|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
One thing that gets a little dicey if if multiple wands (or any other word activated magic item) had the same command word. I'd roll randomly in that case, and only permit one to activate in a round.
If your shocking longsword, and your bundle of wand of lightning bolt and wand of cure critical wounds all activated on "Shazaam!", bummer for you.
Yep, I'm right. The combo is perfectly legal.
Nothing wrong with taking a handful of wands and tying them into a bundle to make storage and retrieval (and sunder) easy. But, I'd rule you can only activate one at a time. If it isn't a rule, it would be a house-rule for me. Otherwise things get out of hand.
Eg, why buy a wand of cure moderate wounds (2d8+3) for 4500 when a bundle of two cure light wounds with the same command word heals 2d8+2 for 1500? That would be too easy to abuse.
This came up last session. Bad guy casts a spell and I went to use the Order of the Warrior - Honor In All Things ability to boost the save.
Whenever the samurai makes a skill check or saving throw, he can call upon his honor as a free action to grant him a +4 morale bonus on the roll.
Oops. It's a free action, not immediate action. To my knowledge, the only free action that is usable when it isn't your turn is "Speak".
1) Is this how others understand the ability?
2) Is this the intent of the ability?
Seems like only being able to get a boost to your saves on your turn really limits the usefulness. Wanted to double check that the nerf is by design.
+1. I was just about to write the same thing, and I also hadn't been able to find the source.
So it's gotten easier to deal with, especially since you can buff up your Fort save the next day when it's time to save against each negative level (you save separately for each one, by the way).
Allowing to buff before saves that happen the next day is pretty generous. This came up in another thread, and I believe SKR or JJ weighed in that they don't allow that. Can't locate it right now.
The saving throw is an abstraction of the body fighting the affliction over the course of the day. At some point, you check to see if your condition has improved. Having a higher Fort for a few minutes wouldn't help much. If you were buffed for the day, it would be more palatable.
It is similar to spending a week crafting and then bumping your Int before you roll to see how you did. Having a higher Int for a few minutes had no bearing on how well you crafted during the last week.
From a mechanics perspective, how do you know when you are about to make a saving throw and should apply the buffs? Short of divination and accurate timekeeping, you probably can't buff beforehand anyway.
Bruno Kristensen wrote:
That's what I'd do.
Tom S 820 wrote:
That answer nothing that I asked... You lost me in your vague answer.
Tom S 820 wrote:
A) How many time can I take that Immedate action once per level?
Once per round.
Tom S 820 wrote:
B) Once per casting?
Once per round.
Tom S 820 wrote:
C) Should this spell not be an an Immeadte casting spell?
Tom S 820 wrote:
D) Should the target of this get a save each round as it a on going effect like most over spell of this type?
The target is you. You cast it on yourself. Each round, you can use it to affect the attack of one opponent that threatens you, but is attacking someone else. Doing so is an immediate action, and is something you do as part of the opponent's attack. The opponent you target can make a Will save to resist the effect. It only affects that attack that round (I think).
Tom S 820 wrote:
Can get up to 5 monster/ bad guy to attack me ?
No. You get one immediate action/round, and you affect one target with that immediate action. It doesn't continue into subsequent rounds. You can retarget that opponent 5 times, or 5 different opponents once.
Tom S 820 wrote:
E) What is and attack for this spell melee? spell? ect.
You can only target someone who attacks an ally but is threatening you. It isn't specific, but I'd limit it to the attack type that the opponent was using. Casting an area spell isn't an attack, but using a spell as a melee touch attack is (IMHO).
Diego Rossi wrote:
I would say that using a alchemical power component is a move action that provoke an attack of opportunity.
+1. Most of those items are fairly substantial in size and weight (1-4 lbs). Normally it is move action + standard action if you want to take one out and use it in the same round. Unless you want to hand wave and say "it's magic", it seems excessive to allow you to retrieve an item as "not an action" when used in a spell, but require a move action if you want to fetch it otherwise.
If using an alchemical power component increased the casting time, then I'd feel differently.
Back to the OP:
Last night's session, they were explorting a crypt, and he announces "I'm readying a spell." Then they encounter a handful of NPC's who basically say "you shall not pass." the PC's and NPC's argue back and forth, and then suddenly the player who readied a spell says "That's it, all these guys need a reflex save, I cast fireball."
this is probably what I would have done (which is in line with your approach).
