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


Off-Topic Discussions

6,351 to 6,400 of 6,818 << first < prev | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:

Hi Mark, I'm guessing you had a hand in the Martyr Paladin Archetype but I could be wrong. Thematically and mechanically I love this archetype however, there are a few things I am uncertain about. If you could help that would be great. :)

The Martyr Paladin does not gain immunity to fear from their Aura of Courage.

Fearless Aura

The Fearless Aura Feat grants fear immunity to all your allies. It is my understanding that you count as your own ally. So would you get immunity to fear as well?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Mark. :)

Yeah, that allies bit can get confusing, and that's something I think Starfinder did well to clear up. I'd say the specifics of the archetype would override the general, so the martyr might wind up in a situation where everyone except you has the immunity. On the other hand, the point of the horror archetypes is specifically to give you several cool toolkits (Tortured Crusader is my personal favorite, since that's the one I mostly wrote whole-cloth during development) to face horror threats while not having immunities that make a horror game less fun, so in those situations, Fearless Aura should be off the table anyway since it makes matters worse.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mizuno Qenido wrote:
So any idea when things'll be less hectic? I think we all have got some burning questions we want to ask :o

Hi April 8, 2017! Starting yesterday, on February 6, 2018, I am slightly less hectic, for yesterday and today at least. This might be all for another long time. But hey, we had a lot of great new talent joining up in development and editing recently, so maybe less busy eventually...or perhaps more busy eventually!

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:

Do weapons with the ghost touch special ability damage creatures that are wholly on the ethereal plane?

To my knowledge this is never stated anywhere, but only vaguely implied in the text of the blink spell.

ethereal wrote:

An ethereal creature is invisible, insubstantial, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down, albeit at half normal speed. An ethereal creature can move through solid objects, including living creatures. An ethereal creature can see and hear on the Material Plane, but everything looks gray and ephemeral. Sight and hearing onto the Material Plane are limited to 60 feet.

Force effects and abjurations affect an ethereal creature normally. Their effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not vice versa. An ethereal creature can’t attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things. Certain material creatures or objects have attacks or effects that work on the Ethereal Plane.

An ethereal creature treats other ethereal creatures and ethereal objects as if they were material.

ghost touch wrote:

Price +1 bonus; Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Weight —

A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. An incorporeal creature's 50% reduction in damage from corporeal sources does not apply to attacks made against it with ghost touch weapons. The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as both corporeal or incorporeal. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons and ammunition.

Nothing in it's description gives any indication that it would effect ethereal creatures, it is neither force nor abjuration, nor does it say that it effects denizens of other planes.

The confusion comes in with the blink spell.

blink wrote:
You "blink"
...

I agree with your original analysis that ghost touch doesn't help there. Spiritual weapon is an example of something that would roll an attack roll but strike true against ethereal things. The whole ethereal~=incorporeal baggage from 3.0 and 3.5 was something Pathfinder tried to move away from, though blink probably is the missing link (in those earlier editions, for instance, ghosts and some other incorporeal nasties were partially on the Ethereal Plane in a complicated to understand way).


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

Hi Mark, I'm guessing you had a hand in the Martyr Paladin Archetype but I could be wrong. Thematically and mechanically I love this archetype however, there are a few things I am uncertain about. If you could help that would be great. :)

The Martyr Paladin does not gain immunity to fear from their Aura of Courage.

Fearless Aura

The Fearless Aura Feat grants fear immunity to all your allies. It is my understanding that you count as your own ally. So would you get immunity to fear as well?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Mark. :)

Yeah, that allies bit can get confusing, and that's something I think Starfinder did well to clear up. I'd say the specifics of the archetype would override the general, so the martyr might wind up in a situation where everyone except you has the immunity. On the other hand, the point of the horror archetypes is specifically to give you several cool toolkits (Tortured Crusader is my personal favorite, since that's the one I mostly wrote whole-cloth during development) to face horror threats while not having immunities that make a horror game less fun, so in those situations, Fearless Aura should be off the table anyway since it makes matters worse.

