PRD on Spellcraft wrote:
PRD on Wands wrote:
PRD on Spell Trigger wrote:
Hrm, the "casting a spell from a wand.." part strongly implies it's actually being cast, albeit with far less grandeur and ceremony than casting a spell normally. I could see possibly imposing a minor hike to the Spellcraft DC, however I'd personally rule it as being of little to no difference than a normal 15+spell level check.
@Gauss It wasn't intended as a nessecary action, just something that popped into my head and thought I'd share. As for my gaggle of miscreants I don't sweat them meta-gaming a bit so when they ask if the baddie is affected by X I usually just tell them (unless it't not an obvious sort of thing) mostly because I don't feel the need to have to remember which character gets what bonus to their attacks and modify what they tell me by that number. Heck, usually after the first few rounds of them swinging at it I'll just say "punchline on AC is 22," unless it's something with a variable AC such as Shield of Swings or Combat Expertise.
This ofcourse is only for me and mine and I don't expect every other group in the whole wide world of gaming to do similarly, nor do I think those that don't are having badwrongfun.
Still though, any opportunity to be devious as a DM should be taken if only to keep your players abject fear of your power in place. =)
This devious idea just popped into my head. If you want the players to remain in the dark on a particular enemy you could have them hold off rolling the damage and instead roll for them, maybe make it seem as though it were an unrelated dice roll. Only really applicable for use with a DM screen and not something you'd want to do often, or maybe at all, so that you aren't taking away a player's sense of control over their character.
Reminds me of when I had my players questioning my ability to add d6's together because I was rolling the BBEG's self inflicted Vicious damage at the same time using a different colored d6.
Edit: Also, unless they have some way to out and out remove the triggering condition they should be affected by whatever ability is in question, even if the player is unaware. Take a glamered favored enemy for instance. Even if you don't know immediately that they're one of your FEs, an innate part of you would still be aware and apply your knowledge of fighting, tracking, or what have you, creatures of that type. It helps that FE is an EX ability.
Now the question is would you be given an additional way of knowing they are what they really are because of that, or merely get some sort of check or bonus to infer that?
Also, back to the original topic of discussion, I think one of the main reasons characters take Quickdraw at an early level is the fact that it is useful at higher levels, but at those levels they'll have access to feats they otherwise wouldn't at lower levels. If a 4th level fighter took Quickdraw instead of Weapon Specialization I'd question the lack of forethought of the player. Also, sorry for participating in the somewhat thread-jack, though it is debating what may or may not be a potential use of the feat.
I'll concede that my reach weapon example falls flat due to enemy posistioning at the time of the AoO, but I also want to acknowledge that you kinda don't have a point with those two quotes. Obvious an AoO isn't a standard action, though what kind of action it is is apparently still up for debate.
Personally, I feel calling it an action has no unintended consequences, which is really the point of answering this question at all. I mean to say that if a player would like to use a free action to drop something, make a wisecrack, or do any of the otherwise mundane options at their disposal, as part of an AoO has little to no effect on gameplay, enjoyablity, or game balance.
However, I still feel it is an unintended situation to allow the use of Quickdraw during an AoO to make an attack against somebody who provoked with a weapon that hadn't threatened to issue the provocation to begin with. My aforementioned mental image of the situation aside, this seems to me be a way of saying "I'm always armed and, with the use of Quickdraw and spiked gauntlets, always effectively armed with whatever weapon I'm specialized in laying the hurt on with."
Frankly, if you want to always have your greatsword ready to ruin someones day, even when you're flat-footed (Combat Reflexes), I feel you should have to be "that guy" who always walks around with the thing drawn. Your social interactions may, possibly should, be affected by your apparent paranoia.
And once again, aside from PFS, pick whatever option gives your group the greatest access to the most fun.
Regarding the Quickdraw during an AoO: The question isn't whether or not an AoO is an action and thus eligible to use Free Actions alongside it, but rather if you can take your attack with a weapon that didn't threaten.
Certain people's pursuit of RAW tend to ignore things that are written. Such as ignoring that an AoO is considered a fraction of a moment thus why it's limited to once per round baring feats. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
IDK, maybe it's just that I can't shake the image of a big hulking fighter asking his opponent who just presented his face for smashing to wait a moment while he figures out which weapon he wants to use.
