Author Topic: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition  (Read 111675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #740 on: September 27, 2010, 08:28:33 PM »
Paizo makes some pretty good campaigns, and their campaigns assume pathfinder.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

kevin_video

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4833
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #741 on: September 27, 2010, 08:29:17 PM »
Paizo makes some pretty good campaigns, and their campaigns assume pathfinder.
But you can easily adapt them back to 3.5. Even their original campaigns were 3.5 based, and those weren't half bad either.
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God.

Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one.

Talore

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
  • Viking Skald
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #742 on: September 27, 2010, 08:37:38 PM »
Q270: How does readying actions work with Sharns? (3 standard actions + 1 move action + 1 swift action a turn, Full-round takes space of 2 standard and a move) Could I move, take two standard actions, then use the remaining one to ready an action? Would I then get any additional actions when my readied one goes off?
Bump, need this ruling for an upcoming game =/
Backseat moderator (voice) -_-

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #743 on: September 27, 2010, 08:41:32 PM »
Q270: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready

Nothing special, it works exactly like described in there.  A sharn can, in effect, ready 3 actions a round.

sir_argenon

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #744 on: September 27, 2010, 10:38:10 PM »
Q271: how cheesy is it for a cleric to to make a 1-level dip into the UA conjurer variant to gain the bonuses on summons with his divine casting...?  would anyone allow this as a DM? i think, by RAW, its not illegal...

iconoplast

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 45
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #745 on: September 27, 2010, 10:41:06 PM »

A271: No cheesier than all of the one level dips into Cleric for goodies.  You might argue that it's even a deliberate attempt to even the score.

sir_argenon

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #746 on: September 27, 2010, 10:43:42 PM »

A271: No cheesier than all of the one level dips into Cleric for goodies.  You might argue that it's even a deliberate attempt to even the score.

so do you agree that by reading it RAW, it should work on all summons, whether arcane or divine?

bearsarebrown

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #747 on: September 27, 2010, 10:51:09 PM »
q272 What's that ability that lets you shunt Concentration to your familiar?

carnivore

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #748 on: September 27, 2010, 11:15:51 PM »
q272 What's that ability that lets you shunt Concentration to your familiar?
A272
it is a Feat:

Familiar Concentration

Benly

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #749 on: September 28, 2010, 01:31:54 AM »
This is what's always cited to me as well, but it seems like Fighters and Paladins went in the right direction, Druids got nerfed, Clerics got nerfed a little (mostly spells), Wizards went nowhere and Sorcerers got buffed.  lolwut?

Fighters and Paladins still hit people with sticks, and the other classes still cast spells.  I've been told that Oracles do a mean combat as well, embarassing fighters.

I'm in a Core PF game with a Fighter and some other people and I'm playing a Sorc and it seems just as dumb as it ever did (though I guess I can do a smaller number of foolish things).

They also nerfed combat manuevers (Improved Trip is now two feats now) and made terrible feats like Elephant Stomp. (While I'm sure 3.5 has a ton of bad feats and I can name several, it's more glaring when there are less feats since each one is effectively one option that isn't even actually an option)

I dunno, don't want to hijack the thread but just wanted to update with "That's what I've heard" and "I don't buy it."  I'd be willing to hear other ideas.

Wizards and sorcerers got buffed as classes (leaving aside certain wizard ACFs) compared to 3.5. The thing is, wizards and sorcerers were never about the class features - what got nerfed on them was some (not all or even enough in my opinion, but some) of the key broken spells and mechanics. The class chassis was improved, so instead of a class you PrC out of and still get all the brokenness, you get a class with interesting class features and fewer things that break the game in half. This is why it is, to me, counterproductive to include Spell Compendium and such in Pathfinder games.

Combat maneuvers were not exactly globally buffed or nerfed; as far as I can tell they are stronger in some circumstances and weaker in others. I haven't gotten a chance to play with them much yet to be honest, so I can't give full feedback, but again a significant amount of the change is in the underlying mechanics rather than right out and obvious in the feats - from the little I've seen of it (empirical evidence to be taken with a grain of salt) grappling seems to be a bit more useful, for example.

Battle Oracles are pretty hardcore, but they don't "outfight fighters" the way clerics used to do on top of being full-casters. Full-casters in general don't outfight fighters anymore, which is at least a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, as I said, they didn't fix enough: full-casters don't outfight fighters but that was never really the underlying problem. While the scale of the problem has been changed, the essential problem remains: fighters get awesome at fighting, wizards get good at breaking the rules, and breaking the rules is still a better thing to be able to do. It is, however, an improvement in that in 3.5 fighters didn't even get awesome at fighting and wizards were even better at breaking the rules.

