The Grandfather wrote:

PRPG p.32 wrote:

Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a
number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution
modifier.

It is implicit in the rules that a rage lasts a number of rounds. Not fractions of rounds.
While a GM is free to interpret this in whichever way s/he wants, I am quite sure the RAI is that a barbarian rages for minimum 1 round and each round the barbarian opts to benefit from the bonuses of the rage (str, con, etc.) the barbarian also suffers all the penalties (AC, etc).

At the same time, a shadowdancer can take only a 5ft. shadowjump, but it still counts as a 10ft. increment. I'm just pointing out the RAW case doesn't disallow it. We can argue RAI all day long.

I would allow the practice, but strongly discourage it. Probably by having the fatigued condition be a -4 penalty to Dex, so they're -2 AC either way. >:)

It is clean it is simple and it closes any imagined loop-holes. It is also consistent with how feats like Lunge, Power Attack and Combat Expertise work (now we are back at RAI). By houseruling fatigue effects you are just opening new holes (and not playing RAW anyway).

I think it is far simpler to say "OK... you want to stop raging?! Fine, but you still have the AC penalty for the rest of the round".
"When next round starts, and the round after that, you will be fatigued".

It is clean it is simple and it closes any imagined loop-holes. It is also consistent with how feats like Lunge, Power Attack and Combat Expertise work (now we are back at RAI). By houseruling fatigue effects you are just opening new holes (and not playing RAW anyway).

This particular piece of idiocy

tejón wrote:

Half-orcs have light sensitivity.

I do not believe that half-orcs are of the orc subtype. At any rate, the racial description in PRPG does not support half-orcs havin light-sensitivity.

You no longer have to be a spellcaster to make alchemical items, just access to an alchemist lab. Its about time too! :D

Balors can no longer summon other Balors. Take that DM_Blake! ;)

Also interesting to note, a summoned creature "...cannot use any spells or spell-like abilities that require material components costing more than 1 gp unless those components are supplied, ..." (page 304 of the Bestiary)

This means for instance, according to RAW, that summoned Glabrezu cannot use their true seeing ability...

Somehow I believe that this is some sort of oversight rather than intended, at least in regards to true seeing...

Cheers

PS Pit Fiends cannot summon other Pit Fiends either...

This means for instance, according to RAW, that summoned Glabrezu cannot use their true seeing ability...

Lord oKOyA wrote:

This means for instance, according to RAW, that summoned Glabrezu cannot use their true seeing ability...

That's a very confusing sentence because spell-like abilities do not have material components nor foci.

Balors can no longer summon other Balors. Take that DM_Blake! ;)

Also interesting to note, a summoned creature "...cannot use any spells or spell-like abilities that require material components costing more than 1 gp unless those components are supplied, ..." (page 304 of the Bestiary)

This means for instance, according to RAW, that summoned Glabrezu cannot use their true seeing ability...

Somehow I believe that this is some sort of oversight rather than intended, at least in regards to true seeing...

Cheers

PS Pit Fiends cannot summon other Pit Fiends either...

Regarding the barbarian rage trick, I don't see the problem with it. Straight barbarian is a really weak way to make a melee character, raging for a single blow is characterful (channeling his rage, bellowing in anger with each swing but not giving into full-blown mania), and it's not really stronger than just leaving rage on because you lose the benefit of the save boosts and HP (which are much more important than 2 AC at the level where you get Tireless Rage).

I don't see why you'd nerf something that isn't overpowered and isn't out of flavor, just because it wasn't necessarily intended. I daresay a level 17 barbarian doesn't need to be dumped on any more than he already is.

So, not likely many people have missed this, but just in case...

CLASS HIT DIE CHANGES. Stuff on the wizard BAB chart up to d6, stuff on the cleric/rogue BAB chart up to D8. This single change means a lot to the survivability of the squishies, and takes a large impact out of my standard response to people talking about how much damage their rogue did in 3.5 (That being....D6 hit die)

So, not likely many people have missed this, but just in case...