Wow you went all they way back and answered that! Thanks. :)

Funny, now I'm imagining my paladin standing in the middle of the party quaking in fear as a dragon approaches while everyone else is ho hum about it. Then the paladin runs away and everyone loses their fear immunity and runs after them. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

Hi Mark, I'm guessing you had a hand in the Martyr Paladin Archetype but I could be wrong. Thematically and mechanically I love this archetype however, there are a few things I am uncertain about. If you could help that would be great. :)

The Martyr Paladin does not gain immunity to fear from their Aura of Courage.

Fearless Aura

The Fearless Aura Feat grants fear immunity to all your allies. It is my understanding that you count as your own ally. So would you get immunity to fear as well?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Mark. :)

Yeah, that allies bit can get confusing, and that's something I think Starfinder did well to clear up. I'd say the specifics of the archetype would override the general, so the martyr might wind up in a situation where everyone except you has the immunity. On the other hand, the point of the horror archetypes is specifically to give you several cool toolkits (Tortured Crusader is my personal favorite, since that's the one I mostly wrote whole-cloth during development) to face horror threats while not having immunities that make a horror game less fun, so in those situations, Fearless Aura should be off the table anyway since it makes matters worse.

Wow you went all they way back and answered that! Thanks. :)

Funny, now I'm imagining my paladin standing in the middle of the party quaking in fear as a dragon approaches while everyone else is ho hum about it. Then the paladin runs away and everyone loses their fear immunity and runs after them. ;)

You're basically a sin eater for everyone else's fear. That fear they aren't feeling? All of it is channeled into you. The question isn't whether you can handle your fear of the dragon, but rather, whether you can handle the whole team's fears distilled into your mind.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ckdragons wrote:

Does the area of a fog cloud count as "poor visibility" and thus make the area "difficult terrain" for tactical movement? What about dim lighting where there is concealment (20%)?

The weird thing about "poor visibility" is that even 0 visibility (blinded, etc) gives you an Acrobatics check to move at full speed, so the rules are inconsistent. I remember when I had to do a full read-through of the environment chapter before working on some of that stuff in Starfinder, and I can't believe some of the weird things I found. Cover and concealment working as each other for some reason, a 30% concealment miss chance, and more surprises all await a deep dive of the environment section!

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
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!
Just saw this, bless your soul.

Here's some more joy for you.

Mark Seifter wrote:


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

By the way, what did you guys think of the brawler archetypes in UW now that they're out? I did the dev work on those and was really impressed with Jason Keeley's turnovers.


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

Hi Mark, I'm guessing you had a hand in the Martyr Paladin Archetype but I could be wrong. Thematically and mechanically I love this archetype however, there are a few things I am uncertain about. If you could help that would be great. :)

The Martyr Paladin does not gain immunity to fear from their Aura of Courage.

Fearless Aura

The Fearless Aura Feat grants fear immunity to all your allies. It is my understanding that you count as your own ally. So would you get immunity to fear as well?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Mark. :)

Yeah, that allies bit can get confusing, and that's something I think Starfinder did well to clear up. I'd say the specifics of the archetype would override the general, so the martyr might wind up in a situation where everyone except you has the immunity. On the other hand, the point of the horror archetypes is specifically to give you several cool toolkits (Tortured Crusader is my personal favorite, since that's the one I mostly wrote whole-cloth during development) to face horror threats while not having immunities that make a horror game less fun, so in those situations, Fearless Aura should be off the table anyway since it makes matters worse.

Wow you went all they way back and answered that! Thanks. :)

Funny, now I'm imagining my paladin standing in the middle of the party quaking in fear as a dragon approaches while everyone else is ho hum about it. Then the paladin runs away and everyone loses their fear immunity and runs after them. ;)

You're basically a sin eater for everyone else's fear. That fear they aren't feeling? All of it is channeled into you. The question isn't whether you can handle your fear of the dragon, but rather, whether you can handle the whole team's fears distilled into your mind.

