Armistril's Shield

anthony Valente's page

Organized Play Member. 1,370 posts (1,371 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.



1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I've been away for a while so I've not kept up on the goings on of Pathfinder's latest adventures and upcoming products.

But I'm wondering if a new Kingmaker-like (as in sandbox, land-based, exploration-like) campaign is in the works any time soon. Adventure campaigns like that really hit the spot.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Specifically, I'm looking at the Bodyguard and Saving Shield feats in the APG.

Bodyguard lets you grant a +2 bonus to an ally's AC by using an AoO.
Saving Shield lets you grant a +2 Shield bonus to an ally's AC as an immediate action.
Both are triggered when an opponent attacks an adjacent ally.

Are doing both at the same time legal?


Had a discussion with a colleague tonight about just exactly how the Stand Still feat technically works and we both came to a different interpretation.

I've always interpreted the text to read that the feat was triggered when an opponent literally tried to move through your adjacent squares. If an opponent was already in one of your adjacent squares and simply retreated (moved straight back from you), then a normal AoO was triggered (excluding a withdraw action of course). His interpretation is that any movement in an adjacent square triggers the feat.

I'd never thought of it that way before, which brings me to this post: which is it?


In my revisiting of feats for my campaign, I'm wondering what would happen if I allowed Power Attack as a combat option instead of a feat. In my house rules, it would just be under Special Attacks in the combat chapter instead of being listed as a feat. I'm talking 3.5 Power Attack here, not the PF version. The PF version would just not be used.

My initial rationalization is that it seems like a feat tax for all serious melee characters anyway, as they really wouldn't function well without it. And it would be the default way of scaling damage output as the game rises in level to do level appropriate damage.

I should add that I only reference the core PF rules. I'll be selectively adding APG elements if my players are interested in them.

Ditto for Deadly Aim. An interaction of significance here is I've changed the Manyshot feat to emulate a cone effect that allows an archer to target multiple creatures in the cone as a standard action (you know, like in the movies).

Any thoughts as to the implications of this in PF core only?


I currently have a non-magical healing mechanic that is similar to Unearthed Arcana's Reserve Hit Points rules. It basically takes those rules and makes them feel a little more believable (i.e. some attacks and forms of damage can hurt you to the point that you can't just recover from right after a fight, like suffering a critical hit or falling into a pool of lava). My players really enjoy the mechanics, but although I find it easy to follow, my players have some difficulty understanding the nuances of it.

I want to keep the same concept of reserve points, but make it easier to understand and use overall. And it's important to me to add in a feature that tells the players "no you can't take a short break and recover your health after you decided to stand naked in the campfire."

So in short, the mechanic is referred to as recovery dice.
The major points:
- you have a number of recovery dice equal to your level
- your die type matches your hit die type
- if you've taken damage, you can spend them after a rest period of 10 minutes
- an attack that does actual damage does Con damage in addition to hp damage
- you regain your recovery dice after an 8 hour rest
- it's a little gritter overall than the standard healing rules

A more detailed description:

Spoiler:

Recovery Dice
This is a HP recovery system intended to fill the role of non-magical healing in the game. The hit point concept assumes that most hit points lost during a fight represent glancing blows and the deterioration of physical energy and endurance during the course of combat. The “damage scored to characters and certain monsters is actually not substantially physical – a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered – it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections,” as quoted by G. Gygax in the 1st Ed. DMG.
To alleviate the prevalence of magical healing, the capacity to regain hit points is enhanced with the concept of recovery dice, which can replenish hit points quickly after a fight. Thus, a character with few hit points left at the end of a fight, can recover to full strength (or nearly full strength) before the next fight begins.
Recovery dice work particularly well in low-magic campaigns and in campaigns where healing is rare, expensive, or otherwise hard to get. In general, only PCs have recovery dice. But the GM may opt to give recovery dice to important NPCs and monsters as befits the campaign.

Using Recovery Dice
A character’s quantity of recovery dice equals his hit dice. Likewise, his recovery die type is the same as his hit die type. Thus, a 1st level character with a d8 hit die also has one d8 recovery die.
After a character becomes injured (by losing hit points), a PC may rest for a period of 10 minutes, performing only non-strenuous activity (such as resting or hiking, but not climbing, swimming, or fighting). At the end of this rest, the PC may use any number of remaining recovery dice to regain hit points. A creature with a negative hit point total can’t use its recovery dice unless it stabilizes.
A creature with the Endurance feat may use one of his recovery dice as a full-round action.