CLASS HIT DIE CHANGES. Stuff on the wizard BAB chart up to d6, stuff on the cleric/rogue BAB chart up to D8. This single change means a lot to the survivability of the squishies, and takes a large impact out of my standard response to people talking about how much damage their rogue did in 3.5 (That being....D6 hit die)

a summoned creature "...cannot use any spells or spell-like abilities that require material components costing more than 1 gp unless those components are supplied, ..." (page 304 of the Bestiary)

That's a very confusing sentence because spell-like abilities do not have material components nor foci.

The glabrezu does not need to activate the true seeing ability as it is constant (according to PB).
The word use should probably be changed for activate, for more clarity.
Erratum needed!

I've just gotten my Bestiary and it looks like the way that Templates are added has changed. Perhaps just undead templates, but it seems that even old racial levels that change type are unaltered now. So a lich Wizard doesn't up their previous HD per level at all anymore, nor saves or anything else (did not used to).

Also, Regeneration is very different now, essentually the damage type you are weak against "shuts off" your Regen for a time rather than you taking nonlethal damage from all but what your weak against.

Also, Regeneration is very different now, essentually the damage type you are weak against "shuts off" your Regen for a time rather than you taking nonlethal damage from all but what your weak against.

I've just gotten my Bestiary and it looks like the way that Templates are added has changed. Perhaps just undead templates, but it seems that even old racial levels that change type are unaltered now. So a lich Wizard doesn't up their previous HD per level at all anymore, nor saves or anything else (did not used to).

If you refer to "Do not recalculate BAB, saves, or skill ranks", I was never quite sure about that line (which is in both 3.5 and PF, by the way, at least in the lich template).

But anyway, undead and class HD is indeed different now: While you changed all HD (be they racial or from a class) to d12 when you made an undead (but not with any other type), Pathfinder doesn't change any class HD now (and undead have d8 now)

But note that undead now get to use charisma as their constitution for pretty much everything (i.e. for hit points, fort saves and everything that is based off con, like a breath weapon) now.

I'm still going through the Bestiary, but it does seem that templates are just different somehow. Not good or bad, but they focus a lot more on ignoring class levels all the way.

On the other hand, I did start this just to highlight some of the changes that people may gloss right over, like Regen. The way that DR being overcome by mundane magical items is another good example, at least for me.

(Honestly, for Regen, just like Grapple, I can't think of a single issue I've ever had with it, myself, ever, but hey, maybe it will work better now?)

If you refer to "Do not recalculate BAB, saves, or skill ranks", I was never quite sure about that line (which is in both 3.5 and PF, by the way, at least in the lich template).

For example, a Cleric 10th (+7 BaB, Base Saves= Fort +7, Ref +3, Will +7, Skill Ranks= (2+Int Mod)x10) who becomes a Lich does not have to recalculate his BAB (easy), Saves (a little less easy), and Skill Ranks (really really messy).

The great change in Pathfinder is that the HD of some Undead Templates (Liches and Vampires, at least) are not changed, too (except Racial HDs, which become d8s) - basically, while in 3.x a Vampire Human Fighter 10th would have 10d12 hp (resulting usually with lower hp), now he would keep his 10d10 and changed the bonus hp from Constitution to bonus hp from Charisma (ending with more or less the same hp than when he was living). Now, a Sorcerer Lich or Vampire is another different matter - he would have LOTS of more hp than when he was living...

However, I noticed that the Vampire Template is a little different regarding skill ranks - I double checked the (lovely) Vampire Human Sorcereress 8th and I noticed that her skill ranks ARE (4+Int Mod) x8 - and in fact, the rules for Vampires say that "Type: The creature’s type changes to undead (augmented). Do not recalculate class Hit Dice, BAB, or saves." and do not mention Skill Ranks (which are recalculated).
So, in the end, creating a Vampire -something- would be a little messy...

