Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kyra

Jeraa's page

1,761 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,761 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Whoah. Check this:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook Page 459 wrote:

Magic Items on the Body

Many magic items need to be donned by a character who wants
to employ them or benefit from their abilities. It’s possible for
a creature with a humanoid-shaped body to wear as many as
15 magic items at the same time. However, each of those items
must be worn on (or over) a particular part of the body, known
as a “slot.”
A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear
consisting of one item from each of the following groups,
keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.

*cut for space*

Not only did they add Shield as a slot, Pathfinder separated the head slot into 2 (Head and Headband), and the Chest slot into 2 (Chest and Body). So you can now wear magical armor and magical robes in Pathfinder, as well as a magical headband and magical helmet.


Robert Young wrote:

A spell like this one requires you to choose a grid intersection as a point of origin, and then have the spread measured from that point.

The question then becomes how much leeway you have regarding multiple squares you may occupy due to your size.

This is correct.

Quote:
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.

Since the spell must start from an intersection, you choose which intersection this is. That includes any that are inside the creatures space, as well as those on the edge (creatures of medium size or smaller only have intersections on the edges of their spaces).

No FAQ entry, but here is a post from James Jacobs. Hardly official, but its the closest thing we have.

Quote:

From page 214's discussion on area. For an emanation, you pick the spell's point of origin and measure its effect from that point. This is a grid intersection.

For an antimagic sphere, which has a radius of 5 feet, you pick a grid intersection and the effect emanates from that intersection for 5 feet. This gives you four squares of protection (see the "5-foot radius" spell area on page 215.) If you're Large or smaller, you can comfortably exist inside your spell's area. If you're bigger, part of you will stick out.

Allowing an emanation to extend from the edge of a creature's space makes such spells more powerful the bigger you get, and since magic doesn't really care how big its spellcaster is, that's kinda weird.


It doesn't matter if it is supernatural or not. In order to overcome DR/Magic, a weapon must have an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher.

Quote:
Overcoming DR: Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.


Quote:
So the +2 from flanking only applies to the attack roll and not the damage roll?

Correct.


In that case, no. Both grant spell resistance, not improve it. As such, they do not stack, and you only get the highest value.


zauriel56 wrote:
I know there is a race that gets it but can't remember/find the alternate race trait for it. Would you be able to combine it with the Pure Legion enforcer?

Spell resistance does not stack (unless specifically noted). You only benefit from the highest amount.


Rhum wrote:
Does the Sneak attack bonus ( +2) only apply to damage roll, or it applies to Attack roll as well?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. There is no +2 Sneak Attack bonus. Sneak Attack only adds a certain number of extra damage dice.

Quote:

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. "

What do they mean by "Denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"? can you give me an example?

It means you don't get to add your Dexterity modifier to your AC. Several conditions apply this, such as being attacked by an invisible attacker.

Quote:
Can you use sneak attack twice in a turn if you attack with both daggers?

You can apply Sneak Attack damage to any attack that qualifies. If you have 10 attacks a round, and they all qualify as sneak attacks, all 10 get sneak attack damage.


Quote:
I don't like it. Partly I think it does go too far, too early in preventing deaths. Partly it becomes another "must carry" spell for clerics, forcing them more and more into the healbot mode, at least if it isn't reliably available as potion or scroll. It's just too necessary as an emergency spell to not have ready at all times.

Well, Revivify is a domain spell for the Life domain (which is focused on healing). So those clerics won't have to prepare it at all, as they get it for free. Other clerics would have to prepare it if they wanted it, however.

For that matter, so is Cure Wounds. So a healbot cleric won't have to prepare the healing spells, as the basics ones are prepared for free anyway.


thejeff wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:
As I more deeply read the Basic rules and see the previews of the PHB classes, I am becoming less and less enchanted with 5E. The power level of PC's just seems far too high for my tastes. In addition, I just saw a 3rd level Cleric spell Revivify that allows a Cleric to raise the dead! So, once your party has a 5th level Cleric, permanent death is pretty much a thing of the past.

Link?

If it's like the old version, it's basically Breath of Life - works only within a round of death, so it's hardly like permanent death is a thing of the past.
It is lower level though.

It is in the Basic PDF. Has a 300gp consumable material component.

