Thrall of Orcus's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK...you use an item to boost your caster level. Sunder the item, you no longer qualify, you die?

Its your game, but those sorts of shenanigans getting pulled by a dm are what lead players to doing it.

A similar situation is the schtick of the BBEG in the 3rd Kingmaker installment. Without spoiling it much:

So, I could see in this sense, as a lich and if your body is destroyed, but you are relying on that ioun stone for the +1 CL to have the CL 11+, you would drop to CL 10 (since you cannot access or use the ioun stone's ability), and therefore you would be dead for the reason in the spoiler above. Seems like a weakness and poor idea for becoming a lich. Of course, this might also fit the idea that an adept figures the way to become a lich (a flawed way) and makes an interesting twist if you want a one-shot lich villian.

OK, website has been updated and PCs posted.

Carrion Crown Campaign Website

Hmm...I'm thinking the game might be dead before it has even started.

Thread started August 16th (34 days ago).
34 posts made in the first week (Aug 16 to Aug 23)
15 posts made since then (including this one) in the last 26 days.
No other posts made now for over a week since MY last one.
No new PCs posted yet by anyone else. One sounds possibly done but was never posted as claimed it would be (almost 2 weeks ago), so may not be ready afterall.

I'm thinking that if it takes over a month for people to make or post a PC, which we are talking 20-30 mins work at absolute most (it is level 1 for pete's sake), obviously people are not interested or dedicated to playing it would seem to me...which means most likely we are wasting our time here.

What does that say for how fast such a game would go? At this rate, might be 3 years before the first adventure is done. Hell, my tabletop games don't take that long playing three times every two months for a full six adventure paths...

Yep, pretty sure things are looking very bleak...

By RAW, I do not need a line of sight to my target, only line of effect.

That simply is untrue.

Dispel Magic would not work since you have to "target" the spellcaster. It seems like you are misunderstanding the rules behind the differences in line of sight and line of effect.

Per RAW, Aiming a Spell:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

Per RAW the Dispel Magic spell: You choose to use dispel magic in one of two ways: a targeted dispel or a counterspell. Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell...

----
So, I don't know where you were getting that you didn't need line of sight. Simply put, unless you could use Dispel Magic as a counterspell at the time the Invisibility spell is being cast by the opponent on their turn, once they are invisible, it is too late for you, which given the example, is true since they are invisbile by the time you get your turn to cast Dispel Magic (unless you can detect them in some other fashion, like see invisibility, etc...)

In this scenario, what you would need to do is use a spell like Greater Dispel Magic. That allows you to use an additonal option to dispel...the area dispel option with the Greater Dispel Magic spell's 20-foot burst. Assuming the invisible opponent is in the area, you would possibly be able to dispel his invisibility effect since the Greater Dispel Magic is an area of effect in this case, not a targeted effect.

Of course, there may be other options too, like invisibility purge, see invisibility, true seeing, etc...

With your incorrect interpretation of simply being able to target the caster after the fact (even after he is invisible), it makes such other spell options as I mentioned above useless...and since they are in the game, logically, that cannot obviously be true. :)

Are not Bracers of Armor wrist slot items?

That may hurt my future AC.

No they aren't wrist items. But you can kiss the thought of gloves goodbye. Bracers by the way are ARM items.

Did I miss something here? Bracers of Armor sure ARE wrist slot items! What is this nonexistent ARM slot you speak of?

Per RAW, there are HAND and WRIST slots, but no ARM slots.

No other PCs posted yet?? Come on peeps...
:)

Okay, made the template available for download if anyone has Word and wants to use it themselves. Just make the changes needed for your character, delete any lines or info that is not necessary for your character, and save. You can use my character (Viktor Nivorski) as a reference to give you a better idea on what you should change or delete when compared to the raw template to make it look all nice.

You can view a copy of the raw template here if you want to see it: View the Template

Otherwise, download the template in Word format here: Download Template

If anyone wants to use the template and then have their character hosted online (assuming you cannot host it yourself), you can email me your updated word document at jtaylor@eldereyeprintworks.com and I will host it on my server as I did my own.

If it helps, you can also cut and paste things from the Pathfinder PRD which has all the info from the main core books.

