Krome's page

Depends upon what you want from the encounter.

Will the PCs be killing the deity for good?

If so I would create a 60HD+ character using rules from Deities & Demigods from 3.5 and then let the players apply their buffs and nerfs to the deity and fight it out from there. It is, in my opinion, the only way to set up so the PCs do not feel cheated. They get to beat a real deity, not a washed out version made to be beaten deity.

If the deity is not expected to be killed for good, then make it a 25HD avatar of the deity. The PCs can weaken the main deity and knock out its mortal representative for a long while. This one is easier to make than the real deal.

But which ever version you go, I would make sure the PCs do not feel cheapened. If you want them to kill the deity out right, then you almost have to make a 60+HD monster for them to fight. Otherwise, really no matter how you sugar coat it, it really is not a deity...

We tried it. I hated it.

Velcro Zipper said he enjoyed researching ways to create a workable plot and connecting the regions and such. In essence this is entirely rewriting the entirety of the dungeon.

If you are going to spend that much time and effort, you might as well custom create the rooms to match what is ring on. I think it would be even easier.

I hate giving negative opinions on products after someone has spent a lot of time, energy and money on producing it, but honestly I loathed that "adventure."

Krome wrote:

Will Paizo be forced to create a Pathfinder 2.0 and if they do, if it's significantly different than Pathfinder they'll basically be in the same position that WOTC was with 4E a few years ago with people bailing on Pathfinder to go play an "official" and "supported" ruleset.

Let's not kid ourselves. Pathfinder 2e is inevitable.

But imagine this...

5e takes best parts of 3.x, 4e and Pathfinder, improves upon them all and we get an AMAZING system design called 5e...

Then Pathfinder, already growing and evolving takes 5e and Pathfinder and improves upon them to get Pathfinder 2e, and EVEN BETTER system...

and it snowballs in a 5-10 year cycle. The average edition has always been in a 5-10 year range.

From the original D&D pamphlets, to the basic box sets, to Advanced D&D, to 2nd Edition AD&D, to D&D 3e, to D&D 3.5, to 4e, to Pathfinder... that is eight generations (and yes I have played every single one- even the original pamphlets).

BTW my FAVORITE edition is AD&D, hands down.

You people don't know what you want. THey can't adjust to everyones wants and needs or the game will just be a mess. It's best to sit back let them make it, and leave them feedback where feedback is utilizable instead of wasting time here.

lol

No, I think we all know what WE want. WOTC will have to decide what THEY want.

BTW not wasting time at all. I'm learning a great deal and find the dialog quite interesting.

To be honest though, I'm happy in Paizo land.

I don't want 5E to fail, but I'd rather see the things I like in Pathfinder (or PF2E if it comes to that). I love Paizo products (art, editing, formatting, content, design, etc.)... I want to be a 'one system guy' right now, as I don't get as much time to play as I'd like.

MSG

To be honest, though when younger, we played MANY different systems simultaneously without issue, I would prefer to use one system now (getting old, you know).

However, I think it is important to the industry as a whole for D&D 5e to be a success (name brand recognition alone is vital to the industry).

And MORE importantly, I think it imperative for D&D to advance and improve the underlying design issues. I imagine, for example, WOTC studying Pathfinder and analyzing its strengths and melding them to 4e's strengths (yes there WERE some) and evolving the game into a superior product than 3.x, 4e or even Pathfinder.

Why do I want that (especially stating that on Paizo's own boards! How rude!)?

Because once 5e comes out, it really should not be THAT long before Pathfinder will be due a facelift. Then Paizo can study 5e's strengths and weaknesses and meld them to Pathfinder 2.0's strengths to improve again.

Call it evolution. WOTC and Paizo (and to a lesser extent White Wolf and others) leap frogging one another to hurl their systems ahead with leaps and bounds. I imagine this as a 5-10 year cycle of improving the core design principles of the industry, thus improving the quality of play for everyone.

The requirements for Dragonstyle are Str 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, Acrobatics 3 ranks.

Strength is no problem. Acrobatics is no problem at level 3. Improved Unarmed Strike is the tricky part. So let's look at Animal Companion Rules.

Feats: This is the total number of feats possessed by an animal companion. Animal companions should select their feats from those listed under Animal Feats. Animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency). Note that animal companions cannot select a feat with a requirement of base attack bonus +1 until they gain their second feat at 3 Hit Dice.

So Animal Companion can choose a feat at 1st level.

I CAN select Improved Unarmed Strike. It is, however, unable to utilize the feat. But it can select the feat.

So, having selected Improved Unarmed Strike at level 1, it builds its ranks in Acrobatics at level 3. However it does not get to select Dragon Style at that time. The next time it gets a feat selection and is capable of meeting all requirements is level 5.