Quote:
You touch a creature that has died within the last minute. That creature returns to life with 1 hit point. This spell can’t return to life a creature that has died of old age, nor can it restore any missing body parts.

And don't think of it as bringing them back to life. Think of it more like when, on television and movies, you see someone perform CPR or use a defibrillator on a seemingly dead person, and they come back. You weren't dead. Just mostly dead.


shumatsu wrote:
I didn't think to mention this, but we have always ruled that polymorph effects do change the type here. Because in all seriousness, Pazio messed up on that one. (think about becoming a bear. The spell gives you the exact body as a bear, blood and all, so there is no possible reason that a poison that only effects bears shouldn't work on it because it is "officially" a human, because the bear body would still be affected.

No it doesn't.

Quote:
Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature. Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type, granting you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor.

You may look like a bear and have some of the abilities of a bear, but you are not a bear. You do not get the exact abilities of a bear, you get lesser ones. If you actually became a bear, you would have the bears exact stats, not get a bonus to yours.

That being said, if a polymorph effect changed your type to animal (and by the rules, it doesn't), then yes the druid would receive the bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Halfway-Hagan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Legend lore is a 4th level spell for a bard, so a bard could indeed make a wand of legend lore, and a wizard or sorcerer (or anyone else with legend lore on their spell list, regardless of where that spell appears) could use that wand.

What about a 1st level ranger who techincally doesnt have the spell class feature yet and thus has no spells? Could he use a wand (without a UMD check) with say Cure light wounds before 4rth level when he not only acquires the spell but the spell class feature?

First of all, this thread died about four years ago. Please check the date of the last post (or couple of posts) before posting.

Second, yes. Wands are Spell Trigger items:

Quote:
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.


A magic weapon (And for that matter, magic armor and magic shields) must be +1 before any special properties are added.

You can't have just a Returning Throwing Axe. At the very least, it must be a +1 Returning Throwing Axe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent The Dark wrote:
It also says "Armor bonus x 5" which I don't understand.

Armor has a number of hit points equal to whatever its armor bonus is multiplied by 5. So, since full plate has an armor bonus of +9, it has (9x5=) 45 hit points. Leather armor has an armor bonus of +2, and so has (2x5=) 10 hit points.

Armor hardness varies by material. Padded armor would have Hardness 0, leather/hide armors have Hardness 2, and metal armors have Hardness 10 (15 for mithral, 20 for adamantine).


Krith wrote:
If anyone knows where the "you're not the new type" is still listed, I'd appreciate pointing it out (or anything else relevant here). Thanks

The way all Polymorph spells and effect works is you only get what is listed in the individual spell/ability, or the general polymorph effect rules. So unless an entry somewhere says "Your type changes to match the form assumed", your type does not change.


Salarain wrote:

Hello gamers,

I have a question about understanding about the the special abilities on a weapon.

When you move to attack the enemy and you hit your target. Do I get the trip effect off the weapon after damage is dealt. If not, can you explain why?

The Trip property on a weapon doesn't give you a free, automatic trip when you hit with the weapon.

In order to trip someone, you must use the Trip combat maneuver, which takes the place of one of your attacks. The only thing the Trip weapon property does is allow you to drop the weapon to avoid being tripped yourself on a failed Trip attempt.


Scoundrel the Tiefling wrote:
I'm not talking about mechanics. I'm talking about how often they have put out a new edition. 3.5, 4th and now 5th ed so soon? I think that's Hasbro's doing.

Unlikely. Hasbro probably doesn't really care about D&D, as long as it makes enough of a profit. They bought WotC to get hold of the Magic the Gathering and Pokemon card games. That is where most of WotCs profit comes from. (Well, M:TG now. WotC no longer makes Pokemon cards.)

I can't even find any D&D books, of any edition, on Hasbro.com. You would have to figure that, if Hasbro really cared about the D&D RPG, there would be something besides a Lego knockoff named KRE-O. Yet there is nothing.

(Side note: KRE-O Drizzt)


Scoundrel the Tiefling wrote:
So if you're upset with 5th ed, perhaps you're aiming your hate in the wrong direction? It's Hasbro who is ruining D&D and treating it like it needs a new edition every few years isnt it?

