Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Deep Crow

Tarantula's page

1,521 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
I suppose my real point was why does he want to jump up in here and tell everyone else to take their balls and go home too lol

Because people regularly quote D20 and say "the rules say EXACTLY THIS!" when in fact, they don't, and the person has quoted text that the D20 site has added. Quoting from different sources when there is only 1 RAW source is not helpful in a rules discussion. That is why he tells people to quote the GRD/books exclusively. I agree.

I do appreciate your site, and use it more than the GRD when building characters/referencing rules at the table, but when arguing the exact wording and semantics, there is no substitute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A horse with 3-4int still isn't "near human" and the clarifications from Animal Archive show you still use the Handle Animal skill to control them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hangar, if you can show us where it says a bastard sword is a 2-handed weapon, I might agree with you. Until I see that, it is a 1-handed weapon.

If you can show where it says it is a 2-handed weapon, then we need some errata, because it is a contradiction in the rules with where it says it is a 1-handed weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
What kind of coffee-maker do you want? : )

Can you make it the kind where I can make my coffee from the ink of RAW? Then I can say I drink the rules for breakfast!

P.S. This is a terrible idea and no one should ever try it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that all weapons were written with Medium sized creatures in mind and that the Core Rule Book describes what a medium sized character needs to wield a medium sized bastard sword and that a medium sized creature would need 3 hands to wield a large bastard sword as a martial weapon, but that's not supported in the RAW.
I agree with this very much. Thanks for articulating it better than I could.

In this case, opinion be damned! It's provably untrue!

For a medium creature, no matter what proficiencies the creature may or may not have, a medium bastard sword is a one-handed weapon, therefore a large bastard sword counts as a two-handed weapon for the same creature.

Not three-handed. Two-handed. Nothing in the description of the weapon changes what category the weapon is (light/one-handed/two-handed). What it says is about what proficiency you need (simple/martial/exotic) to avoid a -4 non-proficiency penalty!

Quote:
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

Previous Assertion 1: A medium sized character who does not have EWP(bastard sword) cannot wield a medium bastard sword in one hand. This is per the bastard sword text.

As a result of A1, it makes no sense to allow a medium sized character to wield a large bastard sword in 2 hands at only a -2 size penalty. When if they were enlarged to large size, and then picked up the large bastard sword, they could not one hand it.

Logically, this means that a medium character should be able to wield a medium bastard sword in one hand at the -4 non-proficiency penalty. This reinforces the fact that a bastard sword is exotic for one handed use, and does not have a crunch limit on being wielded in one hand. "A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training;" is fluff, and everything after the semicolon is crunch.

Therefore, I am changing my opinion. As currently is written, a medium character who does not have EWP(BS) should be able to use one hand to wield a BS at a -4 non-proficient penalty, and could use 2 hands to wield a large BS at -4 non-proficient and -2 size penalties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know if you dealt damage or not (that is a player roll). Usually DR can be described as even though you rolled 8 damage, it doesn't seem to effect the creature, or the wounds seal up almost immediately.

You don't know how many HP the creature is at, or how much more it takes to kill. A common house rule is to say it looks "bloodied" when at or below 50% HP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Flurry is shorthand for Flurry of Blows, which is the core monk ability. A maneuver master monk trades out flurry of blows for Flurry of Maneuvers. I think we should be specific as to which is occuring, FoB or FoM.

FoB is not usable with natural attacks except if you have feral combat training, which lets you pick one attack to use with FoB.

FoM is a normal full-attack action, that provides an extra maneuver check during it. You could absolutely TWF with a FoM and get unarmed/unarmed/claw/claw/bite at the appropriate penalties.

So, a level 1 monk maneuver master using FoM who also has TWF and claws & bite would attack at: Combat Maneuver -1/unarmed -2(from TWF)/unarmed -2/claw -5/claw -5/bite -5.
If any of those attacks were used to make a combat maneuver (such as trip, disarm or sunder) it would be at another -2 due to the FoM text giving any maneuvers performed during it a -2 penalty.

