the rules state that you treat the Ooze as a magical beast for polymorph purposes, and magical beast is on the list for creatures that merge gear, thus Ooze will merge gear by RAW.
Common Sense also dictates that everything written in the Effects section of a spell is part of the spells effects unless clearly shown otherwise.
You can just as easily interpret dispel magic as "A spell that creates a effect that has a chance to disrupt other magic" and thus the chance to dispel is an inherent part of the effect of the spell.
Mark Hoover wrote:
That works up to a point. At some point, no amount of CR 1/3 kobolds are going to make the party care about them.
For example, my level 10 fighter up thread will have around 80 hp, and an AC of around 30. Basic Kobolds are going to need a natural 20 to hit him for around 1d6 damage. So you would need around 60-70 kobolds to even begin to worry that fighter. At that point, I am just rolling buckets of dice and hoping for a 20. Adding HD to the kobolds doesn't really help, because now you are adding HP that you have to track.
That is a great way to explain RAI, but it still doesn't close the gap between the RAW and RAI.
Absurd Troll Logic here. "There is no variable effect on Fireball It's effects always happen. The damage roll, SR check, and saving throw are all standard rolls that determine what happens after the effect comes into play"
So to reduce to the absurd....
The damage in a fireball spell uses the formula for a standard spell damage roll. It is clearly damage roll, and thus like attack rolls it is a special roll that is not actually part of the spells effect. Thus, the damage on a fireball cannot be maximized.
That is my problem with your logic. I can use it to declare than any numerical roll written into a spells description is actually some special roll that is not really part of the spells effects, and thus exclude it from being maximized in a clear circumvention of the RAI for maximize.
Yes, and that makes the RAI clear. At this point, I am annoyed with the gap between the RAI and RAW.
If the rules for dispel magic said, make a dispel check, and the dispel check was defined elsewhere in the rules or said that a dispel check is a special type of caster level check, that would be enough separation to make the RAI clear, but the rules don't do that. The one and only place where a dispel check is defined is inside the effects section of the dispel magic spell.
Again, that is based on assumption, RAI, and opinion. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your opinion is not supported by RAW.
CR is a judgement call anyways. I am assuming that a DM knows the difference between a melee creature with fairie fire, and a creature with significant amount of SLA that can also make melee attacks.
Again, there is clear rules precedent for the attack of a spell being separate from the spell(See the touch attack stuff up thread) in that the attack is actually a separate free action separate from the action that casts the spell. There is no clear RAW establishing that the dispel check is separate from the effects of the spell, and the dispel check is written into the effects section of the spell. Everything else is opinion and RAI.
I am proposing that you use different CL modifiers for the template based on the abilities the creature has.
A primarily melee minion is CR - 4(This means you get 4 for one)
So on minions with save or suck spells you would only be facing 2 into the place of the normal 1.
Avon Rekaes wrote:
Here is what I would consider a solidly built TWF fighter
Level 10 Fighter
Dexterity 24 (16 base + 2 racial + 4 belt + 2 level)
Weapon Finesse, TWF, ITWF, Double Slice, Piranha Strike, Weapon Specialization
So, average damage per hit is 16.5/19.5 with piranha strike active, which would be fine, but that is a fairly well optimized TWF. With less optimization(IE a fighter who goes down the split strength/dexterity path), drop the damage per hit by a least 2. Further, a ranger or paladin who isn't getting class bonuses(smite evil/favored enemy) would also be doing about 4 less damage per hit, so put a ranger/rogue/paladin TWFer would bottom out at 6.5 damage per hit.
Avon Rekaes wrote:
It took me a little bit, but I remembered the other situation where the DR idea breaks down. Two weapon fighters and any other damage dealers that rely on lots of small hits to kill(Melee druids for example). Rather than using DR per say. Add up the total damage deal by a single full attack, and compare it to the "DR" value.
Avon Rekaes wrote:
I was pondering the same thing, but I realized the ratio depends on the size of the damage dice, and the static modifiers.
