Robert, I prefaced it with the statement that it was personal. Perhaps you should read the whole thing? It was already established what the rule was. I was adding a personal opinion on the rule.
Yes, this is the rules forum, but after the rules have been established it is well within our rights as posters to state how we prefer to run things.
Finally, I at no point contradicted you or even responded to you as I did not mention your name at all. Yet, somehow, you seem to think I was. Try not to read more into someone's statement than is actually there. :)
Personally, I disagree with the idea that you get a save if you are tricked. It negates the whole purpose of tricking someone.
Now, if they make a spellcraft check and recognize the spell, then absolutely, they can make a save.
If they do a sense motive check and determine that the spellcaster is doing something off, they will be provided that information.
But, forgoing a save against an unknown spell is forgoing a save against an unknown spell. The name is meaningless to the person.
Caveat: effects which are things like 'you physically resist the effect' (poisons etc) I would state still have a save since you feel the spell going wrong.
That debate has been had Majuba. In short, it is bad wording but when you are teleporting you are teleporting to 'your location' thus it applies.
Since the definition of 'your location' is completely mutable it really has no meaning. Is 'your location' the 5' space you occupy? Is it 10'? Is it the entire planet? There is no clear definition.
Anyhow, we should not get into that debate again here. It was already debated ad nauseam. And here is James Jacob's opinion if that matters to you.
You cannot dimension door or teleport into open space (ie, straight up in the air).
CRB p209 Conjuration wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
The Fox, interesting, but later in that thread he agreed that the RAW is a direct closest target line. He stated that he would lobby for it's change and houserule it in his own games.
In short, the charge rules are written badly. I absolutely houserule them in my own game just like SKR does. BUT, this is not a houserule forum, it is the rules forum.
I disagree, I believe that the wording is to cover situations where you may try to charge at an angle that would get you to the creature but not be a direct line to that creature.
Example (S is start, T is target, R is used later):
If you charge from S to 2 or 3 you are not moving to the closest point. The closest point would be 1.
Thus, the line regarding closest means 1.
So, that shows what the above bolded line means. Now we move on to can the quoted line also mean that you must stop in R?
Well, since you can define what you are attacking with, the answer is no. You can choose that you are using non-reach attacks. Thus, you can stop in R (for reach attacks) or 1 (for non-reach). At that point, why would you exclude a weapon that can attack if you have pounce just because you *COULD* use it at reach?
Summary: the rule is to dictate which square you can charge to in order to prevent you from using an 'oblique charge' (S-3). It is not to prevent you from getting up close an personal just because you may have a reach attack that you can choose to use.
fun with charge silliness:
How would you resolve a mounted warrior with a Lance (reach weapon) charging on a mount without a reach weapon?
1) The mount must stop at the closest point it can make an attack. That point is too close for the lancer.
Pinky's Brain, earlier you asked for citation regarding things not enlarging when picked up. Perhaps you can provide citation stating that they are enlarged if picked up?
Simply put, the spell is cast on the user and all of his equipment. Then the duration begins. The event (the casting) has passed. Anything picked up is not affected by the spell since it was not present at the time of the spell.
CRB p278 Enlarge Person wrote:
All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell.
Equipment is enlarged by the spell. If you pick up something after the spell is cast it cannot have been enlarged by the casting of the spell.
I think the whole Gravity Bow + Enlarge Person thing is a red herring.
Ask yourself: Do Lead Blades and Enlarge Person stack?
Answer: yes. Why? Because they are not both size altering. Enlarge Person is size altering, Lead Blades is base damage altering.
Now, how does this apply to GB+EP?
Lets assume the target of EP is normally medium.
1) Enlarge Person will not work with medium arrows. They will leave the bow and turn back into medium arrows.
So yes, IF you use large arrows and IF you drop them before having Enlarge Person cast upon you, then YES, this works. Albeit, it is cheesy and may be worthy of house ruling.
Regarding the feat Leadership, what really does the "Special power" modifier mean?
Yes, it can be defined by the GM but any kind of guidance you can give would be helpful because, as near as I can tell, just about every PC class qualifies.
