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


Off-Topic Discussions

5,751 to 5,800 of 6,833 << first < prev | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adding to the above questions regarding knowledge checks, what do you learn on a successful one? What is considered a useful bit of information? The name? Resistances? DR? Weaknesses? In different circumstances each of those is useful.
And how do you determine which useful bit of information is known?
Arbitrarily by GM? GM deciding what is most useful? GM asking PC what they wish to know?
I've had GMs do each of those.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hope I'm not out of line on asking for a clarification here. :)
Is it possible, as per RAW, to add fiery and acid enchantments on the same +1 weapon, making it an effective +3 enchanted weapon?
Thanks.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As was stated in the other thread, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from being put on the same weapon.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
As was stated in the other thread, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from being put on the same weapon.

It is still being debated on that thread (and got derailed about activation, classes, and another magic item), so I decided to post the question to Mark hoping to get a more definitive answer. My apologies if doing so isn't appropriate use of the forums. :( Next time I'll just post here instead.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, you're fine, I just posted on reflex, my apologies.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:

I was recently pursuing the rule set looking for blood magic options (I even set up a thread to elicit options I may have missed). I could not find many options where an opponent's blood could be used against them. Besides scrying, blood biography, nightmare and ganji dolls I could not find any.

Using a bit of the blood of your enemies to power your magic against them has a long history in fantasy. Are there any plans to expand blood magic beyond the bloat mage stuff to include using the blood of your enemies against them? (Perhaps similar to the ganji dolls effects, but built into feats, spells, or archetype)

Or perhaps something like this already exists and my search foo is terribe.

I think you found most of them. They're definitely a pretty cool feature of legends and myths, though if you wanted to use them more generally for magic, I'd recommend doing something like lowering the DC of magic across the board and then allowing things like blood and hair to raise them, since DCs against weak saves tend to be problematically high as it is, which is probably the reason why there's a limited number of spells that use that mechanic right now.

As for future plans, if we have them and I know about it, I couldn't tell you, but honestly there's a lot of stuff I don't know about too!

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

Apologies in advance for bringing up K. Checks. With that out of the way....

1. Do the rules for K. checks say that once we identify a creature, we can always identify any creatures of that type without rolling again?

2. If not, and I have to roll a K. check every time I encounter a monster to ID it, then if I encounter three monsters of the same type, I can make a knowledge check against each one...or I roll once and automatically identify them all?

The rules definitely do not say that once you identify a creature you can always identify them without rolling again, and indeed, a strict reading (not recommended) is going to give you situations reminiscent of the one you describe (or like, you ID a wyrmling dragon but have no clue what the mother is).

It comes down to the fact that Knowledge checks conflate two distinct but important concepts about human learning and memory: First, did I ever know this. Second, do I remember it right now when I need it. As the former president of MIT's trivia-contest team, these are both important questions to ask, and they can influence the way you play Knowledge checks to make a bit more sense if you try to separate them a bit (for instance, "Did I ever know this" is what tends to prevent retries without consulting reference material). The way our group tends to do it is to have the PC or NPC roll once for all the same kind of monster to see what they know. Then we'll use that information unless they try to hit the books for more, or stop dealing with those guys for a while (and then check to see if and what they remember that time). Even if they fail it later on, it'll be like in a trivia competition where the one person might be like "Shoot, shoot. I know this, but I'm blanking!" and then if they look it up again or it comes up in play, they'll be like "Right, darn it, I should have had that." rather than "I have never heard of this before in my life."

To answer the follow-up question to this on the next page, our group tends to use taxonomy a little bit. So to start off, you get creature type and subtype and any useful info from that (which could be quite a lot of facts). Next comes abilities that would be most salient if you were actually in-world and dealing with that creature, but not in any particular order like attacks before defenses. For instance, a red dragon's fire breath attack is clearly the most salient and memorable of its abilities, and that's an attack, but for a troll, it would be its regeneration overcome by fire and acid, which is a defense. We might also skew based on the character's background and knowledge sources, especially if it's close.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ckdragons wrote:

Hope I'm not out of line on asking for a clarification here. :)

Is it possible, as per RAW, to add fiery and acid enchantments on the same +1 weapon, making it an effective +3 enchanted weapon?
Thanks.

Not out of line at all; this is a perfectly good place to ask! :)

Usually it's best to come to a group decision on a ruling rather than try to completely stick with the exact wording, so I try to answer here based on my group's decisions or the readings I find compelling in the text (and there are often several for tough questions, not just one). Technically by the strictest and most overly literal stickler reading of the rules (which again I don't recommend because it tends to be pedantic, like the rest of this sentence after the parentheses), the fiery and acid enhancements don't exist. But anyways, silly as-written jokes aside, I'd say you can totally put both flaming and corrosive on the same weapon.

Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ Friday strikes again!

FAQ wrote:

Dim Light: When an ability requires a character to be near shadows or an area of dim light (like the shadowdancer’s shadow jump or hide in plain sight), how does that interact with low-light vision, darkvision, and the like?

