|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Assume you have a familiar that is able to use wands.
I want a buff wand servant, but I'm concerned with the best way to keep it safe at the same time since I will likely be in melee combat.
Any better ideas?
Well crap, I should have read that closer. Guess there isn't much point to that spirit then.
I keep seeing people interpreting this differently.
Does he or does he not have a spell list for things like scrolls and wands without needing UMD?
Recently got the Unchained book and was wondering about a few things.
- Unchained Summoner with the Shaitan Binder archtype (Oread).
Those happened to be the first two that came to mind since I was just reading about Oreads. Though I'm not just interested in just those two, but in general.
In no particular order.
1) If I ride a (non-flying) mount off a cliff and cast feather fall on the mount, is that sufficient or do I also need feather fall on the rider?
2) Celestial bloodline eventually sorc gets wings for a limited amount of fly time each day. Does he have to take a standard action to activate the wings then start flying as a move action or can he just start flying as his move action and still have his standard action left?
3) If flying with wings or the fly spell, can you quadruple move run?
4) If you are flying can you burning hands straight down to hit a 15’ diameter circle?
5) Raging song gives a morale bonus to will saves. The superstition rage power gives a morale bonus to all saves. Do those stack? Or just the higher one?
6) Can you charge if you don’t melee attack someone at the end of the movement (example: charge to get within spell range of a target)?
7) Narrow corridor. Front rank A is fighting in melee and getting beat up. Second rank B is fighting same opponent with a reach weapon. Third rank C has a wand of CLW. Can C squeeze into B’s position to use the wand to heal A?
8) Which book(s) have the list of which types of bonuses stack?
9) Which book(s) have the durable ammunition?
10) Constrictor snake with greater magic fang attacking an incorporeal opponent. The greater magic fang allows it to hit for half damage. Can it still grab/constrict?
Ok, I think I can accept players can cast with down to minimum level and casting stat for a given spell.
I agree should probably not buff the enemy. But they could voluntarily fail their saves vs some debuff spells like bane. Anyone observing would feel it a reasonable spell to cast on the enemy and not realize you are casting it on your allies.
As far as doing poorly at weapons or skill checks. Say opposed bluff vs sense motive checks with a penalty of -1/2 on the bluff check total for every point by which you reduce the attack or damage roll. Seam reasonable?
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
... But it just sounded like you were looking for a RAW way to do it.
Yes and no.
This would be a home game thing with me as the GM. I am not completely opposed to house rules for things.
But especially since several are new players still learning the rules, I much prefer to try and use the actual rules if there are some available.
My players may have a few situations coming up where it would be advantageous to seem substantially less competent than they really are (but not actually incompetent).
Can the raging barbarian chose to impose on himself a -2 to hit and -6 to damage?
Bigger question. How high should I set the bluff DC for them to get away with fooling people to not let them know the PC’s are underperforming?
If those are too difficult, I suppose they could debuff themselves. Can you chose to have something like a prayer spell help the bad guys and hurt your guys? Haste the bad guys and slow the bad guys? Can you cast resist energy or displacement on the bad guys without everyone being able to tell you did it?
Yes, that was a typo. I meant 4th level.
I think a SoD spell, like phantasmal killer, would just be a waste of time. I think a no save or at worst a save for half would be the only way to go.
I like Enervation, but it would be hard to kill with it.
I was thinking like an intensified empowered magic missile or ear piercing scream.
I hadn't thought of Vampiric Touch, but that would fit for the concept and has no save.
Hellmouth Lash might be amusing and also has no save.
I think I will leave it as a normal charged wand. The number of charges will depend upon when/if they get it.
I can sorta see any of them (hadn't considered disguise).
I think what I will do is up the DC a little beyond what I was thinking to maybe 17, but they can chose any of the 3 skills to use.
I am the GM for this, so the questions are from that point of view.
