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

Tharg The Pirate King's page

279 posts. Alias of William Brewer.


RSS

1 to 50 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Ok this was tossed around and I want possible Ruling. We all know that Enlarge Person does not work on Bows because the arrows shrink back to normal when fired. However what happens if you have Large arrows designed for a large bow set aside to use when Enlarge Person is cast upon you?

Our thoughts is that you will do Large damage with the Bow because even though Normally the arrows shrink and the damage stays that of Medium bow. Because you are now using large arrows that will not shrink the damage stays that of a Large Bow.

Thus if you combine Gravity bow with this scenario.. you will be dealing damage of a Huge Bow because your Large bow now deals damage as if 1 Size category larger.

The whole argument is over this loop hole of getting pre made large arrows designed for a large bow to keep and bypass the shrinking that happens when normal enlarged arrow is fired.


Corbin Dallas wrote:

Ah, so you want to take the GM approval out of it, is that what you are saying?

The GM has final say over the rules. Sometimes referred to as Rule Zero.

Celestial Servant is for one specific template. It does not mean you can add any template without GM approval.

I think this topic would be better in the Advice thread or Homebrew thread.
Not the Rules Questions thread IMO.

No because its a rules question. I am only wanting to take out the GM approval because anymore people dont seem to answer questions. Most just go with the "well if your GM approves.. or Well if I was the GM I would or wouldnt"... its an answer that I want to toss out of the discussion so that we can discuss the rules and how we interpret them. As for the Celestial Servant.. I didnt know about that feat.. and it wouldnt be too hard to homebrew versions of that feat for different templates. But thats Homebrew, and im looking at the system as we have it. In Pathfinder the concept of adding templates does not give much in the way of rules for or against. I have seen templates are easy to add to undead, and they have it worked in the rules to allow templates at a cost of twice the normal HD when adding templates.. and there is no limit. And similar thread indicating that the Undead Cohort from the Undead Lord could be created using templates as well. So this is why Im looking at the ideas of Animal Companions with templates. It doesnt seem to far fetched that references to "rare" versions could be templates.. while it doesnt flat out say it, we dont have a rule not allowing it that I can find. The only thing I can seem to find is that as long as a GM is ok you can do it.. I was just hoping that there was more.. a definite yes (with gm approval) or a NO.. but as far as I know it doesnt exist as a definite answer. Unless someone has a link to an official NO answer.. thats what I was sorta hoping for...


Corbin Dallas wrote:

What your listing comes from UC. In UC it mentions throughout the animal companions section "subject to GM approval".

You are not going to find rules "legal" evidence that states your GM has to allow it.

Im not looking for rules saying the GM has to allow it..... GM rules can do anything they want... What I am checking is that do the rules allow it.. excluding any GM... Do the rules appear to allow the templates? this is what I am seeking answers to. I would like a discussion on Templates and adding them to Animal Companions/PC's/Undead cohorts.. etc.. from all accounts is the rules written in a way to allow these to occur.. again ignoring what a GM could or could not rule... as we are all quite understand that a GM can do anything...


Benn Roe wrote:
No, it's not legal without a feat or class ability (or the like) making it legal. Templates are only available for anything when explicitly mentioned as options or when a GM feels like adding them.

However under the Animal Companion guideline on the site, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/animal-companions) It does state this "....a ranger might discover a rare specimen of a favorite type of creature and want to claim it as his own..." a creature with a template would be considered a rare version of said creature. Thus implying that a person can use templates with an animal companion. The animal is listed on the ANimal Companion chart... while the template is not.. the animal does not change with the template added. In my example above.. an advanced Vulture is still a vulture.. in my argument its just a rare version of a vulture. Same may be said with the Beast of Chaos.. being an extremly rare specimen..


This is a question that has come up in a game recently. Can a person get an animal Companion that has a template. IE: A Ranger (Falconer) takes a Vulture as an Animal Companion, can he instead of the Normal Vulture get an Advanced Vulture (using http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/advanced-creatu re-cr-1 ) or even adding The Beast of Chaos Template.(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/beast -of-chaos-cr-2-tohc).. or both having an Advanced Vulture Beast of Chaos? I see nothing in the rules that keep someone from doing this (other than GM choice)... The Creatures CR would be +3 higher.. however it gains no additional HD but its HD does become d10's. I have looked over everything and cant seem to find any rules in RAW stating a person cant do this.. but I am just making sure. While I know its Munchkin and overpowered.. my question is for if its legal... considering a GM allowing anything that is legal within the rules..


Quantum Steve wrote:

Shield Master adds your shield's enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus. Except, you already have a weapon enhancement bonus; like bonuses do not stack. In no case could you have +6 to attack and damage in this scenario.

Against the designated creature, a Bane weapon's enhancement bonus is 2 higher than it's actual bonus.

So, which enhancement bonus is it's "actual" bonus? The +3 from ShieldMaster, or it's native +1?