Note: I am not asking for a ruling, just an opinion. :)
DarkLightHitomi, at what point was I bringing science into it? I am pretty sure I was referencing Darkvision and Infravision rather than physics. Infravision was turned into Darkvision precisely because people kept associating it with Infrared based vision and that created a number of mechanical problems.
The reason that puzzle solving has fallen out of vogue is because many people cannot do it.
First, it requires a specific type of mind to be really good at it. So, you just limited the number of players that could participate in such a game. This is opposed to the explosion of the game in the 3.X era because the players no longer had to think of every little thing, the characters can do it for them via a die roll.
Second, it requires that the person creating said puzzle provide a reasonably discovered way of solving it. The problem there is that what seems obvious to the creator may not be obvious to other people.
Between the first and second you wind up with puzzles/traps that just frustrate players. This is why I love the dice roll system. Even if you cannot figure out the puzzle/trap your character can figure it out, or not, via a die roll.
If you DO happen to figure it out you can either get a bonus to the die roll or negate the check entirely so that form of gaming is still supported.
Delazar, I think you may be looking for a different game system.
Fact is, Pathfinder is built upon 3.5. Some day, maybe, there will be a Paizo product that is radically different from the 3.5 system but I wouldn't count on it. On occasion Paizo staff have indicated that they are not anywhere near a Pathfinder 2.0 and I would figure that a simplified version of Pathfinder isn't even on their radar.
In short: the 3.5 system is about options, options, and more options. As long as Pathfinder is based on that system it will always be "heavy".
Tacticslion, out of curiousity, where in 3.5 did it say that you cannot read via Darkvision?
3.5 DMG p292 wrote:
Nothing about not being able to read. On the other hand, the 3.5 DMG section on Blindsight does state that when using Blindsight you cannot read.
AnnoyingOrange, do you have a Dev statement anywhere that says feats in the bestiary are not intended for player use due to being 'Monster only'? If so I'd love to see it.
In fact, the Bestiary states that the feats are available for players if they qualify for them. Anything else is a houserule and as such does not belong in the Rules forum.
Caderyn, what is the difference between Bestiary feats and feats placed in any of the other core rulebooks? It isnt like we are talking splatbook here. Do you vet EVERY feat from the core rulebooks?
Some of those feats are INTENDED for player use. But since monsters were the first to use it they are banned from players?
Kthulhu, if you wish to play a game where dice are not a factor or less of a factor then I suggest some other game system.
Back in 2nd edition people wanted more skill type stuff to represent what their characters knew even if the players didn't. 3.0 accommodated that by creating the skill system.
Now, you do not have to know how to do things, your character does and this is represented by a check.
With all of that said, take 10 is simply an average roll, it is taking the dice out of it because you are not rushed and are able to focus on the task at hand. Take 20 is a thorough inspection. Why are these a problem?
In any case, the problem with traps is not the skills. It is not Take 10 or Take 20. It is how traps are built in PF and how easy it is to get a very high perception bonus. Personally, I think that the Eyes of the Eagle are far too cheap for what they do.
There is no statement that overrides the existing restriction of a class's animal companion choice. Without such a specific statement then the default is the most restrictive option.
So based on that we have Class A which allows animal companions X and Y. We also have Class B which allows animal companions Y and Z. Since levels of the same animal companion stack you get X (A only), Y (A+B), and Z (B only).
However, since there is really no hard rule here it might be reasonable for GMs to rule that you get X, Y, AND Z at the combined levels of all. I would expect table variation on this.
Your mount would be Int6 in the case of the Cav/Paladin. The mount is the same type, it is just enhanced via the paladin ability.
You only get one animal.
APG p33 Cavalier Mount rules wrote:
Mount (Ex): A cavalier gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using the cavalier’s level as his effective druid level.
CRB p66 Ranger animal companion rules wrote:
This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature), except that the ranger’s effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3.
CRB p50 Druid's Nature Bond rules wrote:
Unlike normal animals of its kind, an animal companion’s Hit Dice, abilities, skills, and feats advance as the druid advances in level. If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion.
So, you are getting Animal Companion from two sources, the two sources stack.
