Ezh Darkstrider's page

Thank you all for your views, especially to Cheapy for the quote from the esteemed Mr. James, as well as to Troubleshooter; indeed, you win.

Ezh

With great respect, I humbly ask this forum for their views on an old disagreement, volleyed about both playfully and angrily through a few iterations of the game system. I am specifically not presenting our sides, just stating the question as plainly and clearly as possible.

Is there any 'Condition' or situation that NEGATES {disallows} a saving throw for any reason? {RAW and/or RAI, with or without special attention to Reflex saves}

With many Thanks,

Ezh

@Achija: The worst one, typically going to be the front left corner of the starting square to the front left corner of the finishing square {or substitute right}.

My understanding is that the Charge Action requires one to take the shortest route possible to the target. Only in the case of 2 or more destination squares being exactly the same distance from the starting square can a charger make a choice. Any obstacle, creature, rough terrain, etc {or any tiny fraction thereof, NO MATTER HOW SMALL} negates the ability to charge. For instance, one cannot {I believe} charge the far back corner of a gargantuan creature because that square is strategically superior; the charge must end at the closest possible space to the starting point of the charger.

In our example:
---------------
X------------YT

X cannot charge.

If instead, the example is:
X--------------
-------------YT

X can charge, and would wind up adjacent to Y as in:
-------------X-
-------------YT

IF, in our example, Y was not there at all, X COULD NOT choose to end up where Y was, he MUST instead end where we had him, because Y's space is 5' farther away from X's starting point.

Continuing with the Example, if T is Large then:

--------------T
X------------YT

X still cannot charge, because Y occupies the square closest to T that X must occupy to complete his charge.

Still further, if T and T are 2 difference enemies {now T and 2}, and not just one large one, then:

-------------2
X---------- YT

X still cannot charge EITHER enemy, becuase if X chooses to charge 2, a line from the front right corner of his square to the front right corner of his desiniation square would ever-so-slightly pass through the back left corner of Y's square. This is all it takes to negate a charge.

I actually started this posting a long while ago; I hope I accomplished what I set out to. =)

Obviously, all the viewpoints I just read were valid, but I'd like to toss this in.

It all comes down to balance, right? Aeshuura, does it really seem that out of balance for a creature to forego its attack to give another a +2, even if these bonuses stack? Mathematically, they are exchanging a chance to do any damage at all for a 10% greater chance that someone else might. AND they still have to make the skill-check in order to succeed. There are a lot of bats who may fail. Best case scenario, a single character will have a grand total of +30% {+6} to hit, once a round for the spell's duration. My question for you is: Does that seem like a reasonable and balanced expenditure of a First Level Spell? Remember, they could be {in the best case scenario} hitting 3 times per round, as well. AND the Summoner must spend her/his actions on 'Pushing' them -- no small price.

Additionally, in reference to the 'abilities of bats' as discussed, is it really that far from believable that a group of bats could work together? Animals do those sorts of things all the time, even in our world. Keep in mind, too, that these bats have the aid of an extremely intelligent being actively able to give them instructions in a language they understand. Yes, a 1 Intelligence is a 1 Intelligence, and I get that, but there are, at the very least, extenuating circumstances at hand in this situation that may have allowed the character to succeed in his attempt without unduly tipping balance in any direction.

And as a game-master/player with extensive experience in arguing all sides of all these points, I'd like to suggest that it is usually going to be better for all involved to side with, and not thwart, a player WHERE BALANCE IS UNAFFECTED. My point being that your player, a good friend of yours, presumably, came here because HE CARED about the outcome of the battle and his character's continued life and well-being. Allowing that spark to dim over a stacking Aid Another action seems a waste.

On the other side of the coin, I can definitely imagine being in your situation and making the same call. It could be interpreted as an 'exploit', whereby Summon Minor Montser {Multi-Creature} is subbed for Summon Monster I {typically One-Creature} for the purpose of maximizing creatures, in turn for the purpose of maximizing the Aid Another bonus. But all-in-all, I think this is a BALANCED and excellent usage of a turn {and there's always only ONE turn}, and this sort of heroic thinking should be rewarded and not curtailed.

But of course, this is just an opinion...

@Martryn:

I'm not sure if your conclusion of "So 2WR damage will always be prevented by DR, regardless of any other factors involved" is accurate.

My belief is that the extra 2WR damage is precision damage, like sneak attack, and is ADDED to one of your successful attacks {like the main hand, or the hand that actually CAN injure the creature} and not a separate attack on its own, subject to DR.

Assuming my interpretation is correct, not only is 2WR not always negated, but actually can aid in damaging a creature that otherwise may not have been damaged at all.