Ultimately, unless it's regarding PFS, do whatever your group finds the most enjoyable.
EDIT: Came to me shortly after posting. Would you also allow somebody with a reach weapon, say a longspear, who had somebody move through his reach thus provoking the AoO to use a Free Action to drop the spear and Quickdraw to pull out a scimitar (let's say he's crit based) and make the AoO with that instead?
Can you not be right and still remain mean and trying to destroy our lives? =)
Mabven's right about the can of worms though, this is a long standing issue about whether or not a single action provokes one or multiple AoO's, of which there is a large and at times heated debate. Searchs for Greater Trip plus Vicious Stomp or casting a ranged touch attack non-defensively to see most people's take on it.
The best thing to do is either discuss it with your DM, or if it's you come to a conclusion and then inform your players how you'll be handling it.
My 2cp is one action one provoke.
Unless you're just saying "Meh, he's taking a small cat so it'll get it." In which case that's fine. Makes them more usable even with a tiny bit of feat tax TBH.
Short answer: No to grab, yes to trip.
First, are natural attacks able to use Weapon Finesse. Knee-jerk says yes but it actually took my a while to find anything definitive. Thus, the Rust Monster helps us to figure that out because his bite and antennae use his dex for attack.
Second, which maneuvers allow you to use weapon finesse in this way. Official FAQ says you confer the bonus from the "weapon" when using a maneuver with said "weapon," including your dex if it's finessable.
Third, are natural attacks considered weapons. Well, we'll use Weapon Focus to help us determine it, since it can only be used with a selected weapon. Now we goto the Unicorn and see that it has Weapon Focus(Horn) which is a natural attack.
In summation, grab would still use str because a grapple isn't included in the types of maneuvers Weapon Finesse affects, but the special trip quality on a natural attack would use dex. If you want to use dex with grab you'd have to take Agile Maneuvers like BBT pointed out.
Also, the creatures listed were picked because they were the first relevant core creatures to pop on the search.
Except for Goblins. They'll probally go for the horse every time, although maybe at range. =)
Goblin hatred runs deep, and few things inspire their wrath more than gnomes (who have long fought against goblins), horses (who frighten goblins tremendously), and regular dogs (whom goblins regard as pale imitations of goblin dogs).
The costs are not cumulative, they are flat for the total bonus of the weapon/armor.
Another take on this. Using your interpretation a +10 overall weapon would cost 770,000 + MW + Item price. A 20th level character's WBL is only 880,000. Since you cannot spend more than %50 of your wealth on an item you cannot start with a +10 weapon at level 20.
Edit: Messed up the url =(
I will be pilfering this thread for ideas.
OP, just a tip, never make an intriguing world filled with plot, motivation, and nuance and expect the players to care. Instead just keep some general idea's about it and see how each session turns out. Then tune succesive sessions to their wants balanced by your own tastes. Saves a whole lot of time in creating a story the players either won't ever see, or won't care when they see it.
Seriously though, gonna use a lot of these nuggets for DD&D nights.
So, you're on a ship getting chased by a big, mean crocodile... Please tell me somebody onboard has a hook for a hand. =)
Skills your party might have that you can utilize for challenges:
Craft (Tailoring): Have them be beset by a storm that leaves some of the sails damaged and in need of repair
Craft (Carpentry): Have them go through some shallows or a reef and have the rudder damaged (this is called out requiring Craft (Ships), but since that's kind of a weird one to take outside of constant ship involvement you could be nice, up to you ofcourse)
Profession (Sailor): Obvious for manning the ship during turbulent times such as combat or storms, but also useful for them to try and avoid hazzards
Survival: Predict that nasty weather ahead of time and batten down the hatches beforehand
You could also make food an issue, maybe forcing them stop by an island to forage and run into a ravenous band of cannibals.
Just some off the top of my head ideas, but I would really recommend using a visual aid to represent their boat. Paizo has a pretty decent one here although myself I draw them up and print them out. Helps a lot with relational movement with multiple ships and the like, and adds a nice little bit of flavor to the experience.