Apparently some might have missed this, I don't see how, but the dragon disciple no longer becomes an actual half dragon by the end of the PrC.

Just caught this - Manyshot now only applies on a full-attack action, rather than a standard action. If you take a full attack, you just flat out get an extra arrow on your first shot. But if you don't full-attack, the feat does absolutely nothing for you. No more Legolas double-arrowing, no more "it's a good way to up damage on running shots. Kinda a bummer. Not really loving it right now. Any ideas why this feat changed so drastically? It does the opposite of what it used to (upping full attacks instead of single attacks now).

Just caught this - Manyshot now only applies on a full-attack action, rather than a standard action. If you take a full attack, you just flat out get an extra arrow on your first shot. But if you don't full-attack, the feat does absolutely nothing for you. No more Legolas double-arrowing, no more "it's a good way to up damage on running shots. Kinda a bummer. Not really loving it right now. Any ideas why this feat changed so drastically? It does the opposite of what it used to (upping full attacks instead of single attacks now).

Disciple of Sakura wrote:

Just caught this - Manyshot now only applies on a full-attack action, rather than a standard action. If you take a full attack, you just flat out get an extra arrow on your first shot. But if you don't full-attack, the feat does absolutely nothing for you. No more Legolas double-arrowing, no more "it's a good way to up damage on running shots. Kinda a bummer. Not really loving it right now. Any ideas why this feat changed so drastically? It does the opposite of what it used to (upping full attacks instead of single attacks now).

With the addition of Deadly Aim & Vital Strike, as well as more flexibility on the feats chosen by Rangers (without requiring the prerequisites), I think archers have plenty of options at their disposal. Plus the penalties on Manyshot were pretty hefty. The new version is much simpler and remains quite useful. IMHO, of course.

I often found that a lot of things got like this. It just gives you the feeling that while they upped the non magic classes themselves, they nerfed a lot of key feats for the fighting styles (power attack for another example).

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

I often found that a lot of things got like this. It just gives you the feeling that while they upped the non magic classes themselves, they nerfed a lot of key feats for the fighting styles (power attack for another example).

Does that sound like an invitation to do a changelist for martial feats? That sounds like one to me.

Many martial feats are now standard actions, instead of replacements for a single attack, and thus cannot be combined with charge, full attacks, Shot on the Run, or each other. (It's a matter of some debate if they work with Spring Attack.) These feats include Cleave and Great Cleave, Pinpoint Attack, Vital Strike and its various improved feats,

Arcane Strike is unrelated to the feat of the same name from the Complete books.

Cleave is no longer a conditional extra attack if you drop a foe under any circumstances. Instead, it is a standard action to make a melee attack against an adjacent opponent, then make another attack against another opponent if that first attack hits. Great Cleave works similarly. Both feats also include a -2 to AC when you use them.

Deflect Arrows doesn't work on ranged natural attacks any more. Why? Who knows?

Dodge just works against all opponents now.

Far Shot halves the range penalty instead of increasing range now.

All of the combat maneuver feats (Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, Improved Trip) are two feats now. The Improved feat gives you +2 to your CMB roll and eliminate the AoO, while the Greater follow-up feat gives you another +2 and gives you an AoO on your target if you succeed. (Greater Grapple instead lets you maintain a grapple as a move action, instead of giving you an AoO.)

Manyshot doubles the damage of your first arrow fired in a full attack action, and cannot be used in any other context.

Mounted Combat now requires an immediate action to cancel the hit.

Stand Still (originally printed in the Expanded Psionic Handbook) is...

I thought I was in a bad mood when I posted it, and wasn't really thinking properly due to low blood sugar. But as you so properly put it, the only real bonus I see here my self is dodge. You forgot combat expertise and power attack though.

As for the CE/PA bit, I missed it copy-pasting.

It seems obvious to me that Vital Strike is intended to replace the old version of Manyshot. That they added a new feat with that name, might be confusing and a poor decision as such. But what's done is done, and we should judge the Vital Strike chain as a reinterpretation of Manyshot, and the new Manyshot as a completely new and different ability with no relation to any of the above.

