|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
What's this about a full attack? If the opponents are actually going through the effort of ignoring the martials to take out a caster, then why wouldn't they follow through and put themselves 10ft away from said martials?
With your other domain you could choose a regular Irori domain or go for some alternate flavor and grab an Inquisition. Spellkiller grants Disruptive and is great for dealing with caster types; Redemption is a quick +2 to diplomacy, perception, and sense motive; Possession grants a +2 vs charm and compulsion subschool; Persistence grants Step-Up and a swift action to increase your land speed by a +10 enhancement; Anger gives a 1/day immediate action to attack someone who just hit you; Black Powder gives Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearm).
Clerics of Irori can't have most of those inquisitions, unfortunately.
That feat does not do what you think it does. Race Traits are not Racial Traits.
It's even worse: being blind causes every square moved to cost two, as it counts as having poor visibility (which stacks with being blind causing you to go half speed or make acrobatics checks for full speed) as per "Hampered movement" in the CRB. On the other hand, if you move half speed, you avoid the caltrops, which is the same half speed that you don't need to make Acrobatics checks for blindness.
This still doesn't disregard the 'effective' 1/4 speed for being blind or the further reduction of speed due to not noticing the caltrops and stepping on one (yuck 1/8 speed reduces everyone to full-round action 5 ft moves, although succeeding at Acrobatics allows you to go back up to 1/4).
DR protects against everything except energy damage, or a specific damage type that overcomes it.I guess you consider the bolded sentence in the entry as flavor text?
PRD UMR wrote:
Damage Reduction (Ex or Su) A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.
Why does the bolded sentence get ignored in favour of the italicized sentence when they don't contradict each other?
Here's something that may or may not come up:
Damage Reduction only reduces damage from weapons. Energy Resistance only reduces damage from specific energy types.
Hardness reduces damage from all sources. That includes falling, cavern collapses, spell damage as from spiritual weapon, lantern archon attacks, etc
Both the sorcerer and oracle need to cherry-pick from their own respective lists, true, but the oracle's choices very quickly boil down to "Which incredibly niche spell do I want to be able to spam?", while the sorcerer still has loads of good multi-purpose or generic spells to choose from.
Falling damage isn't considered weapon damage, is it?
Pirate Rob wrote:
We didn't win a single bid, and the way our GM rolled, there was no way we could've unless we decided we only wanted two. Breaking the rules of the auction isn't exactly one thinks of when you've been told by your faction leader that she'd rather you get them back lawfully.
What also doesn't make much sense is that fighting in the streets over one slave is going to cause the same kind of commotion that fighting over three slaves is. Both are going to cause the same amount of fighting, draw the city watch, and grievances from the trader. Telling the authorities "but we only stole one slave, not three!" or "the one slave we commandeered from that man was a valiant crusader!" isn't going to make the Society or the Crusade look any worse than if you took all three from him.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Given that 8 bronze is equivalent to 200gp, and the slaves being sold are relatively powerful classed martials, my party was thinking that the price for them was too low.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
...are you giving others apple pie and $50 every time you see them?
If not, I think you may not be reading all of the statement!
If the paladin had swung his greatsword at the mayor and split his head open in the middle of the feast...I think we would be saying the exact same thing.
Vital Strike requires the attack action. Abilities that involve touch attacks are their own, separate, standard actions.
/shrug. She's in a position with cover and a cloak. It's unlikely the witnesses ever see anything except for said cloak.
Anyway, this has all been covered in the Gods' Market Gamble GM thread. I was just pointing out that if a BBEG's entire motivation for being in a fight with the PCs is to kill the PCs, it's probably not in character for him not to kill the PCs.
Consider the final encounter for this scenario, where their enemies specifically don't care whether the PCs live or die, as long as the goblins die.
Built a dwarf fighter using a large (2hd) warhammer. Gained the name "Goblin Crusher". Wondering about feats moving on.
Gregory Connolly wrote:
Anything immune to mind effecting is gonna ruin them.
Nothing in the OP's list of tactics is mind affecting.
Things that will work against the current tactics (not so much against Dazing Fireball):
Neil Spicer's suggestion of giving the arctic Tatzylwyrm a burrow speed in place of his poison breath (I so hope I get to pull the sorcerer beneath the snows).
Like I suggested in the Snows of Summer thread, I would replace the climb speed with the burrow speed, so that the tatzlwyrm can drag the wizard 10 feet and deal strength damage instead of raking (which will quickly kill him outright). Otherwise, you're likely to force a return to home or a player death on the third encounter of the day.
True, and I believe that's what happened when I ran it as well. The guards take minutes to show up even after the PCs win. After the last PC went down, I decided that I would roll the d4, and if it showed a 1, the guards would show up while she was trying to finish them off and have to run away. It wasn't a 1.
Regarding Gods' Market Gamble:
This is actually one situation where I would have the BBEG kill everyone after they fall unconscious. If she was just going to skip town with the goods, then she would have done it already. Instead, she's set up this ambush specifically so she can kill everyone who could provide evidence against her. She's not going to let them live after she has won, especially since it takes almost no time at all to fill them with arrows from afar.
