The Horned Hunter

Primagen's page

51 posts (52 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!

Thanks though :/


I noticed the description says the rod "cannot be recharged"...

Does this mean the rod can only absorb and then expend a total of 50 spell levels in it's lifetime?

Does expending spell levels not make room for new spell levels to be absorbed?


SmiloDan wrote:

There is a Bludgeoner feat in UC that lets you do non-lethal damage with bludgeoning weapons. Arm the guards with maces, warhammers, lucern hammers, slings, quarterstaffs, greatclubs, shield slams, etc.

This feat also gives you the option of selecting some interesting tactical feats, like Combat Reflexes, Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, etc., and not kill the PCs if they're TOO interesting.

The human fighter with a greatsword and no backstory can definitely go ;)

edit* bludgeoner is a good one! thanks SmiloDan.


Thanks for the advice everyone!

HappyDaze wrote:

Just remember that any city guard with Int>5 will not restrict himself to fighting with non-lethal weapons if his opponents are opening up with full lethal force. If the PCs start swinging swords and slinging spells, the guards will either run (at least for backup) or fight for their lives (if cornered).

Presumably the guards have numbers, so let them use them. Delay like crazy and just follow the PCs until they have assembled sufficient numbers to control the situation.

Yeah if the players decide to outright kill the guards I'll have them return the favor but I'm thinking they'll try to use nonlethal means as well. They're trying to convince most of the citizens of this town that the NPC they're rescuing is innocent. Having all that blood on their hands probably wouldn't help this goal.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Improved Unarmed Combat is also an option, especially combined with either Two Weapon Fighting or Improved Grapple for a particularly Brawler-y Guard with a decent Strength score.

I was considering improved grapple until I saw the improved unarmed strike prereq, it seemed like a wasted feat to me but when I read your post I realized something I should have realized before... I can just use one set of ability scores and build multiple variants of the same NPC with the only differences being feats and equipment. Thanks for sparking that thought :)


Ringtail wrote:
Use warriors as opposed to PC martial classes. They will have a lower CR while having plenty of hit points and just as good of BAB (albeit with lower statstics to back it up), and fewer feats means they are easier to both defeat and build/run. Saps are relatively low damage, but are non-lethal without incuring a penalty. Warriors are proficient, and they can even wield large sized saps in two hands with a -2 penalty, as opposed to the -4 penalty for wielding a more damaging weapon in a non-lethal manner. Tanglefoot bags are cheap enough to fit into NPC arsenals and can cause plenty of complications while being completely non-lethal as well.

Why thank you good sir. All of that pretty much fits into what I had planned already (but take no offense, I should have said more about my ideas so far.)

I hadn't considered making the sap large or tanglefoot bags at all however. Any advice on feats that increase nonlethal effectiveness that have no prereqs or prereqs low level warriors can easily meet?


Hey everyone, trying to host a session soon and I'm kind of limited on prep time so I came here for some advice!

The players plan on trying to rescue a local NPC from wrongful imprisonment and I want the local guard to give them some trouble, but I don't want them to outright kill the players. Most of the guard actually believe the NPC is guilty after all and aren't evil murderous jerks.

The players are 3rd level and if it matters the party composition is human ranger 2/barbarian 1 (two weapon fighting), half elf paladin 3 (sword and board), Human rogue 3 (emphasis on ranged combat), and human fighter 3 (generic two handed build)

I want to keep the CR of the guards low so I can throw more at the players, the reason for this being I have a bad habit of running very few encounters with tough enemies, and I want more combat that isn't too challenging.

It seems like a lot of my sessions are "talktalktalk big fight talktalk" so I want to throw in some "talktalktalk little fight little fight little fight big fight talktalktalk" if you know what I mean.

Thanks for any advice ahead of time and thanks for putting up with the slight silliness of this post.


He is a short fat middle-aged man who is the corrupt leader of an impoverished shanty style merchant town which sits in a swamp. I'm terrible with names.


weiknarf wrote:
'Breaking in' probably means either Disable Device or breaking down the door

I feel pretty stupid right now. Thanks for the answer weiknarf.


D20pfsrd wrote:
An arcane lock spell cast upon a door, chest, or portal magically locks it. You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it. If the locked object has a lock, the DC to open that lock increases by 10 while it remains attached to the object. If the object does not have a lock, this spell creates one that can only be opened with a DC 20 Disable Device skill check. A door or object secured with this spell can be opened only by breaking in or with a successful dispel magic or knock spell. Add 10 to the normal DC to break open a door or portal affected by this spell. A knock spell does not remove an arcane lock; it only suppresses the effect for 10 minutes.

