So, I've been wondering about this for a while now, can one use a "Swift Action" ability as a move or standard action?
A specific example would be a Paladin wanting to use smite evil, (swift action) lay on hands himself, (swift action, change to move) and take the total defense action (standard) in the same round.
Similarly, could a Paladin lay on hands himself twice in a round, using his swift and standard actions? Afterall, using that specific ability on himself is a swift action, but using it on another is a standard, so are they interchangeable when the paladin uses it on himself?
Could the same paladin use lay on hands on himself, smite evil, and cast a quickened spell? (5th level or higher take Extra Traits feat for the Magical Lineage trait choosing, let's say, CLW and then getting to 14th level. A bit featy but totally doable.)
Yes, all of my examples involve a paladin, but that's just because paladins have that unique takes-two-different-action-types-depending-on-circumstances lay on hands ability. I'm curious about if swift actions can be traded out for other actions for any class. I know that one can't do it with quickened spells no matter what is said here, but I still wanna know about what people think about other swift actions getting used as move or standard actions instead.
In 3.5, I once played an Astral Deva/Knight who went by many names and was celebrated by many races...
To the Elves, he was known as Aeldeth Firryl:Eternal Knight, Dark Stalker.
To the Dwarves he was called Delthic: Iron Champion.
The Dragons named him Malsvir Gixustrat: Evil Disembowler.
But his most widely reknowned name was that name which the Humans gave him: Paul.
Druids, as divine casters, don't have to sleep to prepare spells.
Pathfinder PRD wrote:
A druid must spend 1 hour each day in a trance-like meditation on the mysteries of nature to regain her daily allotment of spells. A druid may prepare and cast any spell on the druid spell list...
The sad part about all this for me must be the fact that I've known at least two guys who whenever they played female characters (one of them played them more often than not) they'd play "Look at me! I have boobs! I am amazingly hot and sluttish! And also arbitrarily bisexual! Who wants to sex with me?!"
I personally have never played a female character and even tend to play male char's in video games even when female roles are available. I just tend to gravitate towards playing those characters who I can relate to, which typically means male. That being said, my reaction to a character being reincarnated as female would probably vary greatly based on the GM and how they worded it. Since pretty much every GM I've played with in the last 3-4 years would make it a "random" roll thrown in just because they want to see how I react to it, followed of course with many sessions of "You've got boobs!" comments, I probably wouldn't be very receptive to the idea. Though reflecting upon most of my characters, I think it would have made an interesting plot point in any of their lives, if only it wouldn't be accompanied by incessant player and GM teasing. On a vaguely related note I'm not currently playing under them anymore. Wow. That got a bit ranty. Sorry about all that. :\
I've never actually had a character get reincarnated, or really die for that matter, but it could be an interesting roleplaying experiance, I think. :)
While it's true that you couldn't put Bane twice on the same weapon, I think it would still be a reasonable houserule as long as someone doesn't overdo it. ("I want a +1 Longsword of Human Bane, Dragon Bane, Orc Bane, Dwarf Bane, and Animal(Bunny) Bane!") Afterall, most of the time, a player with two Banes on their weapon would only get one or the other, they'd just get use out of it slightly more often, since Bane is a corner case ability to begin with. And I probably wouldn't mind stacking them if both types coincide, with exceptions, like the fighter getting the Bane Evil Outsider and Chaotic Outsider in preparation of diving into the Abyss for a quest line. (If that happened, it would probably depend on the player what I did, since I've known players who come up with things like that and then gloat about how smart they are, in and out of character, and somehow don't end up dead by morning.) Though a reasonable compromise could be cutting the second bane in half if they would both apply, so only +3 and +3d6. Just a thought.
My point is that while it's against the rules, it would rarely, if ever, be game breaking, So a GM Houseruling it within reason wouldn't be a horrible idea. That's my 2 cents.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Kay, I have to respond to that.
We'll go with the 3.5 rules on this. According to the MIC, EVERYTHING sizes to fit whatever is trying to wear it. Ma-gic-all-y. The exceptions are weapons, shields and armor that aren't fitted with the Sizing property. And even those things can have their abilities used by creatures of vastly different sizes. I believe the example in the book is a Halfling using the wish in a colossal wishing dagger, or something similar.
Ring? Try putting it on. Its size changes. It could shift from bead to bladeless fan size to fit its user, and then adjust so it fits snugly. And shifts again when you go to take it off.
