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

1,840 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Quote:
Second, I don't think DR and hardness stack. Are there creatures in the AP with both? If something has DR 5/- and hardness 10, I would imagine that, since hardness is higher that would reduce incoming damage by 10. But, if something bypasses the hardness, like an adamantine weapon, the DR would reduce the damage by 5. When two things have the same effect, the stronger takes precedence. But that's just a guess on my part.

As they are different abilities, they do stack.


The half-energy damage thing is a function of attacking an object, not because of hardness. Even objects with 0 hardness still only take half damage from energy attacks.

Quote:
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.


When a spell requires an attack roll, it specifically says so. Usually a melee touch attack or a ranged touch attack. Area spells don't require and attack roll, and so can't critically hit.

Quote:
You fire a small orb of acid at the target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The orb deals 1d3 points of acid damage. This acid disappears after 1 round.
Quote:
Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or is carrying a metal weapon or is made of metal).


Larkos wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
The class clearly need to be rewritten. The way the class is now, it's possible to make witch that isn't made of wood.
But at least they have baleful polymorph, so they can turn you into a newt.
Yeah but there should be a hex version that isn't permanent so you can "get better."

Permanent duration spells can still be dispelled, so you could still get better. The only truly permanent spells are those with the Instantaneous duration, as the magic comes and goes immediately.


Quote:
Its like taking str damage till str9 and cant power attack anymore?

Ability damage doesn't work like that. It doesn't reduce the score at all. A character with 14 strength who has taken 6 points of strength damage still has a 14 strength, not 8 strength. You can still power attack, because you still have a strength of 14.

Quote:

Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.

For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.

Ability drain, on the other hand, does reduce the ability.


Imbicatus wrote:
The class clearly need to be rewritten. The way the class is now, it's possible to make witch that isn't made of wood.

But at least they have baleful polymorph, so they can turn you into a newt.


kinevon wrote:
I don't think you can choose a Prestige Class as a favored class.

Correct. Only base classes can be a favored class.

Quote:
Each character begins play with a single favored class of his choosing—typically, this is the same class as the one he chooses at 1st level. Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank. The choice of favored class cannot be changed once the character is created, and the choice of gaining a hit point or a skill rank each time a character gains a level (including his first level) cannot be changed once made for a particular level. Prestige classes (see Prestige Classes) can never be a favored class.


Another developer quote from Sean Reynolds

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

1. Activating an item's command word is a standard action. If your command word is "fire," and you're in initiative, you have to spend your standard action saying the word AT the sword with the proper inflection, you can't activate it for free (without spending an action).

2. You can give several actions the same command word, but that doesn't get around the standard-action-to-activate-each. It just means you only have to remember one word, not multiple words (which means your allies have an easier time using those items to save your life if you're bleeding to death).

3. Activating flaming doesn't deactivate any other abilities on the weapon. If your sword has three different command words, you can spend three standard actions activating each to have them all active at the same time. If the sword has the same command word for all three special abilities, you can spend three standard actions speaking that command word to activate the three special abilities, and have them activated at the same time.

"Until another command is given" means "... specifically to turn off that weapon special ability with the 'off' command." It doesn't mean "any command directed at the weapon turns off this ability" or "any command you speak turns off this ability" or "any command anyone in the world speaks at any time turns off this ability."


Sean Reynolds says yes. At least for activating multiple enchantments on the same weapon with a single command word, but each does require a separate action.

He does day you have to speak the command at the item, so no activating multiple different items with the same word.

Quote:

1. Activating an item's command word is a standard action. If your command word is "fire," and you're in initiative, you have to spend your standard action saying the word AT the sword with the proper inflection, you can't activate it for free (without spending an action).

2. You can give several actions the same command word, but that doesn't get around the standard-action-to-activate-each. It just means you only have to remember one word, not multiple words (which means your allies have an easier time using those items to save your life if you're bleeding to death).

