|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello,
This is an odd question, but I know you are an advocate of improving the FAQ system.
Is there any attempt by Paizo to understand the financial impact of allowing basic questions about the game to be debated ad nauseum?
My poster child example is the debate on the Sleeve of Many Garments and whether the clothes were real or illusions. Many people, including myself, spent many hours in that thread. I imagine Paizo staff read it as well. In the end, there was no resolution, no answer, no direction from Paizo. I know you offered an opinion, but I recall it as simply straddling the fence.
These debates chew up hours of people's lives which may directly reduce the time they have to play the game and enjoy it. Worse, the questions aren't answered and they often come up again in the future.
Is there any belief internally that the persistent ambiguity in so many core role questions result in a negative impact on Paizo's bottom line?
... Wut?
For those of you watching here for the relationship rules, they are live here
Hi Mark,
Question about the <whip feather token> and (for reference) the <dancing weapon property>:
(1) Does the dancing whip add the activator's relevant stat mod to its attack rolls? So if the activator has a +4 Str mod, would its first attack roll be [10 bab + 4 Str + 1 enh] or [10 bab +1 enh]?
(2) Does the dancing whip last only 4 rounds, or the full hour?
EDIT (3) What is the whip's reach?
Trying to put together a Skeletal Champion Anger Spiritualist to annoy my party next week. The token seemed appropriate.
Huh. Dancing only says it uses the wielder's BAB, but of course it must use some other bonuses or it will never hit. I always had it use the wielder's mod, but looking at it now, I can't justify it by strict RAW. Interesting find.
Mark,
Can investigators take Brew Potion at 3rd level?
Looks like they don't qualify for it right now. I will look into that for ACG errata.
Hello,
This is an odd question, but I know you are an advocate of improving the FAQ system.
Is there any attempt by Paizo to understand the financial impact of allowing basic questions about the game to be debated ad nauseum?
My poster child example is the debate on the Sleeve of Many Garments and whether the clothes were real or illusions. Many people, including myself, spent many hours in that thread. I imagine Paizo staff read it as well. In the end, there was no resolution, no answer, no direction from Paizo. I know you offered an opinion, but I recall it as simply straddling the fence.
These debates chew up hours of people's lives which may directly reduce the time they have to play the game and enjoy it. Worse, the questions aren't answered and they often come up again in the future.
Is there any belief internally that the persistent ambiguity in so many core role questions result in a negative impact on Paizo's bottom line?
One thing I've learned, N N, is that some people actually enjoy debating. It's not that weird as a pastime—I mean schools have "debate teams" and such who specifically practice debating skills for fun. People who enjoy debating will find something else to debate for every question you answer (including debating your answer if you do answer), and I don't mind them doing what makes them happy. If it's aggravating you, and I totally understand why it could, I recommend maybe engaging for a post or two to get your message out and then just leaving the thread. That way, the people who like debating can have their fun, and you've provided your perspective for the benefit of the people reading along.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ Friday returns!
You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon. In this case, it threatens only your adjacent squares, and not the further squares. If you are wielding it as a longspear, though, to threaten the further squares, then your grip precludes the use as an improvised blunt weapon. The rules are silent on how long it would take to shift between the two, but switching between a one-handed and a two-handed grip with a one-handed weapon like a longsword is a free action (and can thus be only taken on your turn), so it should take at least as long as that, thus preventing you from simultaneously threatening all of the squares at once. Incidentally, using the longspear as an improvised weapon in this way would not allow you to benefit from any magical enhancements it may possess, nor would you add benefits that apply when attacking with a longspear (such as Weapon Focus (longspear), but you would apply any benefits from using an improvised weapon (such as Catch Off-Guard).
I can see the logic of that with a reach weapon - after all you're smacking someone with the hilt/shaft/butt end/whatever, and all the enhancements are on the blade/tines/head/whatever. But for a smaller enhanced improvised weapon that only has one logical striking point, like a +3 frost dwarven stein, I don't think it quite follows as much. >_> My 2cp.
Yes this is an item I have considered handing out. Yes dwarves are automatically proficient.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can see the logic of that with a reach weapon - after all you're smacking someone with the hilt/shaft/butt end/whatever, and all the enhancements are on the blade/tines/head/whatever. But for a smaller enhanced improvised weapon that only has one logical striking point, like a +3 frost dwarven stein, I don't think it quite follows as much. >_> My 2cp.
Yes this is an item I have considered handing out. Yes dwarves are automatically proficient.
The issue is more that if you deliberately craft it to be a weapon (such as by making it +3 frost or whatever), then it's no longer "not crafted to be weapons", which is the CRB's definition of an improvised weapon. How can an object be simultaneously crafted to be a better weapon and not crafted to be a weapon?
