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

[ckdragons]

I understand RAW that Max Dex from armor and Dex penalty from encumbrance do not apply to CMD, because it's not specifically mentioned, but would you agree that it should as RAI?

[N N 959]

Back for more wisdom,

A question came up in a game, does a human bane weapon work against anything with the human subtype, or just Humanoids (human)? Same question for Favored Enemy Human.

Thanks.

[David knott 242]

Native outsider traits that make these races count as human specifically mention "Humanoid (human)", so they don't help.

I thought I read somewhere that creatures with the "Augmented" subtype do not count as their listed former subtype.

It is less clear what is meant to happen with Oni. The Oni subtype definition says "As evil spirits clad in humanoid flesh, all oni possess a humanoid subtype." They appear to have a stronger case for counting as humanoid (human) than a formerly human vampire does.

[Jinotad]

I am planning on playing a reanimated medium for PFS, and was wondering if you would clarify what is getting altered on the spirits ability.

"A reanimated medium is essentially a bodiless spirit using influence to possess his own spiritless body. “The reanimated medium” refers to this spirit. Unlike a normal medium, a reanimated medium becomes more powerful the more influence it has over its body. Each day, the reanimated medium can perform a seance at a location as normal to focus on one of his potential future legends. He channels that legendary potential as strongly as possible into his body. The spirit gains 3 points of influence over his body, to a maximum of 6 points. Since he is his own possessing spirit, he doesn’t lose control at 5 or more points of influence, though he still suffers the legend’s influence penalty as normal at 3 or more points of influence."

How does this interact with the "When the spirit leaves after the 24-hour duration and before the next seance, the spirit’s influence over the medium resets to 0." From the original ability?

Are the effects from seance still only 24 hours, and does the influence still reset to 0 when it expires?

If possible, it would help me if the original [Spirit (Su):] could be re-written to include the alteration from the Reanimated Medium's [Channel Self (Su):] for clarification purposes.

Character background idea:

The character I will be making, is a boy who borrowed money from the Exchange to purchase ingredients to perform a familiar bonding spell. Unfortunately, things did not go quite as well as he planned, and he died in the process; however, parts of the ritual he performed helped him to bind his soul to his body, and become a reanimated medium.

For now, he has the Iron Will feat as well as the Familiar Bond. Once he reaches level 3, he will get the improved familiar bond. If his familiar dies, he will bring it "back to life" or so he thinks, by doing a figment familiar of the one that just died. And thus, he will be a dead guy, possessing his own body, with an imaginary familiar.

[David knott 242]

Oops -- Mark, sorry about giving an answer in your thread -- there was at least one other thread on the same topic.

To get back into the right framework -- just how wrong was my answer and in what ways?

[Mizuno Qenido]

Question about Squeezing:
In order to do it, does there have to be a hard surface on either side of the creature, or can they choose to squeeze in an area where they otherwise would have room for their full size? In addition, does the presence of other characters in adjacent spaces count as squeezing if you end your turn in that state?

E.g. Can a large creature in a 10 foot wide hallway willingly squeeze itself into a single 5x5 tile and accept the penalties for squeezing, so as to not completely block the hallway for other characters? (I'm aware they can move past friendly creatures anyway, but I'm more worried about other characters being able to end their turn in the space the creature would regularly take up while not squeezing)

EDIT: Also, interesting point: Does a tower shield, when used to cover one side of a creature, count as a barrier that allows them to squeeze?

[wraithstrike]

N N 959 wrote:

Back for more wisdom,

A question came up in a game, does a human bane weapon work against anything with the human subtype, or just Humanoids (human)? Same question for Favored Enemy Human.

Thanks.

You have to specifically choose a subtype.

Humans, elves, giants and so on are all humanoids, but if you look at the ranger and bane list they break them down to the subtype. Otherwise there would be no reason to even choose a subtype.

bane and prd wrote:

28–60 Humanoids (pick one subtype)

ranger and prd wrote:

If the ranger chooses humanoids or outsiders as a favored enemy, he must also choose an associated subtype, as indicated on the table below.