Note: Herolab is correct, you cannot have two animal companions. But, if it is not allowing a leopard it is wrong in that regard. You can have a leopard but you would only be able to count the ranger levels.
As another example: a Halfling Cavalier/Ranger would not be able to count the Ranger levels towards a Boar since Boar is not on the ranger list.
Taking 20 has no penalties for perception checks.
Then your options are:
1) Convince your group to explain to the GM that you guys do not want to play with such ridiculous house rules.
2) Accept his house rule and pump up your perception as high as you can (Eyes of the Eagle are nice for this) in order to defeat his traps anyhow.
3) Accept his house rule and use a trap monkey to trigger all traps. I like the spell 'mount' for this purpose. Long term summoned critter. Great for setting off traps as it runs full speed down a corridor. Buy a wand of it for 750gp and you have a 2hour long (or until death) trap finder.
4) Accept his house rule and use a player to trigger all traps.
5) Stop playing.
In any case, we have determined this is no longer a rules issue and is now an advice issue. Perhaps posting in that forum will yield results on how to deal with the GM.
Tongue in Cheek suggestion: Have the group act out taking 10 for 10 minutes.
How you can deal with his house rule: do not take 10. Take 20. You will roll 20 times and finish in 1 minute (1/10 the time of his house rule) and be guaranteed to find the traps.
If he overrules Take 20 also, just roll 20-40 times. Better yet, roll 200 times (the number of rolls you would get in those 10 minutes).
In Pathfinder traps are a virtual non-issue. Anyone can find most traps rather easily.
Even my level 7 cleric can find just about any trap (7 ranks, +6 wisdom, +3 class skill (courtesy of a trait), +5 Eyes of the Eagle = +21). For those few magic traps that require 'Trapfinding' to find, detect magic usually covers those.
I think your GM is discovering the unfortunate reality regarding traps in Pathfinder. They simply don't work if your group is even halfway alert.
The table is misleading in this case (or maybe outright wrong).
The move action "Move" does not automatically provoke an attack of opportunity just because you declare a "move". But, you do provoke when you leave a threatened square and only provokes once per move rather than once per square (per creature that threatens).
Contrast this with the Withdraw action. It also provokes in the exact same way except that the first square is not considered threatened. And yet, it's listed as not provoking an attack of opportunity.
Ok, then by your own strict reading a Lance gains two-handed strength and power attack damage even when used in one hand.
In any case, I am basing my logic on the following section.
CRB p144 wrote:
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.
As you can see, this is at least one section of the rules that DOES define a weapons handedness by the relative size and effort it takes to wield said weapon.
Strength damage and power attack damage follow that concept. Jotungrip follows it. Only in a few cases do they not make such a statement and I believe it is because they were simply saving space and/or thinking that how many hands you are using is the real definition of what defines a weapon handedness.
It really isnt a houserule. It is a logical progression from the rules stating that a one-handed weapon used two-handed gains certain bonuses as if it were a two-handed weapon.
It is also a specific vs general issue where you have specific uses of a normal weapon where those uses fall into a different category.
People are arguing the semantics of what makes a 1 or 2 handed weapon when it is really as simple as:
There is evidence (that people have quoted) indicating that a one handed weapon used two-handed is treated as a two-handed weapon. There is also evidence (that people have quoted) indicating that a two-handed weapon is treated as a one handed weapon if used in one hand.
Sure, the rules are a bit muddy. Sure the weapon has a baseline category it falls under. But, in several places in the rules that category is clearly modified by the number of hands actually used on the weapon and the size of the user relative to the size of the weapon.
seebs, if you can see through an area of magical darkness using one ability (such as See in Darkness) but not using normal vision then yes, you know it is there.
Similarly, for a regular hemisphere of darkness (not magical darkness) darkvision would be able to see through it and notice that it is there.
Summary: Your other vision abiliies do not turn off when using Darkvision or See in Darkness.
My view of the premise of this thread is that everyone is debating if a Bastard Sword is a 1 or 2 handed weapon with the goal of can it be used with abilities that require using two hands.