Hasbro does own WotC, but that doesn't mean they are the ones calling the shots about when/if a new edition is released. Hasbro probably just wants WotC to make them X-amount of money with their RPG line, and Y-amount of money with their collectible card game lines, and its up to WotC to do what they need to to meet that requirement.

Either way it goes, WotC is definitely the ones responsible for the mechanics of said RPG. So if the problem is how the game plays, that is WotCs fault, not Hasbros.


Cultair wrote:
I just have a general question about enchantments that have a just flat +$$$$ cost value, do they count against the total +10 enchantment bonuses since there are not technically a +1,2,3,4, or 5 bonus.

No, they do not count against the +10 maximum.


Buri wrote:
The basic rules imply potions and scrolls are about the only magic items in regular supply.

And there are several scrolls and potions available in the Starter Box.


JoeJ wrote:

Something I haven't seen mentioned here regarding concentration is that it looks like most of the battlefield control spells are also concentration: Antimagic Field, Blade Barrier, Faerie Fire, Globe of Invulnerability, Maze, Wall of Stone, and Web. So a caster can have one of those going or buff somebody, but not both.

This really changes the tactical situation. Most of what worked on the battlefield in 3.5/PF isn't going to work in 5E.

The Potion of Invisibility and the Potion of Fly in the Starter Box both have a specific duration, despite being Concentration spells. It is possible scrolls could work the same way.

If so, that means you just buff the party with a scroll (which you wouldn't have to concentrate on), then cast your spell that requires concentration.

However, nothing released so far says anything about a scrolls duration, so it is possible it works exactly like casting the spell yourself would.


RaizielDragon wrote:
Would it be reasonable to just turn all of your cash into "components" whenever you're in town, so that you can tinker while you are out adventuring?

Not really. I would assume most merchants would want gold or silver for whatever supplies you want to buy, not "miscellaneous magic item creation stuff". So you want some cash left.

But it would be reasonable to turn at least some of your cash into generic magic item components so you could still work on magic items while adventuring.


Bandw2 wrote:
this actual made me realize, adamantine surgical equipment is probably very very good at doing what it needs to do.

Not any better than steel for the most part. Flesh doesn't have a hardness rating for adamantine to ignore.

Now when it comes to things like bone saws, then the adamantine version would be better.

Quote:

Having an extraordinarily hard metal doesn't turn your greatsword into a lightsaber.

You need a brilliant energy enchant for that.

Brilliant Energy ignore non-living material. Lightsabers looked to be very effective against droids and railings.


RaizielDragon wrote:
I think you're talking about the material components for casting a spell. I'm talking about the materials needed to create magic items, using Item Creation feats.

Answer s still mostly the same. For magic item components, you just spend the gold and you've got them. What those item components consist of is never even attempted to be described. Aside from the physical item itself (the armor, weapon, belt, necklace, etc to be enchanted).

As long as you can spend the gold, you get your components. It would be reasonable to require to be be in a settlement, or otherwise have access to a merchant, however.


Buri wrote:
Do you have prime, Jeraa?

Amazon Prime? No.

Also, Amazon has Starter Boxes prices as low as $12 (Without shipping) Guess I just got lucky. Still, that should be $16 with shipping. Not much of a savings, but cheaper than WotC wants.


JoeJ wrote:
If I see it at that price I might reconsider. WOTC has it for $19.99 US on their web site, though. An adventure book, some monster stats, and a set of dice isn't worth that much to me.

You might try Amazon.com. I have never payed more than half price for a D&D book when ordering from there. Even with shipping, I still payed $12 for the starter box.


JoeJ wrote:
Okay, thanks. I probably won't get it then. I'll just wait for the PHB to come out in a few weeks.

The only reason I got the Starter Box was for the dice (you can never have enough dice sets, even if it is missing the 10's digit d10 die) and the monster stats (which let me know enough about how the monsters worked so I can convert other monsters to 5e.)

And because I got it for $8 American. You can pay that for a set of dice alone.


JoeJ wrote:

For those of you who have the Starter Set, are the races, classes, spells, etc. the same as in the free pdf, or does it have different/additional rules content? (I know it also has an adventure book and a cardboard riser that fills up space in the box.)

