|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Conan had friends. Subotai, Valeria and the wizard.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I don't assume one poster can speak for another. ChaosTicket never said this was for PFS.
You can? That is interesting. Maybe I will try to find someone running one of those to try out my near-soloable druid. I just need to survive until 10th level or so and then I should be set.
He said 1 to 20, PFS doesn't go to 20 so I assumed we weren't talking PFS.
From an efficiency standpoint, you are better off being able to win the combat then heal. Status cure is only a concern if you fail a save, so you could also have very high saves (paladin/monk). And, even if you can cure a status, if you get nauseated, you're basically done for because most characters can't cure it as a move action. Crowd control, flight, and teleportation are nice, but not required. Ranged/single target/group damage aren't required also, just one of those. If you can damage a group effectively, you can also use that to nova a single person less effectively.
You heal your level in HP each night you rest. If you go under bedrest, you heal twice that.
Non-spellcasters can do okay, but if things go south, they have much fewer options to escape and fight another day. I think fighting many creatures is very hard when you don't have a spellcaster, especially if that creature can go invisible.
I agree. Making it clear what requires "an attack action" (Vital Strike) versus things which allow "an attack" as part of them (Spring attack). Standardization would be nice. Maybe even have it that when discussing the action required in a description, the action is always italicized.
This would make things like Vital strike and spring attack more clear. Something like power attack with no italic action in its benefit do not require an action to use. Telling you that power attack could be used with either feat.
In my case, as a counter-example. The player wanted to push the BBEG. I said he would provoke an AoO because he didn't have the feat to not to, and that the BBEG was a tough martial character, who likely had a high CMD, so the maneuver was unlikely to succeed, especially if the BBEG hit him with the AoO (which applies a penalty of damage taken to the attempt). Basically telling him that unless he got a Nat 20, it was very likely he would get hit, and fail. He still insisted this was the action he wanted to do, because he was sure he could pull it off. Until then I was willing to let him change his action, as he didn't know the system, and so while "shove the guy off the edge" sounds like a quick win, if its near impossible to do so, there is probably a better action to take. So he makes his roll, it isn't a nat 20, and the guy hits him for trying. This wasn't a one instance either, every combat, he would come up with creative things to do, describe them in a very cinematic, awesome fashion, but didn't have the skills/abilities/etc to actually do what he wanted.
I mean if you can enchant gauntlets as weapons, then monks can save money on the AoMF, but then you have to keep track of which part each monk attack hits with which is not bookkeeping anybody wants to have to do.
How is this any worse than having to keep track of the 2 weapons you use when Two Weapon Fighting?
Strange corner cases?
We're in combat, some effect that causes the nauseated condition affects me, it is now my turn. I want to move action 30' to get away from people since while nauseated I can't effectively fight back. But, I have the best sword in the party, so I want to free-action drop it in the square of my buddy who didn't get nauseated so that he can use it instead of me. At the end of my movement, I want to drop prone for the bonus AC I get against the ranged attacks because I'm sure that wizard wants to try to finish me off with a ray spell.
Not exactly a crazy connived corner case.
On the other hand, by allowing free actions, a Bard could continue his bardic performance despite trying to not add his lunch to the performance.
You can't drop prone in the same square. Move action crawl requires you actually move. You also can't 5-foot step while nauseated then?
No rules say you can go prone as a move action. You can crawl 5 feet as a move action, which makes you prone, but that doesn't keep you in the same square.
So, while nauseated, you can't stop concentrating, you can't let go of something in your hands, you can't fall to the ground, and you can't speak. I too will be ignoring this FAQ.
