Nah, give him the Catch Off-Guard feat. Then he can not only use the limbs, but get some flat-footed attacks as well.
Besides, with the feat description of:
"Unarmed opponents are flatfooted against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon."
... you will be able to hand out the 'unarmed' puns.
My first character was a diviner. They have a class ability to always go first in the surprise round even if they fail their Perception checks (we call in spider senses :P). I remember a villain appearing in a room once and giving a grand monologue.
At the end the GM asked us to roll initiative. I said what about the surprise round? To which he replied, you just hear it. Well, do I get to go since I'm a diviner? The GM say sure!
I rolled a higher initiative, had a wand of scorching ray in my hand already and burned her to a crisp from the shot. Smirking at the GM, so that monologue never happened, did it? No, he said hanging his head, no it didn't.
Invisibility extends to objects in your possession, that includes water drops. While the water created by the spell would make it obvious that an invisible creature is there (since the water disappears in the vague shape of the creature), is would not stick around in midair.
Create water, like powder, can identify the square an invisible creature is in, but won't remove the 50% miss chance.
Swarms fill more of the square than just surface of a character. It would be difficult to determine where the emptiness of the invisible body is in the swarm. Most swarms fill multiple squares, so you're probably looking through several feet of moving insects before getting to the part that has the invisible character.
Just assume the swarm is blocking your view fine details (like a body outline).
Technically Spellcraft is supposed to be used for detect magic which gives it a lot of mileage.
People use the rods because they don't raise the spell level and that let's them meta their most powerful spells. If you use a skill check to meta, the same thing will happen but it will be much, much harder to control. My wizard would break your game if this were the case due to his build.
Not sure about fictionfan, but mine would be +31 (12 ranks, +3 class skill, +8 Int mod, +2 circumstance for masterwork tool, +1 luck for stone of luck, +4 morale from greater heroism, +1 competence from ioun stone) at 12th lvl (or +37 with Skill Focus since I don't need feats for metamagics anymore).
Dimin: +6 Dex, -4 Str, +4 natural AC
According to this, a huge and large undead have the same Str and armor, yet a large has the only Con buff. A diminutive undead has more armor than a medium and less Dex than a tiny...
So what are the changes in Undead Anatomy IV supposed to be?
From what I understand of a Summoner, they can have their Eidolon summoned/fused indefinitely unless the summoner sleeps. So it is feasible to assume that the eidolon is fused any time the summoner is awake and doing the Day Job, just like equipment.
EDIT: He can easily make up the +3 he's not getting from traits with gear (ioun + master tool).
Bob Jonquet wrote:
But wouldn't specific override general? The new material deals with generic Tian characters where as the ISWG specifically deals with Tians living in the Inner Sea where the Society headquarters are.
If he's new, I don't recommend archetypes. I he wants a half-orc fighter, then let him know that he'll want a little dex since full plate allows a +1 MDB, and a little Con since he'll be in front more often. Other than that, he'll be fine to learn. His second character will be a lot better. ;)
EDIT: The more I think about what you're asking... When I'm teaching a new player the game, I suggest something that is highly survivable and doesn't have a lot of complex abilities. Fighter is a great choice. Gunslinger is not. I tell them that they'll have a lot to learn about the system itself that they can try a more complex character once they have a grip on things.
I believe the concept comes from the fact that the ability description in the CRB directly states that 'An icy burst weapon functions as a frost weapon that also...'. This leads to the logic that an icy burst weapon is merely a frost weapon with the extra crit damage added on. Hence the upgrade from frost to icy burst.
Attack of opportunity has nothing to do with it. You get to shoot him due to his attack-like action (the disarm) triggering your readied action, which would provoke from him but he probably doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike. After your shot, he gets to continue his disarm attempt.
Since Pistol Whip is a standard action, you would not get to use it for the AoO. But had you readied your action to 'ready an attack if he made any sort of attack (asked him to surrender)', you could have gotten away with the Pistol Whip since you ready a standard action with the ready action.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I agree. Though it also makes good roleplay sense that your character would not be sent out on Pathfinder missions until he learned Common once he got over here. I can't see a Venture-Captain putting a Pathfinder in a group where he can't communicate with the other Pathfinders or any of the NPCs they meet and expect him to follow the third rule "Cooperate".
I place index cards next to the flip mat at the start of the game. I find it encourages players to take notes that otherwise would not due to having no place to write things down (and barely overcomes their laziness to dig paper out). Thus, I have not yet had a game where someone didn't jot down important info.
