| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we will need a comment on PFS characters and how to proceed, although the guide seems to say "rebuild character to current XP while maintaining current gear".
I never bothered making an early entry character because I knew there was no way that interpretation was going to last forever XD
With the usual boilerplate about not being official, etc:
Context is important. Things are pretty much always intended to be read in context, but I won't just use that as an aegis; we should strive to avoid these ambiguities if we can. Even though I wasn't around for those books, I'm sorry, and I'm working every day to avoid these kinds of things being an issue where possible. However, for now, I pretty much agree with you on all three of those redward.
Thanks! I also recognize that having to include "In addition, when entering a foe's space in this manner..." (or the like) at the front of each subsequent sentence really eats into the word count. I imagine that's one reason some of these loopholes exist.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Fine with the FAQ. Bracing myself for the inevitable weaponization of it.
EDIT: Nevermind, already started. Took all of 20 minutes.
Question about the revision to the Spell-Like Ability qualification FAQ, Mark. Do spell-like abilities still allow you to qualify for feats like Craft Magic Arms and Armor, which has a prerequisite of "Caster Level 5th" and not "ability to cast arcane spells" or "ability to cast 2nd-level spells?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question about the revision to the Spell-Like Ability qualification FAQ, Mark. Do spell-like abilities still allow you to qualify for feats like Craft Magic Arms and Armor, which has a prerequisite of "Caster Level 5th" and not "ability to cast arcane spells" or "ability to cast 2nd-level spells?"
Question about the revision to the Spell-Like Ability qualification FAQ, Mark. Do spell-like abilities still allow you to qualify for feats like Craft Magic Arms and Armor, which has a prerequisite of "Caster Level 5th" and not "ability to cast arcane spells" or "ability to cast 2nd-level spells?"No.
Double oof. Guess it's back to 'Master' Craftsman.
|
Is there any reason there's no post from the design team on this?
Mark said something about this <here>:
It was mainly because I thought it would be a good idea if PFS folks saw the solution to what to do at the same post as the announcement, and then this thread was already up soon after. I can confer with the PDT and get another thread up if you guys like, but it seems redundant with this one.Was attempting to be humorous. Really, I'm looking for some reasoning behind what led to this decision from the PDT. Mark has been the usual poster to mention that if there is no official post by the PDT.Indeed, the regular PDT post accompanying this FAQ was notably absent.
Unfortunately, absence spawns speculation. I speculate that the explanation for this would involve pointing a finger rather than a discussion about balance.
I therefore presume that the explanation was not offered to keep the heat off of whomever that finger would have been pointed at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The recent FAQ reversed the ruling for using a SLA to qualify for crafting feats, closing a thematically problematic but mechanically very convenient loophole for characters that should be able to, but can't craft magic items. Are there any plans to revisit some of the problems with crafting as written, such as making Master Craftsman less limited* or allowing Alchemists to qualify for feats like Craft Construct?
I realize crafting doesn't come up much in the design team's preferred test group, but it'd be great if you were looking into it anyway.
If you take Craft Wondrous Items, your best bet is either Craft: Jewelry/Profession: Jewelsmith or Craft: Clothing/Profession: Tailor, both of which gives you access to less than half the options offered by the feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The recent FAQ reversed the ruling for using a SLA to qualify for crafting feats, closing a thematically problematic but mechanically very convenient loophole for characters that should be able to, but can't craft magic items. Are there any plans to revisit some of the problems with crafting as written, such as making Master Craftsman less limited* or allowing Alchemists to qualify for feats like Craft Construct?
I realize crafting doesn't come up much in the design team's preferred test group, but it'd be great if you were looking into it anyway.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, alchemists need to be able to make constructs, period, without needing to bend around and use side ways to do it that don't involve their alchemy at all. For some reason I thought there was a way to do it out there in a PComp or something, but if it doesn't exist, it should.
@Master Craftsman, the design details of that feat are definitely not great. In my home games, I allow Master Craftsman to be sufficient to create items of its type, without the item creation feat at all, so that helps in terms of feat load.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think there is a room for a class that 'builds combos' off itself? I've been playing Dragon Age: Iinquisition's multiplayer and I keep remembering back to Mass Effect 3's multiplayer and combat system.
In case you aren't aware, certain powers were able to 'Set' an enemy up for a combination, while other powers would 'Detonate' them and have special effects based off what type of power was used to Set the enemy up.
For example, if you set them up with a Fire power, and detonated it, it would release a small AoE blast of fire damage and light the enemy on fire for a short time. (it also dealt lots of damage to enemy Armor, a type of defense in the game)
A 'Cold' power that froze an enemy could be shattered, a 'Tech' would cause an electric explosion and deal massive damage to enemy shields.