Intelligence is not a necessary prerequisite for either Dragon Style nor Improved Unarmed Strike. Nor is Intelligence required to select feats off of the Animal Companion list, as is demonstrated above in the rules. It is not necessary to utilize a feat in order to select a feat. For example a Fighter can select Combat Casting. The rules for Animal Companions specifically use the feat Martial Weapon Proficiency as an example of feats an animal may select, even though it cannot utilize the feat. So there is no need to increase the companion's Intelligence, Awaken it, or give it a headband of intellect.

But I have to correct myself. An animal companion can select Dragon Style, but not at level 3, but at 5th level.

Any 2nd level animal companion can get dragon style. The qualifications are easy.

Really?

Still have to meat the Prereqs.

Str 15, Improved Unarmed Strike, Acrobatics 3 ranks.

Acrobatics 3 ranks is the stopper. 3rd level is the absolute earliest you can take Dragon Style.

But yes, this is an easy way to achieve charging through difficult terrain once your mount is 3rd level or higher.

Wish I had read this before I ran TotB.

I think it was the weakest of the six adventures. I actually like your take better, though I can see some great areas in that plot for role-playing as well.

The courthouse just turned into a Diplomacy roll contest of who got the better rolls.

Don't sunder valuable objects; players hate that.

Sundering isn't too bad, even on valuable items, as long as the GM stops at simply breaking the item, not destroying it.

In a way I think it is a great way to remind PCs how dependent they sometimes are on their gear rather than on themselves. I certainly don't mind destroying secondary items, but the fear in their eyes when you say "He attempts to Sunder your +3 flaming long sword is priceless."

Gee I think I have to do some sundering now... done got the itch! hehehe

I personally think this is one of those skills that should have received the ax from 3.5 to Pathfinder. A Gather Information check would do the same thing and in nearly every case make more sense.

So even if you wanted to wrap G.I. into Diplomacy, it would still make sense. Though I suppose I would allow Intimidate to work as well (bully the info out of poor peasants).

So WOTC has announced the development of 5E. They are also claiming they want play test feedback, just like Paizo used for Pathfinder.

One of their currently stated goals is a modular system. A system that builds upon itself. I am thinking they are referring back to the original D&D boxed sets. Maybe I am wrong though.

I want a simpler mechanics with less rules clutter. As a GM I cannot tell you how many times I had a great story idea ruined by an obscure rule I had never noticed that was tucked away in an obscure location or product.

So, give me universal mechanics (no exceptions based stuff like 20 always succeeds and 1 always fails... oh yeah except skills). Give me a skeleton of a rules framework and let the GM decide the rest. If I wanted a perfectly regimented rules system where every option is accounted for I would play a MMO where the computer runs everything.

So what do you want from 5E?

I was there at GenCon when WOTC announced 4E. They said all the right things then too. I was so hyped I couldn't stand it.

Then they ruined what I did love about the game.

Over time I think that they have turned 4E into a board game. I have to admit those board games are pretty fun. A great way to kill an evening, once or twice.

Can they manage to turn around the D&D brand and bring it back to preeminence? Yes they can. But it will be one hell of an uphill battle. Do I want them to be top dog again? No. I actually am quite happy with Paizo and Pathfinder being in the catbird seat.

I am reserving judgement until I see the reality of what is planned.

Now I will admit my one big concern... the powers that be in Paizo will look at the announcement with alarm and over react to it and do something stupid to ruin Pathfinder. I doubt that will happen, but it is human nature...

The real ultimate challenge though is making a bard that doesn't suck.

Wow Dale, seriously? You ask the impossible!

Take all of these ideas and combine them

You have a tank and several ranged support players.

A 5-foot hall way with the tank in the lead. The walls have secret doors. The tank fights another tank. This buys time for the ambushers to pop open doors and attack from the secret rooms.

Wide open field... has trees for cover. The bad guys move from tree to tree, moving while defensive, to close the distance. They too have ranged weapons. Have them fire off magic arrows with an AoE spell, so the arrow gets close and gets the PC hiding behind the tree anyway (think grenades).

The PCs are hiding around the periphery of the map sniping at NPCs. The NPCs use teleport to pop in behind the PCs and get flank bonuses to hit.

The NPCs are being shot at. They close the door and wait. Either PCs HAVE to come in to close quarters to deal with them, or the NPCs wind up behind the PCs and attack from behind when the PCs engage the next encounter.

Burrowing or flying monsters. I LOVE burrowing monsters. The field is empty. Suddenly the monster moves and pops out of the ground and makes its attack. Next round it goes back under ground and no one knows where it is. Or even BETTER is burrowing with Spring Attack. Pops out of the ground, attacks, and goes back underground and the PCs never get an attack at all unless they have readied actions (prepared to attack a general area... I'd never let them just say I prepare to attack it when it appears because you cannot be looking and ready in 360 degrees-make them give you a front arc).