Cloak? It might not have to size. It could just be a 3 feet by 5 feet rectangle to cloth hanging across the dragon's neck or back. The clasp would size to the dragon's throat.
Armor? I'll let Ashiel cover that one, but simply put, a lot of work by smaller creatures. How does it not rot, rust or foul? Magic/special treatments to prevent it.
...He has Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect Arrows, and...
Here's one word to describe my reaction to that: Meep!
Here's a few more: That seems a bit overkill, but totally awesome at the same time. I like the story behind that, and I think that would make a nifty encounter. Personally, I think the dragon should be wearing some form of plate, since that makes a bit more sense to me that if it's actually wearing armor, it should at least make it strong armor. I know that would impose an Armor check penalty, but if you made it mithral and I think there's a low level spell for lowering that penalty in Ultimate Magic... I could be wrong, but I know that spell exists somewhere.
Also, I applaud you and your group for being a mature bunch of people who won't cry foul the first time a Buggeroff Dragon harmlessly swats away the first projectile fired at it every round. It's so refreshing to know that there are groups that function better than the one I play with. *Sigh.*
I would ask one question before fading from this board, since I've contributed nothing towards its point and merely focused on your dragon. What level is your party for this encounter?
The Tarrasque is a joke. Setting it at CR 20+ is a bigger joke. The party can effectively just ignore or overcome a Tarrasque as early as 11th level. Including killing it for good. That being said, its obscene defenses make it difficult to hurt at all. Let alone with ranged touch attacks which tend to cause energy damage.
I know it's a bit off topic, but I really wanna know. How? O.O
Btw, Pathfinder Tarrasque CAN'T die for good unless there's something in a book that I'm missing.
Escaping the Wormwood seems much easier for these races rather than staging a mutiny later on.
I didn't allow any 'Aquatic' races in my S&S game for exactly that reason. There's also the very Very interesting curveball they could throw you if they played an Undine/Gillman/Merfolk with an evil alignment who decided that (instead of simply swimming away and out of the campaign) they weren't going to put up with this crap, got a hold of a handaxe, (or three) jumped overboard and spent the better part of the day cutting a substantial hole in the bottom of the ship. Suddenly you have a sinking ship, and with it, your Adventure Path. Extreme example, I know, but I think it's better if the players don't play (For at least the first AP) something that could simply say "Screw this" and leave. Just my opinion.
Maybe..... If the monk beefed his strength....and took the greater sunder chain....and used spring attack + sunder on the fighter's weapon... which if he succeeds could easily break it in 1-2 hits (If the DM allows Adamantine, then he's adding insult to the pile of dead monks and rogues and I call BS shenanigans.) and then continues his spring attack + strike until the fighter fails a stunning fist save? Only soaking 1d3 + whatever with a crit chance of Who-cares every round and healing as needed. Assumes fighter only has one weapon. If fighter has a bow, break that too, or just take it away from him.
Alternatively, what is the win condition on this? First one to die loses? Kay, Monk takes the Run feat, and uses the run action get away from the fighter, so 450 feet/round barring Fleet. (Cause that would just make this silly.) In order to win, fighter must pursue, right? Monk runs until he finds a river of lava, or better yet, just a really wide river, (at least 80-90 feet wide) and jumps across. Then, through liberal uses of the run action, proceeds to hunt down and destroy every other mode of crossing in a 3-mile radius, forcing the fighter to try to cross using swim checks or by walking. The lava then turns him to ash due to 20d6 damage per round, and monk keeps him there via bull rushing, or Monk keeps him from crossing the river (having spent the several hours it took the fighter to catch up) by throwing dire wolverines at him. Hell, just standard wolverines will do. Also find a way to get the entire lizardfolk nation, who lives in a spot near the river, to attack him while he's swimming across.
Too far outside the box?
My point is that there's more to D&D than combat. If it comes down to a one-on-one death match that you CAN'T win in any conceivable fashion, change the circumstances so that you have an advantage that you can push. Hell, run all the way to town and inform the city guard that a mad-man has been chasing you day and night and that you need protection, then while they're slowing down the fighter, go to your buddies at the thieves guild who send their entire entourage after the fighter, tired of having lost so many of their number in previous pointless death-matches.
Wow, that kind of ran away from me. My point is that fighter wins following strict rules. So change them. I think I'm about to get yelled at for this, since my entire post seems to have gone entirely against the point of this thread.
