suppose to take into account the animals relationship and past activities. For example, if the character always orders the animal to attack the same creature the PC is attacking, it's reasonable for the GM to have the animal companion do this without being commanded to do it.

However, in PFS, it's often not possible for a GM to know the history of an animal. Since PFS is an honor system, your GM should be willing to accept your oral account of how you typically use the animal. If your typical GMs are not as accommodating, I'd recommend that you write down on your character sheet what you consider to be typical behavior for your animal.

That having been said, I don't think I've ever had a PFS GM run animal companions they way they are suppose to be run. 100% of the PFS GMs I've had simply let the player control the companion. The point is that with regards to the companion, the GM always has the right to determine the animal's actions.

3. Since your animal has a 3 INT and you can speak with it, there's no specific restriction on what the animal could or could not do. However, I think that the rules state that a 3 INT animal should still be treated as a smart animal instead of a dumb human. In other words, it's very possible the animal could perform a complex action that is not a defined trick. But this is entirely GM discretion. You're at the mercy of what your GM thinks is reasonable and within the spirit of the rules. So to put it another way, expect table variation. I highly recommend that if you anticipate or like to do non-standard things, work it out with your GM before the scenario starts so that you two are on the same page about what it means to have a smart animal and to be able to speak with.

As a data point, I've done lot of fun things as a ranger with Wild Empathy and a SWA wand. I once convinced a pelican to carry some magical wands in its beak and meet me on an island within sight and I've had rats scout out sewers for me. The thing to keep in mind, however, is every GM will have some arbitrary point at which they think what you're doing is giving you an unfair advantage. When you run into that obstacle, recognize it and honor that as a boundary.

Hope that helps.

[Kalindlara]

N N 959 wrote:

2. Technically, per either a FAQ or the Ultimate Campaign, an animal companion is controlled by the GM. The character commands it and the GM decides how the animal responds. Keep in mind, the GM is suppose to take into account the animals relationship and past activities. For example, if the character always order the animal to attack the same creature the PC is attacking, it's reasonable for the GM to have the animal companion do this without being commanded to do it.

However, in PFS, it's often not possible for a GM to know the history of an animal. Since PFS is an honor system, your GM should be willing to accept your oral account of how you typically use the animal. If your typical GMs are not as accommodating, I'd recommend that you write down on your character sheet what you consider to be typical behavior for your animal.

That having been said, I don't think I've ever had a PFS GM run animal companions they way they are suppose to be run. 100% of the PFS GMs I've had simply let the player control the companion. The point is that with regards to the companion, the GM always has the right to determine the animal's actions.

Do you have an official link for this, or where it's found in the rules, etc.?

(I want to have something to show players when I do this.)

[Luthorne]

Kalindlara wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

2. Technically, per either a FAQ or the Ultimate Campaign, an animal companion is controlled by the GM. The character commands it and the GM decides how the animal responds. Keep in mind, the GM is suppose to take into account the animals relationship and past activities. For example, if the character always order the animal to attack the same creature the PC is attacking, it's reasonable for the GM to have the animal companion do this without being commanded to do it.

However, in PFS, it's often not possible for a GM to know the history of an animal. Since PFS is an honor system, your GM should be willing to accept your oral account of how you typically use the animal. If your typical GMs are not as accommodating, I'd recommend that you write down on your character sheet what you consider to be typical behavior for your animal.

That having been said, I don't think I've ever had a PFS GM run animal companions they way they are suppose to be run. 100% of the PFS GMs I've had simply let the player control the companion. The point is that with regards to the companion, the GM always has the right to determine the animal's actions.

Do you have an official link for this, or where it's found in the rules, etc.?

(I want to have something to show players when I do this.)

It's listed here, I believe.

Ultimate Campaign wrote:

Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can't make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they're GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.

[N N 959]

This might also help:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fq#v5748eaic9qya

Pathfinder Society FAQ wrote:

How can I create new tricks to train to my animal companion?

New tricks require mechanics. Because it requires a GM to basically create the rules for something that doesn’t already exist, you can’t create it in PFS. If the trick is listed somewhere (for example: the air walk spell), then you may take it.

posted August 2013 | back to top

GhostwheelX wrote:

EDIT: Would giving it a point in Linguistics to have it understand Common make any difference?

In the same FAQ

Pathfinder Society FAQ wrote:

Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?

No. An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy), or activate magic devices. Also note that raising an animal companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher does not eliminate the need to make Handle Animal checks to direct its actions; even semi-intelligent animals still act like animals unless trained not to. An animal with Intelligence of 3 or higher remains a creature of the animal type unless its type is specifically changed by another ability. An animal may learn 3 additional tricks per point of Intelligence above 2.

[N N 959]

Kalindlara wrote:

Do you have an official link for this, or where it's found in the rules, etc.?

(I want to have something to show players when I do this.)

When I played in a home game, I actually wanted the GM to do this. But in PFS, not so much. I'd highly recommend that if you plan on doing this that you tell the players at the start of the scenario and discuss how you want it to work.

You may find that taking control of a player's animal companion might trigger a negative reaction from some playersrs, especially if they've never had another GM do it. An alternative is to have them tell you what they want to do and you tell them whether that's going to work or not. Essentially it accomplishes the same thing, but without the player feeling like his or her companion is now an NPC they have to negotiate with.

[Ashram]

To be fair about the whole bane and wielded weapons bit, the esoteric magus archetype specifies that they can use arcane pool to enchant their unarmed strikes as if they were manufactured weapons. Using that line of logic, a standard magus would not be able to do that as it does not say they can (They can, however, wear a gauntlet and use arcane pool on that.) Instead, standard magus' arcane pool says, "Any weapon he is holding".