Rub-Eta: I've had a similar thing with some people in my group. One guy had played RPGs for a long time, but didn't want to make any effort to learn the basics of the rules, because he said its role playing not roll playing. Ok, sure, fine, describe what you want to do, and I'll help you figure out the rules that apply. The problem came, when in a fight, his rogue/shadowdancer decides, "I want to bull rush the BBEG off the edge of the platform we're on". I advise him its likely to be unsuccessful, because its the BBEG and he doesn't have any of the relevant feats. He wants to try anyway. He fails and gets hit with an AoO. He gets upset, and asks why his rogue can't use his dex instead of str and this and that to do it. I tell him there are feats and options which allow for that, if thats who you wanted to make, you didn't take those feats, so your guy (despite how you picture him mentally) doesn't know how to use his dex effectively in that attack. Then the BBEG bull rushes him off the platform, as per his strategy. Player gets upset again because "He did it so easy!". Yeah, thats what he was built to do. Small high platform, bull rush PCs. Maybe if you let the fighter get his attention, he wouldn't succeed as easily or as much.
As a result, the player got bummed out, because he focused on feats, abilities, etc that were very useful outside of combat. He was a skill monkey, very stealthy, great at perception and disable device and social checks, but when it came time to combat, he wanted to be as effective (or more) than the fighter who didn't get all that fun stuff outside of combat. "What do you mean I can't shadowjump to the wall 5 feet above the guy and land on him stabbing him in the neck with a free coup-de-grace?"
In the end, we went our separate ways, as he wanted a rule of cool to supersede book rules.
I say hit the FAQ button. It is not clear if they only intended for that to apply to reach weapons or anytime the same situation occurs.
If you take out the parenthetical example you get this:
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you, use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
The example isn't limiting it, just providing one of the most common places it would apply. Anytime you are making a melee attack against creatures not adjacent, you use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
If its an action/skill type bonus, they are generally pretty good about saying you can/may. Like power attack. You can choose to swing harder, at the cost of being less accurate.
Something like acadamae graduate, reads like an option. You have learned how to cast this type of spell faster, at the cost of possibly being fatigued. Do you always have to use that method of casting it? RAW yes; most GMs I would expect would say you don't, just like you don't always have to power attack.
Something like eldritch claws, I don't think you can choose to not use. You have natural weapons. They count as both magic and silver for DR purposes. You can't make them not that way.
It looks like Flagellant is the way to avoid being knocked out via non-lethal. Sad that it won't combo with kineticist though.
Now I'm wondering how Flagellant and Deathless Initiate work.
Assuming I'm at -10HP, and not dead, deathless initiate lets me not be staggered while using DieHard feat. Great. Now someone hits me for 1 non-lethal damage.
Flagellant lets me stay conscious even though current HP (-10) is less than Non-lethal damage (1), but it also staggers me. Does deathless initiate remove this staggered as well? I'm guessing not. Oh well, it at least lets him stay awake and fighting even if he takes some non-lethal.
The really stupid interaction between nonlethal damage and those other things is well known. The majority consensus is that yes, that is how it works. 1 point of nonlethal lays you out. It is really, really dumb, but since there is no reasonable reading of the rules which doesn't make the game broken then you are SOL unless you can get houserules to fix it.
Don't you normally have 0 non-lethal damage? In that case, wouldn't any negative HP be "less than 0" and therefore make the feat worthless? In that case, its pretty clear the feat does ignore being knocked out by non-lethal damage.
Ok, new question regarding my deathless druid. How does non-lethal interact with orc ferocity/diehard/deathless initiate?
Say I have 50HP and regen 5 (acid). I take 50 damage, and am now Disabled. Orc ferocity/die hard only work below 0, so I am stuck at Disabled/Staggered here. If I take a standard action, I take 1 hp damage and can now use diehard/deathless initiate to act normally (taking my now remaining move action and also more damage).
If I am below 0 hp, I stay concious and can fight using diehard and deathless initiate and since I have regen (unless its been shut off) it doesn't matter how negative I go.
If I take 1 point of non-lethal damage, while in negative HP, my non-lethal exceeds current hitpoints, so I am unconscious and orc ferocity/diehard/deathless initiate seem to have no effect on this. Even being a plant and having plant traits (do not sleep) doesn't seem to make me unable to be knocked unconscious. Assuming my attacker continues to apply at least 5 non-lethal per turn to me, I would never wake up, and once wild shape ended, would die because I would lose regen.
Is that the intention of diehard with non-lethal damage? Harder to kill be who cares if you can just tap them once for non-lethal first?