While it’s true that most creatures in the game have low-light vision or darkvision, when the rules talk about being in or near an objective light level (for example “in an area of dim light”), they always refer to the state of light and darkness from the perspective of normal vision, like a human. The exceptions, effects that depend on an observing creature’s perspective, such as the heavens shaman’s enveloping darkness ability, call this out with text indicating that the ability alters or depends on that creature’s perspective, rather than the overall light level.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a special FAQ just for me! :D


Mark Seifter wrote:
The way our group tends to do it is to have the PC or NPC roll once for all the same kind of monster to see what they know.

First, thank you for responding to my question. Second, I am asking this from a PFS perspective, so I'm looking for a rules rigorous understanding. As such let me ask the question from a different perspective. I am trying to understand the nature of the what is occurring with monster ID checks. I agree that the typical K check is a conflation of the two things you covered. However, Monster ID checks seem to conflate a third axis:

Do I recognize what it is I am fighting right now?

To rephrase that as a question,

Can a character, per the rules, roll a K. Check for each creature encountered?

For example, let's say the party had to clear out a crypt where some ghouls and ghasts are on the loose. The party encounters three such creatures. Does ID'ing one ghoul allow you to instantly know whether the other undead are ghouls in that encounter? Or do the rules require that you roll separately to identify each creature, regardless of type? Granted, even if you fail the check, characters are still entitled to go by the IC descriptions.

Based on your response, it seems your group assumes auto-identification of all identical-typed creatures with one K. check. However, you stated this:

Quote:
or stop dealing with those guys for a while

It doesn't seem that the rules contemplate this as there doesn't seem to be any language that suggests having to roll versus a previous ID'd type is predicated on when/how often you've encountered the creature.

While I completely understand how k. checks work outside of monster ID's, it feels like there is some contradiction with monster ID's and I'm trying to sort it out based on the rules as written, so I appreciate your continued input.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd tie in recognizing with remembering (like in a picture round of a trivia contest where you are IDing artwork and artists). However, PFS adds in an entirely other can of worms to your situation as well, which is that you don't have a consistent group of players and GM each time. Honestly, even with my home group's preferred solution, there's enough judgment calls involved that it varies, so for PFS, by necessity, it'll need to vary. As long as GMs aren't trying to play evil genie by giving clearly non-pertinent information a la "Five facts about Shasalqu huh? Alright, well a group of them is called a cluster, a typical shasalqu weighs about 40 pounds, they live in warm deserts, they frequently keep multiple dens within their territory and rotate between them, and they don't usually have treasure." it should be OK.


AWESOME FAQ~! :D


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
when the rules talk about being in or near an objective light level (for example “in an area of dim light”), they always refer to the state of light and darkness from the perspective of normal vision, like a human.

speciest human writers... :)


*smile*

I sense you're anticipating the questions are aimed at attempting to make sure a player gets useful information. I only bring up PFS to emphasis that I am looking for an objective interpretation of the rules. My confusion is only with regards to whether a character gets a chance to/is entitled/is required to ID each monster as an individual or can only ID them as a type/group.

To rephrase it again, if you fail to identify the the first monster, do you get a chance to identify the second one if they are both the same type?

Or,

If I am understanding your response correctly, your group plays it along the lines of recognizing, but not remembering i.e. your artwork example, failing the check means you've seen the painting, but you don't remember what it's called. So this suggests that characters can always distinguish types, and it's just a question of what you remember?

If this is what the rules state, then it mandates that characters are never confused as to whether something is a wolf or a coyote, they just don't remember the differences between them. Would that be an accurate way to interpret the rules?

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
when the rules talk about being in or near an objective light level (for example “in an area of dim light”), they always refer to the state of light and darkness from the perspective of normal vision, like a human.
speciest human writers... :)

Starfinder, where it moves away from this with all those aliens, can get kind of complicated for us humans. But I think it should be a good thing!

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

*smile*

I sense you're anticipating the questions are aimed at attempting to make sure a player gets useful information. I only bring up PFS to emphasis that I am looking for an objective interpretation of the rules. My confusion is only with regards to whether a character gets a chance to/is entitled/is required to ID each monster as an individual or can only ID them as a type/group.

To rephrase it again, if you fail to identify the the first monster, do you get a chance to identify the second one if they are both the same type?

Or,

If I am understanding your response correctly, your group plays it along the lines of recognizing, but not remembering i.e. your artwork example, failing the check means you've seen the painting, but you don't remember what it's called. So this suggests that characters can always distinguish types, and it's just a question of what you remember?

If this is what the rules state, then it mandates that characters are never confused as to whether something is a wolf or a coyote, they just don't remember the differences between them. Would that be an accurate way to interpret the rules?

I'd say that the painting analogy where you can't remember the name also extends to not remembering the name of the monster as a possibility, or getting a near-miss misidentification. For example, and I won't link the pictures because one of the them is a bit risque, Sunday Afternoon on the Island of the Grand Jatte has a lot of people lounging around on the grass, so I've heard it misidentified as Luncheon on the Grass before. Another one that can happen is Manet vs Monet, both French impressionists with almost the same name. Since Manet painted Luncheon on the Grass, you can sometimes even see both of those mistakes at the same time.