Maybe, if enough people decide to use the template and/or post character sheets online, I might even get ambitious and make a webpage to house them all for everyone's use (no promises, depends on if I have the time or desire). If not, or no one else needs to use the template, no problem. Enjoy.

Sure, can post them there if need be.

Not a sheet per say...just a template in Microsoft Word (based off of the monster format) which is then saved as a html document and uploaded to the server.

Being a Word Document, makes for easy updating as level-ups occur. Plus allows copy/paste straight from the paizo SRD.

Can make the template available to anyone if they want it and have a copy of Microsoft Word (2007 or later).

*cricket chirp* *cricket chirp*
*faint whistle of the wind*

Well, technically, anyone wielding a pair of two-handed weapons, one in each hand, is comical and unbelievable if you ask me.

As for your gnome doing so in WoW, I have one thing to say to that...

For the Horde! -charge of armoured feet-

:)

Especially if its a gnome fighter with a two handed weapon with reach. NOt very belivable.

Well, not entirely unbeleivable when you use the math. Think of a single square on a battlemat - a 5 ft. square. A medium creature fits in that square and is using a polearm (for arguement's sake, lets make the polearm 7 feet long). We already know a medium creature can threaten a neighboring square (so, in essence, can strike something 5 feet away with a regular weapon, the maximum far edge of the neighbouring square). The polearm (a reach weapon) adds a little less than 7 feet to that (since you have to hold or wield it properly, (we'll say that takes 2 feet, so lets say it only adds 5 more feet of reach) for a total of 10 feet or so, or, up to two squares away.

Now, we do the same thing with a small sized creature. Still fills the 5 foot square and can threaten 5 feet away per the basic rules. No change there. Now, even if the polearm is smaller (lets make it half size, or 3 1/2 feet long.) Still needs to wield it (we'll take the 2 feet and half that, so 1 foot), so, extends his reach 2 1/2 feet or so. That's still 7 1/2 feet, so, still about midway into the 2nd square, so, still satisfying the reach rules and affecting an enemey two squares away just like a medium creautre doing the same.

Even if you were to play devil's advocate and cut everything in half (small creatures were to only threaten 2 1/2 feet away (or half a square) vs. a medium creature's normal 5 feet (1 square)), add the smaller polearm reach of 2 1/2 feet (minus the handling room of the 1 foot as before), you still get the minimum of 5 feet with the polearm which is one square away, but on the edge of the second square.

So, in essence, the small creature with a reach weapon averages between 5 and 7 1/2 feet of reach. If so, for arguement's sake, why not just have it be the same as a medum creature since there are no mechanics for threatening only half-a-square around you (instead of the one for all small and medium creatures normally do), and the math is not significantly different when rounding to 5 foot squares. Otherwise, what would be the point of a reach weapon for a small sized attacker? You're small and you can normally attack into the square beside you to hit an enemy, but with a reach weapon, you can still only attack into the square beside you?!? That seems FAR more unrealistic and unbelievable to me.

When things get smaller or larger, that's where the math gets wonky, so, that's why weapon sizes and reach range changes, as well as threatened squares. In essence, it seems logical to give the small guys the same benefit for reach as medium creatures, especially since small guys typically get peanlized with less damage due to smaller weapon sizes and lower physical stats anyway.

Besides, not very often someone even bothers with reach weapons. They really aren't that great (since you can't use most of them) with an enemy beside you, a 5-foot step covers the reach distance usually (something anyone can do and still full-attack), and using one through a friendly's space still grants a soft-cover AC bonus to the target. Waste of time if you ask me. Only good for setting to receive a charge or against mounts (which is what the whole purpose of them was historically anyhow).

Okay, missed one then. 16, 16, 15, 13, 12, 14.

I'll use the definitions in future. Also, if you need a place to "host" character sheets I can do it through my site. Otherwise, we can just post them here.

Works for me.

I think the larger complaint is not that the rogue is not necessary, but that the general consensus seems to be it is entirely obsolete and outclassed by everything else.

Something something balance.