That makes more sense now. Thematically that's actually pretty cool, that is how I will explain it. Granted my way was funnier. ;)

Thanks again. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
AlgaeNymph wrote:

finally, I'm at the end of this thread.

Question... I need to actually have a question...

Ah.

What empyreal lord do you most identify with, and why?

Ah, this is an interesting question because it's subtly different from the more straightforward question on favorite empyreal lords (for which Arshea is near the top of the list and I'm super-psyched that James gave me the chance to write the Spirit of Abandon's stats). Hmm, not super obvious, but I guess I probably identify most with Zohls because her inquisitiveness and dedication to understanding things jive well with my scientist's worldview.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrakeRoberts wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would be very hesitant to say that an ability that says "You can do X when casting a spell" would work where an otherwise identical ability that appended "without affecting the spell slot required" would not.
I agree, which is why I chose not to give my PFS undine hydro/pyro-kineticist steamcaster with much sadness. That said, I do think that an important difference between the rod and steamcaster is that the rod mentions the slots (which SLAs don't have) and employs metamagics (which revolve around slots), whereas steamcaster is utilized by a change of casting time, which an SLA explicitly has. It seems that both mechanically/rules-lawyery-wise and balance-wise that is a potentially notable distinction. But alas, as flavor-perfect and balanced as the steamcaster option would be in the kineticist situation, I agree that the entire SLA issue is best avoided in PFS for people who are exceedingly cautious about not straying from the rules, even accidentally. I do, however, feel that the examples of Spell Focus working with SLA (such as in Bestiary entries) suggests that it is a perfectly reasonable interpreation for the Affinity trait to work with Kineticist SLAs, personally. I do wish we'd eventually get some sort of clear signal on things like this and bardic masterpieces at some point, however, as I hate tip-toeing around options and feeling guilty that I may unwittingly be cheating.

There has been inconsistency, but a few months ago, former editor, at the time Pathfinder developer, and current Starfinder developer Joe Pasini was disturbed by the inconsistent past usage and did the legwork to definitively add "use not cast SLAs" to the style guide moving forward.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
FiddlersGreen wrote:

Can a shaman's spirit animal take the figment familiar archetype?

Points to consider:
> Does the modified 'deliver touch spells' ability of the spirit animal prevent a player from applying the archetype? (Noting that the spirit animal is not itself an archetype.)

> The figment familiar archetype spells out that the witch cannot take a figment familiar, but is silent on shamans (since the archetype predate the shaman class). But the spirit animal is based off the wizard's familiar rather than the witch's.

It was written before the ACG so didn't have it in mind, but UW clears it up!

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrakeRoberts wrote:
Someone pointed out to me today that the Undine Water Sense Trait/Ability calls out blindsense rather than tremorsense when it talks about sensing thigs touching the same body of water. Does this mean that you need line of effect (can't sense someone around a corner, for example) unlike with tremorsense? If so, is that as intended?

That is weird; it's usually water-based tremorsense in situations like that. I suppose that would technically mean it follows blindsense vs tremorsense rules, but no clue if intended.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:

Mr. Mark Seifter,

A while ago we heard that was or might be some traction on the Harrowed Medium. Do you know of any updates in that regards?

Covered by previous answer!

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
dragon singer wrote:

Hello, Mark.

In Corerule book, a spell called "MAGE'S LUCUBRATION"

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/mageSLucubration.htm l

In its Level section,only write "wizard 6"

Does that mean "normally, only the Wizard and choose and prepare and use this spell, Sorcerer can't(exclude UMD ,Class Archetypes , and so on)."

Thanks.

Yes, it's actually wizard, not sorcerer. It has mechanics that only work for prepared casters.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
CanisDirus wrote:

Mark,

Some of my friends and I have been going back and forth on this one for a bit, and rather than see the same argument over and over, I decided to try to make an end-around just in case you had any thoughts on it being a rules/language expert.