From the ranger
Humanoid (aquatic)
Humanoid (dwarf)
Humanoid (elf)
Humanoid (giant)
Humanoid (goblinoid)
Humanoid (gnoll)
Humanoid (gnome)
Humanoid (halfling)
Humanoid (human)
Humanoid (orc)
Humanoid (reptilian)
Humanoid (other subtype)

[FiddlersGreen]

Grabbing style wrote:

Benefit: When you use this style, you do not take a –4 penalty on combat maneuver checks to grapple a foe with only one hand. Additionally, you do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC while pinning an opponent.

If I the hand I'm using for grabbing style has a +1 gauntlet on it, would I get a +1 enhancement bonus to my CMB on the grapple?

[ckdragons]

Wonder if Mark is on vacation? His last post was Feb 13 (3 weeks ago). Hope he's having fun where ever he is! :)

[Joana]

One of my players wants a butterfly familiar (his PC worships Desna). Do you think it would be a fair trade to use stats for one of the vermin familiars and trade out Poison (and, indeed, any ability to attack) for a Fly speed?

[Lost In Limbo]

ckdragons wrote:

Wonder if Mark is on vacation? His last post was Feb 13 (3 weeks ago). Hope he's having fun where ever he is! :)

Last I heard he was heavily involved on Starfinder. I'm sure the team is super busy working on that at the moment.

[wraithstrike]

No question from me today. I just wanted to say thanks for this thread.

[Rysky]

wraithstrike wrote:

No question from me today. I just wanted to say thanks for this thread.

I second this.

[Mizuno Qenido]

wraithstrike wrote:

No question from me today. I just wanted to say thanks for this thread.

This.

[ckdragons]

wraithstrike wrote:

No question from me today. I just wanted to say thanks for this thread.

^^^

[Ectar]

<3

[Tacticslion]

What the last five guys said?

(Dang it! I did it wrong!)

[Thomas LeBlanc]

I think Mark was eaten by the raptors when he ventured into the warehouse area. Now his simulacrum is having enough problems keeping up with his public appearances and can't take the extra load from this thread.

[First World Bard]

Mark, have you read the Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher? Because I think I've finally decided what to do with my Crypt of the Everflame credit: create Isana (the series' protagonist's aunt) as a Hydrokineticist. She'll probably be a Taldan that secretly worships Saranrae as a goddess of healing (partly because it's good RP for the Indomitable Faith trait shoring up a Kineticist's poor save, and partly because of what went down in the Crypt when I ran it. :P)

[Catharsis]

Dear Mark,

I'm finally getting the opportunity to play a kineticist. YAY! :D I'm a great fan of your work.

I'd greatly appreciate your input on the following small matter. As I remember, you said the fact that some simple blast combinations have no matching composite blast was mostly for space reasons, and there's no reason not to allow more combinations. I would like to play Electric/Earth for Iron Gods, and my DM has already agreed to allow a composite for that combo.

Here's a proposal I wrote up. Would you consider it fair? Would you suggest any changes?

Conductor blast
Element(s) air and earth; Type composite blast (Sp); Level —; Burn 2
Prerequisite(s) electric blast, earth blast
Blast Type: physical; Damage half piercing, half electricity

You hurl a spike of conductive ore at your foe and channel an arc of lightning through it.

Compatible infusions: Like Earth blast, plus Magnetic Infusion.

Note that I restricted the dmg type to piercing so as not to seem too greedy. :o)

[Catharsis]

Dear Mark,

sorry, one more Kineticist question... for my electric Kineticist plans, I notice I have too many utilities I want to take at early levels (Air's Reach, Elemental Whispers, Wings of Air and its talent tax...) and not enough infusions that interest me. If you were my DM, would you allow me to spend an infusion slot on a utility in the early levels?

Cheers

[MichaelCullen]

Mark,
What is meant by "value" when dealing with psychic expensive material components?

Psychic Magic wrote:

When a spell calls for an expensive material component, a psychic spellcaster can instead use any item with both significant meaning and a value greater than or equal to the spell's component cost. For example, if a spiritualist wanted to cast raise dead to bring her dead husband back from the grave, she could use her 5,000 gp wedding ring as the spell's material component.

Is this "price" or selling price?

I assume price is meant but...

Is this impacted by crafting?