There will be an NPC that mostly uses a particular wand for killing opponents. I want this to still be within the fairly standard rules because it is quite likely that PC’s will eventually end up with the wand. I would like it to seem at least moderately effective and useful in the range of character level 5-8 or even a bit beyond.
For the above wand, I was considering making it approx. 3 charges each day rather than 50 charges. Does that seem reasonable? What about making it rechargeable like a staff? Would it be a significant value/cost increase?
Dialect. Let’s say the people in this extremely isolated area speak a dialect of Varisien. The PC’s are not from the area. A PC that speaks and understands Varisien can communicate with and understand the locals. Not a problem. But say he wants to sound like a local. Would that be a bluff or a linguistics check? How high would you set the DC?
His things related to real world stuff.
I actually don't see anything wrong with having bad guys occasionally use bad tactics. This guy massively underestimates the PC's, that guy is actually insane level egomaniac and refuses to consider the PC's a threat, he's just a stupider than usual example of the race, etc...
They did not really 'win' the powerful magic items. They just 'happened' to find the spear (from the first example) guarded by nothing and it was nearly mandatory to complete the first mission. The murdered uncle of the guy that hired them just happened to have a complete collection of every evocation spell in all the books that he just cave to the party's 3rd level evoker. By 5th level the cleric had a +4 equiv intelligent holy weapon dedicated to his god in the treasure chest of a mid level lieutenant. Things like that.
I do kinda like the concept of the scaling magic items, but this was before that book was out. I will probably look into adding that into my missions.
Some of the PC's had a significant motivation for the campaign. Genocidal hatred of the primary opponent type, wanted to get the fame/cash/contacts to start a powerful mercenary guild, become a world famous hero so could take over the council back home, etc... Yeah the 2 newer guys didn't have much other than 'become powerful' but that isn't uncommon for new players.
The stupid tactics is ok if used occasionally.
A lot of people seem to like the powerful magic items early.
This may come out sounding rather accusatory, but it really isn’t intended to be that way. I am just looking for information in an attempt to make a game that people like. I am likely to become a co-GM for a group. We will probably alternate with various missions, roughly analogous to a short module or couple of long scenarios. As is not uncommon for some gamers, the group is a mix of people. We have a couple that are fairly new to gaming (other than MMORPG’s), a couple more that are fairly introverted and will probably never actually say if they don’t like something, and at least 1 guy that is so easy going and adaptable I’m pretty sure he would enjoy almost any style of gaming. So although I have tried, I really don’t feel like I’ve gotten any constructive feedback from these folks.
Tie-ins to our world, legendary or RL:
He will have an army following say Rommel’s desert tactics from WW2, if you as a player happen to notice that you can set up an ambush for where you know a unit should be moving. Even though there is no way for the PC to have any of that info or even guess the unit will be there.
Say 5 years ago there was a movie/novel/greek saga that had some monster whose life was tied to an artifact spear. Toward the end of the movie the hero snaps the spear shaft and it weakened the monster enough for the hero to defeat it. If you happen to have seen the movie, recognize it from his description of the creature, and break the shaft it becomes an easy fight. If not, then it was nearly impossible. After the fight he told us how we could have easily beaten it. “How would we have figured that out? Well you were losing anyway, you could have just started trying different things. We were trying things, but breaking the only weapon that had so far managed to damage it would never have made the list. Well it would if you had seen the movie. We didn’t see the movie. Yep, that makes it harder…”
I will say this really kinda bugged me, but most of the group seemed to think it was just humorous.
I’m not certain, but I think he is trying to encourage creative tactics and ‘outside the box’ solutions instead of just direct combat. But it wasn’t doing that for me.
If I happen to know and recognize the RL thing he based this on, it is easy. If not, there is really no way to figure it out.
Powerful monster with bad tactics:
Elder Earth Elemental doesn’t use earth glide, just slowly stomps across the field absorbing spells and arrows. Almost dead by the time it is in melee.