CRB wrote:
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.
CRB wrote:
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin.

The prevailing argument locally is -

RAI: If you act during the surprise round, you're no longer flat-footed even if you're last in the "regular round"... but RAW: You're flat-footed until your first action in regular rounds (not including the surprise round).

Part of me suspects this is a FAQ candidate and that your off-topic thread might not be the right place to ask, but I figured it would be worth a shot maybe? Thanks very much!

Yeah, the question here is whether the word "regular" is rules active language. It's certainly parallel. On the other hand, it isn't clear-cut. Most I've seen rule it that you're no longer flat-footed once you actually get to act; otherwise, if you lay an ambush for a bunch of unsuspecting enemies and roll low initiative, you are somehow flat-footed to them when they act before you on the non-surprise.

Paizo Employee Designer

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

In a quest for wisdom,

Mark, back in December of 2014, someone essentially asked if Handle Animal can be used against animals, regardless of the animals "Starting Attitude" per Diplomacy. I could not find a response from you on the question, so I thought to resubmit it, with some others.

Can you use Handle Animal on an animal, regardless of attitude, per the RAW?

Can HA actually be used on wild animals, or only domesticated animals?

What are the rules for a non-ally attempting to use HA on someone else's Animal Companion?

PRD on Handle Animal wrote:
Special: You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do.

Does HA work normally on a companion that is a Magical Beast and has an INT of 3? If the answer is no, then how does a Druid/Ranger with a magical beast of a 3+ INT control the animal?

Thanks in advance.

For the last part, there's a confusing blog about animal companions with Int boosts that is one of the few pieces of rules logic in the game that I have been unable to understand well enough to reason around. As to HA on unfriendly or hostile animals, I wouldn't allow it but CRB is pretty silent. I can't remember if we covered that in UW or not.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Mark, the elohim look like spaghetti monsters.

Was this an intentional art nod to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I doubt it, but I wasn't here quite yet so I can't rule it out.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cryomancer86 wrote:
Mark, I was curious about the air kineticist's enveloping winds defense talent vs the improved precise shot feat. It would appear from the wording that improved precise shot automatically negates the kineticist's enveloping winds as it "ignores the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment", however at high levels a kineticist can easily have 50% or more miss chance which is equal to or greater than total concealment (and sadly almost every high level archer will have improved precise shot). Would improved precise shot still negate the miss chance?

I think that clause of Improved Precise Shot would properly parse differently (parentheses included to show what I mean):

"ignores the miss chance granted to targets by (anything less than total) concealment". In other words, any concealment less than total, but not other miss chances.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trecladi wrote:

Dear Mark,

I have a few question but can't find answers on the forum.

- Can stunning fist used while flurrying?
- Can unchained monk go only in a straight line while using flying kick?
- last one, can I put brawling enchantment to bracers of armor?

thank you in advance.

Agreed with Chess Pwn on #1 and #3: You can use Stunning Fist on one of your flurry attacks if you declare it, and you can't put brawling on bracers of armor.

As to #2, it doesn't say a straight line, so seems like you can do a twisting flying hook maneuver.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Button Mash wrote:

It seems like it might be OK to ask mechanics questions here but I apologize if it is not. I will start off with a simple one and see how it goes…

Ultimate Intrigue wrote:

Acrobatic Spellcaster (Combat)

Your skillful movements prevent foes from disrupting your spells.

Prerequisites: Combat Casting, Skill Focus (Acrobatics).

Benefit: When you succeed at an Acrobatics check to move through a threatened square without provoking attacks of opportunity or to move through an enemy’s space, creatures denied attacks of opportunity by your Acrobatics check also cannot make attacks of opportunity against you when you cast spells for the remainder of your turn.

Normal: Casting a spell within an enemy’s reach provokes attacks of opportunity even after you succeed at an Acrobatics check to move through a threatened square.

