|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I don't understand why a square grid is still the default for tactical combat with its clunky diagonal distance measurements. I admit that it aligns better for environments with lots of straight lines, but for anything outside of that it's just as messy as a hex grid.
The only other thing I can think of that would be different is that some of the radii would change the amount of spaces effected by certain spells. A 5 foot radius is 4 squares, but only 3 hexes.
If I want to switch between the two I have to flip my vinyl table mat. That means moving all the minis, books, dice, drinks, and paper off the table.
Why would they do this?
I'm looking at the Beast Rider Cavalier in Ultimate Combat and it says that at 4th level a medium cavalier can choose from a list of animal companions. The problem is that most of these companions don't become large until 7th level.
Does that mean you can't even take them or can you still ride them even if they are the same size as you? Can a small cavalier choose from this list as well?
Today's post on the Howling Tower blog suggests a great idea. Get rid of the Perception skill. It outlines 4 different replacements, but the best is the fourth. This particular post uses 4th edition skills as examples, but there are parallels in Pathfinder.
You win initiative and move in front of a monster with your weapon drawn. Your ally casts invisibility and moves behind the monster while drawing his weapon. It's your turn again and you attack the monster. Both you and your ally are threatening the space from opposite sides, but neither you nor the monster are aware of your invisible friend. Do you still get the flanking bonus if you don't know you're in a flank?
From Ultimate Magic.
Quarterstaff Master (Combat) wrote:
You can already fight with a quarterstaff one-handed, because it's a double weapon. Why is this restated in this feat? The only thing this feat does is let you take another feat. If you're taking this, you're probably a monk, and there are so many better options.
The next campaign I run will focus on the heroic adventures to be had while running your own small business. Basically, the party will inherit an old, run-down inn from their estranged relative. He is somehow related (through the use of his long elven life and polymorph and enchantment magic) to all the party members (who will meet for the first time when they all show up to claim their inheritance thinking they are the sole beneficiary).
There will, of course, be a wide variety of monster slaying and traditional fare, but my players really get into the economics of a world. The Pathfinder rules fail in providing this sort of simulation. The main problem I'm running into is that magic items (what the PCs will be hoping to buy with their profits) are so much more expensive than a mug of ale. The first thing I intend to do is drop a zero off the end of all masterwork and magic item prices and give my players far less gold so that it's a little more meaningful. A 245gp +1 longsword is actually in within their grasp if they save up their tips. As-is, magic items are just too expensive, considering they practically litter the landscape.
I also plan to have random events, such as:
Does anyone have any other ideas to make this a fun and rewarding mini game?
Since Bashing is a property of magical armor that gives it a +1 enhancement when used as a weapon, how could I increase it beyond that? Do I treat it as a weapon and start enchanting it using the price for weapon bonuses, but would it just cost 2,000 because it doesn't have any magical weapon bonuses yet? Do I just apply Bashing to it again for another +1 bonus (probably not increasing its size again, because they are from the same source)?
So the camel druid animal companion has a ranged touch attack that sickens the target with no saving throw.
If a balor, a horrific, perverse demon from deep in the abyss, that does nothing but torture souls for its pleasure, is standing knee-deep in blood and gore, and a level 1 druid commands her camel to spit on it, the balor's reaction will be, "eww, gross!" Then be sickened for 1d4 rounds.
Same thing would happen to a zombie, ancient black dragon, stone golem, jelly, or another camel. They would just be so grossed out, regardless of their anatomy, level of sentience, or own putridity, that camel spit would sicken them enough to hamper their ability to perform their everyday abilities.
Is camel spit really so vile?
Are you considered invisible (for purposes of attack bonuses) if your target is completely unaware of you?
If a rogue succeeds on stealth check does he get +2 to his attack roll against his target's flat-footed AC? What about an aboleth attacking with its 15-foot-long tentacle from behind an illusory wall? In both situations, the target of the attack cannot visually locate the attacker; rendering them essentially invisible.
Last night i pit my party against a shadow demon. It is both incorporeal and had has DR 10/ cold iron or good. They were hitting it with their magic weapons, which only do half damage, because they were not ghost touch; nor were they cold iron nor good.
Say they hit for 14 points of damage. Do i subract 10 for DR and halve the 4 for a total of 2 points of damage? Or do i halve the 14 and subtract 10 for a total of 0 points of damage?
As im writing this, it just occurred to me that if it were a mathmatical formula, it would follow the order of operations and divide before subtracting.
In last night's game i subtracted before i divided.
Can a monk wearing full-plate and a shield still flurry if he's under the effects of Freedom of Movement?
Freedom of Movement
The spell description is vague, but it suggests that anything that hinders movement is nullified. Should a monk should still get his full bonus movement and all other abilities that are normally disabled while in armor? Is a fighter's speed still reduced because of heavy armor? What about a wizard's spell failure?
Under handle animal it says that you can Handle Animal as a move action, or a free action if you are a Druid or Ranger, and Druids or Rangers get +4 to Handle their companions.