This is my point... if the shield did not have the enhancement increase and was just a standard +2 shield with Bashing.. and you have the Feat.. when you wield your shield its normal Enhancement is +2 not +1.. in the hands of anyone else its +1. This feat changes things. So if Bane increases the Enhancement by +2 making it +2 better, for you that means a +4 and for others a +3. So if that is true then when you have the other Magical effect on the Shield and you bring in favored, the Enhancement starts as a +3 shield and then is increased by +2 to make it a +5 weapon vs your favored. This is how I am reading it, the feat causes the shields Base enhancement on attacks to be replaced with the +3 because it is higher then the normal enhancement of +1 for attacks. The bane quality then increases the base enhancement and since its now a +3 its increased to +5. Its how I would stack because the bane quality increases the base enhancement. To get the base weapon enhancement you cant just use the +1 because it got replaced by the feat. In your hands the shields ac enhancements is ALWAYS the weapons enhancement.. so when the shields ac enhancement increases.. so does the weapons base enhancement. Like I stated.. if its a +2 shield... it would always be a +2 weapon... no matter what.. in the hands of person with the feat, and bane would adjust accordingly.. so it shouldnt matter if the shields a +1 instead.


Ok here is my Hypothetical scenario. You have a +1 Large Steel Shield that has been enchanted with Bashing (making it treated as 2 size categories larger for shield Bash and treating it as a +1 Weapon). You also have added Defiant (Humans) (giving it +2 enhancement to ac and dr 2/- when you fight a Human) and because the Shield is a +1 weapon you have added Bane Humans as well (increasing +2 enhancement and extra 2d6 to damage vs Humans).. you are a Shield fighter and have the Shield Master feat. and attack a Human with a shield bash. The way I read the rules.. the Shield vs Human has +3enhancement to ac for the Defiant.. the Shield Master feat converts that to Enhancement to attack and damage... at this point the Bane kicks in and increases the Enhancement by +2 vs the Human and adds +2d6 damage.. making your shield effectivally a +5 weapon .... Am I correct in this?


Using the Savage species guide an Ogre has Base stats +2str, -4Int, -4cha and +2NA. You get the stats by removing the Size modifier making him Medium.. so he looses +2NA and then looses +8str, the +4con and the -2dex... then you either use 10 or 11 for the base stats and subtract it to get the racial modifier. This puts Ogres at around 5points... (-2 for stats and then 2for NA and 2 more to increase NA then 2 for Darkvision and 1 for Low light) not sure how to add HD into it.. but without the HD for the feats and skill.. the race itself would be weaker then standard Human without its size.


So what I am hearing is that while there are no rules for it... there are no rules against it either.. It all comes down to if the GM approves it. And he can decide if use use the Advance races or the beastiary advancement chart.. or decides to do something else.


This is why I am asking opinions.. and would also like some official ruling on what if any thing you would get for being a Tiefling Oni_spawn that is of Ogre decent and not human. I know they are large as their parent race is large. But what officially are considered Size bonuses... is it just the negative to hit and ac and bonus to cmb/cmd... is it the reach... is it the na and stat increases.... This is what I want officially ruled on... so I can be sure to know what to do.. and to be aware of. It may be munchkin... but thats not the point.. I just want to clarify the rules.


Ok Here is my question. I was creating an Oni-Spawned Tiefling and wanted to know what would be the rules for making him Nonhuman (Ogre so he is Large in size). As I have read the rules state that he gets none of the racial abilities but does get the size bonuses and penalties. So Here is what I dont understand.

If I use the Advanced Race to make this Large his stats become:
-+4str, -2dex, +2wis, -2cha and would get -1 attack and AC and +1 CMD/CMB and no reach.

However if he could be enlarged with Enlarge Person he would be:
- +4str, -2dex, +2wis, -2cha and would get -1att/ac and would get 10ft reach.

And lastly if go by monster advancement chart for medium creature going to large:

- +10str, -2dex, +4con, +2wis, -2cha and would get +1att/ac and +2NA and 10ft reach.

SO what is the correct chart to use? Im confused as to which option I can take that is legal for play (if DM is ok with of course). Enlarge Person will not work on a Tiefling I just added it because it shows what a spell would do in increasing size. Do I use the Advanced Race options to make a creature large or do I use the Monster Chart for size increases? Im confused as they both seem correct. Now again this is for an Ogre Tiefling as per the rules for Nonhuman Tieflings so I get the size Large.


Random Loot tables are ok... however if you were attacking a bunch of goblins that had a potion of levitate, scroll of hydraulic torrent, and a scroll of mass cure light wounds potion of bull’s strength, and a scroll of flaming sphere you are going to have a heck of a fight since they will use the potions to increase their big guys strength and if they have a shaman he will levitate and scroll you to death. Random loot charts need to be less magic filled and more mundane and crap filled. Does this book have random mundane charts that include rusty weapons and beat up patch work armor which is what the vast majority of the loot from creatures would be?

Im not trying to be a downer here but a charts like these only encourage more Monty Cook style playing where the adventure is magic heavy and gold heavy. I will like this if only they have charts made for low magic and low gold settings. I dont play the cookie cutter version of D&D that has come about because of 3.5, where rolls and loot matter like its an MMO. I prefer games that have magic being extremly rare and 1 gold equavalent to a years salary for the average commoner.


