Frankthedm's page

Demond Lords? Kaiju? Great Old Ones? The finally-updated-after-all-this-time Nosferatu template?

Curse you for producing yet another book I must buy, Paizo! ;)

Unless they change the way they do things, you don't _have_ to buy it to get the monsters. Paizo uploads their bestiaries to the PRD, so the hard copies are completely optional purchases. Very well designed and pleasant to own, but optional. Just goes to show Paizo's justified confidence in their product presentation that they can give their material away and still sell the books.

Maybe he has some paunch hidden, but judging from those scrawny limbs, Green Cthulhu needs food badly..

That base is 25mm, so it will be short.

Well, since the foes are controlled by a human, not an AI using agro mechanics, you have to make your foe believe you are the best target. That generally means making the enemies believe you are either the most dangerous target, or the easiest target. Good luck convincing your foes you are the most dangerous when others in your group are killing people by waving their hands.

Glamoured armor might help you look like a robe wearing / leather clad archery target. Also having the suit make you look like a Cleric of a religion hated by your foes should help the enemy focus fire on you.

Or, frankly, Intimidate to taunt foes. The whole concept of "I'm a fighter, I'll make the bad guy focus on me" relies quite a bit on the GM playing along with Intimidate, but that's the way that skill is kinda supposed to work in that regard.

I'm looking at intimidate and I'm trying to see how this outcome arrives from the skill in a combat situation.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/intimidate.html#_intimidate

Nowhere does it state killing the demoralizer removes the shaken effect early.

IMHO not being able to control what an enemy does without magic is a feature, not a bug.

I want to make a sort of final fantasy Dragoon type class spear/lance and all but don't want to read the rules wrong.

You did. You ignored the "directly toward" part of a charge. Going up and then down isn't directly toward someone.

"move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent."

I agree with 'simply stands and offers no resistance to the harpy's attacks' sure as hell sounds like the victim would let the harpy CDG them. I also agree with the notion that it is bad idea to actually rule it that way.

Players attacked by invisible creatures don't offer any resistance to the attack (by virtue of the fact they can't see the attacker)

Not so. The character still moves, tries to bring the shield to bear and tries to minimize vulnerability. If an invisible creature starts reaching under your chainmail coif to get to your neck, you pull back, twist and otherwise stop the likely harmful action. The victim of a harpy doesn't for one round, just long enough for the CDG.

EVEN IF RAW the diviner will get to act, nothing is keeping him from still being helpless until his action in the surprise round occurs.

Automatic critical bypasses the confirmation step, yes.

Frankthedm wrote:

No, jumping doesn't get you Higher Ground. Missing is the important 'ground' or other stable surface beneath you.

Otherwise every single flying being could claim higher ground against non-flying foes.

You clearly did not read the feat.

The text of the feat grants the bonus in 2 situation. When the feat possessor has higher ground OR when the feat possessor is flying.

Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground.

No, jumping doesn't get you Higher Ground. Missing is the important 'ground' or other stable surface beneath you.

Otherwise every single flying being could claim higher ground against non-flying foes.

Considering leap attack multiplies damage, it should be viewed with suspicion.

Keep in mind, vamparism in pathfinder only happens AFTER the victim is dead. It isn't a blood born illness. Removing it would leave you with a corpse, not a healthy person.

While the imagry of the continously reanimating skeleton is seen in a fair amount of fictional sources, the blood covered skeletons being the ones to do this walked right out of Castlevania / Akumajō Dracula.

Balor's Death throws does the equivalent of 28d6 [100] damage.

Empowered disintegrate cast at 20th level deals 40d6 x 1.5, which is a bit more than 50d6 overall. Of course the victim has to be Ranged Touched and fail a fort save on that one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless the sword was possessed by a Balor, an artifact of some type, or the Radioactive Sword from the Lead Boulder, 50d6 damage is RIDICULOUS.

Covered under Mount rules.

If You Are Dropped: If you are knocked unconscious, you have a 50% chance to stay in the saddle (75% if you're in a military saddle). Otherwise you fall and take 1d6 points of damage. Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat.

That paragraph covers both the possibility of falling out of the saddle and what the mount does if you are not guiding it.