3. Activating flaming doesn't deactivate any other abilities on the weapon. If your sword has three different command words, you can spend three standard actions activating each to have them all active at the same time. If the sword has the same command word for all three special abilities, you can spend three standard actions speaking that command word to activate the three special abilities, and have them activated at the same time.

"Until another command is given" means "... specifically to turn off that weapon special ability with the 'off' command." It doesn't mean "any command directed at the weapon turns off this ability" or "any command you speak turns off this ability" or "any command anyone in the world speaks at any time turns off this ability."


I think the closest thing we have to an answer to multiple energy types activated at once is this quote.

James Jacobs wrote:
While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.

Once you command it on, it is on. It doesn't shut off until you actually command it to do so.

If any command at all shut it off, you would have your flaming weapon shut off when you activate any other command-word item in your inventory. I seriously doubt the intention is to have your flaming sword shut off when you activate your Ring of Blinking or your Rope of Climbing.


Quote:
So for example, if I had a +1 flaming, icy, shock sword; I cannot command all of them to activate at the same time. (Like my character says "I command all my weapon enhancements to activate!")

If they all have the same command word to activate, you definitely can. The caster sets the command word.

The part about staying active "until another command is given" might not necessarily mean what Bandw2 thinks it does. It is usually interpreted to mean "until another command to deactivate the item is given".


Arusia wrote:
I assume this is an issue with copying SRD information from Wizards. Oh well.

Probably. Its also most likely why elves sleep now, instead of trance. (Because the section that said they had 4 hours of trance instead of sleep was in the racial fluff, not their mechanics).


The rules say "each combatant" makes an initiative check. That would include the animal companion.

However, its usually just easier to allow the animal companion to go at the same time as the druid, if the GM is allowing the player to control the animal companion.

The druid does need to roll to get the animal companion to do what he wants. That is the entire point of the Link ability - it makes it easier for the druid to command his animal companion. It even applies to wild empathy checks, which is basically the diplomacy skill for animals. The animal companion is basically just another NPC. The GM should be controlling it.

Ultimate Campaign agrees.

Quote:
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can't make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they're GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.

However, in my experience, most GMs just ignore this, and allow the druid to control the animal companion however he wants.


Sean Reynolds said yes. Specifically, #2 in his post.

The rules do state that after 24 hours, the ability increase does increase the relevant ability.

Quote:
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

So that means that with a Dexterity of 11, wearing a +2 Dex item for 24 hours will actually give you a Dexterity score of 13 for all intents and purposes.

Just don't lose/remove the item, or you lose the ability to use the feat.


David knott 242 wrote:

So does mine. I have a first printing, and I think there was a second printing. I cannot find any reference for the errata that was obviously applied here.

There is also a third printing, which should be the most recent one. At least that is the most recent on to have an update file.


Arusia wrote:
Well bummer. I took it on my Elan as a plan to use it as a secret language...

Then change it to something like Wayang, Grippli, Samsaran, or Tengu. All of those are languages, and the races aren't usually common in typical campaigns.


I can't find it listed in the errata for the Bestiary. But it was changed.


My Bestiary, and Paizos official PRD both have the barghest speaking Infernal, Goblin, and Common.

d20PFSRD.com is a 3rd party site not maintained by Paizo, and has gotten several things wrong in the past.


Ceremony wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
In general the numbers are the pre-calculated total- no extra math required.

So the short sword +2 (1d4) isnt added to the goblins +1 BAB ?

Nope. All applicable modifiers are already included in the monsters attack line. You don't have to do any additional math. The same also applies to a monsters skills and saving throw modifiers as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the barbarians Improved Uncanny Dodge ability:

Quote:

Improved Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 5th level and higher, a barbarian can no longer be flanked. This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking her, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target has barbarian levels.

If a character already has uncanny dodge (see above) from another class, the levels from the classes that grant uncanny dodge stack to determine the minimum rogue level required to flank the character.

Only the barbarian levels count.

In general, when something only specifies "levels" or "class level", it means levels in whatever class grants the ability. It they meant all class levels and hit dice, they would of said "character levels".