Nonetheless, I'd agree that you'd roll once for the group of them, applying the knowledge (or failure to achieve it) to all of them. But again, all these are the way my group plays it. It leads to a harmonious game experience for us, but the rules themselves are too vague to prescribe any of these suggestions as a strict objective interpretation of the rules. Almost everything I've seen GMs run in PFS (which varies wildly) seems to fit within the broad possibilities in the rules; the only time I've seen GMs who were clearly violating the rules, it was always in the players favor (giving way more facts than the skill said, whichever way you shake 'fact' or just handing over the Bestiary entry).


Well, at the risk of asking for too much, I would suggest perhaps adding a K. check FAQ to make it clear that a K. check applies to all the creatures of the same type in an encounter. The language seems to imply that you need to identify each individual monster and it's not clear that one check is applicable to all the creatures of that type in any given encounter.

Mark Seifter wrote:
it was always in the players favor (giving way more facts than the skill said, whichever way you shake 'fact' or just handing over the Bestiary entry).

Yes, I wish the rules were more robust on what is provided, but fortunately I was not seeking any clarification on that part of it.

However, if Paizo ever gets around to hammering this out, I think a successful ID should include all the mundane stats. For example, successfully ID'ing a goblin vs a dragon should tell you the comparative Hit Dice/CR, Armor Class, whether it has reach, and how far it moves, whether it can fly via wings, etc.

I recall a few 3.5 books provided K. check info and it was totally along the lines of accurate gossip. While I can understand the RP intent, it provided almost no function/actionable information. IMO, K. checks at the highest levels of success should be tantamount to Gandalf telling whoever it was about the hole in the dragon's armor sufficient for an arrow to pierce its heart. i think the game should encourage and reward characters to invest in their K checks so that that they might get information that could win the encounter/save a life. A rigorous rule that mandates such information would achieve that.

Certainly interested to hear your thoughts about how useful K. Checks should be for combat and why 3.5 and Paizo seem unwilling to really iron this out?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wonder if there's a way to tweak knowledge skill checks to get "known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns" as results.

Like:

Known known: that's a red dragon, it breathes fire.
Unknown known: ummm, not sure what it is, but fire breath! Something about fire breath!
Known unknowns: well, it's clearly a dragon, but I couldn't tell you if it can even... oh. Yes, it can fly.
Unknown unknown: OMG! Flappy lizard bird! How cute!


Hooray for Optionmas! I have received the gift of the Elemental Purist, which I am very pleased about.

Question about that though (although I don't know how much hand you had in designing the archetype). The Elemental Impossibility alternate feature replaces Expanded Element and 2 infusions with this:

Elemental Impossiblity wrote:
At 7th level, an elemental purist learns one composite blast as if she had an expanded element that matched her primary element. In addition, she learns one impossible infusion

(plus three more impossible infusions at 11, 15, and 19)

by this wording, you do not gain the second simple blast of your element (if it had one) but you DO gain the composite you would have gained had you gained that second simple blast. Is this the correct interpretation or was this an oversight? It seems kinda weird for me to create a thunderstorm blast when I can't create an air blast, but I can see how this can be a balancing feature since having both a simple physical and energy blast with impossible infusions can get really crazy really quick (empowered disintegrating chained blue flame blasts anyone? -- not that this example is actually relevant)

Thanks as always :)


Follow-up question!

Would an Impossible Infusion that has text that specifically refers to specific types of blasts or damage keep that text when being impossibly infused? For example, Chilling Infusion says

Chilling Infusion wrote:
Whenever an infused blast deals cold damage to a foe, that foe is staggered for 1 round.

-- would this mean that if I used impossibly infused a fire blast with chilling infusion, that the fire blast wouldn't stagger anything because it would not deal cold damage?

Similarly, could you use Impossible Infusions to ignore other activation requirements, such as with Grappling Infusion which requires a Wall, Cloud, or Deadly Earth infusion, or would those requirements prevent you from Impossibly Infusing your blasts (unless you also infused them with a Wall, Cloud, or Deadly Earth infusion)?

Dark Archive

How does the level 15 swashbuckler ability "Dizzying Defense" work?

Spoilered for copy:
Dizzying Defense (Ex): At 15th level, while wielding a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon in one hand, the swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to take the fighting defensively action as a swift action instead of a standard action. When fighting defensively in this manner, the dodge bonus to AC gained from that action increases to +4, and the penalty to attack rolls is reduced to –2

Does the swift action give you an extra, defensive attack?
Does it let you get off a full-attack then go defensive?


Hey there Mr Seifter! How's your day going?

I've got a question for you, that's kind of buzzing in my head as I try to build a character. I'm currently working on an Eidolon for a Fey Caller Unchained Summoner and I came across something annoying to my build! See, I was looking at taking the tail evolution, but having a tail appears to be restricted to agathion, daemon, demon, devil, div, elemental, protean, or psychopomp subtypes.

This made me sad because my Eidolon is a fey and the creature I am trying to emulate (A Huldra), requires needing the Tail Slap as well as a Slam.

Do you happen to know why this evolution is locked behind a subtype? Is there possibly any thought on opening it up to more subtypes that have been added (Such as the Fey and Ancestor Subtypes)? Would you think it is within intent that a Fey Eidolon could take it?


The "summon" SLA that outsiders have is said to be like the "summon monster" spells, but at the same time it doesn't specifically say that it requires a 1 round casting time.

