Ravingdork's page

Went to report it, but it looks like someone beat me to it. :D

Happy accidents are happy.

Ravingdork wrote:

As written, he has a better than 75% chance of beating Mr. T on the big guy's terms. Switch out the rings as noted above and it just isn't even fair anymore.

I assume you're talking about an all out slugfest (full-round attacks each way).

How does he handle the issue of reach? If Mr.T just moves back 30' each round, and makes a single attack or grapple attempt? Can his standard action hit do enough to whittle down Mr.T before he gets swallowed?

Want me to say you're right? Fine. You're right--IF a GM plays the tarrasque as anything other than a big dumb lizard.

Seregon was NEVER meant to fight the tarrasque without the ring of freedom of movement anyways. I just neglected to mention that I had changed him for more conventional adventuring at some point (I had simply forgotten that he no longer had the ring).

I originally built Seregon as a mental exercise (I was inspired by the fighter VS balor thread). Then he had a ring of freedom of movement. When the APG came out and human fighters could suddenly add HUGE bonuses to their CMDs against certain maneuvers, I didn't see much need for it anymore. So I instead gave him a ring of regeneration to increase his durability throughout an adventuring workday.

I also wanted to see how big a tank I could make. I found that I could do better than Seregon does, but there was no need to do so since (at the time of his creation) nothing published could hit him on anything but a natural 20.

As written, he has a better than 75% chance of beating Mr. T on the big guy's terms. Switch out the rings as noted above and it just isn't even fair anymore.

How many adamantine golems do you run across? I don't think I've ever even had one come up in an adventure...maybe a one shot for fun. Not being snarky...just super curious.

Bestiary wrote:

The vast amount of adamantine required to build even one of these destructive golems is so significant that most worlds do not have enough resources, forcing the creator to travel to the Plane of Earth or remote Outer Planes simply to gather the raw materials needed to build the golem's body.

Now the question is...when you "kill" an adamantine golem...is it still a creature? Because then fabricate wouldn't work on it.

And you'd have to take its 4,000 lb body to a master smith to get it melted down and reworkable.

Also...I always forget...is it admantine or adamantite on PF? Isn't one trademarked?

4,000 lbs. is the golem's total weight, not all of which is adamantine. It's up to the GM to determine how much (usable adamantine) there actually is in a defeated golem's remains.

A creature's remains is treated as an object. This has been true since early 3.0.

It's "adamantine."

Ravingdork wrote:

Anburaid wrote:

The DM doesn't have to justify anything.

If the GM is changing the rules of the game, then he most certainly needs to explain his reasoning to the players, lest he not have any for long.

Its not changing the rules of the game, its adjudicating them so they don't derail the campaign.

Sure, there is a balance to things, and a GM who ignores the fun of the players for their own ego-stroking loses those players.

But this is not one of those cases. This is an example of where the crafting rules have a possible exploit. That's why page 9 of the CRB has rule 0, literally spelled out as "the Most Important Rule".

Fair enough.

Don't the spell components get used in the process of the spell? So yeah, a wizard could fabricate an adamantite suit of armor, but it still requires the base materials. And maybe there isn't anymore left because Johnny 20th level crafter used the world's supply when he lovingly hand crafted a suit.

So the wizard has to wait for enough ore to be produced, or wish it to existence.

So no, a wizard couldn't fabricate an adamantite suit everyday...because there's not enough raw material to support it. And if they did fabricate a suit from an existing suit, then the original is destroyed in the process.

An adamantine golem weighs 4,000 pounds and uses up more adamantine than can be found on most worlds, so you make a perfectly valid point here.

How are the weight/price listings of special materials supposed to be read in Ultimate Equipment?

Take adamantine, for example: It costs 850gp and weighs 55 lbs.

Er...is that 850gp per pound of raw adamantine? 55 lbs. per ingot (or cubic foot or nugget)? 850gp for 55 lbs. of raw adamantine?

How is this supposed to be interpreted?

The DM doesn't have to justify anything.

If the GM is changing the rules of the game, then he most certainly needs to explain his reasoning to the players, lest he not have any for long.

