RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Pathfinder Arena

19:09, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

OOC Discussion 8.

Posted by GM ArkrimFor group 0
Grunyar Fangblood
Summoner 6,282, 934 posts
Skinwalker Summoner
Wed 27 Jun 2018
at 13:35
  • msg #952

Re: OOC Discussion 8

I think that
quote:
Repairing Nanites:
is the only trait you can add to Android at the moment.

You can always wager some BP and suggest something balanced to GM
Igar-Kruk
Barbarimonk 1,349, 70 posts
Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Wed 27 Jun 2018
at 14:12
  • msg #953

Re: OOC Discussion 8

I meant in relation to this little rule :
"Banned Races":
Any race that cannot be built using the existing rules from the Advanced Race Guide (and official Paizo errata for it) will not be allowed. You must earn achievements to customize your own (see Achievements).

Nanite Surge, Emotionless and Constructed aren't in the Advanced Race Guide, hence don't have RP costs in there, but the android race entry in the Inner Sea Bestiary does have RP costs for those three traits & a total RP cost for the race. (which you see written up on D20PFSRD)

Which is why I am unsure whether the android race as a whole is allowed or not.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:13, Wed 27 June 2018.
Jayce the Tamer
Summoner 12,322, 744 posts
Human Summoner
Wed 27 Jun 2018
at 17:20
  • msg #954

Re: OOC Discussion 8

I need to duel boa eventually to get that BP boost. Haha.


Igar if you still want to duel AFTER this match closes just let me know. If you want some weird special rule for it to be easier for you like Josep and grunyar had let me know. But I may be OP even if I sat in the corner and you only dueled my Eidolon. Sasha is gangster.
Igar-Kruk
Barbarimonk 1,349, 71 posts
Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Wed 27 Jun 2018
at 17:57
  • msg #955

Re: OOC Discussion 8

Yeah, I'm still game.

Hm... Jayce takes a nap in the stands while a blindfolded Sasha makes gnoll sashimi? ^^

Honestly, I don't expect much outside of a very quick match, even if Jayce does spend the entire match reading a book.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:59, Wed 27 June 2018.
Boadicea
Fighter 9,116, 1200 posts
Advanced Human Fighter
Wed 27 Jun 2018
at 22:41
  • msg #956

Re: OOC Discussion 8

Android is allowed I was one for a short bit tried a rage cycle build Android helps  with the fatigue thing
Igar-Kruk
Barbarimonk 1,349, 72 posts
Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Wed 27 Jun 2018
at 23:54
  • msg #957

Re: OOC Discussion 8

In reply to Boadicea (msg # 956):

Thank you very much Boadicea!

Although... Androids can't get morale bonii and are immune to emotional effects, so how does an android barbarian even wor- ah, of course, the Empathy feat from People of the Stars!

Quite an interesting approach I must say.
Latro Dectus
Antipaladin 5,031, 1731 posts
Drow N. Antipaladin
Shadow's Caress
Thu 28 Jun 2018
at 16:17
  • msg #958

Re: OOC Discussion 8

Yo, where the section about how long spells last go too?

I was trying to figure out how long an hour/level spell would last in the arena but im not seeing that chart anymore.
Jayce the Tamer
Summoner 12,322, 745 posts
Human Summoner
Thu 28 Jun 2018
at 19:33
  • msg #959

Re: OOC Discussion 8

He removed it either accidentally or in purpose. April 3rd announcement shows he harshly limited spell durations.
Josep Gavinho
Wizard 7,544, 1610 posts
Human Wizard
Thaumaturgical Alliance
Thu 28 Jun 2018
at 21:11
  • msg #960

Re: OOC Discussion 8

 hour/level was 4 rnds/llvl
 10min/level was 3 rnds/lvl
 1min/level was 2 rnds/lvl
as far as I can recall
Ugrim
Bloodmagus 1,681, 541 posts
Adv. Orc Bloodmagus
Shadow's Caress
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 06:38
  • msg #961

Re: OOC Discussion 8

In reply to Ankou (msg # 946):

Sure, why not?

my only condition is no summoning. We go toe to toe as men and beat the snot out of each other with our own might.
Ankou
Druid 7,689, 710 posts
Aug. Human Goliath Druid
Thaumaturgical Alliance
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 07:14
  • msg #962

Re: OOC Discussion 8

Sounds good! If it was down to me, there would be no summoning at all in the arena — it is wildly overpowered.

