Roberta Yang wrote:
Just to point out, Weapon Finesse doesn't have the 'BaB +1' prerequisite anymore (since the CRB came out, actually).
Other than that, I concur. Gaining bonus Feats and/or bonus Spells later than 'generic' martials or 'generic' casters is definitely one of the faults of the system. Which can (and should) be definitely house-ruled, but for PFS you crippled yourself for nothing.
Luckily there was an errata regarding this rule, please check it on the Game Resource Page
This is another case of the disparity reserved between Prepared Casters and Spontaneous Casters, where the latter always draw the short straw.
A Spontaneous Caster does not have to increase the level of a spell when using a Metamagic Rod, but the casting time is always increased.
A Prepared Caster does not have to increase the level of a spell when using a Metamagic Rod, AND can do it 'on the fly' like a Spontaneous Caster... but WITHOUT increasing the casting time.
If it were for me, I would ban the Metamagic Rods altogether (they boost too much classes which are already considered 'top tier' - casters - and among them, more so for the 'top of the top tier' - Clerics, Druids, Wizards). People wonder why so few characters invest into Metamagic Feats... why doing this when you can always store these items into your pockets ??
But, if I were to keep them, I would 'equalize' the benefits, giving even the Spontaneous Casters the ability to cast the spell without increased casting time.
This is true, but they are not only included in the stat list, they are mentioned among the treasures of the creature itself:
"Treasure: Double (+5 Full Plate, +5 Dancing Greatsword, +5 Composite Longbow [+9 Str bonus])"
If they can (and indeed, they do) use part of their Treasure for fighting, what should prevent them to use other portions of their wealth as well ?
A friend of mine would object that a simple Antimagic Field would allow the Dragon to dominate any kind of party (well, probably excluding Gating a Solar anyway, which would still have a hard time hitting the beast with more than 1-2 attacks without magic anyway, all despite still having +4 CR on the creature).
And I strongly disagree with him (or rather, I agree IF we allow the spell to work in that way)
Back OT (and related to the infos above): a Solar has a +5 to hit and a +5 to AC due to the magic items listed in his Teasure entry; remove them and he suddenly would have a hard time hitting and damaging a CR 19 Dragon even when not Power Attacking (+30/+25/+20/+15 for 3d6+13 against AC 38) and be easily hit (AC 39 against 6 attacks at +35 or +33 for a similar damage output - but only due to Epic DR in use).
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Call it TENGEN TOPPA and I'm fine with that ;)
Herr Malthus wrote:
...and as I said to you yesterday, even the Globe of Invulnerability and Lesser Globe of Invulnerability have the very same entry 'Area: 10-ft. radius emanation centered on you'.The only difference between the (L)GoI and the AMF is that while the first spell, once cast, continues to stay in the very same spot where it appeared, the AMF follows the caster.
So following your reasoning, nothing would prevent me to Shapechange into a Huge Dragon, cast GoI to create a huge dome 20+ ft. radius diameter, then revert back to Medium size and fill it with the equivalent of 3-4 FULL PARTIES (hey, the spell has already been manifested after all... my size doesn't matter anymore, right ?)
We all have to remember that all spells are not only seen with Medium (and Small)-sized creatures in mind, they are actually BALANCED around them. The entire CR system would be crushed, burnt and its ashes scattered to the winds if we suppose to balance a fight against a creature with an AC in the 40s and a to-hit around the 35s with characters whose scores, normally balanced on these very same values thanks to magic items, suddenly drop to an AC in the 20s (if very very lucky) and a to-hit in the 25s (if very very optimized).
The problem is not the creature named Dragon, this isn't 3.x anymore where their CR was purposely lower than their effective power (a CR 12 Dragon was effectively a CR 14-15 creature), now they are balanced around other creatures with the same CR.
The problem is trying to squeeze something out of a spell which was not supposed to work in that way on a creature with a Natural Armor of 30, a natural Strength Score of 35 and a BaB of +20 and more.
