|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Something else is item commissioning. People are used to I going to Wal-mart, and if they don't have it, they don't have it.
Even today, a lot of special or rare items are comissioned. IE, I find a craftsman, I pay him 20-30% upfront, then I come back a month later, pay him the balance, and collect the item.
Once you get past the basics, a lot of shops simply cannot afford to keep rare goods in stock. A holy avenger +5 is worth more than most medium sized towns, no shop is going to keep that in stock just incase a wealthy paladin wanders by.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Automatic Misses and Hits
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
The parry is clearly listed as being an attack roll. Attack rolls are subject to the rule of 20 which mean that a 20 is an automatic hit. In this case a hit would be interpreted as a successful parry. The rules would be bloated if they listed every place the rule of 20 comes into play, and how it works in that particular instance. Hence why we have a general for the rule of 20.
The problem is that there are 2 interpretations of what a 20 means on the attack roll
The problem with interpretation 1 is that it is already well established that a 20 on a hit roll can be negated by concealment. How is a successful parry roll negating a 20 to hit any different than concealment negating a 20 to hit?
DPS, Ranger/Alchemist by Charender — DPR — Haste = DPR, +1 Attack =, +1 hit = DPR, +1 dmg = . DPR — Errors: Ignored = 715 gp over; Brew Potion/Craft Magic Arms & Armor useless feats; Need attack break out since Dervish Dance only helps the Scimitar attacks so -1 STR mode for all natural attacks has strange interaction with Power Attack
The wealth by level can be fixed by going to +3 Mithril Breastplate.
Not going to repost for multiple reasons
That said, it is a nifty trick to use 2 levels of ranger to get power attack and full martial weapon profiency in a pure dex build.
Marty the Master Summoner
Hit Points: 73 HP
Feats & Traits: Arcane Strike, Armor Proficiency (Light), Augment Summoning, Combat Expertise +/-2, Dodge, Extend Spell, Great Fortitude, Simple Weapon Proficiency - All, Superior Summoning, Focused Mind, Reactionary
Special Abilities: Summoning Mastery V (11/day) (Sp), Aspect (Su), Eidolon Link (Ex), Hero Points (1), Lesser Eidolon, Life Link (Su), Maker's Call/Transposition (2/day) (Su), Share Spells with Eidolon (Ex)
+1 Longspear (+5/+0, 1d8 damage, crit 20/x3)
Spells: Barkskin (2), Bull's Strength, Mass (4), Detect Magic (0), Dimension Door (3), Enlarge Person (1), Glitterdust (2), Guidance (0), Haste (2), Heroism (3), Invisibility (2), Light (0), Mage Armor (1), Mage Hand (0), Magic Fang, Greater (3), Message (0), Overland Flight (4), Read Magic (0), Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser (1), See Invisibility (2), Shield (1), Unfetter (1), Wall of Ice (3)
Male True Neutral Serpentine
Hit Points: 28 HP
Feats & Traits: Weapon Finesse
Special Abilities: Darkvision (60 feet), Scent (Ex), Damage Resistance, Fire (10), Climbing (20 feet), Flight (20 feet, Good), Tail (Ex), Evasion (Ex)
•Bite (Bite) (+13, 1d4+2 damage, crit 20/x2)
Augmented Summoned Lion
Male True Neutral Lion
Hit Points: 42 HP
Feats & Traits: Improved Initiative, Run, Skill Focus: Perception
Special Abilities: Low-Light Vision, Scent (Ex), +4 Stealth in undergrowth (Ex), Grab (Medium) (Ex), Pounce (Ex)
•Bite (Lion) (+9, 1d8+7 damage, crit 20/x2)
Note, I am hedging the rules here. 11 summons per day at 10 minutes per summoning means that the summoner can have 1d3+1 lions following them around for 110 minutes per day which is longer than the duration of a 10 min/level spell, so I am working on the assumption for this scenario that the summoner has 3 lions following them when the fight starts.
Round 1: cast mass's bull's strength, all the lions pounce
The character is primarily a group support character who can dish out some decent damage. The damage is pretty good, but if you look at the spell list, this character is also a huge asset to the other party members. With 28 AC, and 73 hp, a summoner isn't exactly squishy either, they can hang out near the melee, and give flanking bonuses.
Given a round or 2, the summoner can easily summon more lions and their damage multiplies accordingly. This build multiplies it's damage for every round you have to prepare. If given unlimited rounds to prepare, the damage caps out at around 577.4 DPR(11 summons of 3 creatures each with 2 castings of mass bull's strength to buff 20 of them).