Small Colosseum?
Ugrim
Bloodmagus 1,681, 542 posts
Adv. Orc Bloodmagus
Shadow's Caress
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 07:37
  • msg #963

Re: OOC Discussion 8

I'll take it.

1 prep round?

I'd like to be able to get at least one buff spell off before you murder me with your druid powers. The difference in BP is quite massive.
Ugrim
Bloodmagus 1,681, 543 posts
Adv. Orc Bloodmagus
Shadow's Caress
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 08:07
  • msg #964

Re: OOC Discussion 8

I will say though i very much want to go toe to to with Igar and his barbarimonk.

There can only be one strongest barbarian in this arena and that's Ugrim.


Side Note: Man if i wasn't already Shadow's Caress i would totally start a guild where only those that can rage are allowed in. It would be called "Too Swol to Control." Just a bunch of buff bros and gals Swoling it up 100% of the time 24/7. getting into arm wrestling matches and constantly punching each other to prove their dominance.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:10, Fri 29 June 2018.
Igar-Kruk
Barbarimonk 1,349, 73 posts
Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 12:21
  • msg #965

Re: OOC Discussion 8

Sure, I'll happilly squeeze in another match between getting splated across the arena by Jayce and resetting!
Jayce the Tamer
Summoner 12,322, 746 posts
Human Summoner
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 17:20
  • msg #966

Re: OOC Discussion 8

I think we are missing the fact that UP TO means maximum possible but also means can be smaller than.
Boadicea
Fighter 9,116, 1207 posts
Advanced Human Fighter
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 18:23
  • msg #967

Re: OOC Discussion 8

In reply to Jayce the Tamer (msg # 966):

+1
Igar-Kruk
Barbarimonk 1,349, 74 posts
Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 19:27
  • msg #968

Re: OOC Discussion 8

The question is really down to semantics and the ambiguity of the English language. In this case in "whose area is up to one 10-foot square per level", what does the "up to" refer to?

Ie, is it as many 10-foot squares as you like up to your caster level or as many squares up to your caster level that can be up to 10 feet in side? (it does seem to indicate up to X 10 feet squares in my opinion, whether it was RAI or not.)
This message was last edited by the player at 19:31, Fri 29 June 2018.
Boadicea
Fighter 9,116, 1208 posts
Advanced Human Fighter
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 19:51
  • msg #969

Re: OOC Discussion 8

The part that really to me calls out the 10*10 is an example/unit of measure for the square footage is the "whose area is up to one 10 square per level" and area being L*W wouldn't it say wall made up of 10' squares instead of area
Igar-Kruk
Barbarimonk 1,349, 75 posts
Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 21:11
  • msg #970

Re: OOC Discussion 8

It is the exact same formulation as Wall of Stone & Wall of Iron, except that those specify 5-foot squares and mention 5-foot square section (since you can break individual sections).

Plus, this spell says 10-foot squares, but there are other spells which talk about about straight up square feet, like symbol of sealing.

Honestly it is ambiguously worded (same terrible wording as in 3.5 actually) and I understand where you are coming from, even if I disagree. The D&D 5e version is worded far better, but that isn't relevant to this question.