Put up standing stones, trees, bushes, hills and ditches, buildings with corners and rooms to hide in. Have the NPCs attack from inside the building shooting bows through windows. Try this out sometime :) Three NPCs in a room. First NPC opens the shutter and shoots at PC, 2nd NPC shoots at PC as a full attack, 3rd NPC shoots at PC and uses move to close shutter. The NPCs cannot be shot with ranged weapons nor spells (no line of effect). PCs must close into the building or destroy the building (meanwhile allowing NPCs to escape out the back or down the tunnel).

I ran the first encounter of Rise of the Runelords once with goblins hiding in barrels on a street popping out to snipe PCs. PCs could not use spells nor ranged weapons to any effect and had to go open the barrels and attack with melee to get the goblins.

Quote:

look it up in the 3.5 FAQ. I don't feel like having a "prove every word you say" discussion.

You may need to prove it. Knowledge (local) is never mentioned in the 3.5 FAQ as far as I can tell.

Link please?

Buri wrote:

Fake Healer wrote:

that's how I use it and how I've seen it explained officially.

Link please?

look it up in the 3.5 FAQ. I don't feel like having a "prove every word you say" discussion.

hehe I agree with FH :) I get so darned tired of the "if you don't link it it isn't real" laziness of the internet.

I can't wait for people to get to their job application and list they have a degree in their field... and the interviewer says "Link please..." :) lol

what day were you born on? Oh... link please...

Male or female? Link please...

:)

Krome wrote:

Crafting again... seriously...

See in my games the players take on roles of HEROES not merchants.

"Sure you can make that whatever it is. It takes how long? Oh darn I guess the rest of the party will miss you while they are off adventuring... you have fun with those craft roles, okay."

You don't give them any opportunity to craft at all? Not even using the rules about crafting while adventuring to at least make potions, wands, or scrolls?

If they can carry the equipment with them along the way they can do the crafting in the evening while camping while in camp.

If they need a full shop to do the work and a few weeks, no. I cannot think of a single adventure book or movie I have ever seen where the hero of the story stops for days on end to make something. It's a story killer.

Crafting again... seriously...

See in my games the players take on roles of HEROES not merchants.

"Sure you can make that whatever it is. It takes how long? Oh darn I guess the rest of the party will miss you while they are off adventuring... you have fun with those craft roles, okay."

Krome wrote:

ProfPotts wrote:

@Krome: the description of a net as a one-handed thrown weapon is in the Two-Weapon Fighting section of the core rule book (page 202) - so it's well hidden, but it is there, and has been for a long time.

damn rules :)

too many rules. The game suffers from rule bloat. :)

I miss 1st edition AD&D. :)

Well in defense of the poor designers of the later feats, that is an easy one to miss :) No one's perfect.

I have my 1st edition AD&D here... lol I may have to take our group back to REAL ROLEplaying and not RULEplaying. In the day, there was a game called Rolemaster, that we called Rulemaster for the extensive rules. 3.x system makes Rulemaster seem simple at times :) lol

You know I can sympathize with the designers some on it... but if you are going to make feats for a specific weapon you really should know how the weapon is used in the game first and foremost. It's not like a search of the term "net" on the weapons section won't return the text in question either.

If the feats get clarified that they do allow you to use combat Maneuvers on enemies you have entangled with the net then I would be most satisfied personally, as I think that was what was intended from the start.

In all honesty one of the things I would most like to see in the next version of the game is a complete rewrite of the text from scratch. Copy and paste from the original SRD for 3.5 is okay to save time, but there were so many instances of confusing text, of related rules being strewn over wide areas, that it sometimes is frustrating.

Personally, I'd love to see, for example, in the description for nets, ALL of the rules for nets included right there (okay subsequent book update and modifications obviously excluded). Like for nets, the one-handed range reference was in the combat section for two-handed weapons... seriously? Who the frag is going to catch that? Okay besides ProfPotts. :)

and I am still confused about maneuvers :( I have no idea at all what the designers are trying to do. 99% of the time I can "get" where they are coming from and comprehend their rule interpretation. But maneuvers has me baffled. I have no idea what the intent, reasoning, or plan is now. I like the "old" way better. It made more sense to me. And honestly, most of my groups steer clear of maneuvers whenever possible.

@Krome: the description of a net as a one-handed thrown weapon is in the Two-Weapon Fighting section of the core rule book (page 202) - so it's well hidden, but it is there, and has been for a long time.

damn rules :)

too many rules. The game suffers from rule bloat. :)

I miss 1st edition AD&D. :)

Well in defense of the poor designers of the later feats, that is an easy one to miss :) No one's perfect.