This example can be applied to the inquisitor as well.

[Kalindlara]

If the inquisitor says "any weapon he is holding"... then yeah, that's an entirely different cup of meat. Maybe I'll check when I'm back at my computer. Or I'll completely forget.

[Rysky]

Ashram wrote:

To be fair about the whole bane and wielded weapons bit, the esoteric magus archetype specifies that they can use arcane pool to enchant their unarmed strikes as if they were manufactured weapons. Using that line of logic, a standard magus would not be able to do that as it does not say they can (They can, however, wear a gauntlet and use arcane pool on that.) Instead, standard magus' arcane pool says, "Any weapon he is holding".

This example can be applied to the inquisitor as well.

The thing with that though is the standard Magus Arcane Pool specifically says holding, rather than wielding. Yeah...

Edit: lol, ninjaed by Kali while I was looking it up :3

[Rysky]

Kalindlara wrote:

If the inquisitor says "any weapon he is holding"... then yeah, that's an entirely different cup of meat. Maybe I'll check when I'm back at my computer. Or I'll completely forget.

The Bane ability just says "can imbue one of her weapons with the Bane" and then later says "This ability only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon".

So no holding, just have to A) be an Inquisitor's weapon and B) currently wielded by said Inquisitor.

IUS meets that criteria.

[Tels]

So... Horror Adventures is out in people's hands...
Lets just say I murdered an orphanage full of children and then raised them all for my undead army. Once done, as a wizard, I then cast Protection from Evil... say 5 times, using up 2nd level slots, just to be sure.

What alignment am I?

[Rysky]

Tels wrote:

So... Horror Adventures is out in people's hands...

Lets just say I murdered an orphanage full of children and then raised them all for my undead army. Once done, as a wizard, I then cast Protection from Evil... say 5 times, using up 2nd level slots, just to be sure.

What alignment am I?

B!!~%+# Crazy.

[Tels]

Rysky wrote:

Tels wrote:

So... Horror Adventures is out in people's hands...

Lets just say I murdered an orphanage full of children and then raised them all for my undead army. Once done, as a wizard, I then cast Protection from Evil... say 5 times, using up 2nd level slots, just to be sure.

What alignment am I?

B!!$+~! Crazy.

I ask, because it seems they hard coded in rules for how spells with an alignment descriptor affect the caster. 2 evil spells makes you non-good, and 3 evil spells in a short enough time period makes you evil. Apparently, the opposite is true. So cast 3 good spells and become good.

I have to wonder, what's the whole point of the redemption theme in Wrath of the Righteous again? I mean, these rules are better than a Catholic confession because you don't have to list every sin.

[Rysky]

Tels wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Tels wrote:

So... Horror Adventures is out in people's hands...

Lets just say I murdered an orphanage full of children and then raised them all for my undead army. Once done, as a wizard, I then cast Protection from Evil... say 5 times, using up 2nd level slots, just to be sure.

What alignment am I?

B!!$+~! Crazy.

I ask, because it seems they hard coded in rules for how spells with an alignment descriptor affect the caster. 2 evil spells makes you non-good, and 3 evil spells in a short enough time period makes you evil. Apparently, the opposite is true. So cast 3 good spells and become good.

I have to wonder, what's the whole point of the redemption theme in Wrath of the Righteous again? I mean, these rules are better than a Catholic confession because you don't have to list every sin.

Because maybe the people needing the redemption rules don't have access to spells that forcefully change your alignment?

[Tels]

Rysky wrote:

Tels wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Tels wrote:

So... Horror Adventures is out in people's hands...

Lets just say I murdered an orphanage full of children and then raised them all for my undead army. Once done, as a wizard, I then cast Protection from Evil... say 5 times, using up 2nd level slots, just to be sure.

What alignment am I?

B!!$+~! Crazy.

I ask, because it seems they hard coded in rules for how spells with an alignment descriptor affect the caster. 2 evil spells makes you non-good, and 3 evil spells in a short enough time period makes you evil. Apparently, the opposite is true. So cast 3 good spells and become good.

I have to wonder, what's the whole point of the redemption theme in Wrath of the Righteous again? I mean, these rules are better than a Catholic confession because you don't have to list every sin.

Because maybe the people needing the redemption rules don't have access to spells that forcefully change your alignment?

Buy a wand and go to town activating it. It's not like it will explode if you fail.

[Rysky]

Tels wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Tels wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Tels wrote:

So... Horror Adventures is out in people's hands...

Lets just say I murdered an orphanage full of children and then raised them all for my undead army. Once done, as a wizard, I then cast Protection from Evil... say 5 times, using up 2nd level slots, just to be sure.

What alignment am I?

B!!$+~! Crazy.

I ask, because it seems they hard coded in rules for how spells with an alignment descriptor affect the caster. 2 evil spells makes you non-good, and 3 evil spells in a short enough time period makes you evil. Apparently, the opposite is true. So cast 3 good spells and become good.

I have to wonder, what's the whole point of the redemption theme in Wrath of the Righteous again? I mean, these rules are better than a Catholic confession because you don't have to list every sin.

Because maybe the people needing the redemption rules don't have access to spells that forcefully change your alignment?

Buy a wand and go to town activating it. It's not like it will explode if you fail.

*shrugs*

You can do that, but not everyone probably would. Just like his in RL most people are hesitant to use medication that affects their mindset even if they're in a better state if they do so.