Thalin wrote:

For all levels, A ranger, generally speaking, is going to be better. Both get the most important unique advantage (Improved Precuse @ 6), but the Ranger also gets full BAB during surprise rounds or while moving; and gets an animal companion (that, with boon companion, is on level). The latter is not an archery advantage, but bringing a solid tank into the game for free ups your damage potential. This is on top of a wide variety of skills and the favored enemy (think undead and humans early.... especially since it affects your Sense Motive skill).

I would disagree that a ranger is better than a monk. break down just the feats specials for archery if playing Human:

Ranger
Level 1 Human Feat:Point Blank
Level 1 Feat: Precise Shot
Level 2 Combat Style Feat: rapid shot
Level 3 Feat: weapon focus (bow)
Level 5 Feat: Deadly Aim
Level 6 Combat Style Feat: Improved precise strike

vs

Monk
Level 1 Human Feat:Precise Shot
Level 1 feat: Point Blank
Level 1 Zen Archer Free Feat: Perfect Strike
Level 1 Monk Bonus: Far shot
Level 2 Monk Bonus: Dodge
Level 2 Zen Archer Free Feat: Weapon Focus
Level 3 Zen Archer Free Feat: Point Blank Master
Level 3 Feat:Mobility
Level 5 Feat:Deadly Aim or Shot on the Run
Level 6 Monk Bonus:Improved Precise Shot
Level 6 Zen Archer Free Feat: Weapon Specilization

And flurry for a monk uses BAB = to the Characters level so at level 6 when flurry your BA is treated as +6 then its -2 because of extra attacks as if using rapid shot.For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level.

ALL of this makes the Monk the best choice hands down. Just look at what all you get. The Point Blank Master is a 11+ level feat that makes you get NO AOO for using bow in melee combat. That is the best feat ever.


this is why being immune to poison in PF is so important. With the new rules to disease and poison I am actually more scared of a spider than an owlbear at level 1.


Analysis wrote:
One option I think might be nice... suppose that the number of buffs you can have, from magic items or from spells, would be limited. Furthermore, suppose that it is primarily limited for spellcasters. Say you can have something like 12 - N such effects at a time, where N is the highest spell level you can use. If you go beyond that, your higher-than-allowed spell levels either become unavailable, or you do not gain the buff effects. This could be explained by the buffs interfering, preventing you from shaping your aura enough to shape spells - like a chakra or something metaphysically occupied by each magical field.

the only option I would ever agree too to limit the magic is if the GM removed all item creation feats and limited magic to be rare in the world.. to play a spellcaster would be harder because there is no magic. The issue most people have especially since crafting is so easy and now that in PF there is no exp cost its gotten worse.. I miss 2e's magic creation. You needed to cast permanacy on any magic item you wanted to create or it wouldnt work and the cost to cast was like 20000gp. so it made crafting extremly expensive and less of an issue in game. Magic meant something and was better controlled. 3e, 3.5 and PF should never have made crafting so easy.


Easy to make this item and here is how and the cost.
[(1x1x1800)/(5/3)] (x2-if not worn item because takes up no space)or 2250gp this makes a Holy symbol that casts sanctify corpse 3/day
Since it costs 500gp to make the spell permanent normally I would rule that it would need to be calculated into the cost of the spell base for each charge per day as if it was a Material component. IE (((1x1x1800)/(5/3))+(500x50--following rule on items with material cost)x2) or 53600gp for an item that takes up no slot (holy symbol)that casts a Permanent Sanctify Corpse 3/day of course if make it a neck slot that drops price to 26800gp.

To make this item your cleric would need Craft Wonderous and the Spellcraft roll would be a (5+9CL+5(dont have spell)+5(if not 9thlvl)=24 (possible another +5 since its arane spell and not arcane but thats GM move).

Now you could make this item with permancy on the item castable itself which would be alot higher. Since Permancy requires a 9th level caster and is 5th level its (5x9x1800)/(5/3) x2 = 50625gp and then add the other spell 3375(not similar spells) grand total of 54000gp to cast Sanctify corpse 3/day and Permancy 3/day. No GM would ever allow a permancy charged item so dont even bother going this route.


alot of those items state so in description. The description of dex Belt in PF states Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn. this is not the same as the ring of sustenance which states The ring must be worn for a full week before it begins to work. If it is removed, the owner must wear it for another week to reattune it to himself. The description of the item is what is key. since it is temporary on the belt it would work immediatly no issues... but untill you left it on for at least 24hours the first time it would be counted as temporary after that you could remove it and p0ut it back on as many times as you want.


never seen really looked at PF subtypes rules. So I will bow to you for correcting me. I guess we never played that rule. But I may see if we can start for some fun.


yes, you meet the req. However if you loose your gauntlets and or not wearing them you no longer have access to the feat. which if that feat is a requirement for a PRC that can be a huge issue. who wants to loose your class abilities because you lost the reuirement feat because some thief took you gloves.


This game should never be like an MMO... limits to buffs just makes it feel so.

from a few posts are you also considering continous magic items as buffs? it almost appears that way in your comments.

Just keep track of the duration, your group may be abusing it too much.. alot of spells in PF are no longer minutes or hours/level they are now rounds/level... this is a huge impact.