Undead demon possessed dragon doesn’t use flying, mobility, spells, or breath fire. Just closes to melee and lets the party flank it.
Warrior bad guy challenges the whole party. Even with plenty of time and knowing he is fighting multiple opponents, doesn’t have his shaman buff him or even use any of his own buff potions.
I can see every once in a while someone will be insanely arrogant or totally misjudge the players. But most of them even when they are losing?
These are all experienced, at least moderately intelligent, successful bad guys using really stupid tactics. How did they become the BBEG if they are that stupid?
I think his reasoning here is to allow the party to feel more powerful because they’ve defeated an APL+6 monster. But it doesn’t do that for me. All I can think is “Yeah but we only beat it because it was suddenly and inexplicably idiotic.” It’s not like we tricked it into making a poor choice. There was never any intention of it behaving intelligently.
This didn’t really bother me, but it didn’t give me a positive feeling either. To me it wasn’t an APL+6 encounter since the creature wasn’t using all its capabilities/resources including smart tactics. This where some of the inexperienced players come in. I don’t think most of them realized what the monster should/could have been doing and how it would have torn us up if it had.
early powerful magic weapons:
Early in the game we were finding multiple weapons, most of which were not used against us. They were just found.
By 4th level the sorc had a +3 equivalent weapon. The rest had better. The caster build cleric was mostly using his weapon in combat because he the weapon was so powerful he was more successful as a martial than a caster. By 6th level or so most of the characters had the same weapon they would be using at campaign end of level 15.
I’ve never been a big fan of the ‘Monty Haul’ game since later there is nothing much to look forward to getting later. I know some people like this. But this seemed pretty extreme to me.
Would you as a player or GM like these in your games. If many of you say you would, I will try to include things like that in mine. If not, I probably won’t unless/until the players tell me otherwise.
I’ve got a weird kinda half way concept idea for some magic items worked out. I’d like some help refining them.
What I’m thinking is an amulet or brooch type of item. The PC’s will be given them by the guy that hires them for X job. It is to keep them from being magically tracked or detected by enemies of their employer. And it really will do that.
But it also has some unadvertised effects.
What do you think of the concept? Any ideas on how to implement and/or improve?
Couple of questions have come up recently. I said I would check with the folks on the boards.
3646) Barbarian has successfully grappled a guy in plate armor. They are now standing in the square right on the edge of the deep water pier. Barbarian wants to just fall over backwards into the water with the tank (assumes he would need to focus all efforts on not drowning). Group eventually ruled it was a reposition maneuver (which failed) but the play felt falling over backward should not require any kind of check or should at least be ridiculously easy. What would be the ‘correct’ way to handle this.
3647) A particular PC (warpriest actually) has 3 different swift action buffs. Can he:
I absolutely agree with what you said here.
The thing that started the thread was players who actually are in that niche situation (say your 2 melee sneak attackers that already intend to flank most of the time) and still refuse to even consider taking them.
I just don't understand that. All the other niche and low powered options that are built so often even though they are univercially recognized as weak options, but this whole classification of them are practically anathema.
See this I would disagree with even more than all the other stuff I've read here.
Everyone says taking 20 is taking 20 times as long to cover all the possible rolls you could have made. So the PC's are sneaking by sometime during that 20 rounds. Was it during the round when they would have rolled the 2 or the round when they would have rolled the 17.
Plus the number of people that can operate at the absolute peak of performance during long periods of nothing happening is vanishingly small.
... However, a guard on patrol is NOT taking 10. Their whole job is to spot people and thus they are rolling a perception check every round like clockwork. ...
Not disagreeing, but not sure where/how you get that. Almost everyone here seems to be saying that taking reasonable care at a task is 'taking 10' on that task.
... Also note that the dogs have scent and thus will auto detect the presence but not the location of any stealthed character in range, unless they took the effort to remove scent.
iirc, down wind on top of the wall/building.
Since it came up in another thread, I will ask for opinions here. This happened way in the past so it has no immediate effect, I'm just curious.