Based purely on dice size
Adding in static modifier
You get the idea. Now none of that addresses the fact that the average life expectancy of a minion is much lower than an NPC. Lets look at that a bit.
Lets assume that the NPC dies to 3 rounds worth of attacks. If they win initiative they get 3 rounds of attacks themselves. If they lose, they get 2 rounds of attacks. This gives the an average of 2.5 rounds worth of attacks(the .5 is assuming that the NPC is as likely to win initiative as they are to lose it.) Now 4 minions in the exact same situation would lose about 1 minion per round. Best case scenario for the players, they kill a minion each round before the minion gets its attacks off. The minions get 3+2+1=6 rounds to attack. Worst case scenario, the minions get all their attacks in a round before one of them dies. That gives them 4+3+2+1=10 round worth of attacks. On average, I would expect the minions to get 8 attacks.
So now combine that with my archer from the previous example. 2 attacks per round at 1d8+2 damage times 2.5 rounds worth of attacks = 32.5 damage.
If the players can kill the minions faster than that, things swing in their favor. If they don't, things get uglier.
I am almost tempted to say use 4 to 1 ratio for melee, and 3 to 1 ratio for ranged. Almost every situation where minions can get scary has to do with ranged attackers that are able to spread out easily.
It goes back to the core concept of hit points. Hit points are not "The number of hits you can take before you die", but rather a general measure of your durability in combat.
If I am a fighter with 120 hp, and an enemy hits me for 40 damage. Now that damage would kill a level 1 commoner 4 times over, but for my fighter, it does not even impair my ability to fight. A good narrative description of the hit would be "The giant winds up and lands a thunderous blow, which you barely succeed in parrying at the last second. You grit and strain to stop the blow, and it leaves you winded and less able to defend yourself." That same blow if it ever to hit a minion or a level 1 commoner would be, "The giant winds up and lands a thunderous blow, which hits the minion full on leaving nothing more than a smear on the ground"
Avon Rekaes wrote:
Those are some low level example, what worries me is that as you go up in levels, your static bonuses override your variable ones. For example, a level 13 NPC fighter should have around a 20 strength with a +1 greatsword, weapon specialization, and weapon training 3. Their damage would be 2d6 + 13 for an average of 26 damage. 4 level 13 fighter minions would be hitting for 15 damage each for 60 damage.
Yeah, for the record, I like the idea of min damage for minions because it eliminates another roll for me to make, but I also know how static bonuses scale with levels.
I was pretty sure that RAI, it was not supposed to work. At least this gives me something to refer to so that I am not just making an arbitrary ruling.
Unfortunately, the dispel check is written in the effects section of the spell, and those other things are not. There is no rule that says the the dispel check isn't part of the effects for dispel magic, so we have to assume it is, because it is in the effects section of the spell. As I said earlier, your distinction between being part of the spell, but not part of the effects is splitting a very fine hair.
Again, the ability directly references dispel magic and it's effects. I cannot find any dispel checks in the rules that are not part of the dispel magic spell's effects.
Avon Rekaes wrote:
A. there is a certain fun element to making minions likely to run away.B. Yes, it is an edge case, but it is actually a common one(sneaking attack dependent classes, support classes like bards and healing clerics, etc.), and it is very unfun for the player who is stuck fending off a single minion while the rest of the group saves the day. Also, a 2 minions could easily shut down most spell casters in melee
Yes, I did miss it, it is a subnote to the chump rule. You may want to highlight that by making it its own separate rule. I would still be worried about focused fire in general.
For example, in my archer example...
The same math holds for a level 3 wizard casting magic missle -> 2x1d4+1 = 7 damage average. 4 level 3 minion wizards casting magic missle -> 8 x2 = 16 damage.
Min damage and lowered DC might be enough, but you will have to playtest it.
A negating weapon negates alignment based DR.
Dispelling bomb wrote:
Dispelling Fist wrote:
Dispelling Strike (Su) wrote:
In every case I have found, there is not a separate dispel check. All dispel checks are taken as part of casting dispel magic or a similar spell. In short, the rules simply do not support dispel check being a separate entity from the dispel magic spell.
