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


Off-Topic Discussions

4,501 to 4,550 of 6,818 << first < prev | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Jesus Christ, get some unholy water. Unless, of course you have a devil you can drain...

At least, that would be my answer. Which is also why they put the OR in there would be my guess. :-)

Go tiefling. Cast from own body.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nekomimi^w^ wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

Jesus Christ, get some unholy water. Unless, of course you have a devil you can drain...

At least, that would be my answer. Which is also why they put the OR in there would be my guess. :-)

Go tiefling. Cast from own body.

This has happened in one of our campaigns :3

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

The second is that since there is no price listed for devil blood then the spell qualifies for eschew materials.

What are your thoughts?

I would say eschew works, but each time you eschew this component, a small part of your soul is claimed by Hell at the time of your death. The infernal accountants have accurate records of such 'if you click here, you agree to this' small deals... :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Rysky wrote:

The second is that since there is no price listed for devil blood then the spell qualifies for eschew materials.

What are your thoughts?

I would say eschew works, but each time you eschew this component, a small part of your soul is claimed by Hell at the time of your death. The infernal accountants have accurate records of such 'if you click here, you agree to this' small deals... :)

I wouldn't doubt it.


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

Puts on ridiculously oversized crown and firmly grasps scepter saying "World's Best Daddy GM"

I believe Eschew Material Components wouldn't work. Devil's blood is obviously more valuable than a single gp.

Of course, you can go all Mad Max Fury Road with a Tiefling...


Hey Mark, since I can't seem to find the ruling for it, how do you deal with clerics that have access to a subdomain of a domain the cleric normally wouldn't have access to? Like how clerics of Kostchtchie have access to the Ice subdomain, even though they don't have access to the Water domain. Do they only gain that specific power and gain half of a domain in exchange for getting one they wouldn't normally have, or would they technically get the Water domain entirely but with the Ice subdomain modifier?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ashram wrote:
Hey Mark, since I can't seem to find the ruling for it, how do you deal with clerics that have access to a subdomain of a domain the cleric normally wouldn't have access to? Like how clerics of Kostchtchie have access to the Ice subdomain, even though they don't have access to the Water domain. Do they only gain that specific power and gain half of a domain in exchange for getting one they wouldn't normally have, or would they technically get the Water domain entirely but with the Ice subdomain modifier?

This was brought up in JJ's thread, you get the whole domain with the modifying subdomain.

The reason being is that Ice is very thematic for Kotschie to the point of it being weird if he didn't have it, whereas Water doesn't make a whole lot of sense for him.

He's not the only deity like that either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Crikeys Mark, did you guys just name a class "Medium"? ;-) Did you learn nothing from "level"?

Can I play a Large Medium? How about a Small Medium? Most will be Medium Mediums. If I play it pretty good, does it become a "Medium Well"? Or if I am cheerful, am I a "Happy Medium"? Snort.

137ben wrote:

Even worse, he followed the 3.5 trend of giving new classes the same names as old! It was bad enough when a multi-class Samurai (Oriental Adventures)/Samurai (Complete Warrior) decided to prestige into Master Samurai (Sword and Fist) and Dragon Samurai (Miniatures Handbook).

Now, though, a Medium (Legendary Classes: Covenant Magic) can multiclass to Medium (Occult Adventures), before having Enlarge Person cast on them to become a multiclass Large/Large!
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wouldn't that become a Large Medium/Medium?

If you have a Halfling on-the-run who took this class, would you have a...

... small Medium at large?!

- (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)

YEEEEEEAAAAAHHH~!

Someone probably made this joke*, but I don't care, 'cause I haven't read that far to catch uuuuuuuuu~uuuuuuuup~!

(Oh, also, I'm on pg 58, trying to catch up. Will I make it?! WHO KNOWS~! probably not today)

EDIT:
* Dang it, like six posts later. Hey! I'm unique**! I'm original**! I'm hip**!

** No guarantees that I am actually any of these things.


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

I highly recommend making a Medium Tacticslion. I think it's probably my favorite class right now.

Although, Psychic is also turning out to be really fun. :-)


Mark Seifter wrote:
it's about the system of checks and balances we use to ensure that nobody in the company (including me) can just make a weird (or flat-out wrong) off-the-cuff ruling and have it be official.
First World Bard wrote:
We remember Doli.
Mark Seifter wrote:
May he rest in peace.

This is probably really old news, and I'm probably the only person shere that doesn't know it, but... what?

captain yesterday wrote:

I highly recommend making a Medium Tacticslion. I think it's probably my favorite class right now.