Does it require a 1 round casting time or a standard action?


wraithstrike wrote:

The "summon" SLA that outsiders have is said to be like the "summon monster" spells, but at the same time it doesn't specifically say that it requires a 1 round casting time.

Does it require a 1 round casting time or a standard action?

"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description."

So since the SLA is of a spell it uses the spells casting time.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

Well, at the risk of asking for too much, I would suggest perhaps adding a K. check FAQ to make it clear that a K. check applies to all the creatures of the same type in an encounter. The language seems to imply that you need to identify each individual monster and it's not clear that one check is applicable to all the creatures of that type in any given encounter.

Mark Seifter wrote:
it was always in the players favor (giving way more facts than the skill said, whichever way you shake 'fact' or just handing over the Bestiary entry).

Yes, I wish the rules were more robust on what is provided, but fortunately I was not seeking any clarification on that part of it.

However, if Paizo ever gets around to hammering this out, I think a successful ID should include all the mundane stats. For example, successfully ID'ing a goblin vs a dragon should tell you the comparative Hit Dice/CR, Armor Class, whether it has reach, and how far it moves, whether it can fly via wings, etc.

I recall a few 3.5 books provided K. check info and it was totally along the lines of accurate gossip. While I can understand the RP intent, it provided almost no function/actionable information. IMO, K. checks at the highest levels of success should be tantamount to Gandalf telling whoever it was about the hole in the dragon's armor sufficient for an arrow to pierce its heart. i think the game should encourage and reward characters to invest in their K checks so that that they might get information that could win the encounter/save a life. A rigorous rule that mandates such information would achieve that.

Certainly interested to hear your thoughts about how useful K. Checks should be for combat and why 3.5 and Paizo seem unwilling to really iron this out?

Yeah, I'm kind of a fan of the "Gandalf tells you about the hole" and I had this idea for monsters having special weakness abilities that are only unlocked by the character hitting the Knowledge check (so like, even if the player is metagaming and knows that hole exists, it doesn't help unless someone makes the DC in character) but it's pretty complicated and wouldn't really fit in a monster statblock. Still, it could be a fun houserule to use. As to codifying exactly what info you get, I think the problem is that there's too many situations where certain facts would be more salient than others (to use your example, I think it would be bizarre if someone knew for sure a troll's move speed before knowing about its regeneration), so it's probably something best left to individual discretion.

As for a FAQ, while I've often seen questions about how and which info to give, I have to say I've rarely seen questions about how many checks for a group of several creatures (not that I've never seen then, but not as often) and certainly I haven't noticed any that had too many FAQ clicks.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

I wonder if there's a way to tweak knowledge skill checks to get "known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns" as results.

Like:

Known known: that's a red dragon, it breathes fire.
Unknown known: ummm, not sure what it is, but fire breath! Something about fire breath!
Known unknowns: well, it's clearly a dragon, but I couldn't tell you if it can even... oh. Yes, it can fly.
Unknown unknown: OMG! Flappy lizard bird! How cute!

The hardest ones to separate out are the unknown known and the known unknown (especially since the known unknown, just having the label with no info, doesn't really help you plan in character and if anything only gives veteran players metagame info their characters don't have that they need to pretend they didn't know), but the current Knowledge system kind of sort of separates into the three groups with those collapsed with the Failure, Success, Success+5X way it works. If there was an easy way to handle separating known unknown and unknown known, one way to make known unknown useful in character is that if another character got unknown known, having the known unknown character call out the name might give them a chance to get more info like a known known now that their ally sparked their memory on the name.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Renkosuke wrote:

Hooray for Optionmas! I have received the gift of the Elemental Purist, which I am very pleased about.

Question about that though (although I don't know how much hand you had in designing the archetype). The Elemental Impossibility alternate feature replaces Expanded Element and 2 infusions with this:

Elemental Impossiblity wrote:
At 7th level, an elemental purist learns one composite blast as if she had an expanded element that matched her primary element. In addition, she learns one impossible infusion

(plus three more impossible infusions at 11, 15, and 19)

by this wording, you do not gain the second simple blast of your element (if it had one) but you DO gain the composite you would have gained had you gained that second simple blast. Is this the correct interpretation or was this an oversight? It seems kinda weird for me to create a thunderstorm blast when I can't create an air blast, but I can see how this can be a balancing feature since having both a simple physical and energy blast with impossible infusions can get really crazy really quick (empowered disintegrating chained blue flame blasts anyone? -- not that this example is actually relevant)

Thanks as always :)

I believe that's the correct interpretation from my reading. But yeah, disintegrating blue flame blasts are really effective. John took up a very difficult design task (a single element archetype for a class where single element was already often a very powerful build, and the most powerful for some characters) and succeeded with panache, leading to an archetype I definitely want to play sometimes for single-element kineticists (aforementioned combo included!) but that doesn't throw single-element non-purists in the dust with a direct upgrade must-have choice (and thus, since they were generally on par with the single-element kineticists, drastically reduce multi-element kineticists as well).

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Renkosuke wrote:

Follow-up question!

