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

Jeraa's page

1,732 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,732 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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


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:

Castles and Crusades
Mutants and Masterminds
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.

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.

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):

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:

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.


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.


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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?


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.

Jiggy wrote:
tony gent wrote:
Quick question can fireball be used to burn away stinking cloud ?
Stinking Cloud wrote:
Stinking cloud creates a bank of fog like that created by fog cloud...
Fog Cloud wrote:
[nothing about being able to be burned away]

In other words, no. Gust of Wind will disperse a stinking cloud. however.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If something requires an attack roll, by default it is against the targets normal AC. You only roll against the targets touch AC when it specifically says to.

HiddenBoss wrote:
oh and i able to hold back the spell do it only does 1 dam to me?


Just ignore the starting ages table. Make your character however old/young you want them to be. A 60 year old human wizard 1? Fine. A 12 year old sorceress? Fine.

Really, it doesn't change the game at all. Unless you are running something like Kingmaker, where large amounts of time can pass. Then aging might play a role.

maouse wrote:
Yeh, the only real reason I ask is because it is the "ARCANE Trickster" elite class...

It may be called Arcane Trickster, but aside from the prerequisites needed to enter the class, that is the only thing arcane about it. Its class feats that deal with spells work with both arcane and divine spells.

maouse wrote:

Spells per Day: ** spoiler omitted **

When one is say multi-classed as a Vivisectionist Alchemist 3 / Sorcerer 1 / Wizard 3 / Druid 1 / Cleric 1 (or some other combination of spellcasting classes) - can a Arcane trickster add the "level" to the spells per day to any of the subclasses they had prior to the prestige class? It doesn't note that the "level" boost only applies to arcane spell classes they had prior, so is this able to be applied to Divine spell casting levels?

Yes. If it only says "+1 level of existing class" on the Spells per Day column, then any class you have that qualifies can be taken. If it was limited to only arcane or divine classes, then is would say so.

Oliver McShade wrote:

Ward wood, will cause melee weapon to take a -4 penalty to attack rolls and cause ranged weapon to be useless.

I thought since most magic wood wands are used as a range weapon, this might cause the wand to be useless, until repaired.

Wands aren't a weapon. They are just an item that lets you cast a spell.

Quick question;Have you ever made a chair?

Yes. My family own a woodshop. I've worked there since I was old enough to know to not put my hand in the saw blade. I have made many, many chairs in my life. AS well as tables, dressers, cabinets, etc. It isn't hard.

Have you ever made a knife?

From totally raw materials? No. From a sheet of steel and a grinder? Yes. Not a good one though. But passable.

Why wouldn't they mention that it could even create masterwork items. High craftmanship could mean complex items instead of masterwork.

Complex items are, by definition, items with a Craft DC of 20. Masterwork items also have a Craft DC of 20. Masterwork items, by definition, are finely crafted versions of normal items. If Fabricate is capable of making complex items, why wouldn't it be capable of making masterwork items? Both are, by definition, just as difficult to create.

James Risner wrote:
Jeraa wrote:

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.
That sounds like a masterwork item to me.

It sounds like "make a crude chair" as opposed to "make a pile of rocks out of sand".

You not notice I said debated? There is no generally agreed upon side.

"A crude chair" doesn't require a high degree of craftsmanship. A finely made chair, with an upholstered seat, and carved decorations, does. Likewise, a simple knife doesn't require a high degree of craftsmanship. A masterwork blade does.

Its only debatable if you don't know what "high degree of craftsmanship" means.

Lifat wrote:
James Risner wrote:
maouse wrote:
Fabricate + Raw materials = easy markups for master crafted items... even at 50% (sale price).
Debated, whether or not you can make masterwork things as opposed to rough examples.
I have to go with James Risner on this. Otherwise why would the spell "Masterwork Transformation" exist?

To turn already crafted items into masterwork items.


You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

That sounds like a masterwork item to me.

blahpers wrote:
for a particular item. Having a ring of invisibility that doesn't require activation at all--a truly continuous effect--would be very useful in some situations and irritating in others. Ditto the boots of levitation. But the difference wouldn't change the price of the item at all (unless the GM says otherwise).

Actually, yes it does. Continuous-use items have an additional multiplier on item cost that command-word or use-activated items don't.

2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.

So at the very least, a continuous-use Ring of Invisibility costs double what the normal Ring of Invisibility costs. The same would apply to a pair of continuous-use Boots of Levitation. (Really, it costs more than that. Command-activated and continuous-use items have different pricing formulas.)

thaX wrote:

The other (I shant name names) "edition" that has the brand has crafting at full price and PC/others would purchase said items at a markup (10 to 40 percent). Selling was still at half price...