When any player announced they wanted to do something aside from talking or movement outside of threatened spaces, I'd roll initiative and start sequencing the turns at that point. Could be casting a spell, drawing a weapon, readying a shield, retrieving an item, etc.
Anyone (good guy or bad guy) prior to the player announcing their intention to act could choose to delay or ready an action. It would be a bit meta-gamey for someone to attack based on the knowledge that the spellcaster planned to cast fireball later in the round, unless it was cued by something else.
Really, to be fair, the player should just ask to measure time in rounds at that point and not publicly declare their actions beforehand.
If the bad guys readied an action vs. a spell being cast, they'd get their standard or move action to do something beforehand. Without something like spellcraft, they'd react the same way to fireball as prestidigitation though.
Unless the good or bad guys had some kind of cue, the player that decided to end the parley and attack would be the first one to get both standard and move actions. Anyone going beforehand would only get a readied action vs. something specific.
I think I've always been doing that mentally. If you view actions as having a start time and end time, then readied actions go off after the start time, and before the end time, of the action that triggered it. The resolution of the initiative count isn't sufficient to track it at that level, so things look out of sequence by that measurement. Maybe we need ... SEGMENTS!
This is why the rules language for readying needs an overhaul. As written, it creates time paradoxes.
If you don't view actions as atomic, I think it is okay as written.
If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
As long as you are okay with the idea of shoe-horning an action into the middle of another action, I think it works fine.
This all stems from trying to force an order on simultaneous events, but without that, combat would be much more complicated to run.
You can ready a move action, triggered by an enemy moving closer to you. Since the ready is triggered by his move action, you would move before him, which means he could choose to move in a different direction. Or move all the way up to you if he has the speed. Or charge.
All depends on how the readied action is worded. I don't think you necessarily preempt the entire action, but instead interrupt the action as it is unfolding.
For example, say a bad guy is 20 feet away, and you ready an action to move if he moves within 10 feet of you. The guy has to move 10 feet towards you before the action is triggered. You can then move as part of the readied action, suspending his move. After your move, the bad guy can choose if he wants to continue his movement or not. He couldn't undo the 10 feet of movement to charge instead though. That movement has already occurred.
In my games, I'm a big fan of rolling initiative early and often. If the party approaches a group with unknown intentions on either side, and both groups are aware of each other, roll initiative while they are still some distance away. That does three things.
1) It serves as a tool to give each player equal time to say something or do something as I cycle through the initiative counts. If someone wants to start casting buffs, then I'm already tracking rounds for duration.
2) It also makes it harder to immediately identify friend from foe. If you roll initiative for non-hostile meetings, there's no DM cue for how to treat the NPC.
3) If player wants to be a loose cannon and fireball the group, he can. The recipients could have readied actions though, depending on the setup. Could be he just fireballed a group of pilgrims that were in a bad mood, or brigands intent on robbing them.
But to the OP, ready is a combat action, and you can't ready an action if you aren't sequencing actions by initiative.
The way that it states it in the spell makes me think that it also gives the same bonus that greater magic weapon gives. I would come up with the same result as the OP (level 8 caster getting +2 and a type of DR).
Versatile Weapon and GMW are both Wiz 3 spells. Would it make sense to create a spell that replicates another spell exactly at the same level, and includes additional bonuses, plus works for natural and unarmed attacks?
I read this:
This spell functions like greater magic weapon, except that it subtly alters the physical properties of a weapon
as that it functions like GMW, except it alters the DR properties instead of giving an enhancement bonus, and not in addition to.
No. Versatile weapon only lets you pick one kind of DR to overcome.
It came up.
I guess nothing would prevent them from running by RAW. For particulars in my game, I'd say it would depend on the swarm type, their intelligence and how they tend to hunt. If it would make sense that they'd pursue prey instinctively, then I think they'd run. If the swarm is opportunistic and relies on surprise or terrain to capture food, then possibly not.
Reads to me as all damage dice. Would include energy, bane, precision, critical, or any other damage dice you'd roll as part of the strike.
I guess I was trying to warn against staggering all your spells so that you control the order of dispels. Eg:
CL 15 - Fly
If you go crazy with this, you'll increase the odds of something getting dispelled.
I'm all on board with having a two layer system where you cast the more important spells at one level lower. Then you only have a 5% chance of them hitting your important spell collection with a dispel magic.
Although depending on the dispel magic check, it's possible a roll isn't high enough to dispel the top CL spell, but could affect a lower level one. Eg, CL 15 stoneskin (DC 26) and CL 1 mage armor (DC 12). Isn't foolproof, but would help you order them to some degree (at the expense of duration).