Here is a pic of what I'm talking about.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/3954/gustyw.png

Because of the how lines and areas work, sure, you could. Pathfinder swarms are 10'x10', so you shouldn't HAVE to though. Because pathfinder got stingy with what a line effects, you could shoot across one line of your facing, while it would still nail the swarm.

My character is an Oracle and cast Blessing of Fervor at the start of combat targetting himself and his four allies.

While spells are fire and forget, I'd treat the "allies" requirement just as a creature-type requirement. If the relevant status changes, the spell is negated.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are there any spells or other ways I can fast forward the aging process?

Thanks

Wish might work. The issue is you need growth & training, not aging. Simply magically aging a hatchling would give you Progeria-like results.

Incorp prevents can prevent contact and thus should be resolved first. DR requires contact.

As to the CR of the shadow demon, the crippling weakness they have to light more than makes up for it. Their Daylight Powerlessness is triggered by bright light, NOT just sunlight!

I'd say this is just the equivalent of a monstrous caster putting a touch spell on their bite / horns.

Since mechanically nothing about making the touch with the wand would be different it should be fine to flavor it that way.

It is a major difference since as OP points out free hands are valuable in the economy of actions.

If a cleric wielding a shield is trying to use a wand of Cause Major Wounds on someone's character, damn right they should argue that cleric has to have already taken a move action to loose the shield or suffer the harmless discharge of the spell as listed under Holding the Charge section in the combat chapter.

I don't think I'd allow it, if just because if you allowed swapping out armor proficiency, you could logically make the same claim for weapon proficiency, and since the weapon proficiency feats apply to only one weapon, you could just toss out the weapons you don't like or are never gonna use to give yourself even more feats for absolutely no impact to your character whatsoever.

Agree. Hitting FAQ to patch this.

It is in the GM's ballpark since the Pathfinder epic level suggestions in the Gamemastering section. Not hard to extrapolate, but nothing I think would help in PFS.

"Although Classes doesn't describe what happens after 20th level, this isn't to say that there are no resources available to you should you wish to continue your campaign on to 21st level and beyond"

Extrapolating the table, a 25th level monk would deal 4d6 damage on an unarmed strike and have a +6 AC modifier.

One of my PSOP characters is a level 14 monk, and I plan to continue playing him through the high level sanctioned modules. I will be in the same quandary when he reaches level 16.

No you won't. Neither would change from monk levels 21-24. Just look at the table, Unarmed Damage and AC bonus go up once every four levels.

I'd normally advise extreme caution against letting a normal magic item have much influence on or from epic levels, but monk abilities progress so meagerly it is a non issue. Kinda sad actually.

Incidentally, the fact that the act of cannibalism can and does lead people to transform into evil undead abominations in the Pathfinder setting suggests that there's something fundamentally, cosmically wrong with consuming members of an intelligent species in that setting.

PC:CMR mentions the myth about the first cannibal as becoming Kabriri, the first ghoul, after death.

You are right to be concerned. Your hirelings and mounts ARE going to die.

No you can't see yourself. But the actions you list don't expressly require you to see what you you are doing. Don't be surprised if the GM makes said actions harder & longer to accomplish, but the RAW doesn't make them forbidden.

One action that the RAW on this subject does prevent is using a scroll.

Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll.

IF you already had the scroll in hand, you could drop the scroll {free action] rendering it visible, Pick it up {move action], then use the scroll {standard action or longer].

Kinda of a shame, actually... It limits in-game options and makes it harder for people to realize that "Trip" is just the name of the mechanics, not necessarily an actual trip.

It is an actual trip in PF. As SCMT just posted,"Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped."

EDIT.redacted

yeah it is neat and a decent deal when a character could first afford it, but +1 leather that can't be upgraded will get outclassed by other armor options.

or cast Dispel Magic or Mage's Disjunction on it, suppressing it's magi ability, forcing it to expel it's contents.

Most interpretations of the BoH make the stored items inaccessible when the bag is dispelled.

IMHO if dispelling on the inside of the bag causes a result different to dispelling the outside of the bag, it should cause the contents to be lost to Gods Know Where.

1d6 damage to an ability score is too much. Seasoning an attack with stat damage on the side is one thing, but Whack-a-stat is one of the worst inventions of 3E. Direct Attribute damage was one of the ways heroes were little better off than commoners and encouraged cheese ball spells aimed at ability scores. A huge monster has a crappy dex to represent plodding movement, not so it can be oneshot-able by Sum-Dumass’s Dagger of Dexterity Damage.