I would say evil alignment only, because evil subtype while normally is always evil a GM may have made a reformed evil character so while still Evil subtype because of race the Alignment is not evil and so at least in any game I have played would not be affected by Protection from evil.


King of Vrock wrote:
What you're asking for is pretty powerful. I think you'd be better off with a variant of the Bracers of Archery, but for thrown weapons. These bonuses would stack with weapon enhancement bonuses and effect any improvised weapon you pick up and hurl.

To what are you committing on?. The other comments, my first thoughts I posted, or my most recent the "Giants Satchel"?. I have decided to forgo getting an item to work for both, I just want to see if my new idea is not overpowered or too much to ask. By adding all the stipulations I want to make this item work the way I want but not be game breaking in any way. This is further reduced by making drawing the items out of the satchel a move action, this cuts anyone from any more than 1 attack a round with it.


Ok here is what I have decided to craft. Is this reasonable priced item?

Giants Satchel:
+1 (3850gp), +2 (9400gp), +3 (17400gp), +4 (28600gp), +5 (43000), +6 (60600), +7 (81400), +8 (105400), +9 (132600), +10 (163000)
-Must be Large size or larger and have strength of 20

-This sack acts as a small bag of holding I, This bag also has a magical enchantment on it that when any nonmagical item is placed inside and drawn out it gains the magical enchancement listed. This Bag can be enchanted with Same enchantments as those on Thrown Range weapons. This bag however will only enchant items that are the same size and shape as small to large rocks/boulders. (A weapon placed in the bag will not gain the enchantment nor will other objects not similar to size and shape rocks/boulders). This enchantment acts only upon the last item drawn so 2 items drawn only the last is effected. Once the item is thrown and hits it looses its enchantment (except for returning which will allow the item to reappear inside the sack). Drawing from the sack is a move equivalent action, that does provoke.

my pricing, I used the item craft feature of multiple different abilities (normal price for highest cost feature and 1.5 cost of lowest) and also since there are restrictions to what the item does and who uses it I reduced the cost by 20% (though rules state 30% for the penalties - I think that was too much).

Would you allow this item?


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Why don't ranged weapons cost more then? Heck a sling can make rocks magical any rock it doesn't cost more.

This is just like the monk and the AoMF its a flavor tax.

It isn't a flavor tax, it is a "not having to use actions to juggle items" tax. When using a ranger weapon like a bow or sling, you need to get rid of whatever is in your hands, draw the weapon, and keep both hands free to use or reload them. If you want to switch back to melee, you have to drop or resheathe everything. Thrown weapons have the advantage of being able to be drawn and used with a single hand. A magic item that counts as both a ranged weapon launcher and a melee weapon takes the place, and offers the advantages, of both and thus should cost at least as much as the two combined.

To give a point of comparison, look at the bowstaff spell. You need to burn a spell to use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon for 1 round a level. Letting you do it for free, forever would be very strong.

Tharg The Pirate King wrote:
But I cant find a rule stating that an improvised +1 bow being used in melee would not be magical. Most descriptions of magical range weapons state that the magic will impart on the ammunition making them magical but no rule on weather the item if used differently than intended would be. I mean the idea of firing an arrow then having to use the bow to smack a creature in melee or the same with firearm having to use the stock of the gun to smash into the enemy. There are no rules indicating that it would need a seperate enchantment. At least none that dont require a homebrew or houserule.
CRB pg.467 wrote:
Weapons come in two basic categories: melee and ranged. Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used as ranged weapons. In this case, their enhancement bonuses apply to both melee and ranged attacks.
A bow is not listed as a melee weapon. Since they felt the need to include a line specifying melee weapons that can be thrown get their bonus to both,...

but again there is nothing official against using a +1 bow as an improvised melee weapon. And I will go ahead and ignore this for another thread because its not what I really want.

As for what I want to know is what to calculate the cost on my magical hand to allow me to transfer its magic into the items I through. Should I stipulate that I want it to only apply to "Ammunition, IE rocks,and other improvised items not weapons"to cut this inflated cost that everyone keeps trying to justify even though I dont see any reason for thrown ammunition to be double or triple enchantment cost as a sling bullet or bow. Remember I am not trying to create a character who picks up swords, daggers, etc.. he picks up rocks, tables, and other improvised items. So if I placed that stipulation could I get this price reduced.

Also what if I added the stipulation This weapons enchancment and magical effects work when it is used in melee and when throwing "Ammunition and improvised items, not other melee weapons". what would the cost be?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Last time I checked, undead (barring a few specific cases) are created based on the base creature's racial hit dice, class levels had nothing to do with it. A ghoul from a level 1 human commoner and a ghoul from a level 20 elf Paladin are one and the same (though it's possible I could be mistaken.)

may be that he is asking when its an intteligent undead and they keep class levels. because that does make a difference.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

It costs more because:

1. You can TWF thrown weapons.

2. It applies the bonus on the fly to any weapon you throw. This makes it immensely versatile for special material weapons.

It should probably cost more than I made it.

again so can wielding 2 magical reloading hand crossbows, or using magical arrows made from other materials. A sling as well.

