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


Off-Topic Discussions

4,351 to 4,400 of 6,818 << first < prev | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | next > last >>

Mark, is there a rule written down anywhere that dictates how to deal with flat bonuses and multipliers that are applied to the same value? Specifically, I'd like to know if there's anything official regarding how to deal with abilities that increase the range of a thrown weapon (Hurler Barbarian adding 10' for example) combining with abilities that double the range of thrown weapons (Raging Hurler, Unfolding Wind Strike)? Should the flat bonuses be applied before or after multipliers?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Aaaaaaaand Ultimate Intrigue FAQ is live! Just like for Occult, it comes with several speedy answers to top Intrigue questions.

Thank you!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ZanThrax wrote:
Mark, is there a rule written down anywhere that dictates how to deal with flat bonuses and multipliers that are applied to the same value? Specifically, I'd like to know if there's anything official regarding how to deal with abilities that increase the range of a thrown weapon (Hurler Barbarian adding 10' for example) combining with abilities that double the range of thrown weapons (Raging Hurler, Unfolding Wind Strike)? Should the flat bonuses be applied before or after multipliers?

I doubt there's an official answer, but considering the way it works for damage (apply flat modifiers before multiplying), it makes sense to me that the same would apply to other rules (otherwise you have inconsistency in rules, which is A Bad Thing).

So, flat bonuses first, then multiply, would be my answer. Mark might disagree, and it's probably worth a FAQ to get an official PDT response.


Chemlak wrote:
ZanThrax wrote:
Mark, is there a rule written down anywhere that dictates how to deal with flat bonuses and multipliers that are applied to the same value? Specifically, I'd like to know if there's anything official regarding how to deal with abilities that increase the range of a thrown weapon (Hurler Barbarian adding 10' for example) combining with abilities that double the range of thrown weapons (Raging Hurler, Unfolding Wind Strike)? Should the flat bonuses be applied before or after multipliers?

I doubt there's an official answer, but considering the way it works for damage (apply flat modifiers before multiplying), it makes sense to me that the same would apply to other rules (otherwise you have inconsistency in rules, which is A Bad Thing).

So, flat bonuses first, then multiply, would be my answer. Mark might disagree, and it's probably worth a FAQ to get an official PDT response.

This might cause problems with some tables though. For example, lunge increases reach by 5 ft. and reach weapons double your reach. So using lunge and a reach weapon would give you a 20 ft. reach this way instead of a 15 ft. reach.

God forbid an enlarged, lunge using, longarm spell enhanced, reach weapon wielding martial. That would be a 40 ft. reach, which is nuts.


Mark, I have questions about the phrase 'magical darkness' as used in the Nightmare Fist feat. I thought you would be the person to ask since you wrote the Illuminating Darkness blog post. (And thank you for that, by the way.)

Am I correct that a magical effect that lowers the ambient light level counts as creating an area of 'magical darkness' even if it doesn't produce the darkness light level? For example, if a Darkness spell was cast in an area of normal light, would that area count as magical darkness even though the light level ends up being dim light rather than darkness? (I'm pretty sure this is correct.)

Then what about the case where a Darkness spell and a higher level Light spell overlap and cancel each other out? In the overlap, the light is back to the ambient level, but I am still in the area of a spell which is radiating darkness. (My thought here is that this is not an area of 'magical darkness' because the light level is no lower than the ambient level.)

What about an area where a Deeper Darkness overlaps with a higher level Light spell? If Deeper Darkness lowers the ambient light level by two steps and the Light spell raises it by one, does that count as an area of 'magical darkness?' (I'm thinking it would since the net result is still lower than the ambient level.)

If I'm correct then it seems that there are a lot of new ways to create 'magical darkness.' Is there anything on this list that you think obviously wouldn't qualify?