And let's not forget, a Huge Dragon can still get benefits from the frakkin' spell, only thing is, this is not an 'autopilot route to victory' where he ignores all the benefits the characters are expected to have in order to fight him AND contemporary keeps his status of flying meat-mincer the size of a whale. The magic word here is 'squeezing'.
The Dragon can 'curl to a ball' squeezing his whole size into the AMF (like a Large Giant CAN squeeze into a corridor made for Medium-sized creatures - remember the old 'Eye of the Beholder 2' videogame with the Frost Giants wiggling in the dungeons and using only their fists ?) to be immune to any spells and supernatural attacks; clearly this would prevent them to use most (if any) of their natural attacks, and flying would be impossible (a huge 'pokeball' weighing thousands of pounds which has to flap its wings would be a very, very strange thing to allow - not counting that the wings, in order to sustain the mass, would have to spread and thus lie outside of the Field as well). Then, the next round he can extend to his normal space and fight without penalties, and since some parts of its body would lie outside of the AMF, 'any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field'.
Blue Star wrote:
Sherlock holds himself to an internal code, he still tries to obey the law, the letter and it's intent, but many of his cases require him to commit minor crimes in order to serve a higher good.
Just to point out:
Nowhere is written that a Chaotic character has no personal code. Quite the contrary, it is precisely him which has a self-made personal code (not 'imposed by above', be it a religious order, a sovereign, or any other authority like a Lawful person should have).
Judging from the above definitions, RDJ Sherlock Holmes could be NG or even CG, not LG (after all, he doen't work WITH Scotland Yard - the official authority - , he solves cases 'on a whim' by himself, although he does so for a just cause).
Just my 2c.
I completely agree with this, including the 'Fighter Training' part, which coupled with the Monastic Training would give basically the same 'special abilites' of a Fighter - Fighter bonus feats and Weapon Training - to a revamped class with other special abilities (now finally functional, like Catfall and Wholeness of Body).
I should add that giving the Monk Full BaB makes redundant the Maneuver Training ability (since Monk level would really be equal to Base Attack Bonus).
Other than that, THIS is a Monk I would play without any question !!!
Actually, Monks use Full BaB (unless they will change it in the future).
Just to point out a thing, there are no facing rules in combat in D&D/Pathfinder. This is quite different from saying that a character sitting on bench in a park and reading his spellbook is completely aware of all his surrounding, including people passing behind him, and could easily recognize a former enemy walking by on the park directly behind him.
As for the OP, I would have handled the situation exactly in the same way; this is the exact situation of a 'surprise round' for me (others obviously would disagree), like when speaking to a trusted ally and the he suddenly pops out a knife and stabs you between the ribs.
Just my 2c.
Since a Ninja can take any Rogue Talent through the Rogue Talent Ninja Trick (page 15) AND any Advanced Rogue Talent through the Advanced Talents Master Trick (page 16), but a Rogue can take ONLY Ninja Tricks through the Ninja Trick Rogue Talent (page 70) but not Master Tricks - since there are no Advanced Talents which grant Master Tricks - I would strongly suggest to 'homebrew' a Master Trick Advanced Talent for Rogues, in order to balance the scales a little more.
Regarding your answers, I feel that Ki gives Ninjas a great advantage over Rogues - one of the reasons of the creation of the Ki Pool Rogue Talent (which gives very few Ki Points, compared to a true Ninja).
And a Ninja would greatly benefit from Wakizashi (with which they are proficient) over Short Swords without any doubts - Light Weapon, P or S (instead of P only), Deadly (+4 to the DC of Fort Saves when used to make a Coupe de Grace) AND 18-20 x2 (instead of 19-20 x2).
Just my 2c.
For me the problem is not the base dice damage, but rather the critical multiplier (19-20 x3 is, as far as I know, the highest base critical range + multiplier combination).
After all, in D&D 3.x/ Pathfinder, it's not the base dice which really matters (one of the reasons why the Vital Strike chain is not really popular, among other things... but I'm digressing), but rather the static bonuses; this is one of the reasons why Monk's unarmed damage is usually sub-par to that of a Fighter... 2d10+10 (Str+5 and Amulet+5) is not even remotely comparable to 1d8+21 (Str+8, Weapon Training+4, Weapon Spec+Greater Weapon Spec +4, Weapon +5), ESPECIALLY when there is a higher chance to make a crit OR a higher crit damage. And the Falcata has both.