So which is it? Can a disable device check get past an Arcane Lock? Or do you have to smash the door/object to get in?


Bobson wrote:

There are epic-level quick-and-dirty rules which work differently you may be thinking of:

Quote:
A spellcaster's caster level continues to increase by one for each level beyond 20th level. Every odd-numbered level, a spellcaster gains access to a new level of spell one above his previous maximum level, gaining one spell slot in that new level. These spell slots can be used to prepare or cast spells adjusted by metamagic feats or any known spell of lower levels. Every even-numbered level, a spellcaster gains additional spell slots equal to the highest level spell he can currently cast. He can split these new slots any way he wants among the slots he currently has access to.
Those are only for 21st+ level characters, though, and they're still permanent choices (not whenever you prepare spells).

Yup, that's the text that inspired my question.


Abraham spalding wrote:

There is an arcane discovery that only wizards can take (in the place of a feat after or on wizard class level 5) that lets them take a slot and split it into two slots that are two spell levels less than the slot you split.

So if you start with a 3rd level slot and split it you'll get two first level slots for it.

I think the existence of that discovery is enough to tell me that you can't do it otherwise. Thanks for the info!:)


Prepare multiple lower level spells in the slot of a higher level spell. For instance, preparing two second level spells in a first level spell slot.

I read something about doing this as a way for a spell caster to progress beyond 20th level but I don't recall anything about being able, or unable, to do this before 20th level.


Supreme wrote:
Primagen wrote:

In my campaign a player is becoming the apprentice of a wizard soon, because neither of us thought it made sense for him to go from rogue to wizard by killing enough bad guys to level up.

How would you have the wizard explain magic? So far I have some notes about spell casters wielding "the primal energies of the universe", and that the energy in question is present in all beings.

However, I am interested in how magic is explained in golarion (and other settings) because honestly I've gotta have this ready to go by monday and I'd rather spend my time thinking about other details.

Any input will be greatly appreciated :)

Wizards pretty much get their skills by sheer knowledge and research. Tapping into the magical ether. In that situation it would pretty much seem to be just a "he studies enough" kind of explanation.

Also, if you want, you can give him an extra trait of magical lineage, that gives him a cantrip no matter the class, he could be learning magic as he levels by being able to cast the cantrip before he gets an actual level up.

The "magical ether" part is what I want him to explain. As far as learning as he levels up, that's exactly what I plan on having him do. I want the wizard (who by the way is basically a caterpillar-man, you know, a "book worm" hardy-har-har)to teach him the basics. What magic is, how to decipher magical writings, how to write them himself, and how to prepare spells, then shove him into the world on his own with cantrips to cast until he reaches his next level, which is when he'll become a full blown wizard with first level spells.


In my campaign a player is becoming the apprentice of a wizard soon, because neither of us thought it made sense for him to go from rogue to wizard by killing enough bad guys to level up.

How would you have the wizard explain magic? So far I have some notes about spell casters wielding "the primal energies of the universe", and that the energy in question is present in all beings.

However, I am interested in how magic is explained in golarion (and other settings) because honestly I've gotta have this ready to go by monday and I'd rather spend my time thinking about other details.

Any input will be greatly appreciated :)


Thanks for all the input everybody, I'll keep all of this in mind as the campaign progresses and I decide whether or not to actually include this in the story.

Based on your responses I feel like half my players will love the idea, half the players will hate it. I think the key to this will be to make sure that the players don't feel forced into it, so that character sacrifice is a possibility but not inevitable (as well as the portal event as a whole of course), so I'll definitely stress that as I plan it out.

Only time will tell, like I said in my first post though, only an idea.


gbonehead wrote:

Depends on the players. One thing to consider is that you're not writing a novel, you're creating a framework that the players are playing in. So unlike fiction in which something is an inevitable consequence of actions (at least as the author has put it), it's you putting the PCs in that situation by design.

So think about it carefully; few players like railroading.

"Railroad tracks, I'm sure."

I think giving them a chance to prevent the demons from even acquiring the artifact negates them feeling railroaded, so I'll try and make sure that happens if I use this idea at all. At the same time I don't want them to know the purpose of the artifact too soon because I don't want them to expect the ending. The campaign is still young so we shall see what happens, but I'll try to keep it as open ended as possible. Perhaps this could be the "bad" ending. It's more important to me that they are satisfied with the game than I am, because as long as they're having fun, I'm having fun :)


KrispyXIV wrote:

How restricted is this campaign? Assuming its non-restricted on spells/gear etc., its relatively trivial at high level to arrange for a contingency (not the spell), even after the fact.