I have a player who's building a character for my upcoming S&S game. He wants to build a swimmy (APG alternate racial trait that I can't remember the name of) Elf Barbarian (Sea Reaver archetype) thing. I have no problem with this. The issue I'm running into is that he seems to want to dual wield a trident and net. I've looked over the net's rules and it seems to me that they're only even sort of viable up to a certain level, like 7th-ish. After that, if you throw it, chances are whatever you hit with it is going to either going to escape artist out with ease, or, much more likely, cut or burst its way out, leaving you with minus a net. I've looked into the Net feat chain in the UC, and it seems like it becomes usable only once you hit 7th level (6th for a fighter) once you gain the ability to trip and disarm with the net without having to throw it. Since the game starts at 1st level, does this concept even seem viable? And how can one make nets in general viable?
My main concern is that the player is one who seems to build ideas and concepts he seems passionate about, until he actually plays them and decides it was a stupid idea and wants to change the entire character to the oft repeated chorus of "I'm useless." I plan on talking to him about it, maybe suggest a fighter would be better?
Also, Net Adept gives the ability to use a net as a one-handed melee reach weapon, how does this work out when you have no other Net chain feets to back it up, when the net does no damage, and you can't throw it with one hand? (Since the Net and Trident feat gives you that ability.)
You may have just become my hero. ^.^
So, one of my difficulties with running adventure paths is maps for areas that the PC's are going to run into and explore. I want them to be as close to the maps in the books, while not burning an excessive amount of my time or money in the process. (I pick up most all of the flip-mats and tiles that I think will be useful, but that only goes so far.) A long time ago I was going to run a Kingmaker game (Which sadly never got off the ground.) and I drew out fairly detailed maps of a couple of the areas, complete with color, which was great....except that it took me about 6-8 hours of concentrated work per map, something I'd rather not repeat. I will if I have to, but I really don't wanna.
I just got back from Kinkos and was going to simply scan the maps from the AP and blow them up to directly turn them into maps. I thought it was a good idea, until they told me that I'd need a signed release form from the copyright holders to do such. And after looking at the form, it looks like I'd need to get a new one for every single map I wanted to print out. The alternative was that I could copy and blow it up bit by bit until I've got a patchwork map over several pages, which my math tells me would cost around $20 per map, give or take several mistakes (which I'd have to pay for) due to it being an insanely inexact process.
I am very open to suggestions at this point. What methods have y'all GM's used in the past for your adventure path games?
Where's AM BARBARIAN when you need him? ;)
I'd say let him do it this time, but let him know that in the future, it won't work like that anymore. Sure, it's a little cheap, but it rewards him for creativity and keeps the spell from becoming silly powerful.
I'm sure you could find a good reason for it working in this instance and not others, maybe the silk in the guy's clothes had a special not-necessarily-magical attribute to it that makes it more resonant with transmutation effects, allowing them to be changed more easily and with an automatically successful DC 15 craft check to make them look nifty. Useful if you need a new pretty silk garment and don't have the time to run to the store.
Okay, I've had my minor creativity of the day, time to go back to contemplating the effects of a DC 30 craft check Fabricate when applied to pebbles.
I've been trying to construct a Dread Necromancer in my spare time for a 3.5 game that may go past epic level. So I've been trying to look into making new spells using the Animate Dead Seed. The problem I'm having is that the Seed was designed around the Animate Dead in 3.0 (I know, duh!) but from what I can tell, the spell got drastically changed between 3.0 and 3.5. (Lower spell level and more undead HD.) I checked the 3.5 Epic update but it doesn't even touch the seeds and I'm having difficulty finding anything online for it.
My question about Animate Dead is this: What determines the HD of the undead you create? Is it based on the HD of the creature whose body you're using for the purpose, or do you simply choose how many HD you want it to have, limited only by your Caster Level and the value of the onyx?
Lesser question: What would be the best way to acquire onyx gems? All I can think of is to hit up all the magic component and jewelry shops. Any better suggestions?
I was gonna go with acquire a Portable Hole from a local wizard (either by begging, renting, or stealing) since he could easily fit in one and they don't have a weight limit to my knowledge. But there are also a lot of mundane/slightly magical methods already mentioned to do this that seem better to me. Spamming Summon Monster/Nature's Ally I for ponies or similarly strong quadrupeds, pulling out with rope, and then rest for a day sounds good to me.