Because of the rules on stacking. If I have Magical +1 bane gloves that give all items I throw the bonus of +1 and bane and I throw a +1 dagger it doesnt become a +2 bane dagger. It would be a +1 bane dagger. I dont mind stipulating or tacking on a added line that states :only apply to non magical items thrown. to curb the possibilty of people breaking it. I just dont see why it would cost more to make an item to confer magic on thrown when bows/slings/guns get to confer to their ammunition and they even can do it on magic ammunition though the enchancment in pathfinder no longer stacks.


Talonhawke wrote:
Tharg The Pirate King wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
master arminas wrote:

He made the price double because you ARE going to get more attacks per round with them. Most magical throwing weapons are thrown once, and that is it. Even if they have the returning property, they don't come back until the next round.

With these, every non-magical weapon, improvised weapon, and plain old rock you pick up would be magical, so you could throw as many weapons as full BAB allows. That is one reason why they should and do cost more.

Master Arminas

Why don't ranged weapons cost more then? Heck a sling can make rocks magical any rock it doesn't cost more.

This is just like the monk and the AoMF its a flavor tax.

I agree but in the case of the AoMF it confers on all Unarmed and Natural attacks so I think its a little more powerful. since a Monk with Natural attack gets to apply to his normal attacks and that natural attack.
Not if he flurries no natural attacks there.

Feral Combat Training (Combat) allows monk to use natural attack with his flurry, so yes They can. also I forgot to mention that the Amulet for a monk means any part of his body is magical (head, arm, leg, foot, hand, etc) whatever he decides to use for his unarmed attack.


Talonhawke wrote:
master arminas wrote:

He made the price double because you ARE going to get more attacks per round with them. Most magical throwing weapons are thrown once, and that is it. Even if they have the returning property, they don't come back until the next round.

With these, every non-magical weapon, improvised weapon, and plain old rock you pick up would be magical, so you could throw as many weapons as full BAB allows. That is one reason why they should and do cost more.

Master Arminas

Why don't ranged weapons cost more then? Heck a sling can make rocks magical any rock it doesn't cost more.

This is just like the monk and the AoMF its a flavor tax.

I agree but in the case of the AoMF it confers on all Unarmed and Natural attacks so I think its a little more powerful. since a Monk with Natural attack gets to apply to his normal attacks and that natural attack.


master arminas wrote:

He made the price double because you ARE going to get more attacks per round with them. Most magical throwing weapons are thrown once, and that is it. Even if they have the returning property, they don't come back until the next round.

With these, every non-magical weapon, improvised weapon, and plain old rock you pick up would be magical, so you could throw as many weapons as full BAB allows. That is one reason why they should and do cost more.

Master Arminas

But a bow doesnt cost double? or a Magical sling?. So why would a thrown item be treated differently? Its still Ammunition especially if the thrown item is rocks. The issue I have is my Base attack is going to be a +5 untill level 16. the nonpathfinder Prestige class I am taking has 10levels of progression with no Base attach increase, it stays a +0 the entire time. So its not like Im trying to break anything, I just would like to be able to enchant items I throw. My concept will is going to have me picking up tables, barrels, wagons, rocks, and anything else not tied down and tossing them on enemyies. But I am hindering myself in my amount of attacks a round.


Silent Saturn wrote:

As for "doubling up", plenty of melee weapons count as thrown weapons as well. The dagger, starknife, throwing axe, hunga munga, spear, and trident all have range increments for throwing and count as melee weapons, so any enhancement bonuses on them would work in melee and at range. In theory, a returning trident with whatever other enchantments you wanted would accomplish what you're looking for, except you wouldn't be able to throw rocks as well.

A magic item that adds enchantments to anything you throw would probably work like the Amulet of Mighty Fists, which does the same thing to your unarmed attacks. Making them spiked gauntlets and letting them apply the bonus to your melee attacks too? I don't know...

The only reason I brought in spiked gauntlets is my character has a Battlefist (3.5 warforge component added to construct graft Mighty Arms) my DM is allowing 3.5 books. The Battlefist has a +1 enchancement and increases slam attacks. The description alone states that it appears to be a Spiked Guantlet but it itself is not and does not have a melee attack, it only increases the damage that a natural slam attack would do. The problem I have is It takes up hand slot, since it confers its +1 to my slam attack, I am just curious if I can make it work for thrown ammunition as well.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

Here's an idea:

Handwraps of Hurling
Aura faint evocation; CL 5th
Slot hands; Price 4,000 gp (+1), 16,000 gp (+2), 36,000 gp (+3), 64,000 gp (+4), 100,000 gp (+5); Weight -

DESCRIPTION

These handwraps grant an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with nonmagical thrown weapons. A magical thrown weapon thrown by the wearer of the handwraps gains no bonus or abilities from them.

Alternatively, the handwraps can grant ranged weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to thrown weapons. See Table: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An pair of handwraps of hurling cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. Handwraps of hurling do not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a ranged weapon special ability.

Both handwraps must be worn for the effect to work.