Although, Psychic is also turning out to be really fun. :-)

Probably after I'm done nerding out a bit over Mesmerist and Vigilante. :D


Mark Seifter wrote:
Thinking about it a bit, there's a lot of things I learned this GenCon, more so than last year's, due to people actually knowing who I am. The #1 thing I gained was more of an emotional/happy thing than a piece of knowledge or anything; basically I learned (in some ways reminded myself, in some ways, really saw for the first time) just how unrepresentative the messageboards are overall for indicating the overall emotional state of the fans. I talked to tons of PFS players, tons of non-PFS players, and even a bunch of non-Pathfinder players. Overall, I discovered that there were a lot of plugged-in people who actually would want to post on the messageboards but feel that the negativity pushes them away, and since I can relate to that feeling, it's a little sad that there isn't any way to foster a community that welcomes those people. But the positive/happy thing is tied to that sadness, and it is thus: people are more likely to post on the boards about what makes them upset because being upset is a much stronger psychological impetus towards going through the steps of posting something (which has a greater net effort than just talking aloud), but when you get people talking, the barrier is lower, and they are actually as a whole really happy! And that's a very happy thing for me too. This whole thing is all about making people happy, when it comes down to it.
Weirdo wrote:

Hi Mark! I met you last GenCon, though I don't think I introduced myself as "that Weirdo from the internet." Wanted to let you know that despite some online grumbling I am also as a whole pretty happy, and I especially appreciate your involvement in the community! I will try to express that more often.

I'll probably be playing a hydrokineticist in about a year when our next round of games starts up, and may be experimenting with a few NPCs in my current campaign. I'm really looking forwards to seeing some new stuff for them in Occult Origins and anything else you can put together in that time. After all, a lot of what...

I wanted to be clear on this: I wholly agree with Weirdo. While I don't agree with everything you guys say for my own reasons, I really respect you guys and, over-all, really like the game and what you're doing. Thank you, and please, please keep it up!

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
This is probably really old news, and I'm probably the only person shere that doesn't know it, but... what?

You are not alone.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
This is probably really old news, and I'm probably the only person shere that doesn't know it, but... what?
You are not alone.

There are more of us then you realize.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can you ask why the Psychic didn't get Protection (Magic Circle Against) from Evil on its spell list, or the new Thaumaturgic Circle on its spell list? It's a pretty weird oversight given that they have Planar Binding as an option, so I wonder if it was deliberate, an oversight, or an unfortunate loss due to space concerns?


Mark, how are your personal games going? Having fun? Playing, GMing, or both? Or are you too busy?

Also, do you have a current "favorite" (or maybe just "default") snack food?

(Mine is currently "freezer chicken" of various kinds by Tyson, acquired from Publix.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tac, Publix is mostly a Florida thing - I don't think he's likely to have heard of its awesomeness, being from Massachusetts and now Washington.

He may never know of the glory of their subs, either, which is...just the saddest thing I think I may know Paizo employees have to deal with.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

Tac, Publix is mostly a Florida thing - I don't think he's likely to have heard of its awesomeness, being from Massachusetts and now Washington.

He may never know of the glory of their subs, either, which is...just the saddest thing I think I may know Paizo employees have to deal with.

Fair enough. Fair... e... nough.

Alas, I have once again been defeated. Having arrived at the top of page 75, I have run out of time. I... need more time.

Mark, how do I l33t h4x some magical forces to get more time?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Crikeys Mark, did you guys just name a class "Medium"? ;-) Did you learn nothing from "level"?

Can I play a Large Medium? How about a Small Medium? Most will be Medium Mediums. If I play it pretty good, does it become a "Medium Well"? Or if I am cheerful, am I a "Happy Medium"? Snort.

137ben wrote:

Even worse, he followed the 3.5 trend of giving new classes the same names as old! It was bad enough when a multi-class Samurai (Oriental Adventures)/Samurai (Complete Warrior) decided to prestige into Master Samurai (Sword and Fist) and Dragon Samurai (Miniatures Handbook).

Now, though, a Medium (Legendary Classes: Covenant Magic) can multiclass to Medium (Occult Adventures), before having Enlarge Person cast on them to become a multiclass Large/Large!
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wouldn't that become a Large Medium/Medium?

If you have a Halfling on-the-run who took this class, would you have a...

... small Medium at large?!

- (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)

YEEEEEEAAAAAHHH~!

