Eric Tillemans's page

Eric Tillemans wrote:

bump

And my email is etillemans at aol dot com if someone would rather converse privately.

I'm intrested...my email address is swordandpaper@gmail.com.

Thanks,
Ed

bump

And my email is etillemans at aol dot com if someone would rather converse privately.

Game Time: Sunday morning 9am to Noon (est)
Location: Online via Fantasygrounds software (www.fantasygrounds.com)
Rules: Pathfinder
Current Party Makeup: Cleric, Fighter, Wizard
Campaign Status: We're still in the 1st adventure and are 4th level. I'm guessing a new player will start at 3rd level.

Let me know if there is any interest.

I used all kinds of 3rd party adventure supplements, but not many rules ones. The ones that did catch my eye and saw some use were Monte Cook's stuff - Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Books of Experimental Might.

The Arcana Unearthed/Evolved magic system of scaling spells is especially good.

Some of the options from Unearthed Arcana (not 3rd party, but also Open Content) were also used.

Eric, the point of a dice roller is the same point as a die -- to generate a random number. I don't always have dice with me when I want to post, so a dice roller is helpful. Anti-cheating measures have little to do with it, IMO.

Nevynxxx wrote:

If I keep hitting preview can I guarantee a natural 20?

1d20 + 3; 1d6 + 2

Nope. Funky Cool!

Even so...

I just typed a message, hit Preview, looked at the dice results, cancelled, re-pasted the message, hit Preview, and got a different result. IOW, if you really want to cheat, you can.

So if some DM is so suspicious that he requires you to use a dice roller, this is no guarantee.

I'm not trying to sound cynical, here. I'm trying to understand the netiquette of PBPs. What good is a dice roller? Someone please explain it to me.

1d20 ⇒ 17

Sweet!

I would just pick up Use Magic Device ranks. Even as a non-class skill it won't be that difficult to use scrolls of the shield spell.

I am still looking at using wild shape to buff my archery. I think if I have extra weapons with party members when I wild shape into an ape they could hand my bow and quiver of arrows back to me and as an ape I could further enhance my archery.

A lot of good feedback and comments that leads me to think about simply adding Search as a skill under pathfinder!
Of course i'm not a dev or R&D guy but i still have 20 years as a dm under the belt and i simply think that perception as presented in pathfinder got nothing to do with actively searching for something.

Search (int. based skill)

Class skill for ranger, rogue, wizard.

What you guyz think?

OK, so the text reads:

Quote:

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all
creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot
radius centered on the cleric.

So, if a cleric uses this in combat, both friend and foe within 30' of the cleric get healed (as long as the foe is living, of course), yes?

ok so i dont have the feat for it, BUT it is mithral breast plate.
so a breast plate is +3 ACP but the rules state....
"Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0)."
so it brakes even thus no penalty.

The PFRPG rule on monk's BAB is very confusing and not compatible with the idea of a monk utilizing mobility in combat. It probably should have been done completely differently, such as giving the monk a +1 attack bonus for every 4 monk levels when using unarmed attacks, attacking with a monk's special weapon, or when performing a combat manuever. (Or even simpler, just giving monk's full BAB)

I know this doesn't contribute to the question being asked here, but Nethys already answered it and being that this is the 3rd or 4th post I've seen asking this same question it's obvious the monk BAB rules could have been made clearer.

During a scenario the question came up as to whether kneeling would be a free action or a movement action. Many of us considered it to be a free action but the DM ruled it as a move action. The rule book (p.195) only mentions kneeling once stating you receive a +2 to AC. I am wondering what your thoughts are on this since the rules do not specify.

I rule kneeling is a free action, but standing up from a kneeling position is a move action.

I believe I have seen reference to this type of action before in the book, but right now I am referring to Vital Strike feat which states:"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."

I'm unsure if this wording is intentional or accidental. There are no rules which define an "attack action". "Attack" is an option available under a "standard action", as is "Activate a Magic Item" and "Cast a Spell". However, I don't recall seeing any references in the book to "Activate a Magic Item Action" or "Cast a Spell Action".

If the intent was to limit the use of this feat to only one attack a round, then why does this not state: "As a standard action, you can make your attack deal additional damage"? (I'm also not sure why they explained that the attack is at the highest BAB? Whenever you make your 1 attack in a standard attack action, it's always at your highest BAB.)

Is there some reason this is worded like this?

I'm just wondering why there is a special skill for flying. Unless you are an Avariel (Winged Elf) or a really powerful mage, I just don't see the need.

The druid has always been my favorite class, but now since it's received it's mandatory nerf-ing I'm left with a much weaker wild shape. Wild shape was always my favorite part of the game. I've read many of the posts out there about how over-powered the old druid was, but I never experienced that. So, now that the new version is so much weaker, I'm compelled to get back some of the kick that the old wild shape had. I never cared one bit for the spell casting aspect of the druid, and would like to offer up the spell casting abilities, in exchange for better wild shaping and perhaps a more powerful companion.