Whether that argument holds or not, the last part of the above FAQ is phrased in such a way as to suggest a mindset that would support it.
Okay that's a bit clearer. Basically it's drawing a more firm line between the -4 nonproficiency penalty and the -4 improvised weapon penalty, and codifying that they're not the same thing, if I read you right.
Okay that's a bit clearer. Basically it's drawing a more firm line between the -4 nonproficiency penalty and the -4 improvised weapon penalty, and codifying that they're not the same thing, if I read you right.
Right, they're similar but different. When you take a –4 non-proficiency penalty, you're using the object for its intended purpose (stick the pointy end in them), you just suck at using the item correctly. When you take the –4 improvised weapon penalty, the object was never designed to function as a weapon, so your chance to land a successful "hit" (as in you actually cause serious lethal or nonlethal damage) is diminished.
Is there literally any non-class specific way to threaten both adjacent squares and the ones 5~10ft away?
Is there literally any non-class specific way to threaten both adjacent squares and the ones 5~10ft away?
I can think of quite a few, but if you mean is there a weapon that does so at all times right off the bat, then no.
Is there literally any non-class specific way to threaten both adjacent squares and the ones 5~10ft away?I can think of quite a few, but if you mean is there a weapon that does so at all times right off the bat, then no.
Doesn't have to be an weapon... Something not class/race-specific and that doesn't require a spell would suffice (and hopefully doesn't need 3~4 feats to work either). Reach weapon + armor spikes/unarmed strikes used to work... But it was errata-ed away.
Ah, that is more restrictive, then. I already knew it couldn't include class abilities, but if it also can't include racial abilities/feats/traits, spells (so presumably magic items are out too?), or feats with prereqs, then mainly what you do is one-hand a reach weapon and TWF (or just have in hand) something that isn't reach. If magic items or feats with prereqs are in, then that adds in even more options.
I don't mind feats with prerequisites... I mind feats with unreasonable prerequisites.
Well... Guess I'll just keep house ruling that armor spikes and unarmed strikes work. Never understood why it was banned in the first place. It's not even close to overpowered.
Following RAW, how can a non-druid learn the Druidc language?
(BTW, I just realized I forgot to say this, so... Welcome back! I hope you were able to spend your time out with your loved ones.)
Is there literally any non-class specific way to threaten both adjacent squares and the ones 5~10ft away?
Pole arm and a bite
Pole arm and some kung fu fightin
Swashbuckler with a blue heinkerchief
Regular weapons and enlarge person
Pole arm and blade boot
Pole arm and barbazu beard
Mounted on a horse with a lance and a shield
I do not play melee without the ability to do this :)
|
|
Is there literally any non-class specific way to threaten both adjacent squares and the ones 5~10ft away?I can think of quite a few, but if you mean is there a weapon that does so at all times right off the bat, then no.Doesn't have to be an weapon... Something not class/race-specific and that doesn't require a spell would suffice (and hopefully doesn't need 3~4 feats to work either). Reach weapon + armor spikes/unarmed strikes used to work... But it was errata-ed away.
No it wasn't.
Only the full round action, to two weapon fight, was changed.
You can absolutely threaten with a two-handed weapon, and another weapon, at the same time.
Doesn't have to be an weapon... Something not class/race-specific and that doesn't require a spell would suffice (and hopefully doesn't need 3~4 feats to work either). Reach weapon + armor spikes/unarmed strikes used to work... But it was errata-ed away.Is there literally any non-class specific way to threaten both adjacent squares and the ones 5~10ft away?I can think of quite a few, but if you mean is there a weapon that does so at all times right off the bat, then no.No it wasn't.
Only the full round action, to two weapon fight, was changed.
You can absolutely threaten with a two-handed weapon, and another weapon, at the same time.
Are you sure?
Mark, can you confirm/deny this?
Doesn't have to be an weapon... Something not class/race-specific and that doesn't require a spell would suffice (and hopefully doesn't need 3~4 feats to work either). Reach weapon + armor spikes/unarmed strikes used to work... But it was errata-ed away.Is there literally any non-class specific way to threaten both adjacent squares and the ones 5~10ft away?I can think of quite a few, but if you mean is there a weapon that does so at all times right off the bat, then no.No it wasn't.
Only the full round action, to two weapon fight, was changed.
You can absolutely threaten with a two-handed weapon, and another weapon, at the same time.
Are you sure?
Mark, can you confirm/deny this?
I think that's correct. I thought you wanted to smack people at both ranges in the same TWF full attack?
I think that's correct. I thought you wanted to smack people at both ranges in the same TWF full attack?
