I just have to say that we are having a lot of fun playing PFSOP in Denmark and the energy and dedication Diego has put into it is a big part of it. I regards to the language debate I can't believe that none of you danes have mentioned that we play in "Danglish", because that is the only proper name of the language we use (and have used since the beginning of D&D in DK).
I do believe that the wizards power level is best established by Treantmonks Guide http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/test and I think the wizard had the potential of being even more powerful in 3.5 with the right selection of broken spells
One of our local players has an 8th-level lion shaman druid with a big cat as his companion. He indicated that his cat can pounce and rake on a charge, then use grab with every attack that hits. Is that the rules' intent? A pouncing charge followed by up to five grab attempts pretty much guarantees most foes end up wrestling a lion.
it is pretty difficult to discuss the intent of the rules, though RAW is quite clear in my opinion. The Grab ability is not tied to any specific attack and therefore counts on all successful attacks. Rake is automatic when pouncing and is described as to claw attacks. As far as RAW goes, pounce counts for 5 grab attempts, if the attacks succeed.
Jonathan Cary wrote:
If you look in the Additional Resources all that is available from bestiary 1 is animal companions, familiars and feats in relation to other sources. All I mean is that it is lacking a reference to wild shaping unless all or nothing is legal.
Thanks for the quick reply and for asking about the other bestiaries. We have been playing by Bestiary 1 only so far.
From Additional Resources:
"Pathfinder RPG Bestiary
I can't find any description af the animals or resources available for wild shaping. I would presume that indicates that everything is available. On the other hand animal companions can only be chosen from bestiary one.
Is it okay to use animals from adventure paths and Bestiary 2, as well as the ones from bestiary 1?
somehow I agree with all of you. The terminology is pretty clear: add the appropriate template, which refers specifically to the templates presented in the Bestiary. The weirdness occurs once we reach the second part of the feat.
Why add the text about +2 to crit confirmation?
Either because adding the templates didn't seem powerful enough, which is weird, because it is. Or because we are inventing a completely new kind of feat specific templates, which only adds +2 to crit against opposite alignments, which is really crappy for a lvl. 5 feat and completely muddles the water in regards to what templates is, thereby throwing the terminology off in any reference to templates.
I don't like any of the options, but A in my first post is preferable to B in my opinion.
Which of the following is the right interpretation of the Planar Wild Shape feat from UC?
A) You add the fiendish or celestial template as described in Bestiary 1 including a +2 to confirm crits as described in the feat.
B) You only add the +2 to confirm crits?
You can't attack them anyway. You are the one overruning them so you don't have time to hit them also. The aoo is meant for your allies.
I disagree! Nothing in the feat description indicates that you shouldn't get an aoo as well.
EDIT: Unfortunately you can only overrun one foe, as it is a standart action to do so. Although the overbearing onslaught ragepower from the APG allows you to overrun multiple foes.
From the SRD:
Greater Overrun (Combat)
Prerequisites: Improved Overrun, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6, Str 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to overrun a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Overrun. Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone by your overrun.
Normal: Creatures knocked prone by your overrun do not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Get the adventurepath and the gamemastery guide. The APG will be tons of fun, but you should get the hang af the core rules before going APG.
The ring of Revelations from the APG states that:
"If the oracle already has that revelation and the revelation gives an ability with a limited number of uses per day, the oracle can use that ability one additional time per day."
Energy Body says that: "You may remain in energy body form for a number of rounds equal to your oracle level.
I you are a fifth level oracle of life with the energy body revelation wearing a ring of revelation, does that mean that:
a) You can use it for 6 nonconsecutive rounds pr. day
I think that RAW might indicate A, but I am not quite sure, the wording seems vague.
According to general consensus on the boards, an animal with an intelligence of 3, should be able to acquire any feat, although they might not physically be able to utilize it. Though in this example I believe that an ape, with an intelligence of 3 should be able to take the exotic weapon feat and use the weapon, as it has hands.
Todd Morgan wrote:
Doesn't the hard PA have something to do with the favored classes of each of the factions and the skills of those classes? Taldor bards may have an easier time with their faction mission than say, a Taldor druid.
It does sometimes and I play one of each. And the bard will - usually - have more luck with completing PA missions, than an optimized fighter. Do yourself a favor when playing OP for PA missions: Get a decent int-score (that will help the PAs along), don't minmax - make a balanced character, have several characters to chose from to make a diverse party (all fighter groups will smack down the monsters, but fail their PA missions)
Allright....I have to say that if you want straight up melee battle potential, then go Cleric. Clerics have the best defensive capabilities and in melee: "offense make great games, but defense wins bowls".