Hmm, I personally do not believe the rogue is obsolete. Is one necessary? Not always. As demonstrated, there are many ways to overcome traps and do many of the things a rogue is "known" for. However, as also pointed out, these alternate methods usually take up party resources (in terms of spells, items, hit points, time, money, reputation, etc) or involve archetypes (potentially giving up other necessary skills or class features, depending on the campaign needs and/or archetype chosen).

If you can't or don't have a rogue, it isn't the end of the world. But a PC class that has decent fighting ability (not even including archetype options), and that can also more effectively deal with the traps issue will never be obsolete....especially one that earns the party XP for dealing with said traps and doesn't necessarily have to use up their resources in doing so. That's not even including the other things a rogue can do in the right campaign circumstances (beyond traps).

Personally, I tire of these endless arguements over obsolete or ineffective class options. IMHO, usually that is indicitive of poor imagination or overall power-gaming...but that is another thread entirely. ;)

An NPC to split treasure with? Nope. He dies once his usefulness is up. Or maybe just tied up and left depending on your alignment.

So this doesn't modify or affect how difficult it is in future to get hirlings to help? Certainly would in my games after the PCs get a reputation of murdering / abandoning hirlings. Plus, I don't see any good-aligned PC doing this under any circumstances (so unless it is a neutral / evil party, not really realistic - and I am talking about the OP's party, not yours since we are trying to give him advice. Considering there is a Paladin, I don't see it happening).

Two simple tools / weapons (okay, maybe not so simple, some cost involved here).

Adamantine Crowbar.
Adamantine Pick.

110010111101, or, for the non-binary afficionados, 3261.

How can one not find this book of use if you run your own campaign?

For all the nay-sayers, those that "prefer" to build their own NPCs, or even those that want to optimize and/or use archtypes: this is a "time-saver". Copy, Paste, and Make Changes. Still saves time from doing it all from scratch.

For anyone else, having level-appropriate stats on the fly is a win.

With a busy lifestyle, this is worth it's weight in gold to any GM unable to devote the little precious time they have in campaign prep for making NPCs or suitable NPC opponents.

I have it on good authority that Orcus approves of this one.

I'd explode in the face! His name is...

life is like a photon torpedo - Just when...

Hmmm... Could there be a planar gate in the center of the Eye of Abendego? That could explain the giant whirlpool, and also why it stays constant and stationary.

I like to think that a Sphere of Annihilation has something to do with the Eye of Abendego. After all, Classic Treasures Revisited hints at such a possibility.

"A sphere deposited within a lake or volcanic chamber would, in short order, form a massive whirlpool before finally draining the water or molten rock away like a vampire bleeding its victim dry, leaving only an alluvial crater or empty basalt hollow behind. Lodged in the depths of a sea, it might drain that as well, given enough time, but from its first immersion it would certainly form a whirlpool, even altering ocean currents if given enough time."

I'm thinking that would certainly alter weather and currents given the time frame we are talking about since Aroden's death. Also explains a stationary, ever-lasting storm.

Perhaps we're even talking about some kind of super-massive Sphere of Annihilation? Of course, I don't know how that could tie-in with Aroden.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since a headband of mental prowess grants a bonus to two mental abilities, the temporary function for 24 hours depends on what those abilities are.

Temporary Intelligence: Temporary increases to your Intelligence score give you a bonus on Intelligence-based skill checks. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence.

Temporary Wisdom: Temporary increases to your Wisdom score give you a bonus on Wisdom-based skill checks and Will saving throws. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Wisdom.

Temporary Charisma: Temporary increases to your Charisma score give you a bonus on Charisma-based skill checks. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Charisma and the DC to resist your channeled energy.

After the 24 hours is up, these bonuses become permanent as long as the headband is continuouly worn. (Prevents the swapping of the headband between people more or less for greater effect).

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

Are opponents only panicked within the aura's area of effect? Do they snap out of it once they leave? How does this work?

Do creatures have to save against a fear aura every round, or does making the save render you immune to the aura thereafter

As stated previously, the monster's information should answer these questions if anything special is at work. Otherwise, you treat is as the fear spell...which usually causes the panicked conditon (drop anything they hold and flee at top speed from the source of the fear, as well as any other dangers they encounter, along a random path, can't take any other actions, etc...)