True Resurection doesn't require a body, and can allow anyone who dies over in Hell or wherever to be resurected by a friendly back where they would prefer to live out their lives. Especially if one guy stays behind, its a definate option for his buddies to bring him back.

A wish or Miracle can recover a body for use with lower tier resurection spells as well.

I try not to limit them as much as possible, so if they seek out something to allow them to traverse the planes, I won't tell them no, but at the same time I try to keep magic that powerful kind of difficult to get their hands on so they'll definitely have to fight for it. However I don't plan on giving them any clues to coerce them into seeking such things. As far as some one staying behind and being resurrected later by his pals, I wouldn't mind that. In fact it might even be better if one of them thinks he has lost his character, and then they have an "OH YEAH!" moment where they realize they can bring him back.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

This really depends on the players. Personally, I'd love it. I like the idea of going down fighting, especially if I am playing a Paladin. What's more Paladin like than looking death in the face and going through with the right thing anyway?

However, other players may prefer not to die. Maybe they don't like ending where the good guys die as much as I do, or maybe they just want to keep their characters.

I think the paladin will really dig it! But it's hard to tell with the other players. I think maybe they'll be mad at fist, but then realize the true awesomeness of the situation!

These replies pretty much apply to Buri's comment as well but I'd like to add that they're new to the game and don't really have a grasp on all of their options yet, and I don't see them multiclassing into casters. I'm not sure if a high level Paladin has any planar travel, but I'll look into it. *edit* Nope, no spells for that kind of stuff on the Paladin's list.

While we're at it... what exactly keeps all the demons and devils from just stopping in whenever they want anyways?


Lets say the campaign you're playing in is drawing to a close, and for the sake of this question your characters must venture through a portal and destroy a magic item that is holding the portal open and allowing an army of demons to stampede into the material plane. This act would save the world from certain destruction. The catch is once you destroy the artifact you won't have a way out, and you will have an epic last stand against hordes of demons who want to rip you to pieces.

This is just an idea I have for my campaign, but not necessarily something I plan on using, it popped into my head just last night and I'm still thinking about how my players would feel.

The whole "no way out" thing is an uncertainty of course because I don't know what kind of items/powers the players may accumulate along the course of the campaign, but as of now the party consists of a fighter, a rogue, a paladin, and a ranger. If they did in fact acquire something that would let them escape, that's awesome I wouldn't mind that at all, but I don't plan on giving them any hints about this final act of bravery until the time is near, so that it is a dramatic decision for them. Perhaps one person could destroy the item while the others escape, or the portal would start to shrink when it's destroyed rather than just wink out all at once and the players would have to race back to it so that they could escape in time?

Would you do it? Would this be a satisfying end to a campaign? Or is character death (yet victory) as an ending not a good idea? Personally I'd do it. I think it's a pretty bad ass way to go out and it's not like I'd use that character again after the campaign was finished. He'd go down in the history of that world and in our memories as a hero, and that's what all gamers want their characters to be, right?


I'd just like to add that I too was invested in the game far before I ever played it. I had become interested in, and began purchasing D&D 3.0/3.5 books when I was in the 4th or 5th grade but did not play a single game till more than a year after I graduated high school.


Lathiira wrote:

No problem. I'm still learning too. Regardless, wights still suck at low levels :p And the diamond dust for restoration got on my nerves in a previous campaign. You can always have the wights slaughter some nice innocent commoners, who can then rise up as wights...lots of potential for horror right there.

Failing that, have a pair of nightwalkers punt them back and forth through a prismatic wall. That worked for making players afraid of undead in an old 2E game a friend of mine played :) Nothing like being a dead stone statue on another plane to encourage people to avoid big nasty things!

I'll think about the first idea, I am after all running a very horror driven campaign. :)


Lathiira wrote:
Another pleasant change with the modern era is that the bookkeeping is simpler. The victim of a negative level takes a -1 to a number of rolls for each negative level. They also lose 5 hp from their permanent total. This goes away when the negative levels do. If you reread the section on energy drain, you'll find it isn't that bad really.

I hadn't cross referenced the universal monster rules for energy drain with the negative level information in the core rulebook until I read your post. Thanks for pointing that out.


