I would move away from the cold iron ignoring spell effects, and make getting touch with cold iron act like a targeted dispel magic effect.
Someone in a cold iron cage would have to beat a targeted dispel(as per counterspelling) to get a spell off. If they cast a spell with a duration, they get hit with a dispel attempt every round they are touching the CI.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I have been playing planetside 2 a lot, so I have been in situations like this a lot, IE guarding a room waiting for someone to come through the door. I find after more than about 10-15 seconds, my attention starts to wonder. What about the other door? What is my friend doing? Maybe I should move over there... and so on. So I think those numbers are reasonable, but you can always adjust the base DC to something you feel is better.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yeah, I was just throwing it out there for perspective. It started with me asking the question, just how long do they have to make the decision to fire or not.
A more common situation would be a normal human making a double move past the door. In that case they are moving 5 feet every half a second. Still not a ton of time, but more in line with what is reasonable.
In that context, we are talking about reading an action to attack someone entering the room. I generally assume they know everyone who is in the room with them unless there is a good reason not to(invisible friends and foes/complete darkness/etc.). Someone who enters the room will be an unknown for at least a few moments. A good perception check would quickly pick up on details that let them tell friend from foe.
Also, when I say chaotic, I am specifically thinking about a larger battle with a lot of new allies that you haven't had a lot of time to get familiar with. If it were just a handful of longtime allies, the DC would be more like 15, even with bad lighting.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That actually ties in with some of my thoughts I was thinking about last night.
Now that goes to the question, can you ready an action outside of combat? The RAW seems to assume you are in combat when you ready actions, but it does not explicity say you must be in combat.
That gets really fuzzy because different DMs run combat differently, and allowing completely unrestricted readied actions outside of combat is ripe for abuse. I do allow readied actions outside of combat, but I put some limits on it.
But this is more on my house rules on things.
But you are not my player and it is obvious you have no clue how it actually plays out in a game.
As for how it plays out with NPCs.
You have yet to show me from the RAW that the reactive check shows you more than "There is something there". What is the DC to notice every single detail about a single human being? Are you claiming that a single DC 0 reactive perception check gives you all of that information for a person standing out in the open?
No, I let the player decide what the scenario is. If they don't think there is a chance of a friendly coming through the door, they can ready an attack on the first thing through the door. If they think it is possible or even likely, then they have the option to account for it.
No, that is not at all what I do, I highly suggest you read everything I wrote, and not focus on the one piece you have pulled out of context.
I give my players plenty of feedback about how to word their readied actions, but ultimately, they decide exactly how they want to word it, and I use that wording as a guide to their expectation on the situation.
No, it isn't. A soldier has the same human brain you do. Training can teach you to have a wider range of expectations, but the human response to the unexpected is hardwired into the brain.
You comment that I am being unfair to the players then fail to see the relevance? It is a lot easier for a DM to abuse readied actions that it is for players. My rules also apply to NPCs, so it the players cannot do it neither can NPCs. That is the epitome of fairness.
Yes, you see the humanoid that is in the doorway via your free reactive perception action. The DC is 0, so I won't make you roll the check.
Oh, you want to take some time to look at the details of the person standing in the doorway? That will cost you a move action, unless it is a detail you already told me you are looking for...
If the player has told me they are looking for some specific detail, then I will up the DC of the reactive perception check based on the difficulty of noticing that particular detail.
Actually it is very realistic.
Any time you are exposed to an unexpected stimulus, it throws your entire brain for a loop and it take you about 300 milliseconds for your brain to realize that something exceptional just happened. At this point, your begin processing the exception, and that can take up a lot more time depending on how much of a surprise it is. Thus a human being getting something unexpected thrown at them can delay their response time by up to a second or more.
A readied action is a standard action and thus takes about 3 seconds to execute. 1 second of delay is enough to push you into the delayed action category.
Not at all. Remember these rules apply to NPCs as well. Imagine having every other combat the PC run into a room with 20 readied archers.
Which is generally what I do as well.
Of course the DM can also be vague.
Player: I ready an action to shoot the first person who comes through the door.