Someone probably made this joke*, but I don't care, 'cause I haven't read that far to catch uuuuuuuuu~uuuuuuuup~!

(Oh, also, I'm on pg 58, trying to catch up. Will I make it?! WHO KNOWS~! probably not today)

We have seen what you did there in spite of your small medium at large's small small size bonus to stealth, and we have recorded it in our large medium sub-database.


Heh.

Also, Mark, have you ever seen, Scooby Doo!: Mystery Incorporated, and if so, how much did you like it? :)


Mark Seifter wrote:
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.

Apologies on late reply, been busy with life for a while.

What I was talking about wasn't reorganizing the next printing, but essentially starting again from "scratch" (though not actually from scratch) Like WotC does with D&D (though I never want to see a Pathfinder 4e). I think just moving onto a second edition of Pathfinder where everything is clarified, reorganized, and made simpler to understand. Bring The current Pathfinder rulebooks to an end and continue off a new and improved Pathfinder. Though, being that much of the core mechanics won't change, many of the things from the original would still be usable with the new version.
The production of campaign settings (save for page references) won't need to be altered, nor will comics or other Golarion-based entertainment products. Only the books regarding the Pathfinder system.

I hope this explanation is clearer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's your opinion about Rage and Bardic performance working together?

First line of bardic performance says it uses perform skill, but then many don't reference making a perform check, and JJ said that the line was leftover and not meant to be in. But then there's the storyteller medium that causes more issues.

Storyteller Medium
"This ability is similar in all respects to bardic performance as used by a bard of the storyteller's medium level (including interactions with feats, spells, and other abilities), and uses Perform (act), Perform (comedy), or Perform (oratory) as the storyteller's performance skill. However, a storyteller gains only the following types of bardic performance: inspire courage (2nd level), inspire competence (3rd level), inspire greatness (9th level), and inspire heroics (15th level)."

This is from an RPG line book, and says it's limited to certain perform skills, yet none of the types of performances it can do require a skill check. So why say it can only use certain skills as the performance skill if none of them need a performance skill, or are all performances using a skill and just not caring about the result, or something else?

Silver Crusade

Mark, do you think a Mythic Path power that increased all of the fixed numeric scores for a Judgment by 3 would be ok or do you think it would be overpowered for a number of minutes equal to his tier for 1 mythic power point?

On the same mein would a path power that allowed an inquisitor to have an additional Judgment active would be a good path power?


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

If using consolidated skills, what would be the class skills for a kineticist? Stealth is the only obvious one; Acrobatics is part of Acrobatics and Athletics, but none of the other skills in those are by default a class skill for kineticists normally. Craft and Profession are now background skills, Heal is half of Survival, Intimidate is one-third of Influence, Perception is half of Perception, and Use Magic Device is one-third of Spellcraft...on the other hand, when I compared Barbarian, the class skills seemed to be chosen more based on theme; for example, they get Nature despite only having one of the four skills that make it up as a class skill, and don't get Perception despite having half of it. So yeah, since you made the kineticist, figured you'd be the best to ask about what's on theme there.

For elemental additions to class skills, so far I've been leaning towards ruling that if they give one skill that's part of a consolidated skill as a class skill, they give the consolidated skill as a class skill, so Aether gets Knowledge (engineering)* and Finesse, Air gets Acrobatics and Nature, Earth gets Athletics and Nature, Fire gets Acrobatics and Nature, and Water gets Athletics and Nature...would you handle it in a different way? Similarly already ruled that if you get a trait that gives you a skill as a class skill, you get the consolidated skill as a class skill, but any trait bonuses to skill checks only apply to that use of the consolidated skill. But if you'd tackle it from a different perspective (or swap some around), I'd be interested in hearing your viewpoint...maybe only one consolidated skill should be a class skill, rather than both?

*as a background skill

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

And now it's time for another exciting episode of FAQ Friday!

FAQ wrote:

Reach increases and size increases: The description of Large or larger creatures with reach weapons says that they can strike up to double their natural reach but can’t strike at their natural reach or less. Do I calculate this doubling before or after effects that alter my reach like Lunge or longarm?

Double the base reach for a creature of your size first, then add in all the other abilities afterwards. So for instance, an ogre with the longarm spell wielding a longspear and using the Lunge feat would be able to attack creatures that were 15, 20, 25, or 30 feet away but not creatures that were 0, 5, or 10 feet away.


Thank you for the FAQ! I always enjoy FAQ Friday, but this one is particularly helpful.