Hypothetical approximation of the situation as I vaguely remember it.
If you say there is no danger because no one is fighting yet, so the guards take 10 on their perception and the party takes 10 on climb and stealth checks.
If you say there is danger because they could be discovered and shot at, so the guards roll perception and the party rolls stealth every round on their infiltration. Some dog/guard is going to roll a 19 when someone in the party rolls a 2.
One seems too ridiculously easy the other seems too horrifically difficult. Yes, in real life teams of trained people can sneak past guards. It does happen. But it also isn't so stupidly easy that almost anyone can do it. How would you guys rule this?
I honestly don't remember. That may have been back before it was understood, but it may have just been they didn't feel like the could take 10 times as long to do everything.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Uhmm... not. I ageed with a few and favorited a couple others for a reminder to myself.
Actually, in most of them I did explain the alternate strategy.
In "small teams" they took weapon focus. One of the took it twice. Nearly every fight they were maneuvering to flank because they felt they had to to hit the tough opponents.
In "group sneaking" every character took 1 trait and at least 2 or 3 feats dedicated to raising their stealth score. Skill focus and stealthy. Some took another that I forget atm. They tried for 6 levels to make the concept work, then gave up. Every single time the sneak was blown due to a low roll, stealth synergy would have saved it. I don't think there was a single instance where trading out the +2 from one of the other feats would have been enough worse to cause a fail because of getting to take the high group roll.
In "mounted combat" they really had no alternate strategy. They complained a bunch about how spread out they were and how delaying for they guy with the lowest initiative caused the bad guys to out maneuver them all the time. Yes they had all the prereqs.
In "will saves" the alternate strategy was for everyone to take iron will and spend as much as possible on a headband of wisdom and their cloak of resistance. It was very rare in that large group to not be next to at least 2 other PC's/pets.
They were not special situations made up and tailored to make a teamwork feat look good. They were actual group concepts and nearly entire campaign situations.
I'm not sure since I haven't kept track, But I don't remember lots of times where people spread out very much to avoid AoE spells. There just usually isn't that much room and if you do spreasd out you invite getting individually surrounded, especially bad for the squishy casters/archers.
Most games I've seen try very hard to be flanking as much as possible. Skill focus perception is moderately common. Lookout works better.
I've never said anything even remotely close to "They are always great and everyone should take them!"
I was not looking for agreement, I was trying to find why. Most of what I've seen is 'I can't count on others working with me' or 'I'm so convinced they are bad, that I won't consider them.'
I think the party should be able to count on others working with them especially if they say they will and take it in their build so they can. I'm trying to think of ways to get past the 'won't consider' attitude.
Next time I GM I was already considering giving out traits or feats based on backstory and how they act in-character during the game. I might try giving out a few teamwork feats when it works out along those lines. That would give them a little exposure and demo when they will and won't work.
(I don't think it is anywhere near that rare that they are a good idea, but that is really irrelevant to my point.)
You last sentence is a reason that I could almost agree with. If I didn't constantly watch people spend huge amounts of time on convoluted schemes to make a really lousy feat workout at least halfway decent.
A few of the responses make a bit more sense than most of the others, but still don't hold out much hope that anyone will be willing to give them much of a chance.
Thanks folks. Catch you later.
Yes, all of them are indicative of actual play.
I agree not necessarily common situations but they were actual true to life examples that actually occurred.
Note: Again I am not saying they are always great. But sometimes they very clearly are very good. Certainly sometimes better than what is taken instead.
This makes the most sense of anything I've read so far. Seems kinda sad to me.
That druid, summoner, and both their pets all had weapon focus for one single type of natural attack. I think the eidolon took it twice. That's 5 feats for a +1 to each. They are 3/4 BaB attackers (except the summoner who is 1/2). They were worried about hitting since they did almost always maneuver for a flanking position.
