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

1,942 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:

They wouldn't have to make their own binder, as getting a binder from a place like Staples or Walmart is fairly cheap. They could alsoprint the pages on cardstock, which is much more durable than paper, and even then, there are stickers you can get for cheap that you place on the holes to reinforce them, or Wizards could add those to them by default.

It is much easier, and probably cheaper, to keep those looseleaf pages in good condition now than it was back in the 90s.

Even without a binder, they would have to package the sheets somehow. So that may negate any cost savings they would of had.

Cardstock is more expensive than regular paper, so that is a cost increase. Cardstock is also thicker and heavier, so that means each book takes up more space and is more expensive to ship. The only way to counter that is to not include as many monsters in a book, so you end up getting fewer monsters for the same price.

Plus the whole issue of monsters no longer being in alphabetical order once you start adding in monsters from other sources. Which you could fix by only printing one monster per page, but that only increases the cost to print the entire book, and makes it even larger, as now you have more cardstock pages (which are already thicker than a normal sheet of paper).

In the end, you just end up with a thicker, heavier, and more expensive product if you go that route instead of just printing a normal book.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

An antitoxin has a DC of 25 to craft. A wizard by level 13 should have something like 13+3+8= +24

With a valet familiar that can go up to +28 and double gold/day. Without any investment that comes up as 40g/day craft.
With afeat that is 8vials/day
Without a feat... Just use fabricate.and craft up to 4-5/day

Except the Craft rules don't allow for more than 1 item a day. And the minimum time for the check is also 1 day. At the absolute best you get 1 vial/day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Furthermore, the 1e/2e ring didn't last 24 hours. It lasted forever until cancelled. So it was clearly not based on the spell duration, then.

No, it lasted 24 hours.

The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisable state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.

It worked exactly the same as the wizard spell. The wizard spell had a duration of 24 hours, not forever. So the ring lasted 24 hours. Of course, you could always reactivate it. Doesn't change that a single activation only lasted at most 24 hours.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Im still strugling to understand this rules (First timer on a D20 system) the +1 on the weapon, adds to what? The atack, the damage? Both? Or each +1 means a separate improvement? Im sure that I'll figure it out once I study the rules, but want to get that part sure first, to understand what you guys are telling me, haha.

The weapon enhancement bonus (the +) adds to both attack rolls and damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
If there is an intention to limit something like a Hat of Disguise, you don't do it by forcing someone to use a Command Word every 11 minutes...all day long. That's not silly, that's retarded. The collective intelligence at WotC/Paizo isn't that stupid (I'm hoping). Only a GM trying to nerf a player/item would try to interpret an item working like that.

But WotC did intend for it to have the same duration as the spell, as shown in the 3.5 FAQ.

3.5 FAQ wrote:

What is the duration of the invisibility granted by a ring of invisibility?

In general, you should assume that any spell effect mimicked by a magic item treats all variables of the effect as if it were the spell cast with the item’s caster level. In this case, the duration of the ring’s ability is the equivalent of an invisibility spell cast by a 3rd-level caster (the ring’s caster level): 3 minutes. Of course, nothing prevents a character from activating the ring’s power more frequently than this (thus ensuring a constant invisibility), as long as he’s willing (and able) to spend the actions to do so.


3.5 FAQ wrote:

I’m looking at the descriptions for the various command activated magic rings in the DMG, and I can’t find any mention of how long these powers actually last once activated. For example, how long do you blink when you activate a ring of blinking? How long can you turn spells when you activate a ring of spell turning? What happens if I activate a ring twice? Do the durations stack?

In the case of a ring (or any other item) that duplicates a spell effect, one activation functions for the same duration as the duplicated spell cast by a character of the ring’s caster level. For example, when you activate a ring of blinking you will blink for up to 7 rounds since the ring’s caster level is 7th. Since blink is a dismissible spell, you can use a standard action to deactivate the effect sooner if you like. In some cases, an item’s description specifies a different duration for a spell effect. For example, when you activate a ring of spell turning, the ring turns the next nine levels of spell cast on you, no matter how long that takes.

If you activate an item again before a previous activation runs out, the two durations overlap, they do not stack. For example, of you active a ring of blinking and blink for 3 rounds, then activate it again, you wind up blinking for 10 rounds in total. In the case of a ring of spell turning, a new activation would mean the ring would turn the next nine levels of spells cast on you after the second activation (any unused turning from the previous activation would be lost).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

The whole legacy argument for the ring of invisibility forget something: with the AD&D 1st edition version if you broke your invisibility attacking you were unable to reactivate the ring for 10 minutes. 1st and 2nd editions gave you what is now the invisible condition, there was nothing in the description about casting the spell.