So if they didn't fix the problem, why do I like it? Because even though they didn't fix the underlying problem, they're at least a little closer than 3.5 was. A wizard can still break the game open at relatively low levels if he tries to, but in 3.5 a wizard would almost inevitably end up breaking apart party balance by level 10 or so, without even trying, possibly by level 7 but almost certainly by level 13. In Pathfinder, if nobody's trying shenanigans, the game can stay functional to 15 or so. It's not fixed, but it's less badly broken.

I don't have any strong investment in "Pathfinder Is The Bestest" and I'm a little disappointed that it didn't fix as much as I would have wanted it to, but it comes closer than 3.5 does in my opinion, and that's something.

CyMage

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #750 on: September 28, 2010, 01:41:55 AM »
Q273  Is there a version of Teleport or similiar spell that's lower then 5th level?  A search on Imarvintpa doesn't bring anything up unfortunately.  I'm looking specificaly for spells with the long range option of teleport.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 02:17:55 AM by CyMage »

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #751 on: September 28, 2010, 01:56:45 AM »
Q274

Is anybody still running the Iron Siege? I'm vaguely interesting in trying some sort of Vecna-Blooded Sharn abomination of a build, although not for a couple of months would I even be able to begin building it.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Talore

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
  • Viking Skald
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #752 on: September 28, 2010, 02:03:33 AM »
Q273  Is there a version of Teleport or similiar spell that's lower then 5th level?  A search on Imarvintpa doesn't bring anything up unfortunately.
A273 Dimension Door...?
Backseat moderator (voice) -_-

CyMage

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #753 on: September 28, 2010, 02:16:35 AM »
Q273  Is there a version of Teleport or similiar spell that's lower then 5th level?  A search on Imarvintpa doesn't bring anything up unfortunately.
A273 Dimension Door...?

Sorry, I'll edit my question a bit, but I need something with range similiar to teleport.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #754 on: September 28, 2010, 02:33:34 AM »
Q273  Is there a version of Teleport or similiar spell that's lower then 5th level?  A search on Imarvintpa doesn't bring anything up unfortunately.
A273 Dimension Door...?

Sorry, I'll edit my question a bit, but I need something with range similiar to teleport.
Frostfell slide?
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

CyMage

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #755 on: September 28, 2010, 02:40:54 AM »
A bit better, but I guess I was hoping to find a PrC with Teleport as a lower level spell. 

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #756 on: September 28, 2010, 03:11:47 AM »
A274: I don't remember any PrCs like that.  I do remember somewhere a 4th-level spell that, upon first casting, set up something of a waypoint.  A second casting at a later date could then be used to either set up a new waypoint (removing the old one) or to teleport the caster and others from their current location to the waypoint.

If it helps, I'm fairly confident it's an FR spell.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #757 on: September 28, 2010, 03:13:31 AM »
That sounds like some kind of word of recall variant.

EDIT: node door is a relatively long range teleport as a 3rd level spell.  Some restrictions apply.

Why are you trying to get this, cymage?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 03:15:11 AM by The_Mad_Linguist »
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Saxony

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
  • My avatar is from the anime "Pani Poni Dash!".
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #758 on: September 28, 2010, 03:17:44 AM »
Q271: how cheesy is it for a cleric to to make a 1-level dip into the UA conjurer variant to gain the bonuses on summons with his divine casting...?  would anyone allow this as a DM? i think, by RAW, its not illegal...
A 271: I would allow this as a DM. It is perfectly valid by Rules as Written. The variants reference Summon Monster spells. They never reference Wizard spellcasting or the Wizard class specifically, so they can be used in the general case for any class using Summon Monster spells.

As for how cheesy it is, you're asking if giving more/better Summon Monster abilities to a full spellcasting class which knows every Cleric spell ever published is too cheesy. Cleric is already cheesy on its own and better Summon Monster abilities will not make it significantly much more cheesy since they already have so many cheesy options at their disposal which are all accessible given a day's planning.

I can only think of one case when allowing this would be cheesy: when the Cleric is really a heal bot and the the Wizard is really a nukemage and the Druid only uses its animal companion to scout and doesn't take Natural Spell and so on. This is only cheesy if high level spellcasting has not been balanced for.

If that's true, then I wouldn't allow some of Unearthed Arcana's variants for Cleric or Wizard because the campaign is obviously mundane combat centric and giving spellcasters ways to summon better combatants than the party's fighter or barbarian is just plain rude.
If I say something about real world physics, and someone disagrees, assume I am right 90% of the time. This number goes up to 100% if I am late night posting - trust me, my star dust sibs.

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #759 on: September 28, 2010, 03:25:14 AM »
Q274

Is anybody still running the Iron Siege? I'm vaguely interesting in trying some sort of Vecna-Blooded Sharn abomination of a build, although not for a couple of months would I even be able to begin building it.
Tshern technically is, but I haven't seen much going on there lately.
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]