PuddingSeven's page

57 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Roberta Yang wrote:

[url=http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6dlp?Why-we-are-confused-and-perhaps-irritating-Yes#1]

The only thing monks really do are good touch AC and saves, so maybe they're meant to tank - but they have no way of drawing aggro, and with their pitiful offensive abilities, enemies will usually just ignore them.

What the heck? Are we talking about Pathfinder or WoW?


deuxhero wrote:

To avoid further derails of this

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz68d8&page=1?Synthesist-more-powerful-than-a -fighter

Of the melee classes, Fighters are one of the few without some inmate method of reaching flying foes short of blowing WBL AND actions on activating flight.

Isn't this really a problem in any situation where the fighter can't swing his sword at the foe?

What about an enemy shooting arrows from a tower?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:

"It's a cooperative effort" is true, but missing one VERY important thing: "It's a cooperative effort between an average of 4 people".

Tell me: Why is the Wizard's attention devoted ENTIRELY to helping the Fighter overcoming problems with what is supposed his specialty? There are at least two other party members (plus animal companions and summons) that the wizard can benefit instead. What makes the Fighter special?

I've read the whole thread and I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Tell us again why the fighter can't just shoot his bow at the flying creature?

What if the party is fighting an invisible creature? Will you complain because fighters don't get Blindsense?


erik542 wrote:
Urizen wrote:

I was unable to locate whether a distinction would be made whether one can use spellcraft to identify a spell-like ability in the same fashion one was identifying a spell being cast. Since there are other situations where these serve their own distinct differences, would the same apply here with regard to the DC?

Thanks!

SLA's wrote:
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus
Spellcraft wrote:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Perception wrote:
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus
You have no observable stimulus while the SLA is being used and thus you can't identify it as it is being cast. But other than that everything should be the same.

Would an Arcane Trickster's ability to cast without any VSM components result in the spells being treated as spell-like abilities for this purpose then? Seems like yes.


Triga wrote:
I was just wondering what the normal party size is.Is it like 4 players? And also if it is possible to play with less than that.

I think 4 players is perfect, but 1, 2, or 3 is fine too.

Five is tolerable, but more than five is too many. Combats take too long and the game is too watered down in an attempt to accommodate everyone's different likes and dislikes.


Carbon D. Metric wrote:


I would sooner quit role-playing than I would buy a hardcover book with 2 classes, 1 race, and 25 pages of fiction.

I know that paizo is not this kind of publisher at heart, but I am very curious as to how they plan on addressing this inevitable issue, assuming they continue to prosper and produce content as they are now.

So then...don't buy it?

Paizo isn't a non-profit gaming charity (as far as I know). If they think they can add to the bottom line by selling additional books, there's little chance some moral code is going to stop them from trying. They'd be foolish not to offer a product that would earn them some revenue.

I'm not sure what the complaint is here. If you don't want to buy all the "extra" books, don't. They're not required.


Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

My questions are about the use of spellcraft skill in order to identify a spell being cast and generally notice that someone casts a spell.

If a spell doesn't have any material components and has only Verbal Components but is cast using a silent metamagic feat:

a) Can someone use spellcraft in order to identify the spell?

b) Can someone realize that a spell is being cast at that time? Does he need to have spellcraft or any player can realize that someone casts a spell even if he manages not to have Somatic, verbal and material components?

Lets see the examples below:

1) An NPC appears as a merchant. The merchant is actually a spellcaster and tries to cast charm to a PC. He has the necessary feats in order to do that without using any components. Do the other PCs have any idea that he casted a spell?

2) In the same way the PCs are facing 5 druids and one of them cast entanglement but with metamagic feats in order not to use any components. Do the PCs know which one of them casted the spell?

I still say

a) no

b) I'd say the only thing left is the 3 seconds of concentration while casting, but what does "concentration" look like? a blank stare, a bunched-up forehead? Perception check with a high DC to tell he's casting anything. But no chance of telling what it was.

1) see answer to b)

2) see answer to b)

Regardless, even if you can tell someone is casting, if there are no VSM components, then I'd say there's no chance of telling what was cast, unless the effect is obvious (like flaming sphere).

