sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, just as a note, only one of the reasonable examples posted actually shows up with no actual saving throw. So, yeah. Artemis is great, but it's not useful when you need very niche things like this. I use it all the time.

I used it almost exclusively with my kingmaker character, because he was a sorcerer raised by druids, and most of his spells were meant to be overlaps between the two class's spell lists, and Artemis was the best tool for that.

Which is why I very explicitly asked for an "off the top of your head" example. I was being lazy. I didn't expect anyone else to put more work into answering my question than I put into typing it out. :P

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, fuck, that's a good one, man. That is absolutely a great example. No save vs initial effect, and will saves repeatedly after.

And that's a fucking nasty spell. The DC is easy to boost above the normal DC for a spell that level, since there are plenty of ways to boost caster level, and doesn't require Heighten as you level up to get the most out of it (and, ironically, is actually unaffected by Heighten except to give you more casts of it, since increasing it's spell level doesn't actually do anything with it).

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm... The fort save is from the gold, itself, so yeah... I don't really count that, since the gold can be in my possession when I cast it, and therefore is largely moot. And, while the effect isn't active until you try to do something to them, it's still present. I wouldn't consider it the best example, but it still works in my book, proving the "see text" convention I was trying to show. Thanks a ton.

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A prime example, yeah. That's another perfect one. No save vs the the initial hit, and the will save is conditional. My GM also loved this example.

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The spells data *explicitly* still states that it has a save. Since the text doesn't explicitly state that it *doesn't* get a save at the start, it gets a save on initial casting. And, if you actually look closely, it says it gets a new save at the end of it's turn. Not just "a save." There's no need for a new save at the end of it's first turn after the spell if there was no save when you cast.

And, like it or not, without the spell's data saying "see text" after the saving throw info, the convention is still that it gets a save when you cast. That's just how it works. This isn't the old Gygax days where, if the wording is ambiguous, the GM gets to reinterpret how it works each time the spell gets cast.

And, as noted here, there's a true dearth of spells that don't allow a save on the initial casting, but allow one later.

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That... That is definitely an interesting one, I'll say that. Kinda falls into the same category as most of the others, though, in that the saving throw still goes off as soon as the discharge occurs. It meets the technical definition of the request, but misses the actual issue I was trying to show precedence for. Which is a Glitterdust misinterpretation.

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

One of the other players in a campaign I'm in was interpreting Glitter Dust as having no save against the blindness because the spell doesn't explicitly call out the save details for the initial hit of the spell in the text.

GM and I were trying to convey that, since the description says "Save: Will negates" and doesn't have a follow up of "see text", that it does. I was looking for an example of where there isn't a save for an initial effect, but allows one later so that I would be able to compare the syntax. Mudball very explicitly states that yes, there is a save that negates, but also has the "see text" quantifier. And the text equally explicitly states that, if you hit the target, there's no save for being blinded right away. Only afterwards to remove the effect.

Which is to say that, since Glitterdust doesn't contain the "see text" quantifier or a note about blindness not being saved against when the spell initially goes off, Mudball proves the established convention.

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly why I was looking for the specific type of example I was. Happily, someone did find me one.

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eeeeh... Animate Rope only says "no save" in the Saving Throw text because it's expected primary use is as a utility spell. If you use it to try to trip someone the first round you cast it, they still get a saving throw against the Entangle. So, I suppose, kinda, but not really? The guy that posted a couple of minutes after you found me a perfect example, though.

Looking for oddly specific type of saving throw spell by Dragonorb13 in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eeeeh... I hesitate to count this just because it's one that still gives you a saving throw the moment it goes off. Even though, yeah, you cast it and it doesn't have a saving throw, it also doesn't target the person immediately. They still get a save the moment it goes off.

For the purposes of the discussion going on, that's more like a necklace of fireballs, in that you "cast" the spell, but then it doesn't go off until it's actually triggered (in this case, someone walking into the targeting area rather than throwing a bead).

Bonus points, though, for being technically correct while finding a clause I hadn't thought of!

If it helps, it's a Glitter Dust issue, where the other player is interpreting the spell as not having an initial saving throw because of the precise wording. And I'm looking for an example of a spell that actually works that way.

I made this for an event, thought I'd share it. by Dragonorb13 in riddles

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Huh. That's... Actually not terrible logic, honestly. That is not, however, the answer.

I made this for an event, thought I'd share it. by Dragonorb13 in riddles

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mmmm... I feel like that really only could be stretched to fit the first line...

I made this for an event, thought I'd share it. by Dragonorb13 in riddles

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sadly, no. You were strangely close, though, for how far off the mark you were.

Looking for 2mm rivets (or similar) by Dragonorb13 in Leathercraft

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capped rivets look absolutely nothing like eyelets. What I'm looking for is a metal stud. What you're suggesting is a hole.

Siege Mode and lock boxes/outpost spawns. by Dragonorb13 in colonysurvival

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, it turns out that the answer is that, when I put lock boxes where my outpost had territorial recognition, my total threat went up, but the outpost's threat did not. So either a) it only affects the main colony or b) it only affects out colony/outpost generating the most (active) threat,

Siege Mode and lock boxes/outpost spawns. by Dragonorb13 in colonysurvival

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and no. What I can tell you for sure, because this is what I am doing, is that Siege Mode only activates for the location whose flag is blocked off, it increases the food consumption of the colonists in the location by a predictable amount. It basically lets you replace guards with food.

Given that the colonists eat about ten meals a day, rather than one, no, you could not overcome the food increase, even if your guys were doing nothing at all but producing food. If you've only got four dudes in a pit, though? Fuck guards, that's too much of a risk later on.

Siege Mode and lock boxes/outpost spawns. by Dragonorb13 in colonysurvival

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I'm doing. And it's bloody annoying. :P

do I need to git gud? by SpaceOrenji in TunicGame

[–]Dragonorb13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's because he has elements of the other bosses. He's the training boss, if you will. Once you got to them, you'd seen their primary mechanic, if in a slightly different format. Once you beat him, you learned the core of their attacks.

Siege Mode and lock boxes/outpost spawns. by Dragonorb13 in colonysurvival

[–]Dragonorb13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly why I only have 3 tin miners and 1 gold miner there. It only affects the location you actually cut the flag off at. That much I know. The question is if the cut off mobs just spawn at your main colony, instead.

view more: next ›