Keep in mind that the treasure provided by monsters is NOT all equipment. In fact, most of the treasure should be assets (gold, gems, objects of art, etc) rather than equipment, generally speaking. Using the Magic Item Compendium guidelines (as the Core Rulebook really falls down in this regard), a CR 20 creature would only actually have one item as part of its "treasure" (ranging in quality from a greater metamagic rod or ring of evasion up to a +10 weapon).
It should be typical gear a balor carries with it, most balors won't carry a pouch with gems or a coinpurse, most likely it is infact magical treasure it can use. If it isn't the DM is just handling you with kiddy gloves.
EDIT: I'd likely be inclined to give it more treasure, taking the appropriate wealth from it's minions and adding part of it to the balor's instead to toughen the BBEG up a bit, damn evil bastard mugging it's own minions!
It should be typical gear a balor carries with it, most balors won't carry a pouch with gems or a coinpurse, most likely it is infact magical treasure it can use. If it isn't the DM is just handling you with kiddy gloves.
EDIT: I'd likely be inclined to give it more treasure, taking the appropriate wealth from it's minions and adding part of it to the balor's instead to toughen the BBEG up a bit, damn evil bastard mugging it's own minions!
Then you're ignoring the treasure guidelines and playing a house ruled game, which makes any comparisons irrelevant.
Kierato wrote:
Where is fighterman getting a +1 competence bonus to initiative from?
--
Also how did "Fighterman" get a +1 luck bonus to Initiative?
The competence bonus is from the pale green prism ioun stone (+1 competence to all attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks; Initiative is a Dexterity check, page 178 Core Rulebook). The luck bonus is from the luckstone.
It should be typical gear a balor carries with it, most balors won't carry a pouch with gems or a coinpurse, most likely it is infact magical treasure it can use. If it isn't the DM is just handling you with kiddy gloves.
EDIT: I'd likely be inclined to give it more treasure, taking the appropriate wealth from it's minions and adding part of it to the balor's instead to toughen the BBEG up a bit, damn evil bastard mugging it's own minions!
Then you're ignoring the treasure guidelines and playing a house ruled game, which makes any comparisons irrelevant.
Kierato wrote:
Where is fighterman getting a +1 competence bonus to initiative from?
--
Also how did "Fighterman" get a +1 luck bonus to Initiative?
The competence bonus is from the pale green prism ioun stone (+1 competence to all attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks; Initiative is a Dexterity check, page 178 Core Rulebook). The luck bonus is from the luckstone.
No it isn't a houserule, nowhere does it state you have to divide treasure like you suggest. I divide treasure according to CR, in the encounter, the treasure values are just a guideline and not a rule.
The trick looks legal to me. After all when a mount charges, it is the mount spending the full round action, not the rider. The rider just gets taken along for the ride, getting all the benefits and penalties of the mounts charge (though he would have to spend his own action to attack at the end of the charge to get the benefits).
Normally he would only get one attack since he has to wait for his mount to get to the destination, but Mounted Skirmisher seems to circumvent that.
I think you are reading it as you wish, although I can see how it can be read that way. IMO attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, etc are all "ability checks" as they all rely on an ability score with modifiers.
I would also like to point out that in the Draconomicon, it states that if a dragon is smart enough to know what the items in it's hoard does, and has the ability to use them, it will. Nothing about increasing it's CR.
I would also like to point out that in the Draconomicon, it states that if a dragon is smart enough to know what the items in it's hoard does, and has the ability to use them, it will. Nothing about increasing it's CR.
3.5 Material, about a particularly weird exception the designers made when it came to dragons (It was published that their CRs assume full prep time and the contents of their hordes, which is NOT the case for any other monster,) and somewhat poorly written to boot.
I would also like to point out that Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible.
Chris Kenney wrote:
It was published that their CRs assume full prep time and the contents of their hordes, which is NOT the case for any other monster
can you quote this information (the bolded part, primarily)?
Enlight_Bystand(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Battles Case Subscriber)
Kierato wrote:
I think you are reading it as you wish, although I can see how it can be read that way. IMO attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, etc are all "ability checks" as they all rely on an ability score with modifiers.
The specific wording on page 178 is "An initiative check is a Dexterity check."
There isn't corresponding wording that a melee attack is a Strength check, or that a ranged attack is a Dexterity check.
I think you are reading it as you wish, although I can see how it can be read that way. IMO attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, etc are all "ability checks" as they all rely on an ability score with modifiers.
The specific wording on page 178 is "An initiative check is a Dexterity check."
There isn't corresponding wording that a melee attack is a Strength check, or that a ranged attack is a Dexterity check.
Exactly. The book is explicit (and has been since 3.0) that an Initiative check is defined as an ability check (specifically a Dexterity check). This is not true for attack rolls, saving throws, or skill checks.
Actually RAW the horse is making the charge and not the character. Under mounted combat "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." You did not take an action when the horse charged. "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack." This sentence is what usually limit you to one attack. "If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action." Mounted Skirmisher says nothing about taking a move action or a charge action, only that if the mount moves its movement or less, you can make a full attack action. There are 2 creatures involved, a mount and a rider. Each gets their own action. I do not see a problem with 2 full round actions as long as the mount does not need controlling via handle animal.
Actually RAW the horse is making the charge and not the character. Under mounted combat "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." You did not take an action when the horse charged. "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack." This sentence is what usually limit you to one attack. "If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action." Mounted Skirmisher says nothing about taking a move action or a charge action, only that if the mount moves its movement or less, you can make a full attack action. There are 2 creatures involved, a mount and a rider. Each gets their own action. I do not see a problem with 2 full round actions as long as the mount does not need controlling via handle animal.
Recent Posts