The 3.x version say "benefit from invisibility, as the spell.", a big change from the earlier versions. As 3.x has the invisible condition it would have been very simple to say "make you invisible", without the need to add "as the spell".

I just checked my copies of the 1st and 2nd edition DMGs. Both have the same description:

AD&D Ring of Invisibility wrote:
The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisable state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.

Absolutely nothing about having to wait to reactivate. And it very clearly stats it works as the spell.

I can see way some people may have believed the ring was active constantly, because Invisibility had a duration of 24 hours in 2nd edition. It wasn't active constantly, it just seemed like it with such a long duration.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For what its worth, the 3.5 FAQ states that when a magic item duplicates a spell, it only lasts for the duration of the spell at a caster level equal to the item.

3.5 FAQ wrote:

In the case of a ring (or any other item) that duplicates a spell effect, one activation functions for the same duration as the duplicated spell cast by a character of the ring’s caster level. For example, when you activate a ring of blinking you will blink for up to 7 rounds since the ring’s caster level is 7th. Since blink is a dismissible spell, you can use a standard action to deactivate the effect sooner if you like. In some cases, an item’s description specifies a different duration for a spell effect. For example, when you activate a ring of spell turning, the ring turns the next nine levels of spell cast on you, no matter how long that takes.

If you activate an item again before a previous activation runs out, the two durations overlap, they do not stack. For example, of you active a ring of blinking and blink for 3 rounds, then activate it again, you wind up blinking for 10 rounds in total. In the case of a ring of spell turning, a new activation would mean the ring would turn the next nine levels of spells cast on you after the second activation (any unused turning from the previous activation would be lost).

The 1st edition DMG says rings spell-like abilities function as 12th level of magic use unless the power requires a higher level of magic use. And the Ring of Invisibility says it functions exactly as the spell (with the exception that some rings have an added effect). That would imply the duration as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It does not double.

You can pull from the Improved Natural Attack feat:


Improved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.

You can extrapolate a bit of a pattern from there.

2d6 to 3d6 (1 die).
3d6 to 4d6 (1 die).
4d6 to 6d6 (2 dice).
6d6 to 8d6 (2 dice).
8d6 to 12d6 (4 dice).

Continuing the pattern would give you 16d6 (+4 dice), 24d6 (+8 dice), 32d6 (+8 dice). Basically, every 2 steps doubles the dice. Not every step.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
It's also the fact that they simply don't need it. Between flame breath, their natural armor and the Crush maneuver, a properly run dragon is pretty much unbeatable without it.

Against humans and similar creatures, they don't really need it.

But against another dragon, their flame breath may be totally useless. A dragons attack bonuses are usually high enough to relatively easily hit another dragon of the same size.

Against other dragons (or the rare humanoid that can threaten it, like adventurers), a dragon may very well want armor. Or some other protection.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:




Yes, kaiju. You did notice kaiju appeared in Bestiary 4 didn't you?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe the armor was passed down from the old days, back when dragons rules the world and humans, elves, and dwarves had yet to master fire. Humans have legendary items and magical artifacts, why not dragons?

Modern dragons, in an attempt to rekindle the old days, commission great suits of armor for themselves. (Of course, they aren't as good as the ancient suits of armor. Apparently, nothing in the modern fantasy world is as good as it was in the old days.)

In most settings (or at least a lot of settings), there was a time when dragons ruled the world. The only threat to a dragon then was another dragon, and armor would be as helpful there as it is to a human facing other humans.

Dragons don't make armor to protect themselves from humans. They do it to protect themselves from other dragons.

And worse, if the monster uses monster specific items , such as Dragon shaped armour, the PCs then have a magic item that they can't use anyway. This is very much like taunting your players. Showing them magic items that they then can't use. Sort of like giving them barbarian specific armour in a party with no barbarians.

Its far more realistic if there are items the party can't use. Why must everything be focused around humans and human-sized/shaped creatures. There are many, many different creature types. Many of them are a different size and/or shape than humans. Why wouldn't they make their own magical gear?

I guess it comes down to one thing. Do you build the world around your specific players, ignoring everything else? Or do you make a more realistic fantasy world, which means there will be things the party can not use and there may be fights the party can not win?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
Ravingdork, Orge's cannot use the spell Enlarge Person just like AAsamir can't use it as they do not fall into the person sub type AAsamir are Native outsiders and Orges are of the giant subtype.