Could a psychic use items they crafted? If so what "value" would be used?

I could see some abuse here, but then again, if your character invested the feats, skill points and time, I could see them getting the discounted rate.

[Gordrenn Higgler]

For Aether created by Aether Architect, can it be dispelled or does it function like Wall of Force and have resistance to dispelling ?

Can aether objects be moved (with telekinetic haul using burn you'd have some good leeway)?

Can I use Aether Architect to repair a hole in a ship ? (if it's like wall of force I'd say no because it would be rooted to the location.)

Can I made siege engines such as ballista ?

Can I make a huge statue of Sarenae/(Liberty) and animate it with Aether Puppet to walk around

[Mark Seifter]

Despite continuing designer absenses every week, we did manage to get a FAQ!

FAQ wrote:

Throwing Shield: The throwing shield says that it has special straps “that allow you to unclasp and throw it as a free action.” It seems likely that “unclasp and throw” means “unclasp in order to throw” but it could also mean “unclasp and additionally throw” which could give a character any number of extra attacks. Which interpretation is correct?

Throwing shield’s wording means you can unclasp as a free action in order to throw it. The wording will be updated to disambiguate in the next errata.

[TriOmegaZero]

A triumphant return!

[Rysky]

Good to see ya Mark!

[Gisher]

A fantastic, fabulous, fun FAQ Friday!

[Rysky]

Gisher wrote:

A fantastic, fabulous, fun FAQ Friday!

Sorry, no quip from me, I agree :3

[CBDunkerson]

Another implausible interpretation put to rest once and for all.

[Hushed]

Hi Mark,

How does an Alchemist gain Craft Staff?

How is the Monstrification Staff supposed to exist?

Besides the text specific to the Monstrification Staff, are there any other ways non-spellcasters can recharge staves?

Can a Rogue use UMD with a Pearl of Power to recharge a staff?

If you can, how many UMD checks would be involved?

What about an Arcane Battery?

I want to like staves, but most of the time my spellcasters would be better served by pearls, pages, shards, etc., and it seems there's been a concerted effort to exclude non-casters from them. Why is that?

From a design standpoint, what do you see as the role of UMD?
Does a non caster buying a Runestone of Power and a Page of Spell Knowledge then using UMD to cast a spell break the game?

I read your breakdown of power disparity between casters and martials. I appreciate your take on the situation, but I feel like something pivotal to the discussion is getting glossed over.

Martials are given static powers and class abilities. Sure, you can choose from a vast array of feats and class abilities, but you're locked in once you've decided how you want to solve problems. This means that any problem they ever face will be evaluated against their build, which in turn flattens that wide array of choices as so many are discarded for being suboptimal, or even harmful.

Casters are given spell slots. These are wild card operators. They don't have to build answers, they just tap into the array to pull out an answer whole cloth. In this way, their build doesn't have to answer anything. They can afford to be flavorful, or suboptimal, or specialized, as long as they continue to be attached to an array that has all their answers available to them.

This is a systemic disparity that would have to be addressed at a design level, and I'm not sure that has resonated.

There have been introductions of new classes with new pools of answers from new arrays, but the strongest pools are still being given to casters (arcanist, magus, etc.), while at the other end of the spectrum you have Swashbucklers. Martial flexibility and stamina are at least steps in the right direction from a power perspective, but they're buried under the weight of the entire feat tree and so require a level of system mastery that's even worse than Vancian magic (and otherwise tend to highlight problems with the feat tree in general).

I agree that the level of the disparity is mitigable, addressable at the table, and colored by the experience each participant brings to the discussion. I agree that the conversation can be nuanced and complex and often people talk across each other because the terms are poorly defined.

But I also think the Kineticist is one of the most brilliant classes I've seen in a while(kudos), and it has a series of interlocking mechanics that give it both an array and a build. To me this is such a drastic break from the previous trend of half measures most martials have seen that I want to believe it represents an understanding of the problem from a design perspective, even if the conversation didn't convey that to me.

Anyways, if you have the opportunity to answer my UMD questions I'd appreciate it. I have big dreams of playing an explorer who wields his magic walking stick with Science!

