Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Undead

Charender's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,174 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

doc the grey wrote:

I'm sure someone brought this up but to reiterate the issue with removing shots and reliability from firearms is what do they have left? Nothing really.

In pathfinder reliability, volley, and power are kind of the metrics by which you measure whether or not a ranged weapon is worth it and these only get worse as you level up and increase your ways of shrugging damage. In games like Call of Cthulhu ancient firearms that fire once a minute and do 1d10 work fine because you've maybe got 18 health max if you are an Adonis of personal health and take weeks to recover from. In pathfinder 4d6+2 (assuming base damage and a +2 for enhancements) is less than the Fireball the sorc can throw about every round if they want or what a Young White dragon can do with just his breath weapon every 1d4 rounds. Neither of those are uncommon, hell the dragon is just 1 over APL for the earliest someone could feasibly afford a +2 weapon following wbl.

In other words if you are going to be taking away attacks per round you need to up the damage to compensate A LOT. If I'm losing a round of attacks and I'm getting two attacks a round and I cannot shorten that the damage needs to be like 4 hits. Hell, I'd actually say closer to maybe 6 since if I miss it's like I've missed all of my attacks for 2 solid rounds. These numbers scale up the more time you're planning to take away from them. Otherwise people just won't use it.

This is why things like the crank crossbow out of RTT or the caltrop spear from Giant Hunters never get used. They are weapons designed to be too expensive both in feats and cash while also being unreliable to ever make you want to invest in them as a character.

Think about these play styles: Switch hitting, skirmishing, and sniping.

Most ranged weapons do a small amount of damage per shot, but make up with it via a large number of shots. Take a longbow for example. At level 10, I would expect to be doing around 1d8 + 4(strength) + 3(enhancement) + 4(class features) = ~15 damage a shot.

Now normally someone who wants to be good at bow will invest in manyshot, rapid shot, precise shot, point blank shot. With this heavy feat investment, you get 3 shots at -2, and one at -7 at level 10. This also means that when you cannot full attack, your damage is quite lack luster.

Now what does a skirmisher/sniper want? They want maximum hit and run/hide potential. To accomplish this, you want something that plays well with vital strike. Taking a full round action to reload isn't a big deal when you are hiding or in cover.

What does a switch hitter want? Something that can be effective without a huge feat investment. A switch hitter could use these firearms without feats and do decent damage until they ran out of loaded weapons.

I personally have different ideas for accomplishing these things than the OP, but those would be my stated goals for similar firearms changes.

TLDR: The current rules and meta in pathfinder focus on rapid firing ranged weapons. Some of us would like to see more options for other builds/ideas to be effective. We can accomplish this by changing the firearms rules.


I have a similar set of rules with one notable exception. Firearms are not any more expensive than a good sword.

I have similar goals. I feel that dedicated ranged combat is already well covered with bows and crossbows. I want firearms to be alpha strike weapons, not mainstay weapons.

To that end
Make all firearms simple.
Doubled the base damage of all firearms.
Change the crit multiplier to 18-20/x2.
Increased the reload time to 1 full round(1 standard action with Rapid Reload)
All firearms get dex to damage.

This makes firearms a useful weapon for switch hitters and skirmishers.


alexd1976 wrote:

I'm currently playing a Swashbuckler who identifies herself as a "Pirate" that worships Cayden Cailean and Besmara (thematically appropriate)-I feel that a world that has functioning magic should have nearly EVERYONE worship on a regular basis.

The character will NEVER be a Cleric (WIS 7) but does have a holy symbol, and follows many strictures/habits of the faith.

Once in a blue moon, as a GM I would reward this kind of RP dedication by having the god grant a minor boon (randomly heal in combat, vision during a dream etc).

It helps with immersion in the game I think. With my Swashbuckler, I'm having the character trying to convince the party that Cayden is just the neatest of the gods, and deserves to be worshiped.

If the GM told me I had 'fallen' I would probably slap him and walk out. Or tell him that my character found her own way to pray, and no one could say otherwise...

OP, your GM sounds like a bag of dicks.

If I had my way, Paladins, Clerics, and the like would not exist, and this style of divine intervention would be the norm. Divine "spellcasting" always seemed weird to me. Hey Bob, how about the take your gods divinely granted mojo and bottle it or make some wands with it?


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I often think DMs can be dishonest and conflate theme they don't like with mechanics they don't like. I think it's important to explain why you don't want something in your campaign and work with the player to make a fit. If you don't want a summoner because it doesn't fit with the nature of your campaign, help the player refluff. If you don't want it because of mechanics, explain that, but talk it out with the player.

I have never found it impossible to accommodate a class or character with enough imagination on the part of all parties involved. Also the food analogy is silly; let's end it. It's a collaborative game, why do we need to analogize it to a less similar event?

Never assume malice where incompetence will suffice as an reason.

I have seen plenty of DMs who conflate setting integrity, balance, etc. I don't think any of them did it intentionally.


knightnday wrote:

Compromise should be a two way street where players and GM meet somewhere in the middle. If there is a constant threat on both sides of "Do this or I won't play!", then maybe people should be sitting down and talking about why they cannot get along, game aside.

I've had players walk off from a game in a huff because I wouldn't meet all the "requirements" that they had for the game. I've said it before: I'm willing to bend, but I am not bending over. If that makes a player walk, then so be it. We'll go on without them -- maybe with the dreaded GMPC! -- and whatever the problem is goes away.

Similarly, I've folded up the screen and ceded the chair to someone else when the players at the table were so undecided and argumentative that we'd wasted an hour complaining about what to play, what someone else was going to play, and why can't I be a sentient ooze in this game you big meanie! Someone else can run the Wild Weird World of Wonder and I'll happily play, or go home or do something else.

If I've prepared for a game, as a player or GM, and then people start off on strange avenues that have nothing to do with what we've decided, I usually get annoyed. We talked about playing X or possibly Y. If we are going to play Q, someone could have sent a text, email, phone call, smoke signals or otherwise discussed such beforehand.

These things, along with any sort of sticking with historical accuracy, should be discussed at the beginning of the game. It stops a great deal of bickering down the road and let's people know what to expect before they bring their sentient ooze to a historically accurate Musketeers game, or the GM doesn't prepare a pirate game for people that want to roam the polar ice caps hunting downed space ships.

I agree to a point. The problem is that a lot of GMing is experience and judgement calls.