It lasts until the duration runs out, and should they re-enter the aura, they are susceptible again unless the monster description says they are immune on a successful save (some do, some don't).

Fear can be powerful against an ill-prepared party, but since there are ways to overcome it (fighters get bravery, remove fear is only a 1st level cleric or bard spell, etc.), it isn't too bad. There are far worse things.

....thus being on the side opposite of the point you are trying to make.

Not at all the opposite point of what I was trying to make. However, it is clear you missed or ignored the point I was trying to make (being you could argue the same debate about every class name so why not change them all - but that would lessen the overall experience of the game from what most people view the game and genre to be about. At some point you would have to use generic names to not have the same debate come up again and again over any name chosen, thus removing the mythological, historical, and popular culture from the game that it IS based on. That is why change for change's sake is not an improvement).

However, since you insist on quoting only selected sections of posts to support your own arguement, and often taking them out of context (which you have done twice with my own posts, not counting others) and ignoring or not addressing anything otherwise, it would seem we will just have to agree to disagree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...but the point remains BARBARIAN is a name of a group or tribe of people who may have nothing in the slightest to do with the nature of the class.

This is where your opinion obviously deviates. You would suggest changing the class name because of this reason quoted, yet, to me at least (and many others it seems based on posts so far), it seems easier just changing the generalized "adjective" you are using to describe a tribe of primitive, savage, or culturaly different peoples.

Personally, I would tend to use something more descriptive anyway, instead of merely calling a group or tribe "barbarians", I would tend to call them something distinctive or more proper in name such as "The Black Fang", "The Red Riders", or the "River People" to give the group a more interesting flavor or colorful description fitting their nature, unless it is a comment being made as some form of insult that is derogatory to said group (in which other adjectives could also be chosen other than simple "barbarian" to avoid such confusion or assumption).

I still don't understand the reasoning behind arguing the point that the class name should be changed simply because it has class features that doesn't fit a generalized term in the english language.

In that case...why don't we also advocate changing the class name of "Paladin". After all, the definition of a paladin is: any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne; any knightly or heroic champion; any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause. Surely there are several other classes that fit that bill. It could be argued that any class of PC adventurer could be a heroic champion or a defender of a noble cause. Not to mention, where does the class features of lay on hands, divine health, spellcasting, or channeling positive energy fit into this english language "definition" of a paladin?

Therefore, by your same logic, it too should be changed. It must be better to change it since leaving it is "wrong" in feel. We should just scrap the name regardless of what most people would argue a RPG Paladin is all about. Why not change all the class names while we are at it? (Hence my original parady post with class name changes.) Surely a similar arguement could be made for any of them. Where does it end?

At what point does change for change's sake take a fantasy game that is based on mythology and popular culture and turn it into a fantasy game in name only (losing the "feel" of what most would argue is the whole point of the genre in general)?

My $0.02.

Thrall of Orcus wrote:

(vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).

So, your point is that we should hold on to golden cows, because once a thing is made, it can never be improved.

No, I never did say that nor imply it. However, I did imply that change for change's sake does not improve things, as in the example paradies of changing the class names for little reason or benefit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Time to play Devil's Advocate.
Yeah, we should start changing the names of classes because we can, solely because some people dislike the archetypes certain names bring forth (although some of this is likely by design and surely some of it is due to nostalgia) and also because things should change simply because change is good (vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).

For example, these classes should now be renamed and known as:

Alchemist = Apothecary
Barbarian = Savage
Bard = Historian
Cavalier = Outrider
Cleric = Devoutee
Druid = Naturalist
Fighter = Warrior
Inquisitor = Interrogator
Monk = Pugilist
Oracle = Prophet
Paladin = Crusader
Ranger = Warden
Rogue = Knave
Sorcerer = Invoker
Summoner = Conjurer
Witch = Crone
Wizard = Magician

Yep...definately seems better for our beloved roleplaying game. Generic terms for all so that anyone can develop whatever character archetype they want. Definately feels like a much better fantasy RPG. Much, much better...

At the moment, the group is at 6/6/5/4. Being a level 8 X/Y/Z is already out. Starting at level 7 is out. The level 5 isn't too far off, while the level 4 is unfortunately bad with his attendance. They are started off at the same level.