For example, Beragon is a 3rd level Fighter, with 22 hit points, so he has 3 d10 recovery dice. In a battle with orcs, he takes 6 points of damage, dropping his hit points to 16. After the fight, Beragon takes 10 minutes to rest and recover his stamina. At the end of this rest, his player decides to use one of his recovery dice and rolls a 6, bringing his hit points up to his maximum of 22. During the next fight, Beragon takes 24 points of damage, dropping him to -2, and is then dying for 5 rounds before stabilizing, leaving him at -7 hit points. After 10 minutes, his player decides to use his remaining 2 recovery dice rolling a 7 and 9 for a total of 16. He regains consciousness with 9 hit points remaining and no recovery dice left.

Nonlethal Damage: Recovery dice can also reduce a character’s nonlethal damage total. For each hit point healed by recovery dice, a character also heals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
Real Damage: To account for forms of damage that aren’t easy to recover from by resting for a short period of time certain attacks do Constitution damage in addition to hit point damage. This is the sort of damage is classified as real damage (such as a critical hit or being caught in a fire ball spell). The following forms of damage are considered to be real damage:
• Critical hits
• Damage from Inflict spells
• Energy damage (fire, lightning, acid)
• Falls from a great height
• Any attack or damage that results in the creature going below 0 hit points
• Certain spells

At the DM’s discretion, other forms of damage may result in the loss of Constitution as well as hit points (falling into a river of lava or being hit by a disintegrate spell for instance).

When a creature takes real damage, in addition to normal hit point loss, the creature also takes Constitution damage. For every 10 points of real damage sustained, the creature takes one point of Constitution damage (minimum 1). This Constitution damage never results in additional hit point loss, but it does cap the maximum hit points the creature may have and the Constitution damage must be healed by conventional means (i.e. normal rest or magic). If this results in a creature having more hit points than his current Constitution score would normally allow, don’t worry about it. In this case, just treat the excess hit points as temporary hit points.

Replenishing Recovery Dice
Creatures replenish recovery dice by resting for at least 8 hours. A creature may only benefit from one such rest in any 24-hour period. After such a rest, the creature regains its full allotment of recovery dice. Magical healing has no effect on recovery dice.

Continuing the example above, Beragon, with 9 hit points left and 0 recovery dice, decides to return to safety and rest. He has no access to magical healing currently, so must heal naturally. After 8 hours of rest, he regains 3 hit points as normal and he also regains all three d10 recovery dice. He may decide to use them immediately to increase his hit points further, but will have fewer dice remaining for the rest of the day.

Multi-Class Recovery Dice
Multi-class characters have recovery dice according to their class levels. A fighter 1/ rogue 3 would have one d10 recovery die and three d8 recovery dice.

Feedback is appreciated.


One thing I do like about the PF fighter is that its class abilities are generic and customizable to the point that nearly any fighter concept is possible.

With that said, I do want to give my fighters something more. It must be in an area different from what he can already do, namely weapons and armor. So I'm thinking of expanding on the concept of Bravery at 2nd level. I think adding a class ability that addresses a fighter's state of mind could be broad enough to work with just about all archetypes.

So here's the idea (please keep in mind that all of this is a work in progrss so likely isn't entirely fleshed out or balanced yet as I'm still brainstorming) Change Bravery to an ability called Courage. All fighters possess the "mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty." But it can manifest in any given fighter in various ways. So for example, Bravery would be just one form of Courage. As he levels up the fighter would have access to other ways to display his courage, sort of like a barbarian gains rage powers, a rogue gains talents, or how a paladin gains new ways to use his mercy ability. Follow so far?

Ok then, so here are some ideas I've come up with:
1) Athletic Burst – +1 bonus to Acrobatics checks made to jump, Climb, and Swim checks (+2 at 6th, +3 at 10th, +4 at 14th, +5 at 18th); times/day = Str mod.