You can't use the same limb to make multiple attacks.
CRB: Combat: Natural Attacks: "You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its doubtful the horse has a better climb score. And it is up to the GM to determine what a horse can climb. Since animal companions only get 1skill point per HD, and horses having the scent quality, most PCs I've seen put points into survival, perception, and if you want for narrow frame, escape artist. Already, thats 3 of you limited skill points.

Additionally, do you never see horses with barding? Heck, cavalier horses get light armor prof as a bonus feat. So that horse is probably looking at -1 or -2 to its climb check from armor.

I don't agree a horse can climb a net suspended at an angle with nothing underneath it. Sure, the horse could get started on it, but once its legs were through the holes up to its belly, it doesn't have a way to pull a single leg out at a time to continue moving up. You're better off just tying the net around the horse, and having multiple characters hold the rope to raise/lower the horse. Or just have the wizard cast levitate (assuming the horse&equipment is light enough).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
We already know they are not 1-handed martial weapons because with the martial proficiecy feat you have to use two hands to wield them.

The fact that you need to wield them in 2 hands, does not change them from small objects (1-handed weapon) to medium objects (2-handed weapon).

The restriction is that you cannot wield them 1-handed at all without the EWP feat.

The exception, is that if you use 2-hands, you can treat them as a (1-handed) martial weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Use tactics/positioning to make it hard for the monsters to move around/avoid the high AC characters.

The stand still feat can stop the monster from moving if it is hit when provoking from movement (such as trying to get around a high AC PC).

The easiest way to say "attack me" is to do lots of damage. The tricky part is balancing "enough damage" with "enough AC".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do agree that classes with more customization are generally what I prefer. Reason being, I can play 2 characters of the same class, and have completely different experiences.

Cavalier is sort of forced into "mounted fighter" role. Sure he can do okay not mounted, but it isn't the point of his class abilities. Its like saying a rogue can do ok without using sneak attack.

On that note, the fact that the class is not very open, doesn't mean it is bad at what it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Druids who are wildshaped still count as humanoid(human/dwarf/gnome/etc.) and are not valid targets for animal growth.

The magic polymorph section says: "You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell."

Since wildshape functions as beast shape 1,2,3 which are polymorph spells, no other size changing spell can stack with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Reincarnated Druid.

Hit 5th level, and you just keep coming back.

So, random 20th level Bartender kills you for no reason?

Wait, and you get reincarnated.

Until the barbarian tracks you down and kills you a second time.

There is a period of time where the reincarnated druid is vulnerable.

You know that at 3rd level druids become unable to be tracked, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
relyanCe wrote:
As for rerolling, I asked to do so the moment he said "4 Ki points", because I knew then and there it had nothing to do with balance and everything to do with arbitrating against a class he doesn't like, but he is not allowing rerolls. Probably going to just move on.

"My character retires, because he realizes his abilities are worthless in this universe."

"Can I make a new character, or should I see myself out?"

If he does let you make a new one, make a wizard/sorc. Anytime he says something about physics, just say "magic."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW states no size restriction. Compromise of 1ki per point of size difference is reasonable, based off ki throw.

If he really hates monk's that bad, why not play something he won't make less useful?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a unique thing monks get. I'm all for monks (or others picking up crane wing/deflect arrows) getting little weird abilities.

If something requires a hit to work (deliver touch spell) it does not count as a hit, so the spell or effect is not delivered.

Likewise, if something requires a miss to work (such as an ability that grants a re-roll) it does not count as a miss, so you cannot use that ability either.

This lets the monk avoid damage from an attack, and completely neutralizes the attack. Otherwise, you could deflect an attack, have it count as a miss, and if they have an ability to re-roll, suddenly, it hits. Which is weird itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Natural attacks are how to resolve attacks made using a natural weapon.

Natural weapons are not an item. You can't buy them. They are granted by the creature you are, or by a class ability/feat.

There are not two separate rulesets. If you attack with a natural weapon, it uses the natural attacks rules. You don't get to decide.

This is true for catfolk, clawed tengu, half-orcs with bite attacks, alchemists with claws, beast totem barbarians, sorcerers who grow claws, eidolons or any other creature/monster that has natural attacks.