The starter set doesn't have any character generation at all, just 5 pre-made characters. And those characters use the races/classes in the Basic PDF. The only thing that the Starter characters use that is not in the Basic PDF seems to be the Noble background.

I haven't noticed any spells in the Starter set that aren't already in the basic PDF. I didn't notice any additional rules, except for the handful of magic items, and the monster stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob of Westgate wrote:
I guess the question is, with Pathfinder, why would you want to play 5E at all?

With 5e, why would you want to play Pathfinder at all?

Some of us believe 5e is easier to play, and we like that. Some of us like the lower numbers of 5e during play, letting monsters stay relevant longer, and letting us actually stand a chance when fighting monsters much more powerful than the characters.
Some people like the ability score cap, and don't like halflings capable of bench pressing tanks running around.
Some people don't like having to determine where each individual skill point goes.
Some people like the idea that magic items can be entirely optional.
Some people like the idea that feats are entirely optional.
Some people like the idea that there are no multitude of + or -2 modifiers thrown around everywhere, and like the idea of the Advantage/Disadvantage system.
Some people like the idea of wizards running around casting spells in full plate (assuming they are proficient with it) with no penalty.
Some like the idea of combat cantrips that stay relevant throughout your adventuring career, instead of being stuck with a pitiful 1d4 damage for 20 levels.

Asking someone why 5e when Pathfinder is available is like asking why someones favorite color is blue when red exists, or why someones favorite flavor of icecream is strawberry when chocolate exists. There is no right or wrong answer. The system you want to use is just personal preference. Some prefer Pathfinder, some prefer 5e.

Personally, I just don't like the 3.X/PF rules system. Modifiers to rolls get way too high. I don't like how magic items are pretty much required, or that the game assumes a combat grid is being used. I don't like how the numbers break down at middle and higher levels. I don't like how long it takes to make a character, especially a higher level one, having to spend all of those skill points and choose those feats.

While 5e does still have its problems, I just like it more than Pathfinder or 3.5 D&D. But the systems are close enough I can convert what I do like from Pathfinder to 5e easily enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it evil to kill a human and drink his blood? Then it is evil to kill a dragon and drink its blood.

Is it evil to skin a human and make armor/clothes from his skin? Then it is evil to do the same to a dragon.

Dragons are sentient beings too, just like elves, humans, dwarves, etc. Yet they are consistently an exception to what is acceptable for someone to do. Nobody blinks twice at someone walking around in dragonhide armor. But should that person be walking around in human-leather armor, everyone is suddenly offended.


Though by a strict reading, it wouldn't. Miss chances are specifically called out as miss chances. And miss chances are a percentage.

Quote:

The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

Mirror Image, on the other hand, doesn't give a miss chance. It just randomizes the target hit (either the wizard, or one of his images). It doesn't turn a hit into a miss like a miss chance does.


bugleyman wrote:

Without the OGL, there would be no:

Pathfinder
Castles and Crusades
Mutants and Masterminds
OSRIC
13th Age
Labyrinth Lord
Spy Craft
Etc., etc., etc.

Was there a flood of crap? Absolutely (Fast Forward, I'm looking at you). But overall, lots of cool games -- and a lot of great adventures -- wouldn't exist without the OGL. YMMV.

Which is part of the problem, from WotCs standpoint. The idea was that, with certain parts of the d20 system not being OGC (like the experience tables and certain monsters), people who wanted to play 3rd party rulesets would also need a copy of the d20 core rulebooks (namely, the 3.X Players Handbook) for that missing information.

However, most 3rd party companies either ignored that completely (just level up the players when you want to), or created their own mechanics to fill the hole (like Paizo did with Pathfinder experience tables). That removed the need entirely for a WotC core rulebook. And so WotC made no money off of someone else using their creation, which from a business standpoint is very bad. (Which is probably the primary reason WotC switched from the OGL to the GSL for 4e.)


But do note that it says "bonus", not "modifier". Not the same thing. If you had a Dexterity penalty (from a Dex of less than 10), that would still apply.


Quote:
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

The swarm does not threaten, but the other creature does. Therefore, the -4 penalty for firing/throwing into melee does.