For example:
- Player wants to play a high charisma skill monkey and try out non-combat options to situations. If the campaign is set up to be a combat heavy human vs orcs deathmatch I might warn them away from it, but I wouldn't forbid it.
- The same player wants to use their charisma and skills to be the groups Casanova and sleep with anything that moves. Sure, go for it.
- The player wants me, the GM, to heavily RP the objects of his affections. Here is a nice big glass of nope for you. In my experience as a GM, this kind of RP has been extremely awkward for both the other players and the GM and disruptive in every game I have seen it in. I am making a judgement call on what I think is best for the group as a whole.

Another example was that I had a GM who had completely forbidden player vs player fighting because of some bad experiences with it in past campaigns. He was making a judgement call and I can respect that. My only real gripe was that I was not informed of the rule before the campaign started.


The thread has move on a little bit, but I wanted to go back a visit th Medieval History with Magic vs Tolkien a little bit. While I can appreciate and understand the difference, and I have a better understanding of both human nature and history today...

I started DMing when I was around 14. I had a vague sense what I wanted to create in a fantasy world with Tolkien like world as my only guide, but I had no idea how to craft world or smoothly integrate players random off the wall ideas into that world. I had no idea what verisimilitude or setting coherency meant only a vague idea that some level of realism was important. I absolutely would have denied players things in the name of realism, historical accuracy, or it doesn't fit.

That was over twenty years ago. I am much better at setting building, and with that comes the ability to better integrate random and wacky player ideas into my setting. As a player, I am better able to take a DM's setting and find a way to make my character a part of the setting.

I run into very few experienced DMs who don't work with players to integrate ideas into the setting, but I has seen a lot of inexperienced DMs struggle with it. "Historical Accuracy" is just the easiest reason for an inexperienced DM to fall back on.


Bandw2 wrote:
Charender wrote:
IQ is supposed to remain stable with age.
no it isn't it specifically is in relation to your age. it's based upon answering questions compared to your age group.

Exactly. So the average 10 year old has an IQ of 100. The average 50 year old still has an IQ of 100. Assuming you haven't changed massively relative to the other people around you your IQ should remain stable as you age.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
No, seriously, I read the "30 Int = genius" thing somewhere. Maybe it was a 3.5 splatbook? The DMG? It could have also been "30 Int = superhuman".

Mayhaps it was from D&D (Deities and Demigods) where they discuss the stats with 30 being more in the line of deific stats?

Interestingly enough, I believe old time AD&D had IQ with each point = 10 pts.

So a 3 INT = 30 IQ and a 16 INT would = 160 IQ.

ON a similar note I think they had it where your STR stat was related to how much you could military press above your head..where a 10 STR = 100 lbs military press and 15 STR would = 150 lbs military press. This of course went out of wack onto a different scale once you hit percentile STR...but unique idea.

Yeah, it did. 18 in AD&D was a 180 IQ or basically the smartest the world has ever seen. I forgot about age boosts in PF. The smartest possible level 5 human in pathfinder is 24 without magic. Which makes it weird to compare with IQ because IQ is supposed to remain stable with age.

Either way, a 20 stat puts you among the top 1% of people who have ever lived. You are the exception, not the rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Charender wrote:
Because the player characters represent exceptional individuals. Seriously, you can have a wizard who can out think Einstein(20 int), a fighter who is almost as strong as Hercules(20 strength), or a cleric with wisdom greater than Solomon(20 wisdom).

Er, I know this is a bit off-topic, but...according to whom? Who says Solomon only had a 19 Wisdom? Who says Hercules only had a 20ish Strength? Hell, who says Einstein only had a 19 Intelligence?

Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.

While Pathfinder has push the envelope up a little bit, most of this is still applicable. Oddly enough, this also deals with the historical accuracy fallacy in a way, because once the players pass level 5, they are literally more powerful than anyone in history.

Then look in the bestary. A Great Wyrm Gold Dragon, which is known for being one of the wisest and smartest creatures in existence, has an int of 26 and a wis of 27.

Either way, the average human being has an int of 10, which is more my point than anything. A character with a 20 in any stat is an exceptional human being, and is up there is the greatest this world has ever known.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say that the "Historically Accurate" fallacy is a fallacy for an entirely different reason.

Lets assume that...
1. You are playing in a world that is loosely based on Medieval Europe.
2. Lets go a step farther, and let the players be part of specific events in our history.

It would still be wrong to disallow character choices for arbitrary historical reasons like "There weren't any black people in Europe", "There are no gunslingers", etc.

Why?

Because the player characters represent exceptional individuals. Seriously, you can have a wizard who can out think Einstein(20 int), a fighter who is almost as strong as Hercules(20 strength), or a cleric with wisdom greater than Solomon(20 wisdom). This is at level 1. By level 10, these same players are going to be superhuman.

A black person in Medieval Europe would have stood out, but that isn't the same as being non-existent. A good DM can work with the player to give them a plausible origin story. A lot of times when a player wants to do something that is very out of place with the setting, I let them, but NPCs will take an unusual interest in them because they are different.

Going back to the gunslinger. If the player was the only known gunslinger in existence, it would be weird for the NPCs to not notice or ask questions. If fact, the exoticness could be something of a double edged sword. Many enemies might not immediately recognize that the guns are potent weapons. Meanwhile, the gunslinger would be easily identified and found by anyone, friend or foe, who was looking for them.

Of course, some times this is actually valid logic. For example, I run into players often claiming that X is or should be common knowledge(Like troll's weakness to fire). The average level of education in Medieval Europe was much lower than today, and the rules actually do a pretty good job of modeling that(IE only knowledge checks DC 10 or less can be made untrained). In this case, the players are trying to use their standards of modern education to try and convince me to change my fantasy world that is loosely based on Medieval Europe.

TLDR:
Historical Accuracy is a bad reason to force restrictions onto a player about their character.
Historical Accuracy is a good thing to consider when you are world building as it can help make the world feel more realistic.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Moto Muck wrote:
I think the Immortality discovery is not aptly named. It sounds like it doesn't stop you from dying of old age, but rather it just lets you negate the ability penalties associated with your age category.

It says you cure aging not the effects of aging. You no longer die of old age.

Moto Muck wrote:
As a side note, what happens when you cast Time Stop in a timeless plane?

Timestop lasts until you leave your plane or enter an anti magic zone. Not as useful as you think if you read the time stop limitations.

** spoiler omitted **

But that does get us to an interesting point.

Go to a timeless plane and cast time stop.

Time stop will have a duration of forever.