Power Attack is generally better IMO. Yes, I know this borders on flamebait around here, but seriously... you gain a multiplier across the board!

A Man In Black wrote:

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

I often found that a lot of things got like this. It just gives you the feeling that while they upped the non magic classes themselves, they nerfed a lot of key feats for the fighting styles (power attack for another example).

Does that sound like an invitation to do a changelist for martial feats? That sounds like one to me.

Many martial feats are now standard actions, instead of replacements for a single attack, and thus cannot be combined with charge, full attacks, Shot on the Run, or each other. (It's a matter of some debate if they work with Spring Attack.) These feats include Cleave and Great Cleave, Pinpoint Attack, Vital Strike and its various improved feats,

Arcane Strike is unrelated to the feat of the same name from the Complete books.

Cleave is no longer a conditional extra attack if you drop a foe under any circumstances. Instead, it is a standard action to make a melee attack against an adjacent opponent, then make another attack against another opponent if that first attack hits. Great Cleave works similarly. Both feats also include a -2 to AC when you use them.

Deflect Arrows doesn't work on ranged natural attacks any more. Why? Who knows?

Dodge just works against all opponents now.

Far Shot halves the range penalty instead of increasing range now.

All of the combat maneuver feats (Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, Improved Trip) are two feats now. The Improved feat gives you +2 to your CMB roll and eliminate the AoO, while the Greater follow-up feat gives you another +2 and gives you an AoO on your target if you succeed. (Greater Grapple instead lets you maintain a grapple as a move action, instead of giving you an AoO.)

Manyshot doubles the damage of your first arrow fired in a full attack action, and cannot be used in any other context.

Mounted Combat now requires an immediate action to cancel the hit.

Stand Still (originally printed in the

...

Poor bab casters with giant sizes or true strike out disarming/tripping/power attacking straight warriors.

Putting in immediate actions and such is just what was needed since these actions were invented. Some make mose sense or open up more creative options than pure hackening. All I have seen and heard are happier with the paizo feat list than the srd feat list when given the choice. Of coure individual bonnets have individual bees normally dependant on their specific current builds.

Far Shot halves the range penalty instead of increasing range now.

Mounted Combat now requires an immediate action to cancel the hit.

This really isn't much of a change, since the old version said "once per round." They've just quantified it into an existing mechanic. How often does it come up that you'd want to take two immediate actions in a round anyway?

A grammatical note, for what it's worth.

Pathfinder fans are using the same sentence construction that 4th Edition fans made last year: "This feat now does this thing. That spell doesn't work like it used to, anymore." It bugged me then, and it bugs me now.

As somebody who's happy to continue running Paizo's adventures with his D&D ruleset*, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the 3rd Edition rules haven't changed at all. What you mean to say is "This feat works differently under the Pathfinder ruleset. The Pathfinder version of that spell isn't the same as the D&D version."

I'll admit, I used to make the same mistake when I was talking about AD&D, as if all the 1st and 2nd Edition campaigns were dead.

--+--+--

The Leadership feat plays out a little differently under Pathfinder rules in a couple of ways. First, your PC needs to be higher level in order to take the feat. Secondly, the effects of temporary negative levels (which affect "all level-dependent variables") cause your character's Leadership score to drop, which in turn cause your cohort's experience levels to drop and reduce your number of followers.

--+--+--
* (heavy on the house rules, and incorporating some of our favorite parts of Pathfinder, the same as with Arcana Unearthed.)

The Leadership feat plays out a little differently under Pathfinder rules in a couple of ways. First, your PC needs to be higher level in order to take the feat. Secondly, the effects of temporary negative levels (which affect "all level-dependent variables") cause your character's Leadership score to drop, which in turn cause your cohort's experience levels to drop and reduce your number of followers.