Avon Rekaes wrote:
I would point out stuff up thread where there are 2 issues.1. The DR idea has one glaring problem. A low damage character like a rogue who isn't flanking could get stuck fighting a minion and unable to kill them. This is why I proposed that every time a minion gets hit regardless of damage, they become shaken. Hit a minion twice, and they will run away. Non-minion leader have the ability to remove the shaken condition from their minions.
2. Imagine 4 archer minions fighting from range making full rapid shot attacks or 4 wizard minions casting fireballs. That is a lot of potential damage. The problem is that nothing in your rules lowers the damage potential of minions, and PF is a game of rocket tag. That is why I added a rule that minions cannot full attack, and all spells are cast at -3 caster level.
Add those 2 rules, and I think your rules would work just fine.
Maybe, but to get to your position, you have to assume an unwritten rule, namely that "the dispel check is not part of the effects of the dispel magic spell" even though it is clearly written and described in the effects section of the spell.
Caster level checks to overcome spell resistance, for example, are not written into the effects section of a spell. They are written as a general rule.
If there is so much precedent, then please post it here.
Meh, you would be doing 26 damage per round with a 5th level spell hardly out of line. Also, there is precedent for that attack roll not being considered part of the spell's effect, see above.
In both of those examples, 2 rolls are being made. d20 + stealth vs d20 + perception and d20 + Bluff vs d20 + Sense Motive. Every example I have checked in the rules, opposed check means opposed rolls.
That is the problem with your definition of opposed check. It is not supported by the rules. Can you find any example of an "opposed roll" in the rules that doesn't involve a d20 roll being taken on both sides?
Because for some reason they decided to write in a completely new rule just for dispels, so assuming that it is not affected by maximize is just that, an assumption. Also, the rules specifically exclude saving throws and opposed checks in empower/maximize, but they don't mention caster level checks or dispel checks. That implies that if they had not mentioned saving throws, they could be effected by maximize. That in turn implies that any check that is part of the spells effect can be affected by empower/maximize.
As I have said, I have always played it that you can't, but looking at the RAW, my decision seems arbitrary and lacking in foundation.
This also makes me wish we had a better glossary where terms like opposed check and dispel check were defined.
And I am saying that it is not an action granted by the spell. If I use an ability like quick channel that changes the type of action I use to do a certain action, it does not change the the base action. If you use an attack action to make a touch attack on in the same round you cast a touch spell, then the attack action becomes a free action instead of a standard action, but it is still a separate action from the actual casting and effect of the spell.
Or to put it another way, You can make touch attacks all day long, but if you don't cast a touch spell first, they are not going to do very much damage.
Yes, but it shows clearly that attack rolls are a separate mechanism from a touch spell's effects. That can be used as a precedent for ruling that all attack rolls are separate from a spell's effects.
For example, the effect of a ray spell is to produce a ray of energy. Aiming that energy effectively is separate from the actual effect of the spell and so forth.
Combat Rules wrote:
The rules are very clear that attacking with a touch spell is a separate free action from the action that is used to cast the spell. You are even able to cast shocking grasp, take your move action, then take a free action to make the touch attack.
Actually, hit rolls are clearly a different beast entirely. The effect of shocking grasp is to make you hand charged with electricity, period. You are not required by the spell to actually make an attack roll in any way, form, or fashion. In fact, the actual attack is a separate free or standard action that happens after the spell is cast. Thus the rules make it very clear that the attack roll is NOT part of the spell. In the case of dispel magic, there is no clear identification that the dispel check is not part of the spells effect.
As a side note, this discussion also potentially applies to any spell that gives you a d20 reroll. The original check may not be part of the spells effect, but the extra dice given is clearly part of the spells effect, and could potentially be empowered or maximized as long as it isn't being used for a saving throw or opposed check..
"Caster level check" is used in multiple places. To overcome SR, to overcome another casters spells, etc. Some of those places have nothing to do with any specific spell, thus I feel comfortable calling it a separate mechanic just like hit rolls, saving throws, etc.
