| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...
FAQ me.
AWESOME!
Sooo, I'm confused, I was shown this thread showing future errata for the Slayer's sniper archetype situation
But I haven't seen it in the FAQ.
Is that errata not official? Is it just not officially posted yet?
It's not posted yet; it's in the pipeline past the design team, and so I can't say when it will be (but the editors are always super-swamped starting about this time of year, so don't expect it too soon). Basically, I got the OK from on high to let you guys see some of the errata in advance (before editing edited them, so in the RAW wording). They aren't on the FAQ though.
Nice...
So how many things can increase the size? Hungry hungry hippo druids want to know.
Nice...
So how many things can increase the size? Hungry hungry hippo druids want to know.
So too do Monks with UMD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that covers this is actually on the FAQ queue. But there's a chance that we may have a much more exciting and requested FAQ this time (fingers crossed everyone!)I asked you this before but I figured I toss it out here and see what you think.
Does a druid that wild shape still worry about the encumbrance of carried items?
Does a druid suffer from armor effects if wearing medium or heavy armor then wild shaping?
In 2011, James Jacobs said that wild armor doesn't confer its Max Dex, ACP or ASF when wild shaped, is this accurate? He also said you needed heavy armor proficiency but if you don't have an ACP why would proficiency matter in wild shape?
Is armor while wild shaped considered worn? Is wild armor the same or different?
Is "this time" going to be Friday the 13th? <hopes for a "yes")
edit: Nevermind I see it now. For some reason when I click the "FAQ" area it seems to never show an update on that same day. Thanks for the FAQ.
Could you explain the rationale behind why the SLA FAQ was changed?
I ask, because you've previously indicated that certain topics that, while unclear, don't have a FAQ thread, and, therefore, can't be FAQ'd. Meaning, basically, that because it hasn't caused a problem, or no one has posted about such a problem, it won't get changed.
This implies something must be an issue before something is changed. Further implying that the previous SLA FAQ was causing issues (normally meaning underpowered option, or overpowered option).
I don't think anyone would say using SLA as early access to prestige class or to qualify for feats was making the characters weaker, which would then mean that it was 'too powerful'.
This could just all be me trying to see reasons that aren't there. So, again, I ask if you could explain the rationale behind changing the SLA FAQ.
Hey Mark,
Thanks for your earlier answer to my previous question! I have a few more for you, if you don't mind. =)
EDIT: Like last time, I'm not looking for an official response, just how you personally would run these. Or your personal thoughts on them. Thanks!
-When confronted with a Good or Superior lock do you increase the time to pick a lock to d4 or 2d4 rounds, using full-round actions each round? Or is it always just a single full-round action to attempt picking a lock?
-What do you generally have happen when someone fails opening a lock by 5 or more? The skill just says that something goes wrong.
-If something goes wrong when you fail Disable Device by 5 or more, why can you take 20 on it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you explain the rationale behind why the SLA FAQ was changed?
I ask, because you've previously indicated that certain topics that, while unclear, don't have a FAQ thread, and, therefore, can't be FAQ'd. Meaning, basically, that because it hasn't caused a problem, or no one has posted about such a problem, it won't get changed.
This implies something must be an issue before something is changed. Further implying that the previous SLA FAQ was causing issues (normally meaning underpowered option, or overpowered option).
I don't think anyone would say using SLA as early access to prestige class or to qualify for feats was making the characters weaker, which would then mean that it was 'too powerful'.
This could just all be me trying to see reasons that aren't there. So, again, I ask if you could explain the rationale behind changing the SLA FAQ.
As a general rule, that's probably not a good idea for FAQs in general. Every decision generally involves a lot of complexity, and one of the things I learned from my advisor back at school was that when you have a complex tapestry of reasons, it's best overall not to voice them all. I'll explain using my advisor's example (he gave the example of when you have to fire someone):
Let's say you have to fire someone. Assume that the person to be fired is particularly egregious and you have 10 major reasons for firing this person, among them 3 reasons that were so big that you would probably need to fire the person just for any 1 of those reasons alone. The temptation, my advisor says, when discussing why you are firing the person, is to collect all 10 of the reasons to provide a preponderance of evidence. But that's a bad call. Emotions are high for the person being fired, so somewhere in your list of 10, they will find your weakest reason, and they will pick at it, with the thought that if they can refute that reason, they've invalidated the list itself and therefore the firing (even if the stronger reasons were more than enough grounds). So instead, find your strongest and most inarguable reason and just give that (for instance "We caught you stealing $100 from the cash register on camera." or something like that).