PS : Wall of X make for boring arena matches anyway and i wouldn't shed a single tear if they were banned. ;p
This message was last edited by the player at 21:19, Fri 29 June 2018.
Boadicea
Fighter 9,116, 1209 posts
Advanced Human Fighter
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 21:22
  • msg #971

Re: OOC Discussion 8

I would not cry either if Force wall was removed but there are ways to bypass it
Jayce the Tamer
Summoner 12,322, 747 posts
Human Summoner
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 21:39
  • msg #972

Re: OOC Discussion 8

Igar-Kruk:
It is the exact same formulation as Wall of Stone & Wall of Iron, except that those specify 5-foot squares and mention 5-foot square section (since you can break individual sections).

Plus, this spell says 10-foot squares, but there are other spells which talk about about straight up square feet, like symbol of sealing.

Honestly it is ambiguously worded (same terrible wording as in 3.5 actually) and I understand where you are coming from, even if I disagree. The D&D 5e version is worded far better, but that isn't relevant to this question.


PS : Wall of X make for boring arena matches anyway and i wouldn't shed a single tear if they were banned. ;p



Out of curiosity how is it worded? Arkrim does make house rules sometimes and maybe this is one we need to make.
Igar-Kruk
Barbarimonk 1,349, 76 posts
Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Fri 29 Jun 2018
at 22:17
  • msg #973

Re: OOC Discussion 8

Well, it says "[...]or you can shape a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-by-10-foot panels. Each panel must be contiguous with another panel.", which has the merit of making it unambiguous about the size of the components.

Mind you in 5e spells don't scale with caster level so that has to be taken into account if porting, plus there are a couple differences between how the spell works between 3.5/pathfinder and 5e.

It's actually part of the good ol' d20srd, as WotC added a 5e section in addition to the 3.5 section.
http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm
This message was last edited by the player at 22:17, Fri 29 June 2018.
Josep Gavinho
Wizard 7,544, 1613 posts
Human Wizard
Thaumaturgical Alliance
Sat 30 Jun 2018
at 17:14
  • msg #974

Re: OOC Discussion 8

Even if you twist the words to mean “up to a certain number of 10ft squares”, there’s nothing saying it needs to be a round number of squares in any direction. My wall could be 3.95 10ft squares wide, 5.00 10ft square tall.

But that opens a whole lot of weird situations, could you do a crenelated wall? A wall taller one side than the other? Leave just a 10ft square missing in the top corner of a wall?

My understanding is the wall needs to be a plain rectangle, with an area up to 10ft square by level (ie 1700 sqft at my level).
Igar-Kruk
Barbarimonk 1,349, 77 posts
Gnoll Barbarian/Monk
Sat 30 Jun 2018
at 18:08
  • msg #975

Re: OOC Discussion 8

In reply to Josep Gavinho (msg # 974):

Half a ten-foot square is not a ten-foot square. Indeed, in your example they aren't even squares anymore.

You can shape wall of stone - there are mentions of crenelations, doubled thicknesses, buttresses... Wall of force has to be a flat vertical, unbroken and continuous plane. Partially redundant since a plane is a 2d surface in which any two points in it can be connected by a straight line wholly within the surface.

Like I said, I understand where you are coming from, but the spell doesn't use square feet - which exist in Pathfinder spell effects - but ten-foot squares. For me they should have included a second "up to" or "of no more than" or worded it "an area of up to the equivalent of" for that to be grammatically correct. I'd go so far as to say that your version might be RAI, although Paizo didn't touch the spell when porting from 3.5, so intent starts getting muddy.

Mind you, the 10-ft. square mess was a change in wording between 1st and 2nd edition AD&D when it went from 20 square feet to one 10-ft. square.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:09, Sat 30 June 2018.
Josep Gavinho
Wizard 7,544, 1614 posts
Human Wizard
Thaumaturgical Alliance
Sat 30 Jun 2018
at 19:46
  • msg #976

Re: OOC Discussion 8

It’s not only the rule as intended, it’s also the rule as enforced in the arena since the first time wall of force was cast.

As far as I recall, no wall of force I cast was in 10ft square increments.
Sign In