So you you have an infinite amount of time to do whatever you want while the rest of the universe is in stasis.


Malag wrote:


Charender wrote:


Readying an attack action will not give you an AC boost.

I am not sure this is correct. As long as you strike sooner then the enemy, you should receive the benefits of CE and fighting defensively.

You are correct that you will get the AC bonus once the readied attack goes off, but your AC will not go up until then, so in a strict sense readying an attack in and of itself will not raise your AC. If your readied attack never goes off, you will not get the bonus AC and any attack made against you before the readied attack goes off, like ranged attacks against a melee character, will not get the benefit of the increased AC.


_Ozy_ wrote:
It's not meta gaming, it's not seriously attacking'invisible' opponents, it's defensive fighting using a kata like you see at every martial arts tournament or exhibition.

When talking about metagaming, remember that your mileage may vary. I don't have issues with it(my gripe is that Total Defense should be better), but I have played at tables where this tactic would be banned because it is considered metagaming.


Malag wrote:
Charender wrote:

As illogical as giving up all your attacks and movement to gain less AC?

But nobody is forcing you to give up your attacks? You could simply ready your action, withdraw, etc. There is tons of actions to take. Striking air to get higher AC doesn't make sense, at least not to me.

You are entirely correct that it doesn't really make sense, hence my earlier comment about it being metagamey. The problem is that if you are looking at RAW, it is simply the best way to temporarily boost your AC.

As an example, lets look at a level 20 warrior type(20 BAB + 3 ranks in acrobatics).
Total Defense gives you +6 AC, but you give up all movement and attacks except for a 5 foot step, and you cannot make AoOs.
Readying an attack action will not give you an AC boost.
Withdrawing will not give you an AC boost.
Attacking the air as a standard action allows you to use combat expertise and fight defensively. This give you a +9(+6 from combat expertise + 3 from FD) AC with a -10 to hit. You can still take a move action, and you may make attacks of opportunity.

One great example of when you might want to do this. I want to move past an enemy in a 10 foot wide hallway so I can be flanking him and prevent his retreat. I already have mobility. If I "attack the air", I can claim CE and FD bonuses to AC until my next turn, so when I take my move action to move past him I have a +13 AC against his AoOs, and because I can still make AoOs, I begin giving my allies flanking bonuses immediately.


Malag wrote:
Charender wrote:


The problem is this...
Total Defense - +4 AC(+6 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) and you cannot take AoOs
Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise - +3 AC(+4 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) +1 per 4 BAB and you still get AoOs.

At 8 BAB, the bonuses from Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise >= Total Defense, and you can still make AoOs.

At that point, why would anyone use Total Defense?

Because attacking air to gain higher AC is illogical?

As illogical as giving up all your attacks and movement to gain less AC?


Malag wrote:
It would seem that per RAW you could attack object and receive benefits of it. Personally, I think it's dumb. That's what total defense is for, but the RAW seems clear at the moment. Invisible opponents will however ignore the dodge bonuses against you, unless you have some special class feature or spell currently active.

The problem is this...

Total Defense - +4 AC(+6 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) and you cannot take AoOs
Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise - +3 AC(+4 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) +1 per 4 BAB and you still get AoOs.

At 8 BAB, the bonuses from Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise >= Total Defense, and you can still make AoOs.

At that point, why would anyone use Total Defense?


DM_Blake wrote:
You've been down this path before, almost exactly 5 years ago.

Well given that,by RAW, you can attack a square where you think an invisible opponent is, what is to stop someone from attacking imaginary invisible opponents to gain the benefits of Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively? By RAW, it seems legit, but it does feel very meta-gamey.

Edit: Of course, this is really all a side effect of fighting defensively + combat Expertise bonuses outpacing full defense bonuses. If fighting defensively and all-out defense were made to actually scale with level, then there would be no real reason to try these gimmicks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:
The better question might be why doesn't Call Lightning work more similarly to Lightning Bolt so that metamagic can more suitably affect it, instead of being a fairly terrible spell.
Though I prefer Lightning Bolt as well, I think Call Lightning has it's uses. Metamagic that adds a rider effect to spells has better synergy with Call Lightning than with Lightning Bolt, such as Dazing, Sickening, Thundering.

Not to mention if you really want more damage, empower and maximize will work.


Gwen Smith wrote:
Charender wrote:
Byakko wrote:

Jokerm: how does that change anything I said?

Charender, Avatar: when you have to start making up rules, it's probably a pretty good sign that it's not core. While I'm all for creative GMing, and coming up with things on the fly, none of those ideas are strictly by rules.

In order to move someone you're in a grapple with, you have to make the "grapple to move" check. If either of you is moved away from the other, the grapple simply ends.

As has been mentioned, this isn't spelled out super clearly in the rules... but were you really hoping for perfect clarity when it comes to grapple rules? ;)

By RAW, the only ways to remove the grappled condition are

A. If the creature who initiated the grapple releases it as a free action.
B. If the creature being grapples breaks it using a standard action

No where in the RAW does it say that being moved away from the creature you are grappling breaks the grapple. So saying that the grapple simple ends is also not strictly by the rules.

The only thing in grapple that covers movement at all is the Grapple check to move as a standard action, so it isn't a stretch to use that as a base for handling this situation.

I agree, but you should add one more thing to your list, just for completeness:

C: If the creature being grappled is the target of a Liberating Command spell and then makes an Escape Artist check as an immediate action.

(Just to make sure no one jumps on your list of options and says, "Ha! You forgot Liberating Command! The remainder of your well-thought-out post is invalid!" Not that this would ever happen, but still...)

Good point, there are several spells that specifically free you from a grapple as part of their effects. That said, Force Punch is not one of those spells.


Wheldrake wrote:

Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter are dangerously broken, especially if allowed to stack. Hello, free metamagic? Far more powerful than any feats. And really, does it make sense that every danged spellcasting PC in Golarion "grew up on one of the wayang-populated islands of Minata"???

The most important use of other traits is to give PCs a class list skill that they wouldn't otherwise have, like UMD, perception and diplomacy. IMHO, this is entirely legitimate and helps make up for the shortcomings of many classes (fighters without perception???) but if your DM doesn't like it, hey, it's his call.

Perhaps you could suggest one of two options:
1) allow feats with the exception of the wacky ones like Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage (an anything else the DM has a beef with.
2) use a random background generator like this one and only allow traits specifically mentioned in this background.

Or, just roll with the DM's ideosyncrasies. Making up for your characters' shortcomings is half the fun of RPing.