The fact that this player had the nerve to ask to be level 8 to begin with seems to indicate the "type of player" he is.

If (and I say "if" with reservation, since only you as the GM would know for sure), the player of the level 4 PC is bad with attendance and such is the only reason they are so far behind, then I might let the new PC be level 5...especially since you say the level 5 PC is nearly ready to level to 6. But starting at 8 (2 levels higher) is ridiculous, as would be starting at 7 (1 level higher). Starting at 6 seems a poor choice for those that got there honestly, or are about to get there. I might allow starting at level 5 in this situation (maybe half-way to level 6 XP-wise at best) - but definately behind the existing PCs. That would keep things at approximately 1 level between PCs (writing off the level 4 as attendence seems to be an issue). Given that this new player "believes" he is obviously a "PC creation mechanical genius", being one-level behind shouldn't be an issue unless he really is talking "smack".

leo1925 wrote:

I want to say that i find a very bad idea to have PCs of different levels inside the same party.

True, but only if the level difference is large. The OP is only suggesting that the new guy come in at the same level as the current lowest level player, which appears to be one level lower than the rest.

Absolutely the new guy needs to start no higher than the current lowest level player in the game. New guys never get to start more powerful then a existing player.

Agreed 100%. Allowing another player to start at a higher level than the lowest level PC in the party only creates resentment in those players that are lower level. They worked hard to get where they are. Why should someone start at a higher level? The only time I could see this as acceptable is by all the player's consent and in a situation where an experienced player might be trying to help out inexperienced or new players...but even that is a stretch in my books.

As for having different level PCs in a party, it can be an issue if more than a single level apart. Start getting 2 or more levels different, and it will wind up being an issue at some point, especially with trying to balance encounters.

Thrall of Orcus wrote:

After all, why should a PC (or all the PCs) gain any XP for something they didn't do on their own?

.

They used a class feature to overcome an encounter, no different than a Druid neutering an encounter with say... Wall of Thorns or a similar effect.

The fact that the encounters are not well enough designed to provide a challenge is not the players fault, after all.

Hence why I said a GM can also occasionally reward PCs for creative ways of bypassing situations and coming up with clever ways around things.

However, having said that, if it is a constant thing and being abused, such as the example of having a shadow clear out a whole dungeon, ahead of the PCs, that goes beyond "a clever way around things". The PCs got the result they were looking for (no risk, a cleared out dungeon, and potential free loot), but shouldn't gain the XP for such encounters. Why be adventuring in the first place and not sitting at home while your minion adventures for you then.

Using a class feature is one thing, and completely fine. Abusing a class-feature is entirely different and a responsible GM should address such issues, especially if it is on the boundary of game-breaking (as the example mentioned).

As for the comment about encounters not being designed to provide a challenge - again why I implied the GM's role is a balancing act and things are a two-way street to begin with.

Ravingdork wrote:

Maybe he's thinking his shadow companion will kill everything? It being incorporeal and having an at will ability damage attack makes it quite formidable in many (but not all) circumstances.

I've had a shadowdancer in a game or two, and I'll tell you this: most Paizo modules are wholly unprepared for shadowdancers, or more specifically, their companions. I've had entire dungeons cleared out by a single shadow that went ahead of the party, avoiding all the traps and killing enemy monsters with impunity.

Maybe you've stumbled on the true plan. That would be perhaps FAR more annoying than an assassin sitting about for three rounds per death strike...

I wouldn't know what to do if that happened, other than penalize the party for doing NOTHING but that seems wrong.

Personally, easy fix for me GMing that situation:

"Sure, it was awesome for you to use your shadow to kill everything! Bravo! Okay, your PC (or each PC) gains 0 XP for those encounters."

After all, why should a PC (or all the PCs) gain any XP for something they didn't do on their own? It might seem wrong, as you say, but to me, it is MORE wrong to reward the PC (or PCs) for doing nothing and to learn nothing from such (an abstract way of looking at the reward of XP to begin with). Using your companion (or familiar, animal comapanion, cohort, etc.) to help you in a battle, or with a situation, is one thing and completely acceptable. To have a companion (or familiar, animal comapanion, cohort, etc.) do everything for you, even when you may not even be present, is an entirely different piece of "cheese" (unless the game revolves around such a concept). To me, that really defeats the whole point of playing the game to begin with.