The problem is the choice to use the term dispel check. The only place where a dispel check is used is in the various dispelling spells or things that reference those spells specifically. That makes it difficult to call the dispel out as being clearly separate from the effect of the spell. If the rules has called out for a "caster level check" instead, you would have a lot more solid footing for saying it is referencing a separate mechanic that is really not part of the spell.
RAI, I really don't believe it would work. RAW, I see absolutely nothing preventing it.
That is where I am at. I have always played that it doesn't work, but I cannot find any solid RAW to back that up.
It is pretty simple really.
Polymorph says that material components are gone, so you need eschew materials, or you need to cast a spell with no material components to get around that.
Elementals have a languages and thus are capable of speech. Anything with a verbal component good.
That only leaves soematic components. Now, do you have anything that says that an elemental form isn't able to do soematic components? Since they can be vaguely humanoid in shape, I cannot think of any good reason they cannot do hand/arm/leg/etc. gestures.
I would go with it tells you to make a check and reminds you of the mechanics of how to do it, but you can't use maximize on it because its not an affect of the spell (just the mechanics of how to decide whether or not dispel works).
You do realize you are splitting a very fine hair between "mechanics of how to decide whether or not dispel works" and "an affect of the spell"
By your logic, I can say that rolling level d6 dice of damage for a fireball is not part of the affect of the fireball spell just part of the mechanics for determining spell damage.
Finally, back to my original problem, do you have any rules to actually back your opinion up?
Yeah, I found basically the same thing. "Opposed check" is being used as if it is a standard term, but that term is not defined anywhere in the rules.All of the examples I could find involved people making 2 rolls being made in opposition to each other. IE Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, etc.
Further, Saving Throws are specifically called out alongside opposed rolls by Maximize/Empower which implies that saving throws are NOT opposed rolls.
Aelryinth Do you have any rules to back up your assertion that the caster level check is an opposed roll?
I once had a group of players pitch a fit on me because 2 members of a group of soldiers "train their loaded crossbows on the party mage". Now, I understand that there is a debate about whether you can ready an action outside of initiative order, but they were mad because I didn't specifically use the word "ready" to describe the guards actions.
Maximize/Empower specifically says it cannot affect an opposed check. That implies that it can affect other normal, non-opposed checks that are part of the spells effects. As for proving that it is not part of the spell's effect, see my previous comment.
Victor Zajic wrote:
The Dispel Check is not part of the spells effects, it can't be maximized or empowered. It's not an opposed roll, though.
Do you have any rules to back that up?
Not saying you are wrong, but the dispel check is clearly written in the section that describes the effects of the spell and there is nothing in the text of the spell that clearly denoted that the d20 check is not part of the spell's effects. Without some clear delineation or rules to back up your statement it is then any DM can arbitrarily decide that any rolls made as part of a spell are "Not part of the spells effects" and thus not subject to empower/maximize.
Is there any compelling reason I cannot maximize dispel magic and make my check always equal to 20+caster level?
So we have Maximize Spell
Maximize SRD wrote:
Dispel Magic SRD wrote:
The dispel check doesn't have an opposed roll, so it is not an opposed roll and it clearly isn't a saving throw.
So the only weak objections I can come up with are this.
But RAW, I cannot think of any reason this shouldn't work, but it just seems wrong to me.
I read that as SKR saying that Wealth by Level is a rule, sure ok, no problem. But lets look at the text of that rule....
WBL Rule wrote:
First, it uses words like "aid", "expected", etc. In fact, the "rule", as SKR calls it, is extremely loosely worded. Doesn't exactly sound like a hard and fast rule to me.
Second, we have a rule that has built into it the option to deviate from it by up -50% to +100%. That is definately not a har and fast rule either.
Conclusion, Wealth by Level is a "rule" in only the most general sense of the term meaning that it is included in the rulebook. If you look at the actual wording, it is not meant to be taken as a hard and fast rule like say rolling a d20 + bonuses against AC to get a hit.
More of a technical objection. Slavery does not necessarily require oppression.
In theory, you could have a society that used a system of slavery as justice to rehabilitate criminals while letting them be useful to society. If done right, the overall system could be considered Good.
