|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If you really want to have some fun, figure out who is denied Reflex saves.
No-one is ever denied a Reflex save. Sleeping/immobile/helpless targets effectively have a Dex of 0, which gives a -5 modifier. This is added to the class bonus and other bonuses (Resistance, etc.). A natural 20 is always successful.
As well as dwarves & elves with their special exotic weapons, halflings get the halfling sling staff, half-orcs get the orc double axe, and gnomes get the gnome hooked hammer.
Tengu get the two-bladed sword, the elven curve sword and the bastard sword.
There are probably other racial exotic -> martial weapons too.
My overall concern with Reach Weapons is the fact that you need to switch to a different weapon when the enemy is next to you.
Armour spikes will at least threaten the 5-foot range until you can step away.
The answer is B.
To Dekalinder: the presence/absence of precision damage should be determined before any damage dice are rolled. Against a monster immune to to precision, you roll 1d6 pierce plus 1d6 fire. You do not roll 1d6 pierce, 1d6 fire, and 3d6 precision pierce, and subsequently declare immunity to precision. (Well, you shouldn't. When I played a rogue in a tabletop game, I used red sneak attack dice, a green corrosive [acid] die and a white base damage die in case the GM forgot to tell me in advance.)
If your target has, say, DR 10/bludgeon, you will subtract the 10 points of DR from the total of the 4d6 pierce. You don't subtract 10 from the 1d6 pierce, and again from the 3d6 precision pierce. If the 10 points of DR reduces the total of the 4d6 pierce to 0 or lower, then the fire damage does not take effect either.
I would argue that the Powerful Sneak rogue talent is the worst Paizo rule. (I played a rogue character for a year, so perhaps I am biased.) But I agree that critical fumbles disproportionately hurt melee characters, especially two-weapon fighters and monks.
Aioran actually makes a fair point. However that interpretation creates an anomaly depending on where in the initiative order the cleric is acting.
If the cleric is acting at the end of the initiative, her Bit of Luck activates immediately. If the cleric acts at the start of the initiative, Bit of Luck will take nearly six seconds before it starts.
Casting Bit of Luck on, say, a friendly fighter would have significant implications depending on where in the initiative order the cleric is acting. For this reason, I think that it more sensible to interpret the duration as "starting immediately for the next six seconds".
To Zhayne, the analogous term would be "For the next day", not "For the next 24 hours". Today is one day. "The next day" could be interpreted as tomorrow. However this interpretation, while reasonable, runs into the same anomaly as a Bit Of Luck.
That's an interesting and creative use of the spell.
Although a level 9 cleric dealing 1d8+9 damage (halved with a successful save) to each undead creature in a 30 foot diameter area with a level 5 spell seems somewhat underwhelming. Add in the friendly healing and the general versatility of the spell, though, and I could see potential if you know that the group is about to go into an undead-infested dungeon.
Ser Terry wrote:
Do polymorph/transmutation spells that change you into an animal change your type to animal?
I had a look at the druid's wild shape and Beast Shape spells. Unfortunately those effects do not change the druid's/spellcaster's type.
The text of the item states "The wearer can speak a command word to magically store an animal to which he is bonded, such as an animal companion, a familiar, or mount."
In this case the "wearer" is indeed bonded to the "animal". The requirement is met.
Following the words "such as", three examples are given. However these examples are not exclusive of other possibilities. (Interestingly, familiars technically are "magical beasts", not "animals".)
The ninja's vanishing trick is like the Invisibility spell.
The Invisibility spell explicitly drops if you make an offensive action. Therefore an attacker with Invisibility spell or vanishing trick will deny Dex bonus to AC on the first attack of a full attack. (The attacker will also gain +2 to attack on that attack.) However after that first attack, the spell/trick dissipates. On subsequent attacks of the full attack, the defender retains Dex bonus to AC.
Technically, there is only one "shield slot". The wielder would have to allocate one shield to that slot, and its shield bonus to AC to would apply.
It seems reasonable for the wielder to have a second shield in the other hand, but its shield bonus would not apply. It also seems reasonable to allow two-weapon fighting with two shields - they are listed as martial weapons.
A question remains: whether a wielder could change that allocation of his shield slot on the fly. This would require a ruling by the GM. There is nothing in the rules to guide this. Personally, I would allow it at a free action during the wielder's turn.
Correct me if I'm wrong but why wield two short swords? The penalty for two weapon fighting is -2 & -2 if you have the TWF feat, a 1 handed weapon in main hand and a light weapon in the off hand. So if you are TWFing it's like longsword in one, short in the other. There is no point in TWFing with 'just' two light weapons.
It is good for characters who aren't proficient with longswords, such as rogues.