There is no such thing as a "person" subtype. Enlarge person works on all creatures of the Humanoid type. Ogres are Humanoids, so they can indeed use Enlarge Person. Aasimar can't use it because they have the Outsider type, not the Humanoid type.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FanaticRat wrote:
Because I don't feel like statting and doing purchases for every single friggin' enemy. Building one good NPC takes long enough, I don't want to do that 15 more times for like two or three sessions of gameplay, and potentially have that all wasted or backfire.

It doesn't take that long. You already have the monsters stat. You already have to generate the treasure. It doesn't take that much longer to add a few extra plus into the monster stat block. You aren't rewriting the entire monster, just boosting a couple of things.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Surely it can't fly if it's wearing anything over light? I should check that.

You can fly in any armor in Pathfinder. The solar angel is specifically listed with +5 full plate and a fly speed. The fly spell even mentions flying in heavy armor, but as a magic spell that doesn't necessarily have to function the way mundane flight does.

In 3.X D&D, you couldn't fly with more than a light load. But Paizo didn't copy those rules, so they don't apply in Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Now, you're right that a dragon could commission a set of barding, assuming he was willing to humble himself enough to cooperate with a crafter in such fashion, and was willing to part with the fairly substantial amount of his hoard that it would cost. But why would he want to? He's already a terrifying engine of destruction, and armor is hot and uncomfortable.

Older dragons can just Fabricate it, as they are all spellcasters anyway. Or they could just make it themselves. A set of masterwork tools is trivial, and they can take 10, so their craft check is 12+ Intelligence modifier. The highest DC is only 19 (for full plate), 20 if masterwork. So at least the lesser armors can be made with no real investment. A single rank in Craft gives another +4 for a total of 16 + Intelligence modifier, as Craft is a class skill for dragons.

And the dragon wears magic armor for the same reason anyone else does - you can enchant it with special effects. Throw some energy resistance on their if they are vulnerable to an energy type.

While the dragon doesn't need armor against lesser creatures, what if going up against another dragon? An adult red dragon has attack roll bonuses of +25 and +24, with an AC of 29. Against another adult red dragon, he gets hit on a roll of 4 or 5. Slap on a suit of full plate, the armored dragon boosts his AC to 38, and now gets hit on a roll of 13 or 14. That is a 45% less chance to get hit. With some magical enhancements, it gets even better.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't keep bandits relevant. Realism doesn't fit into the game. Once you pass level 5 or so you have left the world of regular people behind. You stop worrying about things like regular bandits. The PCs should be cutting through them easily. That is the entire point of leveling up and gaining power. If everything around the PCs is doing the same, what is the point of leveling in the first place? You just get bigger numbers and new shinies, but in the end it doesn't matter as are still fighting the same opponents, who have received the same thing.

You could always throw in a few higher level bandits (Bandit Lords, captains, etc.). But the average bandit will cease to be a threat, the same way the average goblin stops being a threat.

Maybe a band of ogres (or suitable powerful monsters) come into the area and stomp the bandits out. Then the monsters are the ones doing the robbing.

Another point, have bandits be smart, but don't go trying to outsmart the party. Sure the bandits could have a well setup ambush, tree across the road, archers on both sides, spearmen in the bushes. But are they really going to have a wizard with spells prepared specifically to counter the party's caster? That reeks of DM Metagame and isn't really fair to the party.

A random pack of bandits? Probably not. But if the PCs have been active in the area and dealt with the bandits several times before? Sure. It would make sense that an enemy you have fought several times before would start to adapt its fighting style to counter yours.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the barbarians Improved Uncanny Dodge ability:


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.)

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DragonMunchie wrote:
I have a question on behalf of a fledgling DM - Can you slap the half-fiend template on a demon, devil, or other type of fiend as a sort of advancement?This would probably be in addition to increasing the creatures hit dice.

Yes you can.

For that matter, you can add the Half-Dragon template to dragons to create a Half-Black Dragon White Dragon (a grey dragon? or a dalmatian dragon?), or use the Half-Celestial template to model the offspring of a Solar and Planatar angel couple.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Johnson 320 wrote:

I have a Headband +6 and Another Item giving me Int +4

Both have different skills attached to them.
Question is can I wear both Items and get the skills from both items.
I know I only get the +6 once to Int score. But the magic of the other item doesn't shut off. does it still give the skill bonus?

The bonus skill ranks you are getting are because of the boosted intelligence. Since the second item isn't boosting your intelligence any more, you should not get the skill ranks that item grants.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
It does make me sad that the DMG won't be out until November 2014. I wish they would just release the 3 core books all at the same time, not 1-3 months apart.