2) Bravery – +1 on saves vs. fear (+2 at 6th, +3 at 10th, +4 at 14th, +5 at 18th)

3) Indomitable Fortitude – don’t fail Fort saves on a 1; may re-roll a failed save vs. sickened/nauseated conditions on the following round

4) Mighty Parry – you may forgo one melee attack in your turn to negate an attack by a foe 2 or more sizes larger by making an attack roll; if you beat the target’s attack roll, the attack is negated

5) Resolute Will – +1 on Will saves vs. enchantments & compulsions (+2 at 6th, +3 at 10th, +4 at 14th, +5 at 18th)

6) Stalwart Ally – when an opponent you threaten attacks an ally, you can give up one of your attacks of opportunity to make a melee attack roll. If it hits, you do no damage, but you grant your ally a +1 bonus to AC vs. that attack (+2 at 6th, +3 at 10th, +4 at 14th, +5 at 18th)

7) Tenacious Vigor – when less than ½ total hp, gain temporary hp = fighter level + Con mod; 1/encounter

8) Unyielding Stand –as a move action add ½ fighter level to CMD vs. bull rush, grapple, overrun, trip attempts

I'd like more ideas. What ideas can you come up with for the fighter class to exhibit his Courage? Keep in mind that I'm not looking for any abilities that "if x, then you do more damage or hit better or have better AC." The goal is to give the fighter a diversity of options beyond his choice of feats and make him more interesting. They don't even need to be combat related.

Also, I'm wondering how to implement it mechanically. Starting at 2nd level and gaining a new courage ability every 4 levels thereafter (for a total of 5 courage abilities) is where I'm at, at the moment. The mechanic should keep with being compatible with the APG too (essentially, the alternate class features in that book would simply replace the first courage ability the fighter gets).

Thanks in advance.


Instead of rage rounds per day = to 4 + Con mod + 2x level after 1st, what if it instead is 4 + 2x level after first? Then when entering a rage, it lasts number of rounds used + Con mod?
.
.
Ex:
3rd level barbarian with a Con of 16 would have 8 rounds of rage/day.

In 1st combat, he rages using one round of rage. It lasts 4 rounds (1 round of rage + 3 Con mod)

In 2nd combat, he rages using one round of rage. This battle is more intense and lasts beyond his 4 rounds of rage. He can continue to use rounds of rage to keep it going up to his remaining rage rounds (6 more rounds at this point).

Thoughts?


I'm contemplating allowing some rage powers to be used outside of actually entering a fit of rage. For instance surprise accuracy, powerful blow, and rolling dodge. However, they would still use up rounds of rage to activate. So for instance, a barbarian in combat could not be in a rage, but still use rolling dodge and pay 1 round of rage per use. So it's kinda like entering a rage, but not gaining the STR & CON benefits and AC penalty (and fatigue after ending a full-on rage).

I'd like some feedback on the ramifications of doing this.


If I'm reading this right:

At 5th level, the mobile fighter gains +1 to attack and damage rolls if he moves at least 5 feet prior to attacking. This increases by +1 for every 4 levels beyond 5th.

Then at 9th level, he gains weapon training 2 gaining +1 to attack and damage rolls with a weapon group. This also presumably increases by +1 for every 4 levels beyond 9th.

So at 17th level, added together, the mobile fighter gains +7 to attack and damage rolls:

Leaping Attack: (5th, 9th, 13th, 17th) for +4
Weapon Training 2: (9th, 13th, 17th) for +3

Woe betide if he chooses a ranged weapon.


bump


New Skill Use for Intimidate:

My players in two separate groups have been doing this a lot lately it seems… trying to get certain opponents to attack them instead of other members of their party. Up 'til now, I've just on-the-spot made up a quick in the moment rule to facilitate such an attempt (or if it seemed a good move story-wise) since there isn't any rule in core that I know of. After some thought, and recently purchasing the APG, I think I have a good way of allowing this sort of thing in the future. Let me know what you think. I think it's bullet-proof for my tastes, (like curtailing the luring opponents into several AoOs or it affecting mindless creatures shenanigans) but several other opinions are better than just my own.

Intimidate option:
Taunt: You can use this skill to incite a creature that is already engaged in combat to attack you as a move action. The DC of this check is 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You can only taunt a target if it is within 30 feet and it can clearly see and hear you. A taunt is a mind-affecting effect. If the check succeeds, the target will attack you in preference to other targets for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. If the target is attacked by another opponent, it’s compulsion to attack you ends and it is free to act as it desires.
Try Again: You can attempt to taunt a creature again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after 1 hour has passed.
Special: When attempting a taunt you do not gain any sized-dependent bonus or penalty on your Intimidate check.