Coming out of that example and back to here, the trouble with game design is that it's really hard (let's face it, impossible) to find an inarguable reason. I could write a 10 page paper on all the different factors (at least), but in the end, the people who liked that old FAQ are not going to agree with it no matter what it was (and quite possibly because of the type of game they play, since everyone's game is different and many of our most experienced posters have games that are atypical, though each individually awesome in its own way), and they'll continue to houserule to use the old FAQ. So I think it's likely best to cut out the middle step, since it'll also generate negativity and lead to the same place.
Hey Mark,
Thanks for your earlier answer to my previous question! I have a few more for you, if you don't mind. =)
EDIT: Like last time, I'm not looking for an official response, just how you personally would run these. Or your personal thoughts on them. Thanks!
-When confronted with a Good or Superior lock do you increase the time to pick a lock to d4 or 2d4 rounds, using full-round actions each round? Or is it always just a single full-round action to attempt picking a lock?
-What do you generally have happen when someone fails opening a lock by 5 or more? The skill just says that something goes wrong.
-If something goes wrong when you fail Disable Device by 5 or more, why can you take 20 on it?
@Time it takes—It depends on how complex those locks are. I tend to decide that depending on the lock and the situation. I sometimes also ad-hoc increase the value of a lock that counts as being more complex.
As for failing to pick a lock by 5 or more, the "something goes wrong" lives in the section about traps and devices, rather than locks.
Could you explain the rationale behind why the SLA FAQ was changed?
I ask, because you've previously indicated that certain topics that, while unclear, don't have a FAQ thread, and, therefore, can't be FAQ'd. Meaning, basically, that because it hasn't caused a problem, or no one has posted about such a problem, it won't get changed.
This implies something must be an issue before something is changed. Further implying that the previous SLA FAQ was causing issues (normally meaning underpowered option, or overpowered option).
I don't think anyone would say using SLA as early access to prestige class or to qualify for feats was making the characters weaker, which would then mean that it was 'too powerful'.
This could just all be me trying to see reasons that aren't there. So, again, I ask if you could explain the rationale behind changing the SLA FAQ.
As a general rule, that's probably not a good idea for FAQs in general. Every decision generally involves a lot of complexity, and one of the things I learned from my advisor back at school was that when you have a complex tapestry of reasons, it's best overall not to voice them all. I'll explain using my advisor's example (he gave the example of when you have to fire someone):
Let's say you have to fire someone. Assume that the person to be fired is particularly egregious and you have 10 major reasons for firing this person, among them 3 reasons that were so big that you would probably need to fire the person just for any 1 of those reasons alone. The temptation, my advisor says, when discussing why you are firing the person, is to collect all 10 of the reasons to provide a preponderance of evidence. But that's a bad call. Emotions are high for the person being fired, so somewhere in your list of 10, they will find your weakest reason, and they will pick at it, with the thought that if they can refute that reason, they've invalidated the list itself and therefore the firing (even if the stronger reasons were more...
I'm just trying to figure out why it was changed. Normally something isn't changed unless it's causing a problem, but, as of yet, I can't find anyone posting about how the old SLA FAQ was causing problems. It's not like there was some all powerful Mysitc Theurge build running rampant at multiple tables or anything. Nor was it Crane Wing making a mockery of the poor combat encounters in PFS. It also wasn't like Ice Tomb or Sound Striker that could be either really powerful or worthless depending on interpretation.
I mean, even the old FAQ straight up said, "If it's causing a problem, we'll revisit it". So if it wasn't causing problems, then why was it revisited?
I know some people thought it was silly and an odd ruling, but I can't help but think that it makes sense that creatures that are born that are inherently magical in nature would have an advantage when it comes to magical options that non-magical creatures wouldn't.