Besides, if it meant all levels/hit dice, the second part of Improved Uncanny Dodge would be useless. (The part about levels stacking to determine the rogue level to flank.)


claudekennilol wrote:
Those are not the rules and you're taking a general rule and bending it to your will for a specific circumstance. A spear doesn't get longer just because you made your arm longer.

Again, a weapons length has absolutely nothing to do with reach. It is entirely dependant on if the weapon has the Reach property or not.

Should a Fine-sized creature somehow manage to wield a Colossal greatsword, that Fine-sized creature still has a reach of 0 feet. Reach has nothing to do with weapon length. At all.

No it doesn't make sense. But then neither does saying a 2' tall creature (lower end of Small) has the exact same reach (And even takes up the exact same space on the battlefield) as an 8' tall creature (the upper end of Medium.) Nor does it make sense that a Titan can stab someone 30' away with a dagger at no penalty, but throwing it at the exact same creature has a -4 penalty on the roll because of the distance (only 10' range increment). But that is how the rules work. They don't make sense. Never have.

Quote:
So a diminutive creature with a Reach weapon would have 0 reach?

By the rules, yes. Reach weapons double your natural reach. 2 x 0 is still 0. However, by developer ruling, they get 5' reach. But that is his personal opinion. The rules say differently.


Doomed Hero wrote:

So lets tangle this up a little more.

What is the effective reach of a Medium sized Alchemist with a medium Longspear drinks a potion of Longarm.

What is that character's effective reach?

What if that Alchemist was wielding a Large sized Flying Talon?

A medium creature under the effects of a Longarm spell has 10 foot reach. With a longspear (or other reach weapon), that doubles to 20 feet.

Thy flying talon appears in Crown of the Kobold King, which was not written for Pathfinder, but 3.5. Properly converted, it should just be like any other reach weapon. So again, a medium creature under the effects of a Longarm spell has 10' reach, which the flying talon doubles to 20'.

It being large size makes no difference. A reach weapon is a reach weapon. Of course, that is assuming you can even get reach from an inappropriately-sized weapon. The rules imply differently:

Quote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

That can be read as you requires a reach weapon that appropriately sized for you (medium creatures with medium weapons, large creatures with large weapons) to even get reach in the first place.


claudekennilol wrote:
Reach is a weapon on the property that indicates how big that weapon is. A medium glaive reaches an extra 5'. A large glaive reaches an extra 10'. If you as a medium creature could somehow wield a large glaive, your threatened area would go out to 15'. Weapons don't just magically change sizes depending on who is using them.

No. Reach weapons double your reach. It doesn't add a specific amount of reach.

Quote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

If you are a Large creature with the typical 10' reach, that doubles to 30' with a reach weapon. Give that exact same weapon to a Large creature that somehow had a 15' natural reach, that creature now has a 30' reach.

It doesn't make sense, but those are the rules. The amount of reach a weapon gives has absolutely nothing to do with its actual length. It just matters whether the weapon has the Reach property or not.


When you gain a Bard level, you gain 6 + your Intelligence modifier skill points.

The Favored Class bonus - every time you gain a level in your favored class, you get an additional minor benefit. Once you choose your favored class, you can not change it. You could choose to receive an extra skill point that level, or an extra hit point. Or some other minor benefit, depending on your race and favored class. You can even choose to gain the extra skill point one level, then get the extra hit point next level. You get to choose each time you level up in your favored class.

So if you chose Bard as your favored class, each time you gain a level in Bard you get an extra minor benefit. If you instead take a level of another class, like fighter, you don't get any extra benefit because that other class is not your favored class.


Lord Vukodlak wrote:
Ask him to provide the line that it can be cast more then once.

Its in the same place that says the ring can only be used once. It doesn't exist. The item description is vague.

The only thing I can find is in the Spell Storing weapon property:

Quote:
Spell Storing: A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.

That at least implies the spell is gone once cast, allowing you to cast another spell into the spell storing weapon. You could apply the same to the ring.