So starting character around level 6, with a cracked pearly white ioun stone and wayfinder (total cost 3900GP), who is a half-orc with Endurance, Diehard and Deathless Initiate can't die and stays conscious while below 0 HP (provided he was originally above 0 when he activated the ioun stone and put it in the wayfinder) and he can act normally (taking a point of damage for full-round or move and standard). How have I missed this?!
I'm trying to think what class would go best with that.
Yeah, you technically may roll the reflex save. But if you're still in the pit, you fall regadless of that result as the save does not allow you to defy gravity.
If you make the save, you are placed in the nearest open space. That is the effect of succeeding on the save.
If you fail the save, you are not moved and fall into the pit. That is the effect of failing the save.
You can't move outside of your turn anyway. The success on the saving throw is what moves you to the nearest open space. Its not a movement, its the effect of success on the throw.
No, they intended for the magus to be able to cast a spell to gain all of its benefits, as well as get a full attack action.
So the magus as a full-round declares spell combat. He casts bladed dash.
He alternately could cast any other level 2 magus spell he knew and had prepared, and gain those benefits instead.
Sure. You have to spend a free action to draw an arrow and reload the bow prior to shooting. If someone readied an action for "when he draws an arrow I sunder his quiver" then you would not be able to shoot unless you had some other source of arrows. If the bow was already loaded, you would have gotten to shoot once, then draw an arrow which would have triggered the readied action.
The tentacles cannot see. Therefore the target is not invisible with respect to the tentacles. Thus invisibility has no effect in respect to the tentacles. The same way that being invisible doesn't give you a 50% miss chance for being in the area of any other spell.
The fact that the tentacles affect all creatures in the area, not by sight, makes it pretty clear they aren't seeing a creature, so in respect to the tentacles, there is no concealment.
In english, you cannot reload something until it has been loaded. Once loaded, then you can reload the thing.
Yes, all reloads are loads, that is what the word means. "Load again." The FAQ using the word reload implies that they had in mind that the bow was loaded, and that you are firing it, and reloading it so that it is ready for the next attack of opportunity. The FAQ question is if multiple attacks can be made with a bow. The answer was yes, because you can reload the bow as part of the attack. If the bow isn't loaded, then you can't make an attack. If you can't make an attack, then you can't reload it as part of that attack.
So, you have a loaded bow. Someone provokes. You shoot them, and reload the bow as a free action. Someone else provokes, you shoot them, and reload as a free action.
You have an unloaded bow. Someone provokes. You can't attack because you are not loaded, you can't take a free action to reload because you are not attacking.
RAW: Its not defined so I'd default to Line of effect.
Personally I'd houserule you have to be able to make an attack into the square the enemy is in. You could feint with a ranged weapon, by drawing back and pointing toward the enemy for example, or with a melee weapon by faking a swing. I don't see how you could feint outside of your reach without a weapon though.
Haversacks let you 1) have a stored item retrieved with a move action (even in a really full backpack)2) not provoke for drawing whatever it is you are pulling out
3) Reduce carried weight because it is all extradimensional
Versus weapons and weapon-like draw as move which
Haversack basically makes anything you put in it "easy reach" but you can't combine drawing from the haversack with a move action. While "easy reach" is determined by the player and GM as to what they like in their game.
I don't see overlap between the two.
The Human Diversion wrote:
I just want to be clear, I am in full agreement with you.
Not just for killing a cockroach, but really, if anything could potentially be used as a weapon, and reasonably stored in a way that is readily accessible.
Really, I say write down where things are stored on your character sheet. If you have a large amount of things, let your GM know. If you're on such completely different pages from your GM as to what is "reasonable" then once it comes up, have a chat, and go over what you have readily accessible. Problem solved.
I also once had a gnome alchemist. Our party barbarian failed a will save and became confused and obliterated him in a combat. The party later sent him out on a funeral pyre.
Shield slam works only with shields. You can't use martial versatility to change shield slam to work with longswords.