This is close to the route I went down. I got rid of traits in their current form, and made them more generic.

1. Make any non-class skill a class skill
2. Add a +1 to any class skill
3. Gain proficiency in any simple or martial weapon.
4. +1 caster level(caster level cannot exceed hit dice)
5. Gain the ability to cast any 1st level spell 1/day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Byakko wrote:

Jokerm: how does that change anything I said?

Charender, Avatar: when you have to start making up rules, it's probably a pretty good sign that it's not core. While I'm all for creative GMing, and coming up with things on the fly, none of those ideas are strictly by rules.

In order to move someone you're in a grapple with, you have to make the "grapple to move" check. If either of you is moved away from the other, the grapple simply ends.

As has been mentioned, this isn't spelled out super clearly in the rules... but were you really hoping for perfect clarity when it comes to grapple rules? ;)

By RAW, the only ways to remove the grappled condition are

A. If the creature who initiated the grapple releases it as a free action.
B. If the creature being grapples breaks it using a standard action

No where in the RAW does it say that being moved away from the creature you are grappling breaks the grapple. So saying that the grapple simple ends is also not strictly by the rules.

The only thing in grapple that covers movement at all is the Grapple check to move as a standard action, so it isn't a stretch to use that as a base for handling this situation.


Game Master wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Generally, when the controller of a grapple moves, the person being grappled moves with them.
Completely false. That's not true at all. You need to succeed at a grapple check as a standard action to move your target with you.

Which leaves us with two options.

A. The grapple ends.
B. The grappler needs to make a grapple check to hang on to the caster and drag them with him. Personally, I would add a circumstance penalty based on damage taken or distance moved.

The real meat of the question is: Can I make a grapple check to force someone else to move with me when I am moved involuntarily?


Quatar wrote:

Yes, that's one of the strategies used for witches. Of course it means you can't move.

No move action, but you can still take your 5 foot step.


Jayder22 wrote:

There are multiple traits that give +1 CL for 1 or more spells, they do not specifically give a trait bonus, just a bonus, so you can get +2 from traits if you don't already have conflicting ones. +1 Ioun stone you mentioned. Shaman's paint gives +2 alchemical bonus to your caster level for any spells that target one or more allies (you are your own ally).

I would mention though, the spell permanency says "you must be of a minimum caster level" not "your caster level for this spell" which probably means the trait and shaman's paint won't actually help do what you are asking. The requirement is your caster level, some gm's might not allow specific spell CL bonuses to work. It's obviously not for PFS though, so just check with your GM first.

That being said, those are greats ways to boost caster level for the actual spell being made permanent. Higher caster level == harder to dispel.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Casting the spell: Event 1.

Attacking with the spell: Event 2.

Nothing states that attacking with the spell is part of casting the spell, only that the attack is part of the spell.

Those two things are not equivalent.

For example making touch attacks with a touch spell is part of the spell. That doesn't mean that while holding those attacks your spell can be disrupted (As an example if someone readies an attack for "If he tries to make a touch attack against me") because the spell is already cast (and doesn't have a duration of concentration).

Those attacks are still part of the spell.

Attacking in later rounds with fiery shuriken is part of the spell. This does not mean you disrupt the spell by attacking when those attacks are made. The spell is already cast.

Part of the spell =/= part of casting the spell.

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn (see FAQ below for more information.)

The RAW clearly states that the ranged attack is part of the spellcasting. Unless you have some other RAW that clearly says that the ranged attack happens after the spell is cast, and that taking damage from the ranged attack provoking does not disrupt the spell, then...

1. The ranged attack is part of the spellcasting.
2. Damage taken during spellcasting can disrupt the spell.
3. Ergo, the AoO from the ranged attack can disrupt the spell.

PS: Normal touch attack don't have this problem as the RAW clearly states that the attack is a separate free action AFTER the spellcasting.


Aelryinth wrote:
Charender wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Two separate actions then, agreed, with two different attacks of opportunity.

Read the linked FAQ. It disagrees with your interpretation.

Quote:


As two separate actions though the provoking from the ranged attack does not ruin the spell since you can't make the ranged attack unless the spell is cast.

If the spell isn't cast then you couldn't have provoked by making a ranged attack.

You didn't take damage while casting the spell, you took damage from making a ranged attack, after the spell is done, since you wouldn't be making the attack if the spell had failed.

By RAW, the ranged attack is part of the casting of the spell. Basically, you are aiming the spell while you are casting it, and it is the distraction causes by aiming the spell that provokes, thus the damage from making a ranged attack can disrupt the spell. The only way this doesn't happen is if the ranged attack is a separate free action that happens after the spell is cast.

Another way of thinking this is that you are aiming, and he's hitting the hand you are aiming with to spoil the shot, not just generally interfere with the spellcasting.

==Aelryinth

That is actually the way I have always played it, but looking at the RAW, it is pretty clear that the ranged attack is part of the spellcasting action. That combined with the concentration check rules on "Damage taken while casting the spell" lead me to conclude that getting hit during the ranged attack can disrupt the spell. That may not be RAI, but it certainly is RAW.

Abraham spalding wrote:
Charender wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Two separate actions then, agreed, with two different attacks of opportunity.

Read the linked FAQ. It disagrees with your interpretation.

Either it's two separate actions and two different provocations or it is not.

The FAQ states it is two different actions -- casting the spell (provokes) making a ranged attack (provokes).

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat wrote:

Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn (see FAQ below for more information.)

The RAW on ranged touch spells makes it very clear that the ranged attack is part of the spellcasting action.

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity wrote:


If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
FAQ text wrote:


Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity, one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events. As a note, since all of the rays are fired simultaneously (in the case of scorching ray), you would only provoke one attack of opportunity for making the ranged attack, even if you fired more than one ray.

The key word for AoOs is opportunity or event. The RAW and FAQ use the language of "events that provoke" as opposed to your language of "actions that provoke". You have 2 different opportunities or events that provoke in the same spellcasting action.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Eh, the main emphasis is the adventuring day, not the monster. I'm assuming that teammates are there helping with each encounter. So taking out a monster isn't the emphasis, but rather your contribution to taking out said monster.

Yes and no.

I am looking out how long it takes to take out a single CR 10 monster at level 10. A CR 10 monster is not a significant challenge for a level 10 party. 3-4 CR 10 monsters are. So the idea is "How fast can my level 10 character take out 1/4 of a CR14 encounter(4 CR 10 monsters)?"