We are talking about split second decisions here, so I have no problems with forcing a player to make the decision to take the readied action on limited information. The key is that the player didn't think to look for friends beforehand, and thus the character isn't expecting it. If the player had thought to check friends coming through the door before firing I would have made their free perception check look for that, but I would have upped the DC based on how hard it is to tell friend from foe in that particular situation.
As for my personal style:
My general guidelines:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
CL * 5 seems a little steep. A level 20 mage(30 int) with a single -1 injury is looking at a having a 55% chance of completely failing to cast a level 8 spell. Meanwhile the fighter is at a whopping -1 to hit(5% less damage on average)
I am thinking the base concentration check should be 5 + 3xCL modified by penalties. That still makes it pretty safe for a level 1 caster to get a level 1 spell off (DC8 vs a +5 with a -1 penalty = 85% chance of success)
Meanwhile a level 20 wizard with a +30 with 1 injury is at +29 vs a DC of 32 -> 90% chance to suceed
If you go back far enough in time in most D&D worlds, the drow don't exist at all. At one time, the elves were all a single race.
Another funny thing about drow. 99% of the drow that grow up in communities of good drow don't automatically become evil.
If you go back far enough in time if FR, the drow don't exist at all. At one time the elves were all a single race.
Another funny thing about drow. 99% of the drow that grow up in communities of good drow don't automatically become evil.
Knight Magenta wrote:
First, where do you get the 1 in a million odds? Forgotten Realms has whole communities of good and neutral aligned Drow. There are enough of them that they have their own diety. That leads me to odds in the range of 10^-2 -10^-3 range. On what grounds, do you think your numbers are more accurate than mine?
Second, even if the default chance of a drow being good is 10^-6, you are assuming that the character's actions had no effect in influencing this specific group. If a character took a baby goblin and raised it from near birth in civilized society, cared for it as if it were their own child, and taught them a better way to live, then 16 years later the DM says, "The goblin coup de grace you in your sleep. They are evil. It is just what they do." That would be some epic bad DMing. The specific events of slavery and being saved by a good person for no reward would be a generally positive influence in any creature's life, and thus could have as much as a 10^2 positive multiplier on the odds. If the character did more to help them, then the influence could be even more.
So what you're saying is... we fixed fighters?
No, but you can expect about the same increase from this feat on any class.
A straight up no restriction dex to damage feat would add 7.5-15% to damage.
I am just trying to show you the power of dex to damage relative to other feats. These examples should give you an idea of how many restrictions you need to put on it to make it balanced.
Based on that I would go with this.
Each of those feats give about a 3.7-7.5% increase in damage.
Another option might be to cap the bonus to damage based on your BAB(IE you add the lower of your BAB or dex mod to damage). This would emphasize the skill acpect of the feat more.
So, I have another way to look at it.
I built a basic level 10 TWF fighter with a pair of +1 agile Kukris. Against AC 24, he gets about 50 damage per round.
I gave him a feat that gives dex to damage and swapped the +1 agile weapons for +2 weapons. That gave him a 15% increase in damage dealt.
For reference, weapon focus nets you are 5% increase in damage on average.
A straight dex to damage feat is 3 times better then weapon focus in a TWF build, and about 50% better than weapon focus in a two hand build.
Friend of the Dork wrote:
BTW, I am stealing this idea. This is a very solid way to deal with players who act outside their normal alignment. You give them some kind of hint that they did something wrong, then you give them a choice to repent or accept it.
This would even work for other character alignments.
I run a similar version of this, but it only allows you half dex to damage, but allow it to be used with TWF. I am going to watch it closely because I still think it may be too much.
TWF + weapon finesse + dex to damage -> best offense and defense in the game
Another thing people forget when playing with these ideas, natural attacks. All natural attacks are finessable. So, Vivisectionst Alchemist with 4 vestigial arms, claws, and bite. That lets you wield 2 daggers with TWF while making 2 claw and 1 bite attack with +dex +5d6 to every attack that hits.
Even with just the standard dervish dance, I can crank out a Ranger 2/Vivisectionist 8 build with a 35 AC that does about 120ish damage a round when flanking.
Another way to look at it is via statistics. Lets assume for argument sake that on average out of 100 members of a given "evil" race, 94 grow up to do unspeakable evil, 5 come out neutral, and 1 ends up good.
Now, you find a group of 20, and you kill them all.