Asteldian Caliskan wrote:
All legal, and works like Ring of Force Shield (effectively). Also works with a 2-handed weapon, although you wouldn't get AoOs in that case.
Start of round:
- unequip shield/deactivate ring (free action)
Rinse and repeat.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
As far as drawing it, you can draw a wand as part of a move with a +1 BAB.
Since two (or more) stones would technically be different sources, I'm not sure what would stop them from stacking.
They are considered they same source. Much like if you cast Virtue multiple times. It would be considered the same source (Virtue spell), even though they are multiple copies cast at different times.
The source of the bonus is an ioun stone, so you can't use another one to increase the bonus.
Thanks for the feedback. Glad to hear it isn't straightforward for others either. My master plan at this point is to dump it on the GM's lap and have him tell me what to roll when. Having some net wisdom for guidance is really helpful though.
Sorry if there's already a thread that covers it, but my search-fu failed.
I'm trying to figure out what rolls I need to make each round to attack from the back of a combat trained horse as a samurai, and what happens if the rolls fail. This is what I have so far.
Let's say you want to charge a humanoid foe.
1) Roll a DC 5 Ride check as free action. Failure = use one hand for rest of round
2) Roll a DC 10 Handle Animal check for the animal to use the Attack trick as a free action, attacking with a charge. Success = charge. Failure = no charge. What are your options after a failure?
3) Assuming you succeeded with the charge, make a DC 10 Ride check so that you can attack with the horse as you reach the target. Failure = no attack for you. Do you get your standard and move actions then anyway?
Now, what happens if you are facing an undead foe, and the horse isn't trained for that. Can you charge? I don't think you can. Charge is an attack option, and you can't charge if your horse doesn't. This is what I think happens.
1) DC 5 Ride check to steer with knees.
2) Horse double moves towards target (no roll needed).
3) Make a single attack w/no charge (no roll needed).
Do I have it correct? Thanks.
Aren't belts and headbands use activated, and not command word activated?
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
Seems like it would function on animal companions just fine in that case.
Rats Archive wrote:
So in the interest of saving face, I mantain that RAW, hooves are secondary attacks, but Jacobs gives good advice and you should do it his way just 'cause. ;)
I've been looking at this recently, and here's my spin on the situation.
Docile (Ex): Unless specifically trained for combat (see the Handle Animal skill), a horse's hooves are treated as secondary attacks.
Without combat training hoof attacks are treated as secondary. With combat training hoof attacks receive no special treatment. It doesn't say that combat training makes hooves primary.
A bite attack is primary and hoof is secondary. With only a single type, hoof is normally primary for a light horse. Without training, a light horse is docile, and the hoof becomes secondary. With training, it no longer is treated as a special case, and it goes back to primary as per the UMR.
With heavy and animal companions, they already have a primary attack (bite). Docile is irrelevant (if it applies), since hooves are always secondary in that case. With training, you don't treat hooves differently, and they are still secondary.
That seems the most reasonable to me.
Raymond Lambert wrote:
Far as I can tell, no to all of the above. They aren't spells, and the magic isn't divine or arcane.
Just wondering if the starting gold was correct. Gunslinger is 175 and Samurai is 105. My gut is that those values are backwards. Cavalier (and other heavy armor classes) are 175. Gunslinger is a light armor class, so 175 seems a bit off for them too.
Is this correct? I see there is no FAQ for UC yet.
With Improved Familiar I get some nifty choices at Level 7. However, many of these (Pseudodragon, Arbiter, Silvanshee, Lyrakien, Brownie, Cythnigot, Quasit, Imp, and probably others) have Intelligence scores that exceed what a Familiar has at level 7 (Int 9). The Lyrakien is the most stunted of all, and won't hit intellectual parity with the non-Familiar version until its master is Level 17! Please tell me that there is a rule somewhere that Familiars use their base Int until the value on the Familiar table exceeds it.
Nope. Looks like the creatures of average racial intelligence avoid being familiars.
Must fight urge to necro thread ... argh .. epic fail.
Fine. He's burning down an orphanage because it was costing the town money and the Orphanage's matron was 15 minutes late in filing her renewal permits. Since the building is burning down, everyone fleeing the fire is guilty of vagrancy, which is punishable by death.
That's still a caricature of evil to me. Here's a better example, IMHO.