CONSTRUCTION

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, greater magic weapon, creator's caster level must be at least three times the handwraps' bonus, plus any requirements of the ranged weapon special abilities; Cost 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), 50,000 gp (+5)

I like these however what is your justification in the price?. Magical weapon price is +1 2000, +2 8000, +3 18000, +4 32000 and +5 50000 so what makes these gloves be double? I checked and you made these gloves similar to the Amulet of Mighty Fists. Is this how you based your price?. And if so do you think that may be too much, the amulet confers its bonus on ALL unarmed AND natural attacks by wearer. The item I want will confer only on the item being tossed (much like an arrow or sling bullet).


Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:

As far as I know, no weapons in Pathfinder allow you to "double up" in the manner you seem to be suggesting. If you use a +1 bow as a quarterstaff, I believe it counts as a nonmagical quarterstaff. I have no idea what Frostfell is. There are a small number of feats and classes that allow exceptions, but for items you (as far as I know) always have to pay for separate enhancements independently.

But I cant find a rule stating that an improvised +1 bow being used in melee would not be magical. Most descriptions of magical range weapons state that the magic will impart on the ammunition making them magical but no rule on weather the item if used differently than intended would be. I mean the idea of firing an arrow then having to use the bow to smack a creature in melee or the same with firearm having to use the stock of the gun to smash into the enemy. There are no rules indicating that it would need a seperate enchantment. At least none that dont require a homebrew or houserule.

The issue is when it comes to thrown items (not thrown weapons) rocks, tables etc. I want to be able to have them enchanted like ammunition. I am bringing in grafts to the game and my character has the construct graft Mighty arm with a battlefist (description is it increases natural slam to 1d8 for medium creature, it has a +1 enchancement bonus and looks like a spiked guantlet). I just want to find a way to enchant my battlefist so that I can use it when I throw boulders etc. because its attached to the body I can not take off the battlefist and it replaces the hand location so I cannot wear gloves etc..

as for the frostfell that is a 3.5book There is a few other 3.5 books that have range weapons that can be used in melee. Its an open game so 3.5 is allowed.


Ok, I am trying to find out how to create gauntlets that give thrown ammunition their bonus (+1, bane etc much like a bow).if it would be possible to create gauntlets similar to the MIC Gauntlets of Throwing (they added the Throwing and Returning feature to any melee weapon) but instead of melee be for any item.

The reason is I want to create a rock hurler and would like to be able to have the thrown rocks/etc to be enchanted much like a bow/slings/guns enchant their ammunition and or a melee weapon that is magical and thrown still has its affects. I was wondering could Spiked Gauntlets be able to be enchanted with melee/range weapon enchantments to apply them to the (thrown ammunition).

And if the spiked gauntlets can affect ammunition thrown then will its enchantment still count in melee? There are some weapons that set a precident for being able to be used range and to be used also in melee and have both enchants work. IE Weapons like the Bonebow from Frostfell that is a Bow and can be used as a Longsword have their enchantments work in regard to ammunition and the weapon itself. No need to double up on the enchantments and the ammunition is enchanted. Same with using a +1 bow as a improvised quarterstaff to hit a creature if out of ammo. So could gauntlets be made to enchant ammunition and be magical themselves for use in melee?


Get by this easyily. Make whatever your lich have 1 level of Oracle (JUJU mystery) this gives you 6+hd instead of 4+HD of undead you can control. and then the JUJU zombie is highly Intelligent

JUJU Zombie An Int of 8 people. This is average Human InT. They can easily do what is needed.


Ok me and my GM got into a discussion on this and want everyones opinion.

Entropic Shield states Each ranged attack directed at you for which the attacker must make an attack roll has a 20% miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment).

Improved Precise Shot states that you ignore miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment.

would improved precise shot negate the concealment of entropic shield? My argument is yes because the spell creates a magical field that is providing the concealment and that the feat removes the concealment since it is not total concealment. My gm states that its a spell effect and so not actual concealment. The issue I have is it states that the effects is similar to concealment and Imp Prec Shot works against all forms of concealment like a Blur spell and similar magic. So if that is the case then shouldnt it work for Entropic shield as well?.


bring in some creatures with fogcutter goggles.. that will allow them to see in fog. and yes most fighters I game with blindfight is must.


OK. simple fix, stop casting spells with saves and SR. there are a ton of spells that do not rely on saves, Magic Missle, Acid Arrow, Stone Call, Interposing Hand and Clenched Fist, Polar Ray, Create Undead, Wall of Lava, the list goes on and on.

First step in being a good caster is realizing that save or die spells are junk. Do not fall into the misconception that a spell that does a massive amount of damage is great if they can save for half. Choose a spell like those I have posted and the many others that exist that have no save and make your GM cry.


Malignor wrote:
Also, I've often considered dropping the relationship between undead and evil. I ponder such concepts as "allowing fallen heroes to rise up and defend the faith" or similar things. Why can't you have a good priest at the battlefront, animating his fallen comrades so they can perform one last stand against the forces of evil, before finally finding rest? Why can't you animate a murder victim, so he can go confess his sins or tell his family he loves them before departing? Howabout a paladin who swears that, even beyond death, he will protect his church, and is animated for the task?