There are, however, a few of the low level spells that seem to be neccessary to the nature of being a druid. So I thought the orisons plus speak with animals could become spell-like abilities.

Ok... what help can you guys provide. Please be kind. I'm seriously not power-gaming, I've just never cared for the spell casting aspect of druids. Shape-shifting is where the fun is for me, and without a more complete feral form, I'm losing faith in the druid.

Thanks.

At 7th level, I'd add in the capability to speak while in wild shape form.

I'm not sure where'd I'd go from there, but that's a good start.

Not disagreeing that PFRPG is a powerup for characters, but don't forget massive damage is an optional rule now.

Okay - so here is an email response from the other player of the ranger. have a look and let me know if you think he understands what we've established in this thread. There still seems to be some question.

"so with many shot I would have a total of 3 attacks? all 3 at +5 but only one possible crit. so then rapid shot would give me 4 attacks per round +7/+7/+2/-1 all possible crits.did i miss something?
now that i'm 12th (offhand i forgot if that gives me another arrow using many) we'll just say 4 attacks per round all at +4 and still only one possible crit? I am missing something.just funny how three or four people interperate the same rule differently "

With his BAB of +12, then rapid shot would give him 4 shots total at +10/+10/+5/+0.

So no, he doesn't understand yet.

Eric Tillemans wrote:

Break Enchantment (the spell with a 1 minute casting time)
See Invisibility
Arcane Lock
Knock

Spells cast through the arcane bond have the same casting time as normal (not sure if that's what you were getting at or not).

Abraham spalding wrote:

Just don't break that magical 200,000 gp limit.

Is that rule (silly IMHO) still in pathfinder?

Break Enchantment (the spell with a 1 minute casting time)
See Invisibility
Arcane Lock
Knock

While under the effect of a elemental body spell to change into an earth elemental, you gain the ability to earth glide. Now, I've always had an issue with how far you see while earth gliding, and the only thing I cound find is house rules and the general consenes that is a blatant oversight on wizards behalf.

So how anyone else had this problem and is there a possibly you fantastic paizo guys could give me a ruling on this as you are doing up the bestiality :)

good rule stuff

I have a house rule that is similiar to many of the ideas here:

+1 to primary stat every 3 levels (chosen by the character)
+1 to all other stats every 5 levels

Also, stat enhancement items cost double and max out at +4 (instead of the normal +6). This allows the players to get some nice boosts to non-primary stats and gives my NPCs a little more umph at higher levels without overloading them with magic items.

Another thing that mades deflection bonuses being added into CMD weird: You're fighting someone and decide to tumble away from the foe in order to avoid the AoO and your opponents deflection bonus helps him gain an AoO on you. It just doesn't seem right.

* more high-level adventures (especially ones you could run after finishing an Adventure Path)
* larger adventures, like "supermodules" (though we aren't sure how we'd fit that into the line, which currently only has 32-page adventures)
* prequels or parallel adventures relating to an AP, so your players (who may or may not be playing the same PCs you have active in that AP) get additional information or another perspective on the events of that AP
* one-off adventures, such as "here are pregenerated PCs specifically built with a backstory tied to this adventure, and you'd play them instead of your current PCs" (such as a murder mystery adventure where some PCs actually dislike each other and have motives to frame or discredit another PC, or an adventure on a ship in a storm where all the PCs are sailors trying to get the ship back home)

Thus my houserule: use it as a standard attack or as one attack at the end of a charge, for +2d6 at BAB +6, +4d6 at BAB +11, and +6d6 at BAB +16.

I'd like to see a functional whip like the whip-dagger appear in this book.

The Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a great place to start. I'd make sure you're familiar with that before getting more setting material.

James Risner wrote:

brent norton wrote:

I like how Clerics lost Heavy Armor Prof. LOL

I don't

You aren't alone but many like to spread that debate to each thread they can.

Favorite things about Pathfinder RPG:

New rules for staffs
Animal Companion rules
Great feats for melee types (Lunge, Stand Still, Vital Strike, etc)

You'd think this would be easy by now.

I spent the evening playing v.3.5—and I watched a 12th level ranger get what seemed like hundreds of arrow shots per round.

Can someone please explain how it seemed like 12 arrows were flying per round? Something seemed broken here....

Someone was misinterpreting the rules.

I would tend to concur with that, but then I've always been easy on the subject of divine foci. For example, I have no problem with characters incorporating a holy symbol into a shield or weapon if plausible, and thus not needing to free up a hand to hold it.

"Starting a bardic performance is a standard action, but it can be maintained each round as a free action.is a standard action,
but it can be maintained each round as a free action."
At higher levels it's a swift action to start a bardic performance so you could have two songs going at the same time if it wasn't for the text:
A bard cannot have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time.

This could be done in 3.x. Nerf? Yes. I guess bards needed bad to be nerfed..Ironi!

For my game it's not a big deal because no one would play a bard in 3.5. But it's also a shame that the Pathfinder bard will probably receive the same treatment.

I don't know what to say either.