The part of the ring description that implied the spell does disappear when cast isn't Open Game Content, so didn't get copied from 3.5 to Pathfinder:

Quote:
A wizard could cast two magic missile spells and a mage armor spell into the ring (1 + 1 + 1 = 3). She could then give the ring to a druid, who casts the mage armor spell from the ring and then puts a calm animal spell into the ring. The druid could give the ring to a barbarian, who could use all the spells but could not replace any.

So, druid casts a spell from the ring, then can put another in its place. The spell is supposed to disappear once cast. Also, if the spells didn't disappear, there would of been no reason to include 2 magic missiles. But like I said, this part of the description had to be left out of the Pathfinder description.


I've removed aging effect entirely, both negative and positive.

PCs are supposed to be special. If they want to play 90-yeard old human barbarians with an eyepatch, long white beard down to their waste, and dentures made of troll teeth, they should be able to.

As for NPCs, I don't need aging modifiers. As the DM, I can make NPCs have whatever ability scores they want. I don't need some table telling me what they should have.

Plus, getting rid of the aging tables means you could also get rid of the stupid starting age table. Want to play a 30 year old elf? Fine. Don't need a stupid table saying you can't set foot on an adventure until you are at least 114 years old.


Quote:
Why wouldn't it work like that? Maybe not your specific example of being diplomacized into turning a blind eye to slaughter but an NPC should be able to use diplomacy to convince the party that his daughter is worth rescuing or that his ale is worth the asking price or that he is their friend. The NPC should also be able to use bluff to convince the party all of these things are true even if they are false.

Because you take the choice of how to play the character away from the player. It is the players character, and unless magic is involved, the player should always make the decisions about how his character acts in a given situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
Add a fire damage breath weapon. :)

The 1998 Godzilla may not of had a breath weapon. The one scene I can remember where it may involves him roaring and blowing cars around. Its very possible that the gas tanks on the vehicles ruptured and ignited. Its not as clear what happened in that scene.

You would figure if he really did have a breath weapon, we would of seen it more often than just that once.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If PCs can influence other PCs with Diplomacy (And they can't), then it only makes sense that NPCs can do the same thing to the PCs.

So, start throwing monsters with really, really high Diplomacy modifiers at the PCs.

PC: "I attack the orc!"
Monster makes successful Diplomacy check
GM: "No, you don't. The orc sits you down, and after a heartfelt talk, you have decided the orcs are actually really nice guys. You decide to walk away and leave them to their elf slaughtering."

Yeah. It doesn't work like that.


Quote:
Breaking the law isn't inherently evil, and I have some doubts that a recipe hidden in the floorboards would be copyrighted.

It might be in a paladin-ruled country. But no, I can't really see anything that would make the events in the first post evil.

Either the players don't know what they are talking about, or there is more to the situation than what we are being told. Just copying down a recipe is not evil. (Otherwise the recipe box in my kitchen would absolutely be oozing evil. I copied them all from my grandmothers book.)

Maybe the alcohol is so strong a single drink kills (much like a poison). Or maybe it is so alcoholic that those who drink it spontaneously burst into flame if they so much as breathe anywhere near a candle. Introducing it to the dwarves may incinerate the entire continent.


Dieben wrote:
Since when is learning the secret moonshine recipe an evil act, particularly if you leave the original hard-copy behind?

Its copywritted. You just broke the law?


Quote:
So a simple wand of magic missile can disable the screws in relatively short order.

Magic missile can't target objects, only creatures. The screws are fine.

But ramming can still target the screws even if they are below the waterline. The point of ramming was to put a hole in your enemy below the waterline.


ohako wrote:
@Jeraa when does acid splash get up to bow range?

It doesn't. Attack cantrips usually have a range of Close (25 feet + 5 feet/2 levels), so you would need to be level 14 before you could even reach the range a shortbow gets as its first increment (60 feet).

But I never said to use cantrips.

Quote:
Or some sort of at-will magical attacks with an equivalent range.