I mean, no one complains that Gnomes make better Sorcerers than Dwarves, because Gnomes have a better stat distribution. Yet creatures that are naturally magical and able to cast spells aren't able use their magical talent to their advantage unless they take levels in the class?
It's a further oddity because it negatively impacted so many characters. Never before has a ruling straight up invalidated characters like this before.
I know I posted it in the FAQ thread itself, but the way I see it is there were, essentially, 3 people who interacted with the FAQ: People A used the old FAQ and enjoyed it; People B didn't use the FAQ because they disagreed with it; People C didn't know or didn't care.
With the change of the FAQ, B and C are unaffected because they weren't using it, but People A suddenly had their characters taken away from them.
I just think this was one of those, "If it ain't broke, don't fx it" situations. The old FAQ, apparently, wasn't causing problems, and people who didn't like the FAQ always had the option to simply not use it. Now the people who did like the FAQ no longer have that option and there is nothing they can really do about it without appealing to their GM, which is not an option in PFS.
I'm just really confused as to why it was changed for seemingly no reason. If there was a good reason for it, I can't seem to find any. The only one anyone can really come up with is, "they didn't like that type of rule in their game". Which is, I guess, valid, but a really poor excuse when it negatively impacted so many people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I almost entirely agree with you, Tels, your post is pretty much a perfect example of what Mark was talking about.
EDIT: That said, I'd like some insight into the design decision myself. I understand the team has decided against this. My notation that I'd like it is merely that - a notification of my preference, as one of your customers (not a demand or anything like that), as it seems you guys'd like to know how people feel in general. :)
Hey Mark,
Thanks for your earlier answer to my previous question! I have a few more for you, if you don't mind. =)
EDIT: Like last time, I'm not looking for an official response, just how you personally would run these. Or your personal thoughts on them. Thanks!
-When confronted with a Good or Superior lock do you increase the time to pick a lock to d4 or 2d4 rounds, using full-round actions each round? Or is it always just a single full-round action to attempt picking a lock?
-What do you generally have happen when someone fails opening a lock by 5 or more? The skill just says that something goes wrong.
-If something goes wrong when you fail Disable Device by 5 or more, why can you take 20 on it?
@Time it takes—It depends on how complex those locks are. I tend to decide that depending on the lock and the situation. I sometimes also ad-hoc increase the value of a lock that counts as being more complex.
As for failing to pick a lock by 5 or more, the "something goes wrong" lives in the section about traps and devices, rather than locks.
Wow that was a quick response! Thanks!
Hey Mark, I found something odd in PFS 6-15: The Overflow Archive and was wondering for your input. I'm here since this more of a rules question than a Society question, plus you're a renowned Society GM.
If you don't recall, the scenario is about a kitsune bard who escapes from a fey scroll. The PCs encounter him early on; he's assumed the form of a lowly initiate in order to acquire some scrolls to peruse in hopes that he can open a portal to the First World to confront his original captor. After the PCs leave, the bard travels to another room in the Overflow archives and begins looking for scrolls and other bits of esoteric lore. He rigs up a trap and uses his Realistic Likeness feat to assume the form of Kreighton Shaine, an elf venture captain.
The problem is that the kitsune might not be able to actually transform into Kreighton. Realistic Likeness states that, "You can precisely mimic the physical features of any individual you have encountered," but the flavor text specifically states, "While in human form...," So, what exactly does Realistic Likeness do? I was under the impression that it was humans only because the feat doesn't modify several key clauses in change shape, namely "human of the same sex." But that would render the entire premise of this adventure illegal. But if you allow it to be ANY individual, where do you draw the line?
Obviously I have to run it as written regardless, but its odd that the entire premise of the scenario relies on what would appear to be a gross misinterpretation of a single feat.
|
Hey Mark, I found something odd in PFS 6-15: The Overflow Archive and was wondering for your input. I'm here since this more of a rules question than a Society question, plus you're a renowned Society GM.
** spoiler omitted **
Obviously I have to run it as written regardless, but its odd that the entire premise of the scenario relies on what would appear to be a gross misinterpretation of a single feat.
Make sure you cross-post your question ( and possibly answer ) to the GM Discussion thread! Other GMs may have the same question.