Assuming you are meaning 3.X D&D, that is incorrect. Crafting was also at half price, as was selling. The only difference in costs between the systems is Pathfinder did away with the XP costs. Any markup above and beyond the magic items price was purely a homebrew rule.

I stand corrected. I didn't check the rules for polymorph magic. The correct answer is C, not A like I said above.

Duncan888 wrote:
Would it give a shadowdancers companion a bonus to hit?

No. The shadow summoned with Summon Shadow only has the characters base attack bonus. It doesn't get any other bonuses the character may have.

a) 10 + (½ HD) + Str Bonus - the default Whirlwind DC

The correct answer is A.

Also, the default DC of an ability, regardless of type (Ex or Su) is 10 + 1/2 Hit Dice + relevant ability score. Spell-like abilities uses spell level instead of 1/2 hit dice. I believe it states so elsewhere, but it definitely says so in the Bestiary, in the section dealing with creating new monsters/

Most special abilities that cause damage, such as breath weapons, give a save (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will depending on the ability). The DC for almost all special abilities is equal to 10 + 1/2 the creature's Hit Dice + a relevant ability modifier (usually Constitution or Charisma depending on the ability). Special abilities that add to melee and ranged attacks generally do not allow a save, as they rely on the attacks hitting to be useful.

Meiliken wrote:
Got a new one for you all. I have a DM who thinks that when using the Levitate spell, one can't do a physical push on the target to move it forwards/backwards/side-to-side. I told him that where the spell specifically says "You cannot move the recipient horizontally" means that the caster can't, but another force, like someone pushing or the wind could push the target. He refused to accept that. So here I am again asking the Paizo community to rectify this.

You are correct. Your DM is not.

Levitate allows you to move yourself, another creature, or an object up and down as you wish. A creature must be willing to be levitated, and an object must be unattended or possessed by a willing creature. You can mentally direct the recipient to move up or down as much as 20 feet each round; doing so is a move action. You cannot move the recipient horizontally, but the recipient could clamber along the face of a cliff, for example, or push against a ceiling to move laterally (generally at half its base land speed).

The spell can not move a person horizontally, buy anything else can. Including the recipient pushing himself along, or someone else doing so.

Also, it says "You can not move the recipient horizontally,". It doesn't say anything about someone else doing so.

Permanent Image?

1) Does this illusion remain if the caster dies or is unsummoned (Pixie)?

If a spell, any spell, has a duration other than Concentration, the effects continue even after the caster dies.

However, if the caster is summoned, the spell does end when the caster disappears.

When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have.

Oliver McShade wrote:
1) Does a wooden magic wands still work if you cast warp wood on it??

I don't see why they wouldn't work. The wand is undamaged, just in a different shape.

And remember - not all wands are made of wood to begin with. Bone, metal, and crystal wands exist as well.

VRMH wrote:
Yes. Actually, all classes can now create wands of Hostile Justaposition.

Would you care to quote your source? Because I can find no mention of anything like that in the core rulebook or the FAQ.

Hama wrote:

Does Bill Slaviscek have anything to do with D&DN?

Because, if he does, I'm not touching the game with a ten foot pole.
I think he left the company a few years ago, meaning he had nothing to do with DnD Next (5E).

According to his website, he is currently working on Elder Scrolls Online. He doesn't seem to have done anything for 5e D&D. His last involvement with D&D seems to have been back in 2011.

Samy wrote:
I don't think there's a "carrier" mechanism in PF though...

Not really, no. But something similar does exist, like how ghouls can spread ghoul fever, but are not affected by it themselves.

Though there is the Plague Bringer antipaladin class feature.

Plague Bringer (Ex): At 3rd level, the powers of darkness make an antipaladin a beacon of corruption and disease. An antipaladin does not take any damage or take any penalty from diseases. He can still contract diseases and spread them to others, but he is otherwise immune to their effects.

Specifically immune to disease, but can still contract spread their effects. So there is some precedent for being immune to disease, but still having the disease in you.

demonlord96 wrote:
alright, so there's nothing in the rules that says you specifically can't further enhance specific magic items?

There is nothing in the rules that prevents you from further enchanting specific magic items.

so lets start with the max enhancement amount. So a weapon should be able to get to +10 correct? does this mean I can have a +10 longsword? or can I have +10 worth of special abilities on it? Or is it like a split in between?