Quote:
Darkwood: This rare magic wood is as hard as normal wood but very light. Any wooden or mostly wooden item (such as a bow or spear) made from darkwood is considered a masterwork item and weighs only half as much as a normal wooden item of that type. Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood. The armor check penalty of a darkwood shield is lessened by 2 compared to an ordinary shield of its type. To determine the price of a darkwood item, use the original weight but add 10 gp per pound to the price of a masterwork version of that item.


Any particular reason this is on a Paizo board, and not a WotC one? I'm not sure what the point of posting this here is.

That aside, I would be surprised if 5e gets an OGL treatment like 3e did. That didn't work out like WotC probably thought it would. It ended making their largest competitor possible (allowing Paizo to create Pathfinder, and therefore compete with 4e).

If anything, we may see something similar to how 4e OGL stuff was done. No actual mechanics, just the names. You can reference where the material is, but thats about it.


Lothar123 wrote:
I'm running the carrion crown AP and we are the part in book 3 with multiple (8+) burning skeletons. I can't find an answer if the burning skeleton's fiery auras stack with each other or not. The wording in the power is a bit ambivalent to being stackable or not. I wanna know what's the general consensus since it makes a difference between 1d6 and 8d6. Thanks everyone.

It wouldn't be 8d6. It would be 1d6 8 times. That makes a difference with things like fire resistance.


Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
I am actually more excited about the changes to feats, and how each feat is supposedly powerful enough to warrant not getting +2 to your ability scores instead.

From today's Legends & Lore article (for any that haven't seen it yet):

Quote:
In fifth edition, each feat is like a focused multiclass option. It comes with everything you need to realize a new dimension to your character. Most feats either give you a number of small upgrades bundled together, a significant new class feature that you’ll use a lot, or a lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to a single ability score.

And the only example of a feat we currently have:

Quote:
For example, in my current campaign I’m playing Kel Kendeen, a chaotic neutral wizard dedicated to chaos and anarchy. I took the Lucky feat, which gives me the ability to roll an additional d20 when making an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, and choose which result to use. It’s extremely useful for getting out of tight spots, such as when I’m saddled with disadvantage or really need to make a roll. In portraying Kel, the Lucky feat fits him like a glove. As an adept of chaos, he constantly puts himself into dangerous positions—such as wearing a crown of ultimate evil or demanding an audience with the tyrannical overlord of a city—only to have things bounce his way. Fortune favors a fool, at least in Kel’s case.


nigel bearden wrote:
Aioran, yes that is what I am asking. In the game today, my Wizard would normally have a Con of 12 but due to Cloudkill, the stat was lowered to a 6. Would it be a death at -6 or at -12 HPs?

The stat was not lowered to 6. Ability damage does not change your stats at all, it just gives penalties. So with a Constitution of 12, if you take 6 Con damage, you still have a Constitution of 12. Your score does not change, and so you still die at -12.

Ability drain, however, does reduce the score in question. If you Con 12 character had taken 6 points of constitution drain, he would have a Constitution score or 6, and so die at -6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
prototype00 wrote:

You are certainly denied dex, but I wonder if you are flat footed as you are aware of potentially hostile individuals in the area.

prototype00

You can be award of enemies in the area and still be flatfooted. For example, when you are in the first wound of combat and you haven't taken your turn yet, you are considered flatfooted.

Though nothing about being attacked by an invisible enemy makes you flatfooted. You just lose your Dexterity modifier to your AC. As far as I know, the only things that make you flatfooted are certain uses of the Acrobatics skill and not having acted yet in the first round of combat.


doc the grey wrote:
Majuba wrote:
The only real difference when unconscious is that you are automatically considered a "Willing Target" - that has zero effect on whether you make a saving throw or not. Consider it your unconscious mind reacting to the magic. You do have a -5 dex bonus to reflex saves though.
Really? So does that mean that you would auto fail any spell cast on you? Like if I say ran up to an unconscious target and dropped the poison spell or a charm they wouldn't get a save?

No. They still get a save. Being a willing target just means certain spells can target you. Teleport, for example, only works on willing targets.


Quote:

I also believe you can create a grenade by using explosive runes on a sack filled with caltrops.Though i question the rules how it says

"You and any characters you specifically instruct CAN read the protected writing without triggering the explosive runes." Does this mean i can choose to read it myself and make it explode?