The reason I dont think the spell is evil is the fact that the risen body has no soul. It is a powered corpse that acts and moves on command. Unless using a more powerful spell that calls the soul the normal means to animate a dead body would not give the family any closure, they would need to cast speak with dead spell to find out what happened. The dead on Battlefield, again this is a time of need argument that would never be counted as an evil act. its all about intentions in my games.


Midnight-Gamer wrote:

My Rogue needs some level of optimization to run with the other PC's; they are brutally powerful and leaving me in the dust with kill counts.

Characters are currently at level 3 and I expect the game to run to 16th Level? It's Serpent's Skull for anyone familiar. (No spoilers, please)

I'll be leveling as a Rogue/Scout & Duelist at higher levels. My build is as follows, Please Critique.

STR12,DEX16,CON14,INT13,WIS10,CHR10
Traits: Killer,Crew Member (Grants Survival as Class Skill)
Rogue Talent: Combat Trick, Dodge
Feats:Weapon Focus Rapier, Weapon Finesse, Toughness

I plan to add,

Feats: Mobility, Combat Expertise, Vital Strike, Improved Disarm
Rogue Talents: Befuddling Strike, Bleeding Attack, Fast Stealth

Suggestions to make this stronger or better rounded at least into the Teens would be welcome.

Thanks!

This seems like a solid build. But may I suggest, if you already have a group of Min/Maxers then why not become the master Manipulator?. Take 3 Levels Rogue (Charlatan) with Cunning Lie Talent and then Bard (Demagogue), A character who can make anyone believe anything, can cause a city to follow his every word and do as he pleases even if that means causing all citizens to attack people you wish or incite revolutions. And with the Cunning Lie you cement your control and lies.

Though that is just what I would do.


Eberron had alot of great arguments for undead. The nation of Karrnath used undead to keep their army strong the the nation was Lawful they had Lawful Good/Neurtal and Evil people within the society. The people saw Undead as neccesarry for the nation to survive the wars. Same goes for Aerenal the home of the Elves and the Undying Court. A purely Lawful Neurtal enviroment. It really comes down to intent that realy defines when the act of creating Undead is evil or not. In Faerun there were Elven Undead Liches that were good alinged there are many ways that undead can be good.

JUJU oracle if you really want to just get rid of evil all together.


I Create characters Based on Themes even if that means being subpar to a normal character. I can Min/Max if I want and create a powerful character but those get really boring. I think creating a acharacter with flaws or issues and or going with a theme that while not that powerful has a great story is fun.

I have also dumbed down or hidden my true powers. Back in 2nd edition because of luck of rolls and a gracious DM I rolled a Necro/Cleric with wild Psioncis and over 300 Powerpoints. It was hugely overpowered. i could probally take on at level 1 level 10's and win. But I never did, I hid my powers from even the group (we rolled alone with Gm so no one knew the others characters other than through roleplay and the game). I didnt use powers untill almost 5 seccions in. I wanted to play him as a ChessMaster. Powerful but not wanting to show his trumps up front.


By the way there is another magic item allowing Metamagic Feats. Its a wonderous Magic Item

Incense of Meditation

Now yes it is a one time use item but it Maximizes all spells for the day. So there is another item that exists that adds a Meta Effect. Because you now have 2 different craft items (rod and Wonderous) shows to me that it could be for any item its just has not been made yet. Still DM approval.


Once your Cohort gains the leadership feat he is a free to follow his own path. he no longer looks at you as his mentor and will follow his own accord. This means that you will need to make rolls to gain a new cohort. That cohort may come back as NPC for other encounters.. maby he will be a freindly contact in a city you need to be in or he may provide shelter and or help when needed. (as long as he was treated well). but he no longer gains exp and or levels according to you. this is why you will need to find a new cohort.


3.5 Arms and Equipment guide for D&D has the rules needed to add Feats to any Magic Items. The cost is 5000gp per requierment. So the Metamagic Feats which most do not have a Pre. would cost 5000gp base. This will be to add it to any item, now this will let you have the feat however it will still cost you to increase the spells with feats.

Now to make it like a rod I would say would have the same costs accociated with it. I wouldnt change anything I see nothing in rules to say otherwise and rules that do not exist do not exist. therfore there is no Unwritten rule, thats just BS from people who dont want to think. It is up to your GM but there is no rule against making the item.


Aazen wrote:
Im curious to see how and if I could make a Bard like Loki (in Thor movie) I'm not looking to make an exact conversion. Just the bard aspect. And its a 20 pt buy. Thanks for any assist.

Take Rogue for 3 levels (taking the Charlatan Rogue archtype) this will give you the Rumormonger (Ex) Adv rogue talent and can also pick up the Rogue Talent Convincing Lie (Ex) these 2 talents will be key to any Liar. Then take Bard (Demagogue archtype) this gives you abilty to draw crowds and have then incite violence.

using this build you will want to max Cha. That stat is key, all other stats are what you want. I would go

str 7
dex 12
con 10
int 13
wis 12
cha 18 then +2 Racial =20

Get Cha enhancing items as soon as you can and then lie away. the idea is to never need to fight because you can talk a giant into beliving you are his mom.


Gus J Badnell wrote:

Sorry for the possible stupid question, but I couldn't find an answer to this. That might be because it's a non-issue, but I wanted to be sure. My apologies if this has been asked before.