Coming out of that example and back to here, the trouble with game design is that it's really hard (let's face it, impossible) to find an inarguable reason. I could write a 10 page paper on all the different factors (at least), but in the end, the people who liked that old FAQ are not going to agree with it no matter what it was (and quite possibly because of the type of game they play, since everyone's game is different and many of our most experienced posters have games that are atypical, though each individually awesome in its own way), and they'll continue to houserule to use the old FAQ. So I think it's likely best to cut out the middle step, since it'll also generate negativity and lead to the same place.Could you explain the rationale behind why the SLA FAQ was changed?
I ask, because you've previously indicated that certain topics that, while unclear, don't have a FAQ thread, and, therefore, can't be FAQ'd. Meaning, basically, that because it hasn't caused a problem, or no one has posted about such a problem, it won't get changed.
This implies something must be an issue before something is changed. Further implying that the previous SLA FAQ was causing issues (normally meaning underpowered option, or overpowered option).
I don't think anyone would say using SLA as early access to prestige class or to qualify for feats was making the characters weaker, which would then mean that it was 'too powerful'.
This could just all be me trying to see reasons that aren't there. So, again, I ask if you could explain the rationale behind changing the SLA FAQ.
I don't really care about people agreeing or what their responses will be. But I'm super interested in why something like that was changed for "no reason". Like what next will change for "no reason." How about another reversal tomorrow saying that half-elf and half-orc are no longer humans? That the damage die progression will change in a year and a half?
If FAQs can now be made on a (unanimous) whim and not something that has been FAQed, why FAQ anything? Why don't we get answers to easy things not FAQed enough? Like I feel this has vastly changed my view of how this process works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If FAQs can now be made on a (unanimous) whim and not something that has been FAQed, why FAQ anything? Why don't we get answers to easy things not FAQed enough? Like I feel this has vastly changed my view of how this process works.
Ah, this I can answer, I think, without straying into the territory I mentioned above: there's a difference between changing something already in a FAQ and making a new FAQ. Something that is already in a FAQ has, by necessity, been FAQed. This isn't something new, nor the first time a FAQ has changed. That (problematic imo) FAQ about monk flurry changed. And the (extremely problematic imo) FAQ about free actions changed. Etc.
As far as I can see, while there's rules for tying someone up in combat, there don't seem to be any for manacles. What would you rule if someone wanted to attempt to slap some manacles on, say, an enemy mage? And how would you rule the manacles working? Entangled, or something more amorphous, just applying common sense? Would you allow the enemy mage to still make somatic components since their fingers can still move? Not necessarily looking for an official ruling, but curious how you'd handle it.
Yeah, manacles don't really have solid description other than "bind." Describing what it means to be "bound" is something I want to do eventually in a longer FAQ blog.
Hey Mark, I found something odd in PFS 6-15: The Overflow Archive and was wondering for your input. I'm here since this more of a rules question than a Society question, plus you're a renowned Society GM.
** spoiler omitted **
Obviously I have to run it as written regardless, but its odd that the entire premise of the scenario relies on what would appear to be a gross misinterpretation of a single feat.
I've heard this is a really good scenario, so I'm not sure I want to spoil it for myself for now. Sorry!
If FAQs can now be made on a (unanimous) whim and not something that has been FAQed, why FAQ anything? Why don't we get answers to easy things not FAQed enough? Like I feel this has vastly changed my view of how this process works.Ah, this I can answer, I think, without straying into the territory I mentioned above: there's a difference between changing something already in a FAQ and making a new FAQ. Something that is already in a FAQ has, by necessity, been FAQed. This isn't something new, nor the first time a FAQ has changed. That (problematic imo) FAQ about monk flurry changed. And the (extremely problematic imo) FAQ about free actions changed. Etc.
But the Flurry of Blows FAQ and Free Action FAQ were causing actual problems in games. While Flurry of Blows didn't necessarily invalidate characters (but did make them less effective), it did call into question how different archetypes even function in the wake of the FAQ. It also went against years of the assumed norm on how the Flurry of Blows functioned, including how writers for Paizo thought it worked when they published Monks using it how it, apparently, wasn't intended to work.
The Free Action FAQ was just a mess (if it's the one I'm thinking about that limited free actions per round). It caused problems and was also a clunky and arbitrary ruling. The SLA FAQ was not causing problems to the best of my knowledge.