I have my 1st edition AD&D here... lol I may have to take our group back to REAL ROLEplaying and not RULEplaying. In the day, there was a game called Rolemaster, that we called Rulemaster for the extensive rules. 3.x system makes Rulemaster seem simple at times :) lol

Krome wrote:

Now I admit I just do not quite follow Net Trickery at all. I get using a net for Blinding. But it seems to me that the Tripping option is useless since Net Maneuvering is a Prereq and essentially allows that same option. The bonuses to Drag and Reposition are nice. Maybe I am missing a nuance to the use of Trip between the two feats.

Net Maneuvering allows you to use a net to trip instead of entangling - you still can't trip an entangled foe with just that Feat (as the net is already in use, entangling the guy - normally you can't do anything else via the net against the guy, except try to keep him from getting further away than the length of trailing rope you allow him: Net Maneuvering and Net Trickery both add extra options for use against entangled foes). Net Trickery adds the option to trip a guy already entangled in the net.

So, with Net Adept you can use a net as a melee reach weapon to entangle foes.

With Net Maneuvering you can use a net as a melee reach weapon to entangle or disarm or trip foes; against already entangled foes you can also attempt to drag or reposition them.

With Net Trickery you can use a net as a melee reach weapon to entangle or disarm or trip or (dirty trick) blind foes; against already entangled foes you can also attempt to drag or reposition or trip them.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Nets are not two handed ranged weapons. Never have been.

True - that's the one genuine error in the text of these Feats.

I think the done thing that bugs me is when a weapon can be used for a Combat Maneuver at all.

At one time the idea was that a CM, of any type be it Trip, Disarm or even later Dirty Tricks, could be used at any time. The detail was that a weapon's modifier could not be added to the CM unless it was a trick of the weapon, such as a Trip Weapon.

Now, for some reason designers have decided you can use the weapon modifier and use any weapon for any CM, including Dirty Tricks, at ANY time. The only advantage to a trick weapon is that you are allowed to drop it and not be subject to an attack of opportunity.

So upon this weird new reasoning, you can Trip or Disarm or Blind, Drag or Reposition with the net even if you do not have the Exotic Weapon feat. You just suffer a lot of penalties to the attempt. So if I can conduct all these CMs with the net anyway, why add the ability to Trip or Disarm? Unless the intent to is allow you to drop the net to avoid AoOs when conducting these CMs?

:)

Personally, at my table if I run the game, until persuaded otherwise, I will go tithe the former interpretations. You can attempt the CM, but not using the weapon, unless otherwise stated in the description that weapon aids in the maneuver.

So yes, open to persuasion and illumination :)

Nets are not two handed ranged weapons. Never have been.

Well the description of the net was silent on the matter. Through development of the Net Feat Tree it appears the game designers decided to clarify that nets are indeed 2-handed ranged weapons. You can rule however you like at your table, doesn't matter to me at all.

Bear in mind I am of the opinion that all rules, no matter how seemingly obvious and clear, are subject to interpretation. Also bear in mind that in my opinion, the word and intent of a designer, once the document has been published, becomes opinion only.

So while Abraham has obviously ruled that nets are not 2-handed ranged weapons, I like the feat trees as is for the most part and can imagine the net as a 2-handed ranged weapon. So Abraham rules one way, I rule another and we are both right as long as the people at the table have a good time. :)

So anyway... I hope my extremely long winded analyses (presenting my interpretation) of this feat tree at least helps in developing an opinion on how to use this feat tree in your game. My interpretation is not TRUTH. Nor is Abraham's, nor James Jacob's nor Bulhman's interpretations.

Yes it is freaking long, but read it all and you'll see the feat chain is not what you guys are thinking it is. These feats are just fine as is. :) You just have to take each piece of info one at a time, and get the nuance of each one. They build on one another.

Admittedly, the wording could have been better in the descriptions. :) Once you have read ALL of the feats most of the questions become clarified by subsequent entries. Not the best way to have written it. :)

Net: A net is used to entangle enemies. When you throw a net, you make a ranged touch attack against your target. A net's maximum range is 10 feet. If you hit, the target is entangled. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty on Dexterity, can move at only half speed, and cannot charge or run. If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows. If the entangled creature attempts to cast a spell, it must make a concentration check with a DC of 15 + the spell's level or be unable to cast the spell.

An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points and can be burst with a DC 25 Strength check (also a full-round action). A net is useful only against creatures within one size category of you.

A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net in a fight, you make a normal ranged touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice that long for a nonproficient one to do so.

It is listed under Exotic Ranged Weapons.

So what we know about the Net from this entry is that it is a RANGED weapon normally. To make attacks with the Net you MUST make a ranged attack. You cannot make melee attacks with the Net after you throw it, so any further ranged attacks with the Net suffers a -4 penalty unless refolded first. Interestingly it does NOT specify whether these are two Full Round Actions or two Standard Actions.