A Biotic combo was special as it deal lots of damage to enemy Armor and enemy Barriers (magic force field as opposed to technologic force field)
I'm curious as to whether or not a 'combo' character could be built for Pathfinder. Like possibly a weird take on a Kineticist/Witch hybrid or something. It would have weaker powers that could be used in a combo to cause more damage plus debuffs (like entangled, fatigued, vulnerability to an element etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think there is a room for a class that 'builds combos' off itself? I've been playing Dragon Age: Iinquisition's multiplayer and I keep remembering back to Mass Effect 3's multiplayer and combat system.
In case you aren't aware, certain powers were able to 'Set' an enemy up for a combination, while other powers would 'Detonate' them and have special effects based off what type of power was used to Set the enemy up.
For example, if you set them up with a Fire power, and detonated it, it would release a small AoE blast of fire damage and light the enemy on fire for a short time. (it also dealt lots of damage to enemy Armor, a type of defense in the game)
A 'Cold' power that froze an enemy could be shattered, a 'Tech' would cause an electric explosion and deal massive damage to enemy shields.
A Biotic combo was special as it deal lots of damage to enemy Armor and enemy Barriers (magic force field as opposed to technologic force field)
I'm curious as to whether or not a 'combo' character could be built for Pathfinder. Like possibly a weird take on a Kineticist/Witch hybrid or something. It would have weaker powers that could be used in a combo to cause more damage plus debuffs (like entangled, fatigued, vulnerability to an element etc.)
I think it could definitely be done. To a limited extent pyrokineticists in the final do this already, as they receive several new benefits for lighting someone on fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think getting benefits for setting someone on fire is called a "pathfinder" .
Yeah, alchemists need to be able to make constructs, period, without needing to bend around and use side ways to do it that don't involve their alchemy at all. For some reason I thought there was a way to do it out there in a PComp or something, but if it doesn't exist, it should.
@Master Craftsman, the design details of that feat are definitely not great. In my home games, I allow Master Craftsman to be sufficient to create items of its type, without the item creation feat at all, so that helps in terms of feat load.
Alchemists don't have a way to qualify for Craft Construct, and neither investigators nor alchemists who trade the Brew Potion starting feat have a way to pick up Brew Potion again. Obviously the most elegant solution would be to add them to the game as new alchemist discoveries. Might be something work jotting down into that notebook of yours. ;-)
EDIT: This was not my idea, by the way. I don't even remotely know who came up with it first anymore.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a question, two comments on the SLA FAQ.
(1) I like the ruling. It fixes an annoying weirdness in the ruleset, makes the game just a bit more elegant & comprehensible. (I liked <this> post of yours quite a bit.)
(2) I'd like to add my voice to the "it was weird to have an FAQ without a post from the PDT account" concern. It's nice to have the official announcement from the rules team.
Not a question, two comments on the SLA FAQ.
(1) I like the ruling. It fixes an annoying weirdness in the ruleset, makes the game just a bit more elegant & comprehensible. (I liked <this> post of yours quite a bit.)
(2) I'd like to add my voice to the "it was weird to have an FAQ without a post from the PDT account" concern. It's nice to have the official announcement from the rules team.
While I disagree with Joe on point (1), it's not because I liked the other, but because I do hope that the areas that it helped make things nicer are going to be covered soon, and does not reflect anger or displeasure with the people involved with the change or the sensibility of the change.
I am a vocal (and apparently popular?) opponent of the change in the other thread, but I also wanted to note that I respect and understand the difficulties coming to those decisions in the first place. You guys are awesome, despite any disagreement I may evince, and I want to be clear about that, especially as you've seen to become a kind of focal-point for that thread. You still rock.
Alchemists don't have a way to qualify for Craft Construct, and neither investigators nor alchemists who trade the Brew Potion starting feat have a way to pick up Brew Potion again. Obviously the most elegant solution would be to add them to the game as new alchemist discoveries. Might be something work jotting down into that notebook of yours. ;-)Yeah, alchemists need to be able to make constructs, period, without needing to bend around and use side ways to do it that don't involve their alchemy at all. For some reason I thought there was a way to do it out there in a PComp or something, but if it doesn't exist, it should.
@Master Craftsman, the design details of that feat are definitely not great. In my home games, I allow Master Craftsman to be sufficient to create items of its type, without the item creation feat at all, so that helps in terms of feat load.
Yep, I knew both of those things about qualifying. I just figured there might have been a discovery somewhere (my haphazard purchasing scheme for PComps based on what my FLGS had available to buy with my large store credit meant that I didn't have the Alchemy Manual, for instance, until I got this job and received all the pdfs, but I don't have time now to read through all those back-pdfs and fully digest and memorize them either). I certainly think that a discovery like that would be a fitting one. I can assure you that some combination of construct+alchemist is very likely to appear in Occult Adventures. Why shouldn't all alchemists (who choose to do so) be able to join in the fun?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
EDIT: This was not my idea, by the way. I don't even remotely know who came up with it first anymore.