Jame Jacobs has actually ruled BOTH ways on the matter in different places.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks. You've been their healer for YEARS, you say?

Yeah, this will end badly. The moment someone goes down, they will blame you, rather than take responsibility for their own stupidity and lack of tactics.

Good luck.

Angol built himself a sentient stone golem that smashes creatures of much higher CR.

Araonna Chorster controls hundreds of hit dice of powerful undead.

Helegur has an army of simulacrums, which she can make for free.

Nudel can deal 310 damage, in one melee attack, automatically, all the time.

Roshgog is capable of doing hundreds of damage to multiple enemies each round.

Sela Kurn can automatically dispel the spells of equal-leveled spellcasters, while also simultaneously stunning and debuffing them.

Seregon can beat the Tarrasque, in melee.

Shioji has ungodly high saves.

Yiankun can force two saves against DC 34, fail one, and you're petrified.

This is but a fraction of the wonders to be found within RAVINGDORK'S CRAZY CHARACTER EMPORIUM. :D

Forseti: Traits, feats, and other abilities can change how much you can sell an item for. I'm pretty certain that, that is what "in general" is referring to.

In our games, we still grant AoO's even while using whirlwind attacks. Game designers have specifically stated this is RAI.

I disagree with everyone claiming disintegrate isn't a target spell just because it doesn't have a target line. I believe that all ray spells, and indeed any spell that requires an attack roll, is inherently a target spell (since you have to choose a target with which to make an attack against). Remember, this isn't a computer game, and GMs aren't robots. The designers assumed that gaming groups would have some basic critical thinking skills. They likely figured it wasn't necessary to put a target line in spells like disintegrate, because the fact that you need to target someone with it (thus making it a target spell) is pretty freaking obvious.

Sure you can interpret it the other way perfectly fine within the RAW, but it seems like more of a reach to me.

Nothing quite like being in a 5-foot wide hallway at the back of the PC line and being able to spring through everyone in front of you to trip and disarm the enemy before springing back to the safety of the rear.

Ravingdork wrote:

Lemartes wrote:

So how does that work with initiative?

Bad guys win initiative: They surround you in flanking positions and each get an attack. PROVIDED you survive, you may use whirlwind attack.

You get initiative: You run into a mob of enemies, possibly provoking, and attack one. Then on your NEXT turn after they have surround you in flanking positions and each gets an attack, you can make a single attack against all those within reach IF you are still alive.

Notes: It's generally better to delay and let multiple enemies come to you and then bop all of them with it. If they don't conveniently get into position for you, you can still take your turn to do something useful later in the initiative round.

I happen to have an amazing trip/reach build that trips everyone within his reach. Tripping his foes also gives him bonus attacks against each one (which I sometimes use to disarm them just for kicks). It's an awesome mass debuff in the right situation.

may i get a linki-link for your happy trigger tripper?

Marcellano is 7th level in this PDF, but I've since played him to 9th-level, where he has Power Attack and Fast Learner as well.

It bothers me that many people here seem to think it is impossible to do something as iconic in Fantasy literature as shooting an arrow at the attended noose around a (falsely accused?) criminal's neck just as he is about to be hanged.

No one will ever convince me this is impossible (which, by the by, is different from convincing me that rules do or do not cover it). It seems clear to me that the intent of the designers is that such things be possible, even if it hasn't been adequately expressed within the rules (yet).

So how does that work with initiative?

Bad guys win initiative: They surround you in flanking positions and each get an attack. PROVIDED you survive, you may use whirlwind attack.

You get initiative: You run into a mob of enemies, possibly provoking, and attack one. Then on your NEXT turn after they have surround you in flanking positions and each gets an attack, you can make a single attack against all those within reach IF you are still alive.

Notes: It's generally better to delay and let multiple enemies come to you and then bop all of them with it. If they don't conveniently get into position for you, you can still take your turn to do something useful later in the initiative round.

I happen to have an amazing trip/reach build that trips everyone within his reach. Tripping his foes also gives him bonus attacks against each one (which I sometimes use to disarm them just for kicks). It's an awesome mass debuff in the right situation.