So it is a good idea if possible to carry multiple nets as the only option otherwise is to attack at -4 on all subsequent attacks unless you refold it (not likely in combat).

Net Adept (Combat)

You have trained to use the net as a melee weapon.
Prerequisites: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (net), base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can treat a net as a one-handed melee reach weapon with a 10-foot reach. Further, you take no penalty on melee attack rolls for using an unfolded net, and you can use one full-round action or two move actions to fold a net.
Normal: A net is a ranged weapon that imposes a –4 penalty on ranged attack rolls if it is unfolded. Folding a net takes a proficient user 2 rounds.

Net Adept changes the use of the Net almost entirely.

This feat gives the OPTION to change the Net from an Exotic Ranged weapon to an Exotic One-Handed melee weapon with a 10-foot reach. Additionally you can now make additional attacks with an unfolded net as a melee attack rather than ranged attack and no longer suffer the -4 penalty for an unfolded net as long as you use it as a melee attack. It finally specifies the types of actions required to fold a net.

Net Maneuvering (Combat)

With sweeping movements and brute force, you can use your net to put foes at a disadvantage.
Prerequisites: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (net), Net Adept, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: In melee, you can use a net to trip or disarm opponents instead of entangling them. You gain a +2 bonus on disarm checks made to use a net in this way. Further, if you have an opponent entangled in your net, you can attempt to drag or reposition that opponent as long as he is within your net's reach or you control the trailing rope on your net.

Since Net Adept is a perquisite, the Net is no longer ONLY a ranged weapon, but a one-handed melee weapon as well. This feat now gives the Net thrower additional options instead of just entangling opponents (which has been specifically noted in the Net description as the only option for this weapon) to now allowing Trip and Disarm maneuvers. It also allows the Drag and Reposition maneuvers if you already have an opponent Entangled.

Remember the Net is now no longer ONLY a ranged weapon, but also a melee weapon with a 10-foot reach.

So um... why would I take penalties on melee attack rolls anyways -- or rather why would I be using melee attack rolls with a net and just this feat?

You would use melee attacks with this feat because it changes the type of weapon from ranged to melee. That is specified in the description of the feat itself. It also clarifies that since you now use a melee attack rather than ranged attack the normal -4 penalty for using an unfolded net does not apply to making the melee attacks.

Apparently you failed to notice that the attack type changed entirely from ranged to melee due to this feat.

Again it's a ranged weapon -- you can't entangle an enemy in melee with it.

I'm thinking all these feats need an errata at this point in time.

Again read the description of the feats. The ranged weapon no longer applies as the feat has changed it to melee. So now the complaint that it is a ranged weapon is incorrect. Since it has changed the attack type from ranged to melee you CAN entangle an opponent in melee with it.

There is no need for errata or changes. Just need to read the feats more carefully and take your time to notice the details. These feats work just fine.

Net and Trident (Combat)

Your skill with lighter weapons allows you to wield one alongside your net.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (net), Net Adept, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: You can treat a net as a one-handed ranged weapon, allowing you to wield a light or one-handed melee weapon and still make ranged attacks with your net. When you use your light or one-handed melee weapon to attack an entangled opponent, you gain a +2 bonus on damage rolls and on attack rolls to confirm a critical hit.
Normal: A net is a two-handed ranged weapon.

Seeing as how Net Adept is a requirement for this feat, it throws my whole theory for a loop. Net adept makes a net a one handed melee weapon, this feat makes now makes it a one handed ranged weapon.

It seems as if whoever wrote Net Adept did not talk to the person that wrote Net and Trident.

Suggestion: Net Adept - 2 handed Melee Weapon, Net and Trident - 1 Handed Melee Weapon.

In regards to Net and Trident... this feat clarifies that a net is normally a two-handed ranged weapon. You will notice in the description of Net Adept AND Net and Trident that the feats say you CAN use not that you MUST use... so Net Adept allows you to use a Net as either Ranged OR Melee while Net and Trident allows you to use a Net as either a two-handed ranged weapon OR a one-handed ranged weapon (allowing a second weapon to be employed) OR a one-handed melee weapon (which allows a second weapon to be used). These feats give you many options on how you use the Net.

In essence, this feat chain [Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Net, Net Adept, Net and Trident, Net Maneuvering, and Two-Weapon Fighting] allows you to use a Net with your choices of
1) Exotic Two-handed ranged weapon, OR
2) Exotic One-handed melee weapon with a 10-foot reach (which means you could use this with a trident, for example, as a great combination if you take Two-Weapon Fighting), OR
3) Exotic One-handed ranged weapon that allows you to use the net with a one-handed weapon and still make ranged attacks with the net, OR
4) IF you use the net as a melee weapon you have the choice to Entangle, Trip OR Disarm your opponent. If the opponent is entangled you have the choice to use the Drag or Reposition maneuvers.