So FAQs that caused problems in the game were revisited to make them no longer cause problems. And yet...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you explain the rationale behind why the SLA FAQ was changed?
I ask, because you've previously indicated that certain topics that, while unclear, don't have a FAQ thread, and, therefore, can't be FAQ'd. Meaning, basically, that because it hasn't caused a problem, or no one has posted about such a problem, it won't get changed.
This implies something must be an issue before something is changed. Further implying that the previous SLA FAQ was causing issues (normally meaning underpowered option, or overpowered option).
I don't think anyone would say using SLA as early access to prestige class or to qualify for feats was making the characters weaker, which would then mean that it was 'too powerful'.
This could just all be me trying to see reasons that aren't there. So, again, I ask if you could explain the rationale behind changing the SLA FAQ.
As a general rule, that's probably not a good idea for FAQs in general. Every decision generally involves a lot of complexity, and one of the things I learned from my advisor back at school was that when you have a complex tapestry of reasons, it's best overall not to voice them all. I'll explain using my advisor's example (he gave the example of when you have to fire someone):
Let's say you have to fire someone. Assume that the person to be fired is particularly egregious and you have 10 major reasons for firing this person, among them 3 reasons that were so big that you would probably need to fire the person just for any 1 of those reasons alone. The temptation, my advisor says, when discussing why you are firing the person, is to collect all 10 of the reasons to provide a preponderance of evidence. But that's a bad call. Emotions are high for the person being fired, so somewhere in your list of 10, they will find your weakest reason, and they will pick at it, with the thought that if they can refute that reason, they've invalidated the list itself and therefore the firing (even if the stronger reasons were more...
This question came up recently. I was about to give a similar answer, but it might have been met with something like "You are not a dev. Go away".
I did not want to open that can so I did not respond. I will be listing your answer however. :)
Mark,
I agree with the current SLA FAQ for at least 10 reasons, but I'm not going to list them if that's okay with you.
I appreciate that, actually.
Moving on,
I've seen someone suggest that the Grenadier Alchemist archetype and the Explosive Missile Discovery work with dye arrows that target touch AC.
The relevant text is posted here:
Firing a dye arrow is a ranged touch attack; a creature struck by a dye arrow takes no damage but is splashed with enough black, blue, green, or red marker dye (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment 104) to coat about 1 square foot.At 2nd level, a grenadier can infuse a weapon or piece of ammunition with a single harmful alchemical liquid or powder, such as alchemist’s fire or sneezing powder, as a move action. This action consumes the alchemical item, but transfers its effect to the weapon in question. The alchemical item takes full effect on the next creature struck by the weapon, but does not splash, spread, or otherwise affect additional targets. Any extra damage added is treated like bonus dice of damage, and is not doubled on a critical hit. The alchemical treatment causes no harm to the weapon treated, and wears off 1 minute after application if no blow is struck.As a standard action, the alchemist can infuse a single arrow, crossbow bolt, or one-handed firearm bullet with the power of his bomb, load the ammunition, and shoot the ranged weapon. He must be proficient with the weapon in order to accomplish this. When the infused ammunition hits its target, it deals damage normally and detonates as if the alchemist had thrown the bomb at the target. If the explosive missile misses, it does not detonate.Seems unlikely that these abilities were written with touch ACs in mind for arrows/bolts. Can you confirm or deny if this is intended?
Dye arrow is an odd item. It seems like it at least leads to headscratchers with the rule of "if the attack did 0 damage, the riders are also negated." While the specific rule for the dye arrow's own dye effect would override the general, I have no idea what should happen for other riders.
Lemme see if I have this straight.
Say I've used wild shape to turn into a carnivorous crystal. When I punch a bad guy (or really anybody), my punch damage is the ludicrous 7d8. Now I cast strong jaw on myself, which means I go up 'two sizes' on that pseudopod.
1. 7d8 isn't on the chart, so I find the next highest number of d8s. That's 8d8.
2. Then I turn that into d6s. So 8d6.
3. Then because I'm going 'up two sizes', I go up four ranks on that chart, to 16d6.a) is that right?
Average damage for the initial crystal fist (fystal?) is 31.5 per hit.