Blood of Shadows options
- The Eclipsed Spell Metamagic feat. (I am seriously salivating at the idea of creating 'magical darkness' using the Light cantrip in a 0-level slot.)
- A Voidlight Lantern
- The Dancing Darkness spell
- The Motes of Dusk and Dawn spell
- The Shield of Darkness spell (The wording here is weird. I think when it refers to 'magical darkness' it means 'supernatural darkness.')
- The Wall of Split Illumination spell
- Umbral Glooms (Gloom Chymist)
- The Umbral Scion's Encroaching Darkness ability

Ultimate Intrigue options
- The Umbral weapon special ability


The difference for my Tron character (android unchained hurler barbarian / fighter) would be huge. If it multiplies first, then the increment on his distance chakram while raging in unfolding wind style is only 140' when he moves 10' before throwing. If it adds first, then his range increment is instead 200'

Either way, it's likely that every single enemy will be within range of a Startoss, but it'd still be nice to know which way it's meant to be calculated.


Hi Mark,

Can you let me into the design reasoning behind vigilante talents? They just seem to be so much more powerful than almost all other class features of other classes.

I get that they are meant to be only used half of the time in the vigilante persona. But in a dungeon crawl scenario (of which almost all games feature), the vigilante would presumably be in the vigilante persona and be way more powerful than the standard fighter/slayer/rogue etc of the same level.

Also, there seems to be nothing RAW that stops a PC from just being the Tony Stark hero with everyone knowing both identities. In which case, the PC is getting the best of both worlds.

I'm trying really hard to see how the vigilante would not upstage a regular martial in every capacity in a normal game.

So, why are the talents so much more powerful?


To be fair, many of the talents are intentionally written in such a way that you can't get full power out of them. Such as the one that lets you add half your level to damage on a finesseable weapon, but only as long as you still use strength to damage. So you can't use slashing/fencing grace or the agile property or it turns the talent off.


Mark,

I was working on a Sensei Monk build splashing Ninja for Forgotten Trick. While I came up with the idea on my own, I found many similar builds taking advantage of this trick (Forgotten trick shared via the Sensei's 6th level ability). However, after I brought the issue to the rules forum, I'm starting to be convinced that the multitudes of people suggesting that the combo works may in fact be wrong. I'd like your take on it.

The Sensei's Mystic Wisdom ability says: "At 6th level, a sensei may use his advice ability when spending points from his ki pool to activate a class ability (using the normal actions required for each) in order to have that ability affect one ally within 30 feet rather than the sensei himself....."

The key phrase in question being "activate a class ability". The question boils down to whether or not such a statement has an implied "from this (monk) class" associated with it (similar to how "level" generally implies "level in this class"), or if it truly means the abilities of any class using your ki pool, thus eliminating uses added by feats and items and the like, but still allowing Ninja Tricks.

I'm curious as to your opinion on the topic, as I don't mind taking such questions up to my GM (or GMs or lodge for PFS), but only if I believe that it is ambiguous. If I'm 'sure' I know the correct answer (in this case, if I'm sure it doesn't work, for example), then I won't bring it up at all.

Thanks!


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are you tuning into the Geek & Sundry's Critical Role Pathfinder game tonight? I've plugged the show in the past, but now they are playing Pathfinder! Wooh! Hype-hype!

I believe it is tonight at 7 pm PST!


Tels wrote:
To be fair, many of the talents are intentionally written in such a way that you can't get full power out of them. Such as the one that lets you add half your level to damage on a finesseable weapon, but only as long as you still use strength to damage. So you can't use slashing/fencing grace or the agile property or it turns the talent off.

I get that. But that same feat gives Weapon Finesse for free (or ANY other feat if you already have WF). All the talents are worth 1.5+ feats. So I'm wondering why this class' talents were decided to all be that extra power level.

Consider the Fighter vs. the Vigilante (avenger). Same BAB, different HP, swapped saves. But the Vigilante can get featx1.5+ every second level where the Fighter gets just feat. Plus the Vigilante has 6+ int skills and social talents for more skilly goodness.

I really want to not feel like the Vigilante has invalidated the fighter/slayer/rogue. And considering there hasn't been a mass complaint on the boards, I'm probably wrong. But if I've missed something, I'm trying to work out what it is.