In 2e the shadow did 1d4+1 damage and one point of Strength {sort of damage that came back about an hour later]. HP went up significantly in 3E, though honestly STR scores came down at early levels since folks no longer needed to have 17-18(%) STR as in 2E to even have an attack / damage bonus.

IMHO 2d4, 1d10 or maybe even 1d12 damage + 2 STR damage would have been FAR better for CR3 shadows to deal on a hit. The main problem with 1d6 STR damage is it is only slightly less dangerous to a high level character than the low level character since stats go up nowhere near as fast as HP. {and then we have the problem of only a few ways to improve touch AC’s].

Of recent years D&D / d20 has tried to distill the vast number of RL polearms down to a more manageable handful of weapons. If it looks that close to a halberd, might as well just make it a halberd

Over specificity on polearms was a 'thing' back in 1E. Wotc even referenced that a while back... [url]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/polearmquiz[/url]

The notion this is odd has been addressed by someone on Paizo staff IIRC, but since no actually changes have occurred, this needs a good F.A.Q.ing.

So if I find them in my treasure loot, I can sell them for the same money of normal ioun stones? SWEET!

IF you find someone willing to buy 'em.

Has this been addressed before, or should we F.A.Q. this?

Both!

I'd say full price. "If someone is looking for 'em, they obviously got a plan for 'em". Besides, it is going to be obnoxious dice rolling every time the ability might or might not come up.

Scorched These stones are depleted somehow, but not so much as to render them completely burned out and powerless; some achieve this state from damaging exposure to extreme heat or electricity. A scorched stone’s power functions erratically (typically a 50% chance per day for constant-effect items, or 50% chance per use for use-activated items) but is essentially the same as an intact stone of the same type. For example, a scorched pearly white spindle ioun stone might give the wearer a 50% chance per 10 minutes to regenerate 1 hit point.

Invisibility won't break until the weapon is in the victim's throat / skull /etc. You won't have a chance to save your buddy in this situation. Suck it up, and pay for the Raise Dead.

The guy you quoted might just be butthurt from playing a Rogue or Vivisectionist or something and finding out that the BBEG randomly happened to have this very specific feat that stopped what he was doing.

I strongly doubt that. SotS has a good eye for the rules and most times I see him take issues with something in this manner, he generally has a valid concern.

Now, if, on the other hand, every enemy always had that feat, I'd take that as a declaration of war on Sneak Attacking and teamwork, and I would not be happy with the GM.

Feat is either balanced or it's not. SInce this is a "I'm good at fighting multiple foes" feat, it should be somewhat common on things that often fight multiple foes, like leader types who have to keep fighting underlings to stay leaders.

But IMO the quoted player is out of line. A player doesn't get to dictate to the GM what (if any) house rules should be in play, or denigrate a GM who chooses to follow what's in the rulebooks.

I'd say it definitely is his call to walk away from a table if he feels that strongly about it.

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.

I recently took note of this feat and I was wondering the opinion of others around here on this feat.

Flanking Foil (Combat).
Fighting multiple foes is easy for you.
Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.

...The only more broken/unbalanced feat to the mechanics of combat in all of PF is the Flanking Foil feat. A DM that doesn't ban that is a DM I refuse to play for. Even if I'm not playing a sneak attacker. I expect a certain level of empathy and decency from the guy who controls all of the game environment.

2d8+(STRx2)+(enhancement bonus x2)+(1d6 flaming).

Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.

Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. So if you are asked to double the damage twice, the end result is three times the normal damage.

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon's normal damage are never multiplied.

You won't ever multiply the Flaming damage for a charge or crit.

If you charged and got a critical with a lance, which is a X3 crit weapon, you'd do

4d8+(STRx4)+(enhancement bonus x4)+(1d6 flaming) NOT 6d8+(STRx6)+(enhancement bonus x6)+(1d6 flaming)

If you managed to charge and crit a White Dragon or other fire vulnerable critter, your damage would be
4d8+(STRx4)+(enhancement bonus x4)+(1d6 flaming + 50% of the flaming damage's die result, rounded down)

If you have spirited charge and get a crit with a lance charge, you'd deal...