Does this include any class that gets an animal companion, such as Paladins, Cavaliers, or Clerics with the Animal Domain? In all cases, those classes' animal companions use the Druid rules. What I find odd is that Ranger is singled out under Handle Animal, even though its companion also behaves as if a Druid's.
I'm making a character that only uses a shield, kinda like Eric from that old dungeons and dragons cartoon. So I was wondering, since shields are a one-handed martial weapon, can you wield it in two hands when you bash for that extra damage? He's going to be a cleric, so I'd like to wear a shield and keep one hand free to cast spells.
page 182 of the Core Rulebook wrote:
But in the bestiary, none of the monsters follow this rule in regard to necessity of Two-Weapon Fighting or Multiattack feats. Creatures that use weapons and natural attacks have no penalties beyond their natural attacks being treated as secondary.
Is this just a mistake in the Core Book?
With the Command Undead feat, you control their actions as per the spell Control Undead. It says that intelligent undead get to save everyday, but the spell only lasts minutes. The feat description doesn't say anything how long they are under your control, so I assume it's permanent and doesn't just replicate the spell in respect to duration.
What about number of undead you can command at once? The animate dead spell says 4 hd per caster level, is that only for the spell, and feat is unlimitted?
So I'm making a Goblin Cavalier with a Goblin Dog as his mount, but I am a little unclear as to how mounted combat works. When I charge while mounted, do both the rider and mount get attacks? What about in situations with reach weapons, such as a lance, using ride-by-attack? Does the rider get to make an attack when within reach, then the mount keeps moving and gets to make its bite attack?
What if I give my mount the mobility feat? Does that mean that only it gets +4 against AoOs, but what about the rider? The mount is the one moving him.
I did have another question about the Freedom Subdomain power from the APG, Liberty's Blessing.
Liberty’s Blessing wrote:
What exactly is an effect that grants a save? Does this mean curses and the like that you only get one save against, or things that give you saves every round, like poisons or glitterdusts?
Almost all of the Ninja Tricks are just flat out better than the Rogue Tricks. With the exception of finding and disarming traps, anything a Rogue can do, a Ninja can do better.
Other than the Ki requirement, Rogues could still use most of these tricks once for free. Ya know, why not just make the Ki pool a Trick, and then have all Ki-dependent Ninja Tricks just require the Ki Trick?
I suppose it's a setting thing, but I'm a firm believer in giving classes the tools to fit any setting by expanding on their options. Making classes with names like Ninja, Samurai, and Monk, only make them less likely to be played.
A reach weapon allows the wielder to attack a square 10 feet away, but not squares adjacent to itself. Every second diagonal counts as double distance. Does this mean that a character with a reach weapon is practically defenseless if someone runs up to it diagonally, since its diagonal squares go from 5 feet and then 15 feet, skipping the 10 feet square?
So if I were to take the Catch Off Guard feat(which gains you proficiency with improvised weapons) would I then be able to use any weapon that I lack proficiency in as an improvised weapon while converting its threat range to 20 and x2? What about an inappropriately-sized weapon, could I skirt the penalty to using such an item in the same manner?
Can a Dwarf ride a pony properly? I ask because there seem to be some contradictory passages in the books about it.
In the Core Rule book on page 162 it describes a horse thus:
But in the Bestiary under the "Horse, Pony" entry:
Ponies are smaller breeds of horses better suited to halflings, gnomes, and dwarves, but they also make fond pets for humans as well.
I do recall reading somewhere that a mount should be one size category larger than the rider, but I can't seem to find it(it may have been in a DnD 4e book). Dwarves and ponies are both medium creatures. That rule does make sense to me, but then again the very foundation of the fantasy genre is pretty much based on Dwarves riding around on ponies.
Here's the text on p141 of the core rulebook.
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an
object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size
of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an
object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-
handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than
the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the
same size category as the wielder.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can’t make
optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A
cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size
category of difference between the size of its intended wielder
and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient
with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon
(whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed,
or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered
by one step for each size category of difference between
the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the
weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would
wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed
weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to
something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by
this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.
Now this has drawn some debate between me and another player. He plays a gnomish warrior and we have been getting a lot of medium sized weapons. He thinks that a medium one-handed weapon would have a -2 penalty because it's inappropriately sized. I say that, since a one-handed medium weapon is considered a one size category smaller, a small character could wield it two-handed without penalty.
I want to wield a large greatsword, dealing 2d8 instead of 2d6 damage, taking a -2 penalty on attack rolls for it being inappropriately sized for my medium character. He says that I won't be able to wield it at all, because I would need three hands to wield it since it's a two handed weapon one size larger than myself.
My question is, when is a weapon inappropriately sized?
I was reading through Fingerprints of the Fiend to try to get some ideas and it left me a little confused. This is the first adventure I've read and I had some questions.
In creature stat blocks, what is GRP?
One creature has
written in its tactics section. What does that mean? I thought the dodge feat only gave +1 AC.
And why is there no CMB or CMD listed for any creatures?
I was wondering, since a sorcerer(and bards) does not need to prepare spells ahead of time, does that mean he does not need the materials for it(if a spell requires them)? I know most of the time the material cost of a spell is ignored, but not always for spells that do require a more expensive reagent.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.