Average damage for the 'strong' attack is 56. K.b) any chance we're going to be seeing some errata either
1. toning down the cave druid
2. toning down natural attack damage for Medium-sized oozes
3. making an ooze shape spell that the cave druid can use instead of bowdlerized beast shape?
You have applied the FAQ completely right. As to carnivorous crystal...I think that and some other monsters are the result of single attack + overadherence with the monster stats chart in the back of Bestiary 1 ridiculously overriding the suggested damage dice per size on the dice per size chart in the back of Bestiary 1 (since they couldn't just raise Strength or the accuracy would increase too). Probably at the time, they were looking at the monster in a microcosm and not considering that other characters might eventually be able to poach that bizarrely high damage dice amount.
Hi Mark, I have a Telekinesis question.
The spell clearly states how to determine the CMB, but there is no mention of the CMD?
Logically I would think it would be 10+ caster level + int/chr modifier, BUT would spells like "haste" help the TK's CMB/CMD?
Thanks
Yeah, it doesn't say anywhere how to calculate its CMD. That seems hugely problematic for telekinetic grapples. Something tells me that your rule of thumb is a good one. Conceptually, the TK wouldn't benefit from a deflection field around my body (from a ring of protection), so I would say probably don't apply those additional AC bonuses; not a sure thing though.
|
Mark, I have a question on a magic Item. Would you see any thing wrong with changing the armor bonus on bracers of armor to a dodge bonus and charging the same price for the item.
A question on Animal Companions. So you know why Pazio seems so cat centric on animal companions? Dogs are mans best friend and they are totally slighted in the world Animal Companions. Can you design a domestic large sized dog animal companion that is the equal of the new Warcat of Rull.
Lemme see if I have this straight.
Say I've used wild shape to turn into a carnivorous crystal. When I punch a bad guy (or really anybody), my punch damage is the ludicrous 7d8. Now I cast strong jaw on myself, which means I go up 'two sizes' on that pseudopod.
1. 7d8 isn't on the chart, so I find the next highest number of d8s. That's 8d8.
2. Then I turn that into d6s. So 8d6.
3. Then because I'm going 'up two sizes', I go up four ranks on that chart, to 16d6.a) is that right?
Average damage for the initial crystal fist (fystal?) is 31.5 per hit.
Average damage for the 'strong' attack is 56. K.b) any chance we're going to be seeing some errata either
1. toning down the cave druid
2. toning down natural attack damage for Medium-sized oozes
3. making an ooze shape spell that the cave druid can use instead of bowdlerized beast shape?
Is it that much of a problem of a level 10 (minimum level to do this) to be able to have a single 16d6 attack each round? Average damage of 56 for a whole round at level 10 seems fairly weak to me, when you could have barbarian/AC/eidolon pounce or arcane blasting/magus doing much more than this in a single round.
Is it that much of a problem of a level 10 (minimum level to do this) to be able to have a single 16d6 attack each round? Average damage of 56 for a whole round at level 10 seems fairly weak to me, when you could have barbarian/AC/eidolon pounce or arcane blasting/magus doing much more than this in a single round.Lemme see if I have this straight.
Say I've used wild shape to turn into a carnivorous crystal. When I punch a bad guy (or really anybody), my punch damage is the ludicrous 7d8. Now I cast strong jaw on myself, which means I go up 'two sizes' on that pseudopod.
1. 7d8 isn't on the chart, so I find the next highest number of d8s. That's 8d8.
2. Then I turn that into d6s. So 8d6.
3. Then because I'm going 'up two sizes', I go up four ranks on that chart, to 16d6.a) is that right?
Average damage for the initial crystal fist (fystal?) is 31.5 per hit.
Average damage for the 'strong' attack is 56. K.b) any chance we're going to be seeing some errata either
1. toning down the cave druid
2. toning down natural attack damage for Medium-sized oozes
3. making an ooze shape spell that the cave druid can use instead of bowdlerized beast shape?
I'm not ohako, but full attacking with haste or vital striking, that's 32d6, and don't forget all the static bonuses on the slam.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, I have a question on a magic Item. Would you see any thing wrong with changing the armor bonus on bracers of armor to a dodge bonus and charging the same price for the item.