I would personally take a d4 weapon with such a huge ratio multiplier without a second thought (this is one of the reasons dual-wielding kukris are so popular, and they are 'only' 18-20 x2 weapons...)
Just my 2c.
I totally agree with this initiative.
The Falcata, as it stands up now, is comparable to a (20, x5) weapon... simply a step above to all other weapons (I don't know if UC has other weapons which are in the same league).
Allowing for THF with it is simply too much IMHO (and various DPR calculations have proven that the THF Falcata blows out all other weapons).
Just my 2c.
Just to point out a little misconception about Max Dex with Armors (in this specific case, Heavy Armors), which was already mentioned by TriOmegaZero:
PRD > Equipment > Armor
Of course, the Armor Check Penalty of the armor would give penalties to Dex-based abilities, but a character would still keep his original Dex bonus for Reflex Saving Throws, Weapon Finesse, Ranged Weapons, Skills, and so on.
Just my 2c.
I believe that the real 'problem' with most FF titles is that the protagonists usually are teenagers or at most young adults; this is made to catch the appeal of most players, which usually are about the same age of the protagonists.(Cloud Strife, which is one of the oldest for example, is only 21)
Meanwhile, all the characters I depicted above are usually older than that (around 30-35, if not more)
Another 'problem' is the fact that most FF characters of the modern era are designed by Tetsuya Nomura, which has a... strange affinity for androgynous characters and flamboyant costumes, to say the least.
So yes, I can agree with your point to an extent; however, I have to say that not all those 'emo characters' are so bad for example (again, Cloud Strife was a really interesting and deep character, despite his slender look and his cross-dressing - for those who didn't play the game, he had to transvest to save some friends, and he definitely appeared as a 'cute girl').
Just my 2c (as a FF and Anime fan)
Barret Wallace (FFVII) politely disagrees with you.Also Cid Highwind (FFVII)
Or Amarant Coral (FFIX)
Kimahri Ronso (FFX)
And Basch von Rosemburg (FFXII)
Ya know, some folks here make it real easy for me to know how agonizingly old you are (no offense). The ones that critique the half-elf image are definitely not of my generation. I grew up on heroes being dudes like Cloud Strife from Final Fantasy 7 and many anime out there, so to me, that looks like a normal pic of a warrior as opposed to the ZOMG reactions I see from others
I believe I'm not of your generation (36 y), but I appreciate the half-elf image, characters from FFVII, and I'm definitely an anime fan :)
I can only agree with this. Consider it a house-rule I will definitely apply in my games, even if it would never become an official rule.
I only have to say, in this way Maximize Spell will definitely go the way of the dodo (same as Enlarge Spell vs. Reach Spell... which makes Enlarge useful ONLY for Long range spells).
Empowered CSW (CL 15°): (3d8+15)x1,5 -> min. 27 hp, max. 58 hp, avg. 42 hp; 5th-level spell slot
Maximized CSW (CL 15°): 39 hp ; 6th-level spell slot
Oh, well, not that Maximize was a good feat anyway. But still...
"Ore wo dare da to omotte yagaru !!!"
I laughed really hard reading this... and sadly this is true, the feat clearly doesn't work as intended (the situation above is too much absurd).
I personally agree with the people who say that the DC should be 10 + modifiers (instead of 5 + modifiers) AND allow for ANY kind of attack against the 'taunter', not merely melee ones; otherwise it would only lead to madness...
Just my 2c.
This. I can only say that I strongly agree with Majuba here - the bonus is clearly a boon for the Monk (maybe initially it was intended to give him a helping hand, in order to create - finally - the 'mystic wizened guy barely able to stand but unstoppable in battle', and the whole 'not adjusted on tw and Off-hand' leads to that direction) , but it simply gives Clerics and Druids too much power IMHO.