Hey, it could be worse. For 1st edition AD&D, the Monster Manual was released in 1977, the Players Handbook in 1978, and the Dungeon Masters Guide in 1979.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Enpeze wrote:
the layout of the basic pdf is ok, but not really phantastic. Even the simplest Pathfinder books have a more professional layout. What is really annoying that in my copy there was no index and no table of contents which page numbers.

This may change. The current Basic PDF is not the final version. They still have material from the Monster Manual and Dungeon Masters Guide to add to it. After that, they may include an index/table of contents.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

5e is still similar enough that conversion can be done relatively easily. No need for an "official" conversion.

Besides that, its generally not a good business model to actively support your competition in the market.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Assuming you have Natural Spell, you could use this on yourself, but enjoy being squishy...

Won't work. Polymorph effects do not change your creature type, and Pup Shape only works on animals and magical beasts.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Murray wrote:

Is hovering a move action? Does this mean that you cannot take a full-round attack while flying? It makes sense, I suppose, and explains why dragons land on the ground to fight adventurers. It creates a bit of a quandry for air elementals, though, who are always flying. But then again, they don't use wings. But neither to PCs using the fly spell.

What I'm asking is: can a PC using a fly spell just sit there hovering in midair and make full-round attacks as though they were standing on the ground?

Most (if not all) skills contain a section detailing what kind of action is required to use the skill. For Fly:

Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.

So yes, you can hover and make a full attack.

You can "turn more than 45° by spending 5' of movement", and "Turn 180° by spending 10 feet of movement". 180 is greater than 45 - why can't you just spend the 5'? Is there some errata to the effect that 5' will buy you more than 45° but only up to 90° or 135° or something?

There doesn't need to be errata. If you turn more than 45 degrees, you spend 5 feet of movement. If you turn 180 degrees, you spend 10' of movement.

When you sacrifice 5' of movement to turn, do we assume that this 5' does not count towards the requirement to move at least half your movement to stray aloft? I suppose so, otherwise you could hover by just spinning in place.

Correct. You are sacrificing movement, not actually moving. Only actual movement counts.

The fly spell states that it "requires no more concentration than walking". I read this as "it requires no more concentration to fly than a creature with a fly speed needs". That is, you still need to make fly checks when you are flying with a spell.

Correct. But note you only need to make Fly checks when performing a complex maneuver. Regular movement and gentle turns (less than 45 degrees) do not require checks.

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:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

3 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 person marked this as a favorite.

Humans are Medium size. That gives them a minimum height of 4 feet, and a maximum of 8 feet. If you want humans smaller then that, they need to be Small size, and you need to design a new Small Human race.

Racial stats are not meant to cover all possible members of that race, but simply the average member. If you want a smaller version, make a racial trait or something.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

All Intelligence increases past 1st level don't add to the number of languages you know, not just a headband of vast intelligence.

The only way to get bonus languages out of a headband of vast intelligence is to set your headband's associated skill to Linguistics: then you get one bonus language per character level you possess from the skill ranks that the headband bestows upon you.

Now, I don't recall if the rules state whether those languages are fixed or whether you can choose new ones every time you put on the headband. Personally, I'd house rule it as the former, just for simplicity.

Well, if you follow the rulings in the FAQ, they do. As it is written in the book, you don't.


Intelligence: If my Intelligence modifier increases, can I select another bonus language?

Yes. For example, if your Int is 13 and you reach level 4 and apply your ability score increase to Int, this increases your Int bonus from +1 to +2, which grants you another bonus language.
Technically, Int-enhancing items such as a headband of vast intelligence should grant a specific language (in the same way they do for skill ranks).

6 people marked this as a favorite.

By default (That is, the Core Rulebook), divine casters do not require a deity.

Certain campaign settings change that, like Golarion and Forgotten Realms. In those settings, a divine spellcaster must choose a patron deity.

And any attempt to bring real-world religion into the game should be avoided at all costs. That is just begging to start trouble.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your sorcerer starts out at 7th level, but looses a level due to the Reincarnate (3.5 reincarnate, Pathfinder Reincarnate works differently), so is now a 6th level sorcerer. The bugbear hit dice and level adjustment are then added to that. So you would now have 6 levels of Sorcerer, 3 racial hit dice, and a +1 level adjustment, making you a 10th level character.

