|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Katapesh Fried Chicken wrote:
ChessPwn, since you don't seem to understand math I'll spell it out for you.
You don't seem to understand explaining math.
People are talking about the chance of getting at least one natural 1 over the course of ten die rolls. (The answer is 40.1%.)
"it's still 5% no matter how many times you roll the dice" does not answer this question.
I think some people can't even tell from what you've written whether you're just making the trivially obvious observation that it's 5% chance on each individual roll, or whether you genuinely believe that if you roll the dice a million times in a row, the chance of getting at least one natural 1 during that time is only 5%.
First, bookmark the Core FAQs as they're hard to find on the site. Since this question doesn't depend on any other book, that would be the right page.
Then do Control-F and search for a relevant word. "Unconscious" doesn't appear. Searching for "Save" give me:
This isn't your exact question, but it does suggest that you always get a saving throw, even when it doesn't make much sense.
Goodbye anyone ever playing anything with an animal companion ever again. What you want us to go into the dungeon and fight the dragon ? heck no I am going to go kill that elephant with mithral full plate. Also Since the MIthral Full plate isn't in a shop for my super duper weird animal companion it will have to be crafted. I sure hope I can find the crafter with 20 ranks in craft armor, skill focus in craft armor, traits focusing on craft armor, and a maxxed out intelligence stat. Assuming this person works non-stop 7 days a week for there entire life I might , maybe if they don't blow a couple of rolls get to have my great great grandchildren of my elephant to wear some armor.100,00 gp to silver = 1,000,000 silver. max ranks 20, skill focus +6, Int of 20 or +5. A total of 31 in craft armor. The dc to craft armor is 10 + AC bonus so a dc 19. Taking 10 ( if the DM allows it ) will give a 41 check. 41 times 19 =779. 1,000,000 divided by 779 = 1284 weeks or just under 25 years. This assumes the DM allows you to take 10 . If he doesn't then you better hope you do not fumble . Good luck adventuring while you wait on this.
Or cast Fabricate?
Or play in a game world where elephants somehow manage to get through the day without wearing mithral full plate armor?
If I can't be hit because I look blurred then the images also would have the same benefit.
If you strike the blurry caster, you might hit the illusory blur instead of the real guy underneath. But if you hit the image, which is a copy of the blurry caster, there's no difference between the blur part and the rest; they're all part of the same mirror image, so are destroyed on a hit.
(Or I guess the mirror image could be an illusion, but the blur effect on it is an illusion of an illusion, so if you hit the blurry part, you don't harm the mirror image, which is a real illusion and not a fake illusion. Both interpretations make sense, in a blurry kind of a way.)
I just looked up 'flair'. It means something like 'stylish elegance'. I don't think making all wizards Lawful Neutral (or any other alignment) contributes to this.
Would you enjoy endless debates along the lines of, "One of my PCs is a barbarian. He paid a small toll to enter the city instead of assaulting the guards. Does he fall?"
Also, if there can't be any evil fighters, wizards, bards, druids or rangers, it reduces the potential for creating villains. And it eliminates most forms of multi-classing, makes Eldritch Knights virtually impossible, etc.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
Keep in mind that you get a one-shot potential melee kill without one iota of magic involved at 6th level. That's the reason for the 3 round studying requirement.
6th level of the prestige class - you need to have 5 ranks of stealth before you can start taking Assassin levels, so it's actually a level 11 PC ability.
A Ninja can take a Master Trick at level 10. One of the Master Tricks available is Assassinate. Study time required: 1 standard action. And the ninja can turn invisible, which makes approaching the enemy a lot easier.
The actual medium lightning elemental does a slam of 1d6+3+1d4 electricity. So it seems like the energy damage does go up from size. Though I suppose it could go up with hit dice in a way that coincidentally matches a size increase.
(Note the +3 rather than the +2 because a creature with a single natural weapon attack gets +50% Str damage.)
Here's the soul of the contradiction: the CRB says "you add the masterwork component after everything else".
The cost you pay for the masterwork component is one-third of the given amount, just as it is for the cost in raw materials.
It says you apply the masterwork cost before the crafting multiplier (1/3).
For those trying to invent 'realism' house rules - remember you don't have to kill every creature in the swarm, you just have to disperse them. A charging elephant might disperse a swarm even if it doesn't step on too many of the creatures in it.
Also we don't tend to apply realism to fireballs - you still get a reflex check to jump out the way even if you're in the middle of it in a 5' wide corridor.
Would a Fitting Small Mithral Fullplate then give the full +9 armor bonus to a tiny creature?
Unless there's some reason an amulet of mighty fists won't convey the same DR-overcoming ability a manufactured weapon enhancement bonus does.
If you had a spell called arrow storm that sent a single arrow at every creature within 30' of you, that would not be an area of effect spell, and would be an effect that targeted a specific number of creatures, that being the number that were within 30' of you. I wouldn't think such a spell would or should have any effect on a swarm, as a single hit from an arrow via that spell shouldn't by any more effective than a single hit from an arrow via a bow.
A spell that hits every single living thing in the area with its own personally targeted arrow and no specified numerical limit sounds like it would be extremely effective against swarms. After all, it's a spell that would presumably be highly effective if there were a hundred individual diminutive creatures in that area. Why should it stop being effective just because they've formed a swarm?
The point of the 'specific number of creatures' clause is that if you have an attack that kills/incapacitates up to 1 creature per caster level, it's not going to do anything meaningful to a swarm that is made of hundreds of creatures.