If they hadn't taken weapon focus already, I can easily see the rational for something else is more important to me than a +2 to hit most of the time.
1) Agreed, but they were already taking melee combat feats.2) Yes, it is rare. The group was going to be an all super sneaky group.
3) But they wanted to be able to stay together to keep those casters out of isolation. Plus the mounts with reach would still be able to make their charge attacks.
4) That particular group has typically 5-7 players present and usually at least 1 of them has a pet of some sort. They are usually near at least 2 and sometimes up to 4 or 5 allies.
Absolutely agree. Never said it would always be a good choice. The game would be very boring if the same thing was always the best choice.
But even when they clearly are the best choice, most people won't consider them.
I already agreed it wouldn't be a good idea for PFS.
Several of them don't require the PC's to have the same role. Some of them even, by design, work best for PC's that have different roles.
All 4 of my examples, the group was already planning on doing and eventually did in fact do everything required to make the teamwork feat work. They were already functioning as a unit, flanking, riding in close formation, etc...
It was mathematically and demonstrably (in actual play) better than what they did take.
They would have been much more optimized if they had taken the teamwork feats. Not useless and not unoptimized.
Ok, I can see why in PFS they would be unpopular. Unless you have a very small pool of players, you won’t know who you are going to be with at the table so they probably won’t have the matching abilities.
But as far as I can tell, most home groups never use them (unless free from the class abilities). Even when they are pretty obviously mathematically superior, people don’t use them. I’ve demonstrated it with the opposition forces (when I was GM) and with a short term demo with a 1 shot. Every single player and GM was amazed at how great they worked. But still no one was willing to take them next time they were making characters. Even ‘optimizers’ making teams to work together will only rarely consider using them.
example 1, designed to be a small team anyway:
Small group had 2 players making pet builds. A summoner and a druid. Both actively planned to provide flanking for their melee pets as much as possible. Plus there would be 2 pets usually in melee. One of which was intelligent and could work toward flanking with the other. The summoner was also working toward a reach eidolon (for attacks of opportunity) and was himself using a long spear.
Flanking and weapon focus claws (and PC weapon) gives a +3 to the claw attacks (and the PC’s weapon attacks). The bite and gore attacks are only at +2.
Flanking and outflank gives a +4 to the claws, weapon, bite, and gore attacks and an extra AoO when a critical is scored.
Besides you could still take weapon focus and they stack just fine.
Four melee creatures with outflank should be able to provide flanking most of the time. Yet neither player was willing to seriously consider taking outflank.
example 2, group sneaking:
Players all said they really wanted to make a sneaky group kinda like a magical special forces unit. Complained the system doesn’t allow it. They made builds with a whole bunch of feats and traits devoted to max stealth. With the 5 players, familiar, and animal companion someone would be rolling low and blowing the sneak most of the time. I showed them how replacing one of the feats with Stealth Synergy makes it work just fine. With 7 creatures rolling and always taking the highest die rolled, you will almost never blow the stealth. I both worked out the probability and used computer generated example rolls for 1000 times. Then we even all rolled dice at the table about 10 times. I don’t remember the percentage off the top of my head any more, but it is pretty dang rare to get 7 rolls to all be around 4-5 or less and the average was like +8 (much better than the stealth feat they were replacing).
They talked about how many possibilities this opened up and how much better the sneaky force would be. First session, other than me, they all brought characters without Stealth Synergy.
example 3, mounted combat:
Next campaign was going to be the PC’s were from a nomad tribe of Halfling dinosaur riders (Eberron & PF). They weren’t sure if mounted combat could be made to work with the way initiative rolls unless everyone delayed to whoever rolled the lowest. One of the last encounters of my campaign I made an opposing party of mounted characters with a few mounted teamwork feats. Most of the opposing party was lower level and much lower gear than the PC’s. But they very quickly almost killed several of the PC’s. They saw how easy it was to get lots of very successful charges with cavalry formation and coordinated charge.
