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

2,147 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Philip Sgrignoli 662 wrote:
I posted this in the rules forum because this spell should be combat applicable and no guidelines are present. On top of this, I see no rules in place for concentration checks for spells already active since the guides only account for during casting. I then posted what I did as a model. There was no home-brewing where this was used it merely was not an official pathfinder society session.

The rules forum is specifically for the actual rules of the game. This is very much a home-brewed rule, as it does not appear in the actual rules of the game.

You may also be overlooking that is is a standard action to maintain a spell with a duration of concentration.

Quote:
Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end.

You can't really do anything if you are concentrating on a spell except move. Especially since you have to concentrate for at least 3 whole rounds to get the surface thoughts. That is a massive waste of actions. You are just standing there - any even remotely intelligent creature would just ignore you, making the defensive abilities pointless.

Aside from that, nothing about the actual spell scales with your level. There is no reason to make any defensive bonuses scale either. You aren't looking deeper into someones mind or getting the results faster as your level increases, it stays the same from 3rd level to 20th. The same should apply to any defensive abilities you want to give it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell level as nothing to do with it. Glitterdust reveals invisible opponents, even those using greater invisibility.

Same with See Invisibility (also a 2nd level spell).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Advanced Race Guide has this to say:

Quote:
Constructs do not breathe, eat, or sleep, unless they want to gain some beneficial effect from one of these activities. This means that a construct can drink potions to benefit from their effects and can sleep in order to regain spells, but neither of these activities is required to survive or stay in good health.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

longsword = 15 gp = 0.02ozgold/gp x 15gp x $1194/ozgold = $358.20

sounds about right if you ask me

50 gp per pound. 15 gp is 0.3 pounds of gold, or 4.8 ounces of gold.

Each gold piece is 0.32 ounces of gold, or $382.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For spell-like abilities, each one of those spells can be used once per day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mok wrote:
I've never quite understood it, but the devs really really really really really don't want PCs to be able to draw anything quickly unless it is a traditional weapon. The Quick Draw feat for Pathfinder has its wording changed from 3.5 to explicitly forbid all of the adventuring items one would expect PCs would want to draw quickly, such as positions.

I know this is an old post, but just for those reading for the first time, this isn't true. The 3.5 Quick Draw feat as written only works with weapons.

3.5 Quick Draw wrote:

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill, page 81) as a move action.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).

All Pathfinder did was clarify it. It didn't actually change what 3.5 Quick Draw as written did.

PF Quick Draw wrote:
Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
By definition, all magic items are made from masterwork items, no matter what the final appearance. None of the items you referring to then, are of simple make, even if they are plain in appearance.

The only things that have to be masterwork are weapons, armor, and shields. No other magic item crafting feat requires a masterwork item.

There is no such thing as a masterwork ring, or masterwork parchment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no default range. Each ability would have to specify the range it can be used at.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is the Rules forum. Only rules-correct answers should be given.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seannoss wrote:
As a side note; doesn't standing up count as moving? So a person couldn't stand and take a 5 foot shift in the same round.

You can't use a 5-foot step in a round where you move - that is, go from 1 square to another.

Standing up isn't movement - it is a move action. Those are different things. Not all move actions are movement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Good Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the good-aligned outer planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have good 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 a good alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the good subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are good-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).

The other subtypes say the same thing. It is entirely possible to have a creature that detects and is effected by opposing alignment effects - a Lawful Good succubus (which has the Chaotic and Evil subtypes) is affected as a lawful, chaotic, good, and evil creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr.$mith wrote:
1. Can you make wands with meta magic feats tied into their "spell level" like a wand of maximize magic missile? Or a staff with Maximize magic missile? (Kind of want one for my wizard so he can have an easy thing to use on some rounds)

Yes.

Quote:
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn't need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.
Quote:
2. Do you need the meta magic feat for crafting the appropriate meta magic rod? IE: Maximize

Normally, yes. But that may be one of the things you can remove by increasing the crafting DC by +5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nagas having problems with material components is only part of their problems. They have no hands for the somatic components.

Quote:
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:

Wow, I was not expecting that not a single wizard in the NPC Codex is listed with a spell component pouch.

Regardless, Senko, I never give my sorcerers spell component pouches and I have never experienced a sorcerer unable to cast mage armor and the like because they didn't have the requisite foci.

I may be wrong, but I believe the vast mojority of players consider foci to fall under Eschew Materials. If you follow the advice found here, and take the strict rules interpretation, you may find youself in the minority on this issue.

On the other hand, I may have just found myself in the minority here.

This is the Rules forum. The only correct answers here are the actual rules. And by the actual rules, focuses are not material components, and therefore Eschew Materials has no effect on them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

DR is basically non-existent in PF. . . DR/- or just gtfo

You could give a monster DR 1Million/(Anything and everything) and PF rules says that +5 sword gets through no matter what. . .

No it can't. +5 swords can only get through DR/magic, alignment-based, adamantine, cold iron, and silver.

