Chaostream's page

Bruco shoots a glare at the halfling man. "Best you put that bow down son and come with us. I don't think things are going to go well for you here."

Bruco lifts his shield and strides up to the halfling, then whips his flickmace around and attempts to use it to pull the halfling face first into his shield.
Nonlethal attack: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (8) + 7 = 151d8 + 4 ⇒ (5) + 4 = 9

Will flank with Pickle if able

Fortitude: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (17) + 7 = 24 - Used guidance
AoO: 1d20 + 9 ⇒ (10) + 9 = 191d8 + 4 ⇒ (8) + 4 = 12
With his shield ready Bruco easily wards off the stank breath attack and presses the beast in its retreat, hoping to stop it from escaping.

"Shall we go introduce ourselves then?" Bruco whispers to the others.

Bruco retreads the ground covered yesterday alert and confident.

"I'd guess from the creatures we faced yesterday that the goblins don't use this part of the keep. Unless whatever happened to them happened longer ago than we think."

I know you can't put the mythic version of a spell into an item, but can you spend the mythic power to cast the mythic version of a spell (assuming you know the mythic version of that spell) when casting the regular version of a spell from a wand or staff? How about a scroll, which is spell completion rather than spell trigger?

2) If you do alter the DC, you should include Heighten Spell in the construction info, and price the lower-level spell as if it were heightened. No free lunch.

I had this question while thinking about an entry for RPG Superstar, and ended up looking for similar items. The Helm of Brilliance lists

If you use Fractional BAB, you should also consider normalizing Saving Throws so taking multiple classes with the 1st level bonus (+2, basically +1 above a normal +1 for the level per se) doesn´t boost Good Saves (Paizo does this with PrC´s, I´m not sure why they didn´t for Base Classes, probably cuz it´s easier to not think about it). You can then have Fractional Saves as well, improving Bad Saves from lots of Classes at the same time as toning down the Good Saves in most cases. Obviously, you need to be comfortable with House Rules to do this.

Yeah, I'd even be okay with giving the +2 bonus only once per save.

Chaostream wrote:

Alchemist 1 / Bard 1 / Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / Inquisitor 1 / Monk 1 / Oracle 1 / Rogue 1 / Sorceror 1 / Summoner 1 / Witch 1 / Wizard 1

Could we please get an official ruling on this?

It's not official, but I'm sure the ruling will be something like this: "This character deserves his +0 BAB, and also deserves to die."

Haha, entirely possible. Not that anyone would ever want to play that character anyways, it was just an easy example to point out what I think is a bit of a problem.

It's not going to happen, nor should it; everything that's been produced from day one would be invalidated by such a change.

Especially when your attempts to circumvent them would have a massive effect on the entirety of the game ...

Well that's quite an egregious use of hyperbole. Did it affect you when they printed the fractional rules in Unearthed Arcana for 3.5? Did it invalidate all that had been written before? Did the sky fall to the earth?

I *personally* would love to see fractional bonuses written up as an *official* optional rule. There are other people that would too. My goal here is to get dev input on the concept, period.

Since you've obviously already developed a fully formed opinion on my ethics, personal habits, and probably my ancestry as well, I'm not going to bother defending my motivation any more. Think what you will, say about me what you will, and be comforted that you're passing judgement on someone you've never met based on a couple of messageboard posts on the internet.

Honestly, I think this belongs in the Suggestions category, and not Rules Questions. There are no fractional BAB rules in PF, and a FAQ would just say as much. This is a suggestion to include them.

That's fair, I didn't realize there was a suggestions section.

In terms of the OGL license for the Unearthed Arcana on the inside cover of the book, it's clear that fractional BAB is open content.

I didn't realize that, very cool to know. Thanks!

That doesn't really sit well with me; it makes it sound as if you want the rules modified specifically so that you can win some contest, that your efforts are not an effort to improve the game, but are nothing more than an attempt to improve your chances of personal gain.

What it means is that my gaming group and I felt strongly enough to incorporate it into our own rules, and it was easy enough to do so. This is the first time I have encountered a situation in which the rules did not apply just to the group I game with, which is why it came to my attention that perhaps a change with a larger scope might be warranted. I'm not sure why you persist in being patronizing and viewing me in a negative light (other than this being the internet and all), but your argument that this is an attempt to improve my chance of personal gain is patently false, since this ruling would apply to every entrant in the competition. I'd have to point to an official ruling to get this change accepted, and that would be in the rules thread of the competition for everyone to see and apply. It's not an "I think I personally and no one else should be able to have a weapon with a +30 enhancement bonus because I want one" question.