None of them took a teamwork feat except for the hunters free one.
example 4, will saves galore:
We were in a campaign where we were constantly rolling moderately high AoE DC will saves from surprise ambushes. We didn’t expect it from the campaign description for our initial builds. So most just had the standard ‘decent’ will save. About halfway through every single PC took the feat iron will for a +2 on will saves. If they had instead took shake it off they would have almost always had a +3 to all saves. But no one did.
I just don’t get it. Even when a teamwork feat is numerically better and perfectly fits the build concept and/or does a better job of solving the problem in front of them, most people seem unwilling to even try them. The only answer I’ve been able to get is “They don’t work all the time. What if you are not right next to your team mates?” But you usually are next to your team mates and almost no feat works all the time.
Is there something I’m missing? If you are one of the people that won’t take them even when they work great for what you want to do, can you tell me why?
DM DoctorEvil wrote:
Gronk's reactions to people:
Within the party, he should be fine once they have proven themselves capable and trustworthy. He will probably be a bit suspicious until then. Could potentially have problems with a Chelaxian and/or devil worshiper.
To strangers, he would initially be unfriendly and suspicious. If they act like the arrogant, cheating, devil worshiping Chelaxian’s – probably more hostile.
He’s going to be wary of any casters. Magic stuff is the province of the tribe shaman’s not the warrior’s.
Gronk is a very primitive tribesman trying to get away from the Chelaxians and back to the jungle he knows.
Gronk boarded the Jenivere in Corentyn and is on his way home. He doesn't know if he will fit in with his tribe any better than he did before, but it has to be better than those decieving devil worshipers in Cheliax.
He felt stifled in the tribe traditions so took a job as a guard for rich human whose city guards died in the jungle. The rich man tried to claim he had paper that Gronk has written promising to serve him for years. But that was obviously a lie. Gronk doesn't know how to write and would never pretend to do so. Gronk may not read books, but he isn't stupid.
Gronk doesn't think the man will try to chase him since he was so frightened of the jungle. But If he wants to try to force Gronk in the jungle he knows, the man is welcome to try.
Gronk was however, impressed with the markets. He spent the day before leaving in the market buying anything that seemed like it might be helpful back home. Or at least those things he could understand. Much was confusing and strange. He did leave those alone. That would be for a shamman to decide.
Male half-orc (feral) barbarian (true primitive) 1 (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat 30)
CG Medium humanoid (human, orc)
Init +1; Senses low-light vision; Perception +6
AC 16, touch 11, flat-footed 15 (+4 armor, +1 Dex, +1 shield)
hp 14 (1d12+2)
Fort +4, Ref +1, Will +2; +1 trait bonus vs. traps and natural hazards while in ruins
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee greatclub +5 (1d10+6) or
. . shortspear +5 (1d6+4) or
. . spiked gauntlet +5 (1d4+4) or
. . bite +0 (1d4+2)
Ranged sling +2 (1d4+4)
Special Attacks rage (7 rounds/day)
Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Base Atk +1; CMB +5; CMD 16
Feats Power Attack
Traits boarded in the mwangi expanse, spirits in the stone (human - mwangi), suspicious
Skills Acrobatics -4 (-8 to jump), Climb +1, Intimidate +1, Knowledge (nature) +4, Perception +6, Sense Motive +7, Survival +6 (+8 to avoid becoming lost when using this); Racial Modifiers +2 Climb, +2 Intimidate
Languages Common, Orc, Polyglot
SQ favored terrain (jungle +2), illiteracy, orc blood, paranoid
Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds, oil (2), paper candle firework (4); Other Gear hide armor, bone heavy wooden shield, greatclub, shortspear, sling, spiked gauntlet, backpack, bear trap, bedroll, belt pouch, candle (2), chalk (2), cleats, compass, crowbar, drill, earplugs, fishhook (2), flint and steel, grappling hook, hammer, hemp rope (50 ft.), hip flask, iron spike (4), marbles, piton (4), poncho, portable ram, saw, sewing needle, shovel, signal whistle, silk rope (50 ft.), sledge, snorkel, soap, spear-thrower, string or twine (2), sunrod (2), swim fins, tindertwig (2), torch (4), trail rations (4), waterproof bag, waterskin, whetstone, wooden holy symbol of Gorum, 1 gp, 2 sp
Paper candle firework - 0/4
Potion of cure light wounds - 0/1
Rage (7 rounds/day) (Ex) - 0/7
Shortspear - 0/1
Sunrod - 0/2
Tindertwig - 0/2
Torch - 0/4
Trail rations - 0/4
Boarded In the Mwangi Expanse +1 Knowledge (Nature) regarding the Mwangi Jungle.