Arcane Bond states that, once per day, the wizard can use his bonded object to cast a spell from his/her spellbook. Does this spell use a slot? Say I want my wizard character to cast a 1st level spell from his spellbook. Does he need to burn another, memorized, 1st level spell to be able to do so? Or is the spell "extra?"

Thanks.

its extra.


But you miss the other print.. let me post it for you.

Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs).

From Creating NPC's
.... These characters are designed and controlled by the GM to fill every role from noble king to simple baker.

I hate to point out that all Cohorts should follow the rule that they are created by the GM not the player. These are suppose to be already viable NPC characters and not fresh blank slates that the player gets to create and min/max. Now the player gets to control this Cohort but I would never allow a Player to ever again MAKE his Cohort. It leads to too much trouble much like the above OP's idea.

Never never let your player create his Cohort. I prefer the 2nd edition tried and true leadership. These cohorts follow you because they have heard your greatness and because of your keep have flocked to serve you. You get what comes, typically it is a guy who is exactly like the player who is using the player as his mentor, and will try to be just like him but thats up to the GM.


Denim N Leather wrote:

I am designing an encounter for my campaign which includes a Treant with the crystal template. The party is 3 members right now, all lvl 12.

The crystal template says to apply DR 5/- unless the creature's natural DR is "better".

Now, due to the circumstance of this encounter, this Treant is a bit mad, and I am adjusting its alignment from NG to NE.

The Treant's natural DR is 10/slashing.

Now, here is my concern. Since I shifted the Treant's alignment, I am worried that the party's paladin (level 12) will be able to mop up the floor with this variant (provided she doesn't go blind or get diseased by Brilliant Pestilence first).

So, in this case, I am thinking that the 'better' DR would be 5/- not 10/slashing. But I don't want to be unfairly stacking the odds against the party.

What do you think?

DR #/- is better... because it works against everything.. therfore it is more powerful... it works against adamantine, coldiron, magical weapons, slashing, piercing, blunt.. etc. This makes DR /- so much more powerful than DR /slashing or others.

But since you have 2 sources of DR here is what happens. The DR 10/slashing is used first since the 10 is higher than the 5. since the paladin is hitting with a sword this bypasses the DR so the next DR the creature has the 5/- applies.

Now if the paladin hits with a Blunt howerver the DR 10/slashing applies.. basically the DR 5/- would only apply when slashing is used.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We went up against a Lich once that had the best hiding place ever. It was Located inside the Temple of Pelor right in plain view. You may ask how? How can it be within the temple of a god that takes out undead. Well here is how.

The Phylactery was created to look like a beautiful Reliquery. The design was set up with holy symbols and markings of Pelor. The Lich of course made the box undectable as magical, and then had 1 small human bone placed inside. Then using a really really high check he was able to start a rumor that an actual bone of Pelor before he ascended had been found but stolen by heathern followers of Nerull, Adventuerers found and took the Reliquery to the Temple where it was placed in display as a Holy Item and guarded by the temple Paladins themselves. All the while with the Lich In no worries whatsoever that his Phylactery would come to any harm.

And in the case that the Lich would be destroyed and would need to rejuvinate he had that planned as well. The Rules state that the Phylactery rejuvinates and rebuilds the Lich nearby. That Nearby is key. He doesnt have to form right next to it. For our Lich he instead had paid a hefty sum of money to the Church to have a Coffin placed in the catacombs below the church (it was suppose to be the body of a prince that had died saving a city from undead that requested to lie in the church of his god= another great story that fooled the church). This sarcofigis had several nondetection wards on it that allowed whatever was inside to not be detected from the outside. The Lich could reform within then teleport out. Safe and sound underneath the Paladins very feet

We dealt with this Lich at least 4 times in the game. In fact we were to adventures who had brought the dang Phylactery to the church (in a previous game = we used the same campaign world, when we created new characters so many years would pass between the last game in this last case it was 150 years). We never discovered his hiding place. I dont think we ever would have. Without direct God intervention (which is very unlikely) the darn things are hard to find.

And for those who say wait hold on why does Pelor allow it to happen. Well first off the Gods of EQ dont always directly interact, and second with the Lich as a constant threat, more people flocked to the church, and if the church had found out what it was, there is always a high probability that a high ranking offical may use it to help bring in followers and use it for his own purpose of feeding the churchs coffers with donations.


OK here is the argument. Ring is the best. Hands down period it is the best. First off untill enchanted the ring is a mundane (though masterwork) item, so it will not detect magic.I simply do not plan on making mine magical at all and here is why.

There is a rule that states you are limited to wearing 2 magical rings. but there is no rule that states that you cant wear 2 magical rings and your non magical bonded ring. So why would theif take that non magical when you have those 2 magical ones.

Now if you are lucky you can get a GM to decree that you can wear 2 rings only that function but one that doesnt mind Toe Rings or (if you read Book of Erotica) other places. heck I had a Half Orc with a huge Magical Giant's Ring that I used as a nose ring. If you are lucky your GM will be fine with you wearing that nonmagical ring on your toe hidden far away inside that boot away from looters.

1 to 50 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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.