In fact, eidolons might be your best bet to see all the discussion about manufactured vs natural weapons, and how they interact.

The claw blades is an item, that changes the cat claws from a natural weapon to a manufactured weapon. As far as I know, this is the only such item that does this. So catfolk are the only ones who could possibly TWF with claw blades.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was not an assumption, it was clear TWF worked with unarmed strikes.

Natural attacks are not treated "as normal weapons for most purposes". Here is the bit from the core book:

PRD wrote:

Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

You can never use your iterative attacks with a natural weapon. That is not unclear, it is stated explicitly.

Monk unarmed strikes are: "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Spells or effects. It is not actually a natural weapon. It is a bad example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Proximity: This trigger activates the trap when a creature approaches within a certain distance of it. A proximity trigger differs from a location trigger in that the creature need not be standing in a particular square. Creatures that are flying can spring a trap with a proximity trigger but not one with a location trigger. Mechanical proximity triggers are extremely sensitive to the slightest change in the air. This makes them useful only in places such as crypts, where the air is unusually still.

The proximity trigger used most often for magic device traps is the alarm spell. Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger can have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect.

Some magic device traps have special proximity triggers that activate only when certain kinds of creatures approach. For example, a detect good spell can serve as a proximity trigger on an evil altar, springing the attached trap only when someone of good alignment gets close enough to it.

There is two ways to look at it. Either you disarm the alarm spell providing the trigger at a square adjacent to where it can detect, or you can never disable one, because you would always make it trigger on squares blocking the path to the disarm point.

Since it says you can use disarm device to disable a magic trap, it implies you are able to do so without setting the trap off, and therefore, you must be able to disarm the proximity area of the trap, and not actually have to get to the point in space the trap itself is located.

Think of it like a magical tripwire you are cutting. With disable device. Magically

As for visual traps, depending on the spell used for the trigger, they have different bonuses to perception. For those, you have to stealth up to the trap, without being seen, then you can disable it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kimera757 wrote:
Also note that the "panel" to disable the trap could easily be far behind the trigger zone. The cold projector could be 60 feet from the edge of where the cone will reach. (The rogue, or anyone else for that matter, pretty much has to risk triggering the trap before they can even disarm it.) Although of course some DMs won't like this idea.

This is a little rediculous. The trigger is the point you are disarming. How could you possibly have to go "over there" to disarm the trigger which is here?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Honestly, this much restriction can create a number of bland NPC style characters.

Nobody below 10, and no one above 16.

A group of cardboard cutouts, each painted up, to look unique.

By the way, I am thinking I will build this "Vanilla Man".

Like a super hero, who has the power, to be average, at everything.

Might as well make him a rogue then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
"Brothel" was changed to "Dance Hall" late in editing, but some of the text references were missed. The icon is on page 224, row 1, column 2.

So the main dance is the horizontal mamba?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like you want a custom resilient sphere that is allowed to be moved.

Or... can you make a floating disk, stand on it, then put a sphere on the disk, and command the disk to move your sphere around? Sphere only states people can't move it. (Which, makes me think non-humanoids could? Maybe just outsiders?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PDT is in the house!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said earlier, it is total cover.

GRD wrote:
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.

Until the ice is broken, you cannot make an attack against the character in the ice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree, no CdG without breaking through the ice first. It is effectively total cover until the ice is broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
So he just kills the paladin in his sleep. I think betting on the Paladin to win a PvP is not a sure thing. What happens if the paladin loses? Pally rolls three consecutive ones, the PvPer rolls several crits.

The paladin's god intervenes, and lets the paladin re-roll those ones. Or just outright blasts the problem PC out of the campaign. Character gone. The end. Have him make one that works with the group, or leave.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, you're right. By the wording on punishing kick it does not use a trip attack, so you could punishing kick that naga right into the floor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:

It occurs that common sense would dictate that while a permanent Intelligence bonus would grant you the ability TO LEARN a new language, it does not automatically confer knowledge of a new language upon you.

You still have to find a book, get a tutor, and learn it, like anybody else.

Sheesh. (And-a-half.)