No, it isn't the end all be all of performance, but it does give a little more information than a straight DPR crunch.


I was playing around with this a while back after the DPR olympics, and I used an arbitrary scenario, and calculated the number of rounds to kill the target.

Basically, you start 30 feet away from a generic monster. The monster: 10 HD, 140HP, 24AC, +12 on all saves. After the players first normal round, the monster will move into melee. This is basically a composite of the worst case scenarios for various classes.

For damage effects use the normal DPR calculations. For binary effects like save or die, use a 90% confidence interval(IE if the monster has a 70% chance to fail their save against a spell, then I assume it needs to be case twice to give a 91% chance to be effected).

So the basic test is how many round does it take a given character build to incapacitate the monster.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Two separate actions then, agreed, with two different attacks of opportunity.

Read the linked FAQ. It disagrees with your interpretation.

Quote:


As two separate actions though the provoking from the ranged attack does not ruin the spell since you can't make the ranged attack unless the spell is cast.

If the spell isn't cast then you couldn't have provoked by making a ranged attack.

You didn't take damage while casting the spell, you took damage from making a ranged attack, after the spell is done, since you wouldn't be making the attack if the spell had failed.

By RAW, the ranged attack is part of the casting of the spell. Basically, you are aiming the spell while you are casting it, and it is the distraction causes by aiming the spell that provokes, thus the damage from making a ranged attack can disrupt the spell. The only way this doesn't happen is if the ranged attack is a separate free action that happens after the spell is cast.


Gauss wrote:

Abraham Spalding, there is no rule that states a single action can only provoke once. What there is a rule against is moving provoking more than one AoO from the same person.

The RAW uses the word opportunity. For a while, there was an interpretation that one action == one opportunity to provoke. According to the FAQ, this is wrong, but this isn't the first time I have seen this interpretation. I suspect that the 3.0/3.5 interpretation of this rule may have been different from the Pathfinder one or that the vagueness of the word opportunity is enough to cause a lot of table variance.


Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, wow. Don't cast Rays in melee range, I guess.

that's actually kind of funny, because a fireball or magic missile or bolt would only trigger one AoO, despite also being a 'ranged attack'.

Ouchies.

==Aelryinth

And that one AoO(for a fireball or magic missle) can be avoided by casting defensively.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Charender wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

wait, what?

Where does it say that making a Ray attack provokes AoO twice? Because that's what you're saying...it would provoke for being a spell, and provoke for being a ranged attack.

Those are two very different things, and they don't stack. I've never heard of Ray attacks triggering two AoO's.

A Ray attack is a cast spell, and provokes as a cast spell. It's not a ranged attack...a ranged attack roll is part of the spellcasting.

Can you point me to where a Ray provokes both ways?

==Aelryinth

Read the rules. There are 2 separate triggering actions, so 2 AOOs if you have Combat Reflexes. And usually the first one is obviated bay casting defensively, but the ray (ranged attack) still provokes.
The real question is if the second AoO(from the ranged attack) allows you to disrupt the spell casting. Is the text of of the ranged touch attack overriding the normal touch attack rules(ranged attack is part of the spellcasting) or is it clarifying that the range attack does not require a separate action to shoot it(the range touch attack is a free action separate from the spellcasting)?
It isn't a separate action but it doesn't ruin the spell since then you couldn't have provoked.

If the ranged attack is part of the spellcasting, then getting hit by an AoO from the ranged attack means you took damage while casting a spell. You have to make a concentration check, and if you fail, it ruins the spell.


thorin001 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

wait, what?

Where does it say that making a Ray attack provokes AoO twice? Because that's what you're saying...it would provoke for being a spell, and provoke for being a ranged attack.

Those are two very different things, and they don't stack. I've never heard of Ray attacks triggering two AoO's.

A Ray attack is a cast spell, and provokes as a cast spell. It's not a ranged attack...a ranged attack roll is part of the spellcasting.

Can you point me to where a Ray provokes both ways?

==Aelryinth

Read the rules. There are 2 separate triggering actions, so 2 AOOs if you have Combat Reflexes. And usually the first one is obviated bay casting defensively, but the ray (ranged attack) still provokes.

The real question is if the second AoO(from the ranged attack) allows you to disrupt the spell casting. Is the text of of the ranged touch attack overriding the normal touch attack rules(ranged attack is part of the spellcasting) or is it clarifying that the range attack does not require a separate action to shoot it(the range touch attack is a free action separate from the spellcasting)?


Aelryinth wrote:

wait, what?

Where does it say that making a Ray attack provokes AoO twice? Because that's what you're saying...it would provoke for being a spell, and provoke for being a ranged attack.

Those are two very different things, and they don't stack. I've never heard of Ray attacks triggering two AoO's.

A Ray attack is a cast spell, and provokes as a cast spell. It's not a ranged attack...a ranged attack roll is part of the spellcasting.

Can you point me to where a Ray provokes both ways?

==Aelryinth

It depends on interpretation.

rules wrote:


Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity

If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Casting a spell provokes, unless I cast defensively.

Making a ranged attack provokes.

1. One interpretation of the bolded section is that one action == one opportunity, so since the casting and the attack are part of the same action, then you would only provoke one attack. Under this interpretation, if I charge someone with a reach weapon and make a trip attempt without improved trip, I would only provoke one AoO because both of those actions are part of the same charge action.

1a. Even if you use the interpretation in a, if you interpret the ranged touch attack rules as giving a separate free action to make the attack with, then the ranged touch attack is actually a separate action from the casting, and thus would provoke separately. If I use a move action to get adjacent to someone with a reach weapon and make a trip attempt without improved trip, I would provoke two AoO because I did 2 separate things in 2 separate actions that provoke.

2. Another interpretation of the bolded section is that each thing you do that provokes grants an AoO, so both the casting and the ranged attack can provoke an AoO. Under this interpretation, if I charge someone with a reach weapon and make a trip attempt without improved trip, I would provoke two AoO because I did 2 separate things that provoke.

Edit: apparent by the FAQ, #2 is the correct interpretation.


Aelryinth wrote:

The Ray provokes the AoO before it is cast. You still have to make the concentration check from the damage to get it off.

==Aelryinth

Actually...

If you do not cast defensively, then you provoke when casting the spell. If you fail the concentration, you will lose the spell. This is because there are specific rules that state if you take damage while casting, you have to make a concentration check or the casting fails.