If someone casts True Strike (for example), with no VSM components, then there's no way for anyone else to tell what was cast, even if they did perceive he cast something (again, a very high DC).


Bwang wrote:

The Arcane Archer is getting mauled in another thread, so I'll drag the Arcane Trickster out for abuse. Other than Invisible Thief and much realaxed entry requirements, what do you think of the AT? What can be done to fix any problems you see.

My real question after all that is: How can I make this the Favored Class for a certain 'sub-race culture'? Think in terms of a culture that worships the Trickster aspect of Baccob. Their 'magical ninja' seek to gather arcane secrets from those who would 'hoard' such knowlege.

The arcane trickster is a fun-as-heck class to role-play, and not so great if you'd rather roll-play.

Powergamers and optimization junkies don't like the AT. I think a weak BAB is the biggest criticism. Personally, I think this is overcome with a focus on ranged touch attacks, combined with an emphasis on sneak attacks. But that's just me.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
For those who haven't seen it.

That's pretty cool.


Cartigan wrote:
PuddingSeven wrote:


There are also plenty of character concepts where their number one thought isn't going to be about hitting or being hit.
Then there are plenty of characters playing a version of Pathfinder where they are running a general store in the safest city in Golarion.

Sure, to each their own.


Cartigan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Way to pick on my wording and not my point.

Your point is irrelevant because I made my point specifically.

IF you are IN COMBAT and playing a combat game and NOT thinking "can I hit it or can it hit me," you are dead.
OR, you are the bad role-player. You know how your character is reacting to running into something trying to eat you? He is thinking "can it hit me" or maybe "can I hit it" if he isn't a school teacher strolling through the Hundred Acre Woods you seem to insist your RPs exist in.

There are also plenty of character concepts where their number one thought isn't going to be about hitting or being hit.


Cartigan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Some people don't play this game for the combat. Strange and alien thinking, I know. But it is there.
Good thing I made the point of saying "in combat" for all you people role-playing school teachers.

You also said, "anyone playing a combat game". Since we're talking about PF, it's a safe assumption you're implying that PF is a combat game.

Some people don't see it that way.


Paris Crenshaw wrote:
tejón wrote:
Time to link this.
Wow. That was really interesting. Thanks for linking that, tejón.

That was a GREAT article. Thank you.


Spell components are used to CAST a spell. Not to take advantage of the effects of the spell over the remaining duration. This includes verbal and somatic components.

Everything after the initial casting is just concentration, unless specifically stated otherwise in the spell description.

I've never heard of it being handled any other way. To do so would be a very slippery slope.


Jason Nelson wrote:
PuddingSeven wrote:
I'm having a hard time finding a ranged touch spell that actually does straight damage, beyond Scorching Ray. Is there really no higher level evocation ranged touch spell that just does damage?

Polar ray at 8th.

Disintegrate (not an evocation unless I'm misremembering, but it is RT for straight damage) at 6th.

Meteor Swarm at 9th (yes, it does booms, but also straight damage with RT).

And, if you're a druid, Fire Seeds at 6th.

Yeah, that's what I've figured. So basically, from 4th to 11th level(!) a sorcerer/rogue is still using his 2nd level spell to sneak attack.

And we he finally does get an upgrade, there's a saving throw to knock it's effectiveness right back down to the same as the 2nd level spell he just grew out of!

Ugh.


Jason Nelson wrote:
PuddingSeven wrote:
I'm having a hard time finding a ranged touch spell that actually does straight damage, beyond Scorching Ray. Is there really no higher level evocation ranged touch spell that just does damage?

Polar ray at 8th.

Disintegrate (not an evocation unless I'm misremembering, but it is RT for straight damage) at 6th.

Meteor Swarm at 9th (yes, it does booms, but also straight damage with RT).

And, if you're a druid, Fire Seeds at 6th.

Blah. That's what I'm talking about. Basically, until 12th level(!), a sorcerer/rogue is still using a 2nd level spell to sneak attack for damage.