You are indeed correct on the DC formula, and since a Potion is neither a spell-completion (like a Scroll) nor a spell-trigger (like a Wand or a Staff) magic item, a Witch could theoretically craft even potions for which (s)he doesn't know the spell.
You have to be at least the minimum caster level to cast the spell you're making a potion of. So no making 3rd level spell potions until you can cast 3rd level spells.
Hmm, I haven't thought of the caster level, which is not usually a prerequisite for most magic items (it only sets the DC) but for items like scrolls, wands or potions it COULD be. I am a bit at a loss here...
Full BaB would mean an HD increase, from d8 to d10 (due to the BaB-HD equivalence introduced in Pathfinder)... and I would not see anything wrong with it.
Uh, sorry to bother you but it seems that the replacement order of my Bestiary 2 has gone awry somehow, now it seems that there are two replacement copies of Bestiary 2 that are going to be shipped to me...
I see in my account orders that replacement order #1648914 (which has been made on 14th March) has returned somehow to you the following day and a new shipment order was made, #1649653 (which however shows two copies of Bestiary 2); this order seems to have been later 'splitted' in two different shipments (#1650751 and #1651119).
I personally prefer to keep them unaligned; after all, they are among the basic 'building blocks' of reality, and as such, they should not be inherently good or evil IMHO.
Of course, they are both extremely dangerous: an unprotected creature brought in the Negative Energy Plane would be drained to a husk in mere minutes, and if brought in the Positive Energy Plane would be so much 'pumped up' with life to literally blow out. But this is not so much different than the very same creature brought unprotected in the Elemental Plane of Fire...
Again, I tend to see them as 'elemental forces'; even Fire can be 'gentle' if used to warm and not to destroy. Negative Energy is entropy and destruction, but in this vision is a necessity to keep the Multiverse safe from an unending overflow of life - which would lead eventually to its collapse.
Just my 2c.
Sorry to resurrect this thread again but after 3 full months from the announcement of the shipment of my package (14th December 2010 - 14th March 2011), I've not received anything yet.
Are there any news ? What should I do ? This is the first time that one of your shipment took so long to arrive here (never took more than 6 weeks), I've almost lost any hope to receive it.
Sorry to bother you again, but after almost 3 weeks from my last post the shipment has not arrived yet.
Have you any news about it or has it returned to you by the custom offices? Without any means to check the customs or the postal service (I have no tracking number to provide at all) the only thing I currently can do is wait...
I agree completely with you.
From the PRD:
PRD -> Glossary -> Spell Resistance:
"Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds. If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is back up."
In case of Produce Flame, you check SR after the first fire-projectile hits your enemy; if you beat its SR, all other projectiles from that particular Produce Flame spell would work against it, if you cannot beat its SR you would have to try casting another Produce Flame spell - otherwise all other projectiles from the first spell would fail.
The same goes for Flaming Sphere. Please note however that SR does not 'dispels' the effects of the spell (a rolling ball of flame in this case), merely prevents the spell from affecting the creature; the Flaming Sphere is still there, and it can roll over another creature - it merely would not affect the creature whose SR has not been overcome.
"Spell resistance prevents a spell or a spell-like ability from affecting or harming the resistant creature, but it never removes a magical effect from another creature or negates a spell's effect on another creature. Spell resistance prevents a spell from disrupting another spell.
Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have. The magic continues to affect others normally."
Just my 2c.
Specifically through the Partial Charge action; although now I look it doesn't appear to be in the PRD...
It is a little hidden, since it is not called a 'Partial Charge' anymore:
PRD -> Combat -> Special Attacks -> Charge:
One of the rules for Jump which were included in 3.5 but are not mentioned in Pathfinder is the 'vertical reach' for creatures.
3.5 SRD -> Jump Skill:
"High Jump: A high jump is a vertical leap made to reach a ledge high above or to grasp something overhead. The DC is equal to 4 times the distance to be cleared.