Would an Impossible Infusion that has text that specifically refers to specific types of blasts or damage keep that text when being impossibly infused? For example, Chilling Infusion says

Chilling Infusion wrote:
Whenever an infused blast deals cold damage to a foe, that foe is staggered for 1 round.

-- would this mean that if I used impossibly infused a fire blast with chilling infusion, that the fire blast wouldn't stagger anything because it would not deal cold damage?

Similarly, could you use Impossible Infusions to ignore other activation requirements, such as with Grappling Infusion which requires a Wall, Cloud, or Deadly Earth infusion, or would those requirements prevent you from Impossibly Infusing your blasts (unless you also infused them with a Wall, Cloud, or Deadly Earth infusion)?

I just checked with John on this to make sure he agreed, and you should be OK to replace deals XXold-damage with XXnew-damage whenever you are using an infusion meant for blasts that deal old-damage but actually deal new-damage, as long as you substitute energy for energy and physical for physical.

As to other activation requirements, those are still in there.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ectar wrote:

How does the level 15 swashbuckler ability "Dizzying Defense" work?

** spoiler omitted **

Does the swift action give you an extra, defensive attack?
Does it let you get off a full-attack then go defensive?

As far as I can tell based on the organization of the CRB, normally fighting defensively is something you do as a subset of either the attack (standard) or full attack (full-round) actions. It seems like Dizzying Defense is something you throw on at the beginning of the round as a swift to get a superior trade-off, and then you make your attacks that round as usual, though the wording is odd enough that I'm not certain, and that doesn't really answer what happens if you use that swift action and then do something else with your round afterwards, other than attacking. It probably would have been cleaner to just say that whenever you fight defensively, you take only a -2 penalty and gain +4 AC.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
IMO, K. checks at the highest levels of success should be tantamount to Gandalf telling whoever it was about the hole in the dragon's armor sufficient for an arrow to pierce its heart.

That wasn't Gandalf in the book. Rather, it was literally a little birdie that told Bard about the gap in Smaug's armor.

Tolkien would sometimes incorporate anything and everything into his stories... including common turns of phrase.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TrinitysEnd wrote:

Hey there Mr Seifter! How's your day going?

I've got a question for you, that's kind of buzzing in my head as I try to build a character. I'm currently working on an Eidolon for a Fey Caller Unchained Summoner and I came across something annoying to my build! See, I was looking at taking the tail evolution, but having a tail appears to be restricted to agathion, daemon, demon, devil, div, elemental, protean, or psychopomp subtypes.

This made me sad because my Eidolon is a fey and the creature I am trying to emulate (A Huldra), requires needing the Tail Slap as well as a Slam.

Do you happen to know why this evolution is locked behind a subtype? Is there possibly any thought on opening it up to more subtypes that have been added (Such as the Fey and Ancestor Subtypes)? Would you think it is within intent that a Fey Eidolon could take it?

My day's going OK. Pretty Monday, but that's alright.

I'd say, and it's not official, but I did work on the section with the fey caller, that if the evo is on a really long list like that, it was probably mostly just restricted from a few of them that shouldn't have tails (like inevitables), so allowing it for fey would make sense, and they're not really an overwhelming option, so you're at no balance risk for doing this. You probably shouldn't allow anything else for ancestor, though, since it replaces the defense/flavor abilities the Unchained eidolon baked in to ensure a mixture of offense/defense flavor for significantly more "evolution points" worth of benefits and almost all in offense (except the sorcerer ancestor), so it really doesn't need any additional help (and may want some reining in if you had any trouble with the chained summoner's eidolon).

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

The "summon" SLA that outsiders have is said to be like the "summon monster" spells, but at the same time it doesn't specifically say that it requires a 1 round casting time.

Does it require a 1 round casting time or a standard action?

Agreed with Thomas, the general SLA rules say standard unless it's as a spell that says otherwise or the ability says otherwise, and this looks like a spell that says otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:
...truncated...

My day's going OK. Pretty Monday, but that's alright.

I'd say, and it's not official, but I did work on the section with the fey caller, that if the evo is on a really long list like that, it was probably mostly just restricted from a few of them that shouldn't have tails (like inevitables), so allowing it for fey would make sense, and they're not really an overwhelming option, so you're at no balance risk for doing this. You probably shouldn't allow anything else for ancestor, though, since it replaces the defense/flavor abilities the Unchained eidolon baked in to ensure a mixture of offense/defense flavor for significantly more "evolution points" worth of benefits and almost all in offense (except the sorcerer ancestor), so it really doesn't need any additional help (and may want some reining in if you had any trouble with the chained summoner's eidolon).

Thank you for the quick response! And that makes sense, I will be discussing this with my group of GMs for my own little kind-of "Mini PFS" that I made.

Another question for you, it was recently brought to my attention again about Efficient Quiver. This a very helpful item for just about anyone, and not just Archers. But the question is raised, can you store arrows in the larger compartments? If so, how many can you store in each? Would it still work as intended for the arrow section, as in you can still draw them normally and get the one you want?

Link for convenience.

Thank you once again!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi Mark, a certain recently sanctioned option for PFS grants this ability:

Feymarked (Ex):
Upon death, a feysworn is immediately resurrected and transported to a location on the First World sacred to the Eldest the feysworn worships (at the GM’s discretion, the feysworn may be reincarnated instead).