And even when he gets Disintegrate at 12th level, there's a saving throw to reduce it back to the effectiveness of the same 2nd level spell he's just moved away from! Ugh...


I'm having a hard time finding a ranged touch spell that actually does straight damage, beyond Scorching Ray. Is there really no higher level evocation ranged touch spell that just does damage?


PathfinderEspañol wrote:
PuddingSeven wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Did you take improved precise shot to avoid soft cover from your buddy.

Can you point me to the rule that states an enemy in melee combat gets "soft cover" from my buddies? I know I get a -4 to hit them, but I'm looking for the rule that states the penalty is specifically the result of "soft cover".

Two different things.

You suffer -4 when attacking people fighting in mele (there are a few exceptions). Precise shot helps here.
AND
You may suffer another -4 due to cover if any creature stands between you and your target. Improved precise shot prevents this an other things.

page 195 (Cover) and page 184 (Shooting or Throwing into a Melee)

Perfect, thank you!


bigkilla wrote:

Everytime someone uses the term "broken" my head becomes a little more "Broken"

But I agree with you, I have not considered anything that Paizo has produced out of balance with anything else and I allow all of their content in my games.

I only have the core PF book and the APG, so I don't have as much experience with PF as I did with 3.5.

However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a game that didn't get into "broken" territory eventually with all the splat books and expansions.

Tome of Battle from 3.5 comes to mind. As a DM I hated that book and would not allow it. I think it fundamentally altered the warrior class and made them way too powerful. I would consider that "broken".

Of course, the players who were playing classes from it would disagree, so it's really just how any specific rule/feat/class/book is viewed by an individual.


wraithstrike wrote:


Did you take improved precise shot to avoid soft cover from your buddy.

Can you point me to the rule that states an enemy in melee combat gets "soft cover" from my buddies? I know I get a -4 to hit them, but I'm looking for the rule that states the penalty is specifically the result of "soft cover".


I'm wondering how you guys would actually handle the AT's Tricky Spells feat. The ability to cast any spell without V, S, or M components is a pretty powerful ability, from a role-playing standpoint.

Tricky Spells:

Spoiler:
Starting at 5th level, an arcane trickster can cast her spells without their somatic or verbal components, as if using the Still Spell and Silent Spell feats. Spells cast using this ability do not increase in spell level or casting time. She can use this ability 3 times per day at 5th level and one additional time per every two levels thereafter, to a maximum of 5 times per day at 9th level. The arcane trickster decides to use this ability at the time of casting.

So, given the ability, and taking into account the overall concept of the Arcane Trickster character, including key words like:

    * "...guile and craftiness..."
    * "...the subtlest aspects of the arcane ..."
    * "...subtle or confounding..."
    * "...mischief and thievery..."

and game mechanics like:

    *Disable Device 4 ranks minimum
    *Escape Artist 4 ranks minimum
    *Special: Sneak attack +2d6 minimum
    *Ranged Legerdemain (disable device from 30' away)
    *Sneak Attack
    *Impromptu Sneak Attack

...how would you as a player or as a DM handle a few hypothetical scenarios?

Scenario 1:
The party is facing off against a group of brigands, with the party leader in a verbal confrontation with the leader of the bandits. Picture the meeting with Redfoot at the big bell in The Usual Suspects. The other party members and the bandits are all spaced out on their respective sides, behind the leaders. The AT is probably the least dangerous looking person there. Combat has not started and the players have not yet rolled initiative.

The party's AT wants to cast a tricky spell. Let's say, Mage Armor. Again, no VSM, nothing to indicate the AT is casting, and keeping in mind the concept of the AT...

Would everyone be asked to roll initiative?
Would combat be considered started?
Would the bandits even be given an opportunity to react to the "casting"?
Would the bandits even know he cast a spell?

What if the spell was Web or Fireball (targeted at several of the bandits), how would that change things? Would it be the automatic first action in a surprise round? Would the AT's own party be caught be surprise?

