As a GM, I have the rule that player names are disallowed at the table, and enforce it (although less strictly in some games). In my experience it help keep the character perspective in the game.
Regarding names I've never set clear rules. Personally though, I favor names that are A) somewhat realistic medival names (thus not too fantasy-themed) and B) are easily pronuncable (I've seen too many characters whose names are forgotten because they are long and bothersome).
I've been looking at something similar (although a synthesist to get as many unarmed attacks as possible).
There is a problem though, concerning the synergy between AoMF and conductive. While I don't think there has been any official comment, there seem to be a lot that favors the ruling that the amulet counts as a single weapon in regards to weapon special abilities.
In that interpretation you only get to deliver the negative level(s) once.
False focus can create free undeads up to 4 HD.While they are going to be weak, it can actually work quite well. Low HD Burning Skeletons are awesome. Each round adjacent enemies take 1d6 fire damage, and attacking them unarmed or with natural attacks deal 1d6 fire damage as well. No save for half. Racking up 10 of these can make a significant impact on an encounter. They cannot simply be ignored due to the ongoing damage from their aura, and every attack on them is one less on the PCs.
For a strong undead minion, you need a creature with as high as possible str and some natural attacks. Making it into a bloody skeletons make it a one time expense.
Why can a lvl 11 necromancer only create 2HD undead? In an aura of desecrate the necromancer is able to animate a 44 HD creature. Granted, you need at creature with that many racial hit dice, but even a 22 HD like a Bloody Ancient Black Dragon Skeleton is going to be pretty awesome at lvl 11, for the meager sum of 1100 gp.
All being said has anyone else felt the same way as an alchemist or feels there is a need to either change the required level or have an addition to the rules for Haste and other spells like it or are things fine the way they are?
I think it is fine the way it is. Fast Bombs makes the alchemist an excredibly efficient blaster. I think it becomes too strong to allow multiple bombs earlier. If you lower the requirement, you'd get extra bombs earlier through rapid shot (+ haste at lvl 7, or earlier cast by others).
And this is the part, where I find your look on shield rules to be a bit selective.Light and heavy shield is armor types that can be used as weapons. Claiming that they are only weapons, disregards what they are beside a weapon.
EDIT: To add an example based on your interpretation that gets absurd: Spiked Armor. Just like a light shield it figures in the weapons table. So would you allow a spiked full plate to be quick drawn and wielded as a light weapon?
If you want it low magic, I'd suggest banning full casters (and maybe the summoner).
Suddenly you don't have characters that only can do magic. The Bard and Magus become the spellslingers of the game, and the paladin and inquisitor get to become the primary healers in the world (although healing is significantly become scarce).
Additionally I'd suggest you remove all those spells that remove survival issues from the game.
Fake Healer wrote:
The existance of the quickdraw shield pretty much disproves this. They would probably not include an shield that specifically can be drawn as a free action with Quick Draw if that was the case for every shield.
A shield is a type of armor that also work like a weapon. Both the rules for armor (specifically shields) and for weapons need to be taken into account.While weapons can be drawn as a free action with quickdraw, a shield need to donned with is unaffected by quickdraw (apart from the quickdraw shield).
If we simply apply the weapons rules, we disregard the rules concerning armor.
Isn't it listed as a shield as well?
By the description it count as a spiked light shield. Shield normally can't be quickdrawn, eventhough they are listed in the weapons table due to bashing.
Personally, I would allow a quickdraw klar by paying the extra 50 gp, to make it similar to a quickdraw light shield.
I don't know of any official word on this.
However, there seem to be a consensus that you are allowed to prepare (or spontaneously cast) spell with metamagics applied, eventhough they only work if you change the descriptor when it is cast.
So a wizard could prepare a Rime Fireball. If he changes it to a cold spell when it is cast, the Rime metamagic takes effect. If he cast it without changing the descriptor, the spell just works as a normal fireball, using a higher spell slot.
It is the same for a sorcerer, although casting spontaneously removes the risk of applying a metamagic that you might not be able to use.
Hi, the book claims riding dog, the prd (which admittedly does contain any updates and errata) claims dog, are you free to pick or is it specifically dog?