The proof is in the example provided. The example shows it is for abilities which you choose a specific weapon for. Abilities that work only for a specific weapon get no benefit from martial versatility.
Your best bet is to ask your GM if you can simply subtract the cost of the +3 from the armor, and add on the cost of a +1.
Base price: 22,400
Removed +3 = 13,400
Add +1 back in, 14,400.
Since you aren't wanting to change any of the other properties of the armor, that is how I would price it. Then ask if you can either craft or find +1 celestial armor instead of the listed +3 at this cost.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Again, you are ignoring my quote. I will requote it for you.
Applying poison to a weapon or single piece of ammunition is a standard action. Whenever a character applies or readies a poison for use there is a 5% chance that he exposes himself to the poison and must save against the poison as normal. This does not consume the dose of poison. Whenever a character attacks with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, he exposes himself to the poison. This poison is consumed when the weapon strikes a creature or is touched by the wielder. Characters with the poison use class feature do not risk accidentally poisoning themselves.
Notice how in this paragraph, it discusses 2 things. 5% chance to poison yourself when applying a poison to a weapon. And Natural 1 poisoning yourself when attacking with a poisoned weapon. It then goes on to say that characters with poison use do not risk poisoning themselves. It makes no qualifiers on this statement, so all poison use negates all chances of poisoning, both on application and attacking with poisoned weapons.
I don't either. My problem is power creep. If new classes are 30% more damaging in combat that the original classes, then adventure paths written when only the original classes existed are going to be a walk in the park for the new classes. Likewise, APs written after the new classes might be too hard for average original classes to effectively fight. Or, they'll be geared for the original classes, and the new ones still have a walk in the park ahead of them.
Xah Doom wrote:
Climbing across the ground isn't a thing. You aren't "climbing" any more than you can fall off the ground.
If I let someone purposely intercept the fireball, it would be at full effect. No save.
Without handholds. A cave ceiling is varied, not smooth, and has various cracks and crevices in it which someone could grab onto.
A wooden drop ceiling is flat, and has no available hand holds, so no climbing on it.
And yes, my earlier point was that if you can't fall from the place you are at, if say, you chose to stop climbing, then you aren't actually climbing, you are merely standing in that space. Climbing isn't defined because it is assumed the players understand what it is. Trying to climb across the ground is as nonsensical as trying to fly through the water with a fly speed.
"Weapons and armor normally made of steel that are made of adamantine have one-third more hit points than normal. Adamantine has 40 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 20."
So, because a spear is not normally made 100% of steel, it doesn't get the adamantine HP/Hardness bonus.
"Any wooden or mostly wooden item (such as a bow or spear) made from darkwood is considered a masterwork item and weighs only half as much as a normal wooden item of that type. Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood. ... Darkwood has 10 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 5."
Spears are explicitly called out as benefitting from darkwood, so you could have a darkwood/adamantine spear, with the darkwood Hp/Hardness and adamantine for dr/sunder attempts.
I'd agree that its both. Its options which are so worthless they shouldn't have wasted the paper on them, and its options which are too far into power creep that they turn older options into worthless ones.
Indeed. If the summons make the enemy creatures spend attacks on them, that is attacks your fighter/barbarian/paladin/whatever didn't have to take, and is healing spells you don't need to cast. So, summons are powerful as an anvil for the martials (hammer) to smash the enemies against. They also block charge routes, protect the squishies, take up space, and often have decent secondary effects on their attacks (grapple/trip/blind/poison/etc).
the secret fire wrote:
Ahh golden axe. Fantastic!
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Yes I know, but which parts are severed? Which part is the "main" part which regrows? If I put a troll through a wood chipper, what part regrows into a new troll, and leaves the rest to all die?
It says "any magic weapon coated". The weapons section of magic items says, "Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon."
Since the ammunition fired is treated as magic only for the purpose of DR, which ghost touch is not, I would say no, mundane arrows with balm shot out of a magic bow do not get ghost touch.
Oh yeah, water which disappears after a day if not drank. At the whopping rate of 20 gallons/minute (for level 1). Its not like you can keep a town irrigated with that.