Search Posts
Where are you getting that a 10' shark is 'small'? The PRD says that the 10' long shark in the monster manual section is a Large creature, while the shark in the druid section does not state a length and is a medium creature. Also, like many words in Pathfinder, "small" is a defined concept. You may also see "small" used as a descriptor. Sometimes you do need to use the context of the sentence to decide how the word is being used.
I hope that paizo is able to come up with a happy medium for multi-classing. I liked the variety of skills a character could attain with 3.5 multi-classing, but disliked the class/class/class/class/class shenanigans that players sometimes did (optimized or non-optimized). The benefits Pathfinder placed on single class characters were too great such that multi-classing is considered sub-par for the most part. It's one of the most noticeable faults of the system.
I hope that Paizo completely gets rid of the PF1 version of wands. The whole concept of a 50 charge spell casting item like some sort of super-potion has never sat well with me. Players tend to use healing wands as a crutch way too much because of it. I would rather see wands as some sort of spell casting focus that alters spells being cast (like metamagic feats), gives bonuses for certain types of spells, or allowing a caster to cast a specific spell fueled by his own slots.
I disagree with the OP. The character has a bonus versus poison. It is not something that has to be activated. If you choose to hold back information that results in a player not being able to utilize an inherent ability, then YOU as a GM need to come up with a solution so that situations such as this do not happen. The only way I can see it is that you have a cheat sheet of the player's situational modifiers that you must reference any time they may come into play.
I am not a fan of the changes with the sling, crossbow, and hit points below zero. Slings are not a fast weapon to shoot in the same way a bow is. I woul dnot change it. While the crossbow generally hits harder than a bow (the English longbow would be an exception), the crossbow isn't even close to being on par with an early firearm. If you want to represent the strength of the crossbow, I suggest giving it a +1 bonus to damage at point blank range. Setting the hit points below zero to Constitution x2 will likely only lead to party members not taking action to save fallen comrades since they know they have a larger buffer. You want urgency when a character is in danger of dying. I really would not change anything. Let them feel their mortality. I did read up on your races, but I found the changelings to be quite odd and their evolution history to fell somewhat canned. Races would not evolve as neatly as the changelings appear to. If you want to use them, I suggest you let the details of the evolution be lost in history and simply describe how their recent culture fits into your world through the last 5 to 10 generations (depending on how well history is recorded).
Are you sure Neceros' sheet is locked, locked? About a year or two ago I did a whole bunch of edits on a copy using Adobe Acrobat X and I was able to do whatever I liked. If you are using Acrobat X, keep in mind that you do not just edit and save the sheet like you would a word document. If I recall correctly, you have to save the sheet into an editable 'project'. You then make your edits and then save it as 'finished copy'. That 'finished copy' is the editable pdf. It's something like that. It's been a while since I use the program.
I tell any new players that I GM that my role is to be a storyteller and adjudicator and occasional cat-herder. If I do those two things well, then that is me 'winning'. I also tell them that if there is any point where they feel the relationship between GM a players is looking like us versus him, then I have done something very wrong and I want them to bring it up. After that, it is up to me to follow through on the two roles. If I do a good job, the trust will come. My games have generally went very well. If anything, it is the player relationships that cause more problems (that's the cat-herding role). :)
The bloat was bound to happen. Paizo has handled it far better than that other company did for their game. But the problem isn't the bloat; it's the GMs who do not have the backbone to manage the content dispite the demands of unreasonable players. So many players assume that when a book is released that the content will be available for all to use. Some GMs actually need time to look at the material and god forbit there is somethign that they decide they do not want in their game or that they may want to save for later.
If you were jumping UP 10 feet and OUT 20, I'd have you make two jump checks, one for height and one for distance. Fail either one and you've got a problem.Yeah, I can't support this ruling either. Making a jump is a single action. The rules do not talk about how high a jump can arc, but when characters get unusually high acrobatic bonuses like +20 or +30, I think a GM needs to work with the player a bit on what cool stuff he can do. Actually...your reference has very little to do with this conversation. It is not a chat about long jump arcs. I said the rules to not talk about how high a jump arc CAN be. So, tell me how it would work to get an arc 1/2 of the horizontal distance? How about 3/4?
If you were jumping UP 10 feet and OUT 20, I'd have you make two jump checks, one for height and one for distance. Fail either one and you've got a problem. Yeah, I can't support this ruling either. Making a jump is a single action. The rules do not talk about how high a jump can arc, but when characters get unusually high acrobatic bonuses like +20 or +30, I think a GM needs to work with the player a bit on what cool stuff he can do.