Some street urchins (who happen to be CN) have been breaking into shops and shrines to take a few items they don't think will be missed. This time, the shopkeeper is there and tries to stop them. In the scuffle, the shopkeeper is killed.
This happens as a patrol is rounding the corner, catching them in the act. The urchins flee to the orphanage (where they live). The patrol gives chase and surrounds the building, awaiting instructions.
The LE ruler orders the building sealed and burned to the ground, killing the guilty and innocent alike. This sends a strong message about tolerating crime and harboring fugitives. The others in the orphanage may not have been involved, but maybe they were.
The LG ruler orders all of the occupants to be arrested and taken for questioning. There the full extent of the conspiracy is determined, and the appropriate people are put on trial. The punishment is death for the urchins that killed the shopkeeper. It might also be death for the leaders of the orphanage if they were responsible for sending the kids out to steal. A compassionate ruler might temper the punishment based on the circumstances (they were stealing to fund the orphanage, and had been non-violent to that point, for example).
The LG bystander to the LE ruler agrees that killing the urchins was just, but regrets that the methods killed "innocent" people (in their eyes).
The LE bystander to the LG ruler agrees that killing the urchins was just, but regrets that the methods spared "guilty" people (in their eyes).
To a person that is primarily good, secure borders safe streets and stability are not the end goal, they're a means of achieving a goal.
A person that is primarily good is comparatively more neutral on law vs. chaos (lawful GOOD). A person that is primarily lawful is comparatively more neutral on good vs. evil (LAWFUL good).
A person that is equally lawful and good (LAWFUL GOOD) should feel the same indignation witnessing chaotic acts as they do evil acts. They are the complete antithesis of their philosophical beliefs in either case.
Your point is that good vs. evil is such a strong element that law vs. chaos is never on the same level when one of those is in play.
I find that neutral is usually played as being slightly less good. But, a LN cleric can choose equally between Iomedae and Asmodeus. They support the same desire for a orderly society, and either set of approaches is acceptable to the cleric. They strongly oppose CG as much as CE. I have yet to see a game where a neutral cleric picks an evil deity and hangs out with good adventurers. [ Note to self, try this ]. Tying this marginally to the OP, would a LN cleric of Asmodeus be able to heal a paladin of Iomedae?
I do think most games play out as battles of good vs. evil, and completely marginalize (or ignore) the lawful or chaotic elements. I hate the alignment system, and even more so when it is used to put white or black hats on people so you know who to kill. I think everything is a shade of gray, and defined alignments constrain that. Alignments are fundamental to the game, so this won't change. But, I can still rant about it. :-).
It works like Resilient Sphere, which works like Wall of Force, which is invisible. So, you can see through a bead of force.
The effect is completely immovable, so I would rule that sound would not pass. If you bang on the sphere, it doesn't move at all to create sound/pressure waves, so no sound would be transmitted at all.
You can breathe normally, which means any creature that would fit inside would have enough air to avoid suffocation for the duration of the effect.
I am trying to understand the ins and outs of high fantasy, as opposed to normal games. I know that the players get more points for the point buy system, and they get more treasure, and the NPC characters get a little more loot. Is there something I'm missing?
I don't think you are missing anything. The low/standard/high/epic fantasy designations are just labels for point buys. The higher you go, the more capable the PCs. It can be a tool to help craft the power of the PCs to keep them challenged with published material. I wouldn't read more into it than that though.
Sleeping creatures are not unconscious, so they are not automatically considered willing. Unconscious is a specific condition.
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
Sleeping, as a condition, is not defined. Sleeping creatures are still conscious, since they are able to make perception checks (at -10). Unconscious creatures cannot.
My plan, therefore, is to shorten Bastards and speed them through it, removing some of the encounters. Roughly, this is what I have in mind:
That should work pretty well. I found the first book to be pretty light on XP, so I actually ran Crypt of the Everflame between parts 4 and 5. I ran a few encounters in the sewers so they could tangle with some Hellknights-in-training, but didn't spend much time there. After the rescue, they did the Crypt as a side-quest as part of a PCs backstory, and were more than happy to leave town for awhile. Worked great, and XP was right by the time they were done.
I think you could get by with running the works if they are coming in shy of 3rd level. Dividing by 6 and keeping story awards small, they'll be mid-3rd level by the time they start the 2nd book. You'll want to bump the bosses at each level though to account for more, and more experienced, PCs.
50% chance to avoid rolling a save, although I'd only allow you to choose to do so on your turn. Opponents that throw poison bombs at you can catch you unaware, for example.