Lathiira wrote:
Yes, energy drain is a rough attack. In 2E and 1E, there was no save, and the only spell to deal with it was restoration, a 7th level cleric spell that required a 14th level cleric with 18 or higher Wisdom to cast. Wights had stats not too different from what they are now. Yes, I've been playing a while :) We now get a save to remove the levels a day later and the restoration spell is available to 7th level clerics with 14 or higher Wisdom. So it's gotten easier to deal with, especially since you can buff up your Fort save the next day when it's time to save against each negative level (you save separately for each one, by the way).

I want to throw some energy draining enemies at my players so they'll have something to be afraid of, but I don't know what they'll fear more. The threat of negative levels or the book keeping that comes with it :/


Lathiira wrote:
Yes, you get a Fortitude save 24 hours after getting hit by an energy drain attack to remove the negative levels, but at the time of the attack typically there is no save.

Oh wow. I was looking at the wight stat block and it lists energy drain and then the number of levels lost and the DC. I figured the DC was for resisting the drain in the first place... that's a rough attack.


Energy Drain lists the number of levels lost and the DC for resisting the attack, but not what type of save you make. It's fortitude, right?

Assuming fortitude because that's the type of save to resist the negative levels becoming permanent, but I can't find information on the initial attack's save.


Are wrote:

Dervish Dance requires the Weapon Finesse feat. You don't have to choose a weapon for the Weapon Finesse feat; it works with all the weapons listed in its description.

The benefit of the Dervish Dance feat is essentially that it also allows you to use the Weapon Finesse feat for scimitars.

The Dervish Dance feat is from the "Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea World Guide" book.

D'oh! I thought you had to pick a specific weapon for weapon finesse!

Sorry about this waste of forum space everybody.

*edit* Thank you!


Dervish Dance:

Prerequisites: Dexterity 13, Weapon Finesse, Perform (dance) 2 ranks, proficient with scimitar.

Weapon Finesse:

Benefit: With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

A scimitar is not a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain.

Does this mean Dervish Dance requires weapon finesse with a weapon other than the scimitar before you can take Dervish Dance? That doesn't make sense to me.

What am I missing? Also, what book is this feat from?


Brambleman wrote:

There are many examples of branding slaves and criminals to aid in recognizing them should they escape. Remember the scene from Pirates of the Carribian?

M for murderer is good. But for example, chinese characters can spell out the exact crime in a single symbol. Arsonist might be a good one.

No I don't remember a scene where anyone receives a brand but I remember captain jack having a tattoo on his wrist I believe. Been awhile since I've seen any of those films.

As for the M for murderer thing it was just all that came to mind when the scarlet letter was brought up aside from the obvious A for adultery and lame stuff like C for Criminal.

Arsonist will be taken into consideration as well, although I'm leaning most towards standardized criminal brands. I could come up with a symbol for each crime, including arson. The player could encounter other people with criminal brands to make the world seem more fleshed out, and even people with collections of brands. I'm sure some circles would even wear them as badges of honor among their criminal peers, although maybe not as having one means they were actually caught and convicted...


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Just give him a scarlet letter :P

The letter M for murderer perhaps?


Anetra wrote:


It depends how well known these Kuthonites are in the setting. Sure, the party knows about this cult they're fighting against, but does the average person on the street?

Perhaps it could be the crest of a noble house that committed treason or some equivalent awful crime and was banished?

The Kuthites are relatively unknown to the common man... so far.

I'll consider the crest of a noble house thing, but I'd have to think about that a bit more.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Since the brand will be in the language spoken in the game just use any word you want and say the actual word is less than six characters. Also a lot of languages use symbols for words. Most Asian languages are this way. Make up a word for the language being used in the game and give the players the "Translation"

Yeah I've been toying with that idea but I can't pick a term I think will work well enough.


Anetra wrote:
What setting does this game take place in? Have you considered having the inquisitor brand the symbol of an evil deity into the character's arm, or perhaps the symbol of an evil organization, if you have any of those handy?

No particular setting, just my own little world but I've included some Golarion specific deities and such already. One of the party members is a Paladin in the service of Iomedae and there is a Kuthite cult in my campaign, so I'm totally open to the deity suggestion. Any specific deity you'd recommend? Other than Zon-Kuthon, since the Kuthites are one of the party's main adversaries... or would that be a good thing?


Hello, I'm running a campaign right now in which one of the NPCs is a member of the town guard who is pretty shady and has motives the players don't know about yet. There are mysterious things happening that are putting the town in danger, and although she is totally innocent he plans on hanging a local spell caster for it, Salem Witch Trials style, and the PCs will have to try and save her.