One thing a druid can do is assign his or her companion's ability increase to intelligence. This gives any normally 2 int animal a 3 in intelligence, which allows them to understand the Common tongue, and removes any need for 'tricks'. Speaking is a free action in most situations, so this allows the ability to change plans on the fly, and include the companion in evolving battle strategies. As a fan of druids for quite a while, I can tell you that this plan is tried and true.

So, Gorbacz,

While I appreciate your right to disagree with my interpretations at any time, would you please be so kind as to:

A: Support your position with opinions or quotations with evidentiary relevance, and not just nay-say someone else's opinion, because simple negativity without provenance helps no one.

B. Understand that when a rule has a quotation like "using a XXX spell requires only as much concentration as walking" that there is likely a consequence for the cessation of said concentration; it's simple logic.

And

C. Buy yourself a dictionary or become a regular visitor to Dictionary.com, because no one can ever 'pummel to the ground', however, one may plummet to the ground, or even pummel someone who deserves it.

With Kind and Warm Regards,

Ezh

I think you are talking about casting in melee while concealing the fact that you are casting, and not casting from concealment, right? Two different animals.

I like Phasic's situational modifiers, but for Spellcraft checks, rather than Perception and I think Themetricsystem has the right of it.

.

Just to add another opinion to the mix:

It seems as if an eschewed, still, silent spell would be almost EXACTLY the same as a spell like ability, in appearance at least.

SLA's DO provoke AoO's, per RAW, even though they involve little more than mental effort on the caster's part.

I think it's pretty obviously a misprint. I think it's the 3750 that's the misprint, and the 1375 is right {so it should have 2750 as its cost}.

My reasoning is thus:

Wildshape is a power available at 4th level, analagous to the Beast Shape Spells.

Beast Shape I {what the first uses of Wildshape act as} is a level 3 spell, with a minimum caster level of 5.

Polymorph, while a possible substitution in the creation of this wondrous item, is of much higher level {so could, of course, be used to support the '3750gp being right' camp, but I digress}, so I'll use Beastshape as the closest, earliest-available analog in price computation.

So, by RAW:

Spell trigger item cost = spell level x caster level x 750gp
{gp value, not = 3 x 5 x 750
cost to create} = 11250gp

charges per day item = cost / { 5 / charges per day}
= cost / {5 / 1 }
= 11250/ 5
= 2250

So by the RAW for Wondrous item creation, assuming a 5th level caster of a 3rd level spell usable once per day, the approximate gold piece value would be 2250. Assuming an extra 500 gp for 'scaling ability' {i.e. emulates higher beast shape spells as the druid gains power}, and one can arrive at a gp value of 2750.

Of course, this is all conjecture, and subject to interpretation, as are all the rules for wondrous item creation, but that's what I think.

The Fly spell addresses this, at least round-aboutly {if that's a word}. It states that when the spell ends {even when dispelled, but not when negated by anti-magic}, the character slowly descends for 1d6 rounds.

I think it's safe to assume that if the character becomes unconscious, s/he is no longer using "as much concentration as walking", and the spell would end normally; in this case, kicking in the "slowly descending" part of the spell description.

Of course, any time 'safe to assume' comes into play, it turns into RAI rather than RAW, but I think this case is pretty clear.

Oh no!
Where do we go?
How do we know
Who we have to show
That a real pro
Would always know
That a Dark Elf could never rhyme here, though?

So

How now brown cow
Welcome to the pow-wow
Care to have a chat now?
The Drow takes a bow.

eye OH m'day, eh?

Well, that about covers it. Other than the headband {intelligent, several minor powers} and the boots of S&Sp, I have a ring of protection {which works} and several wands and other humanoid-shape only activation items. But thanks for the information.

While this discussion does cover the items I have now, I anticipate that I should acquire more in the very near future.

So... if I read you correctly, at your table, if an item requires an activation word {and otherwise is continuous after that}, one can activate it, and then wildshape and utilize its powers. That's cool, but I do not think that will fly with my fairly strict RAW GM. I would anticipate he will say that something that requires a command word IS NOT continuous. I believe things such as boots, like weapons, are use-activated, and therefore continuous. I think for my GM the distinction will be whether or not a command word is required. Of course, as a career Power-Gamer, I would tend to agree with you, but that doesn't really matter, right?

To sum up: it looks like by RAW, Magical Items in wildshape:

Continuous, yes

Use activated, yes {because they are basically continuous, but of course weapons only work if the new form has thumbs}

Command word activated, no, because they are not continuous and unless humanoid shaped, wildshaped creatures are unable to speak {although, some GM's may allow these}

Does this look correct? It would provide me with valuable ammunition {if I should need it} if people would chime in if they agree or disagree with this interpretation.