Nah... I just want to threaten adjacent squares while wielding my bardiche... Although I don't think the 2-handed + 0-handed TWF was too good either... It still fell short of a simple 2-handed sword. I wish they would bring it back, even if at the cost of losing the bonus +0.5 Str modifier from the 2-handed weapon. It was a very flavorful combat style.
What!!?Reach weapon + armor spikes/unarmed strikes used to work... But it was errata-ed away.
Yep. About a year and a half ago now, it was errata'd that you cannot TWF with a two-handed weapon using armor spikes as your off-hand weapon, and other similar maneuvers.
I'm confused now. Is my glaive-wielding paladin not allowed to bite an adjacent enemy in the same full attack as he stabs ones that are 10' away?
The Druidic Decoder feat.Following RAW, how can a non-druid learn the Druidc language?
(BTW, I just realized I forgot to say this, so... Welcome back! I hope you were able to spend your time out with your loved ones.)
You need a feat for that? Pffft... Is that feat really necessary?
I'm confused now. Is my glaive-wielding paladin not allowed to bite an adjacent enemy in the same full attack as he stabs ones that are 10' away?
As far as I'm aware, yes.
The issue came from people using a 2-handed weapon, and taking the TWF feats, to use armor spikes, or bladed boot, or spiked gauntlet etc. to TWF while 2-handing a weapon.
The Dev team decided you couldn't do this and posted a FAQ ruling against it. It does not stop you from wielding a 2-handed reach weapon and using something like Spiked Gauntlets to threaten foes at reach and adjacent at the same time.
Mark,
Let's say I wanted to base a Occult Adventures character (loosely) on River Tam. What class do you think I should pick? I'm leaning Medium at the moment. (As an aside, I had a River Tam-inspired wilder in Living Arcanis that I played once at GenCon in the 3.5 era).
If I actually get a chance to play her in the Playtest period, I'll make her my PFS Soverign Court character with my Crypt of the Everflame GM credit, since I never made my Time Oracle and i've already got a Shaman.
I'm confused now. Is my glaive-wielding paladin not allowed to bite an adjacent enemy in the same full attack as he stabs ones that are 10' away?
Considering that's exactly how dragonkin actually fight, I would assume you still can - your bite attack follows secondary natural weapon rules.
And a couple questions for Mark - while you were running PFS games, did you have any Hellknight players? How did they work out, both mechanically and socially?
Mark,
Let's say I wanted to base a Occult Adventures character (loosely) on River Tam. What class do you think I should pick? I'm leaning Medium at the moment. (As an aside, I had a River Tam-inspired wilder in Living Arcanis that I played once at GenCon in the 3.5 era).
If I actually get a chance to play her in the Playtest period, I'll make her my PFS Soverign Court character with my Crypt of the Everflame GM credit, since I never made my Time Oracle and i've already got a Shaman.
River Tam reminds me of a medium (in that there's something in her that has influence on her). The Beating would be a good spirit for her, both for the kung fu, and the theme of the dissolution of self. Surely the people experimenting on her pushed her to 4 influence with the Beating plenty of times.
I'm confused now. Is my glaive-wielding paladin not allowed to bite an adjacent enemy in the same full attack as he stabs ones that are 10' away?Considering that's exactly how dragonkin actually fight, I would assume you still can - your bite attack follows secondary natural weapon rules.
And a couple questions for Mark - while you were running PFS games, did you have any Hellknight players? How did they work out, both mechanically and socially?
I had several Hellknight characters when I was running PFS games, and one of my own (Venture Captain Fasch). They worked quite well mechanically and socially. Just remember that the Hellknights are often LN, rigidly lawful as a way to keep order and they do fine.
Mark,
In your homegames do you use the old rule about reach and diagonals or do yo use the PF version?
I use the version from the Pathfinder rules cards (the old rule, but also one we published recently I guess). The other rule is quite ridiculous and leads to horrible situations in diagonal corridors.
Which was?This may have been asked before, but: Is there any chance that one of these FAQ Fridays something will pop up for a player companion?I think if we tried to pull that, other teams would tell us what Glinda told the Wicked Witch of the West right before the latter left Munchkinland.
So Mark, what was "what Glinda told the Wicked Witch of the West right before the latter left Munchkinland."?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I recall correctly: "Rubbish, you have no power here. Now begone, before someone drops a house on you too!"
I"m actually genuinely interested in whether Paizo has had any internal discussions about the economic impact of not answering requests for FAQ. I don't get frustrated debating the topic, I get frustrated that something as simple as the Sleeve of Many...
Or my FAQ requests for Teleport and Simulacrum.
Hint, hint! ;-)
Is there literally any non-class specific way to threaten both adjacent squares and the ones 5~10ft away?