Tactics 101: Tark spends four thousand three hundred and eighty words talking about combat maneuvers. Still not done.
It takes zero effort on the lender to lend his spellbook. If he's busy with other things, it might be more economical to just lend out the spell book as opposed to spending the time to write a scroll.
(one hour per spell level to write)
The red flag I see with this whole DC 10 to catch yourself on the slope while adjacent to it, is still the fact that, a normal pit without the slope has an adjacent flat surface, which should be even easier to catch oneself.
I haven't seen anyone state that they should be allowed a DC 10- Climb check when they fail the reflex save to avoid a pit trap.
The summoner in my mind supports the eidolon. He buffs, heals or uses control spells to cover its back. If resources are tight he might take a pot shot with a ranged weapon. But mostly i'd get him a wand of enlarge person/another useful buff(s). And use his spells for battlefield control and healing the eidolon.
Just a note, wands of enlarge person/shield/etc won't work on the eidolon, as wands aren't affected by the share spells class feature.
So, a large portion of the summoner's power is his eidolon. However, post of this advantage is the increase in the player's action economy, which means ideally the summoner should be doing something while the eidolon does whatever.
Obviously, he has spells, but, just like all of the other 3/4 casters, he doesn't exactly have enough spells to be using them in every round.
What else do you have your summoner do in combat?
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Hovering is a DC 15 check. The fly spell gives +4+1/2 CL (minimum +2 at level 5). At level 12 that the OP is talking about, this is +10 from the spell, +1 from Dex, -6 from encumbrance, +4 (minimum) from the fly skill that the wizard probably put at least a single point in; this is a total modifier of +9, or a 75% chance to stay aloft, at double maximum load.
Not bad for a single 3-5 level spell (depending on the metamagic).
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Where does it say in Pathfinder that a creature cannot fly if they are restricted by heavy/medium armor (Barding and its restrictions only applies to mounts)?
What spell failure chance does a medium load create?
Because the cone is now pointed towards one of your other vertices.
Neil Spicer wrote:
Having run this encounter with this suggestion, I instead recommend just replacing the climb speed with a burrow speed (in snow only). It doesn't get to pounce, but the party instead gets a perception check when it pokes its head out of the snow as it waits for the party to go into the deep gullies. If they don't notice it, combat isn't started until it actually makes it adjacent to its target anyway.
The reason why I suggest this is that losing the poison gasp means that the tatzlwyrm really has no reason not to include its automatic rake attacks after it successfully maintains its grapple (and since it attacks the least armored character, the rake damage is going to frequently hit, and even more so when the character falls unconscious).
I had to essentially decide that the tatzlwyrm stopped using its rake attacks after its target fell unconscious (and under the snow), because continuing to do so would kill the target without much chance of retaliation from the rest of the party. Even after I decided this, the tatzlwyrm did so much damage that the party had to head back home after this encounter, as they were out of healing resources once they got the sorcerer back to 0 hp, while the wizard was still at -12.
Instead, keeping poison gasp allows the tatzlwyrm to replace its rake attacks with the strength damage fort save. It ends up doing smaller amounts of hp damage, but the strength damage there sticks around. They can continue the adventure (or be forced to wait several days waiting for their ability damage to recover) without risking falling over from a stiff, needle-pointy breeze.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
This is the exact sort of thing that Kirthfinder does.
A creature with the Rake (Ex) special attack gains two free claw attacks against its target under special conditions (generally pounce & grapple). Looking at grapple in particular, it looks as if it gets these two attacks in addition to anything else the creature wants to do after it successfully maintains the grapple:
eg. The creature who started its turn grappling its target successfully maintains its grapple. It then decides to pin the target, and also gains two rake attacks against it.
Is this correct? If so, it should also be able to instead move itself and the target (as part of its standard action action only), and also use its rake attacks. It would also have a move action to do whatever it wanted.
The other side of this is that anyone who actually has said plank should probably be allowed to place it over the pit without being required to make a disable device roll.
In my opinion, the difference between neutral and evil is that an evil character thinks nothing of (or even takes pleasure in) harming others to further his selfish goals. A neutral character has some trepidation in doing so, if they plan on doing so at all.
There's of course some inconsistencies here. A thief is commonly regarded as being chaotic neutral, even though he's indirectly harming someone by lowering their quality of life when he steals from her. I think the key word is "suffering". Does a rich person suffer if 20gp is stolen from him? Not especially, while stealing that amount from someone for whom it is their life savings is a much darker path.
I believe the desire for personal power and glory falls outside of alignment. How a character goes about gaining said power and glory is much more important. See Alain, the iconic cavalier who is LN, seeking glory for himself by wandering around the world challenging worthy opponents to duels.
And then, when they reprinted it in ISG 3 years later... they didn't change to be based on spell level.
James Risner wrote:
Good to know that barkskin does nothing to anyone who doesn't have at least a +1 natural armor bonus.