I second this. I prep the heck out of my scenarios making encounter cards and combat cards that hold all the pertinent information. I could literally GM a scenario without touching the print out or any books. Besides, looking things up mid-game is bad form if you're trying to keep things flowing (such as during a 4-hour slot at a store or convention).
I've been lightly following this thread, but I think I'm seeing a miscommunication that's causing some trouble. If I'm wrong, ignore me. If I'm not, let me present this different point of view to Bob and nosig.
I believe what james is talking about is not a matter of preference (or 'his way of GMing') but rather the general idea of a GM bettering oneself. I know for a fact that there are things that a new GM can be taught that will improve his/her game without changing their style or delivery. Things like 'visual aids help players experience the scenario with multiple senses' and 'having players roll damage along with combat can speed up play a bit', even some borderline advice like 'during combat, tell the players after they've sat there for 10 seconds that you're going to delay their character until they think of what they want to do, for the sake of keeping the combat flowing'.
If a GM is willing to take constructive advice and food for thought, they can become better at GMing. A group of players that take an active role in advising new GMs within their community can offer this.
On the other hand, if a GM has a habit that is causing trouble, it is worth mentioning at the end of the slot what you felt/observed based on what the GM did. If they weren't aware of the affect of their actions, they will probably be happy you pointed it out. If they're a dick, they'll tell you off and you'll know to move along.
I think you guys are looking to far into what James is saying.
Society FAQ wrote:
...a tattooed sorcerer may only use her create spell tattoo power during days spent in play (ie. not between scenarios)...
The FAQ will usually have information on how to mesh archetypes with OP. The rest of the description for the ability is in the feat on page 16 of Inner Sea Magic.
I agree on both counts. I used the Field Guide to fill in a lot of the information.
I think the alternatives would have been either to include more information in the scenarios which is highly unlikely (word count and not wanting to overload a new GM) or to include references to products which is also unlikely as it makes the scenario feel tattered and make new GMs feel less confident about it without the extra books.
1. The first was the Suicide Well in Area 12. In the text for the room, it states that "...any creature that [looks down into the well] is subject to a suggestion that urges it to throw itself into the hole." However, the suggestion spell text states that "asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell." This is confusing. The wording should probably be changed. How would/did you handle this apparent contradiction?
Specific overrides general. Since the scenario says that the haunt tells the PC to jump, that's what the suggestion's effect is. Remember, it's an undead creature not a spell being cast so it doesn't have to perfectly imitate the spell description.
(Also, because this is an introductory scenario, and the Haunt rules are found in the Advanced Player's Guide, they would make a good appendix -- with a note in the room description referring the GM to it. It's not clear that players are supposed to enter initiative when someone looks down the well unless you have the Haunt rules at hand.)
I think the scenario included a small description with the fact that the well always goes on Initiative #10. A reference would be nice, but I don't think it was needed.
It didn't specifically say it in this one, but you are supposed to drop a little propaganda for the Andoran and Qadiran factions when talking with the PCs. What you added was fine.
Also, there are some other parts to their personalities that are supposed to shine through (mostly with the Sense Motive checks the scenario gives). Amara Li is compromising especially in regards to mixing the culture of the east with the west. Colson Madris is arrogant and pompous but he honestly cares about what he believes in and honestly cares about the PCs safety. Aaqir al'Hakam may be manipulative and legalistic but his is still proper and civil, giving the impression of being very knowledgeable (he IS a diviner after all).
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I really don't care which way you go, but to drop a point in just to get a Day Job roll is lame. This is a role-playing game after all.
... Unless that rank represents what the character tried to do for a career before joining the Pathfinders. I don't see it as lame. I see it as lame that people would have character that just sit around the Lodge doing nothing between missions. Have you no life? A Day Job skill can be an important for RP even if you just put a point in and say "That's what he/she does between scenario, now where's my roll."
Dennis Baker wrote:
I see no problem with this. I used to teach 3.5 to gaming groups when I was head of the local gaming club where I used to live. Players had a wide variety of experience.
Where I am now, we just throw new players into the fire and we've never had trouble. Must be something in the water, but as soon as they've played a session or two they get a voracious appetite for knowledge about the game and the world. Honestly, I think it's because we have a diversity in our experienced players that cause a new member to undergo a deep rules-lawyering debate, avid descriptions of places in Golarion, interesting build quirks and combination, advice from Painlord's 176 threads, and instructions on building terrain/painting miniatures all within their first session or two. I think all the different aspects of what makes Pathfinder fun and interesting overloads their brains causing them to hit the ground running.
They give our VC a run for his money. :D