I think Raging Vitality is a must. Not only +2 CON per rage but also the ability to rage when unconcious or dying. Not exactly what you were looking for because you can still rage in diehard-mode but still a good feat I believe.
I think both work fine but having Quick Channel is a real advantage IMO.
I probably would not use Combat Casting, especially for the first build. If I see it correctly, you have a 12 (level) + 7 (Wis) + 2 (Trait) Bonus already. So spells lower levels should be no problem and even higher levels have only a small chance of failure and then only if you HAVE to cast them while threatened.
any feedback if the candle could be used more than once or not would be appreciated.
me and my fellow adventurers are midway through the Kingmaker campaign and have defeated one of the baddies. This brought us quite a large amount of gold that we are now able to spend, around 20K for each charakter.
I play a neutral priest of Abadar and wondered how to spend the loot. I looked up the wondrous items in came aross the Candle of Invocation.
Each of these special tapers is dedicated to one of the nine alignments. Simply burning the candle generates a favorable aura for the individual if the candle's alignment matches that of the character. Characters of the same alignment as the burning candle add a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks while within 30 feet of the flame.
A cleric whose alignment matches the candle's operates as if two levels higher for purposes of determining spells per day if he burns the candle during or just prior to his spell preparation time. He can even cast spells normally unavailable to him as if he were of that higher level, but only so long as the candle continues to burn. Except in special cases (see below), a candle burns for 4 hours. It is possible to extinguish the candle simply by blowing it out, so users often place it in a lantern to protect it from drafts and the like. Doing this doesn't interfere with its magical properties.
In addition, burning a candle also allows the owner to cast a gate spell, the respondent being of the same alignment as the candle, but the taper is immediately consumed in the process.
I do not care much for the first ability and would not use the third one. I am pretty sure my DM would disallow it anyway and I consider it to be too much of a game-breaker (or a quick suicide).
But I have a question about the second ability. As I read the ability
a)the candle can be used more than once
b) the candle only needs to burn while preparing and casting the spells. The spell effects still remain, even after the candle has been extinguished/snuffed out.
Do you agree with this?
Preparing divine spells takes one hour or less. The mininum is 15 minutes. Does this mean that my character would be able to spend 15 minutes preparing the spells from the new spell level(say Wind Walk and Find the Path for a normally 10 level Cleric) cast the spell in a few rounds round and then frolic around in the air for a few hours? And essentially do this on about 15 days using the candle in 15-minute-segments?
The title says it all.
In the longer threads about the Heirloom Wepaon trait from the Adventurer's Armory being too powerful (or not), the designers said that there would be a revision for that trait coming up soon.
These threads being a few months old I started looking for any revision but could not find anything. Has there been a ruling?
We will start a Kingmaker campaign soon and my cleric could use a fancy weapon.
If this is from an AP I might know where they are. I suggest running away and coming back later. Take the AoO and hope for the best on your way out.
It is from one of the "old" ones. And believe me, we certainly would like to. :-)
One character is already dead, my char (the one who can teleport) still has eight hit points left the rest of the group is doing better but does not have that many options to escape the monsters.
To make matters worse only one other char is standing next to my rogue/wizard, the three others are about 30-50 feet away and there is an unholy number of incorporeal creatures in between. The have to get to my position in one round to have any chance to escape.
We had to stop in the midst of combat and next week we will see if we (or some of us) can escape.
But most of the monsters can act before we can try to get away so the most likely outcome is that it will be over once they take away my last eight hit points.
Dearest Masters of Lore,
I have a few questions regarding incorporeal creatures and interactiong with them. I had a quick look at the archives but could not find a thread that was dealing with my questions. If these questions have already been asked I apologize.
My group is at the moment a round or two away from a TPK. The only way to escape for some of us would be to somehow make it through a crowd of incorporeal undead and evil outsiders to rally around the character which can teleport away.
1. Are there any special rules for moving through incorporeal creatures?
2. Are there any special rules if incorporeal creatures grant cover differently from corporeal creatures.
I know that there is nothing in the incorporeal description and that I am grasping at straws but hey, any port in a storm. :-)
Thanks in advance
Good points, all. I did not think about looking at the despriptive text. But there are also despriptions the other way around.
scorching ray: you blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire
elemental ray: you can unleash an elemtal ray as a standard action
Most of the examples follow the finger/palm/hand way. Still I find it strangely inconclusive and unsatisfying
Cold Napalm wrote:
Okay forget realism...D&D combat system ain't realistic, period. It's there for balance. Ranged attacks become TOO good if you can full attack at melee range with no AoO.
I agree completely, it is not about realism. I personaly do think it makes casters to powerful but obviously the makers of the rulebook thought differently.
Still, is it possible to fire rays without using, for example, arms and hands?