More importantly, though, is that I was pointing out the futility of your request.

Why do you need "official" permission for something like this to be presented as a houserule?

I don't. Like I've said. This is for situations in which a house rule is not enough. I realize I need no permission to use this in a home game, which is why I already stated we've been using this rule for years.

Why do you think the developers do beta testing? Why do you think they solicit feedback? Why do you think they read the forums at all? The developers want to make the best game they can for as many players as they can. I think it's legitimate to bring this issue up and ask for developer feedback. Who knows, they may incorporate something into a rules update one day. Or they may never read it or decide not to weigh in. There's nothing wrong with wanting to evolve something from a house rule to a legitimate rule though, and there's nothing wrong with asking a question.

And to be clear, you can continue to say that my question or my desire to see things changed is pointless and makes no sense, but that will not change my opinion, and that will not stop me from hoping that a dev stops by to read this thread and posts his or her thoughts. So unless you have something productive to follow up with please refrain.

Chaostream wrote:

To be fair that's not actually a contentious cases ...

Actually, it's not.

Yes, what I said was "This is not actually a contentious case"

As you yourself have stated, the RAW is very clear on this issue. Additionally, based on the way multiclass characters have been presented within published material, it is clear this is how the rules are intended to work.

As others have stated, you're free to use this as a houserule in your game. However, there's no indication that it is a rule a majority of players use.

I never said this was a rule that a majority of players use. I only have data on games I've been in and other people commenting on this issue to go by and I have no idea what kind of representative sample that is. I simply said that I hoped we could get a change that is acceptable to the majority of players. One example might be adding fractional rules as an official alternate method so that players who wanted to use it could and players who didn't could continue as-is.

This isn't an issue that requires a FAQ answer, nor is there anything in need of official clarification in this instance; it's simply a non-issue in Pathfinder.

This is your opinion. I can get and have seen opinions from many board members on this topic in different threads. Unfortunately yours is not an official response, and while the official response may agree with you 100%, they may also see the point I am driving at and, if they do, be willing to change something or at least discuss the issue. Your dismissal of my question is both unhelpful and patronizing, because there are players for whom this is a legitimate question.

Chaostream wrote:

This would be a wonderful way of doing it in my opinion.

I know, that's why I suggest it whenever it comes up. :)

Multiclassing wrote:

For example, let's say a 5th-level fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, and adds one level of wizard when he advances to 6th level. Such a character would have the powers and abilities of both a 5th-level fighter and a 1st-level wizard, but would still be considered a 6th-level character. (His class levels would be 5th and 1st, but his total character level is 6th.) He keeps all of his bonus feats gained from 5 levels of fighter, but can now also cast 1st-level spells and picks an arcane school. He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained from being a 5th-level fighter.

Since bonuses are not represented as fractions, you cannot add fractions together. Every level that says +0 adds zero, not a fraction.

To be fair that's not actually a contentious cases since even with fractions the result would be the same. But yeah, RAW says the 12th level character would have a +0 BAB. I'm hoping that is not RAI, and we can get some notice of this issue and (hopefully) a change that is acceptable to the majority of players. If it's something that a lot of people already house rule it's at least worth considering as an official rule.

james maissen wrote:

Even if they are hard for you it's not hard to make a table that will handle them for you.

If you notice, there are already tables made to handle that for you. :)

Honestly, you could cut all the BAB/Save progressions from the class tables and have an entry stating 'Good/Average/Poor' and 'Good/Poor'. And then you take the number of levels you have in each and reference the BAB/Save progression table at the front of the book to get your numbers.

One table. Covers every class. And multiclass. Bam. Done.

(Table 3-1, Page 22 of the 3.5 PHB. Kinda sad Paizo dropped it from Pathfinder.)

This would be a wonderful way of doing it in my opinion.

Chaostream, I'm sorry, but you're not likely to get an answer. The expression "fractional BAB" isn't mentioned in the rules anywhere that I can think of for Pathfinder. It's an optional rule from 3E. So houserule it and go would be my suggestion.