Pathfinder is not a separate system, though. It's a point revision to the existing system, ostensibly compatible with all (or near to all) 3e published material. It's perfectly reasonable to talk about things changing from the way they used to be because, if you played 3.5, learning PF or adapting your campaign to it is overlaying a set of changes on your current understanding.

Now, it's an open question whether it's better than 3.5, or if the best option is a hybrid of the two. But they are one game with or without a set of tweaks, rather than two separate games to be considered separately.

For some reason, I thought that you could use cleave now at the end of a charge. Not sure whether that was just my impression or something I read on the boards here, as I can't find the reference now. Anyone else get that impression or is it just a house rule that I didn't know I had made in my game?

It is a houserule, BUT, I wouldn't call it a silly houserule by a longshot.

I've also houseruled charge attacks as "Standard attacks" allowing anything doable on a standard action (Cleave, Vital Strike, etc etc) on a charge attack.

And when you really think about it, when do you have the most force and momentum in order to carry a cleaving stroke? At the end of a charge :)

For some reason, I thought that you could use cleave now at the end of a charge. Not sure whether that was just my impression or something I read on the boards here, as I can't find the reference now.

here is the Link to the quote below.

It seems obvious to me that Vital Strike is intended to replace the old version of Manyshot. That they added a new feat with that name, might be confusing and a poor decision as such. But what's done is done, and we should judge the Vital Strike chain as a reinterpretation of Manyshot, and the new Manyshot as a completely new and different ability with no relation to any of the above.

Power Attack is generally better IMO. Yes, I know this borders on flamebait around here, but seriously... you gain a multiplier across the board!

Honestly, I really can't understand why you would disallow cleave after a charge, its the only reason to keep the feat and not swap it out (assuming fighter class) after say 7th level or so- the ability to use it for an extra attack when you would't normally get one. I get that the Pathfinder system has feats that become nominal after a time, but I had hoped that cleave would stay useful in the upper levels.

A Man In Black wrote:

Mounted Combat now requires an immediate action to cancel the hit.

This really isn't much of a change, since the old version said "once per round." They've just quantified it into an existing mechanic. How often does it come up that you'd want to take two immediate actions in a round anyway?

Honestly, I really can't understand why you would disallow cleave after a charge, its the only reason to keep the feat and not swap it out (assuming fighter class) after say 7th level or so- the ability to use it for an extra attack when you would't normally get one. I get that the Pathfinder system has feats that become nominal after a time, but I had hoped that cleave would stay useful in the upper levels.

Does that sound like an invitation to do a changelist for martial feats? That sounds like one to me.

All of the combat maneuver feats (Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, Improved Trip) are two feats now. The Improved feat gives you +2 to your CMB roll and eliminate the AoO, while the Greater follow-up feat gives you another +2 and gives you an AoO on your target if you succeed. (Greater Grapple instead lets you maintain a grapple as a move action, instead of giving you an AoO.)

Ah, but the Vital Strike chain lacks a major point of Greater Manyshot - precision damage applies to each arrow, and you can target multiple opponents with it.

Greater Manyshot is non-core and cheesetastic. Calling it "far from broken" doesn't actually make it such. :P

Disciple of Sakura wrote:

Ah, but the Vital Strike chain lacks a major point of Greater Manyshot - precision damage applies to each arrow, and you can target multiple opponents with it.

I never said Vital Strike had anything to do with Greater Manyshot. I said it's a replacement to Manyshot, which could target only one opponent and applied precision damage only once.

Greater Manyshot is non-core and cheesetastic. Calling it "far from broken" doesn't actually make it such. :P

That means that they take a -4 penalty for two shots. That puts their shots almost as bad as their second shot in a full attack would have been (and 7 lower than a FUll BAB class's rapid shot pair would have been)

The best they can ever get is 3 shots at -6 without multi-classing (and sacrificing sneak attack) and that's -9 under the FUll BAB class's rapid shot pair would have been.