I would like to see that passage. It would also clear up if a bound wizard could use his/her acid dart or a creature with no arms (lets say a wizard in ooze form) could use rays. I personally think it rather strange that a beholder (not open content I know) should incur AoO for using his eye rays.
Any idea where I could find this passage?
Thanks for the quick answer, as you can see I had to revise my post. Comes from reading to fast and not far enough. :-(
I do not really like the aiming/concentration argument that much as you must focus on your opponent making a melee attack as well. For me the AoO is more connected to a physical action.
mmh had to edit my post, sorry.
Sorry to come up with this old topic. I looked around on the message boards and came up with a few posts about the topic "AoO yes or no".
Some spells allow
I can understand reading the rules in that way and of course the DM is always right. :-)
I just do not understand WHY there should be an AoO. All the other actions like standing up or firing a bow in melee put you in a positon where you are (more or less) hard put to defend yourself.
I found no indication of how you must behave to "shoot" a ranged touch attack. As with every ranged attack it depends on DEX, so in same way it is a physical act but I can find no reference that it involves an act that leaves you open to attack. I can't even find a passage that firing a ranged touch attack such as a ray involves your hands, tentacles, whatever. It seems to be possible to shoot them from your eyeas, knees, elbows,... The only passage I found is rather short.
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a
tomorrow I will leave my home country Germany on a holiday trip to Canada and the US. Starting in Vancouver my friends and we will travel to Seattle and drive down to San Francisco. All in all our trip will take three weeks and I think that is plenty of time to sightsee some "special interest" sites.
My friends are not into gaming/SF/F at all but I would love to hear some suggestions for shops, museums, historical sights, etc.
So were should I go to? Is the Science Fiction Museum in Seattle any good?
I like that way of thinking and I think the numbers support your argument. It would be rather cheap to create a weapon to challenge Demon Lords/Archfiends/Demigods that way. This does not seem to be the way it was intended to be.
Yes, sorry I obviously made a mistake here and mixed up the adamantine and aligment numbers. But back to the basic question, it seems as if most of you think that the extra +2 bonus for the bane quality can help overcome damage reduction, right?
Would be worth to find a spellcaster who could enhance the bow from +2 bane to +3 bane, being level 14 now the next evil outsider is probably just around the corner.
Thanks for the Search-Fu, I did not find that. Now that I have it straight from the horse's mouth (or dinosaur's) in this case I just have to convince the rest of the group to let me wear it.
and here is another question for those of you wise in the rulings of the game.
The last two gaming sessions our group fought a quite powerful demon that was not only hard to hit but had also Damage Reduction 15/good and cold iron (at least this is what the GM said after the fight).
One of our characters was a ranger with a +2 evil outsider bane longbow. The DM ruled that this weapon did not overcome the demon's damage reduction.
I was of a slightly different opinion thinking that the increased enhancement bonus of +4 would take care of the cold iron and good prerequisites.
We won in the end, but I think this was not the last demon we are going to face and I hope that you can clear this up before our next fight.
Would do you think?
On a similiar note: Would a +4 evil outsider bow also overcome epic damage resistance? I found nothing in the rules that stated that the enhancement bonus of a bane weapon would stop at +5 (which would make +4 and +5 bane weapons slightly less useful).
last gaming session, somewhere deep in the Savage Tide AP, our group found some treasure including a Celestial Armor.
I would like my character (Wizard/Rogue/Unseen Seer/Abjurant Champion) to wear this armor. There ist still a 15% spell failure, but I clould live with that.
But there is this small niggling piece of rules that makes me uneasy. :-)(PFRG 154/155):
Mithral: Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal
Yeah, I know the Celestial Armor is not made out of mithral, but still it seems very close. If this passage applies I can't really use the armor, my character does not have medium armor proficiency and a -2 to attacks is not really helpful.
Looking at the specific magic armors on page 465 I I found:
And in contrast another mithral armor that directly refers to the mithral rules:
Mithral Full Plate of Speed
So thats clear. I have no problem with specific rules overruling the more general rules, so that certain specific sets of armor have slightly different rules.
But the wording in the Celetial Armor passage is ambigious:
It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on
It could be read both ways. My interpretation, perhaps a bit subjective, goes like this:
Comparing Elven Chain and Celestial Armor (both being chainmails) ine can see that they both weigh the same (20 pounds), but the Celestial Armor has a lower spell failure chance (15% vs. 20%) and a higher max. Dexterity Bonus (+8 vs. +4). It seems to be even more "comfortable" than the Mithral Armor. So I hope that the armor proficiency ruling of the Elven Chain (light proficiency being enough) also applies to Celestial Armor.
But as I said, I am not really impartial here. I would really like to read your comments.
Thanks a lot