It is also good for weapon finesse builds, such as many rogues.
(And the efficient use of feats that Jeraa mentioned.)
Clarification on Armor and Weapon special ability limits and Wondrous item enhancement functionality?
"So when a barbarian with a 18 str rages his str is only 22 temporary str and some stuff like skill checks or his carry capacy may not change."
I don't think that's right. Raging gives a (temporary) morale bonus to Str & Con. I see no reason why this shouldn't increase his skill checks (Climb & Swim) and carrying capacity.
"Neither do his rage rounds go up."
That is correct, because the barbarian class's text explicitly states that temporary boosts to Con do not increase the number of rounds of rage.
"Well, for one, magical beasts are treated as having magic weapons, last I checked."
"Ditto elementals, mostly on the "ignores your DR because its dealing elemental damage, which is not subject to DR but 'resistance to...'""
Physical attacks deal physical damage. The earth elemental's slam attack is a natural attack that deals bludgeoning damage.
"Mithral Breastplate I believe is also -0 ACP out of the box."
Mithral breastplate has -1 ACP. Mithral armour is inherently masterwork, so you don't get the masterwork benefit on top.
With armour expert trait, the mithral breastplate's ACP would reduce to 0.
I use the old Living 3.5 system (Ciaran Barnes's version 1).
d6 = 4 hp
This keeps characters balanced in line with the expected CR of monsters, and it prevents the high hit die classes (barbarians, etc.) from greatly outstripping the wizards & sorcerers.
Mithral chain shirt. Not proficient? Who cares.
Until your teammates can afford to buy the mithral chain shirt for you and persuade you to wear it, you're gonna have to wear the hide armour. Suck it up - that's the point of the true primitive archetype.
DR/magic is useful at low level. Also, it is useful against several monster types such as animals.
To Ornery Hobbit, Invincible armour can give you DR 10/bludgeoning or slashing, which would protect against pierce damage. It is expensive though: 137,650 gp. I am not sure how to break down its cost into its component parts.
Because monks and rogues are overpowered.
"The intent is for it to stay permanent" - Wraithstrike
The expectation was that the cleric's alignment would not change. The possibility was not considered when the rules were created.
It is up to GM discretion. Personally I would just let the cleric channel positive. Requiring an Atonement spell also seems to be a reasonable option.
Captain Zoom wrote:
I'm not sure why you directed that comment towards me. I agree with you.
The ape is not a mount. Therefore it does not wear barding.
Really, the only difference between barding and regular armour, is that when the creature wearing the armour happens to be a mount, its armour is called barding.
Could you wear two bucklers and re-assign the "equipped shield" depending on the nature of the enemy encountered?
Perhaps use your Arrow Deflection buckler when at a distance, and your Grinding buckler when in melee.
Sometimes GMs have to make decisions on the application of rules.
Regarding PFS: the lack of GM discretion is one of the reasons why I don't play PFS.
For what it's worth, if I am playing a mid/high level wizard and we don't have any healing class available, I will use Summon Monster V for a bralani azata - 2 x Cure Serious Wounds.
A rogue makes a standard action Bluff check to feint. Does the target know that the feint has worked? This would allow the target to use some sort of contingency like Blur or Invisibility, or even withdraw from combat to avoid taking the sneak attack in the rogue's next turn.
For an unarmed combatant, does an enhancement bonus to unarmed strike (such as Magic Fang, Magic Weapon on a monk, or Amulet of Mighty Fists) affect the CMB/CMD?
The descriptions indicate that attack rolls are affected. Is the CMB roll a type of attack roll for this purpose?
I have just created an empyreal sorcerer character for a game.
Has there been any advance on the Wis/Cha issue for channel energy.
Also, it looks like the sorcerer only gets channel energy once per day - regardless of the sorcerer's level. Is this correct? 3d6 healing once per day at level 10 seems very weak.
The Displacement spell does seem to be vaguely worded.
Intuitively, I think that the level 3 spell should be at least as good as the level 2 Blur - but it isn't. Why is the duration of Displacement rounds while Blur is minutes? This makes no sense.
From the point of view of balancing the spells, if I had to adjudicate as a GM this during a game, I would rule that Displacement should block sneak attack.
As a player, I'm never going to take Displacement over Blur anyway because of the combination of higher level and shorter duration.
While Gauss is correct in his description of the rules, to me it is implausible that the presence of armour on a mount prevents it from flying completely.
A creature could be wearing full plate without proficency, and carrying a heavy load, yet still be able to fly.
The same creature could be wearing hide armour, but when a halfling rider climbs on, it is no longer able to fly, even though it might still have a light load including the weight of the halfling.
If this matter ever came up in one of my games, I would houserule it.