Scenario 2:
The party is sitting at a table in a crowded tavern. The town bully walks in and starts harassing a young lass. The AT uses Tricky Spell to cast Grease under the bully to cause him to fall and humble him a bit (or enrage him, but hey that's Chaotic for ya). Would anyone be able to identify the AT as the source of the spell? If someone was watching him closely, would he look like he was doing anything other than staring into his beer for a few seconds?

I love the concept of the AT as a fun character to role-play (not the best to roll-play, I admit) and I'm curious how others would adjudicate situations like these with a non-VSM spell.

Do you guys see any situations where the Trick Spell ability isn't quite all it's cracked up to be?


DM_Blake wrote:

Gelatinous cubes are just a slime. Ordinary slime can flow through a grate uninjured so I imagine a cube can do the same.

I think one of the nastiest traps I ever saw was a vertical pit trap. Covered. Very easy for someone to walk onto it and trigger the trap, falling into a deep vertical shaft that measured 10'x'10 and about 70 feet deep. At the bottom was about 2 feet of water, more than enough to drown in. Halfway down was a gelatinous cube.

So you fall in and hit the cube. You're falling fast enough to pass right through it, but as you do, you risk becoming paralyzed. At low-levels, there is a significant chance of paralysis. Then you fall the rest of the way down and drown in the water - it's hard to not drown when you're paralyzed.

If you manage to make the save, you take 4d6 from the fall (the water reduces the damage) and now you still have to deal with the cube sliding down the shaft to eat you, and your buddies up above will try to throw down ropes but those just kind of splat on the top of the cube and never reach you. It becomes a 1 vs. 1 fight with the cube, and the cube has gravity on its side so you are automatically engulfed, with your friends too far away to even help (and chances are that the cube is probably invisible to them at that distance anyway).

And since the pit is 70' deep, even your buddies with darkvision can't see you down there. Passing through the cube and into the water extinguishes any ordinary torches so if you don't have magical light, you're in pitch black darkness, alone, and your friends can't even hear you scream (the cube muffles sound - the trap suggested a -20 penalty on listen checks).

Nice! How was the cube suspended halfway down the pit though?


stringburka wrote:


Normally, you can't do precision damage to anyone with concealment.

Ouch, didn't know that. Do you know where I can find that rule?


I've seen several threads regarding ranged attacks at a target engaged in melee, and how the penalties for this are a result of the target's concealment due to being in melee. Sometimes people call it a penalty due to cover, and some people call it a penalty due to concealment.

Is there text that specifically addresses this, or is the penalty just assumed to be a result of one or the other?

I'm looking at the Shadow Strike feat from APG..

Spoiler:
Shadow Strike:
You accurately strike even those you cannot clearly see.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can deal precision damage, such as sneak
attack damage, against targets with concealment.

If a target in melee gets a bonus AC due to concealment (or the attacker gets a penalty due to same), would this new feat allow a sneak attack against that target, regardless of their flat-footed status?


I view it like this. There are four ingredients to casting a spell.

Verbal
Somatic
Material
Concentration

To the OP's original question, if you remove the first three then you're left with only one thing. Concentration.

What does concentration look like? A thousand-yard stare? A bunched-up face? Is that guy standing in the corner meditating, thinking, pooping, or casting a spell?

I'd say since you can't really tell, then there's no opportunity to counter or even detect that he's casting anything.

Could an invisible caster using silent spell be countered? No.

Could a sorcerer in the AoE of a Silence spell using Still Spell be countered? No.


Devil's_Advocate wrote:

So, I've played D&D 4e, but I'm trying to switch to Pathfinder; however, I have question regarding the spell casting mechanic. If I understand correctly, spell casters don't roll a die when they cast a spell that they have either prepared or that is within their ability to cast unless they are distracted. However, the target being cast upon will often roll a save that has a DC of 10+CL+spell mod.

Therefore, does this mean that there are some spells that will just be considered automatic successes if the caster is not distracted?

Have I understood the magic system correctly?

Your question is about an aspect of the game that's so basic, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. (not a dig on you, I'm just trying to avoid overthinking it)

Yes, some (many? most?) spells are automatically "successful". Magic Missile for example.

Does 4E not have anything like that?