It occurs that common sense would dictate that while leveling up would grant you the ability TO LEARN new skills, it does not automatically confer knowledge of those skills upon you.

You still have to find a book, get a tutor, and learn it, like anybody else.

Do you see how that sounds? Everybody just puts points in skills on level up. No problem. I can even put a point in linguistics, and BAM, languages. No time spent with a teacher, book, tutor, or anything! Why should intelligence raises be any different?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its on the GRD http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/stealth.html#_stealth

"Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location."

I can already see people arguing over whether stealth is broken when sniping however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Drag

You can attempt to drag a foe as a standard action. You can only drag an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. The aim of this maneuver is to drag a foe in a straight line behind you without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Drag feat or a similar ability, initiating a drag provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, both you and your target are moved 5 feet back, with your opponent occupying your original space and you in the space behind that in a straight line. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD, you can drag the target back an additional 5 feet. You must be able to move with the target to perform this maneuver. If you do not have enough movement, the drag goes to the maximum amount of movement available to you and ends.

An enemy being moved by a drag does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Drag feat. You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle. If there is another creature in the way of your movement, the drag ends adjacent to that creature."

So no, dragging an enemy does not provoke for the movement, but drag also says you can attempt to drag a foe, not a friendly. Same thing with reposition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stunned is far better. They drop everything held and can take no actions.

Prone, they just swing at you with -4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shimesen wrote:
The issue is with the wording "...at the start of the game" because nowhere else is anything related to stats worded as such. If this was not there, then I'd have to agree with you, but because it IS there, it begs the question of weather increasing stats was ever supposed to grant extra languages.

So each week when you start playing, you get to add up any languages you were missing from int increases since last game start. I mean, it doesn't say "at character creation" but "at the start of the game" which happens each time you meet, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
What I would NOT do, is allow the PC to allow it to be variable, otherwise they could take it off, wait, put it back on and now know the language needed.

Because the alternative is to just cast tongues? Seriously, most of the time language will not be an issue. I don't see how letting them get a needed language after 24 hours due to magic is more game breaking than the wizard going, "Oh, hold on, I have a scroll for that, just a moment... *blah blah blah* there we go, can you hear me now?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:
The other problem comes from natural selection: If your children require 55 years to become self sufficient, your race would swiftly die out. Human children are basically useful at about age 3.

If elf 55 = human 18. Then human 3 = elf 9.1. Elves are "basically useful" by your definition around age 9.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And lastly, the saddest thing I think. Made an unarmed striking two weapon style core ranger. Does almost the same damage as the monks with around the same AC, oh, but he gets spells, and that isn't including his favored enemy bonuses, or companion. Or anything else really.

Spoiler:
Ranger 8
Human Ranger 8
CG Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +4; Senses Perception +
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 21 , touch 14, flat-footed 18 (+6 armor, +2 Dex, +1 deflection, +1 dodge, +1 Natural,)
hp (8d10+16)
Fort +10, Ref +10, Will +4 (Immune to mind affecting spells and effects from evil creatures)
Defensive Abilities
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee Unarmed Strike +15/+10 (1d3+6/20/x2) Power attack: -3/+6
TWF Unarmed Strike: (+13/+13/+8/+8) Power attack: -3/+6
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14 , Cha 8
Base Atk +8; CMB +14 ; CMD +26
Feats 1 TWF, 1 IUS, 2 Double Slice, 3 Endurance, 3 WF(Unarmed), 5 Power Attack, 6 ITWF, 7 Dodge,
Traits Reactionary,
Skills 6
Other Gear +2 Mithril Shirt 5,100, , Belt of giant strength +4 16,000gp, Cloak of resistance +2 4,000gp, Ring of protection +1 2,000gp, Amulet of natural armor +1 2,000gp, Clear spindle Ioun stone 1,000, Wayfinder 500, 2400 leftover (Wand of Lead blades and CLW?)
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Favored Enemy 2
Track
Wild Empathy
Combat Style: Two Weapon
Favored Terrain 2
Hunter's Bond
Woodland Stride
Swift Tracker


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would go with the movement rule:

Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than itself.