If you make a ranged attack, then you provoke as well. There is nothing in the rules that states you lose the ranged attack. So, if I shoot you with a bow in melee, you get to swing at me, but no matter what happens my bow shot still goes off.

If I cast defensively, you do not get an attack of opportunity for me casting a spell. Then, when I make the ranged attack that is part of the spell, then you get the AoO. Now if the attack were a free action that is actually separate from the spellcasting(like touch spells), then you AoO could not disrupt my spellcasting.

You could make an argument that the aiming is a separate thing that happens at the end of the spellcasting and use touch spell resolution as a precedent, because Ranged Touch Spells are a subcategory of Touch Spells. In fact, Ranged Touch Spells in Combat, are a sub category of the larger rule on Touch Spells in Combat.

I am inclined the think the specifics of Ranged Touch spells are meant to override the general touch spell rules, but I can also read it as enhancing and clarifying them.


Kazaan wrote:

Fight defensively as full-round requires you to make a full-attack action. This is the same as Vital Strike requiring the standard Atack action. Thus, for example, you couldn't fight defensively as a Charge or a Spring Attack. Conversely, fighting defensively as a standard only calls out making an attack. So any attack made as a standard action, including but not limited to standard Attack, Cleave, using a Ray as a standard action, etc. Can be done defensively. However, if you can attack as a free, swift, or move action, none of these can be done defensively.

And all of these only modify their associated action. So you can combine, for instance, Overhand Chop, Vital Strike, and Fight Defensively as Standard.

This is the joy that is the confusion between the attack action as a standard action, and the attack action. Both are often called "attacks" or "attacking" in the rules. Attack action as a standard action is when I specifically choose to attack as my standard action. Attack action happens every time I make an attack. A full-round attack gives me multiple attack actions.

rules wrote:


Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action

You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC until the start of your next turn.

When read in context, the above rules strongly imply that fighting defensively must be done as part of a standard attack action(or full-round action if you read further down in that section), and not just action containing an attack qualifies.


Arbalester wrote:


@Charender - Doh! Why didn't I think of dropping the duration?! 1 Hour/CL for a buff like that does seem pretty lengthy. I'll make a note. Thanks!

Yeah, I use greater magic weapon/magic vestment as a replacement for enchanting my weapons and armor all the time on my clerics. Once you hit level 9, you are looking at extended versions of these spells lasting 18 hours. At that point, they might as well be considered permanent buffs. Hence, the need to modify some of these spells.


Tacticslion wrote:

Please read the whole thread first. Thanks! :D

1-minute EDIT: it is definitively possible that you've read the thread, but you've bypassed a large number of arguments to post on an earlier assertion. Hence the assumption.

In the interest of keeping things civil. Yes, I did read the whole thread and no, the link you posted does not back up your claim that different number of charges == different magic item for the purpose of the 75% roll. It only shows that different number of charges == different price. There is still quite a logical hurdle to jump over to get to different price == different item for the 75% roll. Further, it has been pointed out in this thread why the "different price == different item" does not automatically follow as you seem to think it does.


Ashiel wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
What are you even talking about?

Now I'm confused, are you trying to troll?

Trolling is beneath me. I was mostly questioning because pretty much 100% of everything that you said was false, or seemed to be. Like, what does it have to do with WBL or NPC WBL? Why does being able to buy common items commonly break immersion? It actually is supported by RAW (the contrary is not). I don't really see why this would suddenly cause PCs to suddenly combine together and transform into the MegaMurderHoboZorde and start attacking villages if they wouldn't have already (Ryric pointed out that it's not just magic items but mundane items which are even sillier in some cases, so I mean if they're not burning towns for full plate they probably aren't doing it for a scroll of knock).

Plus all the bitterness. Why so bitter? We're all friends here. Have a cookie. :)

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. I have yet to see any RAW to back up the idea that different number of changes == different item == another 75% chance for the item to be there. In the absence of any RAW on this point, I don't see how anyone can claim that the RAW is firmly their side. If I choose to only let a player roll once for a wand of X and you choose to let them have one roll for each charge, there is nothing that says either of us is doing it wrong. Beyond that, several people have pointed out how from a RAI perspective your interpretation trivializes the 75% roll to the point of "why even bother?".

That said, I see several people who are jumping on a single poster, and pulling their comments WAY out of context. They were responding specifically to my comment(you know the one right above theirs), which was in the context of whether there is any RAW to support the different number of charges == different item == new chance to roll 75%, and the RAI implications of the different interpretations. Their unforgivable sin was apparently forgetting to quote me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the wealth by level is X levels lower idea. It is a lot easier to eyeball then 2/5.

The other idea I get from MEL comments is that rather than making the increases static(you gain X at level Y). Make it so the player can pick and choose which bonus they get when. For example, every level choose +1 to enhancement AC, natural armor, deflection, or all saves(max +1 pr 3 levels with a +5 max total). Then, the player can decide at any given level if they need AC or saves more.

Finally, one idea I have seen on stat increases is to use stat points(from the point buy table) instead of actual increases to stats. If you extend the stat buy table beyond 18(the price per point goes up by one at every even stat value), it looks like this.
19 - 21 point
20 - 26 points
21 - 31 points
22 - 37 points
23 - 43 points
24 - 50 points
25 - 57 points
26 - 65 points
27 - 73 points
28 - 82 points
29 - 91 points
30 - 101 points

Now throw in something where the players gain stat points like this(basically every level you gain 2 stat points + 1 per 4 levels)
1 - Original point buy(OPB)
2 - OPB + 2
3 - OPB + 4
4 - OPB + 7
5 - OPB + 10
6 - OPB + 13
7 - OPB + 16
8 - OPB + 20
9 - OPB + 24
10 - OPB + 28
11 - OPB + 32
12 - OPB + 37
13 - OPB + 42
14 - OPB + 47
15 - OPB + 52
16 - OPB + 58
17 - OPB + 64
18 - OPB + 70
19 - OPB + 76
20 - OPB + 83

If you start with an 18, you could raise it all the way to a 29, but you would only have 19 points left to spend on other stats. Throw on a +2 racial bonus, and you cap out at 31 on a single stat. Compare this to the current system where you can out at 18(base) +2(racial) +5(levels) +6 enhancement) +5 inherent = 36. BUT if you had a 10 on every stat, you would be able to raise them all to 18 over 20 levels. In other words, this system greatly benefits MAD classes over SAD ones, and encourages players to be more rounded. Also, remember that the short duration enhancement buffs are still available, and useful.