The only way I ever found to REALLY make it work well in most cases, was to use the skill trick that allows you to use a move action to make a touch attack shot, or by downing Elixers of True-Strike.

Lord oKOyA wrote:

a summoned creature "...cannot use any spells or spell-like abilities that require material components costing more than 1 gp unless those components are supplied, ..." (page 304 of the Bestiary)

OMG thank you 3.p! I've house ruled that forever, but I blanket house ruled that Spell Like required all Material/XP Components. I think this way solves everything but the "PC as Monster with Wish SLA" problem (which can be solved by applying this rule to the PC.)

Zurai wrote:

That's a very confusing sentence because spell-like abilities do not have material components nor foci.

Not confusing at all, it is intended to be a specific change to the general rule that SLA don't have foci/material components. A specific change that fixes a gaping broken monster of a problem with 3.5 rules. That pretty much EVERY DM fixed in various ways.

1. It shatters backwards compatibility. Now you have to go through every single monster in every adventure you run to make sure they have the required gemstones to actually use their abilities.
2. It dramatically increases the amount of loot from monsters with SLAs.
3. It goes counter to the very specific definition of SLAs in the rulebook: "A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.".
4. PC monsters are not supported by Pathfinder, which means that it can't have been a justification for this rule. There's no other way for a PC to get wish as a SLA until they're capable of casting 17th level spells (Innate Spell has a +8 level adjustment) -- which is also not supported by Pathfinder, as they're re-doing the Epic rules completely.

Furthermore, even if this WAS their intent, the rule doesn't actually do what you describe. Rules that state "SLAs don't have material components" and "you must have the necessary material components to cast spells or SLAs" do not conflict. SLAs do not have material components, so you always have the necessary components.

Except that it IS far from broken Tejon. Think about it. The classes that get the most benefit out of it (barring the Sneak Attack Fighter variant, which is a whole different animal) are 3/4 BAB classes.

That means that they take a -4 penalty for two shots. That puts their shots almost as bad as their second shot in a full attack would have been (and 7 lower than a FUll BAB class's rapid shot pair would have been)

The best they can ever get is 3 shots at -6 without multi-classing (and sacrificing sneak attack) and that's -9 under the FUll BAB class's rapid shot pair would have been.

The only way I ever found to REALLY make it work well in most cases, was to use the skill trick that allows you to use a move action to make a touch attack shot, or by downing Elixers of True-Strike.

Also, Greater Manyshot is a feat in the SRD. That's about as core as anything, in my book. It may have been published in the XPH, but that doesn't mean that it's not a general feat that's part of the core rules of the game that any publisher can use. Just because Paizo only took the Intellect Devourer and Neothelid from that part of the SRD doesn't make the feat itself any less core or valid. We're not talking about something as far out there as Tome of Magic or Magic of Incarnum.

1. It shatters backwards compatibility.
2. It dramatically increases the amount of loot from monsters with SLAs.
3. It goes counter to the very specific definition of SLAs
4. PC monsters are not supported by Pathfinder.

Furthermore, even if this WAS their intent, the rule doesn't actually do what you describe. Rules that state "SLAs don't have material components" and "you must have the necessary material components to cast spells or SLAs" do not...

I don't agree it goes against the General rule (3) of SLA have no Material Components since the Specific Rule (SLA require components when used to help PC's etc.)

Issue 4 is moot since it isn't covered by the rules, it is a house rule I use (PC's can't use SLA without paying Material Components.) While I think this should have been a rule, we can hope something like this is added when they make their Savage Species.

James, Zurai is right about his first two points. If I as a GM plan for my demon to use an expensive spell-like ability in a Pathfinder encounter, it would require the material components. If my players are good and clever and act with surprise, they might well take out that demon before it gets the chance to use the spell-like ability, and gain the components as treasure.

Which raises the question: if spell-like abilities are identical to spells in all ways under the Pathfinder rules, why not just call them spells?

--+--+--

On topic: the referee in Pathfinder is called the GM, not the DM.