Will the Adventurer's Guide Book be allowed into the Pathfinder Society? I know it's new but I don't see it on the list of additional resource even though I see other books and some that say nothing in them is legal. Only resources on the list are usable for PFS. Do not try to make the argument that since they don't say I can't use it that I can use it.
Guys, my point on that is that there is only one window to view. If you set the Initiative panel to float and point it at the players, then you the GM no longer have it in front of you unless you can see both monitors - which can be difficult to do depending on how your table and players are arranged. I have always felt that the intention of Combat Manager was to act as a tool for the GM. I mearly said that if people want player-facing tools that it might be a good idea to have a set of player facing tools instead of requesting a tweak to an existing tool just because one or two people want it. It's about thinking ahead on the development side of things.
@AlastarOG Generally No. If you read Vengeful Comets, it says "As an immediate action whenever you are affected by a spell cast by another creature". If you have already been affected by the spell, the spell has already been cast and there is nothing to interrupt. The only instance where a concentration check would be needed by the opponent caster is if the spell required concentration to maintain beyond the initial casting.
The idea of player facing windows is different from what already exists in the Combat Manager since you are suggesting having a second output window with limited results as a Player View. I am not saying that it isn't a nice idea, but I think if something like that were to be implemented, it should be part of a new group of Player View tools. For instance, I assume having the same idea applied to initiative would be nice for you. Then you could have GM window that shows all creatures and a Player windows that would not show combatants you as a GM have hidden from view (that may enter the fight later).
Bump Int to 3 and skill focus it. I am not surprised at all. It is a DC 10 Survival to hunt/forage for food for one individual. Every animal has above a 10 Wisdom. Most have a 12 or more. So if they take 10, they are able to automatically find food for themselves each day (not accounting for environmental modifiers, if any); and if they need to find food for their cubs, they would have to roll a die. Some days they would come home empty. This is for unskilled animals. Good hunters would likely have skill points assigned. If you want a good hunter, spend some points. This all sounds fine to me. If anything, isn't kind of silly to say that skills like fly, swim, climb, intimidate are class skills for every animal companion? You know, it's a little known fact that bears have a knack for flying; and field mice are much more vicious and intimidating that you might think; and don't forget those mystical Mwangi-tree-climbing ponys...Death from above!!! Some rules are set up not because they necessarily make sense, but because they choose to draw the line in a certain place.
The example they give in the FAQ when referring to the 'lock down' are for melee weapons as it specifically refers to "using the longsword/mace example". If it was a general statement, then it would have been made outside that context. There is no reference in the faq that calls out thrown missle weapons. Only melee weapons are referred to. The Quickdraw Feat says "A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow)." Since Quickdraw is very clearly spelled out, it is pretty obvious that the 'lock down' you are referring to is not supposed to apply to thrown missile weapons. While it would be nice for Paizo to SAY that the FAQ entry is ONLY related to melee weapons, it isn't necessary.
so a colossal sized pistol has less range than a melee weapon? that's dumb If Paizo made rules for every little thing, the books would be twice or three times the size they are. There will be situations where things like this may not make sense. Players do not generally walk around as collossal sized creatures. Alternately, when is the last time you saw a titan wield a gun in a fantasy setting, let alone have the knowledge and skill to make one? I don't recall any.The rules are primarily focues on medium and small size player characters. The GM can make adjustments or estimates if he/she feels they are needed.
No one here really said anything to the contrary before you brought it up. I only pointed out that it was unreasonable of you to say that two people could not ride a horse during combat due to a game rule. As to your second comment, there are no rules about two people fighting from the same horse, so it would be up to the GM to decide how to handle it...but if it was me, I would probably give the riders a penalty to hit and defend. Maybe -2 or -3 on both and see how it goes.
Common sense kind of trumps all this, so rule 0 should apply. Two people riding a horse is not unreasonable, although it will encumber the horse further. There is no rule that a rider looses their dexterity bonus when mounted. I guess it is assumed that the rider can dodge to some extent. I see no difference if their is a second rider.
If you roll a natural 20 on the die with the shield, you will use the same roll for the shield slam or shield snag, so it would be an automatic hit. There is no critical hit for a bull rush or disarm, that's as far as it goes...but even if there was an ability or feat that that used a crit roll, those would be rolled separately unless the feat specifically called them out. You are correct that the die roll being a 20 does not give any additional benefit as far as calculating the 'push' distance for the bull rush. Take 20 and add any applicable modifiers.