But keep the WOWSpeak on another board*

{*that's a joke}

Inspiration shines
Its beacon of pure radiance
On these varied views

===== ======= =====

The views expressed here
May not necessarily mean
Much of anything

===== ======= =====

But a new direction
Like a sudden summer storm
Is a welcome respite

===== ======= =====

Luck and good humor
Understanding, compassion
Are spring's raw essence

Thanks for chiming in, MD. {and thanks for the FAQ bump, MR.}

So, it's as simple as {uh... yeah, right} this:

Items with Continuous Function operate in Wildshape {BeastShape, ElementalShape, PlantShape, Polymorph, etc}

And

Items that require activation meld and become useless {non-functional}.

So really it all comes down to the difference between continuous use and activated use. And that's where the sticking point occurs. Okay. I can work with that.

*hastily consults PRD*

*returns feeling even more sticky*

Ok, so headband of mental stats is clearly continuous function.

What about Boots of Striding and Springing? Seems these are continuous use, right? But there is no information as to their activation.

Do wondrous items without specific activation entries usually continuously function?

Does it boil down to a 'case by case and GM' issue? If it does, clearly it needs to be addressed at some point, no?

I am asking because I recently began playing in a new campaign {with 8 other PC's} as a Monk 1/Druid 7, and I want to be well prepared for 'The Big Reveal' {wade into the boss fight fully buffed out and WildShaped}, and not cue 'The Big Argument' instead. Any comments or viewpoints people may have are welcome.

Thanks,
E

I agree with the consensus here, {and, apparently, the RAW}. You can take all the 20's you want {and spend hours of time.... which actually can be a benefit to some gaming tables, advancing the clock quickly} to FIND traps, but disabling them is a different story. No take 20 there.

Traps are tricky {in more ways than one}. A downside of traps is that heavily trapped areas often slow a party's progress to a snail's pace. Taking 20 can be a good way to keep the action {and the clock} moving. They can be a solution for the 15 minute adventuring day, as well as a tool for the GM to advance the clock when he needs to. Often times, finding the trap is the easy part, anyway; it's bypassing the trap that presents to true challenge.

Also, I strongly support the concept of GM rolling search and disable checks behind the screen for the party rogue {indeed, any roll that the PC shouldn't immediately know the result of}. It is a quick and simple cure for the temptation to metagame bad rolls.

Oh, and the 'Symbol of ...' Spells are an example of a trap that can be set off by just looking at it. Can a failed search check activate one of these? For my part, I would say yes.

{Hangs head, feeling extremely unloved.}

Seriously though:

Has no one answered my query because the answer is so obvious as to be a waste of time?

OR

Has no one answered because there exists no link to an *official* answer?

Was putting the word 'official' in my original post a mistake?

Does anyone know anything about this topic?

Is there anybody out there?

What were we talking about again?

Oh yeah....

Healing in combat is a waste of time.

Well... it's a game, and what are we doing if not wasting time {now don't jump on me and say 'It's not a waste'... you know what I mean}.

I personally would just prefer if fewer people used WOW-like optimization techniques and arguments for PF/D&D/Whatever we call it these days. Obviously, no one can make a general statement that will apply to all cases, everywhere. Does damage out-pace healing... usually yes. Does that mean NO ONE SHOULD EVER HEAL IN COMBAT?.... Kind of a silly question if someone has actually experienced a combat, isn't it? Sometimes a cleric heals because that is what is called for by the situation. Sometimes the same cleric will have the opportunity to do something else, and maybe that will help his party more. It's about the freedom to choose what is best at the moment. And none of us can know what is going to be the best thing at someone else's table because we don't even know them.

Every character is going to be faced with actions every round, and all we can hope to do is choose the best action at the time for the purpose of helping our party survive {so we can take the bad guys' stuff, right?} Someone trying to dictate what that action should be is sort of a waste of time, isn't it? Oh wait. What are we talking about again?

If you're feeling that the whole "Unlimited 0 Level Spells" might make the Arcane Trickster too Over-Powered {although, as has been stated, they are sort of under-powered; I've played them, although it was 3.5}, perhaps introducing a material component to those linked 0 level spells might help. They will no longer be completely infinite. Sure, pinches of sulfur and the like may be inexpensive and light to carry, but they are not limitless, right?

Suggested examples:

Fire Spells: pinch of sulfur

Frost Spells: several drops of glacial melt water

Acid spells: Common acid, like orange juice or whatnot

Sonic Spells: pinch of gunpowder

Electrical Spells: pinch of copper powder

Or something like that. Just to take away the 'infinite', and add a little flavor.