A Man In Black wrote:
Zurai wrote:

My guess is, "Yes".

:p

Well, let me put a finer point on it, then.

If it's advice, then bear in mind that angry people are people who care about the products enough to feel emotionally about them. You don't see me posting on, say, Battletech or Exalted forums because those are games I don't like and thus don't care enough about to post. If you're ignoring people who are angry, then you are only listening to people who are content and/or only listening to people who have given up entirely (and you won't get many comments from the latter).

If it's a moderator comment that heated threads are unwelcome, then that's fair enough, I just won't post those threads at all. Paizo's house, Paizo's rules.

You're really angry about this? Dude, chill. There are thousands of posts on these boards asking for clarification about a spell or rule, without being angry. Thousands of people disagreeing with stuff, without being angry.


Several posters have written excellent descriptions of how a Perception check could be used on even the most invisible trap, and nobody has mentioned them.

Perception is not just sight, and a failed perception check by itself will never set off a trap.


james maissen wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Well what an AT loses in skills he makes up for in spells. Sure he might not max out stealth... but with invisibility thrown on and fly he's pushing a lot of bonuses into it. He might not deal a lot of damage with his sneak attack... but he can still cause situations that allow more control of the battlefield than a rogue has.

The AT is a wildcard -- when a mage won't work he's a rogue (with options) and when a rogue won't work he's still a mage -- and in those times when you want both in one (sneak attack big spell for example) he has that too.

You can argue wonderful things about a cleric1/wizard1/rogue1/bard1 but its by no means an optimal character mechanically.

Arcane tricksters need more skills/level (6/level minimum), need to be medium BAB/hps, and need to progress with rogue talents. They do none of these and suffer for the lack of each.

-James

I don't think anyone is saying the AT is an "optimal character". And I don't understand why the AT "needs" the things you listed. To me, it's like saying the Druid isn't optimal. Or saying a Ranger needs more skills points.

Optimal, for what?
Needs those things, for what?

The AT is a good sneaky rogue/spellcaster, with some great abilities for role-playing. The AT is not a warrior. It's just a fun class to play for someone who doesn't place pure combat effectiveness above all else.

I mean come on, sneaky spells?! How freaking awesome is that! Greater invis. at will? Holy crap, what fun!


ryric wrote:
I do have to agree that pure combat effectiveness is not really what the AT is all about, at least until levels way past where PFS play ends. (In the home campaign I play, I'm taking quicken spell at 15 - mmm, 6 scorching rays all +6d6 when greater invisible). What I find is the most useful is to be the party's problem solver. I will say that skill ranks are a problem - I have a human with 16 int and there don't ever seem to be enough. You'll really really need to max stealth, perception, and disable device to be the party "rogue" - other things, like bluff, diplomacy, UMD, spellcraft, acrobatics, etc are nice, but I wouldn't try to keep them all maxed. In combat, I really spend s lot of time doing buffs - the party fighter likes enlarge, fly, etc. (Our group rarely has time to buff before combat) Ranged legerdemain is great for rogue stuff - 30 ft away is out of range of a lot of traps if you accidentally set them off. I guess what I'm trying to say, is if you get into the "spirit" of the class as an adventuring skeleton key for problems, your party will still value you even if you don't always kick out the most DPS.

Exactly, and well said.

If someone's first thought about any character is to quickly calculate DPS like they're playing WoW, then the AT is not for them. This is an awesome class for role-playing. Great abilities and opportunities for a fun-as-heck rogue/sorcerer, at the expense of combat ability.


As a DM, I would rule that unless the spell caused damage at the time of casting, it won't break invis.

Cloudkill cast at the top of stairs and then rolls down into enemies? Won't break invis.

Delayed blast fireball cast at an empty square that goes off a couple rounds later? Won't break invis. (You're basically summoning a bomb. Summoning the bomb doesn't hurt anyone. The bomb exploding hurts people)

Summoned creature that is then directed to attack? Won't break invis.

That's my take anyway.


james maissen wrote:
PuddingSeven wrote:
Arcane trickster is weak if you're only looking at the numbers. If you're willing to place some emphasis on role-playing, the AT is awesome.

