|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Didn't there use to be a rule that you could cast a spell directly from a spellbook but it erased the page like casting it from a scroll? Or was that just a houserule my group used back in AD&D?
Unearthed Arcana, I believe. I think there might have been something about a percentile chance to wipe every page clean if casting this way.
The rules already tell us that rays function like ranged weapon attacks. Ranged weapon attacks suffer in-melee penalties. Rays, therefore, suffer in-melee penalties. You can use the Precise Shot and Point Blank Shot feats for rays.
Acid Splash functions like rays, smells like rays, feels like rays, and tastes like rays. Why wouldn't the rules that apply to rays not apply to Acid Splash? If there are no rules that specifically state that Acid Splash doesn't work that way, there is no reason to assume that it doesn't.
Rays are specifically called out as being used as a ranged weapon in the Magic chapter, so those types of spells do get the penalty as well as gain benefit of the feat.
Acid Splash isn't a ray, but rather a missile. Regardless of that, mechanically the spell operates in exactly the same way that any ray spell does: you have to succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. Acid splash is affected by the same limitations that ray spells are: you can fire into the darkness or at an invisible creature in the hopes that you hit something, you don't have to see the creature that you're trying to hit, intervening objects or creatures can block line of sight or provide cover.
Although it is not specifically mentioned that ray spells get penalized for allies in melee combat, we know that they do because the rules say that they work just like ranged weapons.
Regarding Acid Splash (and other spells like it), if it works like a ray in every way, and there isn't a rule to call it out as an exception, why wouldn't it be penalized for an ally in combat or gain the benefit of Precise Shot? We all know that the authors can't provide every little minute detail or example in the rules because otherwise the size of the book would swell to an even more unreasonable size. This example falls into that category.
It's assumed that you are only using one hand to wield a lance while mounted as you can also utilize a shield in this situation.
Assuming STR 20, mounted, and no other feats or modifiers, your damage would be:Normal: 1d8+7
Normal Critical: 3d8+21
Charging Critical: 4d8+28
It's been a while since I've been perusing the website, and decided to take a look at the FAQ and see what updates have occurred since I last visited. I do know that those entries that are less than a month old have a red hot-link. The problem I am having is that there are numerous updates that are new to me, but are older than a month, so looking at the hot-links doesn't clue me in to which ones are new.
Would it be possible to add the date of inclusion at the end of the hot-link title in addition to dating the entry? That way, I can scan the list of hot-links for dates that I might have missed rather than scrolling through the entire page.
James Jacobs wrote:
Regarding Aroden, one question I haven't seen asked yet is why no plans to answer why/how he died?
The question I would ask is if you were in a city, could you change the appearance of your clothes to blend in with the crowd? I would think that most people would agree that that would be a reasonable thing to do. I do not think it is outside the realm of reason to be able to change the appearance of your clothes to help you blend in with your surrounding terrain. I would think a +2 to stealth would be appropriate. YMMV.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Instead of a percentage chance to find the lair, I suggest something a little more modern by instead listing a skill and a DC to find the lair. Perhaps different or multiple skills can apply. I don't think allowing perception to find everything is the best solution, unless they want to spend a long time looking everywhere. You know in the first hobbit film where they know the troll lair must be close? They knew the trolls would not venture far from it. A Knowledge monster check maybe? For another monster, they might know it likes to make its lair near a water source or at a higher elevation. Knowledge geography or history might reveal other info, but all dependent upon the specific creature.
A very reasonable suggestion.
May I direct you to this blog post to provide more context as to my end goal.
Thanks for the responses. I probably should have clarified that my intent for these tables is for a sandbox hexcrawl, so the randomness is part of it. Each entry would have a % chance to detects its tracks as well as a % chance to find its lair, if applicable. So an encounter won't always result in combat.
It's too bad Paizo doesn't include the frequency with creature entries to help weight the tables.