However, going by RAW, the swarms we're talking about would be immune to arrows, and they'd be immune to whirlwind strike as well. Not because whirlwind strike targets a specific number of creatures - it doesn't - but because both those things are weapon damage.
most gms i know set the dc for the check and every 5ish you beat the dc you get 1 question
Note that by the rules it's supposed to be one bit of useful knowledge for hitting the DC and one more bit of knowledge for every 5 you beat it by. I've seen it done as you need to beat the DC by 5 to get anything useful, and that seems pretty harsh to me.
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
Power Attack isn't exactly underrated. Most two-handed-weapon melee guys take it. (While complaining, "This should be a free ability!")
As for Furious Focus, it's not exactly bad, but:
At level 1 to 3, you're probably better off with Weapon Focus, which gives you the same attack bonus whether you're power attacking or not, and will also help on future iteratives.
At high level, it gives you a bonus to hit on just one of your many attacks, and if you're an optimised martial you're probably hitting with that attack anyway.
(Also, it's a boring "bonus to a number" feat rather than a "can do something new" feat.)
Pizza Lord wrote:
The bit where a character wrongly thinks something (not a trap) is disabled when it isn't appears to be in reference to having failed by 5 or more.
This says to me that in general if you miss by less than 5 you shouldn't wrongly believe that you've achieved something.
Question: if you successfully disable a trap and then you keep on tinkering with it, can you set it off? If not, any ambiguity is going to create a situation where the player always keeps disarming the trap until it goes off or he rolls high enough that there's no doubt.
Master Han Del of the Web wrote:
I have an unhealthy fondness for Vital Strike, it even putting that aside I feel like the feat has an unnecessarily bad reputation. It features in my generalist combatant builds and a few of the more bizarre one-hit builds I've planned. People that discount it out of hand almost always fail to take into account how unreliable iterative attacks are at actually landing unless the deck is utterly stacked in your favor. It might be a trap feat for players that don't fully understand the game's math but it certainly has its place as a useful feat
If you're a martial, then you're probably going to stack attack bonuses to the point where you can hit most of the time even with -5.
And at high levels, you can be hasted most of the time, so if you have the option of a full attack, you'll get two attacks at your highest bonus (and inflicting double your damage bonus is a lot stronger than inflicting double your weapon dice).
Even so, I think it's an OK feat. It's powerful for certain niche builds, and useful when you can't full attack.
Probably not. If you're playing PFS, there are rules for it:
The brownie, faerie dragon, imp, lyrakien azata, mephit, quasit, sprite familiars, granted by the Improved Familiar feat, use the Biped (hands) section of the chart.
This was specified for PFS because it was such a frequently asked question, and because there were no clear rules for it in the main game.
It has to be in the sewers? Sewers aren't usually noted for having a variety of interesting terrain types.
Possible skill check obstacles, not necessarily realistic:
Ask homeless people for directions - diplomacy or intimidate check.
Jump across pool of extremely smelly water. (DC11 Fort save to avoid catching minor disease if you don't make the jump.)
Cleaner, deeper running water: swim check.
Waterfall: 15 foot drop.
Crumbling ladder: climb check.
Possible encounters: Giant rat, rat swarm, giant fly, kobolds protected by tripwires who will run away at the first sign of a serious threat
So basis of the CR system is:
So that means if a group fought two level 5 PCs (or NPCs built like PCs), that would be a CR7 encounter.
Two level 7 PCs would also be a CR9 encounter. So if your two paladins are level 7, they'd be roughly a match for your group; if you have 5 competent PCs, the players would probably have a slight edge.
If your two paladins are level 8, the paladins would have an edge over the party. This assumes they're built like PCs. If they're built like NPCs (less optimal stats, half the value of magic equipment), then they count as being 1 CR lower.
Level 9 is probably around the minimum level to beat the PCs easily. (Even this isn't guaranteed if the party have good tactics and synergy.)
I don't think there's an official version.
If you wanted to invent one based on traditional eastern calendars on Earth, you could start from something like this:
Years: Year of the Dragon, Year of the Rat, that kind of thing.
Edit: I just found something official. Imperial Calendar
and snowball creates "one ball of ice and snow" ... it's not like ray of frost which has effect "ray". Why does an magically created icicle count strength, and a magically created snowball does not?
The usual answer to questions like that is "Because Magic".It's not a ray, but like many ray spells it targets touch AC and inflicts energy damage, suggesting there's no physical attack component to be enhanced by strength. This is somewhat muddled by the flavor description - if it's conjuring an actual chunk of ice and snow, why does a +5 shield offer no protection against it? Because it's magic, presumably.
The icicle is described as behaving like a masterwork dagger.
The ball of ice and snow is described as behaving completely differently from a normal chunk of ice; no physical damage, just cold damage, targets touch AC.
Hugo Rune wrote:
I've DM/GMed since 1e and have always rolled openly. I've found that since introducing the -10HP or negative CON HP rule that low level lethality has gone down significantly.
I roll openly. To reduce sudden death, I added a house rule saying that you could add your level number to your Con for your negative HP survival limit. Fairly small, but it helped.
I'd much rather have an "It's hard to die suddenly" rule than a "GM might be in the mood to save you by fudging" system.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
whilst it can happen there are less creatures of the right CR the higher level you go that can put you down in one hit.
There are probably fewer creatures that can take you from full HP to dead in one round, but there are more creatures that can take you from injured-but-conscious to dead in one hit, given that 'negative Con' is a fairly solid buffer against CR 1 opponents, but doesn't keep up with high CR enemies.
Whether that will lead to more PC deaths or not probably varies widely, according to optimization and GMing style.
Is sudden death more common at level 1 than at level 5? A character might be knocked into negative HP by goblin 42 getting a lucky crit, but unless they've dumped Con, or the GM wants to coup de grace them, they'll probably survive. An ordinary CR 4 creature can do 17 damage on a hit, and 50 on a lucky crit. That could easily take someone from healthy to dead in one attack.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.