|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I believe one of the reasons stated as to why they don't do this is due to the limitations of the page count and the six-month release schedule. Essentially, the information required just for the high level stat blocks takes up so much space that they wouldn't have enough room left over for the adventure, considering all of the other stuff that is included in one book (page count limitation). They would have to have a seventh installment in the series, which obviously messes with the 6-installment cycle (release schedule limitation).
But you did say "experimental", so perhaps they could try making the AP without including the stat blocks, and provide the stat blocks as a separate free "GM AP guide" download—if you're willing to alienate the small minority of gamers who don't have access to the Internet and/or a printer.
Matthew Downie wrote:
So, would you say that if you are making a Reflex save, that you are in a Zone of Danger? Or, more concisely, that you are in the DANGER ZONE!
You know nothing...
Fortunately, I don't frequent those sites. Though, I'll probably have to avoid Facebook, YouTube, TV, and people.
Because knowledge checks are trained, if you don't have any ranks in it, if the DC is greater than 10, you can't make the check in the first place.
A crafty GM would still allow a character to take 10 in order to not give away the DC, but it would be an auto fail.
Fortunately, I've already done my part and own both APs. Have you done your part? ;-)
The beauty of this discussion is a) that Paizo hedged their answer to this question a few years ago in such a way that there is a possibility that they would do another hardcover (however improbable that possibility may be), and b) if we fans raise up enough stink, Paizo will put out another AP hardcover.
So, really, the tone of this discussion needs to steer away from fantasy to reality.
Crimson Throne is the most logical choice (almost universally praised, 3.5, many volumes out of print).
Second Darkness is a good choice as well, though I think less as likely due to there being more available stock.
I don't know much about Legacy of Fire.
While there would be some good PFRPG AP candidates, they likely wouldn't even think about those until the 3.5 ones have been updated.
My 2 CP.
barry lyndon wrote:
Yes, because the constrict special ability states that a creature does constrict damage on a successful grapple check.
Well there is the catch, because when you are making an attack, flanking IS the bonus. You only get to add the sneak attack damage when you are making an attack, so all of this argument about "qualifying for flanking when not attacking" is a bit of a straw man argument—not "whether or not your target is flanked by two other allies", not "you're in a position to flank, but are not attacking", and certainly not "you're adjacent to an ally who is being flanked by enemies". No, it's "are YOU flanking your target when YOU attack".
So, when you are attacking, and you are flanking someone, you get a +2 to your attack. If something prevents you from getting a +2 to your attack (either an ally is not positioned properly, your ally is not threatening your target, and/or you are not making a melee attack), then YOU ARE NOT FLANKING YOUR TARGET. If you are a rogue and you are not flanking, you do not get to add your sneak attack damage.
EDIT: stupid iPad spacing issues.
When you make an attack, do you receive the benefits of flanking (of which, a rogue's sneak attack is certainly a benefit of flanking. As is the +2 to your attack)?
First, are you attacking with a melee weapon?
If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you do not receive the benefits of flanking.
* There are feats and/or class abilities which might alter the square you or your ally can be in to satisfy this requirement.
Certainly, there may be exceptions, but I can garuntee with absolute certainty that every "scenario" that has been mentioned so far in this thread can be properly adjudicated by applying these three questions.
Darn, Darn, Darnity, Darn! This is a great idea, and I wish I had been paying closer attention to "sin" from the beginning.
Unfortunately, our group only gets together to play maybe twice a year, so it's a bit difficult to go back and remember stuff like that. :-(
Nah. All you have to do is stay hidden for a little while longer until the eye icon is closed, then you're good.
I've been flip-flopping in my mind and have thought about a few scenarios. I've come to rest on the "you can't change the action" side. Though, in the example of being tripped before moving, I would allow the character to crawl 5 feet. In this case, I don't look at crawling as a separate move action from moving, rather its costing you your entire movement rate to crawl those 5 feet.
I meant that the chart needs to go up to +7 size, to cover colossal creature with INA and strong jaw.