But the bard is so much cooler...the master of non-combat situations, but he can hold his own in battle as well.
and good old confusion will soon be a viable option for taking out a melee heavy party. Throw it from great range and watch the poorly willed figther bash away on the healers. Vampire spawn with dominate is horrible as well. Anything with flight and invisibility. Grease to prevent charging. Solid fog, stinking cloud alle sorts of neat battlefield control, which - by the way - they lack, so large numbers of opponents is great.
Throw in a lot of low level alchemists to ignore all that armor and deal splash damage. The possibilities are endless, but I must say that a group with that much melee, armor and healing will be tuff, but you can soften them with traps and put archers (and casters) on balconies (two much frustration for meleetypes). Arrange for the fights to be in difficult terain and possibly with a lot of acrobatics needed, which sucks in heavy armor.....and so on and so forth.
Eric Brittain wrote:
You are correct in the fact that it does not state it. Whether or not that is an error is a discussion for the ruleforum, not the society forum, as it is not society specific.
In the AP I'm playing we are usually asked to make a heal check to decide how hurt the opponent is. Actually that check is often made by the GM (in secret), so that we don't know if we botched it. I think it works pretty well. The description is still almost dying, doing pretty good or sometimes..."well he looks sort of 3/4 wounded" (if in that mood).
Andrew Phillips wrote:
After this incident I got home and started checking the boards for help and found the huge centipede from Kingmaker Adventure path #1. The designers, in their wisdom gave the huge centipede a tail attack which made the bite damage Str modifier loses the x1.5 for having a single attack. Note that it still does the 2d6+7. So the crit would still have killed the PC. Math: damage total at the table 33 which includes the +20 for Str damage twice from the critical; without the +20 the damage was 13. Ok our official Paizo huge centipede has a +7 Str, 7x2=14 plus the 13 damage I rolled on 4d6 equals 27, still killing the PC.
As I play PFSOP and is about to start as a player in Kingmaker, some of these references would benefit from a spoiler tag. I don't like to have my huge centipede surprises ruined. (Allthough I am sure it was an honest mistake)
james maissen wrote:
Resist energy = 150 gp as if made by a cleric (edit: you need to read it, it costs the same as if made by a cleric, and if you can cast the spell, then you can read the scroll CL 3)
Wand of Gentle repose = 4500 gp as if made by a cleric (the arcane/divine thing is effectually handwaived when it comes to purchases)
Poison (scroll) = 375 gp as if made by a druid
Silence = 150 gp as if made by a cleric and caster level 3 as if made by a cleric (edit: although you might be allowed to buy a scroll of a higher caster level if you pay the cost cl x 2 x 25) and you have to be able to cast the spell (as a bard).
Speak with animals = 25 gp as if made by a druid and caster level 1 as if made by a druid (although you might be allowed to buy a scroll of a higher caster level if you pay the cost cl x 2 x 25) and you have to be able to cast the spell (as a bard).
Hope it helps
Russ Taylor wrote:
But as mentioned by Austin Morgan, the distinction between divine and arcane scrolls when it comes to purchasing them in PFSOP is handwaived. Or - in other words - you can buy an arcane scroll of restoration at the same price as if it had been crafted by a druid, cleric or wizard.
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
No. You must make the choices due to your character when they are available, which means you have to choose at 5th level.
This is not completely in accordance with the Org. play guide. In the guide it states that the animal companion should be one size-category larger than you at first level. Though as a Paladin you gain it at 5th level. So can you choose an animal that grows to the right size at 4th level?
Secondly the description of the cavalier (in the AP) states that he can change mounts when they grow. This is - of course - not finished work and may not be in accordance with org. play but I would still like it clearified.
Actually the damage is 2d6 + 9 (str) + 3 (PA) = 2d6 + 12 since you are attacking with a 2-handed weapon.
Matthew Trent wrote:
It is a good point, the differences does not seem to be that much of an issue. It does however have some impact on the cavalier/paladin suitable mount debate. If their mounts are limited to quadruped animal companions, then how come the summoner are not? I know the paladin/cavalier mount debate is not settled yet, but it will be in the next OP update. I the case of the paladin/cavalier debate mount options are fewer than druid animal companions although you could probably ride all of them. I for one though want fewer restrictions on mounts, but there have to be some.
The Eidolon is not allowed as a mount in OP yet. Though rules for it will be available once the APG is published. See the discussion in this thread
I have not done the math, but I suppose mount restrictions is made for balance reasons more than 'what is and what is not possible and/or cool'. In a home campaign coolness and character-flavor is key, and a summoner riding a worm or a paladin riding a velociraptor is possible if it fits the setting. In OP though it is all about balance and eliminating possible loopholes. (Though coolness is a key factor, if it does not create balance issues).