If you jumped up to grab something, a successful check indicates that you reached the desired height. If you wish to pull yourself up, you can do so with a move action and a DC 15 Climb check. If you fail the Jump check, you do not reach the height, and you land on your feet in the same spot from which you jumped. As with a long jump, the DC is doubled if you do not get a running start of at least 20 feet.
High Jump Distance(1)____Jump DC(2)
Obviously, the difficulty of reaching a given height varies according to the size of the character or creature. The maximum vertical reach (height the creature can reach without jumping) for an average creature of a given size is shown on the table below. (As a Medium creature, a typical human can reach 8 feet without jumping.)
Creature Size____Vertical Reach
While it is not mentioned in the Acrobatics rules for jumping in Pathfinder, I don't find particularily unbalanced to apply the 'vertical reach' for creatures while making a high jump, in order to allow them to 'grab' with their appendages the object they are trying to reach (in this case, the ground level above their head) and then climb themselves up to it.
As a simple rule, I usually allow any creature to use their natural reach as a means to 'close the gap' while jumping (which is, in order to reach the summit of a 10ft. wall, a Medium size humanoid has to jump only 5 ft. - thanks to their 5 ft. natural reach, their hands can grab the upper limit of the wall and then they have only to climb.
Just my 2c.
Greetings, i have a question regarding this order shipped in Italy.
I've received a couple of months ago (14th December 2010) an email saying that the package with my order was about to ship; since I'm in Italy I was expecting to wait about a month (my previous orders took from 2 to 6 weeks to come), however after two months it still hasn't arrived.
Can you please provide me the tracking number of the shipment itself, or some other ways to help me track it? I fear that the package could be stuck somewhere between the customs and the postal office, but without the tracking number I have no means to check for it by myself...
I agree with BigNorseWolf. I've always read that AMF (and similar abilities, like the Anti-Magic Cone of the Beholder) blocks line of effect to spells, otherwise the ability would be almost useless.
Think of it: the Wizard casts AMF and stands into a 10-ft wide corridor. If AMF would not block Line of Effect, we could:
- cast Dominate Person on the Wizard, then wait AMF to end and start giving orders to the Wizard
A Beholder would be SERIOUSLY weakened by this reading; any spell could still affect it - even if the Wizard would cast them inside the AM Cone - because they could, apparently, manifest (without effect) and 'pass through' the AM area... and smack it into the eye or the body (where the AM cone cannot protect it).
Not mentioning the fact that a Wizard could still cast all his spells through his own AMF and affect his enemies - hey, the target is outside the AMF, so why not ?
Sorry but I would never use it that way.
PRD -> Advanced -> Base Classes -> Summoner -> Eidolon -> 1-point evolutions:
"Slam (Ex): An eidolon can deliver a devastating slam attack. This attack is a primary attack. The slam deals 1d8 points of damage (2d6 if Large, 2d8 if Huge). The eidolon must have the limbs (arms) evolution to take this evolution. Alternatively, the eidolon can replace the claws from its base form with this slam attack (this still costs 1 evolution point). This evolution can be selected more than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number of the limbs evolution."
Basically, it requires a Limb (Arms) evolution for each Slam evolution.
PRD -> Monsters -> Universal Monster Rules:
"Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.
Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description."
The only Natural Attacks which have this particular exception (of which I'm aware on) are the Rend Evolution and the Bite Evolution, and even then, to benefit from the extra Strength the Bite Evolution needs to be already present on the Eidolon itself - and then improved through the Bite Evolution again.
Bite (Ex): An eidolon's maw is full of razor-sharp teeth, giving it a bite attack. This attack is a primary attack. The bite deals 1d6 points of damage (1d8 if Large, 2d6 if Huge). If the eidolon already has a bite attack, this evolution allows it to deal 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls made with its bite.
There are some debates on what this means; I am personally of the idea that it means that the Eidolon must be of the Quadruped or Serpentine Base form - which gives a Bite Evolution 'for free' - and then take the Bite Evolution on its own (since an evolution, unless specified , can be taken only ONCE, and the Bite Evolution doesn't specify that it can be taken multiple times). But again, other people dissent from this reading, so...
Hope this can be of any help.