I've always run with the distinction between Good and Evil to be similar, if not the same, as the distinction between Selflessness and Selfishness. The man who puts his life at risk to kill an invader intent on raping and pillaging his village is selfless, whereas the man who would kill a village's defenders to feed his desire for wealth and pleasure is selfish.
As another example, in my current homebrew I have a high rank devil helping the party. The reason being is that the fate of the universe is at stake and despite being truly evil he does also reside in the universe, so it going up in smoke doesn't sit well with him. However, his motivations aren't for the common good or others well-being, its because his arse is on the line too so he'll, begrudgingly, aide those who on any other day would be his enemy. Especially the Paladin, who doesn't know about the devil helping them... yet. =)
I will admit though, I really don't care for over the top, evil for the sake of being evil villians. I probally spend entirely too much time worrying about NPC motivations.
When I first stumbled upon the clarification of FoB I was all "Huh, okay."
Then I read about the whole Magic Fang thing and was all "Huuuh... I guess?"
And then I read about the Amulet of Mighty FistS thing and was like "Aw heck nah."
So then I had to decide as a GM how I was to proceed. If I house ruled AoMF, then I would have to HR Magic Fang. And if I HR Magic Fang, would I then have to HR FoB itself.
In the end I am very lucky not to have a Monk in my current campaign, so I atleast had some time to decide how to rule it, and have decided that FoB, while like TWF, is not TWF and thus, despite what the developers have stated, works with single monk weapons.
I just want to echo something Anguish said earlier in this thread and say that I truly do respect and enjoy what the devolpers have done with the D20 system as a whole, and while yes having a long list of house rules is less than preferable, if it were that big a problem my friends and I would simply jump ship to a different system. All in all what the developers finally decide might sway me to follow RAW, but it would surprise me.
Unless your DM is doing it differently, you are normally only afforded either a standard OR a move action in a surprise round, after that it goes down to normal actions. So unless you have a weapon drawn or a way to draw as a free action, drawing a concealed weapon is normally a standard action and with Quickdraw a move action. So, you know, check with your DM on how he wants to handle it.
Might not be something new to you guys but I just made him two days ago.
I'm hoping my players don't see this, they'll be "meeting" him this Sunday, but I couldn't resist.
Also, if you're one of my players and you do happen to read this... well, don't. =\
Level 2 Flowing Monk, Level 9 Rogue (favored)
Abilities rolled using 2d6+6 (homebrewed)
Unarmed Strike - +13/+8 1d8+2d6+6 x2 (1d6 to self)
Sneak Attack +5d6
AC - 24 (possible +3 from Combat Expertise and +5 from Offensive Defense)
CMD - 30 (possible +3 from Combat Expertise and +5 from Offensive Defense)
Fort - 9
Monk Bonus Feat:
Equipment: (using pc wealth)
Equipment Weight - 4 lbs
Basically he utilizes the combo of Unbalancing Counter, target is flat-footed until the end of your next turn, to set up a full Trip/AoO Unbalancing Counter/Flurry of Blows/Sneak Attack/Pound Fest routine. Or failing that feint for one Sneak Attack... attack?
Edit - Forgot to mention, he prefers to use subdual over lethal damage neting an aditional +5 dmg from his Sneak Attacks
Edit2 - Forgot to add Vicious damage to Unarmed Strikes. It's late. =(
Although a little bit different, when I GM I commonly award XP to players doing things like getting me a pop while they're up or helping clean up afterwards. Mind you it's 5xp but they're addament that one day it'll add up and prove useful. =)
Point being though is that it's up for grabs for anybody, so if you're gonna give him a reward for the help he's given you, make sure you keep the door open for your other players to garner the same type of favor in the future.
Just spitballing, but maybe one might help create/manage a website for the campaign, draw pictures of PCs and/or NPCs, or some other thing to help make your campaign or job as the DM better/easier. Maybe even drop hints or flat out say that it's an option, that way they can't complain over-much about favortism.