Now that bardic songs don't linger, why worry about stacking anyway since you can't have two bardic song effects at once? Maybe it is so it would stack with heroism due to the 1 song limitation.

Taking See Invisibility as a 2nd level spell was painful in it's limited use, but 3rd level? Ouch.

Having read through the feats for Vital/Improved Vital Strike, as well as Scorpion Style/Gorgon Fist, I'm not sure if it's possible, but...

Can you perform a Vital Strike and a Scorpion Strike on the same single attack?

Can you perform A Vital Strike with the Gorgon Fist effect as well?

What about Stunning Fist?

All of them are single attacks, and all of them except Stunning Fist must be used as a single attack action that round. I'm hoping they can be combined, since that'll give Monks a good way to open a fight (charge+scorpion+vital, followed by gorgon+vital, followed by Medusa's Wrath+Flurry of Blows+Ki Flurry). If not, then I may need to rethink my monk build...

medusas+flurry+ki flurry: yes

I think stunning fist could be added to ANY of those options above since it doesn't take an action it just must be declared before making an attack roll.

This will work, just remember you get the poorer BAB with Scorption and Gorgon's so at higher levels you may miss on those single attacks and prolong getting to Medusa.

I'm curious as to how many people when playing 3.5 properly applied the somatic component rules. Did everyone remember that the cleric and the druid (yes, and the wizard and the like, but having a hand free was never a chore for them) needed to put away their weapon or drop their heavy shield if they wanted to cast a spell? What were people's opinions on two-handed weapons; did they prevent the use of somatic components? Did everyone's clerics and druids use light shields so they would always have one hand free? Or did people just shrug and ignore it? Inquiring minds (well, mostly me) want to know!

Actually, it looks like both a full attack and a single attack (and charge attacks, presumably) are "attack actions". Consider this wording from the description of "Sunder":

"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."

So an attack action consists of one or more attacks, presumably, and a full attack is just one attack action. Makes sense, I guess.

The way I read it, Sunder works the same as Trip and Disarm as far as being able to substitute the combat manuevers for melee attacks. So why the different wording?

Well, there's tons of melee feats that are nice now: Stand Still, Lunge, the Vital Strike chain, Step Up, the Critical Focus chain, Disruptive, Spellbreaker. The more good feats that exist, the better off the fighter is since that's their main class feature.

Also, fighters still get the attack and damage bonus for weapon training.

The feat says:
"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."

While the attack action bit makes it unclear, the intent of this feat is to allow a warrior to move (or charge) and get in a single attack that is more powerful than normal. It is not intended to allow someone to gain double weapon damage to every attack on a full attack.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

For a full attack, I could also see the interpretation being you get 1 attack at your highest attack bonus at x2 damage, then the rest of your attacks at normal damage.

I also believe this wasn't the intent and will be using "As a standard action or as part of a charge.." in my games.

Was Seelah playtested with the rules for somatic components for spells and/or the rule for requiring a free hand for lay on hands?

Seriously, the iconics were built to match the art and not for game mechanics.

When you choose to use Vital Strike, you only get a single attack.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

I am at work and this just hit me so bear with me. While thumbing/drooling over my core book the other night I didn't notice any sections on traits.
Am I wrong or did they just decide to do away with it in the core rulebook? I saw the updated traits in the resources today which triggered this question.

Hi all,

I've been pouring over the new book (I'm going have to change my monk... AGAIN). I'm looking at the new vital strike series - I like them! I originally avoided them for my monk because I felt they would be "silly powerful." Now? They're pretty cool.

So, my question...

Most of the new feats for attacks mention they use a standard action (cleave, gorgon's fist, etc.). Vital strike does not - it's "part of an attack action." A single attack for extra damage (woot!). The rules for charging (which are oddly placed for such a major action, btw) mention you get an attack, and seem to imply that it works like the normal attack action. As such, I am of the opinion that you can vital strike as part of a charge.

Does that seem correct or incorrect to anyone else? Anyone else want to weigh in with an opinion?

Thanks!

I would have prefered Vital Strike being worded as "As part of a standard action or a charge..."

Perhaps Jason actually meant for Vital Strike to be usable during a full attack action, but I'm definitely unsure based on the wording in the PFRPG.

The new rules for staffs and animal companions are terrific!

The improvment to feats for melee types (fighter especially) are very nice. Things like Lunge, Step Up, the Vital Strike chain, and the Critical feats will make fights much more effective.

There's many other changes I like, but those are my favorite.

The spiked chain with reach has only ever made cameo appearances in our games before- it was never too powerful. Now it still costs a feat and is worse? The main reason for its use was reach now no-one will use it.For mine a 2d4 2 handed weapon costing a feat and having reach was a good balance.

I would like to hear Jasons reason for this change. My current feeling is that in our games this will be houseruled back to 3.5 version.

Spike Chain Thread

Here's one that makes me happy: Death by massive damage is now an optional rule.

Eric Tillemans wrote:

answers

Thanx :-)
edit: Do they (Clerics with the good domain) get holy smite as a lvl 4 spell? Or have they changed the domain spells from 3.5?