Drakkiel wrote:

I ask again...what is the (object) part of Disintegrate there for if not to use what is says under (object) in Saving Throws?

For unattended objects or 1's.

Nobody has provided proof that the object line exclusively refers only to unattended objects. Only conjecture and assumptions have been offered up.

Ravingdork wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

LazarX wrote:

An object is only a valid target when it's separate. When it's being worn by a creature, you can only target a creature UNLESS YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC MECHANIC THAT SPELLS OUT OTHERWISE.

The reason for this is that the game does not have a standard "called shots" mechanic, only general targeting.

A good example of this is the spell "Heat Metal". Whether the spell goes off or not is dependent on the wearer's saving roll, not the gear, despite it's specific function.

I'm not so sure that I agree with you here. Just because the rules aren't clear on how to target attended magical items with spells doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means it is unclear.

Also, why couldn't ray spells fall into the targeting category AND the rays category? You are clearly choosing a target AND using a ray after all.

Because rays under the effects aiming system, not the target aiming system.

Choosing a target(dictionary term) and using a target(in game terms) based spell are two different things.

Almost every spell has a target(dictionary term), but not all spells use the target(game term) way of aiming, and rays are don't fit here, and until Paizo comes up with a way to attack attended objects witih ranged attacks it can't be done. The fact that the archer fighter has to have a special rule to do it shows it is not part of the normal rules.

I remain unconvinced.

You normally do, but you should at least give a reason as to why one method of aiming should apply to another if you are going to support it.

I just don't see any evidence that the two categories are mutually exclusive.

All spells that effect creatures, characters, or objects have targets (using both the standard definition as well as the game's definition). If they didn't, then one could argue that disintegrate automatically finds invisible creatures (since it doesn't target them, it just makes an attack roll).

Ravingdork wrote:

LazarX wrote:

An object is only a valid target when it's separate. When it's being worn by a creature, you can only target a creature UNLESS YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC MECHANIC THAT SPELLS OUT OTHERWISE.

The reason for this is that the game does not have a standard "called shots" mechanic, only general targeting.

A good example of this is the spell "Heat Metal". Whether the spell goes off or not is dependent on the wearer's saving roll, not the gear, despite it's specific function.

I'm not so sure that I agree with you here. Just because the rules aren't clear on how to target attended magical items with spells doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means it is unclear.

Also, why couldn't ray spells fall into the targeting category AND the rays category? You are clearly choosing a target AND using a ray after all.

Because rays under the effects aiming system, not the target aiming system.

Choosing a target(dictionary term) and using a target(in game terms) based spell are two different things.

Almost every spell has a target(dictionary term), but not all spells use the target(game term) way of aiming, and rays are don't fit here, and until Paizo comes up with a way to attack attended objects witih ranged attacks it can't be done. The fact that the archer fighter has to have a special rule to do it shows it is not part of the normal rules.

I remain unconvinced.

An object is only a valid target when it's separate. When it's being worn by a creature, you can only target a creature UNLESS YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC MECHANIC THAT SPELLS OUT OTHERWISE.

The reason for this is that the game does not have a standard "called shots" mechanic, only general targeting.

A good example of this is the spell "Heat Metal". Whether the spell goes off or not is dependent on the wearer's saving roll, not the gear, despite it's specific function.

I'm not so sure that I agree with you here. Just because the rules aren't clear on how to target attended magical items with spells doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means it is unclear.

Also, why couldn't ray spells fall into the targeting category AND the rays category? You are clearly choosing a target AND using a ray after all.

Cross-posted from here.

An attended object is anything touched, grasped, held, or carried. This is clearly defined in the rules. Here are some other rule excerpts...

SUNDER
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.

SMASHING AN OBJECT
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

Armor Class: Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

The former seems to allow you to sunder any held or worn item of your opponent. In this case you target CMD, not AC.

The latter, however, seems to limit sunder attempts only to weapons or shields. In this case, you use CMD for weapons and shields, and AC for everything else.

When an item is unattended, you clearly use its AC.

However, when you target an attended magical item, its AC changes. Specifically...