Does this effectively mean that a for a feysworn the cost of death in PFS effectively becomes a plane shift and a restoration? Since you are resurrected and then transported, does this mean that you are resurrected in your original body and then transported with all your gear?

Second unrelated question:
Can you make a domain spell into a preferred spell (linked), and thereafter use non-domain spells to cast that particular domain spell?

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FiddlersGreen wrote:

Hi Mark, a certain recently sanctioned option for PFS grants this ability:

** spoiler omitted **
Does this effectively mean that a for a feysworn the cost of death in PFS effectively becomes a plane shift and a restoration? Since you are resurrected and then transported, does this mean that you are resurrected in your original body and then transported with all your gear?

Second unrelated question:
Can you make a domain spell into a preferred spell (linked), and thereafter use non-domain spells to cast that particular domain spell?

First (World) Question: While I don't know anything 100%, I'd probably wait until the corresponding Campaign Clarifications document goes up (which are usually released together but this time seem to have been separated much more than usual temporally) before declaring anything definitive. That seems like something they would clarify, since the Eldest toying with you as a plaything is so GM discretion.

Second: It doesn't say it removes other restrictions you have on the spell, so it puts it in a grey area. What seems like it might happen from the direct interaction without the explicit removal of the restriction is that you can cast it spontaneously but can still only use domain slots to do so, so you wind up more like shaman spirit magic where you can prep from the other domain and then switch to the Preferred Spell. We had an Urgathoan in one of my games who used to prep various forms of enervation in pretty much all her 4+ domain slots, so that would be an effective tactic for her, for instance.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TrinitysEnd wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
TrinitysEnd wrote:
...truncated...

My day's going OK. Pretty Monday, but that's alright.

I'd say, and it's not official, but I did work on the section with the fey caller, that if the evo is on a really long list like that, it was probably mostly just restricted from a few of them that shouldn't have tails (like inevitables), so allowing it for fey would make sense, and they're not really an overwhelming option, so you're at no balance risk for doing this. You probably shouldn't allow anything else for ancestor, though, since it replaces the defense/flavor abilities the Unchained eidolon baked in to ensure a mixture of offense/defense flavor for significantly more "evolution points" worth of benefits and almost all in offense (except the sorcerer ancestor), so it really doesn't need any additional help (and may want some reining in if you had any trouble with the chained summoner's eidolon).

Thank you for the quick response! And that makes sense, I will be discussing this with my group of GMs for my own little kind-of "Mini PFS" that I made.

Another question for you, it was recently brought to my attention again about Efficient Quiver. This a very helpful item for just about anyone, and not just Archers. But the question is raised, can you store arrows in the larger compartments? If so, how many can you store in each? Would it still work as intended for the arrow section, as in you can still draw them normally and get the one you want?

Link for convenience.

Thank you once again!

It's definitely useful and not just for archers, but I'd say the item indicates that you have to store things of the rough size/shape as the compartment suggests, since it doesn't say "or smaller". That would mean you could fit other long javelin-like things in the javelin section but not smaller things like arrows (and similar for the bow section).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:

Hi Mark, a certain recently sanctioned option for PFS grants this ability:

** spoiler omitted **
Does this effectively mean that a for a feysworn the cost of death in PFS effectively becomes a plane shift and a restoration? Since you are resurrected and then transported, does this mean that you are resurrected in your original body and then transported with all your gear?

Second unrelated question:
Can you make a domain spell into a preferred spell (linked), and thereafter use non-domain spells to cast that particular domain spell?

First (World) Question: While I don't know anything 100%, I'd probably wait until the corresponding Campaign Clarifications document goes up (which are usually released together but this time seem to have been separated much more than usual temporally) before declaring anything definitive. That seems like something they would clarify, since the Eldest toying with you as a plaything is so GM discretion.

Second: It doesn't say it removes other restrictions you have on the spell, so it puts it in a grey area. What seems like it might happen from the direct interaction without the explicit removal of the restriction is that you can cast it spontaneously but can still only use domain slots to do so, so you wind up more like shaman spirit magic where you can prep from the other domain and then switch to the Preferred Spell. We had an Urgathoan in one of my games who used to prep various forms of enervation in pretty much all her 4+ domain slots, so that would be an effective tactic for her, for instance.

Thanks! Looking forward to the campaign clarification. =)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
...truncated...
TrinitysEnd wrote:


Thank you for the quick response! And that makes sense, I will be discussing this with my group of GMs for my own little kind-of "Mini PFS" that I made.

Another question for you, it was recently brought to my attention again about Efficient Quiver. This a very helpful item for just about anyone, and not just Archers. But the question is raised, can you store arrows in the larger compartments? If so, how many can you store in each? Would it still work as intended for the arrow section, as in you can still draw them normally and get the one you want?

Link for convenience.

Thank you once again!

It's definitely useful and not just for archers, but I'd say the item indicates that you have to store things of the rough size/shape as the compartment suggests, since it doesn't say "or smaller". That would mean you could fit other long javelin-like things in the javelin section but not smaller things like arrows (and similar for the bow section).

Thank you once again! Now one last final question (At least for today)!