Yes, it could be argued the PCs still gain all the loot from such a situation described above, and that's still a reward and potential problem. For me, that's fine. But then, they have no one to blame but themselves when the next few adventures are "lean" since the average party wealth is above the curve.

Player's need to understand that a game is a two-way street. If they abuse it in one direction, the GM is fully justified to adjust it the other way to balance things out. If you are honest with your players with this kind of reasoning, my experience shows that players don't go too crazy in the big picture since they know the GM is keeping tabs.

That's not to say though that a GM cannot also occasionally reward PCs for creative ways of bypassing situations and coming up with clever ways around things or sections of a module or adventure. That's why the GM role is a balancing act to begin with.

I too would have an interest in this.

Well, there is the viable option that they could shoehorn everything of a Realmslore point of view into the timeline before the spellplague. After all, they did advance the timeline of things almost 100 years in the process of 3.5e to 4e, and if I recall correctly (being an avid Realms fan and owning every Realms item in print, although I'm going off memory here), I believe the main Realms timeline for 1e, 2e, 3.0e, and 3.5e only goes forward more or less about 80 or so 'in-game' timeline years. Thirty-ish actual years of product releases (excluding specialized things like Netheril that operate outside the normal timeline) means they have enough 'gap' time to fulfill any future 5e product releases for the Realms for the foreseeable future if they chose to do it that way.

Of course, that would be less than satisfying, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was how they did it as far as Realmslore goes. While I am not adverse to the idea of the spellplague (it is an interesting plot device from a storyline point-of-view - not a game mechanical one), the mass changes to the landscape with Abeir-Toril merging, the change of continents and nations, and mass deicide were the things I hated most.

CrackedOzy wrote:

Bummer, I was looking for a loophole around a PC's defenses.

Dispel Magic.

To be fair the PC is using two spells to get this. Those are spells he will not have for later encounters.

Very true. For example, a 5th level wizard most likely only has three 2nd levels spells prepared on average, and using two up on a single fight is significant especially when it does nothing towards defeating your foes in any way. Also, since the duration of each spell is only 1 min/level - on average, I'd wager the tactic is probably only good for a single battle or a really quick succession of small battles. Not to mention while this might be a great defensive combo for a lower level encounter, against, higher level combatants, they'll most likely have spells, magic items, or other means around this.

A low-level caster would be better off using two 1st level spells (Mage Armor and Shield) if the intent is to avoid being hit and using the two 2nd level spell slots on offense in my opinion.

Bummer, I was looking for a loophole around a PC's defenses.

Well, of course True Seeing is effective, but if you are looking at a lower level alternative, I'd suggest a nice melee type opponent that closes his eyes and fights using the Blind-Fight feat is one possibility...such has issues of its own (greater chance of concealment - 50% vs. 20% - though the attacker gets a reroll against the concealment too, and it does negate the multiple images). Certainly another option.

As strange as it sounds, I do not see any reason these wouldn't work together. The Blur spell is a glamer type of illusion, while the Mirror Image spell is a figment type of illusion. Nothing in the rules that I see says these types of illusions cannot interact.

According to the SRD,
A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment.

A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

In fact, per the SRD:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

As far as I am concerned, that basically implies no reason why they shouldn't work together. However, I would adjudicate the Blur effect before the Mirror Image effect since that is more intuitive as a figment normally has an associated AC and the concealment should have a change of negating a potential hit prior to determining what is struck as far as the multiple images go.

Haven't seen anyone mention this one.

Touch Spells in Combat:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Thus, if you are smart, the cleric no longer needs to make a melee touch attack against a friendly target to heal them, and can also stay back 10 feet, and when needed, cast a cure spell, move up and touch the friendly fighter, thus not worrying about having the cure spell interfered with.

So:

1) Pathfinder doesn't actually have any rules on mount size for ordinary riding, just on allowed Cavalier class feature mounts.