Can anyone give an explanation how this class feature of the Cutpurse works (p.133)? First it says it takes a full-round action to use, then it says it can otherwise be used in the surprise round. Wha?

Quote:
Stab and Grab… as a full round action, a cutpurse can make an attack and also make a Sleight of Hand check to steal something from the target of the attack. If the attack deals sneak attack damage, the rogue can use Sleight of Hand to take an item from the creature during combat; otherwise this ability can only be used in a surprise round before the target has acted. …

How can you use this ability in the surprise round if it takes a full-round action to use?


I just purchased this folio along with War of the River Kings today. Looking through it, I like the maps, but I'm not sure how I'll put them to use when I run the campaign. I probably won't start running the AP for several months while my current campaign runs, but it's always good to think ahead.

So my question, for those of you who have the maps, how do you plan on using them? Will you show them to players or keep them secret? One idea I had was to copy them and cut up the copies into individual hexes, revealing them to the players as they explore them, forming a puzzle so to speak. Another thought was to give the PCs the map with the Narlmarches to use in exploration, and if they wanted the others, they could purchase them (in game of course). I'm trying to find the right balance in the range of not providing enough information and providing too much.


I recently purchased the GMG and I really like p.55 of the book. A dictionary and thesaurus are a big part of my resources when getting an adventure ready. So inspired, I'm inclined to share and add some words from my own personal GM glossary:

Admixture, aegis, alderman, apocryphal, backwater, cadre, canton, enclave, magus, mettle, motte, punitive, sedulous, slough, stalwart, sundries, tincture, viceroy, warder

Feel free to add words you think a GM should know.


I'm currently doing a conversion of the original The Keep on the Borderlands module, and would really like to know if NPCs get favored class bonuses. I can't find a definitive answer in the rules and my 15 minute search in the archives turned up a lot of half-baked posts on the issue.

So:
1) Do NPCs with PC class levels get favored class bonuses?
2) Do NPCs with NPC class levels get favored class bonuses?

Thanks in advance. There's a lot of NPCs in that module!


One of my players brought up this interesting scenario:

E
E
A

E = medium sized enemy
A = medium sized melee attacker with a 5' reach.

When deciding to use Cleave, can you attack the adjacent enemy, then assuming it drops, 5' step directly forward to then attack the second enemy?


I've been using the Greyhawk campaign setting for years, but since purchasing the Kingmaker adventure path, I've been contemplating combining the Greyhawk and Pathfinder settings. I really don't want to part with the enjoyment that the Greyhawk setting has given me over the years, yet Golarion has so much to offer. So I was thinking of possibly combining the two. My initial thought is to make the Inner Sea region the eastern part of the continent of Oerik, since it hasn't really been developed in Greyhawk to my knowledge. The maps don't quite line up, but it does seem feasible with a little work. My thinking is that I'd rather combine the two more or less as is and perhaps save myself a lot of conversion work. Any thoughts? Anyone else try something like this? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


At 4th level (or 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th), can a fighter swap out his Heavy Armor Proficiency or any other bonus weapon or armor proficiency feat he starts out with for a different bonus feat?


I'm converting a hobgoblin in an old adventure who fights with a whip and a sword. This is what I gave him:

3rd level fighter, Str 15, Dex 15, Int 13
feats: Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (whip), Improved Trip, Two-Weapon Fighting
equipment: whip & short sword

Here is his attack routine:
full attack: primary hand – whip +5 (no damage, but trip)
off-hand – short sword +3 (1d6+1)

standard attack: whip +7 (no damage, but trip)

Do these numbers look right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to include this in my campaign to encourage combat maneuver use

Martial Arts (Combat)
You are trained in hand-to-hand combat.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can attempt any combat maneuver without provoking an attack of opportunity. In addition, this feat increases the benefit of any of the following feats that you have by +1: Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, and Improved Trip.

PEACH please. Any pit falls or suggestions?


Just wondering if there are any plans to continue scenery of this type?

Liberty's Edge

I know there isn't one in core, but since they put out feats every now and then in their other products (few of which I have), I was wondering if there is a feat that allows for fighting with a one-handed weapon in each hand and only suffering a -2 penalty for Two-Weapon Fighting.