5d8+(STRx5)+(enhancement bonus x5)+(1d6 flaming)

And that is why everything will be trying to kill your mount and why the rules often make it difficult to charge.

Your eidolon counts as a summoned creature, so if it drops to 0 HP or lower it is sent back.

Are you 100% positive the text "The eidolon remains until dismissed by the summoner (a standard action)." doesn't override that? Because the HP restoration only happens if the Eidolon dies. If the eidolon is forced to leave at zero HP, it isn't dead. Next time it shows since it did not die, it is still at zero HP thanks to the specific healing rules of the eidolon. It would leave immediately again, because it was at zero HP.

I come back with this class, and he seems to be fighting me tooth and nail on it.

Sounds like he might hate the class, but is hesitant to just disallow the summoner.

You know walking in that you cannot be brought back, so how are you going to be irritated that the situation comes up?

Exactly! Being brought back from the dead is something the ruleset assumes can happen and higher level challenges factor that in. Give that up at your own peril.

Is there any chance Paizo could release in some supplement a way to bring back a fallen construct/half-construct PC?

Most folks would assume a Wish spell should be enough to jump start the character. May be tricky and expensive getting one, but the party might want to consider trying to get a one shot Wish item so they have a Restore Disc for worst case scenarios.

Frankthedm wrote:

Prior to that, the only multi issue adventure set in Dungeon I remember was the 2E Mere of Dead Men.

What about "Tortles of the Purple Sage" in Dungeon #6 and #7?

While I have those issues buried somewhere, I had not read them yet so i din't know there were two linked adventures.

I vaguely remember hearing about Flame getting sequels.

Prior to that, the only multi issue adventure set in Dungeon I remember was the 2E Mere of Dead Men.

Am I the only person who was sorely disappointed by this cover? Not because the quality, but because the fight shown wasn't in the magazine. I see this cover and since I'd read the previews for Dungeon, I automatically start thinking "Holy crap, low level PCs fighting gargantuan burrowing worms! How the hell did Paizo pull this off in 3.5 without it being an auto TPK?"

Issue arrives and no giants worms for the PCs to fight. :(

I'll agree this subject need FAQing. Sadly, don't be surprised if Paizo FAQs this up by adding more limitations to the bardic performances.

bookrat wrote:

Where in RAW does it say that sleeping equals willing? How does someone who is asleep give consent to something?

Here:

Core Rulebook (214, 2nd paragraph, top left) wrote:

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re f lat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

And that paragraph only applies to spells that require willing recipients, like teleport. This section is part of why a K.O.'ed ally can come with when the party teleports, etc.

If a hostile priest casts plane shift just on a unconscious target as the attacking version of the spell, the unconscious target gets the normal save. OTOH, if the Priest uses the up to 8 join hands and travel together version of plane shift, the unconscious target is treated as willing because of being unconscious.

PLANE SHIFT
School conjuration (teleportation); Level cleric 5, sorcerer/wizard 7
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a forked metal rod attuned to the plane of travel)
Range touch
Target creature touched, or up to eight willing creatures joining hands
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
You move yourself or some other creature to another plane of existence or alternate dimension. If several willing persons link hands in a circle, as many as eight can be affected by the plane shift at the same time. Precise accuracy as to a particular arrival location on the intended plane is nigh impossible. From the Material Plane, you can reach any other plane, though you appear 5 to 500 miles (5d%) from your intended destination. Plane shift transports creatures instantaneously and then ends. The creatures need to find other means if they are to travel back (including casting plane shift again).

A parallel situation occurs with (harmless) descriptor spells, which change automatically assumed saves, to where a save is only rolled if a character WANTS to.

Magic... Saving Throw...
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

3.5
Effect and Duration of Turning
Turned undead flee from you by the best and fastest means available to them. They flee for 10 rounds (1 minute). If they cannot flee, they cower (giving any attack rolls against them a +2 bonus). If you approach within 10 feet of them, however, they overcome being turned and act normally. (You can stand within 10 feet without breaking the turning effect—you just can’t approach them.) You can attack them with ranged attacks (from at least 10 feet away), and others can attack them in any fashion, without breaking the turning effect.

Paper is burned, that is all.