In our home games it's been the practice for years, unfortunately I would like an official ruling for a competition I want to compete in that's coming up. Taking a racial hit die and levels in two classes sets my BAB back 2 points RAW, which completely screws up feat progression as well. The 12th level character above could not even take the Power Attack feat.

I understand there are arguments for both sides, although I don't agree with "2) Too bad! The punishment for players trying to min-max is that their BaB suffers horribly. They were probably trying to break the game, anyway." as a valid argument :P

At any rate, the goal of this thread is to get some official response. So please push the FAQ button on the top post so we can see if anyone will do so.

Chaostream wrote:

Could we please get an official ruling on this?

I doubt you'll see it part of the official Pathfinder rules. Fractional BAB was in Wotc's Unearthed Arcana as an optional rule. As far as I know, that isn't open content. Best you'll be able to do is house rule it yourself, but don't expect to see it available for PFS.

I guess all I'd like to see is someone official saying "yes that is an acceptable way of doing things" or "no that 12th level character would have a BAB of +0"

So I've searched through the boards and seen a few posts on this, but nothing official. Is there any ruling for whether multiclass characters get fractional BAB or not. For an extreme example consider the following character.

Alchemist 1 / Bard 1 / Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / Inquisitor 1 / Monk 1 / Oracle 1 / Rogue 1 / Sorceror 1 / Summoner 1 / Witch 1 / Wizard 1

Since none of these classes have a +1 BAB progression this would be a 12th level character with a BAB of 0. Using fractional bonuses you would add up all the levels that get 1/2 progression (3 * 1/2 = 1 1/2 BAB) and all the levels that get 3/4 progression (9 * 3/4 = 6 3/4), then either add those two and round down (6 3/4 + 1 1/2 = 8 1/4) for a BAB of 8, or, for simplicity's sake, round them down first and add for a slightly lower bonus of 1 + 6 = 7.

This is also an issue with saves, but I think it's less of an issue there than it is with BAB.

Could we please get an official ruling on this?

The Russet Mold spores are separate creature (or hazard, depending on how you view it) and should not be affected by the creature delivering it, since the creature (Vegepygmy chieftain) is not creating the russet mold. Think of it as a carried poison. The DC of arsenic doesn't depend on the CON of the poisoner, or any other stat of the poisoner. The poisoner simply delivers the (already statted) poison to the victim.

Yeah, I think this reading is correct. When I first looked at it and saw that it "carries an infestation in its flesh" that sounded pretty creature based, but on further thought it does seem like something more symbiotic than a direct part of the creature itself. Thanks.

The vegepygmy chieftan reads

"A vegepygmy chieftain is an advanced vegepygmy (often one with class levels) that carries an infestation of russet mold spores in its flesh. A vegepygmy chieftain infects any creature it hits with its natural weapons with russet mold spores (see below)."

Below in the PRD Russet Mold reads "This hazardous fungus can be found in dark, wet areas, and often grows in great abundance at the heart of a vegepygmy lair. When a creature approaches within 5 feet of a patch of russet mold, the fungus releases a cloud of spores in a 5-foot radius burst. Everyone in the area must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or the spores quickly take root in their victims, inflicting 2 points of Constitution damage per round."

I would guess that this DC is not affected by the level or con score of the vegepygmy as is typically the case for creature based abilities, but can anyone confirm or deny that?

Related to my other question, Improved grapple has Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite now. If I'm a dire tiger (that already has the special ability grab with my claws) and I want to take Improved Grapple, do I still have to take Improved Unarmed Strike? It would seem that proficiency with natural weapons would kind of cover that one.

So I'm an awakened dire tiger or something that has taken the greater grapple feat (for whatever reason). This gives me two grapple attempts per round. Do I then get to rake twice?

Grapple 1 successful (move action), do damage with natural attack (bite) and rake (2 claws)

Grapple 2 successful (standard action), do damage with natural attack (bite) and rake (2 claws)

Is this correct?

Thanks you guys, you've been a great help!

I've wondered about this with sonic spells for a while now. If a creature uses the Holy Word spell, for example, and I am in the area of a silence spell, does it affect me? What if I am deaf and cannot hear the sonic components? I'm specifically referring to spells that have the [sonic] descriptor.