Yup, and that might be even more interesting if they were keyed to ranks in Craft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Craft bodybuilding... isn't that a profession?
"Not the way I do it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big creatures and centered effects: If a Large or larger creature has up an effect “centered on you,” does that mean that sometimes the emanation doesn’t even affect the creature’s entire space, let alone anything else?
No, when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a great wyrm red dragon would extend 10 feet beyond her 30x30 foot space, for a total of a 50 foot diameter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HUZZAH!
Yay!
|
|
Big creatures and centered effects: If a Large or larger creature has up an effect “centered on you,” does that mean that sometimes the emanation doesn’t even affect the creature’s entire space, let alone anything else?
No, when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a great wyrm red dragon would extend 10 feet beyond her 30x30 foot space, for a total of a 50 foot diameter.
Huzzah!
Big creatures and centered effects: If a Large or larger creature has up an effect “centered on you,” does that mean that sometimes the emanation doesn’t even affect the creature’s entire space, let alone anything else?
No, when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a great wyrm red dragon would extend 10 feet beyond her 30x30 foot space, for a total of a 50 foot diameter.
Sweet! This makes it easier for my BBEG to abuse Aroden's Spellbane + Antimagic Field!
Big creatures and centered effects: If a Large or larger creature has up an effect “centered on you,” does that mean that sometimes the emanation doesn’t even affect the creature’s entire space, let alone anything else?
No, when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a great wyrm red dragon would extend 10 feet beyond her 30x30 foot space, for a total of a 50 foot diameter.
Holy...
Wow, was not expecting that.
That's... amazing.
Isn't there a third-party class for that? Swordmaster? One of my players wants to play one...
I am a Swordmaster and I support this message.
|
|
HI Mark, I am working on a new bloodrager bloodline for an up coming game.
it is the Kyton blood line.
I took the chain armor race ability from the Kyton in
bestiary 1 which gives +4 armor bonus and modified by increasing the armor bonus by +2 every three levels and placing the restriction that no other armor can be worn.
the second power that I gave them was grasping chains. which gives them a chain attack with a 5 foot reach dealing 1d8+strength 1 per normal attack that they receive at 6th level the chains reach increases to 10'
they receive resistance to fire and cold 5 and immunity to rust at 12th level the resistance to fire and cold increases to 10
Fir their level 8 power I gave them dancing chains form the Kyton in bestiary 1.
do any of these powers seem out of line to you?
10' radius is 2 squares in every direction, not a 2x2 box.
I agree that removing the large limitation is a smart idea.
HI Mark, I am working on a new bloodrager bloodline for an up coming game.
it is the Kyton blood line.I took the chain armor race ability from the Kyton in
bestiary 1 which gives +4 armor bonus and modified by increasing the armor bonus by +2 every three levels and placing the restriction that no other armor can be worn.the second power that I gave them was grasping chains. which gives them a chain attack with a 5 foot reach dealing 1d8+strength 1 per normal attack that they receive at 6th level the chains reach increases to 10'
they receive resistance to fire and cold 5 and immunity to rust at 12th level the resistance to fire and cold increases to 10
Fir their level 8 power I gave them dancing chains form the Kyton in bestiary 1.
do any of these powers seem out of line to you?
There's an official kyton bloodrager bloodline in advanced class origins.
Mark was actually a big player on that book, so he's likely to refer you to there.
|
|
Big creatures and centered effects: If a Large or larger creature has up an effect “centered on you,” does that mean that sometimes the emanation doesn’t even affect the creature’s entire space, let alone anything else?
No, when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a great wyrm red dragon would extend 10 feet beyond her 30x30 foot space, for a total of a 50 foot diameter.Thanks for this, it makes anti-magic using dragons actually scary now.
I would like to flag up one possible incongruity which limiting this to large creatures creates and wondered if you could look at it. Assuming centred emanation spells on medium or smaller creatures have to come from a grid intersection there ends up being nowhere such a creature can stand where they are directly protected due to the vagaries of the battlemat grid. A 10' radius emanation on the grid is a 2x2 box with a 1x2 box attached to each face.
There is nowhere a medium or smaller creature can stand within that area where they are not adjacent to one of the edges. It makes using things like anti-life shell or magic circle quite difficult as they arguably don't prevent an enemy getting adjacent because of how it is drawn on the mat.
That obviously doesn't make much sense, its a bit like reach issue which allowed enemies to warp next to you without provoking if they came at you from the diagonal.
Is there any chance of removing the "large" limitation from the first sentence of the new FAQ?
Even though "Large" is referenced in the question, it is not referenced in the answer. So the rule applies regardless of size.
...when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space.
Big creatures and centered effects: If a Large or larger creature has up an effect “centered on you,” does that mean that sometimes the emanation doesn’t even affect the creature’s entire space, let alone anything else?