MAGICAL ITEM DESCRIPTIONS
The AC, hardness, hit points, and break DC are given for typical examples of some magic items. The AC assumes that the item is unattended and includes a –5 penalty for the item's effective Dexterity of 0. If a creature holds the item, use the creature's Dexterity modifier in place of the –5 penalty.

...a held item gains your Dexterity bonus to its AC.

So I ask again, at what point are you supposed to target AC, and when are you supposed to target CMD?

I don't see why you couldn't use disintegrate on an attended item, provided you had a way to use it in melee (since sundering seems to be exclusively melee, based on archetypes that grant ranged sunder).

I highly recommend a cloak of the hedge wizard and several potions of enlarge person.

The only problems with whirlwind attack is that to get full use out of it, you need to put yourself in harm's way (surrounded by multiple foes), so be sure to have a stellar AC. What's more, it is a full round action, which means said bad guys will usually get to attack you first.

That being said, I really love it and have used it to great success.

I love this thread.

A Fabricate spell also creates only one item, so you couldn't create multiple sculptures.

But the idea is to make valuable items out of standard goods. I admit I'm kind of wondering how full plate has 300 gp more of raw materials then plate mail, but still...

So, yes, Fabricate is broken on its face, but at least you can't make masterwork with it.

===Aelryinth

It's easy to make multiple items with fabricate. You just separate them into multiples after casting. It positively amazes me how so many supposedly intelligent wizards can't even seem to think outside the box.

It is super easy to detect the fake, just a dc 20 sense motive or a perception vs disguise roll. It's more of a sex bot or decoy.

Which is why it is good it has other uses, such as that mentioned in the OP.

I remember reading somewhere that you COULD stack the +10 DC multiple times.

I don't recall where though.

It's not permanent. It lasts for 3 minutes at a time. Standard action to activate.

Like the hat of disguise or the ring of invisibility, there is no duration limitation. Only your third sentence is correct.

Tarantula wrote:

Now, if you're paying 24,000 (or crafting for 12k) I think the hat is less powerful. Considering you could do a slotless +2 attribute for 8k.

The real advantage is stacking. A +4 belt and hat cost less than a +6 belt. A +6 belt and hat gives a +8 bonus, something not otherwise available.

Ding ding ding! This is exactly the problem.

Yes, whenever you make an item more expensive it is less powerful.

Further, you are making an argument for the item being underpriced not broken.

Last, sometimes the prices on items are raised or lowered to fit their true value. Don't get so stuck on a formula. It is a guideline to pricing. Funny thing is, I have played many game of Pathfinder with different people and the Hat of Greater Disguise is by far not a top item selected by players. If it is as underpriced as you seem to think, why would this be so?

Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase: This item is unbalanced.

It is unlikely to break the game, but it will give the character using it an unfair advantage (as shown by Artanthos above). It also makes it so everyone with the slots to spare will want to go with the obviously better hat2 and belt4 over the belt6. That destroys verisimilitude for some as now everyone has magic shapechanging hats when they otherwise wouldn't have.

At best, you could argue "it's balanced because anyone can get one" in which case, it's straight up power creep.

There's a multitude of reasons for not liking its existence.

I thought you could only sneak attack with a ray. Is that not true?

You can sneak attack with pretty much anything that has an attack roll and deals damage.

So you don't like magic items with infinite durations?

Depends on the item. Some are more balanced than others.

Nope. It has a short, non-infinite duration and uses up valuable resources (spell slots) any time you use it.

This hat does not.

It's a lot like saying a sword of true striking isn't broken, just because the spell true strike itself isn't. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Or a Familiar with hands.

LOL! I can't believe that never occurred to me.

It's also crazy broken as it nets you a permanent +2 Str or Dex that stacks with all other stat enhancing items on the cheap.

I thought awaken only worked on plants and animals, not vermin.

How does a mindless creature become a cohort, or have class levels?

Seems like a good place for GM arbitration.

The GM could say that simulacra have a magical connection to their creators, and instinctively know who that is (and are thus never fooled).