I decided this character should be an Inquisitor and I was reading over the Brand spell and fell in love with it. I'd really like for him to mark one of the PCs with it in his dying moments. He's unable to defeat the PC, but he wants to make the player's life harder from here on out. I want the mark to be something that repels normal people. Something that makes him look dangerous, something that makes him look like a criminal, or look like he's done something horrible that society shuns.

I think the coolest option would be to have some sort of symbol, not a word, burnt into his forearm. I just can't seem to justify how this would be logical though. Why would there be a symbol for a wanted man? And if other characters see that he is wanted, they'd think "How did this man get this mark if he hasn't been caught yet?"

I could just come up with a symbol that the authorities brand released criminals with to warn other civilians that the person has committed crimes in the past, kind of like an instant background check, but that doesn't seem extreme enough (for the whole, makes people wanna stay away thing) and seems kind of evil and harsh for the authorities at large to do, as opposed to this one twisted inquisitor.

What are your ideas on this? Any real-life symbols that would do the trick? Or any words (with six characters or less) that will make people keep away from this person?


Ma Gi wrote:
Supporting stuff

I think my players would feel cheated if their abilities didn't effect it as undead. It just seems logical that they would. Some interesting tid bits I found to support that they should be/are an evil creation are:

- "Note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor." (Under 'creating a flesh golem')

- "animate dead" (listed under creation requirements)

- "Although most flesh golems are mindless, there are persistent rumors of unusual golems who somehow retain the memories of a previous life." (leans towards the fact that they're undead)

- The entire "Unholy Flesh Golem" variant that I could use, which I didn't notice before, however I think this would allow it to be effected by positive energy, but not the ranger's bonus against undead.

Unholy Flesh Golem: Evil golem creators sometimes infuse their creations with negative energy. Positive channeled energy harms them and negative channeled energy heals them as if they were undead, although they are unaffected by special abilities that use channel energy (such as Command Undead, Turn Undead, or the power of the Sun domain).
Any living creature hit by an unholy flesh golem’s melee attacks also takes 1 point of Strength damage. This is a negative energy effect. An unholy flesh golem has an evil aura. Creating an unholy flesh golem is an evil act. (+0 CR)

I think I'm gonna just stick to my idea and house rule that it's effected by anything that effects undead and flavor it up like you said. I could even create a new creature that's very similar but a lower CR so I could throw it at my players sooner.

Thanks for the support Ma Gi


Thanks. I've been dealing with the rogue's sneak attacks correctly, but this flesh golem not counting as undead stuff doesn't sit right with me.

edit*

I guess I should have made it more clear that I wasn't looking for RAW info on the golem, I know as far as the stat block is concerned the flesh golem is strictly a construct. I was wondering if anyone else however would house rule that they're also undead for the purpose of being effected by good-aligned magic and things like that.


Question one:

Would you consider a Flesh Golem a construct AND undead? After all, one of the spells required to create a Flesh Golem is animate dead. The reason I'm wondering is I'm running a very undead-heavy campaign right now where one of my players is a ranger who specializes in the slaying of the undead and another is a paladin. Would you rule that their bonuses against undead count against this monster?

Question two:

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the limitations on the rogue's sneak attack, except for one thing... Let's say a rogue is fighting a creature, and the creature's attention is diverted elsewhere for some reason, and while it is distracted the rogue hides, in a bush for instance. The creature eventually returns to find the rogue and beat him to a pulp, but can't seem to locate him, but he's definitely on his toes, has acted, and is not flat-footed. Could a rogue still fire a crossbow bolt from the bush and sneak attack the monster, since it is not aware of his location? And although the monster is not flat-footed, would it be considered flat-footed to the rogue's attack since it doesn't see it coming and can't defend itself, somewhat like being flanked?

Thanks.


Oh, thanks FallofCamelot and The Shaman. I don't have the APG so I was totally unaware of this.


Golden-Esque wrote:
...Not to mention there are always tons of very interesting monsters; from Bestiary 2, the Quipploths (whom I never spell correctly), the Proteans,...

Personally I don't use alot of outsiders and I feel like they take up too much space in the bestiaries already. The CR for outsiders is usually high-ish and there for they automatically get less play than other creatures and to realistically encounter them usually requires some pretty out-there scenarios. I love undead though and feel like we could always use more! Especially since the campaign I'm currently running involves a party where half the characters are dedicated to destroying undead and will soon be connecting with an organization that will give them missions to do just that.