Further, all of the above assumes that you character has no influence over those 20 specific members of the race. What if you character's actions change the distribution for that group to 80% evil/10% neutral/10% good? Now there is a 99% chance that you killed a person who would have been a good or neutral person.
How should we instead have killed the drow then?
Convince them to make a full frontal assault on the driders. They would have likely died, but that would have been given the chance to go down fighting.
For me the real telling point is that the guy felt the need to lie about it. That tells me that even he knew it was wrong.
Yes, although in theory, you could make a DC 20 UMD check to emulate the class features of a sorcerer. Every point you beat the DC by adds to your effective sorcerer level for actually using the scroll.
Activating the scroll outright is DC 37 or more, so that is not going to happen, but you can emulate having the spellcasting of a sorcerer at a DC of 20.
So if you have a charisma of 20 and a 1 rank in UMD, you get a +9 UMD. So on an 11, you are a level 0 cleric, and you need an 18 or better to make the caster level check(15% chance). For every point you get about an 11 on the UMD check, the caster level check comes down by 5%.
When you roll all of those probabilities together, you get an 18.75% chance that you UMD to emulate a sorcerer then successfully pass the CL check. That is close enough to the 20% that I used earlier to be a wash.
I agree that it is possible, but you are ignoring way to many variables.
Lets continue on with your example. For this to work, 4 things have to happen.
So if the sorcerer maxes charisma and puts a rank in bluff and diplomacy to start off, then they have a 0.011%(1 in 8791) chance of succeeding. That is if you give the players some very generous assumptions(Shield archon can give them the power, they have a 1% chance of finding an item that lets them summon with no strings attached). This is important, because there is no build and set of dice rolls that would let the sorcerer convince or trick a star archon, for example.
Now remember, a character's back story is not the absolute truth. It is just what happened from their point of view. It is far more likely that the Celestial Being appeared and let the Sorcerer think that they were being tricked. They gave the sorceror the power willingly to further some unknown agenda of their own.
I don't think straight out changing the bloodline would be ok. At creation, I would allow them to make the character, but I would let them know that obtaining the power in this manner may cause some complications later on. From there, I would have no problems with making the the powers occasionally backfire in a way that served the purpose of good and leave the sorcerer in a position where they can't always trust their own powers. I would also drop hints to the sorcerer that maybe they were the one who got tricked and let the story play out from there. Also, there might be a group of clerics running around who are moderately annoyed and on the lookout for whoever stole their scroll.
TLDR: It is possible for a level 1 sorcerer to trick a celestial being in exchange for power, but it requires some generous assumptions from the DM, and even then it is very improbable.
2 - DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING, EVER! I cannot stress this enough. DO NOT require a skill check [OR ANY TYPE OF ROLL] to move the story/plot/mission/quest further. If the players need to find a clue to move on, they simply find it. If not, then call for a skill check. Lets use the locked door as an example. The 3 obvious choices are lockpick (if able), bash (if able), find keys (if able). If there is a possibility they could fail all 3, it should not be required to get through that door. Instead, the door should have something else behind it that helps the players if they do succeed. Such as a shortcut, treasure, or possible just an empty room (whatever the situation calls for).
To expand on this one a bit...
It is ok to make an obstacle like a locked door.
What is not ok is making your ideas into hard rules. IE this door can only be bypassed with bash, pick, or finding the keys. Be open to any and all methods the players might come up with to get past the door, and be fair about giving them some chance of success.
As for 7, 7 is extremely important for adjudicating my expansion on 2. If the players decide that the best way to deal with a small orc invasion is by rallying and training a couple villages worth of peasants into a small army, you will need to know how the Lord of the Land is going to react to a someone raising and equipping a small army from his vassals.
A one level dip in Fey Sorcerer can gets you a bunch of useful goodies. It can be a solid choice for any bard.
You get 4 more Cantrips, Eschew Materials, 3+ level 1 sorcerer spells, +2 to the DC of all compulsions, the ability to use any wizard wand or staff without making a UMD check, and laughing touch.
Laughing Touch is a great SLA for a one level dip, since it is a touch attack with no save.
The problem with advance scouting is that the stealth rules make it very hard to stealth without the terrain being set up in your favor. As it is, it tends to be VERY rough on the scout.