It was changed (in the 5 printing as I recall) but didn't get mentioned in the official errata.
You should go with the regular dog, the riding dog is too strong for the SM1 choices, and almost similar to the 2-lvl hyena.
Does it matter?I can't see why anyone would take it for a familiar. The familiar gains +2 int, +2 NA, and some kind of lesser special ability.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
If a character readied an action to catch a bomb with a bag of holding/haver sack, how would you as players/GM's handle it?
First of all, this does not belong in the rules section, as the rules does not provide an possiblity of stopping a ranged attack with a readied action.
To answer your question, my initial response is to make it a reflex save (using the bomb DC) to catch it in the bag.
If it becomes a standard strategy rather than a one-time fun experiment, I would revise the above.
The Boz wrote:
Well, the logic is sound enough: With the freedom to choose, you don't choose a mechanical optimal race instead of your choice based on flavor.
As said before, I don't agree with it, but there is a logic behind.
I wouldn't like free-for-all races. When I make a character it is a balance between flavor and mechanical-not-suckiness. I often make character without a racial bonus in the primary ability score. Often that end up in unexpected strengths and weaknesses that give value to the character concept.
This change would sway the focus toward more min-maxing of the mechanics in an unneccesary way.
Yeah, Skinsend is a pretty awful spell. Used offensively as an Alchemist (and I think only they can do it) via Touch Injection is pretty sweet. But I still just...refuse to pay the feat/discovery tax on Infusion for the ability to do what any other caster can. So my alchemist will have to pass on that trick.
I bolded two parts, I find a bit inconsistent. As you state yourself, alchemists are able to pull of tricks that noone else can.Apart from the offensive combo above, they get to grant some rather sweet personal buff spells to their allies.
1) Doesn't apply. The spell specifies the amount of HP you got.2) Apply. Downside of being a construct.
3) Doesn't apply, IMO. The spell makes it clear that you cannot be healed above the hp you got (skinwise) when the spell was cast. This suggest that you can actually be healed.
It seem like a fair ruling.
I would add:
Freezing Spell is a 3rd party feat that predates the Rime Spell feat. Since they are similar in their effect, I would consider only allowing one of them.
@Magic Missile. It doesn't work. You cannot use Freezing Spell with it, since it doesn't grant a saving throw.
In other circumstances, freezing spell should allow Rime Spell, since it give the spell the cold-descriptor.
I like the idea a lot. Great flavor, and history behind it, that I would like to include in a story sometime.
Mechanically however, I don't really like it. You've basically introduced the two-handed falcata with trip and perfomance.
Scythes are great for their high crit modifier, not range. IMO, you should build upon that instead.
The +2 to coup de grace save is a bit insignificant, so would suggest a bonus to massive damage DC instead, supporting the whole deadly critical / decapacitation portion.
Our point is simply that AC 19 isn't extraordinary at lvl 1. A sword and board fighter is likely to have it, and is going to increase several point over the next two levels.
Abadar suggest useful ideas to challenge him. Otherwise, I'd say, let the tank have his fun. Martials tend to shine in lower levels, and that isn't a bad thing. As stated earlier it doesn't seem like a character that is going to dominate the game in the longer run.
The reason I mention Spring Attack, is that it allow you to move before and after the attack.
Normally you don't get to do that. And nothing in the rules suggest that you get to take an action before the falling rules sets in.
It is not comparable to jumping on to a concealed pit, as the problem isn't the jumping and falling down part, but the attempt to take an action in-between.
I agree that it doesn't seem like a great deal.
While a lot of 1-st level monsters has difficulty hitting AC 19, remember to increase their chances through charging and flanking.
Based on what you've said, the character doesn't seem like one that is going to break the system. If his wisdom is low, his offensive spellcasting is going to be weak. With a low cha he is not going to channel that much.
I am not so sure.You make a move action, ending it mid-air. Being in the air, without flying, results in you falling down. Thus you be at the ground when you get to take your standard action.
This move is one of the situations, where spring attack is a great feat to have.