If a creature is 3 or more sizes smaller than the creature it is grappling, the grappled creature can move at half speed.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

Knowing more languages is an "other bonus" of having an increased Int bonus. I'll hit FAQ though, since it isn't super clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage"

The alternative is that all weapons deal weapon damage. Spells effects are not weapons, and do not deal weapon damage. Weapons can't damage swarms of fine/diminutive creatures. Spells that deal P/S/B damage can (as long as they effect areas and not specific numbers of creatures).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tarondor wrote:
I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, the rules do state that the wyvern should not have been able to fly while grappled. On the other hand, that's an asinine rule. Can't you just picture a wyvern (or dragon, hippogriff, whatever) flying away with a hero gripping it tightly around the neck? A better rule would be that if you are larger than the creature grappling you, you can move at half speed.
Can you picture an eagle flying away with a 20 pound weight on one wing?
Can you picture an eagle flying away with a 4 pound rat hanging onto it's leg? :)

Sure I can picture it.

Eagle
Small animal
Str 10
Carry capacity 33 lbs. or less|34–66 lbs.|67–100 lbs.
Fly +8
CMB –1; CMD 11
Melee 2 talons +3 (1d4), bite +3 (1d4)

Rat
Tiny animal
AC 14
hp 4 (1d8)
CMB +0; CMD 6

So, 20 pound weight? Oddly enough, sure, that's fine in the rules for an eagle to fly with. If a rat grappled an eagle, the eagle could full attack, and would more than likely land at least 1 attack, which has a pretty good chance of outright killing the rat. Even more so if it lands 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
I don't get the complaint you "need" a cleric. Haunts are resolved by doing some thing, not by blasting them with channel energy. Most of the things they do to you allow a save. You could totally deal with a haunt without a cleric of any sort. Clerics getting to pre-empt the haunt's attack is just a bonus.

Really? Ok, you need detect undead or detect (correct alignment) going to get a chance to spot it before it triggers.

Most people don't run around with constant detects going (maybe paladins/inquisitors). If you don't spot it and trigger it, you get to make a perception check. If you see it, you can make initiative to act in the round. If you make initiative, and you aren't a cleric. Your options are....... run away or otherwise get out of the area of effect. If you are a cleric, you can channel energy it and neutralize it entirely. Otherwise, everyone gets to save or suck.

That is the problem. Have a cleric that can act? He can negate it entirely, don't? Save or suck. There is no other option for dealing with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
duraiel_ri wrote:
This isn't fundamentally a balance-question. I'm not asking ways to make firearms and magic fair and on equal-footing. What I'm asking, basically, is whether firearms should trump all armor bonuses and function universally as a touch-attack, or if there are some armor materials (adamantine and force effects, for example) that might conceivably be considered strong enough to grant armor bonuses against firearms?

RAW they do not grant armor bonus to firearm touch attacks.

By not asking for RAW, you are asking a balance-question. You are asking if it is a good idea to house rule that adamantine or force effects should grant armor to firearm attacks. The answer is, if you want to. Try it, let us know how it worked, then either keep it or get rid of it from your game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hendelbolaf wrote:
Artanthos got me thinking. Would Deflect Arrows be able to deflect a bullet (not the scatter)? It is not on the list of ranged attacks that cannot be deflected.

By RAW it works!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First off, that is one hell of a save by the witch. She has a 26/27 INT?

Figure out what the range of ice tomb is in your game. The general accepted range is 60', based on other major hexes, but it is not stated in the power.

Immunity to paralysis or unconsciousness; or cold resistance might help, depending on how you rule in your game. Unfortunately ice tomb is very poorly worded, so much of how it works exactly is up to GM interpretation. Fortunately, you are the GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Disintegrate is able to effect objects. That is what is provided for both in the spell description and the saving throw line.

Then there is the "Smashing an Object" rules.
"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."

So, why would anyone ever try to sunder armor? Sunder attacks provide an AoO for attempting them. But "Smash object" attacks do not. Also, smash object attacks only provide for the items AC, which, does not take into account any creature attending/wearing the object. I take this that RAI is that sunder is for attacking items on creatures, and "Smash object" is for items not used by a creature.