This has been my experience as well. When all goes well, advance scouting is great. When you step on a trap you missed, the guards get a lucky perception roll, or any other the dozen of things that can get you spotted, next thing you know you have alerted enemies to your location and the rest of your party is 100+ feet away... The latter only has to happen once for you to end up very dead.
The only thing with this is you have to be careful to avoid metagaming.
For example, you make a save, and you get your +2 against poisons. 1 minute later, one of the other party members loses 3 con, you can't just say "You're poisoned make a heal check".
This is also true if you get a bonus vs evil, then you turn around and smite because you know the creature is evil.
Long story short, that is a very efficient way of handling these things, but make sure you don't use the knowledge in character.
When my players are... I no longer feel bad for DMs who hate on whiny players, also i have results about the entire party of wizards thing
Asked and answered. The OP already admitted to that mistake(he thought it reset the rest time). The players wanted to completely hand wave the need for rest entirely, and none of them bothered to look up the actual rule. One fairly minor mistake on the part of the DM does not excuse gross mistakes on the players parts. I have had groups do this as well. They see a situation, then one or more players impulsively decides to do something stupid, and when their stupid actions lead to consequences, they start picking everything apart. "You didn't tell us this." "You didn't use these exact words to describe the situation accurately" "How do you expect us to know this?" I am sorry, as a DM, I don't play the game of "Lets retcon the whole damn thing, because the DM didn't adjudicate every single rule perfectly."
The inn full of kobolds. It sounds like they didn't even take time to explore any other options, they just took the very first impulsive, stupid plan that came to mind and ran with it. We are talking about a group with an average int of 16 and they thought "Let wake them all up(and lose any tactical advantage of surprise we may have had)" was a good plan.
That said, there are at least 2 other methods for dealing with the encounter that the players ignored.
The problem is not a lack of options on the DMs part, but the player lack of willingness to explore any option beyond the first on that jumps into their heads. When the stupidly impulsively character is a half-orc barbarian with an int of 8, the party usually expects it and manages to compensate and pull through. When the in character impulsiveness and stupidity is coming from the guy with a 20+ int who really should know better, things will get grim very fast.
Which brings me to a final tip for DMing. Remember, a lot of characters with an int or wisdom of 20 are being played by a player with an int and wisdom of 10. If one of my players was about to do something that colossally stupid, I would give them an int or wisdom check followed by a "You seem to think there might be a smarter/wiser way to handle things" before they did it. If they ignore the warning, I let the dice fall where they will.
By the RAW, you are limited by what you can do while falling.
The implication of that passage is by a strict RAW readingA. If you fall more than 500 feet, you may cast one spell while falling.
B. If you fall less than 500 feet, you may cast a single immediate action spell.
C. The rule is silent on non-casting actions, which means
C1. If you are falling, you cannot do any action other than cast spells.
C2. If you are falling you can do any number of non-casting actions
That is the strictest reading I can manage, and it comes out as being very, very stupid.
As I said, it really depends on how the wish is worded. In theory, a wish could allow you to communicate with Eliminster, who would then proceed to tell you what you wanted to know, and he would know because he is Eliminster(IE Ultimate God character).
Yes and no.
If the wish is being used to duplicate another spell, then mind blank would beat it.
If you worded a wish in a way that was meant to give you very specific information in a way that gets around mind blank, then wish might win. It would all depend on exactly how the wish is worded.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
I just took a quick look at the SRD, and didn't find anything about taking actions while falling.
The only thing close is
It says > 500 feet gives you a single spell, which is even wierder, because by RAW, the duration of my fall depends on the casting time of the spell I choose to cast while falling. I fall 501 feet and I cast animal messenger on my way down I take 1 minute to hit the ground. I fall 10 miles and I cast fireball on the way down my fall takes 1 standard action(~3 seconds). If I want to pull a blanket out of my pack and try to use it like a parachute, I can't because only spells are allowed, not other actions....
The complaint(If I understood correctly) wasn't about how feather fall works, but rather how falling works.
An actual freefall from space takes several minutes before the guy reaches the ground. In PF, there are no rules for maximum falling velocity. It is assumed that all falls take less than a round.