Thanks in advance.


Quick question: since sundering is a Combat Maneuver check, can you get a critical hit with a sunder attempt? What about power attacking?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can you overrun more than one opponent on your turn? I always assumed you could (actually, noone's ever tried it in my campaign but me, the GM), but when reading it, it doesn't appear that you can. Also, can you make an attack while performing an overrun? It appears that by RAW, you would be able to if you charge, but you would not if doing so as a standard action.


Not sure how this works and would like some clarification if I'm doing this how it's intended:

If you are the grappler (not the one being grappled), to damage your opponent with a light weapon while you are grappled, do you need to:

1) make a grapple check at a -4 penalty for not having two hands free (but with the +5 bonus to the check in a subsequent round) to continue the grapple
2) make an attack roll at -2 for having the grappled condition (as per p.567)

OR

The successful grapple check (with a +5 bonus for being a subsequent round and -4 for not having two hands free) automatically allows you to deal damage with the light weapon?


For my campaign, I'm trying to improve the interaction of the Vital Strike feats with other feats, and basically allow them to be used anytime you don't or can't full-attack. Not being able to use them on a charge was a particular point I wanted to rectify. I think I've got the wording down pretty well, but am hoping for a little feedback. The text in blue is what has changed from how it's written in the book. Any loopholes, problems with other feats, etc, that I missed?

Vital Strike (Combat)
You can make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action as part of a standard action or as part of a charge, your attack deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses (such as those from Strength), weapon abilities (such as flaming) or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
Special: If you make more than one attack during your standard action or charge (such as when using the Cleave feat), the benefit of this feat only applies to the first attack.

Improved Vital Strike (Combat)
You can make a single attack that deals a large amount of damage.
Prerequisites: Vital Strike, Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: When you use the attack action as part of a standard action or as part of a charge, your attack deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack three times and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses (such as those from Strength), weapon abilities (such as flaming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
Special: If you make more than one attack during your standard action or charge (such as when using the Cleave feat), the benefit of this feat only applies to the first attack.

Greater Vital Strike (Combat)
You can make a single attack that deals incredible damage.
Prerequisites: Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: When you use the attack action as part of a standard action or as part of a charge, your attack deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack four times and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses (such as those from Strength), weapon abilities (such as flaming) or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
Special: If you make more than one attack during your standard action or charge (such as when using the Cleave feat), the benefit of this feat only applies to the first attack.


I'm not sure if the new wording on moving through threatened squares requires one Acrobatics skill check, or one check per threatening foe (as in 3.5). It seems it could be read either way; specifically, it might appear that you make one Acrobatics check against a given foe (but how do you choose which foe if facing multiple ones?), and each additional foe simply adds 2 to the DC of this single check. Any enlightenment on this?


Here's a defensive-minded feat for melee characters who specialize in sword and board. It's modeled to be an alternative to using Acrobatics skill checks to circumvent foes.

GUARDED ADVANCE [COMBAT]
You are skilled at navigating through a dangerous melee behind the protection of your shield.
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When wielding a light, heavy, or tower shield, you may attempt to move through threatened squares without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy. When moving this way, you move at half speed. Make a combat maneuver check against a foe who threatens you, adding your shield bonus to AC to the check. If successful, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from that foe due to movement. You may attempt to use this feat against multiple foes in 1 round, but each additional foe increases the DC by 2.
Special: You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10.


I've been mulling over this for the past several evenings and wondered if people here on the boards have any suggestions:

Basically, my intent is to simplify the rules for TWF and boost the TWF tree from its current rules.

In my house rules, TWF would grant you an extra attack as normal, but the penalties would be -4 to hit with primary, and -6 to hit with off hand. If the off-hand weapon is light, then its -2 to hit with the primary and -4 to hit with the off hand.

The TWF feat would simply reduce the off hand penalty by two, netting the penalties as they currently stand.

Improved TWF, would not grant an extra attack, but reduce the primary weapon penalty by two. So:
Primary hand -2, Off hand -4
or if off-hand weapon is light: +0 primary, -2 off hand

Greater TWF also would not grant an extra attack but reduce the off hand penalty further by two. So:
Primary hand -2, Off hand -2
or if off-hand weapon is light: +0 primary, +0 off hand

As a result, a two weapon fighter would normally make 5 attacks total when full-attacking at the highest BABs (instead of its current 7 attacks), providing some simplification.