Upon reading these feats again I find no problem with them as written. There is no need for errata, just pay closer attention to the wording. :) Granted it took me a few minutes to get the intention and use of this feat chain. :) Not something I would have grasped as a GM upon a very quick glance.

I have been watching the Starz show Spartacus on Netflix (now DVD only, which sucks) and I think if your goal is to reproduce a Net and Trident Gladiator this feat chain works fantastically. It is not the most OPTIMAL combination in the world as far as damage goes but it does generate a lot of really interesting ROLE playing options in combat. :)

Really reread these feats paying close attention to the wording.

Now I admit I just do not quite follow Net Trickery at all. I get using a net for Blinding. But it seems to me that the Tripping option is useless since Net Maneuvering is a Prereq and essentially allows that same option. The bonuses to Drag and Reposition are nice. Maybe I am missing a nuance to the use of Trip between the two feats.

Dispel Magic would not work, as the target cannot be seen and therefore the spell cannot be targeted. However, just as a side note, Greater Dispel Magic DOES work, since it is a Burst spell, and burst spells do not require line of site but rather affect everything within their area.

Zizz...

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.

The chart lists a DC of -20 if the invisible creature is in combat or speaking.

So if an invisible wizard is casting a spell it is a DC 0 Perception check to know that there is an invisible combatant within 30 feet. To pinpoint the exact space of the invisible wizard requires a DC 20 Perception check. There is still a 50% miss chance though even if you have identified the precise square of the invisible wizard.

So in this case, the PRD specifically calls for a static DC for detecting the invisible spell caster. If the invisible caster were not in active combat (such as casting a spell) then a Perception vs Stealth (with applicable modifiers) would be appropriate. But I just cannot imagine a situation where a caster can cast a spell stealthily (short of the Silent Spell Metafeat).

So out of curiosity, was this a problem actually experienced in play, or just another one of those problems that occurs when reading and it needs a definitive answer from developers instead of letting a GM handle it?

With all the useless bumps I am just wondering what the point is?

:)

Ashiel that is a GREAT way to deal with Staves. I LOVE IT!

mmm when the game is up look me up, I'll bite :)

If you have been thinking about picking up the Sidetrek Adventure™ Fenrir's Fury, now is the time.

From now until Dec 26, 2011 Fenrir's Fury is reduced by 66%!

For this limited time, this adventure is only $0.99, saving you $2.00!

If you have been thinking about picking up the Sidetrek Adventure™ The Bloody Cauldron, now is the time.

From now until Dec 26, 2011 The Bloody Cauldron is reduced by 66%!

For this limited time, this adventure is only $0.99, saving you $2.00!

I am thinking that a weakling woodsman using a one handed axe meant for combat, rather than a two handed chopping axe, is meant to cleanse the gene pool the hard way. The idiot woman that married the weakling woodsman who goes about using the wrong weapons, also needs to be cleansed in the gene pool. If the weakling woodsman managed to reproduce then it is likely his spawn needs to be cleansed as well.

So I think the rules work just fine... :)

Hardly. The aim here is to keep the paladin in a setting in which he doesn't quite fit. throwing out the entire class and replacing it with something radically different that does a similar job if you squint is completely missing the point.

.
I say change the paladin like this:

• relax the alignment restriction to any good
• Put him in non-metal medium armour, but add a slow DR/cold iron progression to compensate
• ranger spell list
• Change smite to affect all evil creatures, all undead, all aberrations and all constructs. If a creature is evil AND one of the effected creature types, it takes double damage.
• Make him choose between the nature, earth, wind, fire, water, weather, farming, sun and hunting variant channelling options
• Replace bonds with a variation on the anti-paladin's companion, but base it on Summon Nature's Ally instead of Summon Monster
• swap knowledge (nobility) and knowledge (religion) for knowledge (nature) and survival
• Give him a new code of conduct based around protecting life and the natural order
• Change holy champion to kill one of the creature types affected by smite outright rather than banish fiends

I agree that tweaking Ranger and calling it Paladin misses the point, but then again, these changes seem like Ranger in the skin of a Paladin.

A Paladin does not HAVE to have a deity. Instead he can have philosophies guide the way. Nature, being neutral, could still be the source of his power. So then it becomes a question of what is the philosophy the Paladin stands for. S/he could stand for the idea of civilization and the rule of law, a return to the days of our forefathers. Tradition would be important as would restoring order throughout the wilds of the world.

In this role s/he is not so much a crusader for Good, but a crusader for Law, Order and Society. Makes a great contrasting role for the setting (and fits the theme of exploring the New World for ancient knowledge theme). Also in this capacity the class has no need to change at all.

When I checked the investment page I had the same thought. No way in the 9 Hells I can wrangle up $100,000 but a smaller sum is possible. So yeah I would be interested.