Since the damage is based on multiple creatures with lots of attacks, inspire courage really boosts the damage. With a level 10 bard in the picture, the DPR goes up to 93.8 per 3 lions.
Great action economy. Since all of the damage comes from summoned creatures, there is no opportunity cost if the summoner want to UMD a cure critical from a wand on the fighter in round 3. After buffing the summons, the summoner is free to sit back and do whatever the group needs them to.
In a party situation, it would probably be better to cast haste over mass bull's strength on round 1, but that is a loss in the summoner's DPR.
The summoner never attacks enemies directly, so you can do everything in combat with normal invisibility up.
Addendum: All lions have the potential to be celestial, so they could possibly Smite Evil on round 1 for an extra +5 damage on their first attack, and the numbers do not account for the 5% crit chance the lions have.
Edit note: reposting with the magic weapon dropped as the +1 spear is not part of the DPR calculations. Broke out the details of stat allocation.
How do you make it clear to players that an encounter is too strong to fight, and they have to be clever?
Of course, sometimes there is the opposite. I was running a fearless barbarians type character with a newish DM. The campaign was set against the backdrop of a large war. We were low level, and 3 or 4 times in a row, we were force to retreat against the massive army of evil. It all felt very railroady. After we had put of a few levels, I just finally hit a point of eff it. I knew the DM wanted to and expected me to retreat, but my character was a warrior, and I was sick of running away. The DM was not good at winging it, and mass chaos ensued.
Another thing to remember, is that sometimes these people are playing their characters well, and their character will not back down even when you clearly communicate to the player that they should.
How do you make it clear to players that an encounter is too strong to fight, and they have to be clever?
I go with a combination of
2. Encourage knowledge checks, and use foreshadowing. Give the players tools to know when they are facing a really tough foe.
Between those 2 things, I have never had problems when players die due to hard fights, and the times they have survived have become the stuff of legends.
Someone that familiar would likely have ranks in the appropiate knowledge skill right? If they have enough ranks to make the check, then they have the knowledge. That is how knowledge skills work. If they haven't invested any ranks in knowledge skills, then I feel that, as a DM, I have plenty of ground to question their devoutness.
Player - I am a super devout follower of X.
To look at is another way...
Either way, my point is that just because it is in a Bestiary somewhere does not mean the PC automatically knows about it. Even if there are bits of Bokrug in every spelcasting materials shop in Golaron does not mean that a player's character has any idea what that is or why it is useful.
Another thing that kills the druid thing(aside from the Beast Shap limits)
Any stickler DM won't just let you polymorph into just any animal, it has to be something you have some familiarity with(as decided by the DM). Just because you have read about it in a rulebook doesn't mean that you character has any clue what it is. I would never let a player whose character has no knowledge of sea creatures polymorph into a dire shark.
This effectively limits your polymorph options based on your Knowledge(Nature) skill. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't make the knowledge check to identify it and you have never seen it in person, you can't polymorph into one.
On a similar note, I have a house rule for taking 15. It has the same requirements as taking 20(you will be considered to roll a 1 first, then roll a 15), but only take 3 times longer than normal instead of 20. It comes from the fact that if you roll a d20 3 times and take the highest, the average result is a 15. It gives players a middle ground between taking 10 and taking 20.
Generally speaking, in the situations we are talking about, one member of the party failing is functionally equivalent to the entire party failing.
That the dragon example, while the dragon is asleep, the dragon takes a +10 to the DC of ALL perception checks. One person wakes up the dragon. Now, the dragon was asleep and taking 10 + perception with a +10 +distance/10 to all perception DCs, but now that they are awake, the dragon is taking 1 move to look for the rest of the party at d20 + perception + disance/10, the other move action is used to close in on the party's location at 30-60 feet per round. It is only a matter of time before the PCs break stealth and start running, start a fight, or the dragon finds them. Worse, a smart dragon will pretend to not see the PCs until they are close enough to pounce.
In the bluff example, questioning another party member and having them fail their bluff check could be enough to make the questioner suspicious enough that they hold the PCs to see if the story checks out(and it won't) instead of just letting them walk away.
Actually, if you go by strict RAW. A natural 20 makes the attack a hit irregardless of the actual number needed to hit. It does not means the attack will succeed no matter what(see concealment, mirror images, ethereal, etc). Another example would be that rolling a 20 on a trip attempt still will not let me trip a flying creature(immune to trip).