It wouldn't be able to get through any other material-based DR (should one exist). +5 weapons won't get through DR/piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning (unless the base weapon was one of those, of course). DR/Epic also can't be overcome by a +5 weapon.

+5 weapons don't automatically overcome all forms of damage reduction. Just most of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Focuses are not material components. That is why the rules differentiate them. Eschew Materials won't remove the need for the focus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fifo wrote:

I'm sure it's a bit late to respond now, but. Communication is not my strong suit, sorry about that. I wasn't trying to stir up anything, and never do. sometimes I just need to understand the whys and wherefores.

Looking at the druid guides there are alot of animal companions that are colored red and look as though no one in their right mind would take one. there are some that are purple saying 'take me, take me'. so I ask myself (and you guys) basically, why doesn't everyone take the 'best' pet. so my question was, "is there some reason why everyone doesn't take tiger, because it seems too good to be true that I can start a new character with a kick butt animal companion.

I take it the answer was "yes", and can leave it at that. It seems sometimes people are trying to uberize things and some people were thinking I was after a large tiger to start with.

sorry for my miscommunication .

Not everyone takes the best mechanical option. Many people take things that would be appropriate for their character. It is a roleplaying game, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I thought FR became the official edition for 3E. I don't remember any greyhawk books for 3.5.

The deities in the PHB were Greyhawk gods. The various spellcaster names (Mordenkainen, Bigby, etc.) were Greyhawk characters. The various subraces were Greyhawk, not Forgotten Realms (high elves instead of moon elves, grey elves instead of sun elves, hill dwarves instead of shield dwarves, etc.) The only Forgotten Realms stuff in the core rules was (As far as I can remember) the Red Wizard prestige class.

There were many Forgotten Realms books, yes. But the core rules defaulted to Greyhawk.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
plusonetshirt wrote:
When 1 of my game club members suggested we play Pathfinder( we mostly play Table-top minitures games, Warhammer ect) I asked him if it was like D&D he said yes. He said the player response to D&D 4.0 was less than desireable, so Pathfinder was created.He said think of it as D&D 3.75.I still have my 3.5 book,and I see many similarities. I'm surprised Wizards hasn't yelled 'IP INFRINGMENT! ' on Paizo. One of our members actually worked with Gary Gygax on the original rpg he made,Chainmail.

Its not IP infringement. That is the entire purpose behind the Open Gaming License. It gives permission for anyone to do exactly what Paizo did when they made Pathfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If the odds actually are the same, then question then becomes, Why? What benefit is there in rolling a d6 and a d10 instead of a d20?

The only benefit I could see is if you don't actually have a d20 die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Meh... use it on a kukri, scimitar or other high crit range weapon and you should be decapitating 25% of the time with improved crit or keen...

Pretty good as is... awesome against dragons and other high hp critters

The weapons crit range doesn't matter at all. The vorpal effect only functions on a natural 20, regardless of the weapons crit range. Improved Critical or Keen don't make the vorpal effect any more likely to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
If I remember correctly, the creator's caster level must be at least 3 times the enhancement bonus of the item. So if you want to make a +2 belt of giant strength you must be at least CL 6 to craft it.

That only applies to armor, shields, and weapons. With a few exceptions, like Amulets of Natural Armor.

Bracers of Armor only require 2x the bonus. And there is no level requirement for the stat-increasing items.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It just means he dies. That is it. Anything beyond that is completely houseruled.

It doesn't matter if you just barely kill someone or reduce them to -300 hit points. Its just as easy to resurrect both or turn both into an undead.


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.
Quote:

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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

And

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

I think it is odd that pathfinder has a defined price for mithril shields, but no price for mithril weapons. It does have a price by weight however, which can be used to determine pricing for a weapon (as per the errata on the mithril material)

A mithril shield is priced the same as mithril light armor

Why would they not define a price for an adamantine shield? Does nobody ever want to make an adamantine shield?

Because there is no benefit to making a shield from adamantine, aside from a higher hardness and more hit points (which already varies by material), and the lower ACP all masterwork shields get. Adamantine shields don't grant DR like armor does.

Used as a weapon, however, it does get the adamantine benefit of ignoring hardness less than 20. So pricing it as a weapon makes sense.

Mithral having a specific price for sheild makes sense, as you get actual benefits from making a shield from mithral (a greater than usual reduction in ACP, a lower ASF, and a higher max Dex [which granted, is useless for most shields]). It doesn't have a price for weapons because it didn't have such a price in 3.5 D&D, and Paizo didn't come up with a set price when they changed mithral to actually be somewhat useful for weapons (counting as silver for purposes of DR).

For what it is worth, the 3.5 FAQ stated an adamantine shield is priced the same as adamantine light armor, but does not grant DR. However, I have to disagree, as you aren't getting the same benefit from an adamantine shield as you are the adamantine light armor (DR 1/-). You do get benefits as a weapon, so it should be priced as a weapon.


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:

Quote:

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.
Quote:
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:

o_o

*twitch*
o_-

KAIJU!?

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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:

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.)


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.
Quote:
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 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.