"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."

Going by that interpretation, there is no way to use disintegrate to target a worn suit of armor.

If you disagree, then there is no reason for anyone to use the sunder special action, when they could instead use the "smash object" rules, and completely ignore any AC or CMD the character wearing the armor has. Even more, you can get an auto-hit with melee weapons by taking a full-round action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

then i have apparently never faced the CR20 Demon horde at it's fullest.

but we do spend a lot of time facing humanoids and animals, and when i say humanoids, i'm also including giants, low tier outsiders, low tier fey, and low powered abberrations with a humanoid anatomy and access to such things as templates, gear, class levels, and point buy. the animals tend to be class leveled as appropriate. examples can include housecats with rogue levels or lions with fighter levels.

Base monster CRs rarely exceed 10, but they are often augmented by class levels, gear, point buy, consumables and templates to the point they are level appropriate challenges.

and the highest we go is level 15 if we are lucky.

but decent gear is hard to acquire because "Magic Mart" requires a ludicrously high diplomacy check to utilize (DC20+item's caster level), crafting is rarely allowed, and the DM is often stingy with loot. so a handful of 10th level PCs might have a +1 common backup weapon (such as a dagger) and maybe a suit of cheap masterwork or special material armor such as a mithril chain shirt or masterwork suit of plate.

in Fact, the corpses of newly replaced PCs seems to be the primary source of treasure.

plus with the series of rolls required before a new PC can join, rolls to locate the group and survive the treck. a PC can theoretically die before they join the party.

So basically, you are saying because of your GMs specific limitations they place on your home game, fights become win initiative or die?

Do you think this would still be a problem if your characters had appropriate Wealth By Level for their levels?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

The 50% rule assumes you are selling to middlemen, who turn around and sell to final customers. If you want to BE a middleman, give up adventuring and get into being a merchant, I'm sure your party can adventure without your character. The DM will take him and make an NPC, explain how he's getting into merchant politics and making and using a lot of gold, and the rest of the party is killing monsters and being heroes.

It's all good.

==Aelryinth

This is exactly what I would do with a PC that was that devoted to crafting to the point of no longer adventuring. I would deem the PC "retired" from adventuring, at which point they become an NPC. Hurray, your PC successfully became a successful crafter/merchant and future games might have equipment with a little "Made by Previous PC Here" sticker on the armor they buy at magi-mart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

But it doesn't say dead can't move. And dead isn't helpless.

And that is why the argument of omission being permission is ridiculous.

Dead doesn't remove the dying condition. Dying gives you the unconscious condition. Unconscious gives you the helpless condition. And helpless says you are treated as 0 dex which means you can't move.

As far as "adventuring" goes, what is adventuring defined as?

The rules provide for 2 scenarios, crafting while adventuring, and getting things crafted by spending time during meals, watches and the like. And for time dedicated to crafting which must be done in 4 hour blocks. If that time is in a controlled environment, you get 4 hours of progress. If it is in a dangerous or distracting environment you get 2 hours of progress.

So, why can't you travel for 8 hours of the day.
Craft as you adventure (quickly at +5dc) 4 hours of the day, 2 hours (500gp) of progress.
Devote 4 hours to crafting (quickly at +5dc) getting either 2 or 4 (depending on dangerousness) hours of progress, netting another 500 or 1000 gold of progress?

Total time spent 16 hours, you have a ring of sustenance so that makes 18 hours, with the remaining 6 for rest/socialize/whatever.

There are rules for crafting for adventuring. There are rules for devoting time to crafting. They are not mutually exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

The rules don't expressly forbid dead people taking actions.

Something not being expressly forbidden is not the same as something being permitted by RAW.

I need a macro for this.

To be fair, most dead people also fall under dying/unconscious/helpless, where you are unable to take actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

You are adding it. You're adding it, as a modifier, to the base DC of 20 to notice an active invisible creature.

I think the answer is 47. We'll have to wait and hope for an answer to see who is right.

It does not have a + sign. How are you adding it when it doesn't have a +? How do you know you shouldn't be subtracting it instead? You are assuming you add the stealth check.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.