The vigilante's abilities are a little stronger because they didn't make an Extra vigilante talent feat. Because of that they could make them a bit stronger, but know for sure that the power is gated.

Fighter has been "invalidated" since the barbarian, ranger and the paladin.
Rogue has been "invalidated" for a very long time by many different classes. Is this a class that also can do the rogues thing, yup, one of the dozen.
Slayer, it's full BAB and sneak attack with a built in booster and pre-req free feats. The vigilante is either full bab or sneak attack, 1 talent that conditionally gives a bonus to hit and some give bonus to damage in specific situations. So there are still reasons to play a slayer over a vigilante.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Chess Pwn wrote:

Fighter has been "invalidated" since the barbarian, ranger and the paladin.

Rogue has been "invalidated" for a very long time by many different classes.

I disagree with these two statements.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Joana wrote:
It seems to be a common house rule to assume that PCs are "always" taking 10 on certain skills in appropriate settings, i.e., Perception when traveling, Sense Motive when dealing with NPCs, etc., and to ask for a roll only in response to certain trigger events.
I have never seen this house rule.

Here you go.

Silver Crusade

Mark what would you price a Rod of Maximize Channel and a rod of Empower Channel? 3 x a day like other Metamagic rods.


Ok, hopefully a simple one Mark (but of course it won't be...):

When two (Medium) creatures occupy the same square, are they considered squeezing? If so, does/should this affect rules for moving through an allies square?


It seems as though the question of whether or not guantlets actually count as unarmed attacks for the purpose of monk abilities, and even the amulet of mighty fist is still alive. It has come up several times in the forums.

Is this on the PDT "to do" list or do we need an FAQ?


Mark how does the Foresight spell work?

Some parts are pretty straight forward others seem to be fairly vague.

foresight wrote:

This spell grants you a powerful sixth sense in relation to yourself or another. Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell. You are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself and gives you a +2 insight bonus to AC and on Reflex saves. This insight bonus is lost whenever you would lose a Dexterity bonus to AC.

When another creature is the subject of the spell, you receive warnings about that creature. You must communicate what you learn to the other creature for the warning to be useful, and the creature can be caught unprepared in the absence of such a warning. Shouting a warning, yanking a person back, and even telepathically communicating (via an appropriate spell) can all be accomplished before some danger befalls the subject, provided you act on the warning without delay. The subject, however, does not gain the insight bonus to AC and Reflex saves.

1.) What constitutes impending? Is a volcano erupting in 10 minuets impending? Also what constitutes "danger or harm", how about harm to one's reputation (in view of Ultimate Intrigue)?

2.) What is meant by, "you are never surprised"? I assume this means you can always act in the surprise round, how does this work with traps? What about non-dangerous things that may cause a normal person to be surprised?

3.) Can you give an example of a "general idea of what action might best protect you"?
How do you run these warnings?

4.) If the shouting a warning or yanking a person back can be accomplished before the danger befalls the subject, how much time does the warning provide? I assume yanking a subject would be a standard action.

I know that much of this falls into GM discretion, but it would be nice if you provided a baseline from which to work. Even if said baseline is only how you would GM the use of the spell yourself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Hi, Mark.

Rules question for you...

Should spell effects that deal positive energy damage do full damage or half damage vs. incorporeal undead?

RAW states that the channel positive energy class feature does full damage against incorporeal undead, but implies that positive energy spell effects from a corporeal source only do half damage.

(BTW, I've houseruled that positive energy spell effects do full damage against incorporeal undead at my table.)

Thanks for your opinion on the matter!


Any luck on an FAQ Friday this week, or was that spent on last week's Ultimate Intrigue page?

Paizo Employee Designer

Ashram wrote:
Any luck on an FAQ Friday this week, or was that spent on last week's Ultimate Intrigue page?

It was indeed spent on last week's page. That going up on Friday like it did was amazing and unexpected. But getting the ~10 questions answered used up a little FAQ mojo. I think I have one in my sights that's pretty doable for next week, though.