Overall, I think I like this a bit better because...
1. It discourages SAD character from just MAXing out a single stat.
2. It give most of the control over when things go up to the player.
3. Brings short duration stat buffs back into the game.

The only con seems like the extra bookkeeping for the stat increases, so it really comes down to the question is if the MAD/SAD balance is worth the extra bookkeeping.


StabbittyDoom wrote:

One of the things I'll be doing for weapons is making it so that the passive enhancement actually *doesn't* bypass DR. However, the magic weapon spell increases the enhancment by +1 (max +3) and allows it to bypass /magic, and Greater Magic Weapon increases by +1 (max +5) while allowing the weapon to bypass all DRs for your total effective enhancement bonus. Abilities like Arcane Pool and Divine Bond work the same as GMW, but are given a max +6 for funzies. Having a weapon with a +1 bonus equivalent is also sufficient for bypassing magic DR, but not others. Greater Magic Fang can either function like Magic Weapon for all attacks, or the greater version for one attack.

You may also think about dropping the duration of greater magic weapon to 10 min/level.

I really like the idea of this system because it brings back a reason to use the short duration buffs like magic weapon, bull's strength, etc.


DM_Kumo Gekkou wrote:
Charender wrote:
DM_Kumo Gekkou wrote:
Charender wrote:

I have been noodling a similar system, but I have a plan to add this.

Remove all permanent enhancement bonuses from weapons(IE a flaming sword would be a +0 flaming sword).
Everyone gets a +1 enhancement bonus to weapon hit and damage for every 3 points of BAB. This caps out at +5/+5 at level 15.
I like the idea of this. I'm going to have to play with the math and see how I feel about this for 3/4 bab classes. Do you have any playtest data for this?

I don't really have any play test data, but I have crunched some of the numbers. For the full BAB classes, it puts them firmly on top, and it adds another trade off for casters, which lessens the caster/martial disparity. For the 3/4 BAB classes, almost all of them have spells that they can use to give themselves bonuses. Clerics have divine power/greater magic weapon. Druids have magic fang, and so forth. If anything, this change would let you see more spells like Shillelagh, because now having a +1 enhancement bonus on your weapon is a good thing.

Also, I don't consider these things to be a PC only thing. I would apply these bonuses to any NPC that has PC wealth level(+1 CR).

My worry is classses such as the monk, rogue, etc that are 3/4 and do not have spell casting abilities. This pushes some of the less powerful classes even further back. I don't see it harming full casters much as many full casters will never use a weapon anyways.

The rules as a whole also free up the monk to focus on investment in monk specific items(monk's belt instead of a belt of strength for example).

Rogues are almost always pushed into going down the dual wield path, which means that they have to buy two magic weapons, and thus are about a +1 behind a fighter on their weapons anyways. This system as a whole is a huge boon to dual wield.

For reference
Level Full 3/4 1/2
1 +0 +0 +0
2 +0 +0 +0
3 +1 +0 +0
4 +1 +1 +0
5 +1 +1 +0
6 +2 +1 +1
7 +2 +1 +1
8 +2 +1 +1
9 +3 +2 +1
10 +3 +2 +1
11 +3 +2 +1
12 +4 +2 +2
13 +4 +3 +2
14 +4 +3 +2
15 +5 +3 +2

Worst case scenario, if I really feel that a specific class is struggling, I can make a class only magic item for them(Like some gloves that boost sneak attack)


DM_Kumo Gekkou wrote:
Charender wrote:

I have been noodling a similar system, but I have a plan to add this.

Remove all permanent enhancement bonuses from weapons(IE a flaming sword would be a +0 flaming sword).
Everyone gets a +1 enhancement bonus to weapon hit and damage for every 3 points of BAB. This caps out at +5/+5 at level 15.
I like the idea of this. I'm going to have to play with the math and see how I feel about this for 3/4 bab classes. Do you have any playtest data for this?

I don't really have any play test data, but I have crunched some of the numbers. For the full BAB classes, it puts them firmly on top, and it adds another trade off for casters, which lessens the caster/martial disparity. For the 3/4 BAB classes, almost all of them have spells that they can use to give themselves bonuses. Clerics have divine power/greater magic weapon. Druids have magic fang, and so forth. If anything, this change would let you see more spells like Shillelagh, because now having a +1 enhancement bonus on your weapon is a good thing.

Also, I don't consider these things to be a PC only thing. I would apply these bonuses to any NPC that has PC wealth level(+1 CR).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been noodling a similar system, but I have a plan to add this.
Remove all permanent enhancement bonuses from weapons(IE a flaming sword would be a +0 flaming sword).
Everyone gets a +1 enhancement bonus to weapon hit and damage for every 3 points of BAB. This caps out at +5/+5 at level 15.


graystone wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
graystone wrote:
I've also been in threads with DEV's and I've seen some say that a 4 armed creature IS meant to get 4 attacks. Like Calth said though, they also said that PC's aren't meant to get more than 2. That statement really confuses me given the fact that was AFTER they made the Kasatha.
PC aren't intended to use Kasatha, it's a 20RP race with a monstrous trait.

#1 Table 4-1 lists rp races of 11-20 as advanced (same as aasimars and tieflings). 20+ is monstrous. The inclusion of a monstrous trait would be an exception but it doesn't make the race itself monstrous. Even is a monstrous trait bumped it up to a monstrous race see #2.

#2 My copy of the ARG has a chart for how to use creatures of up to rp 40 (pg#217) as PC's. Is your copy missing this?
#3 My copy of the people of the stars lists them as a playable races(pg#4).
#4 my bestiary 4 lists stats for PC stats for it.

Adding all these together, REALLY doesn't add up to them not wanting you to play it. Would YOU give out PC stats in multiple places AND call them out as playable if you really didn't want anyone to play them?

Charender, he isn't talking about replacing a weapon attack with a natural attack. That can actually give you a benefit. He's trying to replace a weapon attack with a weapon attack. He's taking one of the multiple attacks from BAB, like the +4 from +9/+9/+4, and turn it into a +9 for +9/+9/+9. The ONLY reason it does something for natural attacks is that it's figured out differently. Natural attack get full BAB or -5(2) based on type no matter how many you get. That's not the case with weapons. Multiple attacks from weapons "because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest." He's trying to take a lower number and swap it for a higher number but that's just not possible.

Check out the combat section in the core book, full round actions, full attack. You numbers MUST go high to low (for those from BAB being high). You...