Any thoughts? Do you think these changes meet my intent?


I like the new mechanics of Cleave,
I think the new mechanics of Great Cleave are just ok,
but I also like the old mechanics of Cleave,
and I think the old mechanics of Great Cleave are just ok.

Since getting the book, I've been mulling over whether or not to perhaps combine the old with the new somehow.

On one hand, I thought of having both versions of Cleave in my game and let the players decide, but Great Cleave still would seem to be wanting.

Which has led me to my current thoughts on the subject:
1) Keep Cleave as is in Pathfinder
2) Keep Great Cleave as is in Pathfinder, but somehow roll in the mechanics of the older versions into it.

I haven't come up with the actual wording yet, but any thoughts on this?


I had a situation the other night where, during a battle, a foe cast a sleep spell on the PCs. The party's barbarian "fell" victim to it. As the battle progressed, it became apparent, that the player differed from my view of the consequences to "falling" victim to the spell. My interpretation is that when the barbarian fell asleep she ended up lying on the ground with the battle raging around her. The player's interpretation was that the sleep spell says that you are "helpless" and says nothing about being prone; in other words, she was still standing there, but just asleep.

We're clear now on how it will work in the future (honestly, I'd never had a player before this one dispute how it should function), but I'm curious as to how other groups play this spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You may be a Paizo nerd if…

A) Your favorite day of the week is currently Wednesday.

B) You think X-mas is in August.


Any updates on this exciting opportunity? I haven't heard anything about it since the blog post.


Or even once per day? What if these items did not grant an "always on" ability? I think it's worth discussing. What would be the ramifications? Would it be a good step away from the Big-6?


The "Fighters Rule" thread has inspired me to expound on a few things that I'd like to see possible for High Level martial combat. My take is that high level feats should stretch the boundaries of reality/mortal ability without actually breaking those boundaries. They are more concepts than actual feat proposals at this point though. What follows are just a few ideas for what the feat should do and a reason why...

At higher levels, several tactical combat feats simply can't apply (tripping, grappling, etc.) I think it's good in one way, because it forces martial characters to use new tactics to win in certain encounters. But, there are few feat options to turn to when battling huge and larger creatures; so:

1) I'd like to see a feat where a PC can grab onto a foe 2 size categories larger and basically be like a "hornet", stinging away while at the same time lessening the foe's chances at return blows. PCs can't grapple foes more than one size category larger than themselves. However, at high levels, it is commonplace to battle foes two or more size categories larger than the PCs.

2) Giant monsters tend to have high grapple checks and often use them to advantage in melee combat. I'd like to see a feat that grants a better than fair chance of resisting such attempts as the Improved Grab special ability of such monsters. Giant monsters tend to have high grapple checks and often use them to advantage in melee combat.

3) Different modes of movement (other than land movement) are commonplace at high levels of play. Flying, in particular seems to happen quite often. I'd like to see a high level feat that allows for an attack that hinders a flying opponent temporarily... say 1 round or so... a disrupting attack of sorts where the creature might come crashing to the ground or hover uncontrollably.

4) I'd like to see a feat that makes it possible to damage your opponent, an at the same time hinder its ability to return damage. (The new critical feats do this, but I'd like to see a feat that makes it a conscious effort on the part of the attacker, rather than rely on chance). Something along the lines of... for each successful attack on your opponent, he receives a cumulative -1 to hit, saves and skill checks for one round.

5) Rather than shrugging off damage via DR, being the only way to avoid it, I'd like to see a feat that actually gives you a chance of deflecting a blow or turning a blow that you normally wouldn't be able to deflect (such as a gargantuan creature's slam) into a near miss. Perhaps by choosing to fight defensively at higher levels for instance, you could gain a % miss chance = to your BAB bonus.

These are just a few random thoughts of mine. Feel free to add to the list or come up with ideas of how to actually make the feat ideas work, or even discuss the viability or need of such feats.


On page 153 of the Beta rules, it states you can ready an action as a standard action. You can ready a standard action, move action, a swift action, or a free action.

Now can you do this?