How about a whip, an empty hand, and the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?
|
|
Hi Mark, yet another question for you. I would like to modify the Blade Bound arch type to allow use of all simple martial and exotic weapons except bows,crossbows and polearms.
To do this the new arch type would require adding a bonus feat at 4th level when the Magus aquires his black blade of Still spell and at 10th level the magus would gain the Component freedom Somatic [from the Mythic book]
How should I balance the changes to the arch type?
Mark I don't like the randomness of how the Magus gains his black blade.
I have an idea on how to change this. I would push back to 4th the level when the the magus gets his first stat bump and the Magus would choose
his weapon and what it is made out of. The Magus would perform a magic ritual binding himself to his weapon sacrificing his first stat bump to give his weapon sentience. The Black Weapon would continue to gain intelligence as per the black blade chart. I would also change the ego
rules to mirror the standard intelligent magic item rule. I also would allow weapons enchantments to be placed on the weapon. So in all respects the black blade would be a custom intelligent magic weapon instead of a hybrid magic weapon/ class feature. Can I get your comments on this?
|
Hi Mark, I am playing a bloodrager with the celestial blood line who is an Angel blooded Aasamir. My question is why don't the celestial resistences from race and blood line stack?
Because, as with almost every typed thing in Pathfinder, energy resistance doesn't stack.
Mark, what is your favorite movie? (Apologies if I missed this answer somewhere.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark I don't like the randomness of how the Magus gains his black blade.
I have an idea on how to change this. I would push back to 4th the level when the the magus gets his first stat bump and the Magus would choose
his weapon and what it is made out of. The Magus would perform a magic ritual binding himself to his weapon sacrificing his first stat bump to give his weapon sentience. The Black Weapon would continue to gain intelligence as per the black blade chart. I would also change the ego
rules to mirror the standard intelligent magic item rule. I also would allow weapons enchantments to be placed on the weapon. So in all respects the black blade would be a custom intelligent magic weapon instead of a hybrid magic weapon/ class feature. Can I get your comments on this?
Design-wise trading something not tied to a class for something tied to a class isn't a great idea. A magus arcana is MUCH more powerful than a +1 bonus to an ability score and it becomes impossible to justify why only magus have this option available to them.
My brother plays a bladebound magus in one of the games we play in. We started at Level 2. My GM assumed that my brother's sword (a bastard sword) was always a black blade; it just simply chose to not provide my brother with its magical benefits until he was strong enough to prove to him that he was worth the black blade's effort (3rd level). Intelligent magic weapons are fun like that.
Mark I don't like the randomness of how the Magus gains his black blade.
I have an idea on how to change this. I would push back to 4th the level when the the magus gets his first stat bump and the Magus would choose
his weapon and what it is made out of. The Magus would perform a magic ritual binding himself to his weapon sacrificing his first stat bump to give his weapon sentience. The Black Weapon would continue to gain intelligence as per the black blade chart. I would also change the ego
rules to mirror the standard intelligent magic item rule. I also would allow weapons enchantments to be placed on the weapon. So in all respects the black blade would be a custom intelligent magic weapon instead of a hybrid magic weapon/ class feature. Can I get your comments on this?Design-wise trading something not tied to a class for something tied to a class isn't a great idea. A magus arcana is MUCH more powerful than a +1 bonus to an ability score and it becomes impossible to justify why only magus have this option available to them.
My brother plays a bladebound magus in one of the games we play in. We started at Level 2. My GM assumed that my brother's sword (a bastard sword) was always a black blade; it just simply chose to not provide my brother with its magical benefits until he was strong enough to prove to him that he was worth the black blade's effort (3rd level). Intelligent magic weapons are fun like that.
Pretty much exactly what I did with the Magus in my Kingmaker game. When it was confident its wielder could provide it with the means to its goal, it filled his dreams with its desires until he was ready to take it up.
Also have to agree that losing that stat bonus is a bad idea and not only would losing it irk a lot of players, but the Magus already trades things away in exchange for the intelligent blade - the core Magus abilities that the archetype loses. Adding an extra cost to that exchange isn't exactly fair.
Hello Mark, hope you are having a good week.
A small question I wanted to ask concerning Feral Combat training, if I may?
So according to a recent faq, if you are a monk and you have feral combat training with a natural attack, you can apply your unarmed strike damage to the natural attack. I.e. if your unarmed strike damage was 1d8 and your claw damage was originally 1d4, and you had feral combat training (claw), your claw damage would become 1d8.
Now if you had Improved Natural Attack (Claw), would that 1d8 damage that the claw is now doing be adjusted to 2d6 as if you were one size larger as per the Improved Natural Attack feat description?
Thanks so much for the answer (whichever it might be).
prototype00