It could also be done with ride-by-attack and a jumping mount.
I think this is fairly easy to accomplish using the vehicle rules. It makes a bicycle difficult to use in combat, as you need your actions to be control it. Although you can continue onwards as a move action, and use a standard action for something else, you'll need precision.
These two-wheeled vehicles are often used for racing or as the platform for a single archer racing though the battlefield at high speeds.
Higher damage dice + full str bonus as a monk, rather than claw attacks at -7 with only half str to damage. Seems like a great trade-off to me.
After digging around, I found out that this is incorrect.
From the magic chapter on duration:
... If a spell's duration is variable, the duration is rolled secretly so the caster doesn't know how long the spell will last.
So unless anything specifies that the caster know the duration, he does not.For the sake of many abilities, we might roll it openly, so the GM doesn't have to keep track. But for a spell like time stop, it has a great significance, so it should stay secret.
Can Masterwork Transformation be used on a single piece of ammunition, like a Durable Arrow?
Yes, I believe so.
While the spell states that you can enhance 50 arrows as one weapon, I'd expect a single arrow counts as a weapon for the spell.
Remember the 100 gp limit on False Focus. So MW transformation can only be used on tools with false focus.
Apart from this, this thread pretty much sums up some great options.
If somehow he could get communal stoneskin as a witch that is a golden choice.
I've got a hard time envisioning that as a character choice rather than a player choice.
Class, BAB, and ability scores are all game-mechanical terms, rather than in character considerations.
Well, the abilities of a specific character isn't really a consumer choice. The player might have considerations of whether a choice is optimal or not, the character don't.
Applying such a universal truth about game mechanics into a game world, is even more absurd than applying it to cars. While we actually could set up objective parameters for cars (safety, speed, comfort, fuel consumption, price, and more), people buy different cars, eventhough some of them are bound to be suboptimal.
Doesn't the point then become: A lich played cleverly, can always hide his phylactery in a impossible to find/get to location?
It is correct, if the GM choose to do it that way. But it might not make for a very good game.
I don't think it is going to be that much of a problem.
Consider that a lvl 20 wizard lich probably has 130 hp, he is not going to survive that many attacks. Any respectable lvl 20 ranged character is going to off him in a full attack.
As others stated, with minimal preparation they can circumvent a lot of the lich's tricks, like protection from evil and high fire resistance.
You can always hide the phylactery in an impossible to find location, if you want to be that gm. But casters isn't going to find it either, provided the lich has done a minimum to protect it from scrying.
I think there is two seperate issues here. Loot balance, and dead/new characters.
1) On the subject of loot gain/loss from dead creatures, I prefer the inheritance/loss of equipment solution, as several has proposed. Alternatively (especially when there isn't any real concieveable way the party would give up the loot), making new characters start without anything other than basic loot and have the party equip them. It requires a rather altruistic party (or players who can disregard it for the benefit of the group).
2) In my current group, we substitute death with 'death/near death/permanent wounds'. As simple as it is, when you been at negative hp below your con score, you get to roll a d100 + 'amount of negative hp - con score'(stabilize checks continue after "death").
This approach lets the game remain dangerous (perhaps even more so, as the GM doesn't have to pull the punches), while avoiding the revolving door dynamic in the group, and avoiding that bringing people back to life become common place.
By the rules, I can't done, since you can only affect a single weapon.
However, it is probably weaker, so I'd allow it anyway.
It seem to me that you don't really like the idea of centaurs riding other creatures.
Since you've got umbral spell, you can make permanent entangling darkness traps.
Use umbral spell and shadow grasp on a continual light spell. Unlike tenebrous spell the umbral spell metamagic doesn't disallow [light]-spells. And the light from the spell has no effect, since it isn't a higher level than itself.
It is a GMs call basically.
The rules themselves doesn't provide for using more than a single off-hand weapon.
Some creatures get more attacks due to having more arms, but there is no general rules to support it.
If allowed, your synthe-monk would have 7 unarmed strike attacks (2 primary due to bab, and 5 offhand attacks). With MWF the attack sequence is -2/-2/-2/-2/-2/-2/-7.