Silver Crusade

Mark, if a firearm was made of adamantine do you think it would be fair to reduce the misfire by 1 and negate the chance for the firearm to explode on a second misfire?

Do you think it would be ok for an advanced rifle to be a breach loader move action to load
Reduced to a swift action to load with rapid reload or expert loading deed?
The rifle would do 2d8x4 with a 80' range increment.

Do you think it would be fair rules wise for a non magic scope to give a+1. To hit and a +2 to confirm a critical hit?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Ashram wrote:
Any luck on an FAQ Friday this week, or was that spent on last week's Ultimate Intrigue page?
It was indeed spent on last week's page. That going up on Friday like it did was amazing and unexpected. But getting the ~10 questions answered used up a little FAQ mojo. I think I have one in my sights that's pretty doable for next week, though.

Ten FAQ's over two weeks is fine with me. :)


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was looking at the Consolidated Skills and Grouped Skills rules from Pathfinder Unchained, and was wondering, how would you handle the +1 skill point option for a favored class bonus? For Consolidated Skills, I'm leaning towards +1/2 a skill point per level, and for Grouped Skills...pretty sure +1/2 a skill specialty per level would be too much...maybe +1/4? +1/5? Or would you just suggest disallowing that favored class option altogether in favor of racial options or the +1 hit point?


Mr. Mark Seifter,

For the corruption system we know that some undead state, probably vampirism, and lycanthropy will be covered. Can you tell us what other creatures or creature types will be covered? Something fiendsih or aberrant maybe?


Finally found the post you made about pointing you to threads where it's been "no response required" and it wasn't just my faulty imagination/memory of such a post.

Instead of "no response required" how about "Answered in the FAQ" with no actual answer found anywhere?

Ethereal creatures, incorporeal or not? brings up a confusing situation of whether ethereal creatures count as incorporeal or not. It's an old thread but I think it came up when folks were wondering if ring of blinking would also grant wearers immunity to non-magic attacks, and a quasi-DR/magic (where the magic attack is only half damage) like with incorporeal creatures since the blink spell ethereal creatures are incorporeal, but spells like Ethereal Jaunt and Etherealness simply state insubstantial.


Okay, I have a question for you. First time asking you, normally my go to guy is James, but I felt this was more in your ball park.

Vigilante has the ability "Perfect Vulnerability"

D20PFSRD wrote:
As a standard action, the vigilante can cleverly strike his foe where that foe is weakest. This attack targets the foe's touch AC, and the foe is denied her Dexterity bonus against the attack. Once a foe has been the target of perfect vulnerability, she can't be the target of the same vigilante's perfect vulnerability for 24 hours. A vigilante must be at least 8th level to select this talent.

Now is this a Touch Attack, or a Normal Attack that targets Touch AC? As for the reading, it reminds me a lot of Early Firearms which says,

D20PFSRD wrote:
When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.

The reason I ask if for feats such as Power Attack. I look forward to hearing your answer!

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Early FAQ this week! (with the week off after the Intrigue set, I got this ready in advance, since I'm taking a day off tomorrow)

FAQ wrote:

Dragon Totem Resilience: Dragon totem resilience says that I get energy resistance equal to twice my barbarian DR, but then it says “This DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses”. From the context, it seems like it meant that the energy resistance increases. Which one is right?

It should say that the energy resistance increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power. This will be reflected in the next errata


Mark Seifter wrote:

Early FAQ this week! (with the week off after the Intrigue set, I got this ready in advance, since I'm taking a day off tomorrow)

FAQ wrote:

Dragon Totem Resilience: Dragon totem resilience says that I get energy resistance equal to twice my barbarian DR, but then it says “This DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses”. From the context, it seems like it meant that the energy resistance increases. Which one is right?

It should say that the energy resistance increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power. This will be reflected in the next errata

Thanks for the FAQ! I hope you enjoy your day off.