I would think Prestidigitation should work as well as anything.

The drinking games could be used, but are rather cliche. Almost like trying to get accepted by elves you have to go make love to a tree. Or would be like going Japan and drinking a lot of Sake and now you are Japanese.

Instead you could consider what is considered dwarven culture. Loyalty, family, history, honor, tradition. Personally I would make my challenges centered around these concepts. The PCs have to recite the enter history of the Dwarven clans, embrace their religion, prove their loyalty to the dwarves over the humans, spend time with a particular family and be accepted by them.

In essence think of it as Shogun or the Last Samurai but with Dwarves instead of Japanese. I think it would be MUCH more entertaining, enlightening and fun.

But honestly a drinking game isn't going to do the trick.

gigglestick wrote:

I often "transplant" encounters around if the heroes make the mistake of moving to the wrong lair...

Most players don't expect to meet something they can't beat though, so that is a bad idea from a publishing point of view.

I think this is only true of D&D and Pathfinder and then only as of 3.0 did that unrealistic expectation occur. In early games it was not uncommon to encounter things you were expected to run away from.

In Vampire or Shadowrun you often encounter situations beyond your ability to control.

I think ultimately the problem stems from publishing a scale of what players should be able to face. When the core book says that players should never face anything above CL +3, then it limits the GM and sets a specific expectation from the players. This makes them realize that there will never be anything thrown at them that they cannot beat.

A great example of breaking the rule is the Witchfire Trilogy (an award winner when it came out). In the very first book the PCs are about level 1-2ish and the villain is level 10!

Ever look at Necropolis written by Gary Gygax? This is for characters 10-18. Fairly early in the book they have an EL 22 encounter...

Just once I'd like to Paizo print a book where the PCs meet the BBEG in the first book, get humiliated and sent running with their tails between their legs. THAT is a way to generate a desire for real revenge when you get to the last book. :)

DM I sent a copy to all reviewers on RPGNow. I take it you didn't get one.

I'll send you a copy as soon as I find your email again :)

If the incorporeal creature is not visible then it takes NO damage by the way...

Something I missed last week and let a cleric channel and affect two undead he could not see. Without the FAQ I would never have even considered that.

Different ways of handling it.

Some GMs will say that there is a substantial loss of Reputation as you leave cultural areas due to a loss of word of mouth. Others might rule you loose all of your Reputation unless it pertains to the culture you are in.

Personally, I would say keep your Reputation intact because that is why there are Bards. If the Bards aren't doing their jobs then why have the class? :)

So in MY game I would allow the Reputation to stay. Mostly because it is more fun that way :)

Yes.

Adventures, monsters and other sources are all compatible. For things like classes you may have to do some tweaking to ensure power levels are equivalent. However, you do not HAVE to do so and can use them as printed originally if you wanted to (this could be a bit of a disadvantage but it is up to you).

Bearing that in mind, I would suggest you take a very close look at any thing being imported from 3.0 or 3.5 to be sure it is compatible with YOUR campaign.

Interestingly the FAQ dealt with iterative attack bonuses in its examples and does not deal with damage. In fact it ONLY deals with penalties for an EXTRA attack.

Multiple Weapons, Iterative Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting (page 202): If I have iterative attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?

Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack. As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

This FAQ still says that one of the weapons is in your off hand.

However, the rules on combat, first page, under damage, give the defining answer to how STR bonuses are applied.

Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.

To use the attacks presented as examples, if going a step further and looking at damage bonuses it would look like this (using longsword in primary hand and mace in off hand)

(A) longsword at +6 (full damage), longsword +1 (full damage)
(B) mace +6 (half damage), mace +1 (half damage)
(C) longsword +6 (full damage), mace +1 (half damage)
(D) mace +6 (half damage), longsword +1 (full damage)

So yes, the FAQ itself still refers to primary and off-hand use even when not taking the extra attack. So you STILL have to apply the damage bonus rule. The rule for off hand damage is NOT part of TWF, it is part of the Damage rules.

Wow cool! Totally unexpected! Thanks guys. Working hard to bring some fun to the game! :)

This is really great for a very small new start up!

Hope everyone likes it as much as I enjoyed writing it.

When using templates I always hated the "precise" alignment of a grid to avoid hitting fellow PCs. I like to use a check to to place the spell. For example a Wizard wants to lay a Fireball in a specific place to avoid hitting other PCs. I would have him roll a Spellcraft check DC 10+ Spell Level + any perception type modifiers such as distracted. So a Fireball in combat is usually at least a DC 15. Not too hard to hit but runs the risk of missing.

If he misses we just use a splatter rules to see where the spell goes and then see who gets hit.