Now how does this work if the ogre is using a whip instead of a longspear? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dang it. Top of page 83 - eight more pages to "caught up" alas...


Can you explain in detail the number of melee attacks a magus with spellstrike and spell combat would get if using them together with a zeroth level touch spell?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dunelord3001 wrote:
Can you explain in detail the number of melee attacks a magus with spellstrike and spell combat would get if using them together with a zeroth level touch spell? I'm under the impression that it would be one from the replaced touch attack, the normal number from base attack, and any other from Haste or such. Is that correct?

You'd get how ever many attacks you have based off of your BAB, followed by the free touch attack from the spell, followed by any additional attacks from haste and similar effects.

For spells with multiple touch attacks (chill touch), you get the one free additional attack, and can use your other iterative attacks to discharge the remaining charges of the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark, I was wondering if you could give a pointer as to how best to interpret a rule concerning the Brawler's Martial Training ability.

For reference:

Martial Training wrote:
At 1st level, a brawler counts her total brawler levels as both fighter levels and monk levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats. She also counts as both a fighter and a monk for feats and magic items that have different effects based on whether the character has levels in those classes (such as Stunning Fist and a monk's robe). This ability does not automatically grant feats normally granted to fighters and monks based on class level, namely Stunning Fist.

I embolded the key issue that I and others are having with this. The debate stems from how to interpret "counts as". Does this mean that Brawler levels in these conditions are to be "in the place of" Fighter and Monk levels? Or are they "in addition to"?

For example, does a Brawler-2/Fighter-2 qualify for Weapon Specialization? Or how many times per day can a Brawler-4/Monk-4 perform a Stunning Fist?


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

Now that you've lived there awhile. What's your favorite park in Seattle. :-)

Community & Digital Content Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some passive aggressive posts. Folks, this thread is intended to be a fun platform to ask Mark questions. Don't further debates or disagreements and try to put him (or any other Paizo person with an "ask" thread) in the middle of them, thanks.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some passive aggressive posts. Folks, this thread is intended to be a fun platform to ask Mark questions. Don't further debates or disagreements and try to put him (or any other Paizo person with an "ask" thread) in the middle of them, thanks.

If this is the case shouldn't you be removing the posts that are bringing the conversation here?


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

It's in the form of a question.

And

It's asked politely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the other thread, I mentioned early on how I believed the idea of a Brawler archetype (who gave up his AC and Unarmed Damage) dipping into Monk and wearing Robes in order to get access to certain bonuses seemed overpowered to me. But as a PFS GM, I wasn't aware of any precedent in the rules that would disallow this. This generated a number of questions for me, the key one being the stacking of levels through the text of "counts as" in the Martial Training ability.

Hence my question here. I was asking more than just what Mark thinks it should be, but also asking for a pointer in how to interpret it...meaning if there was anything in the rules that would lend itself to supporting a specific way of reading it over another.

Thanks to you, Chess Pwn, your citing of Mark's original answer to a similar question helps to show what his opinion on the matter is.

And thanks to Kazaan's mention of the Magus rule that explicitly points out stacking (where the Brawler rule does not), this seemed to be the precedent I was looking for....which also happens to agree with a Developer's viewpoint.

So unless Mark has any further comments for this, I can withdraw my question as it has been satisfactorily answered since its posting.

Silver Crusade

Mark. could a pitfiend summon someone who is bound to him using his summon ability? Conversely could the mortal bound to the Pitfiend summon his master using summon planer alley?

Is there an infernal power that would allow the master and servant to communicate with one another at a distance.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Hi, Mark!

I've been thinking about playing a telekineticist in a (hopefully not too fat off) game of Mummy's Mask. What does gather power look like for a telekineticist? Maybe the strands of aether in the radius levitating or rattling all the unattended objects nearby? I'm having a harder time coming up with what it would look like for aether's elemental overflow; what do you imagine for that effect?

Grand Lodge

Hey Mark. I was curious if double slice would allow the Unchained Rogue to get full dex to damage on his offhand weapon while Two-weapon fighting?

I've seen this questioned multiple times in threads, with about a fairly even split between people who say it does and people who say it doesn't.

If you could offer clarification I'd really appreciate it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Hey Mark. I was curious if double slice would allow the Unchained Rogue to get full dex to damage on his offhand weapon while Two-weapon fighting?

I've seen this questioned multiple times in threads, with about a fairly even split between people who say it does and people who say it doesn't.

If you could offer clarification I'd really appreciate it.