My question is, can you make the acrobatics check to avoid the attack of opportunity from spellcasting without making a move action? I am asking from the perspective of a Magus who would like to use acrobatics to avoid the AoO and still be able to use Spell Combat which requires a full round action.

You'd need to have already succeeded at an Acrobatics check to move through a threatened square, which isn't usually possible when you haven't moved.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
AlgaeNymph wrote:

Mark, is it possible you missed my question, or are you still going through the backlog?

I know my last question's small-time, but I'd like to have it answered before I move on to other questions.

Sorry, just went on hiatus for a while. Answered your question above though!

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:

In regards to the Adventurer's Guide Lore Warden: What was the logic behind excluding Appraise from their class skills? Not only is it one of the least-used skills in the game, but it actually seems flavor-correct in that Pathfinder agents ought to be able to recognize the correct MacGuffin they're searching for.

I'm not mad, just curious why that one Int-based skill was singled out to be excluded. :)

Adventurer's Guide was ground-zero for Starfinder work from the Design Team, so that book featured dev-fu from James and John instead.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:
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.

Can we get some guildlines as to what is meant by "any item" and "significant meaning".

1.) Would a well known Door such as the one outside the Mines of Moria count as an item? Is there a size limit on what an item is? Could a tavern be used?

2.) What if the item is magic, intelligent, or an artifact? Does it receive a saving throw against anihilation? Is this another way of destroying an artifact, consumption as a material component?

3.) Does it matter to whom the item has significant meaning?

4.) How significant is significant? If every time a psychic wishes to cast a spell with an expensive component, they have to destroy something as significant as their wedding ring, then I doubt many of these spells will ever be cast. How significant is significant?

Generally a structure or edifice isn't quite the same as an item. Using something as a component doesn't typically overcome other immunities to destruction, though one time in that same 3.5 game with the intelligent tent, a wizard accidentally destroyed the BBELich's phylactery as a material component. The item must be significant to the caster, but it's an optional choice, so if you don't have a whole bunch of wedding-ring-level important items, you're fine too.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

Mark,

Why is Paizo still printing Weapon Training-type scaling abilities, which give you a big bonus in one instance, and smaller bonuses in others, nesting doll-style?

Weapon Training, Maneuver Training, Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain... all of these abilities make you feel like crap when you can't apply your highest bonus, your smaller bonuses provide little "joy". This should be the first thing to get Unchained in your next books.

That is a canny psychological instinct you have, and I happen to agree. That's why when I designed similar abilities for Starfinder, I usually did it like this:

Pay once to get one weapon (or other thing). Then pay again and you get all the rest. The idea being that the one you want most is probably your main or most valuable selection, and getting all the rest up as well is worth the same as getting that first one. That's how Weapon Focus works in Starfinder, for instance.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Loxsis wrote:

Mark,

I have a question about replacing Utility/Infusion Wild Talents

At 6th, 10th, and 16th levels, a kineticist can replace one of her utility wild talents with another wild talent of the same level or lower

and

At 5th, 11th, and 17th levels, a kineticist can replace one of her infusions with another infusion of the same effective spell level or lower

Is there any plans to alter this to being more in line with a fighters ability to replace combat feats?

It is in line with a sorcerer's ability to replace spells known.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Renkosuke wrote:

Hi Mark,

Has there been any word with how Two-Weapon Rend works with an Elemental Annihilator? When I asked you something like half a year ago, you mentioned that since Double Slice and whatnot are called out to use Con instead of Strength, then Two-Weapon Rend, which is one of the bonus feats, should probably also use Con instead of strength, but there hasn't been any campaign clarifications or FAQs that reference it.

Just wondering, mostly for future reference. Thanks a lot!

Not enough people have asked it to cover in a FAQ, but hopefully my thoughts are useful in making a call for your game!