2) Pathfinder rules directly establish that members of an explicitly Medium race (dwarves) can use an explicitly Medium mount (pony).

3) Actual real-world data indicates adult humans can ride a Medium mount, given historical uses of ponies, donkeys, and mules for riding by normal-sized humans in the real world.

And, from that set of data, it's supposed to be "common sense" that there's a requirement that mounts have to be a size category larger than their riders.

Incorrect on count (2).

As far as pony goes, the PRD states:

Like horses, ponies can be trained for combat with the Handle Animal skill, and such mounts often serve halflings, gnomes, and other small races as steeds in combat.

Dwarves would have to use a horse (per PRD):

A horse is suitable as a mount for a human, dwarf, elf, half-elf, or half-orc. A pony is smaller than a horse and is a suitable mount for a gnome or halfling.

As for count (1), there was a ruling previously that stated mounts had to be larger than you. It is somehow vacant or missing now, but "common sense" does show that all example mounts fall under this ruling. Look at all the sample mounts and this common sense is there.

If you want to use an ill suited mount, it would involve a ride check penalty as per the Ride skill, assuming it could support you.

Darthgaul wrote:

Any word as to when this mini will be available?

He was scheduled for July.

Since July is almost over...and thus, a repeat of the question.

Any word as to when this mini will be available?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

if my wizard PC were behind 4 PCs standing 2x2 fighting an Ogre he could lightning bolt the ogre without hitting any of the PCs standing between him and the ogre... Or would it also miss the ogre even though it travels straight through him?

Hopefully this puts a better visualization of this question about using a lightning bolt along the edges of a square in the above scenario. For those that argue that the line is going through the ogre and should thus affect him, all I can say is it is the LINE OF EFFECT which is different than the AREA OF EFFECT. Area of effect cannot be zero (after all, what is the point of casting a spell then?)

Visual

My last post on the subject...happy debating all! ;)

But I'm more interested in the 15' cone Sean, as you seem to think that the

xxx
xxx
0x0
0C0

Is a valid 15' cone. But I'm not seeing how that is the case. If you take the upper left corner of the caster's square C to be the point of origin then the far upper right hand corner square is 20' away from it!

-James

Nope, it is a valid 15-foot cone.

On line: 0x0
assuming the x, upper left corner = 5 ft.

On next line: xxx
assuming either center x or rightmost x, again using the upper left corner, now = 10 ft.

On last line: xxx
rightmost x, upper left hand corner = 15 feet.

Since you (the caster) are in the square diagonally down and to the right of the starting origin corner, the uppermost right square is in the area of effect since it is also down and to the right of your end point.
It's exactly the same if you use the upper right hand corners too.
You have to think squares for area of effect.
In this case, think of it as if it was movement.

any more than you have to move at 90-degree angles when you charge because the charge rule says you have to move in a "straight line."

LOL. Why do I get the feeling this is going to open up an all new debate on charging. :)

Common sense isn't always that common sometimes.

I'm not sure you're getting what james is saying here.

Oh, I'm getting exactly what is being said. You can't affect the ogre since the edge lines of the squares it occupies isn't a legal area of the spell effect....no squares are being affected by the spell along the edges. To affect the ogre, you have to target a row of squares that it occupies - that is LINE of EFFECT. And to do so, you would hit your allies. You cannot choose to ignore them simply because the ogre stradles the line.

Common sense goes a LONG way. Not to mention, there is no need to try and manipulate the rules in this fashion. Feats are written for a reason to do this (break the rules so to speak, compared to what you can normally do).
That's why there is a feat called:

Selective Spell (Metamagic)
Your allies need not fear friendly fire.

Prerequisite: Spellcraft 10 ranks.

Benefit: When casting a selective spell with an area effect, you can choose a number of targets in the area equal to the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type (Charisma for bards, oracles, paladins, sorcerers, and summoners; Intelligence for witches and wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, inquisitors, and rangers). These targets are excluded from the effects of your spell. A selective spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Spells that do not have an area of effect do not benefit from this feat.

What happens to the bystanders?

In your example, assuming we are still talking about a lightning bolt spell, the bolt passes along row 3 and three poor bystanders get fried (unless they pass their saves and only get partially fried).