Either way, no, a pinned character cannot activate a wand. Dimension Door: ...You instantly transfer yourself from your current location to any other spot within range. You always arrive at exactly the spot desired—whether by simply visualizing the area or by stating direction... So, no need to point the wand at the target destination...just at the target of the wand.Dimension Door: You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn't exceed your maximum load. You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels...All creatures to be transported must be in contact with one another, and at least one of those creatures must be in contact with you.
...but that brings up one other question for me:
Does targeting work the same as it does on the ground? The targeting part is the same. It just includes a vertical component. It would be just like standing on a ridge shooting down at enemys below you. You should put some skills in the fly skill. Being able to hover will be useful so that you do not need to move every round. You may also want a good score for encounters flying creatures so you can out-maneuver them if need be. And maybe a ring of feather falling, just in case you get knocked off the carpet or if your wings get shreadded...
...I think the wife was a little too stealth focused. In looking over the monster's stats it looks like you would have had to max out the stealth in almost every way you could. Other than the PCs, what reason would she need to have a +17 Stealth bonus? A +27 by taking 10 to hunt feels a bit excessive. I don't think it mattered much in the end, but it's the only thing that bothers me (all be it a minor one)....+17 in Stealth when you have players with +13 in Perception is not so much, especially if they have used their Alter Self possibillity of scent to give them + 8 in perception, the sorceror never use his monkey familiar in reco, as I indicated to them, a monkey in a jungle will be unnoticed... You may have missed my point, so I will state it differently. If the wife needed a high stealth because there was to be an encounter with the PCs, I find that to be a bit artificial. It's one thing to give a creature a high stealth because they use it to survive in the wilds through hunting and evading preditors, it's another to give them skills just because the PCs happen along. Heck, maybe the cyclops' lair is near a frontier outpost where monster hunters occasionally strike out to track down and kill monsters in the area. That would be explanation enough. Again, was only a minor thing I wanted to give an opinion on. From what I have read, you sound like a pretty balanced GM to me.
A critical hit with a large x3 weapon from a creature with a +5 strength bonus can make for a bad day...and you said there were two. If those crits did not happen, how do you think the results of the combat would have been? My guess is that the characters would have been fine. I think the wife was a little too stealth focused. In looking over the monster's stats it looks like you would have had to max out the stealth in almost every way you could. Other than the PCs, what reason would she need to have a +17 Stealth bonus? A +27 by taking 10 to hunt feels a bit excessive. I don't think it mattered much in the end, but it's the only thing that bothers me (all be it a minor one). However, you were open to having the Cyclops plans changed by it being called out by the barbarian, so I gotta give credit for that. Otherwise, if your intention was to provide a challenging encounter, I think you did fine.
I do believe spell-like abilities do require a concentration checks in the same ways that spells would. ...but also keep in mind that most Spell like abilities are activated as a Standard action. If you choose to maintain the pin (ie grapple) at the start of the round, you will not have a standard action to use. Alternately, if you choose to use the standard action to activate the Spell-like ability, the pin will be released.
You will get some table variation from GMs on when you need to roll a stealth check for actions other than moving. Some will want a check for every little thing while others will be more forgiving. The rules are most likely a bit vague to give GMs license to decide for themselves how they want to run it. Brace does not state that it can only be used against an enemy charging the stealthed character, so all that is fine. If it was my game and the stealthed character did not have his weapon out, I would have a stealth check rolled, but I would also give a circumstance bonus to the character since I would consider the action of readying the weapon to be somewhat minor. Just my way of handling it.
I don't quite fit any of your options. I want to believe that the GM is not manipulating the outcome other than judging play fairly...if he does fudge, I never want to know, but I don't think it's cheating if he does. I tell my players that I do not fudge, but rarely I will. I have found that every so often the dice generate a situation that I do not expect and it can make for some interesting twists.
If your players don't trust you, you're doing it wrong. This statement right here is at the core of my philosophy when GMing. If do not have the trust of your players, how can you hope to run a worthwhile game? When a player starts to believe that there is a GM vs Player mentality, you've gone down the wrong path as a GM. I roll most of my rolls behind a screen. The only rolls I do in from of the players are big impact rolls such as critical hit confirmations, live or die saving throws, etc. I sometimes also roll opposed skill checks for the player behind the screen such as stealth, sense motive, and diplomacy as well as some saving throws (when hiding the results are important). I would roll more behind the screen, but it tends to slow the game down more than I would like having to search for player bonuses. But no matter what, if the player is taking an action, I try to describe his action in some way so that the player has some indicaton how he 'thinks' he may have done. To the OP: You should decide what works for you. If you decide to use a screen, tell the players what you told us in that you want the game to be less about numbers and more about story. But then you also should also make a point of describing well. For example, with your stealthy fighter, I would have told you players in the second round of fighting that he was moving unusually fast.