However, I believe that this really skips over the entire aspect that a one handed weapon used two handed is basically a two handed weapon when it comes to abilities etc. Thus making the 1 or 2 handed Bastard Sword debate a moot point (except for the weapon's hitpoints).
I am curious where I mentioned anywhere in my post a bastard sword?
For the record: a bastard sword is not the only example of a two-handed weapon being used one handed. Lance, inappropriately sized weapons being used one handed, and jotungrip are just 3 more examples.
Any one-handed weapon (but not light weapon) may be used as a two-handed weapon. Inappropriately sized weapons can also turn a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon when being used.
My point is that it is my belief that when they write up abilities that require a 'one-handed weapon' or a 'two-handed weapon' it is the usage, not the category that they are really referencing.
You know what happens when you stick to the classifications of weapon handedness regardless of what number of hands you are actually using? You get screwy situations such as:
It's silly. While not exactly RAW I believe the RAI is clear that weapons have a starting category. That category affects the HPs of the weapon and what effort it *normally* takes to use the weapon.
However, if you have some means to change the effort (one->two handed or two->one handed) then use the rules applicable to the handedness you are currently using.
I'm amazed this is even a debate.
I think your confusion is the difference in 'level'.
Assuming a Wisdom of 17 that gives you 3 level 0 spells and 2 level 1 spells per day. Additionally you get one level 1 domain spell per day.
At Cleric Level 2 you get access to the following:
Assuming a Wisdom of 17 that gives you 4 level 0 spells and 3 level 1 spells per day. Additionally you get one level 1 domain spell per day.
Assuming a Wisdom of 17 that gives you 4 level 0 spells, 3 level 1 spells, and 2 level 2 spells per day. Additionally you get one level 1 domain spell and one level 2 domain spell per day.
Monkplayer, Darkwood, Angelskin, Darkleaf Cloth, etc are material types that you can modify existing armor with.
So, choose an armor, apply the applicable material type, and make the changes to the armor stats depending on the material type.
Darkwood only applies to wooden objects and there is only one type of wood armor. Angelskin only applies to hide armors. Etc.
The Guided Weapon property is in a 3.5 era adventure path (Crimson Throne: A History of Ashes).
Kinda surprised Bodyguard isn't in your list of feats. It is ideal for a reach cleric to help boost the guy standing next to him. Since Combat Reflexes is so high on the list might as well add Bodyguard too.
Pathfinder is consistent that penalties are penalties and not 'loss of a bonus'.
You do not have the penalty associated with attacking with your shield arm if you are using a bow or crossbow.
However, that does not mean you gain the bonus. It states you do not gain the bonus when you use the shield arm to attack with.
Breakdown of the paragraphs relevant sentences:
So what do we get: sentence 2 exempts bow/crossbow users from the penalty in sentence 3. Sentence 5 states that in any of the cases you lose your bonus.
Summary: No -1 penalty to attack with a bow/crossbow but you do not retain the AC bonus.
DoomCrow, you could always use the Hero Point system. That could balance out the harder difficulty factor.
Burning a hero point to act out of turn can often make the difference between being alive or being dead. Yes, it makes death much less likely but it is my experience that it does not detract from the "Whew! we just barely escaped with our lives!" feeling.
Alternately, Coup-de-grace sucks, but can be avoided with smart game play. Players could use a reposition action to move the downed player away from the enemy. Then occupy the location between the enemy and the player. Other strategies exist as well.
Wraithstrike, I think the OP is asking about circumstances such as a Quick Runner's Shirt.
Neo2151, you *normally* have a move+standard action or a full-round action per round. However, if you are able to get an extra action somehow (such as a Quick Runner's Shirt giving you a move action) then yes, you can use it and the normally available actions.
Regarding the summon monster spell: You cannot do a move action after initiating a full round spell. But you could do it before (assuming you have the extra move action).
When I silence targets I almost never silence the target directly. I silence the area or an unattended object in the target's vicinity. No save. :)
I can keep a spellcaster shut down forever like this if I have enough silence spells. He would have to move out of my line of sight.
Still, I should only have to shut him down a round or two until the melee guys cut him down.
Things you can do instead of getting hit by a fireball: drop a blindness/deafness spell on the spellcaster. Now he cannot target.