Person A attacks with a +100 to hit, they roll a 10, and it is a hit. Person B parrying with a +0 to hit rolls a 20, the parry is an attack roll, thus the parry automatically succeeds even though it does not beat the attackers roll. The results of a successful parry is that the hit is changed into a miss.
If you change person A's attack roll to a 20, it does not change anything, they still scored a hit. Parry negates a hit if it succeeds, and a natural 20 causes the parry roll to succeed irregardless of the actual target number they need to beat.
That is actually the way I have always played it. If you can get the bonus temporarily you can take a feat, but you can't use it unless you are currently qualifying. Also, you cannot make use of any feats that rely on that feat, so no power attack, and also not improved bull rush or greater bull rush. If you are relying on temp bonuses to qualify for a key feat, then you are only 1 dispel magic away from losing it.
A similar example would be druid's and multiattack. A druid doesn't not qualify for multiattack unless they are wildshaped, which is a temporary ability.
It has been a while, but I remember seeing a FAQ about this a long time ago (maybe back to 3.5 days) that talked about how losing the bonus somehow(dispel magic, antimagic field, etc) would cause you to temporarily lose access to the feat.
Example, if I have a 12 strength with a belt of strength +2 I can take power attack, but if I walk into an antimagic field, I will not be able to use power attack.
Edit: Found a link to a 3.5 question on this issues that includes a reference and link to the official 3.5 FAQ here
That is why I said it is debatable. You can read it your way, but I do not think that is the correct way to interpret it for the reason I already mentioned. At that point we are in a RAI debate that neither of us is qualified to say for certain.
The other thing that gets lost in any discussion about taking a 10 on a stealth(and similar checks) check.... What about the rest of the party?
Taking a 10 is probably good enough for the party rogue to sneak past a dragon, but it will not cut it for the paladin in full plate. In some cases, a skill check is only needed by a single member. If anyone passes a perception check, they can communicate with the rest of the party, but with stealth, bluff and similar skills, you can bring the whole party in play.
An example of defeating taking a 10 on bluffing. Party bard is busy bluffing the captain of the guard with spells up, and a +insane amount to bluff. The NPC being a wise person who is experienced in law enforcement, asks another party member for their input, and thus forces them to also make a bluff check at a much lower skill rating. Side note: This is why the police take suspects, and question them separately. Suddenly, the bard just taking 10 won't cut it, and the party's ability to bluff their way out of a situation now relies on Dan the Dolt making a bluff check, not Benny the silver tongued Bard.
In the second case, it is very likely that the guards are taking 20 to find you, so taking 10 will probably not work and there is a time limit to getting out of the area in which case you can be considered to be rushed.
Oh, and to add to the teleport trap angle.
Teleport trap shunts them into a solid stone room with a single iron door. Inside this room is a trap that is triggered by a detect magic spell. The trap results in an antimagic field going off that covers the whole room. After peaking into the room, you have the option of filling it with burning oil or some other unpleasantness.
Bill Dunn wrote:
The whole point of take 20 is to allow you as the DM to quickly handwave someone putting 20 times the normal effort into something.
So you could force your players to..
Player 1: I take a 20 on my disguise check.
In most cases, best perception skill in group >= best disguise skill in group so why waste time?
By strict RAW, the answer to both is no.
"You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
If you have multiple off hands, then you cannot have a weapon or shield in any of them.
Debatable, but probably no."When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls."
While it doesn't specifically say "on melee attack and damage rolls with a scimitar", the "When wielding a scimitar with one hand" strongly implies that the bonuses are only for the scimitar.
Yes, but it is a natural attack(see monster rules for natural weapons) not an offhand attack.
Again, probably not.
I would be inclined to not allow it because if you really want dex to damage, you can get it via the agile weapon enhancement.
An Agile Amulet of mighty fists would give a you +dex to damage for all unarmed and natural strikes, but it comes at a cost I consider to be fair.
Also, you would spend 100 gold as you would have to burn 2 full disguise kits.
There is no reason the friend couldn't take a 20 on the perception check. If you have a mirror, then you could also take a 20. At the very least you could be sure that your disguise was better than 20+your perception. If you wanted to be gamist, you could limit them to 20 + perception, but at that point, there really isn't a good reason to not just let them take 20 on the disguise check.