Yes I can help you. It is discussed (clarified) in the Pathfinder Society forum right
We are a group of pathfinders playing Organized play in Copenhagen Denmark and we presented it at a convention recently ("Vintersol" at Odense - grap a map), which will hopefully spawn new groups. We, however, will continue to play regularly and at conventions....trying to get our stars and reach the levelcap. (This group involves Entropi, Son of Dad and Grandfather as well)
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
The starting at 1st. level size thingy is in contradiction with the examples used in the description of the Cavaliers mount (which of course may be something entirely different), where it states that you can choose a wolf, but not before level 4 where it reaches a sufficient size.
Thank you for your quick answer though, and I will be looking forward to the precise wording.
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
The 7th level advancement for a dinosaur is to make it medium instead of small.
Actually most of them turns large now. I still have a question as to whether a gnome Paladin would be allowed to take the velociraptor from the animal companion in the Core Rulebook as his mount (at least when it turns medium at level 7). This would of course require an exotic saddle.
I would also like to know whether an Ape is a viable option for a medium paladin.
This is a bit of a gray area and I'm currently creating a paladin charger for organized play, so a little guidance as to what is allowed would be nice.
Would a gnome paladin be able to ride a large tiger with -5 penalty for size?
Actually I envisioned it quite a lot smaller and not at all for fishing, much more like a gladiators net, that doesn't necessarily cover the whole person, but more or less 'entangles' him, making it more difficult to continue fighting.
something like this:
(sorry no net skills for easy clicking)
Still what is really interesting in my opinion is the interpretation of the rules in the net-section and whether or not you can carry a folded net somewhere other than your hand.
The Grandfather wrote:
What you are say is that anything not mentioned in the rules, should be exceptions from the rule. Such as when the only fluid body mentioned is water, then it doesn't count with other fluid substances. Our argument is that since it is not mentioned that a net is an exception from the common rule, then it falls under the common rules for weapons mentioned on the core weaponlist.
If we start introducing real world physics to the discussion of the rules, we would have a completely different system. When introducing things not mentioned in the rules such as milk-oceans, you will have to see whether something in the rules is close to that and go that way. When discussing something actually in the rules, saying that physics don't act according to the rules, and therefore exceptions must be made, is a slippery slope indeed.
We are posting at the same time Grandfather, which is a bit confusing. I agree that the net-monster you refer to may be a loophole or at least very bad and should not be allowed. As for your comparison with the tanglefoot, you shouldn't forget the feat cost of the net being exotic and all (although one is probably better than the other).
I would like other peoples opinion on the net-description that we disagree on.
J.R. Farrington, Esq. wrote:
Mwahahahaha I personally love your post. And just for good measures I'm fine with carrying my (folded) nets in my backpack, whether or bot it is the correct interpretations of RAW is what I want to discuss. I thought that the common idea in PF was that exceptions from the main rules would be noted. If the quickdraw feat can't be used on all weapons, I would like a clarification on those before selecting my feats.
The Grandfather wrote:
Well you can still quick draw your 12 lbs. ranceur or 8 lbs. Greatsword (from a none existing scabbard). You can actually quickdraw every weapon (except for the net?), no matter the bulk or the weight or extra equipment (if you have the appropriate feat).
By RAW you can draw your weapon(s) as a move action, a part of a move action or as a free action (depending on feats and BAB). I do not believe that the net would (or should) be the only exception from that rule, without it being noted somewhere.
J.R. Farrington, Esq. wrote:
I completely agree in your post. Do you think one would be able to carry a folded net in a belt pouch or something similar that would allow you to quick-draw it without provoking? In relation to the rules not the real world please.
The Grandfather wrote:
Well since I'm that particular player, I thought I would just hand in my two cents. My argument is simply that i states in the description of the net (I didn't really care about the crossbow) that:
"A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net, you make a normal touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice as long for a none proficient one to do so." (p. 148)
in my opinion that means that if I buy a net and put it in my backpack, then once I have taken it out of my backpack it is ready for normal use (until thrown). In regard to where and how many nets I can have 'at the ready' at any given time is up for discussion as it is not clarified in the rules.
Further more I firmly believe that someone who spends a feat to throw a net without penalty, should be allowed to do so without spending two rounds of folding (at least the first time around and even three times, if that's the amount of nets he carries), it's not that overpowered.
RAW clearly states that the first time you throw your net in a fight it is normal, after it has been thrown, it must be refolded. If it hasn't been thrown (in your backpack) it is not unfolded and can be thrown normally.
Whether or not it is realistic is not a discussion I will enter in regards to Pathfinder, it's far more interesting whether it is balanced