Don't need to, it's already there in the INA list.
EDIT: But it wouldn't be too difficult to put in a +7 column.
EDIT2: Ask, and ye shall receive!
EDIT3: You mentioned in an earlier post an example about a Terrasque with the young template getting enlarged. Using the chart, you know that the young template means that it is one size smaller than the base size, so go down the -1 column until you get to 1d8, and then you know that it should be 1d10 when enlarged.
This is the only viable way a gauntlet can be used as an improvised weapon. Merely saying that you're using it in an improvised manner while you're wearing it doesn't cut it.
Or perhaps your applying a rule that shouldn't be applied in this instance.
It's not that you disagree, it's the manner in how you disagree and the tone that you use that is a problem.
3. Because that's the only way you'd be able to get half of 5 light bulbs. Again.
And the analogous question is "give me fewer than half light bulbs" in which case I would hand you 2. Again.
In this case, we don't need to do interger math because we don't need a concrete result to use in further calculations. We just need comparative numbers. Nothing says that we MUST use interger math in this instance.
James Jacobs wrote:
My parents had that, although they never played it. Theirs was a later printing that didn't have dice and came with "In Search of the Unknown". I can remember as a kid sitting on the floor for hours just examining the map for that module. When I got around to playing, I was probably around 12 and used that map in our first game.
So, when are you going to start working on that megadungeon AP?
Just a Mort wrote:
Perhaps I've misread something, but I'm not seeing what would deny a character's DEX bonus by having a shadow be in a wall. Incorporeal /= invisible.
Because the rules say that ranged touch attacks can't be held:
Combat: Cast a Spell wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
EDIT: Bolded the relevant part to make it easier to see.
No, the phrasing implies that the usually is likely limited to command word. If it's not command word, it's continuous. In the rare event that another activation method is relevant, that method will be specified.
Um, yeah, pretty much this. Do we need to bring in the English teacher to do a sentence diagram?
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Well, considering you're placing emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence, I can understand why you're thinking the way you do.
"Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
You do realize that that the ring of invisibility has always abided by the limitations of the spell invisibility ever since AD&D, don't you?
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeon Masters Guide (1979; reprint 2012): Ring of Invisibility, page 130 wrote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible, at will, instantly. This non-visible state is exactly the same as the magic-user invisibility spell (q.v.), except that 10% of these rings also have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he or she breaks all silence features in order to do so.
The difference is that the 1e AD&D invisibility spell didn't have a timed duration:
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Players Handbook (1978; reprint 2012): Invisibility, Page 70 wrote:
The spell remains in effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, or the magic-user or the other recipient cancels it or until he, she, or it attacks any creature.
The spell lasted indefinitely until one of those conditions ended the spell. Therefore, the effect the ring provided lasted indefinately until one of those conditions ended the spell.
My 2nd edition AD&D books are packed away, but I have a hunch that things were very similar to 1st edition.
My 3rd edition books are also packed away, but according to the the 3rd edition SRD (not 3.5, 3rd edition)—located at www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html, the invisibility spell had a duration of 10 minutes/level. The language for the description of the ring states: "By activating this ring, the wearer can become invisible, as the spell".
The duration of the spell in 3.5 was changed to 1 minute/level.
So, the ring has always been adjudicated as per the spell. It's just that in the beginning, the spell didn't have a duration. The spell, and thus the ring, has had a time limited duration for 14 years now. That you don't like it doesn't change the facts.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I agree with you completely.
Mark Seifter wrote:
HEY! This isn't the ASK *BARKER* ALL YOUR QUESTIONS HERE! thread. Oh...wait...this isn't the ASK *BARKER* ALL YOUR QUESTIONS HERE! thread?
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Point of order: when you receive negative levels, you don't actually lose any levels. Nor do you lose any access to class features that are predicated upon that level. Feats that have a class level as a prerequisite are not lost and are still accessible because the prerequisite is still met.
According to the documentary that I watched in which this woman was interviewed, this isn't correct either.