Now I know there are threads and threads on this subject, but in reading them, all I could really find was conflicting interpretations, and no real clear answer on this simple question.

Do continuous-use magic items continue to function, as many claim? Or do they meld into the new form and become... well... useless?

There are many arguments for both sides of this question, but I cannot seem to find any *official* ruling.

If there exists a thread that answers this clearly, and link would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Not to step on toes {as your DM always has the final say}, but I just read the PRD and it says explicitly:

"Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category."

So it seems to me that RAW says no. As someone who just starting playing a Druid/Monk, after reading this thread and checking this out, I am now considering taking Imp Natural Attack {Claw} for when I'm wild shaped. That would be legal by RAW, wouldn't it?

But I am not sure what the book actually says; perhaps the PRD has updated text. I don't know. Can anyone check the Printed Word? Does it have that clause about unarmed strike?

As far as the "They never get to claim [the soul]" issue:

Just as evil sorcerers scheme and plan to achieve power, influence, riches, and immortality--so too do the Great Powers of the Evil Planes scheme to harvest the souls of those who *believe* they are immortal.

Now, I am not a being of Great Power form an outer plane, but I might guess that they relish the harvesting of these particular souls *more* than the run-of-the-mill type. And epically long, super-convoluted plans involving several layers of deceit and trickery {and suffering} might be right up their alley. Just a guess.

This has always been a topic of debate where I play, too. It's hard to come to a consensus. To me, it always seemed that if one was using a skill check to do something normally not allowed {like passing through an enemiy's square, as opposed to moving through threatened squares--one is never allowed without a check, the other is}, then if that check fails, then the action fails. In this case, movement ceases in the last legal square the moving character could move into without the skill check, and suffers the AoO for attempting to move out of a threatened square/enter an enemy occupied square. Whereas moving through friendly occupied squares is allowed, this may result in the moving character winding up prone in a friendly occupied square {as that is the only way two friendly characters with no significant size difference can occupy the same square}. I have also seen it ruled {in this-friendly occupied square case} that the tumbling character can, after movement is halted, choose another legal square also threatened by the enemy {and suffer that AoO for the failed combat maneuver}.

Is the sorcerer waiting for his turn in the initiative order to make another attack? Did the sorcerer just make an attack in the initiative order? Yes, and yes, right? This sorcerer is clearly IN COMBAT. I don't think his argument holds and water. He cannot simply declare that because he is no longer casting and no longer moving that he is now 'not in combat'.

'Not in combat' was that state that existed before his first attack, when he was sneaking up on them unaware. The guards were guarding, moving around, perhaps being a little bored. Now that they are clearly under attack, their senses are honed and they are bending there entire will to finding this invisible creature that is killing them. This is what results in the 20 modifier. Keep in mind that casting a spell with a verbal component can be heard fairly easily at close ranges, and that the spell effect itself {which originates from his current square} is NOT invisible, and seasoned {12th level} guards will know that there is only SO FAR a caster can move after he drops the fireball on them.

Your ruling was, in my opinion, correct. It just makes sense; after all, one improved invisibility spell should not, in and of itself, be that over-powering. One 8th level sorcerer should not be able to wipe out 4 12th level guards without even the threat of reprisal. Let common sense prevail. You have it right; even without the fact that you are the GM.

If you want to eliminate this argument in the future, I would suggest that you clearly define the term 'In Combat' as you and your players are concerned. For instance, any time initiative is being counted, and characters are waiting for their turn to take an action, they are considered 'In Combat', but you will know what will work best for your group.

<This post was lost, but miraculously came back to me, so I thought I would post it. It was written before anyone else had responded to the OP.>

Ah. Well that does change things. I had not been aware of that. Thanks. So when considering a one-level monk dip, it actually does add 1 to over-all BAB when Flurrying. That's Great. Perhaps a bit on the cheesy side, but, hey, I like cheese.

Is the sorcerer waiting for his turn in the initiative order to make another attack? Did the sorcerer just make an attack in the initiative order? Yes, and yes, right? This sorcerer is clearly IN COMBAT. I don't think his argument holds and water. He cannot simply declare that because he is no longer casting and no longer moving that he is now 'not in combat'.

'Not in combat' was that state that existed before his first attack, when he was sneaking up on them unaware. The guards were guarding, moving around, perhaps being a little bored. Now that they are clearly under attack, their senses are honed and they are bending there entire will to finding this invisible creature that is killing them. This is what results in the 20 modifier. Keep in mind that casting a spell with a verbal component can be heard fairly easily at close ranges, and that the spell effect itself {which originates from his current square} is NOT invisible, and seasoned {12th level} guards will know that there is only SO FAR a caster can move after he drops the fireball on them.