Cleats -50% walking penalty for slick surfaces.
Compass +2 circumstance for Survival or Knowledge (Dungeoneering) to avoid becoming lost.
Earplugs +2 save vs. hearing effects, -5 hearing-based Perception.
Favored Terrain (Jungle +2) (Ex) +2 to rolls when in Favored Terrain (Jungle).
Illiteracy May never learn to read or write any language.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Orc Blood Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.
Paranoid Aid Another DC 15 for attempts to help you.
Portable ram +2 to STR checks to break open a door, and allows a second helper (+2).
Power Attack -1/+2 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Rage (7 rounds/day) (Ex) +4 Str, +4 Con, +2 to Will saves, -2 to AC when enraged.
Spirits in the Stone (Human - Mwangi) In ruins, +2 Init, +1 save vs. traps
Let me know what you think.
I am considering a primarily buff caster.
Especially since the rest of the group will be a martial or at least hybrid build that will already be doing damage to the bad guys. So I have a couple of questions about how to do this even better.
I do not have a build yet. I need a little more information before I decide on a class/build.
1) Is there a way to get ‘personal’ spells on other PC’s? For example: I really love Mirror Image and would love to be able to cast it on the cavalier.
2) Is there a way to make a single target spell into a multi-target spell. For example: It would be great if I could cast displacement on the whole party at once, rather than 5 rounds to get it on everyone.
3) If I've cast a buff spell on someone then I get knocked unconscious or killed, do the buffs go away? I didn't think so, but someone said that it worked that way.
4) Can I cast Magic Vestment (assume level 8 for a +2) on both my shield and on my armor to get a +4 to my armor class?
I once used a whole army of goblins scattered through the forest with light crossbows and poisoned bolts. It was the weakest cheapest poison in the book.However, running around among all the others, there was one arcane trickster goblin with a true strike wand. His crossbow bolts had the most powerful poison in the book.
=) Writing with more clarity and precision...
I did not realize that it was only the held charge of a touch spell that dissipated when another spell was cast.
For some reason I got it in my head that it was any spell that had not yet taken effect. So since the True Strike had not yet taken effect (you haven't gotten a +20 on a to hit roll) it would dissipate when you cast the next spell. (Mage armor would have already taken effect so would not be affected by the overland flight.)
I am glad to find I was wrong.
A friend is wanting to use true strike to make sure the really important spells with an attack roll actually hit.
However, I thought if you cast a spell you lose the one you were getting ready. So if:
Are we remembering wrong?
I think they would all be taking something that would give them a mount that advances.
I can always have things mostly occur in the out of doors.
They like their feats, I don't know that they will still want to try it when they find out how feat intensive it is.
They didn't mention aerial mounts yet, I'm just guessing they will.
I have not tried to do much with mounted characters before, but some of my players want to give it a go.
So what do I have to watch out for with mounted combat?
What if they ask for aerial mounts, how much harder is that?
In this particular case, it won’t matter because the cavalier will be giving the teamwork feat to the entire opposition group.
But for the future if I have some mounted guys that are trying to use the teamwork feats for coordinating movements like cavalry formation and coordinated charge, does the mount, the rider, or both need the feat?