In Pathfinder, if your 7th level character was Reincarnated into a Bugbear, you would still be a 7th level sorcerer with the bugbear stuff added on top. You would also have 2 negative levels, and so take a -2 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks, as well as loosing 10 hit points from your maximum amount. You are also treated as 2 levels lower for level-depending abilities (such as spellcasting). These penalties can be removed with a Restoration spell or similar.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Ring of Wizardry I doubles the number of 1st level spells you can prepare (base spells only, not counting bonus spells), and costs 20,000.

Since wizards ultimately only have 4 spell slots per spell level, you could figure that granting one extra 1st level spell slot costs 1/4 of 20,000 gp, or 5000 gp.

Following that, an extra 2nd level spell could cost 10,000 gp. An extra 3rd level spell would cost 17,500 gp and an extra 4th level spell would cost 25,000 gp.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:
Not to mention that without access to magical healing you are going to end up doing two combats (3 at the very most) and then go rest for a week (at first levles) or for a few months (at higher levels).

No where near a few months. Remember that a character heals their level in hit points per day of rest. Complete bed rest doubles that.

So consider the very lucky barbarian who rolled maximum on all 20 of his d12 hit dice. That is 240 hp. Lets say a Con mod of +5, for an additional 100 hitpoints, bringing the total up to 340. If brought all the way down to 0 HP, then that would take (340 divided by 20) 17 days to heal, with the barbarian still adventuring during that time. If he took complete bed rest, thats only (340 divided by 40) 9 days.

And remember, that is someone with the largest hit die size available, who rolled maximum on all dice. With more average numbers, the healing time drops to 12 days (with adventuring) and 6 days (complete rest).

OH, and then there is the Heal skill. A successful DC 15 check (for long-term care) lets the patient heal double the normal amount for they day (So 4x the characters level with complete bed rest.) You just can't provide this care to yourself, but the healer can provide it to up to 6 other people. That brings our mighty barbarian down to 9 days of healing with adventuring, or 4 days with complete bed rest. Again, the average 20th level barbarian would reduce those numbers to 6 days while adventuring, or 3 days of bed rest.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Acid Arrow doesn't create an actual arrow any more than Lightning Bolt creates a crossbow bolt, or Magic Missile creates a cruise missile or a Sidewinder.

The title is just descriptive.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cranky Dog wrote:

Incidentally, Chaotic and Evil Outsider Bane are not valid bane enchantments.

It has to be a specific creature subtype (demon, demodand, qlippoth are all different CE outsider subtypes) to be a legitimate bane enchantment.

We have Holy and Axiomatic to deal with alignments.

Incorrect. Bane just requires to to chose a subtype.

Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).

Evil, Good, Law, and Chaos are all subtypes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

By RAW, the only penalty wielding a non-proficient weapon gives is you a -4 penalty on attack rolls. Everything else remains unchanged.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
I'd say a Perception roll before you get that Spellcraft roll would not be inappropriate.

Actually, it probably is inappropriate. The Spellcraft check already includes the Perception modifiers.

Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Common sense says that a normal lion can not wield a normal sword. You have to use common sense when reading the rules - its simply impossible to include every single little thing in the rules.

Though it should be possible to make certain weapons for animals. I know that in some rooster fights, a razor blade can be attached to its leg to inflict greater injuries on its opponent.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You get your sneak attack damage on every attack that qualifies. So if you are using Greater Invisibility, or are flanking your target, you get to add sneak attack damage on every attack you make.

Rogue class, Sneak Attack description wrote:
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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

The description of sneak attack does not say you can only get the extra damage once per round, it specifically says you get it anytime you meet the requirements. If you meet the requirements on 2 attacks in a round, both get the extra damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthias_DM wrote:

"15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata."

When and where was this answered in the errata??

"Answered in the Errata" or FAQ or whatever doesn't always mean that. It could of very well just been marked that way to clear it off their list of FAQ requests.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Granted, this is from 3.5, but its the full paragraph of the rules.

If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 being straight back at you and 2 through 8 counting clockwise around the grid intersection or target creature. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw. So, if you miss on a throw out to two range increments and roll a 1 to determine the misdirection of the throw, the splash weapon lands on the intersection that is 2 squares away from the target in the direction toward you. See the accompanying diagram.

It specifically says 2 range increments results in a 2 square distance when you miss. It doesn't say anything about the 2 squares being because the weapons range increment is 10 feet (2 squares), but because it was thrown 2 increments.

Now the full text wasn't made Open Content, so couldn't of been used in Pathfinder, but thats the original intention. The number of squares you count is equal to the number of range increments that you threw the weapon, not the same distance as the weapons range increment.

Of course, Pathfinder could of changed that like they did other things.

1 to 50 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.