cp's page

mdt wrote:

Lord oKOyA wrote:

rmbrodeu wrote:

5 ) For magic weapons with the frost, flame, shock, or thundering special ability, is it a standard action to activate those qualities of the weapon or it is a standard action. On page 468 it says that a activation if required is a standard action. I always assumed this...

For what it is worth, James Jacobs replied to a similar question in this thread Why Are Weapon Energy Effects Command Word Activated with this:

James Jacobs wrote:

While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.

Other than via antimagic, dispell magic where is this hypothetical suprression documented?

Also suppose you had flaming caltrops... and you dropped them. Is it really a good idea to believe they could *never* be picked up again?

Rings, etc activate for caster-level rounds. It seems a far more reasonable approach.

Would you allow said paladin to make a quick dismount as part of a charge when attacking an opponent on the ground?

A charge action is a special action where the movement and attack are integral.

I would not allow the dismount before the attack, aka to increase movement or get reach for an attack.

Paladin specifically says he can lay hands on him self, as a swift action.

Laying on other people takes longer.

Further questions:

Can a wizard use a Necklace of Fireballs as a bonded item.

I would say yes. Why or why not? Does the logic apply to any item worn in the neck slot?

To the suggestion of a reach weapon + spiked armor or gauntlets, I personally wouldn't let a player use both at the same time. Said player would have to declare on his turn which he was using, and that would be the weapon he would be using for purposes of AoO's until his next turn. The major point is this: The rules are not really compatible with allowing someone to attack both 5 feet and 10 feet away. Period. With the exception of larger size categories, which carry their own penalties, I would never allow this in my games.

Character optimization seems to be exactly what Paizo is working against.

To end this nonsense, I suggest to all GM's out there to simply ban any optimized character concepts from the game. Or ideally, for Paizo to issue errata to correct any 'over-optimized' character concepts that come out of the woodwork. This is the best way to make sure Pathfinder remains fun to play for...

Third. I agree with you in principle. I've fought in mock combats - and the last thing I'm thinking about when I use a flail is using a different weapon - I'm far too intent on stopping the other fellow from hitting me, trying to hit him etc.

Some sort of TWF penalty needs to be applied; or a con check to get your AoO (lost if you fail), or an init penalty. Something that simulates changing mental gears isn't painless.

Erik,

The rules have a few holes in them, which it would be nice to see an errata on.

For example, a wizard's bonded item can be a ring, amulet, weapon etc.
The bonded item is essential to cast a spell- for example if not wielded a wizard has to make a sc check.

Usually, a wizard is entitled to make a touch attack as part of delivering a touch spell - for example shocking grasp.

Does the wizard have the option of delivering the attack with the bonded item? I think the case is strong that he should be able to deliver with either item or hand. Yet it is nowhere stated.

The option of the bonded item is significantly weaker a standard familiar. A spell, + a masterwork item vs, touch delivering, skills wielding, magic item activating (raven), familiar.

A. I would suggest that delivering a touch attack be explicitly enumerated.
B. I would suggest that bonded items become tiered and more powerful with character level.

Form follows function. A rule in architecture, that says.. the form of a building - its appearance, its design, follows the function it was intended for.

In Biology, Darwin said it similiarly, in two ways. A creature evolves to fill a niche; he additionally said a creature will grow until it outgrows its niche.

Which brings me to halflings.
Halflings as nomadic creatures exist merely to differentiate themselves from Tolkiens hobbits. And as such its believability is laughable.

Settling down - was a survival advantage. And nothing in the write up
suggests any reason while halfings would be anything other than mobile hors d'ouvres.

Contrarily, short stature suggests living in confined spaces. Living in close proximity with another race - suggests either the ability to escape notice, or the ability to be charismatic and affable neighbors.

Halflings are not notably fast. They have no racial abilities with mounts or nature skills such as nomadic peoples usually have.

On the other hand canon suggest they do love elaborate meals - something again that points to established food sources.

Halflings as farmers, as almost ne'eer seen helpers a la brownies - or thieves.. these are believable back stories for halflings.

Nomads is just brain dead. According to your design documents your challenge is 'to fix it'. Have at it!

2. Multiclass Saves:

Soooooo, my Fighter 2, Ranger 2, Swashbuckler 1, Beast Master 1, Halfling Outrider 2... walks into a bar.... Yup, 8th level char...

Lets see reflex save...+16. Check
Fort save... +17.... check
Will save... +0

Yes, this 8th level character is *just* as bad at making will saves - after fighting beholders, and mind flayers, and evil clerics... as on the day he started.

Sure you can argue its how the character was created. But the point of rules is to simulate smoothly and believably what should happen.
The current system fails both on the low and high ends, by the unfortunate choice of +0 on the low end, and the doubling effect of +2 for a first class.

I'd like to suggest instead a point system. Each class advancement would give you either 1, 2 or 3 points whether the save for that class was poor, ok, or good.

So for example Will Reflex Fort
Fighter 1 1 3
Fighter 1 1 3
Ranger 1 3 3
Ranger 1 3 3
Swashbuckler 1 3 3
BeastMaster 1 1 3
Halfling Outrider 1 3 3
Halfling Outrider 1 3 3
8 18 24

Now, every 3 points corresponds to +1 save. So in this case his save would be ........... +2 +6 +8
with stat bumps +2 +12 +10

This kind of system would scale with narrower range of values on saves, than the current system. Obviously, you would have to rebalance saves as you have eliminated huge upsides.

1. Grappling mounted characters. Per the sage opinion I solicited, the D&D 3.5 rules do not cover grappling mounted characters.

Per the sage's opinion, he would not allow the grappling of a mounted character due in no small part, to the failure on step 5: Move into the mounted characters square was impossible. You may not sharea square with a creature you have not grappled - in this case the mount.

Why its an issue:
Mounted characters spend a lot of feats on the mounted tree; feats which already are neutered by circumstances where mounts need not apply.

The mounted feats, unlike many general fighter feats have *no* usability in a grapple. So the simplest way to take that fighter out of the fight is a simple grapple.

The current pathfinder rules exacerbate the problem by removing step 5.

Finally, grappling a rider was a *difficult* thing to do - as shown by medievel experience.

Suggestion:
Allow a rider to make either a riding or grappling roll to oppose being grappled. The riding roll simulates his ability to cause the mount to evade the grapple.

How about going to a spell point system?

Each spell would have a spell point (based on strength of spell, difficulty to cast, etc.

For Example:

Magic Missile 3 sp
Fireball 15 sp
Charm person 5 sp.

Then, too these spell point costs, the players could apply standard tactics, as well as special abilities - feats.

Standard Tactics
Maximize Magic missile 3+2sp = 5
Maximized Fireball 15+8 = 23 sp
Extra Effort +4 sp, for a +2 DC.

Feats:
Evocation focus: -2 sp cost for any spell in school.
Fire focus: -2 sp cost for any spell with a fire focus etc.