So if I fall from 10 miles up, it takes 1 round, I cast feather fall right at the end, and by RAW, I get to basically travel 10 miles in 6 seconds without any harm. Feather fall isn't the problem, traveling 10 miles in 6 seconds is the problem.
alchemist cannot use extra limbs for additional attacks. Agile works with anything that is considered a light weapon, so it already works with natural attacks.
You might want to recheck that...
Hence why I have the alchemist wielding weapons in the vestigial arms, and using claws on the normal arms.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
First, a fighter with a 50 strength would be heavily encumbered by a direct hit from the Dust of Weighty Burdens. How exactly is that something specific that an Agile warrior specifically needs to worry about? Ditto for dirty tricks and tanglefoot bags. You might as well have said, "It is a melee character, and it can be countered by anything that counters melee". Also,
Ant Haul: Triple carrying capacity for 14 hours as a alchemist 1, cleric/oracle 1, druid 1, ranger 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1 spell. If your party is worried about you getting encumbered, then there is a really simple remedy.
Second, almost all of your counters require a hit on AC, touch AC, or CMD, which the agile ranger is equal to(CMD) if not better(+4 AC, +7 Touch AC) at avoiding in the first place. Still not seeing how only having a 10 strength makes me worse off.
Third, ok, a few of these effects(like blind) are slightly worse for an agile ranger... So basically, if the villains plan ahead, use specific tactics designed to cripple a finesse based character, and actually manage to hit the character, then the Agile Strike Ranger becomes only slightly better than a non-agile melee character(19 AC(Dex Ranger) vs 20 AC(STR ranger), but Agile Ranger has more damage, +7 init, and +17 reflex save). So, if you are countered, you are only slightly better than your counterparts instead of way better, how does that make it balanced?
Fourth, I spent less than an hour on all 3 of those builds, and I specifically picked ranger because that class is suboptimal in this case(paladin smiting, flanking vivisectionist, or fighter will all come out even better).
Finally, my group plays by the convention that the DM uses the same rules and feats as the players, so my players know I can and will send highly optimized murder machines at the players as NPCs. How would you deal with my Agile Strike Ranger as a level 8 party outside of hitting him with a save or suck spell and praying he fails the save? What if he sneaks up on the party with +20 to stealth? Init +7, surprise round moves in close on the arcane caster, goes first in the normal round, and boom, there is a really good chance that the one party member that has the best chance of stopping him is dead before anyone in the party gets to act. I could easily see the agile strike ranger to wiping out a level 8 party, that alone tells me he should be classified as CR 11 or 12.
Its your game, and you can play it however you like. I have shown you the specific situations where it can be overpowered. If you used it in one weapon builds without natural attacks(IE like dervish dance), it is a good feat. If you allow it to be used in TWF builds especially if you allow it to work with natural attacks, it quickly becomes very overpowered
TWF vivisectionist with 2 extra arms wielding kukris, 2 claws on his normal arms, and a bite attack getting 7 attacks per round while flanking with a +20/+20/+18/+18/+18/+15/+15 to hit doing an average of 31 damage on each attack. You would be looking at around 140 damage per round at level 10 or so with an AC of around 35.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
At that point, you are using an artist's rendering to justify your interpretation of RAW. Hopefully, we can all agree that "The picture shows them doing it like this" is not a good way to go about interpreting the rules.
The 3.5 wording was very clear about when you got a Spellcraft check. The PF wording is different and not is a good way.
Just as an example...
Level 10, Human Ranger, 20 point Buy, Enemy with 24 AC
Agile Strike Feat Version
No Agile Strike Version
So not only does the Agile ranger have +4 AC, +7 touch AC, +4 Ref, +2 Initiative, +10 (+6 dex, +4 armor check) stealth, and +6 to hit with a bow, but against favored enemies, the agile ranger does 17% more damage. If I did similar builds with a smiting paladin or fighter, I would expect to get similar results.
Edit: Added non favored enemy damage, and fixed math errors
I agree, and I house rule it to work like 3.5 did, but this is a thread about silly or dysfunctional rules, so I think that one deserves a mention.