That was before the FAQ that came out and said that anything that increases str doesn't work for Rogue's dex. So no double slice

Grand Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Hey Mark. I was curious if double slice would allow the Unchained Rogue to get full dex to damage on his offhand weapon while Two-weapon fighting?

I've seen this questioned multiple times in threads, with about a fairly even split between people who say it does and people who say it doesn't.

If you could offer clarification I'd really appreciate it.

That was before the FAQ that came out and said that anything that increases str doesn't work for Rogue's dex. So no double slice

Ah, I appear to have missed the last part of that FAQ. Well that sucks considering unchained Rogue's were looking to be the TWF masters.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Hey Mark. I was curious if double slice would allow the Unchained Rogue to get full dex to damage on his offhand weapon while Two-weapon fighting?

I've seen this questioned multiple times in threads, with about a fairly even split between people who say it does and people who say it doesn't.

If you could offer clarification I'd really appreciate it.

That was before the FAQ that came out and said that anything that increases str doesn't work for Rogue's dex. So no double slice
Ah, I appear to have missed the last part of that FAQ. Well that sucks considering unchained Rogue's were looking to be the TWF masters.

They are still very much TWF masters, with or without Double Slice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Basically Herolab asked our Licensing Coordinator who asked me, so I asked Jason, and he said that gauntlets are basically just a way to do lethal damage with your unarmed strikes, not an actual weapon (basically an inexpensive modifier for unarmed strikes that's in the unarmed strike category) and can't be enhanced on its own, whereas all those other weapons are listed separately as weapons, including spiked gauntlet.

So, is this a new change because last I heard, Jason and SKR determined that Gauntlets were not Unarmed Strikes and SKR further clarified in one of the blogs (which I can't seem to find now) that there are no "Unarmed Strike" type weapons in Pathfinder except for actual Unarmed Strikes.

The way I've understood it is that Gauntlets can be used in two ways. First, they can be used normally as a Gauntlet weapon, interacting with Weapon Focus(Gauntlet), relying on its own enhancement bonus(es), and not interacting with Unarmed Strike rules elements. Second, they can be used to grant the lethal damage property to Unarmed Strikes; and only lethal damage, not enhancement bonus or negating provocation or the like. From all the information on the table right now, first Gauntlets were Unarmed Strike weapons, then they weren't, and now they are again. Are you and Jason absolutely sure about it this time, or did he just forget what he and SKR decided? Granted, it has been several years and he may very well have forgotten, but I just want to make sure that this is a deliberate and informed change and not just forgetfulness before we all take it as gospel.


Kazaan wrote:
before we all take it as gospel.

As a friendly reminder, the boilerplate still holds: it shouldn't be taken as gospel at all, and shouldn't be taken as rules, unless it's the PDT account making the statement. :)

Silver Crusade

Mark would a magus/archmage with component freedom somatic be able to use spell strike and spell combat 2 handing his weapon and casting spells?


I was wondering if a skald can take multiple blood lines?


Mark, while I like the kineticist's burning infusion, especially for its bonus to attack, DCs, and caster level checks against the on-fire target, I find myself hesitant to use it at times due to still not fully understanding how exactly the target puts it out:

I assume the "Reflex negates" is to avoid getting set on fire to begin with. But if already on fire from burning infusion, does the target:

1) Start suffering taking the 1d6 on-fire damage immediately once they fail the initial saving throw? Or on its next turn like with alchemist's fire?

2) What's the actions to put out the fire? Is it a full round action (like with immolation bombs, explosive bombs, and alchemist's fire)? Is it like the like the Environment Catch on Fire rules where I think it's a free Reflex save at beginning of target's turn (if they fail, more damage) and during their turn they can get another saving throw if "rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus" (I assume full-round action for that too)?

3) What's the DC to put out the fire? Is it like the Environment Catch on Fire rules of a flat DC 15 Reflex save to put out fires on clothing and equipment or does one use the initial saving throw DC of 10 + half kineticist level + Con modifier?

As of late I've been doing target starts takes on-fire damage on their subsequent turns (like with alchemist fire, but where it actually sticks around) and full-round action to put it out using the initial Reflex DC because I felt that DC 15 Reflex of the Environment rules was rather low and for equipment rather than actual person on fire and the actual DC used is the "avoiding set on fire DC to begin with" in general. But I'd like to be sure on the procedures and difficulties so as to not be unfairly penalizing my burning infusion victims.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are you ready for PaizoCon?

4,501 to 4,550 of 6,818 << first < prev | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 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.