I don't have all the Pathfinder materials. Its possible somewhere out there is a magical attack power useable at will that has comparable ranges to bows. I personally don't know of any, which is why I didn't list a specific ability.


Every character should always have a ranged (not-thrown) weapon. Or some sort of at-will magical attacks with an equivalent range.

There will be times when you can't engage the enemy in melee (or don't want to). With no real ranged weapon, you would be sitting that fight out. With a ranged weapon, you can at least contribute some.


Quote:
My intent wasn't so much to hand wave it away as to point out how terribly far beyond the normal gaming experience (perhaps even most 'epic' gaming) so as to be pretty much an entirely different game altogether. The wizard in question needs in excess of 60 levels to be able to craft the Item. We have very little basis with which to even compare such a wizard to or even talk about the abilities of such a caster. Even the Epic rules barely cover such characters beyond "continue this table out as needed ... "

No he doesn't. You can bypass the requirements to make an item in Pathfinder by upping the crafting DC. That was even specifically mentioned in the FAQ.

Quote:

Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?

As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.

Second, the 3x caster level thing is for armor and weapons. It doesn't hold true for all items. Bracers of Armor, for instance, only requires a caster level equal to twice the bonus. So it isn't set in stone. It may be possible to require a caster level equal to the bonus, or even less. Not that it matters, because as I quoted above, you can simply ignore the caster level requirement (no matter how high it is) by simply adding +5 to the crafting DC.


Quote:
Appendix 13 on Monster Roles classifies creatures and identifies which can gain classes. Those with no role never advance by class levels. These are typically creatures that have an Int of 1 or 2, or are mindless. They are listed in detail. Horses and griffins have no role. They don't advance by class. However, on gaining an Int of 3, their role changes to combat. They can then gain class levels. See the following link, particularly the fourth paragraph down from the top: Monster Roles Link.

Ah. There we go. Something about this. Too bad it flat-out contradicts something appearing in the exact same book. (The roles list lists all animals as "No Role", while the section of the book dealing with adding class levels to creatures says most animals fall into the Combat role.)

Quote:

Combat: This creature is designed to be good at melee or ranged combat with a weapon or its natural weapons. In either case, these monsters have a number of feats and abilities to enhance their combat prowess (or are good simply by nature of their Hit Dice and ability scores). If a creature does not possess many spells, special abilities, or skills, it is a combat monster.

Most animals, constructs, dragons, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, plants, and vermin fall into this role, as do some creatures of all the other types.

So it doesn't really help. IT still falls upon the GM to make a decision.


Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:
Also, what player would want the GM to divide the total experience by the number of PCs + one guy's griffon. That line alone should get the players to decide they don't want the griffon getting any XP.

Probably no player. But if that griffon is contributing to the combat, making things easier, them yes it should be accounted for when determining experience. Even if it doesn't gain XP itself, if would be reducing the XP the party gains.

Animal companions are part of the class, so they don't count (just as a wizards fireball or fighters armor training don't change the XP). The Leadership feat specifically says cohorts don't count. Horses you just ride around on in combat wouldn't count (they really aren't adding anything).

But if that griffon (or other creature), acquired through gold or even just roleplay, is meaningfully contributing to combat (attacking, distracting the opponent, or whatever) than is should be reducing the amount of XP the party receives.

By not counting the griffon (or tther stronger creature type), you basically encourage the entire party to get a stronger mount. After all, that allows them to double the party size, deal more damage every round, deal with tougher/larger groups of monsters and yet still get the exact same amount of XP and treasure as if they did the same thing with only the PCs themselves.


Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:
Page 30 - As player characters overcome challenges, they gain experience points. Read the entire section. There is nothing in that section that mentions that NPCs gain experience points. You guys are trying to read things that aren't there.

One sentence in the entire section. In a paragraph before the rules-sections even start. Plus, that sentence can easily be read as overcoming challenges is how PCs earn experience, not necessarily how NPCs earn it.