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrakeRoberts wrote:

Mark,

With it being from a soft-cover book, is there any chance or prospectof getting the Questioner archetypre for investigator to ignore Arcane Spell Failure (assuming that, like a bard, it should)? Or is that something that would never happen due to being in a soft-cover book?

It doesn't say that it does, so it might not have been intended to do so. Either way, it's pretty unlikely to top the list for a CC or the like since it's less pressing for them to consider than something that is definitely not working.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheDarkLordMaul wrote:

Hi Mark! I'm currently playing a Titan fighter in a PFS game and boy do I have a plan for later... I'm planning on multiclassing into Alchemist (4 levels) and getting 2 vestigial arms, now I can wield 2 Large Sized Greatswords.....

my question are as follows
Does the standard TWF feat apply to this so -4 to both weapons, or is there a different ruling for having 4 arms using 2 weapons?
What is the Str Modifier added onto the damage of these? are they both x1.5? is my off-hand(s) reduced to x0.75?

Welp, doing these all in one go, we've hit not only the animal companion blog but also the Vestigial Arm / Tentacles FAQ. All we need is mounted combat to hit all three major sections I can't quite grok. Anyways, I really don't understand how the Vestigial Arm FAQ works in terms of the whole "can't increases your attacks, metaphysical hand, etc" situation. I mean obviously it's a busted discovery if there isn't some restriction, but I just don't understand how the FAQ's restriction works. Due to that, I'm not even fully sure that you can do the thing in the precondition to your question. If you can (or if you were someone who even more likely can such as a kasatha), it would be a question of specific vs general; TWF replaces the normal 1x with .5x so is probably the one that overrides the 1.5 here as well.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darth Blaster wrote:

Dear MarkI have a rule question about crane style

It says:
" You take only a –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. While using this style and fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you gain an additional +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class."

So whether" –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively"this ability can effect in the time not using this style or not?

Style feats (and their later chain feats) typically grant their benefits while in the style's stance, unless they say otherwise.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
God of desire wrote:

Dear Mark

I have a question about Double barreled musket.This guy can fire two bullet at once.
When it equip with far reaching sight ,can the shot from it be as "a single shot" which is written in the description of far reaching sight that says"spend a full round action to make a single shot"?
That means I wanna know can I use far reaching sight to make a single shot that shot two bullets at once with Double barreled musket?

Thanks

That doesn't seem to work. Double barreled musket's double shot is a different sort of action than the sight's full round action.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

Hey Mark. I have a question about the Warlock Vigilante.

Quote:


Spellcasting
...
This replaces the 4th-, 8th-, 10th-, 14th-, and 16th-level vigilante talents.

Social Simulacrum (Sp): ...

A warlock must be at least 8th level to select this talent.

The vigilante doesn't have access to an Extra X feat, so the level restriction is nonsensical, since it gets de facto limited to level 12, since that is the earliest talent you get after 6th.

So...is it *actually* supposed to be limited to level 12 for an ability that does something similar to a spell available at level 7, or is that an error?

Rules tend to be futureproofed just in case, say, somebody else grabbed some of warlock's tricks.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:
Mark congrats on 10,000 personal posts.

Thanks, from the fuuuuuuuture!

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:

Mark it might be worth taking a look at, but I think I have found a good errata candidate from the Core Rulebook.

There seems to be a rules conflict between the Magic and the Combat chapters when it comes to the number of "free touches" a caster can make after casting a touch range spell. Specifically, the number of free touches on the round that the spell is cast.

According to the Combat chapter:

CRB wrote:

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

So per the Combat chapter you get "one" free touch.

According to the Magic chapter

CRB wrote:
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.

So according to the Magic chapter you get "up to six" free touches.

Both of these rules refer to the number of touches you get during the round that you cast the spell. They just give different numbers.

This makes a big difference when trying to buff the party in combat with spells like resist energy communal.