A question on Animal Companions. So you know why Pazio seems so cat centric on animal companions? Dogs are mans best friend and they are totally slighted in the world Animal Companions. Can you design a domestic large sized dog animal companion that is the equal of the new Warcat of Rull.
@Bracers—that would not be a good idea, since dodge bonuses stack with each other, and armor bonuses don't, so part of the cheaper price is because you could just get a mage armor.
@Companions—The problem is the relative power of the pounce ability in the game, I think. And pouncing dogs just seem kinda weird.
Mark, I have a question on a magic Item. Would you see any thing wrong with changing the armor bonus on bracers of armor to a dodge bonus and charging the same price for the item.
A question on Animal Companions. So you know why Pazio seems so cat centric on animal companions? Dogs are mans best friend and they are totally slighted in the world Animal Companions. Can you design a domestic large sized dog animal companion that is the equal of the new Warcat of Rull.
@Bracers—that would not be a good idea, since dodge bonuses stack with each other, and armor bonuses don't, so part of the cheaper price is because you could just get a mage armor.
@Companions—The problem is the relative power of the pounce ability in the game, I think. And pouncing dogs just seem kinda weird.
Well... that and, with the exception of housecats, most felines will kill most canines.
Cats are designed to work independently, dogs are, more often, pack animals.
"The strength of the wolf is the pack, and the strength of the pack is the wolf."
A 'lone wolf' is vulnerable, where as a lone cougar? Not so much. Let alone a panter, lion or tiger.
Yeah, it doesn't say anywhere how to calculate its CMD. That seems hugely problematic for telekinetic grapples. Something tells me that your rule of thumb is a good one. Conceptually, the TK wouldn't benefit from a deflection field around my body (from a ring of protection), so I would say probably don't apply those additional AC bonuses; not a sure thing though.Hi Mark, I have a Telekinesis question.
The spell clearly states how to determine the CMB, but there is no mention of the CMD?
Logically I would think it would be 10+ caster level + int/chr modifier, BUT would spells like "haste" help the TK's CMB/CMD?
Thanks
IIRC black tentacles just adds 10 to the CMB to get the CMD. I would use that as a houserule until something official comes along.
IIRC black tentacles just adds 10 to the CMB to get the CMD. I would use that as a houserule until something official comes along.Yeah, it doesn't say anywhere how to calculate its CMD. That seems hugely problematic for telekinetic grapples. Something tells me that your rule of thumb is a good one. Conceptually, the TK wouldn't benefit from a deflection field around my body (from a ring of protection), so I would say probably don't apply those additional AC bonuses; not a sure thing though.Hi Mark, I have a Telekinesis question.
The spell clearly states how to determine the CMB, but there is no mention of the CMD?
Logically I would think it would be 10+ caster level + int/chr modifier, BUT would spells like "haste" help the TK's CMB/CMD?
Thanks
Tentacles for sure just add 10, but it's not a sure thing for TK, since tentacles also use their own size and Strength for certain, whereas TK doesn't say anything about that. Does it add the usual other bonuses? Is it just mental stat + base attack bonus? Unclear. I wouldn't think that a tiny creature should have a disadvantage with TK, but then again, true strike seems like it should help TK, so from a conceptual standpoint, it's fuzzy.
Quick question: Is the last die listed on the size increase chart meant to be a cap, or can a natural weapon progress past 16d6 by continuing the algorithm?
I believe we stopped there because, as per the current FAQ on not stacking effective size increases, very few things should be able to go above it. If they do, you can continue with 16d8, 24d6, 24d8, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick question: Is the last die listed on the size increase chart meant to be a cap, or can a natural weapon progress past 16d6 by continuing the algorithm?I believe we stopped there because, as per the current FAQ on not stacking effective size increases, very few things should be able to go above it. If they do, you can continue with 16d8, 24d6, 24d8, etc.Oh, the FAQ on Lead Blades and Impact Weapons? I figured that was an isolated example, given the rules language (since you're treated a size larger than you "actually are", and since the enhancement is based on the spell).