It seems a "more realistic" way of doing it to me. Of course I HATE realism in my fantasy but I like this. :)

Duskblade wrote:

I'm not gonna lie, this is by far one of the most BUSTED classes I have ever had to deal with in Pathfinder, and it really does make me ill that I ever allowed it in my campaign to begin with.

What I currently have issues with, specifically, is the Signature Deed ability combined with Lightning Reload, which effectively allows a gunslinger to reload their gun as a FREE action with a single barrel weapon that does NOT provoke attacks of opportunity. Combined with other crazy ranged feats like Rapid Shot (or joy...a -2 penalty on a range TOUCH attack...what a penalty), and the 'Deadly Aim' feat. I mean, sweet Jesus, I have never seen anything so stupid before in my life. And to add even MORE insult to injury, the archtype known as the Pistolero just makes things even more ridiculous (Up Close and Deadly and Pistol Training make the friggin damage of this class simply INSANE).

I have to ask, is there ANY errata, or is this class just that damn good?

Moreover, is anyone else having issues with this class (I mean, hell...imagine a Pistolero DUAL WIELDING their weapons...which only gives them a -4 penalty of course...but who cares...they are shooting with RANGED TOUCH ATTACKS with a FULL BaB AND they have an insane amount of DEX).

But yea...if anyone else understands this issues, please post your comments. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

I had a gunslinger in my game. It was ok, but nothing special.

They still have to take the ranged feats to ignore shooting into melee, and soft cover. Well they don't have to, but they will miss more. They still have to deal with misfires.

They also only get to use touch AC within a certain range or they have to use grit points.

Being that close just make you can easy target. I am still more worried about the guy with a bow who is not always withing charging distance.

The close range is a serious issue.

Move is used to reload then Shoot. Oh bad guy is not adjacent to you. CRAP! Now move but no reload so no shoot.

It should also be pointed out that Ultimate Combat has weapons from three different eras, primitive, medieval/eastern, advanced. While it is unlikely that a player would choose to use a weapon from the primitive era, the GM should still set the current era of the campaign and offer appropriate weapons to all players (restricting the other eras).

Cheapy wrote:

Karse wrote:

Well they were in the book hehe. I almost never banned anything that come from the official Pathfinder books.

That is...not wise, my friend.

I wholeheartedly agree. Paizo offers a lot of options. They aren't all meant to go together.

Yep exactly.

My Gunslinger uses the Pistol from Primitive Guns. Seriously limiting.

The Revolvers, which fall under Advanced Firearms, not Early Firearms, costs 4,000gp each. Adding +2 to each revolver makes the each one worth 12,000gp. Adding up to a total of 24,000gp for his weapons.

Do the other classes have equipment equivalent in value?

Fenrir's Fury is an adventure in viking lands. It is ideal as an introduction to Lands of the Linnorn Kinds.

I have a Gunslinger in PFS and it just isn't anything near that powerful.

By 11th level I expect most classes to be dishing out amazing amounts of damage. They are becoming world renowned heroes at that point, so they shouldn't be dealing wimpy amounts of damage.

A quick look and numerically the damage output should be on par with Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues of that level. If you min/max and just straight out optimize for damage output for any class you get amazing broken effects.

But also remember for every character that is optimized there are usually some pretty dramatic weaknesses as well.

Now available from KromeDragon Games!

This short adventure takes your players to the frozen wilds of the far north. Visit the small viking village of Volksfelt and enjoy the entertainment of a lavish viking wedding feast.

Ultimately the players must defend the village against the vengeance of Fenrir a rabid wolf shaman bent on the destruction of the village. Journey across the frozen wilderness and finally confront the druid and bring peace to the poor people of Volksfelt.

This product includes custom battlemaps for each encounter that suitable for printing.

Fenrir's Fury is perfect for any game set in the frozen wilds of the north and is a great companion for settings such as Lands of the Linnorn Kings and Midgard: Northlands.

Pretty cool, was wondering what happened to you.

hehe Life has a habit of throwing massive obstacles in the way at times. :)

Still plugging away though.

In the frozen wasteland of the Norselands, a gentle druid returned to his village after a successful hunt. Upon his return he found his village reduced to a smoldering ruin, his home ransacked, and his family slaughtered. All love died that day, and his soul became a rock of ice bent upon revenge. Thus begins the fury of the rabid wolf shaman Fenrir.

This Sidetrek Adventure™ is set in the great viking north and is suitable for 4-5 6th level characters. It includes skill encounter rules for viking lie-tells and cross country travel as well as 6 custom battlemaps suitable for printing.

Sidetrek Adventures™ are short flavorful adventures that can be inserted into an ongoing game with very little effort.

Fenrir's Fury is a great adventure for introducing your players to the northern settings such as the Lands of the Linnorn Kings or Midgard: Northlands.

Available now at RPGNow.com and in the Paizo store soon.