Scenario:

A spell caster and warrior are in 50' away from each other. The warrior has initiative and moves 30' toward the spell caster as a move action and readies an action (as a standard action) to move toward the spell caster if he begins to cast a spell. The spell caster remains where he is and begins to cast a spell. The warrior's readied action is triggered: he moves adjacent to the spell caster. The spell caster now provokes an AoO from the warrior.


I was just wondering... if mundane options are intended to work with this spell. For instance, if you throw a sheet over the invisible creature, does it betray it's location? What if an invisible creature steps into a puddle of mud? Do these examples fall under the invisible creature "wearing" them? I think I know the answers to these questions, based on the wording in the spell description, but perhaps it could be a little clearer. It does mention that an invisible creature can be detected by means other than sight, but it might be helpful to elaborate a little in the spell description, on how to counter invisibility visually, particularly mundane means, as some spells already specifically say they show the presence of invisible creatures/objects.

For example, I would assume that if a thrown rock hit an invisible object, onlookers would not see the invisible object, but would see the rock suddenly halt, and fall to the ground. If an arrow struck the invisible object, would the arrow disappear, or would it seem to suddenly stop, suspended in mid-air, with only half its shaft left?


I'd like to open up this thread to opinions on handling dying characters.

Here are my opinions.

While I like the change to negative hp threshold being -10 or Con as it is a nod toward having higher level characters survive, I think that a character's negative hit point threshold should be tied to their level rather than Con. Con has plenty of things tied to it already, and the current rule reinforces the notion that the players "need" to have a good Con score. It would be nice if negative hps represent a character's survivability from an experience standpoint. Hence the level idea. The premise is that higher level characters should have a better chance of surviving negatives than lower level ones.

Currently, we use -10 - level to determine a PC's neg hp threshold. In other words, a level one PC dies at -11, and a 20th level PC dies at -30.

Also, I think that the dying state is too predictable. Added to the above rule, if when reaching negative hps, a character does not stabilize, he loses 1d4 hps, instead of just one.

Pleas discuss.


In response to encumbrance suggestions, here is mine on how to track encumbrance without it being cumbersome. The current one is obviously a simulation version. This option is more abstract, and is intended to ease play.

Follow these steps in order:

1) Record the weight of any armor and shields you wear/carry.
2) Record the weight of all the weapons you carry.
3) Record the weight of any significant items that you carry. An item is a significant item if it weighs 5 pounds or more.
4) Record the weight of your coin treasure. As a rule, add 1 lb. for every 50 coins that you carry.
5) Total up all of these. Refer to table 8-4: Carrying Capacity on page 125 in the PFRPG handbook to determine your current load.

* Backpacks, Sacks, and Belt Pouches are carry items. As a general rule, you only need to record the weight of the items listed above and any other items contained in a carry item are ignored. Some reason needs to be exercised in this matter... a sack full of grappling hooks for instance should be ruled on. Refer to the chart below when determining a carry item's capacity.

Backpack: 40 lbs

Belt Pouch: 7 lbs

Sack: 50 lbs

What do you think?


My players have long maligned the price of a longbow (and the shorbow as well) for being rediculously overpriced and I tend to agree. The composite bow seems fair as it can be enhanced with strength bonuses. But 75 gp for a longbow? How do the peasants hunt? Darts & Slings?


Have there been any thoughts of adding racial armor types and racial equipment to the handbook, similar to the racial weapons? Or notes on how racial armor & equipment might be different from the norm?

For example: Dwarven masterwork armor might grant an additional +1 armor bonus instead of a reduction the the armor check penalty. Elven masterwork armor might grant a +1 to the max Dex bonus.

And also, what about exotic armors? Chitin armors, darkwood armors, that sort of thing.

Halfling travel sacks, elven trail fare, gnome spyglasses, dwarven ale....

Any considerations of that sort?


I just noticed that you may now "tumble" past your opponent at normal speed (rather than 1/2 speed or normal speed with a -10 penalty). Is this intentional and is it good? The encumbrance restrictions have been removed as well... somersaulting fighter in full-plate armor anyone? :)


I'm not sure the prerequisite for this feat needs to be BAB +9. That seems too high. Improved Critical is a better choice IMO, and it's prerequisites are proficiency in the weapon, and BAB +8. The SRD version: Power Critical has the prerequisites Weapon Focus in the weapon and BAB +4.


Perhaps this feat needs to be approached from a different angle.