But under such a scenario, the caster might be able to move to square B5 or C4 (assuming SE start point), and then cast the lightning bolt assuming terrain/walls/obstacles don't prevent this - thus, no bystanders harmed, target fried.

If this is correct, then if my wizard PC were behind 4 PCs standing 2x2 fighting an Ogre he could lightning bolt the ogre without hitting any of the PCs standing between him and the ogre... Or would it also miss the ogre even though it travels straight through him?

Not true. The PCs would get zapped to get the ogre (spellcaster oops), or you'd be wiser not to use that spell. A spell area affects SQUARES. Even though you can use the edge of squares for line of sight, LINE OF EFFECT is entirely different.

How is this not one of the possibilities for the 15' cone?

It's not. Per the cone description,

"A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate."

Also it is quite plain in the description of a spell's area:
"When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection."

And,
"If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell."

The first row out is only one square. Think of it as a limitation of trying to draw a true cone on a square grid.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. The diagrams show two posibilities for the 15-foot cone. With those two templates, ANY
15-foot cone can be figured out by rotating them, shifting them, and/or mirror-flipping them.
Just use the templates and problem solved. :)

As the Thrall of Orcus mentioned, there used to be versions of the spell in previous rules which allowed you to double the width by halving the length. Bringing that option back could be a fun house rule for DMs who want to see more balance between the utility of Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

Since Lightning Bolt often shows up on spell lists which lack Fireball this would give a little power boost to classes like Adept and Witch. I don't think it would be enough to upset game balance significantly though.

True enough, though I figure that is what the Widen Spell Metamagic feat would be for! ;)

Widen Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast your spells so that they occupy a larger space.

Benefit: You can alter a burst, emanation, line, or spread-shaped spell to increase its area. Any numeric measurements of the spell's area increase by 100%. A widened spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual level.
Spells that do not have an area of one of these four sorts are not affected by this feat.

Nope,
I am prety sure you've been doing it wrong, since all the spell effects are dictated in the Core Rulebook, and lightning bolt being a line follows the diagrams on page 215 of the Core rulebook.

Seems to me that a combination of factors is where the mixup has come from (especially as you put it, you picked up this rule from other players).

Seems like the first issue is an old hold-over from 2nd edition where you could make a lightning bolt either do a long five-foot wide bolt or a shorter 10-foot wide bolt.

Also, I think the mixup might also come from the difference in spell effects for a radius spread and a line. With a radius spread effect, you pick a crosshair of hexes to be the center of the effect (i.e. a fireball). With a line effect spell, you do pick a corner of your square and you pick a corner of the farthest square it will effect, but you would use a drawn line, ruler, straightedge, etc) to check this new line between the chosen corners, and per the Core Rules,

"a line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes".

Thus, it effects only squares along this new line(see the diagrams on page 215). If you do this correctly, you can mimic all the diagrams in the book - they are all only 1 square wide. With your idea of the line down the middle of two rows, you are not affecting any squares as it does not pass through any.

The spell diagrams pretty much sum this up as does the area of effect descriptions on the same page.

Wraithcannon wrote:

You option is pretty much full-round action Acrobatics to roll 5ft.

Except you ony get a standard or move action when disabled...that's why I missed that part with my first post. ;)

That is why the Restricted Withdrawl might be better - at least you can move your full speed with no skill checks and not have that first square's movement suffer an AoO.

A 5-foot step could backfire assuming the enemy has Step Up as a feat. I missed the part about the fighter being disabled. Since you are limited to only a single move action or standard action with being disabled, a restricted withdraw miught still work: (if you are limited to taking only a standard action each round you can withdraw as a standard action. In this case, you may move up to your speed). This assumes again you can maneuver far enough (depending on your speed) or perhaps put another ally between you and the enemy (for AoO purposes or whatnot), then drink the potion next round.

The Wand idea is a good one if you have a decent chance with Use Magic Device...otherwise, full round action -->Withdrawl (you can move up to double your speed, square you start out in is not considered threatened by opponent, therefore enemy doesn't get attack of opportunity against you when you move from that square). Move far enough away and next round, drink potion.