Ringtail wrote:
There is the loss of 2 free spells known per level. 3 if he uses the human favored class bonus for 1 extra spell per level for wizard.

Huh? What's this guy talking about? Bonus spell per level for being human..?


Bruunwald wrote:

Perhaps you ARE a character in a very poorly run adventure.

(Cue Twilight Zone theme.)

Yeah having a poor DM would explain my boring uninspiring life.

Seriously though, what the heck? Deja Vu is crazy stuff.


Guys this is freaking me the @#$%! out. I'm having some serious Deja Vu right now. I feel like I've read this before (The stuff about Peanutbutter) and seen that video before of the guy talking about calling the white house. I think I saw it in a dream. What does this mean!?


Yeah I just don't get how it hasn't changed all this time. It's like that on d20pfsrd and on the paizo srd.


Shields take one hand. The spear takes two. Not the short spear, the spear.

AC 15, touch 10, flat-footed 15 (+2 armor, +1 natural, +2 shield)
Melee spear +3 (1d8+3/×3)

LUCY YOU'VE GOT SOME SPLAININ' TO DO!


leo1925 wrote:

Question:

Where did the original post go?

My original question (as you know) was really long-winded and overly complicated and I thought people would think it was too long and not worth their time, so I deleted it and was going to reword it but unbeknownst to me you had already replied. Sorry Leo! :/ and to anyone this may have confused.


leo1925 wrote:

A +1 flaming keen greataxe would cost 18000gp (plus the cost of a masterwork greataxe) to buy and 9000gp (plus the cost of a masterwork greataxe) to craft.

And no when using a +1 flaming keen greataxe you only get +1 to attack and damage rolls.

A +3 flaming keen greataxe (which gives you +3 to attack and damage rolls) would cost 50000gp (plus the cost of a masterwork greataxe) to buy and 25000gp (plus the cost of a masterwork greataxe) to craft.

Oh wow we've been doing this stuff all wrong I think... Thank you so much!


Charender wrote:

Yeah, even if you can have a million attacks, you only get them all if you make a full attack.

TWF give you another attack, but you can only utilize that attack with a full attack action.

Yeah I just wasn't sure if the extra attack granted by two weapon fighting was an exception to the rule for some reason. It's not stated that it has to be a full attack under two weapon fighting anywhere, but I did what I should have done earlier and checked in the combat section under "full attack" instead of "two weapon fighting" and they mention it there.


Seraphimpunk wrote:

only when he does a full attack.

attacking more than once is only part of a standard action with the cleave feat.

all flurry / two-weapon fighting takes a full attack action.
i think even pounce requires the charge action, which is a full round action.

Okay thanks I don't feel like I've ripped him off then. The description of the feat doesn't say anything about full attacks just "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."

Thanks for the clarification.


I think I've been screwing one of my players out of his second attack but I'm not sure... When you are using two weapons do you get the attack with your second weapon one time a round regardless of what type of attack action you take, or only when you make a full attack? I've only been letting him do it as a full attack.


Mournblade94 wrote:

Errors happen I can live with that. Hell errors in RPG's are nothing compared to the errors we deal with in science journals, and the researchers seem to manage.

I would much rather get the new release than wait for a few errors to be fixed.

Still they are problematic. I didn't realize smite evil was double level damage with the first strike ONLY until I read the Undead Slayer in the APG. I thought it was double level damage for any undead, outsider, or dragon EVERY strike. Yeah it made for some upset undead creatures in Curse of the Crimson THrone.

Yeah it's not that big of a deal and if I didn't know Paizo released errata it would be an issue that never would have come to mind at all. Also this reminds me of how badly I want my next character to be a Paladin. I'm playing a barbarian right now in a group with a fighter and feeling like I chose the wrong class... but this is getting off-topic. I hope the bestiary 3 has a few good undead for the campaign I'm running.


James Jacobs wrote:
Primagen wrote:
I have this book preordered already through amazon, but I'm considering cancelling due to the amount of errors I've seen in the first printings of other books. Does anyone know how much time passes between printings?

It varies. We don't reprint a book until it sells out, and the length of time it takes a book to sell out can be a few months or several years or never. We've gotten a LOT better at anticipating demand for these books, so we've been ordering larger print runs, which means longer waits between reprints.

One thing we DON'T do is announce when reprints are "scheduled" to happen.

I'll probably stick with my decision to pre-order because the sooner I get my grubby little paws on the book the happier I'll be, and I want to throw some new stuff at my players as soon as possible. Thanks for the information, and thanks for the awesome game.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>