Your ruling was, in my opinion, correct. It just makes sense; after all, one improved invisibility spell should not, in and of itself, be that over-powering. One 8th level sorcerer should not be able to wipe out 4 12th level guards without even the threat of reprisal. Let common sense prevail. You have it right; even without the fact that you are the GM.

If you want to eliminate this argument in the future, I would suggest that you clearly define the term 'In Combat' as you and your players are concerned. For instance, any time initiative is being counted, and characters are waiting for their turn to take an action, they are considered 'In Combat', but you will know what will work best for your group.

Thanks. Pretty much what I thought. It's just too bad about that whole "the monk uses his monk level instead of his BAB when using flurry of blows" clause; it certainly lessens the effectiveness of the level dip, and a multi-classed monk in general. Oh well, at least I still have awesome druid battlefield-control spells.

Can a Monk wildshaped into an animal use Flurry of Blows and the other benefits of the monk class?

My first foray into playing a female character was courtesy of a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, and actually, it turned out to be a rollicking good time. Right until I looked around the corner.... at the basilisk.

I also very much enjoyed playing a high powered female shape-shifting druid with a Vow of Poverty {with my ubiquitous 2 level rogue dip at first and second level, purely for the skill points and Evasion. Why would anyone NOT take rogue at first level in 3.5? I could never understand that.} Vow of Poverty + Giant Squid form = *Splat!*

Another female I enjoyed playing was the Pixie Cohort of a Half-Ogre Tattooed Monk, also with Vow of Poverty {the monk, not the pixie; she kept the money 'for' him}. She was small, but she had BIG personality!

But I do believe these three are the only female PC's {or PC's cohort} I've ever played, in a cast of dozens.... maybe even hundreds. I think it's just because the male perspective is the default. Of course, throw in NPC's I've played while DMing, and that number goes way up {like everyone else's}.

Lol

BenignFacist, you're an oxymoron.

;)

Quick, simple suggestion:

Cleric about to cast the healing effect gets a passive heal skill check to see the creature is on its last legs before expending his spell. Speaking to your party-mates is free action, no?

Oh, and as long as we're sharing...

My pet peeve is being misconstrued.

*Wail* I'm so misunderstood *Wail*

"/

As I previously asked, please excuse my rant. Dork Lord has it exactly right. It was not my intention to be antagonistic or belittle World of Warcraft or WOW players in any way. I play {entirely too much} WOW myself. I love it. But it's different. That's all I meant.

Pathfinder {and D&D} to me is about personalities and interaction and narrative and character development and creativity and improvisation and creating-an-entity-that-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts, not about optimization and data and math and right way to play and wrong way to play.

{God I want my previous post back; I just got attacked by the post-eating-monster}

My frustration stems from statements like 'Casting Healing spells in combat is always inferior to...' whatever. And 'If you are using healing in combat you are playing wrong because all enemies should be neutralized before the end of the second round of combat.' {Does this satisfy your request, WraithStrike? These were main themes early in this thread, were they not?}

'You need to know when healing will not help you survive' This is a very interesting statement. It's much more complex than it looks at first glance. I don't tend to play many 'Healers' {there was my WOW thinking coming through, as much as I rail against it in the PF context}, I generally play rogues with a smattering of arcane or druidic spell-casting ability, and I almost never shy away from fights because I have always {or at least almost always} been able to rely on my trusty Party Healer to keep me up in my flanking position with a few well-placed healing spells {or effects}, which in turn, helps my front-line fighting ally to deal more damage and soak attacks {with high AC}. For me, healing almost always helps me to survive. Now, did you mean that you should know when to pull a Sir Robin, and boldly run away? Or perhaps know when to expend all you offensive/buffing capabilities {blow all your cool-downs, as it were} because that will be the most effective way to survive? Can you expound on this, TriO?

Obviously, we all want to play an effective character. After all, we don't play this game to play a character that is *average*. {I think} we play this game to play a character who wants to be *heroic*, don't we? For me, it just seems that there exists a segment of our community that is moving the game toward Fourth Edition and the hyper-optimizing tendencies of other games like WOW. And while I will always respect the fact that they are entitled to their point of view, I will fight against it until way past negative ten.

I just read this whole thread, and as a 25+ year RPG'er {I had the red box, and my very first character was a cleric when i was 13 years old}, I have a few things to say.

First of all: I want the time I just spent reading this thread back. {that's a joke}.