OR

The GM could say that the simulacra can be fooled by such things and obey the orders of their perceived master. In the event of two apparent masters giving conflicting orders, an opposed Charisma check is made to see which "master" it follows (I'm basing this off of similar instances withing the extant rules).

IN ANY CASE

It's not covered in the rules themselves.

Does Blood of Dragons from the Dragon Disciple prestige class stack with the Eldritch Heritage (draconic) line of feats?

Why or why not? If it doesn't stack, how does it interact?

Don't do that to your GM and fellow players.

Applying templates to one PC in the party makes for all kinds of wonky balance issues.

Instead, try something like the Eldritch Heritage line of feats to add draconic aspects to your character. You could still consider yourself a half-dragon, but you would be more balanced.

Something like this perhaps?

Ravingdork wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

tony gent wrote:

If any legal character could put the tarrasque on 0 Hp then there's something wrong with the system

What makes you say that?

Because its supposed to be a challenge for a party of 4, an epic, ultimate show down of titanic proportions, not one shorted in a flurry of feathered fletching.

That's hardly the whole system's fault. Just the monster's.

He can't even fly...

This is the greatest monster on the planet it has Y hit points.

Your character does 3x Y hit points in one round= there's a problem with the build being too powerful...

Mind you i think the problem is so far above the levels that i play at that it doesn't matter

Again, that's a failing of the monster, not the system. It just needs a lot more hit points (and the ability to fly).

Ravingdork wrote:

tony gent wrote:

If any legal character could put the tarrasque on 0 Hp then there's something wrong with the system

What makes you say that?

Because its supposed to be a challenge for a party of 4, an epic, ultimate show down of titanic proportions, not one shorted in a flurry of feathered fletching.

That's hardly the whole system's fault. Just the monster's.

He can't even fly...

If any legal character could put the tarrasque on 0 Hp then there's something wrong with the system

What makes you say that?

Fromper wrote:

Everyone seems to miss that sleep has a full round casting time. So the battle lasts at least a round, even if it works perfectly.

Do you not realize what full round action means? It takes my full turn to cast, no different than a full-round attack. If it works perfectly, everyone is asleep before they even get a turn.

1 round casting time =/= 1 full-round action.

The spell goes off just before the start of your NEXT turn, not on the same turn you begin casting.

Casting Time

Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.

A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.

A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

...

Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

Also, creatures in a sack would have total cover against sleep. ;)

I figured that might be the case. Still needed saying for those poor ignorant fools who might still be considering it.

Not being a siege mage is a boon to siege wizards.

Familiars get only as many feats as is listed in their stat block. They gain "effective hit dice" which is useful only for determining whether they are effected by sleep spells and similar effects. They don't actually gain hit dice and thus don't actually gain more feats.

What doesn't make sense, is how anyone thought I was implying otherwise. It's obviously understood by all that you can't ingest contact poison sans contact, and shouldn't need to be said at all.

God forbid that, that was necessary. The explanatory rules tomes that we would need for that kind of hilarious clarity would be bigger than houses.

How does it not make sense?

If contact poison doesn't make contact, if inhaled poison isn't absorbed into the lungs, if ingested poison isn't swallowed, if injury poison doesn't get in the blood stream, than it MAKE PERFECT SENSE that whatever effects they have are going to be negligible to the point of not needing to be represented by the rules (otherwise, they would be).

Are there rules for extracting poisons for creatures (such a familiar, pet you bought, or slain foe)?

Not really, no.

How about storing a poison the PC makes such as sleep venom?

Generally, you keep poison on your weapons, or in flasks and vials.

How about a poison that isn't a poison such as nagaji's spit venom?

It's stored in their glands. It likely loses its potency once removed.

Does a poison stay on for an endless duration, and is only removed when you purposefully wipe it off or when you attack?

Unless it says otherwise, their is no duration. Most poisons, as presented in the glossary, are alchemically refined and essentially last forever.

Does a character who sleeps in armor with poisoned armor spikes have the poison removed?

Not unless the GM rules as such.

How does a contact poison react to being ingested? How about an injury poison?

Utilizing a poison the wrong way generally produces no worthwhile results.