I've noticed that. The only way to read it and have them jive together without conflict is to use the sentence just after the bold to essentially get to this conclusion: Casting as a standard gives you one touch, but you can upgrade to a FRA to get six touches. That's how I've always played it while playing my communal resist energy oracle character as a consequence, since otherwise there's a contradiction.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Beeky wrote:
Would a Kineticist's Fire Blast get the effects of Burning Amplification (feat from Magic tactics toolbox)?

Like Dark Midian said, it's not a spell.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:

Is it intentional that the Synergist Witch's ability can grant her a climb-, swim-, burrow and/or fly- speed but not a base speed?

If so, why is that?

It's a side effect of the way polymorph effects work, where land speed is in the base descriptor.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vaniglio wrote:

Hi Mark,

Can I add Power Attack bonus damage to ALL melee damage rolls? Strange Example: Bulette Rampage Feat, Constrict, Etc

Can a ranger level 16 in any of his favored terrains use stealth as "free" action while adjacent to an enemy?

Ty for your time :)

In theory, you would only want to apply the extra damage when you are also applying the accuracy penalty, since those are the attacks that are "sacrificing accuracy for strength." However, I would probably be willing to apply to damage rolls on damage that didn't directly require an attack roll but to which the accuracy penalty was still relevant (for instance, you need two claw hits to rend, and it's harder to land two claw hits if they're both at a penalty).

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DubiousYak wrote:

Mark, recently I made an Geokineticist and I love the class!

Basic Geokinesis gives them the ability to Sift at will. IN summuary it lets you search at a distance at -5 to your Perception check when you can do that anyway at -3.

As far as I can tell, Sift just lets you be far away in case your actions would spring an attack.

Is this a correct interpretation? Is there something I'm missing that makes this a bit more useful?

It seems most useful to gain tactile clues without actually touching.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ckdragons wrote:
Can baleful polymorph be removed by dispel magic since it has a duration of "permanent"? Or is it a curse and requires remove curse as mentioned in Curses in CRB?

Permanent spells are still usually dispellable unless they state an exception. It's the instantaneous ones you really have to watch out for; they generally can't be dispelled!

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thewastedwalrus wrote:

Bit of a weird question about surprise and being Flat-footed.

Flat-Footed CRB 178 wrote:
At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.

So what is "your first regular turn" in a combat? Is it the first turn where you can can act (surprise round or not) or is it the first turn after the surprise round?

I've always played it as the first where after you have acted in the combat you are no longer flat-footed and I still think that's right, but after reading this I'm not entirely sure.

Answered this earlier in this spree when Mike Bramnik asked it.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
So I assume you take rule questions? .-. At least lot of people seem to be asking such stuff

I do. I'm one of the few Paizonians who does, so I kind of get a lot of them. As always (and as others pointed out back when you asked this), nothing I say is an official ruling.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Mark, you were one of the authors on Familiar Folio. Here's a thread discussing the Familiar Adept:

Dasrak bring up these points, and I have seen similar points. "Familiar Adept Wizard

As KingofAnything said, the archetype is harder to understand for those who use d20pfsrd because it's one of the cases where, contrary to their usually user-friendly format, it's actually really poorly explained. I remember googling it and wondering if I was just remembering the book wrong until I realized how to navigate the misleading way it's set up (which also makes it look like you can take the archetypes without the feats, by not mentioning the feats at all and just putting the archetypes in with all the others). In the original book, it was quite clear what the scope of the archetypes was.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!

FAQs wrote:

Haste: Haste says a hasted creature can make an additional attack during a full attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, but what about other sorts of attacks like unarmed strikes?

Unarmed strikes and other attacks that work via full attacks (such as mystic bolts, kinetic blade, and flame blade) all allow an extra attack with haste. However, single attacks such as incorporeal touch attacks or melee touch spells delivered round by round after holding the charge do not.

Touch Spells: In the Magic and Combat chapters, it says that I can touch a single ally as a standard action or up to six allies as a full-round action and that I can combine delivering a touch spell with a natural attack or unarmed strike. But what if I just want to deliver the touch spell to an enemy? It just says I can do it “round after round.”
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.