Is there a class/archetype that you've always wanted to play that isn't in Pathfinder? Or maybe something that is a class feature of another, but would love to base an archetype around? (As an example, a Kinetic Blade Focused Kineticist)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Renkosuke wrote:

Follow-up question!

Would an Impossible Infusion that has text that specifically refers to specific types of blasts or damage keep that text when being impossibly infused? For example, Chilling Infusion says

Chilling Infusion wrote:
Whenever an infused blast deals cold damage to a foe, that foe is staggered for 1 round.

-- would this mean that if I used impossibly infused a fire blast with chilling infusion, that the fire blast wouldn't stagger anything because it would not deal cold damage?

Similarly, could you use Impossible Infusions to ignore other activation requirements, such as with Grappling Infusion which requires a Wall, Cloud, or Deadly Earth infusion, or would those requirements prevent you from Impossibly Infusing your blasts (unless you also infused them with a Wall, Cloud, or Deadly Earth infusion)?

I just checked with John on this to make sure he agreed, and you should be OK to replace deals XXold-damage with XXnew-damage whenever you are using an infusion meant for blasts that deal old-damage but actually deal new-damage, as long as you substitute energy for energy and physical for physical.

As to other activation requirements, those are still in there.

Thanks for checking this for me! Does this mean that if I use an impossible burning infusion with a cold blast, that the over-time damage would also be cold, or am I setting someone on fire with sheer cold?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TrinitysEnd wrote:

Thank you once again! Now one last final question (At least for today)!

Is there a class/archetype that you've always wanted to play that isn't in Pathfinder? Or maybe something that is a class feature of another, but would love to base an archetype around? (As an example, a Kinetic Blade Focused Kineticist)

I've wanted something like this for a long time, personally. I just built an oread phytokineticist around kinetic blade for PFS. (It didn't go well for my first scenario, but I'm hoping I can make it work with some adjustments.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a problem bothering me these weeks.

How does a Reach Cure Light Wounds work? Do I have to make ranged touch attack roll to heal my friend?

Reach Spell wrote:
You can alter a spell with a range of touch, close, or medium to increase its range to a higher range category, using the following order: touch, close, medium, and long....... Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

When cast CLW on my friend, there is no attack roll needed, so it seems that I don't need ranged touch attack to heal my friend with Reach CLW.

Though it is an auto-hit touch, i still have to touch my friend.

The problem behind is that what an attack is.
Is it an offensive action that gives effect that opponent what to resist?
Is it simply a mechanic that determine whether or not it is hit?

There is a thread discussing about this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The Rivethun Channeler archetype of the Medium in the Haunted Hero's Handbook raises a question about the Spirit Dancer archetype in the Advanced Class Guide. The description of the Rivethun Channeler has this statement:

"This functions exactly like the spirit dance ability of the spirit dancer medium archetype (Occult Adventures 94), except the rivethun spirit channeler doesn’t need to find an appropriate location to channel her spirits since she invites nearby spirits into her body instead of channeling a legend."

That statement implies that the Spirit Dancer does need to find an appropriate location for his séance -- but before this book came out, I assumed that location did not really matter for the Spirit Dancer either because he could hold his séance in any location from which he could channel any Medium spirit and that nearly all locations had access to at least one spirit. Was that assumption incorrect?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Chaokineticist) Would a negative energy blast have any effect on inanimate vegetation such as trees and bushes?

The Create Demiplane set of spells states etherealness as a way to enter the demiplane, how would this be accomplished ?

When using the Astral Projection spell to create a new body on another plane can you choose the location it's created ? Also can that body still use spells like teleport ?

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:

Hi Mark, a certain recently sanctioned option for PFS grants this ability:

** spoiler omitted **
Does this effectively mean that a for a feysworn the cost of death in PFS effectively becomes a plane shift and a restoration? Since you are resurrected and then transported, does this mean that you are resurrected in your original body and then transported with all your gear?

Second unrelated question:
Can you make a domain spell into a preferred spell (linked), and thereafter use non-domain spells to cast that particular domain spell?

First (World) Question: While I don't know anything 100%, I'd probably wait until the corresponding Campaign Clarifications document goes up (which are usually released together but this time seem to have been separated much more than usual temporally) before declaring anything definitive. That seems like something they would clarify, since the Eldest toying with you as a plaything is so GM discretion.

Second: It doesn't say it removes other restrictions you have on the spell, so it puts it in a grey area. What seems like it might happen from the direct interaction without the explicit removal of the restriction is that you can cast it spontaneously but can still only use domain slots to do so, so you wind up more like shaman spirit magic where you can prep from the other domain and then switch to the Preferred Spell. We had an Urgathoan in one of my games who used to prep various forms of enervation in pretty much all her 4+ domain slots, so that would be an effective tactic for her, for instance.

Thanks! Looking forward to the campaign clarification. =)

I think that doc is up, so if it's in there, it should be visible.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TrinitysEnd wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
...truncated...
TrinitysEnd wrote:


Thank you for the quick response! And that makes sense, I will be discussing this with my group of GMs for my own little kind-of "Mini PFS" that I made.

Another question for you, it was recently brought to my attention again about Efficient Quiver. This a very helpful item for just about anyone, and not just Archers. But the question is raised, can you store arrows in the larger compartments? If so, how many can you store in each? Would it still work as intended for the arrow section, as in you can still draw them normally and get the one you want?