Yes, you can read them yourself to set them off. But you don't want to. And it isn't a grenade, but more like an explosive vest or belt.

Quote:
You trace mystic runes upon a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information. The explosive runes detonate when read, dealing 6d6 points of force damage. Anyone next to the explosive runes (close enough to read them) takes the full damage with no saving throw; any other creature within 10 feet of the explosive runes is entitled to a Reflex save for half damage. The object on which the explosive runes were written also takes full damage (no saving throw).

If you are close enough to read them, you take damage with no save.


Zardnaar wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Solusek wrote:
Holy cow this prediction was SPOT ON. How could you know all this back in 2007!?
If by "spot on" you mean "off by two whole years", sure.
4E died in 2012 and the playtest started.

Yes, but he actually said:

Quote:
So after another 4 years, 2012 will see the release of 5th edition. Here's what I predict:

Playtest started earlier, but the actual release wasn't until 2014.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic isn't everywhere because most players want a medieval world. You can try to justify it some way in-game, but it is really an out-of-game situation.

There really is no in-game reason for it. Most fantasy worlds are just stagnant.

The only real explanation I can see that would work in-game is that some over-deity (who views even the strongest of the normal gods as nothing more than little playthings) wants things to stay the way they are. How else can not only the material plane stay the same, but every other plane in existence?


Bennon wrote:
i made a anti paladin and i want to give him the nine lives stealer sword but it only has nine uses is there a way to recharge the sword?

By RAW, no. However, I would allow you to re-enchant the blade as a Nine Lives Stealer once all the uses are gone.

A Nine Lives Stealer costs 23,057 gp. When its uses are gone, it is a +2 longsword, which costs 8,315gp. You pay the difference, or 17,742gp (7,371 gp if you make it yourself).


SerpentViolet wrote:

Does Improved Caster Level add to familiar progression? It would seem to me it should.

Thnx,
Serpent Violet

No. Familiar abilities are based on your class level, not your caster level.


Grand Magus wrote:
My group has been playing D&D 5e with 3 as the lowest AC since the 5e playtest started. --> What page of the rules does it say 10 is the lowest?

10 isn't the lowest AC. 10 is just the base AC.

Quote:
Without armor or a shield, your character’s AC equals 10 + his or her Dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, calculate your AC using the rules in chapter 5. Record your AC on your character sheet.

The lowest AC in 5e would seem to be 5. The base 10 for an unarmored creature, -5 with a Dexterity score of 1 (-5 modifier). There doesn't seem to be a size modifier, at least in the Basic PDF or the monster preview (no size modifier for the ogre or ochre jelly).

Likewise, the base AC in AD&D is 10, but a worse AC is possible.

Quote:
How do I convert the saving throws?

You really don't. AD&D saving throws worked somewhat differently.

Basically, everything was against the equivalent of a DC 20. So if you take the AD&D saving throw and subtract it from 20, you can get a modifier. For example, a 1st level clerics saving throw vs spells was 15, so he needed to roll a 15 or higher. That is equivalent of having a +5 bonus on the check vs a DC of 20.

But that gives much larger numbers than 5e uses (such as 19th level AD&D clerics receiving +18 on saves against death or poison). So it is probably just best to ignore AD&D saves, and just give what is appropriate for the class level/monster in 5e.


Unless a monsters statblock says differently, monsters work the same as PCs do. So a monster (regardless of type) can take a full-round action to run 4x its base speed (or 5x if it has the Run feat).


MediumM wrote:
So do deinonychus mounts only get 66 lbs before medium load?

Correct.


James Risner wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
it's already been ruled that Fabricate can make masterwork items and totally bypass the Crafting process.

Link, as that is in debate.

I never bothered to check, but it is in the FAQ.


2ndGenerationCleric wrote:
But it says it strikes as a spell, not a weapon. Doesn't that indicate touch ac, like seemingly all other spells?

Just because it strikes as a spell does not mean it is a touch attack. There is nothing in the rules that says "Spells are touch attacks." Yes, generally a spell that requires an attack roll is a touch attack, but not always. And spells that require a touch attack always specifically say they require a touch attack.

Spiritual weapon says nothing about requiring a touch attack, so it is a regular attack against regular AC.

1 to 50 of 1,761 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.