You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
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.
I couldn't find it in the PFSRD, but on pg468 of the CRB, between Light Generation and Activation it says...
Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage
a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his
weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the
weapon struck.
Luckily there was an errata regarding this rule, please check it on the Game Resource Page
Quote:
Page 468—In the Weapons Section, delete the Damaging Magic Weapons paragraph. Add the following paragraph in its place:
Hardness and Hit Points: Each +1 of a magic weapon’s enhancement bonus adds +2 to its hardness and +10 to its hit points. See also Table 7–12 on page 175.
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.
One benefit.
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.
Two (or even three) benefits.
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.
Keep in mind that the items in question are aalready included in the statblock. The discussion comes from whether or not you should add more stuff to said creature in order to deal with silly questions of where and why this thing is apparently keeping that much stuff.
This is true, but they are not only included in the stat list, they are mentioned among the treasures of the creature itself:
Okay, now I get it. NO I do not think a naked dragon is worth its CR. A CR 19 Ancient Red Dragon isn't squat compared to a shoggoth in terms of party killing potential. At best it's a brute with 15 level sorcerer casting. Strait out of the book minus their triple treasure value, I don't see a them being more than CR 18. It's a dragon. It has that going for it. I imagine it would use its best tricks to the best of its abilities, but frankly the sucker would be dismantled without much effort by a 19th level party. His breath weapon is not very fearsome, his dispels are weaksauce, his attack routine is good but requires him to be ground-zero and not moving and that makes him a target (and your garden variety 19th level martial could tank him quite a few rounds anyway), and the save DCs for his spells are rather low (even a with a +5 base, +5 resistance, and +0 ability, you'll have about a 55% chance of saving against them).
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).
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).
So yes, I believe that the treasure of a creature is part of its CR, and should be used/equipped accordigly.
At the moment, e20 is probably your best bet. Open up a selection of epic level feats such as 10th level spells, epic maneuvers and stuff, but don't ramp up the hit dice.
Stuff like this:
Punch a Hole in Space [Combat, Epic]
Prerequisite: Epic, Stunning Fist
By expending a use of stunning fist, you may use plane shift on a single creature as a spell-like ability (DC = 20 + your wisdom modifier).
As DM, applying what I consider common sense, I'd rule for 10ft outward.
It was clearly thought for medium characters...
What would be the purpose of the spell for a huge/gargantuan/colossal dragon otherwise?
Why all huge+ dragons would have the spell in the default list. To duck and cover? Squeeze in it to protect themselves?
Of course my players are thriving to apply things RAW.
FAQ requesting!
...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'.
Law doesn't mean following the laws. It means internal consistency and personal codes that one follows. This is why some incarnations (see up) of Batman are lawful good, he's very firm in his rules like "no killing". It's also why Paladins must be Lawful Good because of their code.
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:
Spoiler:
PRD wrote:
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
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).
A character without any personal code at all is not Chaotic - it's a crazy lunatic which one day could eat dirt 'because it tastes good' and the following day could cross-dress 'because it's funny'.
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).
Master Arminas... I think you've done it. I think that literally covers all my complaints. Okay, MAD is still there, but the two feats (Weapon Intuition and Weapon Finesse) could counteract a LOT of that.
That is a fantastic monk. Probably should be put in Advice/Homebrew instead of here. Still! That is by far the best version of monk I've seen to date! NICE! :D
Although I don't think they need "Fighter Training." That might be overdoing it a little. :( Think about it, that DEFINITELY cuts in on a Fighter's turf.
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 !!!
Errr, keep in mind that whatever flurry we end up with, Monk has Full BAB while flurrying, so he DOES get the -6/+12 if he flurries. And maybe another attack? Not sure. That's my only complaint.
No, it's been answered in the FAQs somewhere. Monk has BAB15 for the purposes of the feat.
Actually, Monks use Full BaB (unless they will change it in the future).
Quote:
Monk: How does a monk's improved BAB when flurrying interact with feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, which have different effects depending on your BAB?
The monk uses his improved flurrying BAB to determine the effect of those feats.
There is no facing in D&D. They might have been walking behind them, but for all intents and purposes you are just making stuff up to screw with your players.
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.
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.
Either that, or remove the Advanced Talent Master Trick from the Ninja list.
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).
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).
Add the increased bonuses for handling the weapon with two hands (increased STR bonus and increased Power Attack ratio) and the damage goes sky high.
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...)
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 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
"Maximum Dex Bonus: This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Dexterity bonuses in excess of this number are reduced to this number for the purposes of determining the wearer's AC. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer's ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn't affect any other Dexterity-related abilities."
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.
Ok, while I shouldn't have said ALL (point to you), I have to say that the last pick definitely meets the emo-pout (or highly constipated) criteria. As for the others -- still not a look or style that I want in my PF products.
And every cover to a FF game that I can think of has a character depicted that matches my original assessment.
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').
That's cool. Whether it dates me or not, however, when I look at most of the Final Fantasy dudes, I can't help but wonder why they all look like feminized (or at best, androgynous) emo wusses that lack the muscle tone to lift a regular weapon, let alone the giant-sized ones they often carry.