No, when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a great wyrm red dragon would extend 10 feet beyond her 30x30 foot space, for a total of a 50 foot diameter.Thanks for this, it makes anti-magic using dragons actually scary now.
I would like to flag up one possible incongruity which limiting this to large creatures creates and wondered if you could look at it. Assuming centred emanation spells on medium or smaller creatures have to come from a grid intersection there ends up being nowhere such a creature can stand where they are directly protected due to the vagaries of the battlemat grid. A 10' radius emanation on the grid is a 2x2 box with a 1x2 box attached to each face.
There is nowhere a medium or smaller creature can stand within that area where they are not adjacent to one of the edges. It makes using things like anti-life shell or magic circle quite difficult as they arguably don't prevent an enemy getting adjacent because of how it is drawn on the mat.
That obviously doesn't make much sense, its a bit like reach issue which allowed enemies to warp next to you without provoking if they came at you from the diagonal.
Is there any chance of removing the "large" limitation from the first sentence of the new FAQ?
Even though "Large" is referenced in the question, it is not referenced in the answer. So the rule applies regardless of size.
...when a...
It should say "such a creature" (and the word "Answer" shouldn't be in there either). I'll get the tech team to change it when I can.
HI Mark, I am working on a new bloodrager bloodline for an up coming game.
it is the Kyton blood line.I took the chain armor race ability from the Kyton in
bestiary 1 which gives +4 armor bonus and modified by increasing the armor bonus by +2 every three levels and placing the restriction that no other armor can be worn.the second power that I gave them was grasping chains. which gives them a chain attack with a 5 foot reach dealing 1d8+strength 1 per normal attack that they receive at 6th level the chains reach increases to 10'
they receive resistance to fire and cold 5 and immunity to rust at 12th level the resistance to fire and cold increases to 10
Fir their level 8 power I gave them dancing chains form the Kyton in bestiary 1.
do any of these powers seem out of line to you?
There's an official kyton bloodrager bloodline in advanced class origins.
Mark was actually a big player on that book, so he's likely to refer you to there.
In fact, while in development, I wrote that bloodline (and then Logan developed it in the second pass, and that's what you got!).
|
|
Mark, I think the point andreww was trying to make is that this rule should apply to ALL creatures, including Medium and Small creatures. The way the paragraph is written now it does. If you change it to "such creatures" then it won't apply to Medium and Small creatures, which would be a shame because then for 5-ft. emanations, there will be only three adjacent squares that are affected and five adjacent squares that are unaffected. Even for 10-ft. emanations, there will be at least one ADJACENT square that is unaffected! That doesn't sound much like a 10-ft. emanation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, I think the point andreww was trying to make is that this rule should apply to ALL creatures, including Medium and Small creatures. The way the paragraph is written now it does. If you change it to "such creatures" then it won't apply to Medium and Small creatures, which would be a shame because then for 5-ft. emanations, there will be only three adjacent squares that are affected and five adjacent squares that are unaffected. Even for 10-ft. emanations, there will be at least one ADJACENT square that is unaffected! That doesn't sound much like a 10-ft. emanation.
5 ft emanations for Medium creatures are absolutely supposed to apply to only those other 3 squares, for certain (I can assure you because I know what the discussion entailed, so I know it was a wording snafu, just like the spurious "Answer:"). Spells like emergency force sphere are already strong enough.
|
|
Mark, what are your thoughts on the Raging Cannibal archetype for barbarians and races that already possess a bite attack?
Part of the archetype is that at 2nd level the RC must take the Animal Fury rage power, granting them a 1d4 bite attack while raging, which is superfluous to races that already possess a bite attack such as Skinwalkers and the Kuru. Would it be too much of a stretch to allow those races to pick a different rage power as normal or simply have Animal Fury buff up their own bite attack?
Mark, what are your thoughts on the Raging Cannibal archetype for barbarians and races that already possess a bite attack?
Part of the archetype is that at 2nd level the RC must take the Animal Fury rage power, granting them a 1d4 bite attack while raging, which is superfluous to races that already possess a bite attack such as Skinwalkers and the Kuru. Would it be too much of a stretch to allow those races to pick a different rage power as normal or simply have Animal Fury buff up their own bite attack?
Honestly that archetype has a bunch of other factors in it too that make sense to adjust in a game (for instance, due to an almost certain flip-flop error [temp hp from multiple sources do stack and from the same don't], it seems like you could generate thousands of temporary hit points by yo-yoing an enemy's health back and forth around 0 (thus generating more rage rounds to continue the process and also taking you back to maximum, assuming you're capped at maximum because it doesn't explain). In a home game if I was the GM, I would insert sanity check adjustments to consume vigor and feed from fury and then probably allow another rage power (but not for the purpose of doubling up on another archetype that usually needs the 2nd level rage power).