Cheers,

[MichaelCullen]

Mark,
There had been a lot of discussion on the boards in regards to stacking miss chances.
One such thread

The rules are pretty clear that miss chances from concealment do not stack,

miss chances form concealment wrote:

Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.

But what about miss chances not from concealment?

How should someone under the effects of displacement and entropic shield be treated?

In the discussions three diverging ways of handling were proposed.

1.) Roll miss chance once, then compare the result to both miss percentages. For example, if high hits, a roll of 51 on the d100 would hit both the displacement (50% miss) and entropic shield (20% miss). Effectively in this method, only the best miss chance matters. A person under both displacement and entropic shield would have an effective 50% miss chance, the same as displacement alone.

2.) Roll the miss chance seperatly. Roll once for displacement, then again for entropic shield. Mathematically this gives a 60% miss chance over all.

2 b.) Roll the miss chance once, but use the mathematic probability obtained from method two. Because rolling a 50% miss chance followed by a 20% miss chance, results in an overall misschance of 60% Roll once with a 60% miss chance.

3.) Add the miss chances together, then roll once. Add 20 to 50 to get 70. Roll once with a 70% misschance.

[Mark Seifter]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Mark what do you think about a brawler archetype that flips brawler's cunning? Instead of letting you ignore int provide some int synergy instead. Maybe canny defense from the duelist/kensai or some sort of knowledge check synergy, I'm not sure, but I think the idea sounds kinda cool.

It does sound kind of cool. In other brawler news, I can confirm that at a brainstorming meeting for <redacted>, my suggestion of "Brawler <tons of confused looks>; yes I know brawler doesn't match the theme at all, but it hasn't had stuff for a long time" was met with the inclusion of brawler to the outline. Woo!

Remember when I said this? Well the book in question has been announced!!! So excited!

[Steve Geddes]

Serves me right for browsing in focussed mode. I missed that announcement yesterday. :)

[Mark Seifter]

FAQ Friday, intriguing Perception edition!

FAQ wrote:

When I use Perception as a move action to search for traps or other secrets, how wide of an area can I search? The Core Rulebook doesn’t say, and Pathfinder Unchained mentions a 10 by 10 area, but it’s part of an optional consolidated skills subsystem.

As per Ultimate Intrigue, there are two ways Perception checks happen in the game. The first way is automatic and reactive. Certain stimuli automatically call for a Perception check, such as a creature using Stealth (which calls for an opposed Perception check), or the sounds of combat or talking in the distance. The flip side is when a player actively calls for a Perception check because her PC is intentionally searching for something (this is the relevant type of Perception used to find traps, unless you have the trap spotter rogue talent, which makes it reactive). This always takes at least a move action, but often takes significantly longer.

The core rules don’t specify what area a PC can actively search, but for a given Perception check it should be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a smaller space if that area is cluttered. For instance, in an intrigue-based game, it is fairly common to look through a filing cabinet full of files. Though the cabinet itself might fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present could cause a search to take a particularly long time.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.

[KingOfAnything]

Thanks for the GMing tip at the end.

[Mark Seifter]

KingOfAnything wrote:

Thanks for the GMing tip at the end.

Based on the state of the discussion, it seemed apropos to add it to the Ultimate Intrigue text.

[TheDarkLordMaul]

I see Mark wasn't in fact eaten by Raptors, good to know! Hope everything is going great so we can eventually get our much needed rules-senpai back

[Plausible Pseudonym]

That FAQ was a missed opportunity to explain what, if anything, the Sift cantrip does.

[KingOfAnything]

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

That FAQ was a missed opportunity to explain what, if anything, the Sift cantrip does.

The FAQ implies that sift could significantly speed up some Perception checks.

Quote:

Though the cabinet itself might fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present could cause a search to take a particularly long time.

[Gisher]

Perception: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (8) + 3 = 11

I perceive that it is FAQ Friday!

[Lou Diamond]

Mark would you think a Slayer Talent that changed the Sneak attack Die type for d6 to d8 would be ok?

[Vidmaster7]

So mark how much are you involved in the shifter class coming out in ultimate wilderness?

[CookietheFerret]

Couple questions about Aether Architect, can it be used to make a guardhouse with a portcullis and drawbridge?