Secondly: When did this game that I know and love become about MAXIMIZING and OPTIMIZING? If you want to maximize and optimize your character, go play World of Warcraft and stay away from my gaming table. These boards are about a ROLE-PLAYING GAME! Play your role. If I'm a healer, I HEAL. I don't consider statistics and rounds and 'how fast that the BBEG is gonna go down', I HEAL MY FRIENDS SO THEY CAN STAY IN THE FIGHT SO WE DON'T ALL DIE. And so they do not have to sit by, doing nothing, while their character is unconscious or dead, while everyone else still gets to play.

TWENTY-FIVE years I have been playing this game, and just about every combat that has any semblance of a real threat is immeasurably aided by a well placed healing spell or two, or three, even. It depends. The ebb and flow of combat encounters do not follow statistical charts. Characters who hit do not deal their average damage; they deal WHAT THE DICE SAY. Combat Encounters deal with the short-run, not a vast sampling of statistical data tabulated over infinite trials. One timely crit, or one unfortunate miss can spell the difference between disaster or triumph. The true joy is in the moment. Picture a heroic cleric, against all odds, bravely wading through his enemies' minions, taking hit after hit, so he can heal his almost-dead companion who is his parties' only hope of defeating the BBE-Demon-with-Ultimate-Damage-Reduction with his admantium/holy/demon-slaying Broadsword. And then the next round suffering a fatal blow from one of the Demon's many minions. His now-not-quite-so-near-to-death ally slays the BBE Demon, and the minions scatter.

Did the cleric act optimally? Uh, likely, no. Did the cleric act heroically? Yes.

So the real question is: Do you play PF to have your character act Optimally, or does your CHARACTER want to be heroic?

Making the statement: Healing in combat is a waste of resources, actions, and time, because the party should drop the enemy before healing is necessary and healing can never keep up with damage dealt is... is... is...

... I don't even know how to characterize it. It's so far outside my 25+ years of RPG experience that I cannot even form words to describe how it makes me feel. It certainly leads me to believe that the persons making this claim HAVE NEVER PLAYED THE GAME AT ALL. {yes, I understand that this is likely not a fact, but I have the right to my opinion}

Keep the math on the WOW boards. This is a role-playing-game. Meta-gaming should have no part. Build a character around a concept, and not around statistics. Develop a character's personality, and not his damage-per-round chart.

And most of all, have fun. And try to resist the urge to tell other people how they are supposed to have fun.

I apologize for this rant, but it was boiling inside me, and had to come out. And that's why I wanted the time I spent reading this thread back.

Thanks for reading and Happy Gaming!

I think that part of the problem here is that some people are placing too much emphasis on the word 'type'. The quote includes the phrase 'choose one type of weapon...'

I suggest not over-thinking this phrase, but just choose a type of weapon, naturally. Remove from the equation any context of D&D and PF, and just choose one type of weapon.

Do it... right now... Choose a type of weapon.

What did you choose? Did you choose 'all weapons that deal blugeoning damage'? Or did you choose, say, a mace? Probably not the former, as that is actually a 'category of weapons' and not a 'type of weapon'.

I believe that sometimes these sort of tactics are commonly used by rules lawyers {which I, of course, am} for the purpose of taking advantage of the rules and exploiting cracks in an otherwise fine system.

Here is a somewhat unrelated example:

Consider the sentence

'I didn't say he beat his wife.'

Now, consider emphasizing each word in turn, and saying the sentence again.

'I' didn't say he beat his wife.

I DIDN'T say he beat his wife.

I didn't SAY he beat his wife.

I didn't say HE beat his wife.

I didn't say he beat HIS wife.

I didn't say he beat his WIFE.

Note how every time a new word is emphasized, the meaning of the sentence ENTIRELY CHANGES.

So, to get back to the argument:

'CHOOSE one type of weapon'.

Do not 'Choose one TYPE of weapon'.

Keep It Simple, Silly.

Add to this the evidence easily available in the bestiary {i.e. Weapon Focus (Longsword)} and the meaning of the RAW should become clear. If it still remains unclear, go back to Rules Lawyer School. I'll be there, we can do lunch.

A character can never be denied a saving throw. Situational penalties {for having an effective 0 dexterity, for instance} may apply, and certain effects may cause the saving throw to automatically fail {and they will specifically say so}, but the saving throw is never denied. {An automatic failure, while effectively the same, is not actually the same as a denied saving throw.}

Saving throws represent many types of resistance, including luck {as previously mentioned}, mental toughness {even in the case of reflex and fort saves} and other mitigating factors. It is possible to resist that fireball while you're lying on the ground paralyzed. Perhaps you happened to fall under your shield or behind that big rock. Doesn't matter really.