No, if I have a character that has 3 limbs, a weapon in each hand, I get 3 attacks. If all weapons are light, then I make my attacks at -4/-8/-8, that is RAW. If I have 2 weapon fighting(I am currently sidestepping the whole multi-weapon fighting is a monster feat issue ATM), then my attacks would be at -2/-2/-8. The verbage in extra limb and the FAQ say I cannot get an extra attack from the limb, but I can substitute that attack for any other attack I would normally be able to make. So if I have 5 attacks from TWF at -2/-2/-7/-7/-12 and I also have access to another weapon attack on a third limb that is at -8, then according to the FAQ, I can substitute the attack at -8 for the one at -12.

TLDR: I still make my attack as per the core rule from high to low, but I can choose to make an attack with the kukri in my third hand at -8 instead of taking my last iterative at -12.


I am going to have to actually side with Stabbity here. Even when you remove the whole multiattack issue, he has a valid point.

I have a level 10 fighter/2 Alchmist with a tentacle wielding 2 Kukris with the TWF and iTWF feats.

I get 3 attacks at +9/+9/+4/+4/-1. My tentacle attack is at -5 for being a secondary attack which puts it at +4, and according to the FAQ, I can explicity substitute it for the kukri attack that is at -1. Thus my attack routine is now +9/+9/+4/+4/+4 with the last attack being a tentacle.

If it works for the tentacle(which has the exact same extra attack verbage as the extra limb), then there is no reason that you could not take an extra limb with a Kukri in it, and thus you would get the same option to substitute the attack from that limb for any other attack in your routine. Even without the multiattack feat, I could still attack with a -8(using a light weapon) with the second off hand making my attack sequence a +9/+9/+4/+4/+1 instead of a +9/+9/+4/+4/-1.


As to the OP, is there any way to work some bardic music in there. The thought of a mockingbird singing and adding to the already ridiculous amount of damage is just too hilarious to pass up.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Q: if a human has no natural attacks but can make an unarmed strike, can a creature with natural attacks make an unarmed strike? isn't such a creature never "unarmed" in the sense of the word? or is "unarmed strike" a type of weapon available to ALL creatures regardless of their shape or form. I'm thinking hummingbirds and say a sentient ooze creature or a golem made entirely of sharp blades, for example... some of these don't seem to have the capacity to make an unarmed attack either due to extreme feathery softness or extreme lethal nature...
Any creature can make an unarmed strike even if it has natural weapons. Do you have cats? Have you ever had one bat you with it's paws without the claws extended? I have.
I'm 80% in agreement with you... I'm just wondering if there's a rule somewhere saying that sharks can't nudge you gently with their fins...
My cat made an unarmed strike against me by jumping up on the couch and headbutting my elbow. This provoked and attack of opportunity from me, and I scratched her behind the ears.

Maybe not a fin nudge, but what about a tail slap.

A great white shark with improved unarmed could in theory tail slap(unarmed strike) at a +10 to hit for 1d6(huge unarmed) + 7 damage. That seems about right for a huge muscular shark slapping you with its tail. Oddly enough there seems to be an error in the GWS stat block, it seems like their normal to hit would be +3(BAB) +7(strength) +1(focus) = +11, not +9. That said, the bite would then be at a +6 for 2d10 + 3, so the damage gain from the tail slap is more that made up for by the loss of damage on the bite attack which goes from a strength and a half to damage primary attack to a half strength to damage secondary.


Tacticslion wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:

Further, how far down does this 'it's a different item' rabbit hole go?

What about "no wands of hold person with 8 charges? how about a wand of hold person with 8 charges that has a clue to its function?"

"No +1 longswords? How about +1 longswords that shed light?"

"No +3 shields? What about +3 shields with the Jeggare coat of arms? No? How about the Thrune coat of arms?"

Oh, these are really easy to answer: none of that changes their in-game value.

Interestingly, upon thinking about it,

Ian Bell wrote:
If value difference alone is enough to let you roll again, what stops questions like "Hm, no wands of hold person with 8 charges? How about a wand of hold person with 8 charges and a 10 gp garnet on the end?"

... is actually either a) two items (and thus an additional expense) or b) a wand (and thus is the same value/cost as a wand without) or c) not actually an item (as there is no where in the rules that notes its value, unless you interpret it under the "items with value after charges are expended" which wands notably are not, per RAW).

Also Mean Mutton pointed out above:

Magic Item Acquisition wrote:
Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.

The rules are exactly as noted. The GM (of course) has the option of changing them.

A further great and terrible thing from those rules:

Magic Item Acquisition wrote:
The GM should keep a list of what items are available from each merchant and should replenish the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.

This means that, according to RAW, a GM needs to know if any given merchant has any given thing. This is probably one of the (if not the) most often ignored rules I've ever known, and with good reason. Man. 'Dat paperwork.

Still, it provides a rather immersive experience, one supposes!

So, if I want to spite the rest of the player at the table, I walk in, and ask the DM do you have a wand of X with 1 charge, 2 charges, etc. until I have exhausted the magic item supply of the town in question?

DM: Oh, yesterday, a ranger came in looking for a bunch of wands, so I don't have any +1 swords, but hey I have 3 wands of Charm Animal...

And still not a single rule that is even close to saying that different price == different item. You have rules that acknowledge that magic items can have varying prices, but it doesn't logically follow that different prices means it is a different item.


Tacticslion wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

.

Charender wrote:
At 75% change of having a given item and you treat each charge level as a separate item, <snip>
Charender wrote:

I would like to see some more RAW support for the bolded section.

Granted:

Quote:
For an item that's worthless when its charges run out (which is the case for almost all charged items), the value of the partially used item is proportional to the number of charges left.
Quote:
There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort.

These are two statements that directly speak of the value of different items.

I have more of the text quoted upthread, along with the appropriate links.

Full quote for context

SRD wrote:


Base Value and Purchase Limit This section lists the community's base value for available magic items in gp (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week. A settlement's purchase limit is the most money a shop in the settlement can spend to purchase any single item from the PCs. If the PCs wish to sell an item worth more than a settlement's purchase limit, they'll either need to settle for a lower price, travel to A larger city, or (with the GM's permission) search for a specific buyer in the city with deeper pockets. A settlement's type sets its purchase limit.

That quote is specifically referring to the value listed in the table, and in no way, form or fashion implies that different value == different item.

A wand of Fireball is a single item with a value proportional to the number of charges remaining. There is nothing in your quotes that even remotely states that I should treat a Wand of Fireballs at 50 separate items.

1 to 50 of 3,174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.