Mark Seifter wrote:

Early FAQ this week! (with the week off after the Intrigue set, I got this ready in advance, since I'm taking a day off tomorrow)

FAQ wrote:

Dragon Totem Resilience: Dragon totem resilience says that I get energy resistance equal to twice my barbarian DR, but then it says “This DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses”. From the context, it seems like it meant that the energy resistance increases. Which one is right?

It should say that the energy resistance increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power. This will be reflected in the next errata

Another FAQ for the ignore list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Holy s#~*! Captain Yesterday has a rules question!

Q. How many times can you select a resonant power for implements.

Example: An Occultist selects Transmutation twice, does she/he then get to add +2 to two ability scores, or do they just get the extra spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Holy s@~%! Captain Yesterday has a rules question!

Say it ain't so, Captain!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Holy s@~%! Captain Yesterday has a rules question!
Say it ain't so, Captain!

With a hand still twitching from clicking.

It is NOT a gateway question! I can stop whenever I want!!!!!!

smooths out comically messed up hair, straightens shirt with a quiet dignity.

Q. If a Paladin is Greased, does he fall.

Metaphorically I mean.


Mark, here is one that bothers me...

What is the justification for Celestial Healing? Its laughable compared to Infernal Healing, requiring Caster Level 20 in order to match Caster Level 1 on Infernal Healing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Mark, here is one that bothers me...

What is the justification for Celestial Healing? Its laughable compared to Infernal Healing, requiring Caster Level 20 in order to match Caster Level 1 on Infernal Healing.

Writing is on the wall man. Evil is where it's at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You're looking at it wrong.

Celestial Healing is called that because it is the kind of healing you want to use when you are fighting Celestials. Sure, Infernal Healing is the way to go most of the time, but it specifically doesn't work against a lot of the weapons and spells used by Celestials. So after a fight with a bunch of Celestials, Infernal Healing is often gonna be useless... you need to use Celestial Healing instead. Bonus, their blood is the material component.


Where can Tammy find this spell. She has some celestials to kabob.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Luthorne wrote:
I was looking at the Consolidated Skills and Grouped Skills rules from Pathfinder Unchained, and was wondering, how would you handle the +1 skill point option for a favored class bonus? For Consolidated Skills, I'm leaning towards +1/2 a skill point per level, and for Grouped Skills...pretty sure +1/2 a skill specialty per level would be too much...maybe +1/4? +1/5? Or would you just suggest disallowing that favored class option altogether in favor of racial options or the +1 hit point?

Also, how would you rule the extra skill point humans get by default for either of these? +1/2 a skill point per level for Consolidated, perhaps? Not sure what would be appropriate for Grouped, either...

Paizo Employee Designer

DmRrostarr wrote:

Mark, I have a APG question. There was a 9 post thread about this subject 5 years ago but no definitive agreement.

Per the APG: Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery."

My question is: if he shortens the grip, can the fighter still threaten 10 ft away or is he only limited to threatening 5 ft when he shortens his grip?

Thx

I agree with BigP4nda. It looks like since you're shortening the grip, you would be attacking up close but not far away. I can see the ambiguity, though. Anyway, that would be my personal ruling, and it's what I used when my group fought a ridiculous polearm master oni one time.

Paizo Employee Designer

BigP4nda wrote:

Pathfinder has been around for about 7 years now, and Paizo has notably grown more comfortable with the Pathfinder system and rulings. My question is if there is any talk about a possible "reworking" in the process? Basically going back and redoing the core rulebook to address all of the years of errata and FAQ, strip away unnecessary terms, simplify rulings, and essentially clean up the entire system now that Paizo has had plenty of experience with it and has had time to establish more concrete rulings.

My main concern is the level of complexity there is between what terms mean what, what actions fit into what, and the ever so popular RAI vs RAW. With many feats referencing terms that aren't used any more, some feats overstepping others, classes having better and clearer descriptions for abilities, etc.

EDIT: I guess you could call this Pathfinder 2.0 or 2E

I love simplifying rulings. It scratches my inner CS/engineering itch for efficiency. That said, CRB page references exist throughout other books, so I think changing its layout in the next printing would break way too much.