That said, that system of slavery is very, very, very, very, very(did I get enough verys in there?) unlikely to exist. It has less to do with slavery and more to do with human nature. A large number of studies(Google "stanford prison experiment") have shown that when you give one person power over another, it invariably corrupts and it is only a matter of time before the person in power abuses that power.
Thus, practically speaking, most systems of slavery are going to regularly tempt people to abuse their power and authority over the slaves. The practical result is that you are correct. Almost every system of slavery is going to contain some element of oppression that slowly but surely drags it to Evil.
Vod Canockers wrote:
That deals with the good vs Evil of the actions. I covered that earlier in the thread. That post was my explaining why I am calling the act chaotic. If this all took place in a lawless area, then the actions slide more toward neutral.
That was really besides the point. I was specifically addressing your comment about "unless one of the PCs was sworn to uphold the law of the land." Whatever you define "The rules" as, Law/Chaos has to do with following them, not enforcing them.
Now I know why the Devs were reluctant to answer such a simple question. You guys just won’t give up. How about earlobe attacks?
SKR said in this very thread that Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite is a valid attack sequence WITHOUT vestigial arms. So baring your derailing sarcasm, no one is suggesting ear strikes. Now do you have anything constructive to add?
Law vs Chaos has to do with following the law of the land, not unholding it.
A cop or city guard can easily be chaotic. They are upholding the law, but they break the law to do it. IE ignoring things like due process, and the suspects rights.
If you are looking at sneak attack damage, then crit range isn't as big of a deal. Suffice to say it is very possible for a proper alchemist/rogue build to turn those small weak attacks into something significant.
A rogue could get a lot of mileage out of taking a 2 level dip in alchemist for a feral mutagen, a monk could do the same, and that doesn't even touch what a beastmorph vivisectionist could do with it(read broken as hell).
Which is the funny part, I am starting to think that Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite is superior to any combination involving vestigial arms. Mainly because I can enhance all my attacks with a single magic item.
I'll use the vestigial arm to hold my +5 Heavy shield while I kick/kick/claw/claw/bite.
That is exactly why I threw it into the chaotic category. there are 3 possibilities.1. Slavery is legal, and the Noble, PCs, and the Giant are lawful legal entities for owning slaves. If this is the case then the PCs actions are Lawful.
2. The PC and nobles are in a lawless area, or the law is otherwise agnostic on slavery. Then you might get away with it being Neutral.
3. If not 1 or 2, then the PCs actions are Chaotic.
1 is very unlikely. 2 seems unlikely, because the presence of a noble points to civilization being nearby, and it is unlikely that they would be completely silent on the issue of slavery. Which makes 3 the most likely.
If forcing someone into slavery is automatically evil, then so is forced incarceration(IE prison), and thus our entire prison system is Evil. The good or evil of slavery as punishment follows the same criteria as sending someone to prison. Was the punishment just and fair for the crime committed?
And you don't think that maybe the fact that SKR seems to be contradicting the FAQ while trying to clarify it might be a clue that the FAQ doesn't really clear up the issue?
Quantum Steve wrote:
Because there are a couple ways to get those attacks.
Unarmed Strike(Kick)/Unarmed Strike(Kick)
There are probably other ways I am not aware of. It really doesn't matter because as long as there is any way to get your normal manufactured weapon attacks without using your hands or head, then you can get 5 attacks without vestigial arms.
And the FAQ falls woefully short of addressing the actual question being asked.
Any alchemist with IUS and feral mutagen can make 2 kick attacks(Main hand/offhand) with 2 claw attacks and a bite without any vestigial arms. That is 5 attacks.
The question is how is the 5 attack limit is defined with vestigial arms
Agreed. from the OP, I have grave reservations about these things
1. Handing a slave over to an owner who has a huge grudge against the slave. Very high chance of the slave being simply tortured for the rest of his existence.
Those are just the first 3 red flags I see in this situation pertaining to Good/Evil
On the Law/Chaos axis
All this puts me towards calling it somewhere between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil depending on the exact details.