By level 5 my cleric's save DC vs the Blindness/Deafness spell is going to be along the lines of: 10+5(wisdom)+3(spell)+2(feat) = 20. Most arcane spellcasters will fail that save a significant part of the time.
Alternately, drop a silence spell on the spellcaster. I always carry a couple scrolls of silence by level 5.
Do either as a readied action and the spellcaster just wasted an action.
Frankly, I don't understand healing builds. Damage prevention is usually so much more effective.
As for going before or after the wizard, if you really want to go first that is possible. Have a decent dex and take the trait Reactionary. If you really want, take Improved Initiative. You could also go for the tactics sub-domain in order to get that 2d20 take the best initiative roll.
Finally, a cleric should be one of the most perceptive people in the group. Always max ranks in perception even if it is not a class skill.
Isn't Sepia Snake Sigil level 3 for both Bards and Sorc/Wizards?
Im not saying I could not find uses for it. Especially in the type of game you are discussing. Im just saying it is not really worth a staff. Staffs are 'emergency' resources that need your caster level intact and need to benefit from your higher ability score and feats.
Criteria for a good staff spell:
2) Can you do it better using scrolls or your own available spells?
3) Will you use it so much that paying the material component cost x50 is cheaper than the number of times you will use it over the life of your character from the time you acquire the staff.
4) Does your GM use the WBL system to make sure that you have the appropriate resources each level?
I may have missed some criteria but this is a good list. Ultimately, I think that for you to use >50+ charges from level 11-20 you must be coming up with some very creative ways to use this spell. Perhaps cheaper methods to accomplish the same goals can be found.
Hrm, in 30 years of gaming I have never had an encounter where the bad guys have gone through the PCs equipment. It just hasn't come up. I know it comes up rarely for other gamers but it is still a rare occurrence and not worth an entire staff.
Now, willing subjects, of course there are benefits, but there are much less expensive means to deal with poisons and diseases. Heck, it takes 2 days to deal with most diseases. Just memorize the correct spell.
As a cleric I usually have an open spell slot or two. It is easy to memorize remove disease. Far easier than putting someone in suspended animation.
Ability Damage? Wand of Lesser Restoration deals with that.
As a Wizard yes, you do not have those options. But someone in the group should. Most Diseases are simply not that bad. Neither are poisons. I can see having a single scroll of Sepia Snake Sigil for the purposes of suspending an ally. I cannot see using 50 charges worth in the entire life of a character.
If given the choice between poisoned and weakened or suspended animation, unable to do anything if combat occurs, and subject to attacks I will take poisoned and weakened.
As for Spell Focus (Conjuration) I love it for many conjuration effects. But again, it has little value with Sepia Snake Sigil since it is not usable in combat. You should has Rope Trick and with standard guard techniques you are pretty much not going to have anything stolen from you while you sleep.
Anyhow, perhaps your GM loves to steal stuff from you. If so, I guess it works. But most campaigns are not written that way.
I am the GM usually. Please, describe how you use it usable in combat?
Just seeing it does not trigger it. That is specified in the spell. The creature must make an effort to read a document containing at least 25 words. Thus, no combat option since no creature is going to stop and read a piece of paper you flash at him while in combat.
It should take at least a move or full round action to read that paper. Are you going to do that in combat? Neither would I.
Wow, I really did just copy and paste the suggestion someone else posted. I thought they were good options and did not see a middle option. I figured a bit more guidance as to what I thought they meant was needed but I do not see how that is bias.
If Paizo's boards were more flexible I would add a middle "2.5" option although I really do not see the need. I think that most 2.5 people really fall into #2 or #3 based on the descriptions they give.
In my opinion, one person who said 2.5 went on to describe what amounted to option #2 while another poster who put down 2.5 went on to describe what amounted to option #3.
I have not made any attempt at putting valuations on other people's concepts. I only sought to answer the question from the other thread: Is there a consensus?
While I cannot say there is a clear consensus I can say that nobody has selected option 4 and only one person has come close to selection option 1.
Anyhow, like it or not, favorite or not, there was no bias on my part. (Note: that was a happy accident of rhyming.)