You can modify a saving throw... you can even have an automatic failure, but you can never take the saving throw away completely.

At least, this is how I have always interpreted it.

Now, obviously, James was nice enough to come and clear this up from a developer/RAW point of view, however, if this came up and was a sticking point for a player's happiness, I might rule it the following way:

I believe dragons DO have opposable thumbs; possibly even four. Thumbs are an evolutionary step towards tool-making, fore-thought, self-awareness, etc. Most art I've seen gives dragons the ability to grasp things in a very human-like manner.

The dragon can use his natural attack routine {Claw/Claw/Bite/Wing/Wing/Tail} OR substitute a normal axe attack routine {Swing/swing-minus-5/swing-minus-10... etc}, but not a combination of both. This would also allow for a particularly prehensile tail to wield an axe in much the same way {but this might be a stretch}.

And I think James's interpretation is correct, because why would a dragon attack with one hand? "Ok, you PC's.... I'm gonna tie one hand {and both wings, and my tail, and my mouth} behind my back an KILL YOU DEAD with my +27 Vorpal Keen Axe of Fool Cleaving!" This can give a reason for a dragon's hoard to contain high-end weaponry; they use their hoarded weapons to entertain themselves during burglary attempts.

my couple coppers

Not to beat a dead horse, as it seems you have had your question answered, but...

Yes it was directed at you. I was quite taken aback by the tone of the two quick posts you made back-to-back. And while I appreciate the fact that the written word is unreliable at times in communicating exact tone, I had a knee-jerk reaction.

If one's host asks one to go into the next room, one should go into the next room, and not say something like, "Um, no, this is the correct room."

And, if someone is trying to be helpful, rejecting their input and calling them insensible is rather ungracious and ungrateful.

Just my opinion. Two posts, -2.

As a general {and cliche} rule: It's not what you say, it's how you say it!

Peace.

Wow.

-2 for Rude.

My feel here is that there is a difference between holding a rock in your hand and letting it go while aiming it for someone's head, and holding a rock with your Telekinesis Spell and turning the spell off {while aiming it for someone's head from another vantage point}.

It's the change of vantage that makes it INDIRECT. Now that particular vantage point might not necessarily be geographically dissimilar like my example, but some mechanism/technicality/situation creates separation, in this case, gravity, and this separation creates Indirectness.

On the other side, though, if one were to mentally wind up with their telekinetic throwing stone, and pitch at someone's skull, that would be a direct attack and break Invisibility, regardless of directionality.

Just an opinion. Isn't this where we discuss our opinions of mechanics and technicalities and situational modifiers?

=)

Two old prestige classes from 3.5 might shed a little light on this topic for you. See Trapsmith and Combat Trapsmith from the Complete ______ Line of books. The first mixes some arcane ability with trapfinding/making, the other has rules for deploying traps in combat.

"Unless your opponent has a-studied his-a Glippa..... which I have."

A very interesting question.

As for the manacles and the clothes, I can't say without guessing.

But for 'a creatures grasp', yes, as long as all the other pre-requisites for successful casting in a grapple are met, i.e. Still Spell feat {for negating any somatic components} , concentration check successful, and any material components already in hand. Highly situational, but possible.

As far as a guess for manacles: normally, no; with Still Spell, yes {bound wrists interfere with somatic spell-casting}.

And as far as clothes.... I believe one chooses which {if any} items are teleported. This makes for an interesting gray area.

Just a thought....

Maybe instead of the Anthropomorphic template, you could start as a Rakshasa...

Maybe a 'Fallen Rakshas'... somehow born goodly-aligned... {With multitudes of built-in kill-you-on-site enemies}

Gives you many options physically, and some cool powers... Obviously only if it's world- and power-level-appropriate.

... Just a thought

Of course... not very Redwall-like, but...

Hi,

In looking at the RAW under Arcane Strike, I cannot find any reference to what type of bonus the feat applies. Is this truly an 'unspecified' bonus type to damage? I.e., would it specifically stack with a +1 enhancement bonus?

Or is it an enhancement bonus? Is there a 'feat bonus' I am not aware of?

Would it stack with weapon focus in the appropriate weapon?

Thanks.

As has already been stated, you are way ahead of the learning curve. I hope you have a good time, as that what it's all about.

If you are interested in a lot more GREAT information about playing your druid, I'd recommend checking out this guide by Treantmonk that I found the other night.

Check out

Treantmonk's Guide to Druids (Optimization)

here

Your ideas are pretty interesting, and I had a few thoughts.