Also could it be used to cover preexisting walls and castle defences to strengthen them? Or is aether considered thicker than a wall of Force?

Thanks

[DrakeRoberts]

Mark,

Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the product thread (so I decided on both). In Pyschic Anthology the Slick infusion says that Reflex Negates, but only seems to affect the terrain of the area of your blast, not those in it. Do those in or entering the area make a reflex save to treat the area as non-difficult terrain? Was the save supposed to be 'none'? Was this supposed to also potentially prone those who failed their saves, a la grease?

Inquiring minds, namely mine, want to know!

Thanks!

[DrakeRoberts]

Mark, sorry but I have another: Hydrokineticist (Water Blast) and underwater combat. If it makes a difference, the character also has the Aquatic subtype (and Amphibious). Are the water blasts super-penalized: -2 attack plus -2 per 5', halved damage due to bludgeoning? Or does being aquatic and/or the fact that you're manipulating the water negate any of those penalties?

[Squiggit]

Mark Seifter wrote:

FAQ Friday, intriguing Perception edition!

Those perception DC0 exposed traps just got a lot deadlier.

What was the thought process behind this ruling? Various people on the forum have been talking about the impact of this decision in another thread and I've more or less seen people break up into two groups.

Those that believe this ruling is good because it clarifies searching rules and helps make managing traps more of an active part of a party's gameplay, turning safety vs speed into a conscious party decision and potentially making traps more dangerous as a result when a party has to juggle reaching the end of the dungeon in reasonable time and their buff timers against potential traps.

And those (aka myself) who find it incredibly hard to swallow from a versimilitude standpoint that it's utterly and completely impossible to notice a trap you aren't actively looking for, regardless of a character's actual perception or how well hidden the trap actually is. i.e. an extraordinarily perceptive character might never fail to detect a trap while searching, but will likewise never succeed while not searching which in some ways breaks the fantasy of such a character. Oh and also that it potentially encourages some fairly hostile GM-player relationships (i.e. overly paranoid players and GMs throwing traps in bizarre locations because they're guaranteed to fire).

[The NPC]

Mr. Mark Seifter,

I had this idea for a character who is part of another realm and manifests that realm in the material plane.

I thought to represent by terrain affecting spells and abilities. What are good terrain affecting spells? Especially of the level 1 and 2 variety.

[N N 959]

Squiggit wrote:

And those (aka myself) who find it incredibly hard to swallow from a versimilitude standpoint that it's utterly and completely impossible to notice a trap you aren't actively looking for, regardless of a character's actual perception or how well hidden the trap actually is. i.e. an extraordinarily perceptive character might never fail to detect a trap while searching, but will likewise never succeed while not searching which in some ways breaks the fantasy of such a character. Oh and also that it potentially encourages some fairly hostile GM-player relationships (i.e. overly paranoid players and GMs throwing traps in bizarre locations because they're guaranteed to fire).

While my concerns are slightly different, I would also be curious as to the rationale behind the latest FAQ. Prior to the this FAQ, allowing a search to include the entire area with distance increasing the DC seemed to be an excellent improvement from 3.5. This FAQ seems to take us back to 3.5.

I can understand that there might be perceived value in forcing a cautious party to travel at a snail's pace, but it makes the game feel incredibly tedious, even if only on a psychological level. A party is now limited to moving 10' per round. I was under the impression that the original movement of 30' per round was in the context of a party already moving cautiously? EDIT: After researching this, it looks like 30' round would be considered a "brisk" walking speed by the CDC, so I can see how that would not be sufficient for adequate trap spotting

I can also see that this ruling makes Trap Spotter dramatically more valuable. However, I also have to agree with Squiggit in that this ruling seems to impose a discontinuity on Perception: A PC cannot spot any "trap" that he or she is not actively looking for, is this correct?

[Lou Diamond]

Mark would Paizo consider changing the current hardness rules for metals?
The current rules are an artifact of 3.0 rules and IMO are poor;y written they call for each metal be given a hardness rating based on how thick the metal is, no where in the rules does it say how thick a sword, ax or different type of armor is. My purposal is just give each metal an over all hardness rating. Much easier to adjudicate at the table.