Oh the idea of the Arcane trickster is very cool. The mechanics, however, don't deliver it.

Paizo did improve it from the 3.5 version, but not well enough and certainly not as well as they improved the core base classes.

-James

Like I said...


Arcane trickster is weak if you're only looking at the numbers. If you're willing to place some emphasis on role-playing, the AT is awesome. Sneaky spells alone would be awesome in many role-playing situations. Throw in ranged ledgerdemain and eventually the greater invis at will, and you've got a super fun character to play.

Also, the BAB does suck compared to rogue, but if you focus on sneak attacking with ranged touch spells, you benefit from your enemy's lack of armor bonus. Heck, even many (most?) high level monsters will only have a Touch AC of 10.


My next character is an Arcane Trickster who specializes in Ranged Touch Attacks, as sneak attacks.

I find this thread helpful.


Ah, the Deck of Many Things. aka, The Party Killer.


We just finished up an 8 year 3.5 campaign where pretty much anything was allowed.

We're starting over with Pathfinder Core only.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
PuddingSeven wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So to recap, paladins do not explicitly need gods nor do the gods they worship explicitly have to be within one step of LG. There are wordings that imply otherwise, and certain extremes would be hard to maintain. Expect the reprinting of the campaign setting to clarify this issue better as long as no one slips something past James again.

Two different issues, and I still contend that a paladin must worship a specific god.

I have already covered your complaint. The paladin explicitly does not need to have a god and implicitly does need to have a god.

LOL. Exactly.

So, a paladin needs to worship a god.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So to recap, paladins do not explicitly need gods nor do the gods they worship explicitly have to be within one step of LG. There are wordings that imply otherwise, and certain extremes would be hard to maintain. Expect the reprinting of the campaign setting to clarify this issue better as long as no one slips something past James again.

Two different issues, and I still contend that a paladin must worship a specific god.

From the SRD...
Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.
At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.

If a paladin does not worship a god, then what god is she forming a divine bond with and what god is she a conduit of power for? The SRD says very clearly that the divine bond and conduit comes from the Paladin's god. Not some mysterious divine force or some unknown divine sponsor.

"...her god"

Q- Who's god?
A- The paladin's god.

Q- Which god is that?
A- The one she worships

Q- Why is it "her god"?
A- Because she worships it.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Kendril Shad wrote:


For the following, you MUST assume that a paladin gets their powers from being LG, not from their deity.

This has nothing to do with a setting or this topic in general , but this has always bugged me. If a paladin gains his power from just his belief is what he is doing is just and right. Then how does one fall? As long as he thinks and has totally belief in he is doing the good and right thing how does he fall?

If there is no higher power to hold him into account , just how does one ever fall even if he bends or breaks his code as long as he thinks he is still just and right?

Good point, and another argument in favor of a paladin being required to worship a god.


Abraham spalding wrote:
PuddingSeven wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
... nothing in the paladin write up states you have to worship a god...

From the SRD...

Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.

At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.

If a paladin does not worship a god, then what god is she forming a divine bond with and what god is she a conduit of power for?

Because you know, nobody can have a divine bond without a god -- here's looking at you druid, ranger, and oracle.

Oh wait -- that's three characters that can -- oh wait, so can the cleric .

The paladin write doesn't say you must have a god. A few class features do directly reference having a deity in the fluff portions of the writing, but that isn't the same as saying "you must worship a deity."

The word "god" is mentioned nowhere on the Ranger page, and the word "divine" is only used once in reference to the spell list.

The druid description specifically says they don't have to worship a specific deity, same with the cleric.

On the other hand, the paladin description specifically includes references to the paladin having a god.

I'll ask it again, if a paladin does not worship a god, then what god is she forming a divine bond with and what god is she a conduit of power for?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly wondering how this would work. The SRD says very clearly that the divine bond and conduit comes from the Paladin's god. Not some mysterious divine force.

"...her god"

Q- Who's god?
A- The paladin's god.

Q- Which god is that?
A- The one she worships


What happens when the target of a Charm Person spell makes their saving throw?