1.
"Lesser Dispel Magic Level 1 Spell for any class that has dispel magic. Works just like dispel magic except, there is no AoE option, magic items and permanent magic effects cannot be effected, the maximum caster level bonus to dispel checks is 5, and the spell can only remove a single magic effect."

This seems like a pretty balanced effect; the limit of 5 is, I think, very important. But wouldn't this be fairly redundant with Counter-spell I?

EDIT: Except it can target on-going spell effects as well as being used for countering. It seems that an extraordinary roll on the die could result in a first level spell canceling a very high level spell. Hmmm.

2.
"Second, any dispel magic spell can be cast to counter-spell as an immediate action, but this imposes a -5 to the dispel check."

At first glance, I think this should require a feat to use. The reason being that this sort of effect is similar in power {in my opinion} to quicken spell and the rest of the metamagic feats.

Immediate Counter-spell {Metamagic}
Prerequisites: access to any of the Dispel Magic or Counter-spell spells
Benefit : Taking this feat allows any dispel spell to be used as an immediate action, albeit with a -5 penalty to the caster level check.
Normal : a character attempting the 'counter a spell as it is being cast' action normally needs a readied action

Improved Immediate Counter-spell {Metamagic}
Prerequisites: Immediate Counter-spell
Benefit : This feat reduces the penalty for using dispel as an immediate action to -2

As far as the spellcraft check granting a bonus... doesn't one need to make a spellcraft check just for the privilege of casting a counter-spell? One needs to know what one is countering, no? Or is that just for countering a spell with the identical spell? I'm not quite sure about this.

3.

As for the Counter-spell I-IX... I think as you have them outlined here, they are slightly over-powered. Being able to both counter your opponent AND cause him damage is similar in a way to getting off two spells, isn't it? One counter and one for damage? Additionally, your computation of the DC {10+spell level} seems extremely low. I doesn't take into account either caster level, or ability bonus {usually associated with dispel attempts, no?}. Perhaps a target DC of 10 + caster level {because dispels usually go against the power level of the CASTER, not the power level of the spell} + applicable ability bonus.

Then the example from above would look something like this: {granting the +2 for the Spellcraft check}

Example: A level 9 bard uses counter-spell IV to counter a level 5 wizard's fireball as an immediate action. The bard made a successful spellcraft roll. The bard rolls a 14 on the counter-spell roll for a result of 14 + 9 + 4 + 2 - 5 = 24 vs 10 + 5 {CL} + 4 {18 Int}. That is a reduction of 5 (maximum possible reduction is 12 with a 4th level counter-spell). This reduces the incoming spell to -2 causing the spell to fail, and the wizard to take 1d6 backlash.

This seems a little more in balance {with a roll of 14 after all}

A caster level check roll of 9 on the die would be the minimum for successful dispelling... and IMHO that seems pretty reasonable for a CL 9 vs a CL 5; it equals a 60% success rate.

If the caster levels were equal using this example {CL 5 vs CL 5}, your dispeller would need 13 {40% success rate}.

This same caster would need an 8 if he used a readied action rather than an immediate action. {65% successes.... maybe a little high?}

I wonder if perhaps the DC should be 10 + Caster Level + Ability Bonus + Spell level. This would actually make it a challenge for the dispeller, because... if we go back to the first example, the 9th level caster vs the 5th level caster... using a readied action, the Bard would need only a 4 on the die to dispel the wizard's fireball. This might be a little to easy, no?

All in all, I like where you seem to be going very much. I just wouldn't like to see the whole world dispel-crazy 'cause it winds up over-buff, and I think that someone who wants to specialize in dispelling should have to invest some of his/her {extremely valuable} feats for the interrupt candy.

Nice ideas. I just wanted to add mine. Thanks for the inspiration.

My intent above was an attempt to simplify R. Young's posting, but now that you mention it, the quote is exactly

"At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of two combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon combat. The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites."

Now that I reread this, it makes me wonder if there should not be a phrase along the lines of "These {bonus} feats may be chosen from his selected combat style..."

But as written, it leaves some room for interpretation, does it not? "He can choose feats..." Choose feats for which slots? All of them, or just the bonus feats. The text seems to be referring to the bonus feats, but it doesn't explicitly say that. From a certain point of view, it seems to allow some gray area, no?

I have to join Thomas in the hope that someone with Paizo Authority jumps in on this thread to help us sort this out.

Hey Thomas,

I believe another way to think about this would be this:

The combat styles gained at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level are actually Class Abilities {even though they operate exactly the way feats do} and are therefore exempt from the prerequisites {per the Ranger class description}.

And any feats {like the one at 7th level} are actually feats, and have no exemptions.

Hope this helps!

Ezh

P.S. Guess Who?