The actual rules paragraphs (under the "Advancing Your Character" heading) only says "characters", not "player characters".

Quote:

Page 399 - Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome. At the end of the session, award XP to each PC that participated.

There is nothing in the awarding experience section that mentions awarding XP to NPCs.

Same page also says:

Quote:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game characters advance in level by defeating monsters, overcoming challenges, and completing adventures—in so doing, they earn experience points (XP for short).
Quote:
Exact XP: Once the game session is over, take your list of defeated CR numbers and look up the value of each CR on Table 12–2 under the “Total XP” column. Add up the XP values for each CR and then divide this total by the number of characters—each character earns an amount of XP equal to this number.

Again, "characters", not "player characters".

And just to make something clear - I'm not arguing that NPCs should gain experience. Just that the rules do allow it as a possibility.


Thaine wrote:
If I have the enlarge person spell cast on me, and then grab and fire a large size arrow (not a medium arrow that is enlarged, a separate large arrow) will I do large size damage?

No.

Bow damage is based on the size of the bow, not the arrow. That is why, on the weapons table, the damage is listed with the bow itself, not the arrow.


Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:
I checked the entire core rule book for experience points for NPCs. There is nothing in the entire core rule book that states that NPCs gain experience (other than the rules for cohorts gained from leadership).

The experience point table is called "Character Advancement and Level-Dependant Bonuses", not "Player Character Advancement and Level-Dependant Bonuses". By leaving out the "Player", the table should apply to all characters (both player and non-player characters). Indeed, NPCs also use the table anyway, for the purpose of the number of feats they gain and ability score increases. It only makes sense they use the rest of the table as well.

The same page has rules for character advancement. With the exception of one sentence ("As player characters overcome challenges, they gain
experience points."), it always says "character", not "player character".

The rules for rewarding experience alternates between both "characters" and "player characters".

There is enough in the book to, at the very least, imply NPCs can gain XP. Even if there is no direct quote saying they do, or they don't. (Even the rules for hirelings say they don't usually advance, not that they can't advance at all.)


Bandw2 wrote:
Leadership SETS their level, they don't gain experience, you do; and if you level, your cohort might too.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party's XP. Instead, divide the cohort's level by your level. Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to you, then add that number of experience points to the cohort's total.

If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.

They don't gain experience like normal (as it is based on both your level and theirs), but they do gain experience points and level up when their XP total is enough to do so. They don't automatically level up just because you do so.


From Ultimate Campaign:

Quote:
Mounts: Common mounts (such as horses or riding dogs bought from a merchant, rather than mounts that are class features) don't normally advance. If extraordinary circumstances merit a mount gaining Hit Dice, and you have Handle Animal ranks and take an interest in training the animal, use the same guidelines as those for animal companions.

They don't normally advance. Implies they can possibly advance.

Core Rulebook - LEadership feat:

Quote:

A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party's XP. Instead, divide the cohort's level by your level. Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to you, then add that number of experience points to the cohort's total.

If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.

Cohorts are NPCs. Flat out says they gain XP. Ultimate Campaign also says hirelings (also NPCs) don't normally advance, so they wouldn't gain XP.

In short, its entirely up to the GM.


The rules imply that normal animals (and constructs) can take class levels.

From the section on adding class levels to creatures:

Quote:

Step 1: Determine Creature's Role

When adding class levels to a creature, the first step is to determine what role the base creature fulfills. There are three basic roles into which a creature might fall. A creature can fall into more than one role if its abilities are diverse.

Combat: This creature is designed to be good at melee or ranged combat with a weapon or its natural weapons. In either case, these monsters have a number of feats and abilities to enhance their combat prowess (or are good simply by nature of their Hit Dice and ability scores). If a creature does not possess many spells, special abilities, or skills, it is a combat monster.

Most animals, constructs, dragons, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, plants, and vermin fall into this role, as do some creatures of all the other types.