The 3.5 version was rarely used in my experience, by myself and my players. There is a lot of overlap with fighting defensively, and it was not much better in actual practice in my experience. It was necessary to take for feats such as Improved trip and Improved Disarm however, and so was actually taken, but rarely used.

The Pathfinder Beta version on the other hand is a worse trade-off:

1) The bonus is dependent on the user's Int bonus. As so many have stated, most warriors simply won't have that high of an Int, so it really has little benefit to those who it (I presume) is intended for. In this case, Jason, I really think you are trying to get too much out of the Intelligence ability as it related to combat. I'd leave Intelligence for skill points, languages, etc. and keep it out of combat relevant abilities.

2) It has lost any variability that it did have in 3.5. In fact the smarter you are, the better you can defend yourself, but the worse you become at attacking! Again, having the choice varying how defensive you want to be would make more sense.

3) It has no relation at all to subsequent feats in the feat chain, or it's name for that matter. (This was the case in 3.5 as well)

4) It still has overlap with fighting defensively, while at the same time not being the better option as in 3.5. In fact if you have a realy high Int bonus, but only want to increase your AC by +2, you're better off just fighting defensively.

But as I initially stated, I think this feat needs to take a new direction.

Why not just make Combat Expertise negate all attacks of opportunity when you perform any combat maneuver? That way it relates to the subsequent feats in the tree. In turn, those feats (Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, etc.) simply grant the +2 to the relevant maneuver, and then at a higher BAB (say +11) grant +4? This would bring those feats in keeping with the intent of +2 to combat maneuvers at low levels (at low levels at least) and make martial characters slightly better at higher levels which is also what is trying to be achieved.

I still like the Feat being tied to Intelligence as a prerequisite only because it makes for more interesting choice at character creation. But that is as far as it should go.

In regards to combat expertise performing its original function of trading attack bonus for AC, make a new feat that addresses that.

I'm pretty sure ll this remains backwards compatible by the way.

What do you think?


This feat is needlessly cumbersome and restrictive. I think it should be made to simply grant a 5' step as an immediate action. It also should not count toward your next round's movement. First, it allows for many more options written this way. For instance, besides the benefit of moving with an opponent that it currently grants, one could also move to interpose himself between an ally and an oncoming foe, dodge an area effect of a spell (if he is on the edge... I'd write in lightning bolt that it can't be dodged by this feat). Second, removing the movement penalty in the following round cuts out bookkeeping. We are only talking about 5' after all.


What ever happened to the idea of creating feats that would allow multiple attacks beyond taking a full-round action/5' step? I remember a discussion way back around the Alpha stage mentioning something of this sort and haven't heard anything new since.

It could be something as simple as this:

Combat Tactician (Combat)
Prerequisite: BAB +11
Benefit: Whenever you perform a full-round action, you may take an additional 5' step during your turn as a swift action. As normal, this 5' step does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You may not use this feat for a full-round action in which a 5' step is not allowed.
Normal: You may only take one 5' step as part of a full-round action.


What if most of these feats were combined into one all-encompassing feat: Augmented Critical? That way, a character could choose which effect to apply before rolling to confirm the crit. A penalty of -4 to confirm in this case could apply, giving the player a choice: Roll to confirm a normal critical, or take a chance to do more than just the critical?


Acrobatic Steps should only function if the character is carrying a light load or less, IMO.


Here is an idea for giving wizards the option to cast a spell that they otherwise have not prepared. I think it makes them more versatile in their spell selection without overpowering them, and could enhance the overall experience of playing a wizard (by possibly not having to wait a day to prepare the right spell). I also don't think that it will step on the toes of the Sorcerer as that class seems to be moving in a different direction. It is also backwards compatible and and easy rule to use.

Bear in mind that the rule could apply to any spell caster who prepares spells.

A wizard may elect to lose a spell that he has prepared to cast a spell he knows, but does not have prepared, provided that the spell to be cast is at least 2 levels lower than the spell to be lost.

For instance, a wizard could choose to lose Dismissal (5th level) which he has prepared, to cast a much needed Dispel Magic (3rd level) which he knows but has not prepared or otherwise used up that particular day.

One could take it a step further and say that the wizard needs to make a Spell craft check to successfully cast the spell unprepared (to represent is "unreadiness," if you will) at DC 10 + spell level.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>