While the maximum total enhancements of a weapon is +10, a +5 weapon is the highest you can go. So you can have a +5 weapon with a further +5 worth of special abilities, or a +1 weapon with +9 worth of special abilities. But you can't have a +6 weapon, even with no additional abilities.

second, how exactly does adding more enhancements onto an already enchanted or magic item work exactly? what kind of costs do you pay and whatnot? do you pay the differences for putting it up to that enhancement bonus?

You find out how much the new weapon would cost, and subtract the cost of the current weapon. You pay the difference.


as a specific example, I have a 10th level assassin who has a sword of subtlety (Mythic rules are in effect and I was considering making it legendary if that changes anything)

So the sword of subtlety is a +1 shortsword with a fancy effect and requires CL 7th to create.

so lets say I want to add the bane enhancement to my sword of subtlety. what kind of costs and enhancement bonuses am I looking at? Can I not add more enhancements to it since it's a specific magic weapon?

Enchanting specific magic weapons is harder. Not all magic items follow the pricing formulas. Some have just been given a price that sounds right to the developers. As such, your DM will need to set a price.

It is possible for a settlement to have a higher base value than what the table shows. It just requires the GMs permission.

Base Value: The base value of a settlement is used to determine what magic items may easily be purchased there. There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale in the settlement with little effort. The base value of a new settlement is 0 gp. Certain buildings (such as a Market or Tavern) increase a settlement's base value. A settlement's base value can never increase above the values listed in Table 4—5: Settlement Size and Base Value (except under special circumstances decided by the GM).

Samy wrote:
Can you pass a periapt of health from person to person to heal them like an inexhaustible potion?

No. It only makes you immune to disease, it won't remove it. At least in the real world, you can be immune to a disease but still a carrier.

Should you ever become un-immune (by say, taking off the periapt) the effects of the disease would apply again.

MinisculeMax wrote:

So, for the Ankheg attack it says "Damage+Acid+Grab"

Is this grab an auto grab, or does a roll need to be applied?

It still requires a roll, but doesn't require an action of itself like a normal grapple check would. From the Bestiary:

Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).
Along side this, the CMB reads "+7 (+11 grapple)" does this mean +11 while grappling, adding this onto the +7, or what?.

It means that the ankheg usually has a CMB of +7, but this rises to a total of +11 for grappling.

^Clueless as to how to post a proper photo on the Paizo forums, sorry.

Honestly, there is usually no need to. Just link to the appropriate part of the official PRD.

In Pathfinder, there are no body slot affinities. You can have any enchantment in any slot(with GM permission of course, as it would be a custom magic item). That means you can legally have goggles that enhance strength, boots that enhance intelligence, belts that enhance Perception, and hats that enhance Jump. Those are all custom magic items, however, and require GM permission to craft. Pathfinder does counsel against it, but does not actually prohibit it.

You could also do the same in 3.X D&D as well, but the cost was increased. Any ability that was in an improper slot had its cost increased by 50%.

Another friend said he did not think you could make 'new magic items.'

Of course you can make 'new magic items.' That is the entire point of having a table that shows their cost. If you were limited to the items in the book, there would be no need for that table.

thejeff wrote:

Has Next stuck with the 4E thing of most/all spells having to-hit rolls rather than saves?

In most previous versions a caster's "to hit" with spells wasn't really important, except for a few specialized builds. Mostly he just didn't have to roll an attack.

No, they switched back to how it was in 3.X. Single target spells generally require an attack roll, area spells generally require a save. Though there are some exceptions.

Though after going back and looking through the spell list, there don't seem to be many spells that require an attack roll. Fire Bolt, Inflict Wounds, Mordenkainens Sword, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp, and Spiritual Weapon seem to be the only ones that require a spell attack roll. At least in Basic.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The fighter is a better melee combatant than the wizard. He has his proficiency bonus (+2 with every weapon in basic, as there are no exotic weapons)and a higher Strength score than the wizard (16, +3 modifier). And I'm sure there will be feats that improve it further. So thats at least a +5 bonus on his attack roll.

The wizard, on the other hand, only adds his proficiency bonus to a handful of weapons (+2), and most likely a 10 strength (+0 modifier). Its unlikely for the wizard to have any feats to improve this, so a total of +2. Should he use the same weapon as the fighter (not a dagger or quarterstaff), then this drops to +0.

Last I checked, a +5 is bigger than a +2. And it applies to every melee weapon in Basic, as opposed to only a dagger and/or quarterstaff.

The wizard needs to hit things with his spells. And as far as I can tell, touch attacks are gone. When attacking with a spell, the wizards attack bonus is +5. The same as a fighter attacking with a weapon. The wizard is as good at hitting things as the fighter. Just in different ways. The fighter is good at hitting with weapons. The wizard is good at hitting with spells.

1 to 50 of 1,732 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.