Ack, one more thing, the consumable or fluff type reward certainly would be the best bet, and personally I would lean towards the fluff over any "tangible" reward mostly cause if I was the player I'd want a nearly useless Raven following me around all pestery ala Commander Mormont from Game of Thrones. =)
James Jacobs wrote:
Not only will I not come to your house to shut down your game if I hear you're allowing good aligned undead... but I don't even know where you live!
Ooh, does this mean if I let it slip that the campaign I'm running has almost entirely good aligned undead and then PM you my address I can get ya to pop in? =)
I was reading through this and just HAD to immediately reply when I saw that, but I'm kinda that guy. Love what you've done with the d20 system and hope most people understand that while you guys make the tools, it's us gamers that get to decide how to use them.
Short answer: No.
Eagle's Splendor, and other such ability buff spells, are counted as temporary ability adjustments. That's why the wording on items that increase ability scores say they have to be worn for 24 hours before becoming "permanent" (the intention being that if it's taken off you lose it, but while worn it acts as though its a permanent bonus). Temporary bonuses are applied to things like Spell DCs, Skill Checks, Attacks and Damage, Saves, Ability Checks, Hit Points (treated as temporary), and maybe a couple I forgot. Permanent bonuses apply to Spells per Day, Special Abilities (such as Paladin's Lay on Hands and Barbarian's Rage), Skills per Level, Hit Points (not temporary), and maybe a couple more I forgot.
Hope that's helpful. =)
Edit - It would however increase your Attack Rolls and AC with Smite Evil.
Moar Editing - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores scroll down a bit and it'll give you a breakdown of what each abilities temporary and permanent bonuses give you.
So, when I first started reading this thread I was under the mindset that you would only provoke 1 attack, with the potential for disrupting the spell cast. A few pages in and I was starting to come around to the idea of multiple AoOs due to some credible (and I'm sure people will argue that) logic. Then I kept reading and am now firmly on the stance that there is enough ambiguity that it could be infered either way. I keep thinking about one of the earlier posts however:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Whatever rulings or intentions of previous iterations on how AoOs were to be used are invalidated by one thing. How Paizo wants them to be handled. Sure, you can use them as a guideline for positing various arguments one way or the other, even using what members of the developement team stated in previous editions, but the bottom line is how they want to utilize these rules now. Now I'm sure that whatever they decide will be met with numerous counter-arguments, but there's a simple fix for that. Run your games how you like. Rule 0 allows you to state that certain rules that you find odd/troubling/stupid/whatever can be modified or removed to be tailored to you and your groups playstyle and enjoyment.
However, for a clear definition of how the rules would work in this particular case it's clearly come down to requiring an official statement by Paizo because of the need to maintain the same playing experience across the board for PFS.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning anybody for trying to wrap their heads around this concept, coming to a conclusion, and then putting forth evidence in support of their conclusion. Or for questioning the evidence put forth by other people. Honestly its been interesting to see how many different hoops people will set up for others to jump through to make their argument more valid than the other. But this seems to me to have hit the point of "agree to disagree" pending an official ruling.
8 Red Wizards wrote:
You're using 3.x rules as opposed to Pathfinder rules.
Also, waiting on pins and needles for a dev to step in and shed light on this and similar rules distinctions.
I've always thought of Charisma to be somewhat akin to a character's soul, hence why devil's/demon's "soul drain" affects charisma. So taking a page out of a TV show:
When Sam comes back from hell he is without his soul, and without that he has zero empathy or compassion. So until he gets his soul back he's basically a robot who has motivations but no conscience.
If you chose not to read the spoiler, you could also play him as having no empathy or compassion. Not nessecarily evil, but more uncaring about the plight of those around you.
The first sentence seems to me to be flavor text, and the subsequent line to be read more as "this is what the spell does" as opposed to "this is what the spell may do at your choosing." Honestly, if you're reading as the "may do" version, you should think about the fact that you have to make a check to bull rush, but nothing to essentially trip. That, as a first level spell, would be unquestionably broken in my mind. As to the limit on squares, that's in reference to the soaking effect of the spell, IE you can only soak a 5-foot square. So you could use the spell on any size of creature.
However, a Magus could totally break this spell in half. Start out next to somebody, attack, combat-cast this spell, then 5-foot back. Never have a full-attack land on you. =)