Paizo Employee Designer

BigP4nda wrote:

Just noticed something.

Multiplying Damage wrote:
Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. So if you are asked to double the damage twice, the end result is three times the normal damage.

If you were to multiply the original result by 2 twice it would actually be 4 times, not 3.

(6*2)+(6*2) = 24 = 6*4

Ah, but you're multiplying the original by 2 twice and adding the gains (in your equation, you added the original 6 damage twice).

So like this:

Original 6.

6x2=12, for a gain of 6.
6x2=12 for a gain of 6.

6+6+6=18.

It's easier to see what's happening if the second multiplier is something different like x3, so let's do that one.

Original 6.

6x2=12, for a gain of 6.
6x3-18, for a gain of 12.

6+6+12=24.

Possibly the easiest way to do it in your head is to add all the multipliers together, then subtract 1 for each multiplier after the first.

So if you had x2, x3, x4, and x5 all applying at once (good luck to the enemy who eats that attack!), you'd do 2+3+4+5=14. 14 - 3 (3 multipliers after the first) = 11. You're essentially removing the double-counting of the original damage when you subtract out at the end there.

EDIT: Luthorne has the right of it!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Mr. Seifter: I had this come up in PFS a couple of weeks ago, and it looked a little uncertain to me. I'm interested in your perspective.

How do Combat Patrol and Bodyguard interact? Does CP increase the range at which you can use B? Do you need Vanguard Style (which seems to explicitly call out this combination)?

Hopefully my question makes sense. ^_^

Paizo Employee Designer

ZanThrax wrote:
Mark, is there a rule written down anywhere that dictates how to deal with flat bonuses and multipliers that are applied to the same value? Specifically, I'd like to know if there's anything official regarding how to deal with abilities that increase the range of a thrown weapon (Hurler Barbarian adding 10' for example) combining with abilities that double the range of thrown weapons (Raging Hurler, Unfolding Wind Strike)? Should the flat bonuses be applied before or after multipliers?

For most non-damage situations, I would suggest multiplying first and then adding flat bonuses. Often times the flat bonuses were balanced based on you getting that much benefit, not a multiplier of the benefit, while the multiplier was balance based on multiplying the base amount, not an increased amount. I remember Jason talking about all the movement speed multipliers in 3.5 being one of the things he changed to avoid this conundrum, but it sneaks in in a few places nonetheless.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:

Mark, I have questions about the phrase 'magical darkness' as used in the Nightmare Fist feat. I thought you would be the person to ask since you wrote the Illuminating Darkness blog post. (And thank you for that, by the way.)

Am I correct that a magical effect that lowers the ambient light level counts as creating an area of 'magical darkness' even if it doesn't produce the darkness light level? For example, if a Darkness spell was cast in an area of normal light, would that area count as magical darkness even though the light level ends up being dim light rather than darkness? (I'm pretty sure this is correct.)

Then what about the case where a Darkness spell and a higher level Light spell overlap and cancel each other out? In the overlap, the light is back to the ambient level, but I am still in the area of a spell which is radiating darkness. (My thought here is that this is not an area of 'magical darkness' because the light level is no lower than the ambient level.)

What about an area where a Deeper Darkness overlaps with a higher level Light spell? If Deeper Darkness lowers the ambient light level by two steps and the Light spell raises it by one, does that count as an area of 'magical darkness?' (I'm thinking it would since the net result is still lower than the ambient level.)

If I'm correct then it seems that there are a lot of new ways to create 'magical darkness.' Is there anything on this list that you think obviously wouldn't qualify?

Blood of Shadows options
- The Eclipsed Spell Metamagic feat. (I am seriously salivating at the idea of creating 'magical darkness' using the Light cantrip in a 0-level slot.)
- A Voidlight Lantern
- The Dancing Darkness spell
- The Motes of Dusk and Dawn spell
- The Shield of Darkness spell (The wording here is...