I was going to add that being secretive would also be a good defense. If no one knows who you really are, Scry won't work at all. If all you have is a name, that isn't the person's real name, you can't scry them either. This might get back into the idea that true names matter.
5 feet of earth also make a lot of caves and lairs useful as well.
I am also not sure that it is a house rule. The 3 feet of stone, an inch of metal or a thin sheet of lead was a hard rule in 2nd ed. It got dropped in 3.0 by accident, then added back in 3.5 as just a sheet of lead, but you could easily claim that stone, metal, and lead is the actual RAI, but the developer didn't want to add in ALL of the limitations.
Bill Dunn wrote:
But how do you really determine if you messed up your disguise? By someone penetrating it with their perception check.
Or to come at it from a different perspective...
You are sitting in front of a mirror with a huge makeup kit(20 charges of a normal kit).
In that specific situation, why wouldn't you be able to take a 20 on disguise?
What if both the attacker and parryer both roll a natural 20? Does the world explode?
Attacker rolls 20 -> auto hit, resolve attack normally.Defender rolls parry as part of the normal attack resolution, they roll a 20, this changes the hit to a miss.
There are tons of things in the rules that can make a natural 20 miss(displacement, mirror images, etc). Parry is just another one of those things.
"To parry the attack, the duelist makes an attack roll, using the same bonuses as the attack she chose to forego during her previous action."
Nowhere in the language does is say that parry is a combat maneuver, but it is an attack roll. Since it is an attack roll, it does fall under the rule of 1 and 20.
The reason it is not a combat maneuver is that it works against the attacker's attack roll, not the CMD, and it uses the attackers attack roll, not their CMB. Parry is more of an holdover from D&D 3.5. It might make more sense for parry to be converted into a combat maneuver, but by RAW it is not written that way.
So yes, a 20 will auto succeed, but you will not get any bonuses that are applied only to combat maneuvers(like agile maneuvers).
The druid one is a stretch, but acceptable if we are pusshing the limits of the rules. The Sash isn't. When you emulate the fighter, you don't have a fighter level. You are adding 4 to 0, so at best you would get the abilities of a level 4 fighter IMO.
Note I said that strength and constitution are "can't dump" stats. It isn't that you need a lot of them, but you can't afford to dump them down to a 7 either. They need to be in the solid 10-14 range. I would also say that you probably don't want to dump intelligence either. Dex needs to be a solid 14+ and wisdom needs to be as high as you can get it. That leaves Charisma as you only dump stat. If you take bard, then you will need to be a 16+ Charisma at some point, and you are going to want to use your headband on boosting wisdom first.
Since you can get all of your bardic performances that matter with full level 9 clerical casting on a wisdom based caster via the evangilist cleric, the bard is really a non-option.
Chris Kenney wrote:
Which is why a lot of people houserule around it....
That said, the OP should really consider the evangilist cleric. Bardic performances, cleric buffs, and cleric casting progression, all in a nice wisdom based package.
Note the rules only refer to a metamagic spell vs a normal spell. There is no language about per metamagic applied, etc. The RAW is pretty clear that you only eat the increased cast time once no matter how many metamagics you add to the spell.
Why not bard? Archeologist with the trait to increase luck bonuses. And out of combat you have all those nice bard things like skills and spells
MAD issues. Zen Archer is already needing wisdom and dexterity with strength and constitution as a can't dump stats. Bard adds charisma to the mix.
Holy Sword is pretty clear that it overrides any other magic on the sword, thus Divine Bond followed by Holy Sword does not work. It is also clear that Holy Sword prevents other spells from modifying the sword, and Divine Bond is a Spell like ability, which means it counts as a spell in just about every way that matters, so trying to apply Divine Bond to a Holy Sword also will not work.
Diego Rossi wrote:
1 and 2. Draw a straight line between you and the target. If it passes through a sheet of lead, the spell fails. That is holding to a pretty strict RAW interpretation of "thin sheet of lead blocks scrying". I have no problem ruling that small cracks are not enough to let the censor in, because you would have to have exactly the right line. I also have no problem saying that enough twists and turns will also block the censor, because you could not get a line of effect to the target that didn't pass through a lead sheet.
3 is my point. The whole high level cat and mouse game is about creating situations that require your target to leave their safe sone.
4. There is plenty RAI that a thick amount of stone can also block divinations, so deep caves and the like become options.