This section is only about adding class levels to monsters. Since animals (Int 1-2) and constructs (usually Int -) are mentioned, it implies that they can indeed have class levels.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure you need an intelligence score of 3 or higher to take class levels. Mounts don't level up because they can't

Such a rule doesn't exist. Or it it does, its not in the section of the rules about adding class levels to monsters, which is where you would expect to find it.


AS far as I can tell by RAW, no.

You can deflect arrows and even snatch them from the air, but only because the rules specifically say you can.

Quote:
Deflecting and Snatching Bullets: The Deflect Arrows feat and the Snatch Arrows feat can be used to deflect bullets, but not pellets shot from a scatter weapon. Neither of these feats can be used to deflect siege firearm attacks.

So I don't see any real harm for allowing it in your own game. But by the rules, Wind Wall won't work like it does for arrows and bolts. You would still get the 30% miss chance, however.


Guns should not ignore DR/-.

Quote:

Damage Reduction

Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
Quote:
Sometimes damage reduction represents instant healing. Sometimes it represents the creature's tough hide or body. In either case, other characters can see that conventional attacks won't work.

Firearms bypassing armor is somewhat all right. But since DR represents more than just a thick, tough armored hide, giving firearms the ability to bypass it doesn't seem right. Just because you can punch through armor doesn't mean you can stop instant healing.

If you must include a DR piercing ability to firearms, just note that only DR from actual armor can be ignored, not a specific type of DR (like DR/-).


Nimoot wrote:
So what would the Math be behind what it would cost? I'm looking at the graph, and I get 56,000 for you needing to be spell caster lvl 7 for rings, multiplied by spell level, 1, by 2000, and then by 4 since the spell lasts in Rounds/a round.

Rings don't have a default minimum caster level. While you do need a caster level of 7 to take the Forge Ring feat, you can make a ring with a caster level of 1. The only magical item that has a default minimum caster level are staffs, which have a minimum caster level of 8th because it specifically says they do.

For more proof, you can find several rings in the core rulebook with caster levels below 7th.


There is a magic item that does something similar (Marvelous Pigments), but requires you to paint on a surface.


ZenithTN wrote:
I disagree. Craft check (arbitrarily say 15) X DC 12 for a simple weapon = 180 sp production a week. 180 sp is equivalent to how many 0 gp clubs? You can't answer, because it's a divide by zero. But if we were to find a close equivalent, a club studded with a penny, we could then determine that weeks production made 1800 clubs studded with pennies. 1800 / 40 hr work week = 45 CSwP an hour, or a little more than a minute each. Honestly, this is simple algebra people. There is no statement within the Craft skill as to minimum time. If you infer one, you've just put basket weavers and candle makers out of business, as they can only make one a day by that (il) logic.

Please tell me where it says the Craft skill can make more than one item at once? You can't. Because as written, you can only make one item at a time.

And there is a minimum time of 1 day, because that is all the Craft skill allows. There is no such thing as crafting by the hour, minute, or round. The minimum time is by the day. You will notice there is absolutely nothing in the skill about Progress by the Hour. The only thing you will find is Progress by the Day.

All skills have an Action section, detailing how long it takes to make a check. You will notice the Craft skill only mentions a week and a day. Not a hour, not a minute. Therefore, Craft checks take a minimum of one days time.

Does it make sense? No. But the Craft skill never has. Yet it has stayed unchanged for almost 15 years now, since 3.0 D&D. Why? Because when it comes down to it, no one cares about mundane crafting. Seriously. The game is about murder-hobos killing things for their shinies. It is not meant to simulate dung farmers or candle makers.


ZenithTN wrote:
As an aside, per crafting rules, it takes virtually no time at all to craft a zero gp item. Fearspect, your 1 wk estimate is incorrect.

Actually, no it is not. By default, Craft checks are done by the week. At best, it still takes a day if you use the Progress by the Day rules.

Even if you have +1 billion in a Craft check, it still takes a minimum of 1 day to make something.

Quote:
Action: Does not apply. Craft checks are made by the day or week (see above).

1 to 50 of 1,840 << 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.