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 :)
There is a middle ground. This is why in my opinion the weapon should be errata'ed as 1H only. It would be the best weapon for 1-2 styles, and worthy of the feat FOR THOSE STYLES, not for EVERY STYLE.
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).
I was rewatching Gurren Lagann again and was struck by the parallel between Pathfinder (D&D) and how the show continues to up the stakes at absurd rates with even bigger and more giant robots.
*FISTBUMP*
Best.Anime.Ever.
"Ore wo dare da to omotte yagaru !!!"
(Who the h*ll do you think I am ?!?)
It's stolen from MMOs. Which used it to poorly ape tabletop. It's not a bad mechanic in a game such as WoW, which has "tanks". Of course, it still doesn't specify melee even there.
Here's how this works in reality: a bank robber taunts the cop, who runs forward to pistol whip him (from 50 feet away, leaving his cover), and gets gunned down. Repeat on each cop.
It's the opposite of realistic. It doesn't even have the saving grace of magic to explain it, either.
It gets less and less realistic with every cop/spellcaster after the first that is forced to fall for it.
"Don't do it Bob! You saw what happened to Pete!"
"Can't help it, Bill! He insulted me Mah!"
*Bob runs out and dies*
"Hey Bill! Is that really your name? Man, the kids at school must have had a heyday with that one! Let me guess, you had a nick name back then? Was it Billy the Goat?"
"I'll kill you Bad Guy!"
*Bill runs out and dies*
So. Stupid.
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...
It's not your question, but this is ridiculously overpowered. +1 enhancement for a cleric or Druid (Amulet of Mighty Fists: Guided) to gain easily as much as 6 attack and damage before hitting 10th level?
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.
However, please remember that for a 1st level character, crafting a Potion of a 3rd-level spell is no easy feat due to the high cost; at half price, a 3rd-level spell potion (like a Cure Seriorus Wounds potion) would still cost 375 gp, which is way beyond the gp possession of such a character. An NPC caster working for the local lord could theorethically have the money at disposal, but a typical PC would still have to wait until 3rd-4th level in order to easily afford to spend such amount of money on a single temporary magic item.
Just my 2c.
EDIT:
Symar wrote:
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.
I mean, in most (if not any) 'not-D&D-based' CRPGs (especially JRPGs) the Monk is a 'bruiser class', self-sufficient, strong and tough. D&D (and by consequence Pathfinder) Monk is... lacking in this area, IMHO.
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).
Can you verify if this is truly the case (two books going to be shipped to me instead of just one) and stop at least one of them before risking to ship an extra unnecessary copy ?
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.
I've set up a replacement to ship out as soon as possible as order 1648914. Please go to your Order History on your My Account page to view the order and make sure the details are correct.
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...
It should A) Be a monk Variant
B) not have sneak attack, Trap finding OR assassinate.
This way the ninja gets his open hand attacks, his ki, his mysterious powers AND can multiclass into rogue or assassin to get the 'kind' on ninja that some people may want to play while others might want another kind.
I think they are trying to package too much into ninja.
The Greater Penetrating Strike feat (which only a Fighter 16th+ can take) allows you to ignore 5 points from DR/- (or 10 points from other types of DR).
I need do know how SR works against flaming sphere.
Every time I move the sphere, do I need to make a check? And if I fail, does the spell finishes?
How about "Produce flame"? If I use the spell to attack an enemy, and I throw a mini-fireball-called-produce-flame. Every time I attack I need to do a check if I succeded in the first one?
From the PRD:
Spoiler:
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.
Spoiler:
"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."
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:
"If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn."
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:
Spoiler:
"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)
1 foot______________________4
2 feet______________________8
3 feet_____________________12
4 feet_____________________16
5 feet_____________________20
6 feet_____________________24
7 feet_____________________28
8 feet_____________________32
1 Not including vertical reach; see below.
2 Requires a 20-foot running start. Without a running start, double the DC.
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.)
Quadrupedal creatures don’t have the same vertical reach as a bipedal creature; treat them as being one size category smaller.
Creature Size____Vertical Reach
Colossal____________128 ft.
Gargantuan___________64 ft.
Huge_________________32 ft.
Large________________16 ft.
Medium________________8 ft.
Small_________________4 ft.
Tiny__________________2 ft.
Diminutive____________1 ft.
Fine________________1/2 ft.
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.
After all, in order to jump over a wall, people don't need necessarily to completely step over it, they can simply reach it with their hands and then climb up ;).
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.
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...
You're not misreading it. I disagree with it. The word "impervious to" does not, to me, imply that some magic can pass through it to the other side. A dragon breathing at a beholder with its eye open wouldn't have a line of fire that didn't exist at it's mouth but did exist behind the beholder... impervious means that the breath can't go through. It's stopped at the dragons mouth as surely as if the breath went into a brick wall.
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
- same with any other long-term spell (Charm Person, Charm Monster, Dominate Monster, and so on)
- cast a spell THROUGH the AMF and affecting all creatures behind the area (Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, Fireball) - like a Globe of Invulnerability (which however specifically says that a spell can pass through it)
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 ?
"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.
However, being a 'regular' Primary attack, it still receives only a Str multiplier of x1... unless it is the ONLY Primary attack it possesses.
PRD -> Monsters -> Universal Monster Rules:
Spoiler:
"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.
Spoiler:
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...