That is the biggest issue with opposed checks and some players Nakteo I have had players over the years simply assume that everytime the rolled the dice that the DC or opposed roll was simply higher and proceed to take precautions.
By the way, sorry for derailing your thread. I offer you the Hand of Vecna in apology. I assure you it is %100 genuine and not the left hand of some random beggar I left bleeding to death in the street somewhere. :D
So what I was getting at with my statement of 'The player thinks he's a bad guy' but failed to portray (my bad) was that the NPC isn't a bad guy, but the player somehow thinks he is.
A question that's been bouncing around my head for the last few days is: How do you get an NPC to convince a skeptical PC that what he's saying is the truth (Which it is!!) with only words? (And maybe dice) Looking at the rules? You can't, besides trying to appeal to them in character. They could roll a Sense Motive and hit the DC 20 to get a hunch, see that the person is trustworthy and still think that he's outright lying to them, thinking he made a higher bluff check.
I think it's funny that according to the game, you can make people distrust someone who lies, but not trust a person who tells the truth. (Again kind of like life.)
Have a thief steal some of his stuff (Like the tiara and the belt) and donate it to the church of Sarenrae (they obviously won't know it's stolen) to assist in their struggle with the Rough Beast, Rovagug. Have him a few levels later (at a more appropriate level) encounter a paladin on the road wearing his stuff. If he wants it back, he must perform a service for the church. Or they could have a friendly duel for the stuff. But the other paladin gets to wear the items during the fight and has a remarkably similar build to your game's pally, complete with Hero's Defiance prepared a few times.
I also vote for pulling him aside and talking with him about what's bothering you. Usually the best course, I find.
I think you underestimate human stubbornness and others' ability to argue.
I agree with you on the 'Non-playern'ness of Diplomacy.
But it seems kind of bogus that Any player character can simply choose to Never trust a specific individual on Any level, without Any reason, (Let's say that player thinks he's a bad guy.) regardless of how friendly or seemingly trustworthy the individual is. Even if the individual goes out of their way to try to become actual friends with the PC, even coincidentally having similar mannerisms and personality traits that would make the PC drawn to them, the PC can simply choose not to have any interest in that person. (Kind of like life.)
Now flip those roles.
With a simple Diplomacy check (Using 'Simple' with varying degrees of looseness.) the PC can simply make the NPC trust him. Right there in the rules.
Seems kinda sketchy.
Wow, I did not expect to be ninja'd in that way. I think my post outlined that your idea is a perfectly viable tactic. It'll take a while, but it'll succeed eventually.
Yes, a natural 20 auto-succeeds a CM check.
Oooooohh, they could all try to called shot to the heart him in hopes of a crit to deal con bleed. That could reduce the fight to a matter of minutes, unless the Ring of Regen stops that...
My 2 cents:
I don't think it could possibly be infinity. If there's an indeterminate number of gnolls facing one fighter who has DR and, let's say, a ring of regen, sure, he's really not taking any kind of real damage. But I can't help but think that the probability could line up eventually and there'll be a round that they'll roll at least somewhere in the area of 5 natural 20's. Sure, the odds of that are astronomical, but dice are so random that it could happen eventually. Since there's no real limit to the number of gnolls that are flying at this guy, the probabilities are getting rechecked so often that sometime they're bound to line up into an amazing and seemingly impossible result. Is the number of gnolls infinite? Nope. If the guy's taking pretty much no damage from any of them except on a crit can we easily say how many? Nope. It comes down to a very simple amount: A lot, like, Xerxes' army a lot.
I know that this isn't a viable statement for Any kind of calculations, and will probably be disregarded as unhelpful, but...
Also, Crit and Fumble decks will slant the battle heavily to the gnolls, since the fighter would get a new penalty every few rounds, in theory.
That's why Sap Master later on. As it's rather circumstantial. But Sap Adept you can do all day long as long as you've got the ability to sneak attack.
Even though a 20th level dual-wielding sap rogue, assuming it hits with all six attacks, will pretty much one-shot most classes, and a good number of monsters too, as long as it catches them flat-footed. ;)
Could a Monk 1/Rogue 1 deal nonlethal sneak attack with an unarmed attack?
According to RAW I wanna say no, because sneak attack says that if you can deal lethal damage with the weapon then you have to deal lethal sneak attack damage. But seems a bit silly that you can nonlethal SA with an unarmed strike if you're not "proficient" with it, (sucking an attack of opportunity as well) but you lose the ability to do so as soon as you can make it lethal.