Casual Viking wrote:
This is not correct. Being combat trained removes the docile special quality. Being combat trained does not make hooves primary attacks.
Hooves are secondary attacks. A horse would use its hooves as primary attacks if it were not for the docile quality, because its hooves is the only type of attack that it has.
The heavy horse's hooves are always secondary attacks, because it has two types of attacks, regardless if it is combat trained or not.
How do you all go about populating your random encounter tables? Do you tend to flip through the Bestiary and find those monsters you think are cool? Do you look for those that fit a specific theme? If you have multiple areas of similar terrain, do you make different tables for each area, or do you make one list to cover them all?
Yes, I've been going back through 1e and 2e stuff. I never actually played 1e, and was fairly young playing 2e, and after reading through it, I realized that I didn't play it correctly—not that there is actually a right or wrong way to play, we just didn't bother reading the books. Now that I've gone back and actually read through them, it is much more clear now, and I realize how good those rules systems actually were, even with some of the more aggravating nuances.
I was going to use 5e with my new campaign, but I think I've finally settled on using 1e as the vehicle to tell my story.
I mean, you keep on keepin' on with your house rule. It's not my place to tell you how you should run your home games.
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks for the insight!
James Jacobs wrote:
Did you keep the racial class restrictions (dwarves can't be magic users, etc.)?
Did you give humans anything extra to make them more attractive to play?
So you admit that the developers likely side with his position, and yet you still argue that he is wrong. That makes absolutely no sense. I honestly think that at this point you're arguing purely for the sake of arguing.
Matthew Downie wrote:
That's why you don't roll for initiative until the combat starts.
I mean, really, this whole thread is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
If the pirate captain is roaring and lowering his pistol to attack, the non-combat solution has already failed.
This problem stems from GMs allowing the player(s) to "ready" an action as a way to cheat the initiative rules. Just because a player declared that their archer was readying his bow to shoot the goblin if it draws a sword/takes a step/picks it's nose/whatever, doesn't mean that that player can automatically shoot the goblin before it completes its desired task. That is literally what the initiative roll determines: who gets to go first?
Well, as you can tell, I didn't do the posting for this last session. Elsbeth's player is holding on to the journal because we have all decided to give Fantasy Grounds a go. Meeting only once or twice per year does not cut it and hopefully FG will help.
It was a fun session. We played for about 10 hours and spent pretty much the entire first half doing nothing but RPing. That was a nice change of pace. The four battles we did get in were a lot of fun too. The party is definitely optimized for giant opponents (two dwarves, with one being a ranger with giants as a favored enemy), but it's still fun for me to see them lay waste. It's kind of funny because now the base ogre is considered a mook.
Having Lucretia in with Barl certainly gave that fight the needed difficulty level. If she wasn't there, the group would have walked through it with no problem. As it was, it was a fun dynamic fight. And, for the first time ever in my umpteen years of playing RPGs, I finally got to cast fireball in combat—did respectable on the damage, too.
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.
I just received an email notification for my pending shipment. In it, I noticed that you planned on shipping me Pathfinder Unchained. Pathfinder Unchained was already sent to me in a previous shipment a number of months ago, and while I greatly enjoy the book, I have no need for a second copy. Please ensure that this book is not included.
Reading the errata, I don't see where it says that an unarmed strike no longer counts as a melee weapon attack, rather it says that instead of using a weapon for a melee weapon attack, you use an unarmed strike [for a melee weapon attack].
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!
Having actually run the numbers for a similar discussion, a Kasatha using two greatswords is inferior to one using one longsword and three shortswords, and no one bats an eye at the thought of the second configuration. Greatsword away. The best combination would be to use four sawtooth sabres.
EDIT: Link to my post.
I guess I ran 2 greatswords vs 1 greatsword/2 shortswords. Regardless, the point still stands that running 2 greatswords is inferior.
James Jacobs wrote:
Since we're all just having fun here, what was the Crimson Throne one?