In my case, I've got a Primal Companion Hunter/Mammoth Rider with an Arsinoitherium mount benefiting from Improved Natural Attack (gore), the Enhanced Damage (Gore) evolution, Strong Jaw, and Animal Growth. With all that active, the gore should be improved from 2d8 to 16d8, before powerful charge. EDIT:Including the base size increase to Huge from Mammoth Rider.
Cool! Most of those definitely do stack since you're right that several don't increase effective size (and you can definitely stack regular size increases like animal growth with effective size increases like strong jaw). We're considering a FAQ to clarify the lead blades/impact FAQ because it's highly requested, so that's on the agenda. If we did, I believe it would mostly be affirming that you can use most of those together. If I'm right (and I'd have to look at our notes), at most one of those might not stack.
Cool! Most of those definitely do stack since you're right that several don't increase effective size (and you can definitely stack regular size increases like animal growth with effective size increases like strong jaw). We're considering a FAQ to clarify the lead blades/impact FAQ because it's highly requested, so that's on the agenda. If we did, I believe it would mostly be affirming that you can use most of those together. If I'm right (and I'd have to look at our notes), at most one of those might not stack.Quick question: Is the last die listed on the size increase chart meant to be a cap, or can a natural weapon progress past 16d6 by continuing the algorithm?I believe we stopped there because, as per the current FAQ on not stacking effective size increases, very few things should be able to go above it. If they do, you can continue with 16d8, 24d6, 24d8, etc.Oh, the FAQ on Lead Blades and Impact Weapons? I figured that was an isolated example, given the rules language (since you're treated a size larger than you "actually are", and since the enhancement is based on the spell).
In my case, I've got a Primal Companion Hunter/Mammoth Rider with an Arsinoitherium mount benefiting from Improved Natural Attack (gore), the Enhanced Damage (Gore) evolution, Strong Jaw, and Animal Growth. With all that active, the gore should be improved from 2d8 to 16d8, before powerful charge. EDIT:Including the base size increase to Huge from Mammoth Rider.
Um, the lead blades and impact FAQ only says those two don't stack and says nothing about effective size increases. Is there another FAQ that does?
So... what about, enlarge person, lead blades, animal aspect (gorilla), and [/i] strong jaw[/i] on a Monk?
Of those four, only lead blades and strong jaw are considered 'effective' size increases. Enlarge Person directly increases size, and Animal Aspect just states you increase your unarmed strike by one step.
Also, does an 'effective' size increase on a weapon trigger strong jaw's clause of doubling the damage dice if gargantuan or larger? For example, casting lead blades on a huge creature, and then casting strong jaw.
Cool! Most of those definitely do stack since you're right that several don't increase effective size (and you can definitely stack regular size increases like animal growth with effective size increases like strong jaw). We're considering a FAQ to clarify the lead blades/impact FAQ because it's highly requested, so that's on the agenda. If we did, I believe it would mostly be affirming that you can use most of those together. If I'm right (and I'd have to look at our notes), at most one of those might not stack.Quick question: Is the last die listed on the size increase chart meant to be a cap, or can a natural weapon progress past 16d6 by continuing the algorithm?I believe we stopped there because, as per the current FAQ on not stacking effective size increases, very few things should be able to go above it. If they do, you can continue with 16d8, 24d6, 24d8, etc.Oh, the FAQ on Lead Blades and Impact Weapons? I figured that was an isolated example, given the rules language (since you're treated a size larger than you "actually are", and since the enhancement is based on the spell).
In my case, I've got a Primal Companion Hunter/Mammoth Rider with an Arsinoitherium mount benefiting from Improved Natural Attack (gore), the Enhanced Damage (Gore) evolution, Strong Jaw, and Animal Growth. With all that active, the gore should be improved from 2d8 to 16d8, before powerful charge. EDIT:Including the base size increase to Huge from Mammoth Rider.
Um, the lead blades and impact FAQ only says those two don't stack and says nothing about effective size increases. Is there another FAQ that does?
Not yet, that's why clarifying that FAQ is currently the #2 most-requested FAQ on paizo.com. In that it's on our list, there might be some day soon-ish.
soon-ish.
I hope that's not Valve Time :P
soon-ish.I hope that's not Valve Time :P
It's more like "I have no idea what the final precedence order will be, but it's high on the tentative precedence order."