Never fear, the PRD is here! Retraining. Oh yeah, if it's a home game, ask your GM. He may have other rules he goes by for retraining...and if it is PFS, check the PFS Organized Play Guide.
You know, I actually forgot, I'm in a play-by-post game where the GM does this ("light wounds," "serious wounds," "critical wounds," etc.). I would be ok with this sort of method. It communicates the character's status without giving exact details. However, as the GM you have to decide if the extra bookkeeping is worth it. There is already a lot to keep up with and if you ever find the game slowing down because you have too much to do, you should consider streamlining and giving up on some of that work. Immersion is important, but keeping the players engaged is much more so.
A few tidbits from the books that may help:
(I suggest 6 'pages' as a maximum a scroll case can hold. That feels more than reasonable to me). Physical Description: A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper. An area about 8-1/2 inches wide and 11 inches long is sufficient to hold one spell. The sheet is reinforced at the top and bottom with strips of leather slightly longer than the sheet is wide. A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8-1/2 inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each additional spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple strips of leather. A scroll has AC 9, 1 hit point, hardness 0, and a break DC of 8.
I'm trying to understand your answer. Can a character cast a buff on themselves (standard action) and trigger a second buff (swift action) from the armor? No. You would need to 'attack' yourself which requires the use of a standard action (this would be an auto-hit by the way). Since you used the standard action to 'attack' yourself, you could not also cast a spell. Again, this would be my interpretation based on the rules as best as I can see it. Your suggested use of a swift action is creative, but I do not see where such a thing is supported by the rules.
NO, because if the GM allowed a defensive spell at all, you'd still have to "attack" yourself -- a standard action. Unless you get a swift attack somehow but not a swift spell, you're better off just casting both. Or admitting that you can't get both in one turn. If you go purely by the rules, since no Attack role is made, you could say that you can't do it...but logically that argument is pretty weak. As much as I do not like using weapon Spell Storing this way, I would allow it. After all, if it was a ring you could do it (but it would cost you a standard action). However, since it does require an attack roll to activate, I would require that an attack action be used. You would need to use a standard action or full round action to activate a spell on yourself and 1 attack would be utilized to do so. If this was a home game, I would adjust the item ability so that spell storing could be used on the wielder as a standard action in the same way as any other magic item that needs to be activated. I think that is more than fair.
Assuming you mean the agile property:This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons. This weapon special ability can be placed only on melee weapons usable with Weapon Finesse.First scimitar is not inherently finessable so can't be agile (without GM fiat). Survey says! Dont be a jerk.
Assuming you mean the agile property:This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons. This weapon special ability can be placed only on melee weapons usable with Weapon Finesse.First scimitar is not inherently finessable so can't be agile (without GM fiat). strike what I said. Misread. :) Also, you can use a scimitar with Weapon Finesse if you have the Dervish Dance feat from the Inner Sea World Guide.
The issue is that you're not making a bull rush attempt, so you don't get the +4 or any other CMB boosting stuff. It's your attack roll against their CMD. Sorry, you are incorrect. The feat reads: Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat).The term 'combat maneuver check' refers to the roll and modifiers and not just the die. For instance, by your logic, in order to escape from a grapple, your combat maneuver check would not include modifiers from Improved Grapple.
Weapon Sacrifice (Ex) When damage would cause the fighter or an adjacent ally to be knocked unconscious or killed, as a swift or immediate action the fighter can instead direct the damage to a weapon from the associated weapon group that he is wielding. The original target takes no damage, but the weapon receives only half its normal hardness. The fighter can use this option a number of times per day equal to the fighter's weapon training bonus with the associated weapon group. He cannot use this option with unarmed attacks. 'Wielding' is not defined in the rules and there are a number of threads on this forum that argue how wielding fits into the game. So, you will see some table variation on this one. My call would be that you are wielding the weapons that you used to attack with. For instance, the Weapon Sacrifice ability would normally be used as an immediate action (outside your turn), so whatever weapon you attacked with in your prior turn would be eligable to sacrifice. This ability is actually a bit annoying BECAUSE paizo has not defined the term 'wield'. Also: if I have my armor spikes take damage, does the armor itself take damage too, or just the spikes? Armor spikes are part of the armor.
I use the PFS hit point rules (full at level 1 and half rounded up for all other levels). I think having lower hit points makes modifiers such as constitution and toughness more meaningful. It also makes combat a wee bit more dangerous. I also do the same for monsters (which is what the books do by default anyway). IF I want an extra tough monster, I just add a template to it or a simple +4 constitution.
|