Link for convenience.

Thank you once again!

It's definitely useful and not just for archers, but I'd say the item indicates that you have to store things of the rough size/shape as the compartment suggests, since it doesn't say "or smaller". That would mean you could fit other long javelin-like things in the javelin section but not smaller things like arrows (and similar for the bow section).

Thank you once again! Now one last final question (At least for today)!

Is there a class/archetype that you've always wanted to play that isn't in Pathfinder? Or maybe something that is a class feature of another, but would love to base an archetype around? (As an example, a Kinetic Blade Focused Kineticist)

If you mean in Paizo products, I'd have to say something like the masquerade reveler, which I've been toying with since the first time RPG Superstar had an archetype round. As to kinetic blade-focused kineticist, who's to say what the future might bring? I certainly seemed to be doing something similar in that Twitch livestream. ;)

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Renkosuke wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Renkosuke wrote:

Follow-up question!

Would an Impossible Infusion that has text that specifically refers to specific types of blasts or damage keep that text when being impossibly infused? For example, Chilling Infusion says

Chilling Infusion wrote:
Whenever an infused blast deals cold damage to a foe, that foe is staggered for 1 round.

-- would this mean that if I used impossibly infused a fire blast with chilling infusion, that the fire blast wouldn't stagger anything because it would not deal cold damage?

Similarly, could you use Impossible Infusions to ignore other activation requirements, such as with Grappling Infusion which requires a Wall, Cloud, or Deadly Earth infusion, or would those requirements prevent you from Impossibly Infusing your blasts (unless you also infused them with a Wall, Cloud, or Deadly Earth infusion)?

I just checked with John on this to make sure he agreed, and you should be OK to replace deals XXold-damage with XXnew-damage whenever you are using an infusion meant for blasts that deal old-damage but actually deal new-damage, as long as you substitute energy for energy and physical for physical.

As to other activation requirements, those are still in there.

Thanks for checking this for me! Does this mean that if I use an impossible burning infusion with a cold blast, that the over-time damage would also be cold, or am I setting someone on fire with sheer cold?

Yeah, I guess based on that, you light them with blue flames that deal cold damage like that one time in Zelda.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dynilath wrote:

There is a problem bothering me these weeks.

How does a Reach Cure Light Wounds work? Do I have to make ranged touch attack roll to heal my friend?

Reach Spell wrote:
You can alter a spell with a range of touch, close, or medium to increase its range to a higher range category, using the following order: touch, close, medium, and long....... Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

When cast CLW on my friend, there is no attack roll needed, so it seems that I don't need ranged touch attack to heal my friend with Reach CLW.

Though it is an auto-hit touch, i still have to touch my friend.

The problem behind is that what an attack is.
Is it an offensive action that gives effect that opponent what to resist?
Is it simply a mechanic that determine whether or not it is hit?

There is a thread discussing about this.

Only melee touch has a mechanism to replace it with an auto-hit for a willing target, so ranged touch you still have to try. Our group rules that a willing target can forgo Dex and dodge bonuses, though, in order to try to be hit. Deflection force fields, miss chances, and the like can still cause issues.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

The Rivethun Channeler archetype of the Medium in the Haunted Hero's Handbook raises a question about the Spirit Dancer archetype in the Advanced Class Guide. The description of the Rivethun Channeler has this statement:

"This functions exactly like the spirit dance ability of the spirit dancer medium archetype (Occult Adventures 94), except the rivethun spirit channeler doesn’t need to find an appropriate location to channel her spirits since she invites nearby spirits into her body instead of channeling a legend."

That statement implies that the Spirit Dancer does need to find an appropriate location for his séance -- but before this book came out, I assumed that location did not really matter for the Spirit Dancer either because he could hold his séance in any location from which he could channel any Medium spirit and that nearly all locations had access to at least one spirit. Was that assumption incorrect?

You're correct; the spirit dancer has it very easy, since it'd be pretty difficult not to be near any of the six locations, but the rivethun channeler has it slightly easier still, since they have no requirement.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jonas Seaborn wrote:

(Chaokineticist) Would a negative energy blast have any effect on inanimate vegetation such as trees and bushes?

The Create Demiplane set of spells states etherealness as a way to enter the demiplane, how would this be accomplished ?

When using the Astral Projection spell to create a new body on another plane can you choose the location it's created ? Also can that body still use spells like teleport ?

I'd certainly let you kill living things like trees and bushes with it; I would say that it's "especially effective" and thus not apply hardness.

Traditionally, demiplanes used to generally be adrift in the Ethereal Plane like little bubbles that you could find if you were persistent enough, and I think that's a callback to that.

Astral projection is a very weird spell in a lot of ways. It doesn't really say where you wind up in the Astral Plane, and it doesn't prohibit teleportation, though it also doesn't really describe how to reconcile that with the silver cords. There's other weirdnesses involving the relative "realness" of magical or expensive duplicate equipment created on the doubles, and more. If we had occult rituals at the time, it would probably work better as one (with all the secondary participants and backlashes and such).

5,751 to 5,800 of 6,833 << first < prev | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.