Despite two this week, we still might be able to have one next week, but definitely not the week after.
How long can you "hold the charge' on a touch attack?

Basically it seems you can hold it until you touch something or cast another spell. I've had characters try to hold a charge indefinitely and rolled some checks every once in a while to make sure they didn't ever touch anything with that hand (and one character who successfully kept up a held charge for hours on a character flying near nothing to touch).

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Third question- what exactly, does a bottle of alchemist fire do to a swarm of Diminutive creatures?

Say I roll a "six" for damage: Does the direct hit do nothing, do 6, do 9, or something else? The splash damage does only 1 pt, right?

While they are usually immune to singleton direct attacks, they are also weak to area effects. Given how annoying swarms are, I err on the players' side and have it do 9 damage, but I can see the support for nothing as well.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Up burning that midnight oil. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Achaekek, He Who Walks In Blood wrote:

If you could demolish one building on Golarion, which one would it be.

Asking for a friend.

I didn't think that was your cup of tea Che. Aren't you all about assassinating the hubristic, those who would be gods? Anyway, though many might say something like the Blakros Museum, I think Divinity would be up your alley. Not only is it a building/ship with a name implying it's a divinity/deity, but it even allows for the aspirations of new would-be AI gods, explicitly the kind of thing you usually handle.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
Mark, what's your favorite Starfinder iconic pregen to play at first level, and why?

I have actually not played any of them; I played my own characters. I've run for them before, though, and Keskodai seemed like fun for the players, plus bug dad is a fun story concept, and mystic is one of my babies. But Obo is awesome too, and Iseph is nearly as awesome and also one of my class babies. And can't forget Navasi, Quig, or Raia either. Starfinder iconics are pretty stellar!

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
FiddlersGreen wrote:

On the back of the temp hp FAQ, if an ally falls unconscious at -1hp and I cast false life on him to give him 5 temp hp, does he regain consciousness (sustained by necromantic energy! Rawr!)? Will he continue to bleed? Is he staggered?

I'd imagine he's now awake and stable thanks to the temp.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

Are you happy with the current path of Pathfinder? Or is there a different direction you'd personally like to take thing, but are compromising on? And I'm talking BIG contested things, like views on errata, blog fixes, dex to damage, some of the recent FAQs.

Like I understand that compromising needs to happen to do anything, I'm just curious how well things line up with "Markfinder"

I think everyone's ideal version of Pathfinder is different, and that includes among the Design Team. In part, that's because many of us are playing very different games from each other, and our preferences are shaped by our experiences. Sometimes the best FAQ answer or official universal rule is not the best case by case "sometimes snack" rule. So I'm more likely to compromise or agree to something as the baseline rule if it works better as such, even if I would run it differently in my game.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wraithguard wrote:

Mark, I have a really odd idea and I just want to know if its even something worth considering for my own experimentation.

Unchained has this beautiful table for the Automatic Bonus Progression (ABP). I loved it because it gave me a great guideline about when I should expect to have certain items based on the internal math of the game.

What I'm wondering is this... could you turn the ABP around as a sort of scaling debuff to monsters?

Well thank you! I wrote ABP (other than the weapon/armor enhancement system in the book; mine is the one in the blog that matches the math a bit more thoroughly). You could absolutely use it as a scaling debuff to monsters, but it has a few potential pitfalls:

1) Players love getting boosts for advancing, and those debuffs are invisible, so it takes that away.

2) If you debuff based on monster level rather than buff based on PC level, that will make bunches of weaker monsters stronger than expected (less debuffed than the PCs would have been buffed) and big high level monsters weaker (more debuffs than the PCs would have been buffed). If you debuff all monsters dynamically based on PCs' current levels, then you fix that.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ah, a much less contentious FAQ this time around. :)
Of course, who doesn't love Succubi? :3

Archons?

6,351 to 6,400 of 6,818 << first < prev | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 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.