Yeah, this is a bit oddly worded. The closest we have to a technical rules term for the deepest level of darkness is "supernaturally dark" / "supernatural darkness". The feat likely means to say this, since if it just meant you were in the AoE of any darkness spell, then it would work in normal light created by casting darkness in bright light, which seems off. Note also that the shield of darkness spell uses "magical darkness" when it unambiguously is referring to the "supernatural darkness" light level, which lends more evidence to the use of "magical darkness" interchangably with "supernatural darkness" in later materials. If we go by that definition, it looks like voidlight lantern and shield of darkness qualify but motes and dancing darkness don't.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythraine wrote:

Hi Mark,

Can you let me into the design reasoning behind vigilante talents? They just seem to be so much more powerful than almost all other class features of other classes.

I get that they are meant to be only used half of the time in the vigilante persona. But in a dungeon crawl scenario (of which almost all games feature), the vigilante would presumably be in the vigilante persona and be way more powerful than the standard fighter/slayer/rogue etc of the same level.

Also, there seems to be nothing RAW that stops a PC from just being the Tony Stark hero with everyone knowing both identities. In which case, the PC is getting the best of both worlds.

I'm trying really hard to see how the vigilante would not upstage a regular martial in every capacity in a normal game.

So, why are the talents so much more powerful?

Vigilante talents are pretty rad. We could make them stronger because of the lack of an Extra Vig Talent feat, which also allowed us and Amanda to trade them pretty competitively for nice options in archetypes. For straight up combat numbers, weapon and armor training for fighter are going to make your numbers high, but the vigilante is more versatile and social. Avenger is best compared to the slayer (which already is pretty vigorous in its offensive abilities even with fighter as a benchmark), and the comparison is usually pretty tight. It's absolutely a strong option. But why don't you see that so much on the forums right now? One reason that a fan discovered in another thread, and I expanded on the kernel of the idea that poster had, was the idea that vigilante gives you a perception of being weaker when it has an ability you can't or won't use in your current game than it would if it just had an empty slot instead of having that ability, which while counterintuitive, tends to be true psychologically in general. I know I found myself guilty of it once, when I was thinking about why I didn't buy a gaming magazine that had pagecount for systems I didn't play but was a very good deal even just factoring in the pages I would use. I think it's part of our perception of value, the instinct that: "The cost associated with the final product must be right (in this case, the levels you take in the class being the cost), so if I don't use it all, I'm not getting a good deal"

Paizo Employee Designer

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Mark,

I was working on a Sensei Monk build splashing Ninja for Forgotten Trick. While I came up with the idea on my own, I found many similar builds taking advantage of this trick (Forgotten trick shared via the Sensei's 6th level ability). However, after I brought the issue to the rules forum, I'm starting to be convinced that the multitudes of people suggesting that the combo works may in fact be wrong. I'd like your take on it.

The Sensei's Mystic Wisdom ability says: "At 6th level, a sensei may use his advice ability when spending points from his ki pool to activate a class ability (using the normal actions required for each) in order to have that ability affect one ally within 30 feet rather than the sensei himself....."

The key phrase in question being "activate a class ability". The question boils down to whether or not such a statement has an implied "from this (monk) class" associated with it (similar to how "level" generally implies "level in this class"), or if it truly means the abilities of any class using your ki pool, thus eliminating uses added by feats and items and the like, but still allowing Ninja Tricks.

I'm curious as to your opinion on the topic, as I don't mind taking such questions up to my GM (or GMs or lodge for PFS), but only if I believe that it is ambiguous. If I'm 'sure' I know the correct answer (in this case, if I'm sure it doesn't work, for example), then I won't bring it up at all.

Thanks!

There's a general rule that classes are self-referential, so "class level" or "level" showing up in a class feature would mean "level in this class". "Class ability" mentions the word class (rather than saying "ability" or something like that), so it seems like it would apply to monk only, just as you've suggested, and not on things like feats that cost ki, ninja ki stuff, magus arcana fueled with ki through other abilities, spells cast with ki through other abilities, and other stuff like that

4,351 to 4,400 of 6,818 << first < prev | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 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.