Does the target know they were just hit with a spell?

If so, does the target know what kind of spell or what effect it may have been, had it succeeded?

Do they automatically know who cast it? (What if it was a sorcerer with Still spell and silent spell?)

Also, what happens when the spell duration expires? Do they know they were charmed?


Abraham spalding wrote:
... nothing in the paladin write up states you have to worship a god...

From the SRD...

Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.

At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.

If a paladin does not worship a god, then what god is she forming a divine bond with and what god is she a conduit of power for?


Regarding the AoO for Enemy Hammer, I'd treat it like a Bull Rush. Meaning, no AoO for being forcibly moved.

Of course, not sure what to make of Greater Bull Rush in this case.


Enemy Hammer seems like it could be a useful utility spell, when cast on an ally.


VerdantSF wrote:
I'm currently using Hero Lab for character generation. I noticed that when I took the above feat for my eagle, it boosted both talons. From the feat text, it looks like it should just be one talon. Is this just a limitation of the generator?

What is Hero Lab?


Great stuff, Kor. Like the other guys said, your spreadsheet is my first (and only) character generation tool.

Thanks!


calagnar wrote:

Skill: Stealth:

Sniping: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at
least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged
attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take
a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your
obscured location.
Spell: Invisibility
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

The target can identify the source of the attack. The target dose not instantly and correctly identify the sorce of the attack. That should be a percepetion vs. stealth roll. But rember your at a -20 to your stealth to do somthing like that, and you don't have invisibility as it ended when you attacked. Column of Fire is still cast so it still brakes stealth and invisibility. Machanic there is no difrence thats up to your DM. As a DM I'm incline to leave it as is to keap the machanic of the game in place as a check. Becous I know my players thay wold explote it like a big gaping wound in my side.

Thanks guys.

My question isn't about whether or not the caster is still invisible or even stealthed. I would assume he isn't after casting a spell. My question is specifically about whether the target of the spell knows which one of the completely visible people around him cast the spell that hit him.

I guess you could take the whole stealth/invisibility thing out of the equation and the question remains the same. If there are 2 or 3 casters on each side of a massive combat, can the target of any of their spells automatically know which enemy is responsible for hitting them?

Sounds like there's no rule that addresses this specific issue.


Say my Arcane Trickster was invisible or stealthed 30' from the target. He casts Scorching Ray as a sneak attack and it hits. Does the target instantly and correctly identify the source of the attack? If my AT is the only one there, sure he can make a safe assumption. But if there's a major combat going on in difficult lighting/terrain, would he still automatically know?

Would it make a difference if the spell was a column of fire with no discernible direction?


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:


1st level reach 5' (5'=adjacent)
3rd level reach 10' (5'+5')
11th level reach 15' (5'+10')
17th level reach 20' (5'+15')

This is correct.

And yes, it is supposed to be a bit creepy when it is in use.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Resurecting an old thread here, but I envisioned it as sort of a psychic reach, rather than actually shooting out his arm real quick. He casts shocking grasp and sort of shoves/throws the effect forward to the target. Picture Neo at the of the Matrix when he just holds his hand up to stop the bullet. Basically that stance.

If it was intended to be a physical thing, seems like too much room for someone to say "You mean a rubbery limb shoots 10' past me to hit my cleric friend? I chop at it with my axe!" Too Marvel Comics for my taste, in a fantasy setting.


Arazyr wrote:

PRD: Magic - Caster Level

PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

So, yes, to a dergee, based on RAW. As for choosing to do the minimum effect based on a die roll, I'd say that would be GM's perogative. (I.E. Rule 0)

If it were me, I'd probably allow it, especially if it were used in a good roleplaying situation, as you mentioned.

Cool, thanks.

I was thinking about a 16th level wizard who came across a room of 1/2HD baddies. A 1d6 damage fireball would clear them out without destroying the room, but without the ability to do it he's kinda limited. Seems strange for a high-level wizard to not be able to do little things like that.

Or a Shocking Grasp to startle a horse without killing it.

Stuff like that...

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>