Diego Rossi wrote:
That is about the only way a good scry and fry could actually work. You have to do something to lure the BBEG out of his safe zone, then you have a chance. At that point, you are playing an interesting game of cat and mouse in which the goal isn't to Scry and Fry, but to create conditions where Scry and Fry becomes an option.
Or use a moving fortress(as mentioned before)Or live in a pocket dimension(not on the material plane)
Divination spells enable you to learn secrets long forgotten, predict the future, find hidden things, and foil deceptive spells.
Many divination spells have cone-shaped areas. These move with you and extend in the direction you choose. The cone defines the area that you can sweep each round. If you study the same area for multiple rounds, you can often gain additional information, as noted in the descriptive text for the spell.
Scrying: a scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. The sensor, however, is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus functions normally even if you have been blinded or deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.
A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.
Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.
Or make good use of lead so that your fortress(or at least the parts you care about) is immune to scrying
There are plenty of ways within the current rules to prevent scry and fry.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Hell, tectonic plates are constantly moving. Try to teleport from North America to Europe and that 0.2 cm/year spreading rate is really going to screw up your chances.
I think any reasonable person could see that that amount of movement isn't enough to cause problems, but the rules specifically call out that ship movements speeds ARE enough to cause problems, thus it isn't a stretch that being on a ship could cause problems with teleports to the shore.
Personally, I think all teleport locations are relative to the planet's frame of reference, not the caster, thus hitting any object that is moving relative to the planet is a problem, but going from a moving object to one that is stationary relative to the planet would not be a problem.
Actually, it is worse than that. If you are on any kind of moving vehicle, ship, carriage, etc. then you are moving relative to the rest of the planet. That means that the 6 second limit appilies to any and all attempt teleport from a ship to shore, because the ship is moving relative to the frame of reference of the shore.
As for the whole, you scry a person, not a location. Yes, Scry is on a person, but you can also see everything within 10 feet of the person you are scrying. You you can see the area immediately around the person. You can watch them for 1 minute per level, and the censor follows the target around. That means you could easily have observed a significant amount of the location, even though the spell is cast on a person.
Improved initiative +4 initLightning reflexes +2 reflex
Dodge +1 AC(and touch AC)
So with those 3 feats you can close the gap to +1 init, +3 reflex, +4 AC, but that is it. Also, depend on where the Dex fighter puts their strength, they may end up with +2-4 con over the two-hander(24 STR, 14 DEX, 12 Con vs 12 STR, 24 DEX, 14 con).
christos gurd wrote:
First, I think your list is a lot bigger than what a min/maxer would use. Strictly speaking, TWF and Double Slice are the only feats required for a serious TWFer. Improved and greater TWF are nice to have, but most of your off hand damage comes from the first attack, so you don't HAVE to get those. Weapon Finesse, + dex to damage feat on top of that.
Second, Looking at damage is the wrong way to go. Look at the other benefits. We are talking about 4 feats. What do you get for those 4 feats? You get to put a 10 in strength, and dump all your boosts into dexterity. The net result is that a Dex based TWF will have +5 AC(and touch AC), +5 reflex saves, and +5 initiative or more over the strength based Two-hand fighter. There are no feat that the two hand fighter gets that can close that gap. So you end up with a strong damage dealer that also has a high AC, regularly goes first, and regularly makes their reflex saves.
On top of this, certain damage boosts, like bard performance, sneak attack, and paladin's smite evil, work a lot better for TWFers.
If that works for your game, go for it, I just wanted to make you aware that in the hands of a good min/maxer, dex to damage can be very strong.
PS: I play with weapon finesse as a free feat, so in my games, the difference is only 3 feats.
TLDR: The Dex to damage problem is that you are spending 4 feats for +5 AC, +5 initiative, and +5 reflex saves.
The catch comes down to two weapon fighting.
Dex to Damage + Two Weapon fighting is very strong, possibly too strong depending on how well you min max it. My solution was to make a feat that let you add half your dex bonus to damage. With half dex to damage, you will never get the same damage as a strength wielder, but you will not fall completely behind either.
Does the Racial Heritage feat, combined with a feat that improves an inherent feature (claws, poison, etc) grant you that feature?
and by strict RAW, a level 15 human draconic sorcerer also automatically passes any disguise check to appear human despite possessing dragon claws and wings.
el cuervo wrote:
EDIT: Charender, did you just, very subtly, apply Godwin's Law? :D
I have no idea what you are talking about... :P