Exactly, but I have been involved in no fewer than 3 rules debates over this issue, which is how I know what a mess that section of the rules are. I house rule it to the way it worked in 3.5(IE must be able to see a somatic or hear a verbal component to ID the spell), but a strict reading of the RAW says if you can see the person casting the spell, you get a spellcraft roll.
It also means that in any party above level 4 or so, the wizard has to be in front. Otherwise they will be getting false positives off of the other party members.
My DM once let me put spell storing on ammunition. It was a really, really bad idea. Basically I was doing archery damage while effectively casting 3-4 level 3 spells per round.
Yeah, if I have a Single Ability Dependent(SAD) character, I pretty much assume...1. Start with an 16 or 18 in your main ability score.
2. Pick a race that gives me a +2 to that ability score.
3. Put all of my ability score increases into that ability.
4. Get a magic item that give me +'s to that stat when it is about 25% of my wealth by level(6th for a +2, 10th for a +4, 14th for a +6)
5. Get a +5 tome at around level 18 or 19(roughly 25% of your WBL).
That means my stat would follow this progression assuming you start with a 16 base. Starting with an 18 base just adds 2 to all of these numbers.
That is a pretty normal progression for a SAD character. I would follow that stat progression for a int on a wizard, charisma on a sorcerer, or strength on a barbarian. I surely would do the same for a purely dex based melee character.
That reminds me of another heaping pile in the rules....
In 3.5, you could use still + silent + eschew materials to make your spellcasting undetectable via spellcraft. The 3.5 rules specifically state you must be able to see or hear the spellcasting to identify the spell.
The PF rewrite of spellcraft is a horrid mess. They changed it to an ambigious wording of must see the spell, which basically means that if you are casting a spell, even a spell with no noticible components, everyone withing in line of sight gets a spellcraft check to not only know you are casting a spell, but to know what spell you are casting. This makes it pretty much impossible to use illusions and similar non-violent spells in social situations.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Let me put it this way. If I had an imporved weapon finesse feat available, I would take it for any melee character I make except a barbarian.
Assuming 20 point buy, Human
Twohander, Str 18(16 + 2 racial), Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 14, Chr 7
So at level 1, you have spent 46 gold more on equipment, and you are +7 damage, -3 AC, -2 reflex, -2 init, -1 SP/level to show for it. Since I like sneaky characters, the net +2 to stealth isn't a bad thing either.
The two hander will probably stay ahead in damage, but they are going to fall farther and farther behind on defenses from here. At level 10, you are looking at a 24 dex vs a 14 dex. That is a net +5 AC, +5 init, and +5 reflex save for the Finesser. The Finesser is also going to close the damage gap a lot by getting Improved Shield Bash and Two Weapon Fighting. Finally, a Finesser who has to use a ranged weapon for any reason will be at a huge advantage over a Twohander.
DarkLeaf Studded Leather Armor is 925 Gold and gives you a +3 armor bonus with a +7 max dex bonus with an ACP of 0. Put a +2 enchant on it and combine it with my +2 light shield, and you are looking at a Base AC of 25 without any deflection or natural armor bonuses. That will keep me in good shape until I can commission some mithril celestial mail. In contrast, Full Plate with a 14 dex costs 1500 gold, and gives you a +10 AC. With a +2 enchant and a +2 shield, you are at the same AC of 25, but you spent 575 more gold, and you have a -6 ACP and -10 movement.
As for the comments about strength draining. An 8 point strength drain on a Two-handed fighter would significantly nerf their ability to deal damage(-4 to hit, -6 damage). Further, to keep the saves the same above, I had to gimp dump charisma AND int, so an 8 point drain on either stat will paralyze the two hander outright, so I am not sure how a 10 strength dex fighter is any more vulnerable to these tactics than most other characters.
TLDR: A feat like improved weapon finesse allows Two-weapon fighters to deal as much damage as a two hander at mid to higher levels without having to sacrifice defense. At level 10, this results is in roughly a net +5 reflex, +5 init, +5 AC, +1 will, +1 fort, and +1 hp per level on average for the cost of 2 feats.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Yes, they can. A Switch Hitting ranger would get a lot of mileage out of a feat that lets them use one stat to hit and damage for melee and hit for ranged. The would have to go for lighter armor, but they would still end up with at least a net +2 to ref, init, to hit, and to damage over someone who did not take the feat.