cwslyclgh's page

uhmmm the dwarven war axe is a martial two-handed weapon or an exotic 1 handed weapon... a axe that can only be used two handed would just be a great axe.

note that there was a big change from the 3.5 ghost to the pathfinder ghost... in 3.5 a ghost resided on the ethereal plane, where he was corporeal, and had a strength score.... but manifested on the material plane as an incorporeal version of itself... in pathfinder ghosts reside on the material plane and are simply incorporeal (just like a wraith or a specter).

normally when a creature with out an ability is forced to do something using the ability in question it treats it as a 10 (no bonus or penalty), and this is what I would probably do in the case of a ghost (or wraith or specter) using a ghost touch weapon.

I believe it is being brought up because charge is listed as an AoO NO action on the action list... though I think you are correct that the charge itself doesn't provoke an AoO, but moving through a threatened area should, even if that area is threatened by the creature you are charging.

Bill Dunn wrote:

calvinNhobbes wrote:

What about if you are trying to hide yourself to set up for an ambush?

I wouldn't allow it. Taking 20 assumes failure along the way to maximizing your attempt and, with an opposed check, there's no way to actually determine that.

What I would do is offer a circumstance bonus based on the way the ambush is hidden.

Thanks Bill for the reply! Now, another question, what if you had an ally who was helping you try and hide better, so you knew if you had failed? Would you allow take 20 then, or simply add an additional circumstance bonus for the additional aid?

I still wouldn't allow you to take 20, although I would potentialy allow the other persons help to give you a +2 on your stealth check, similar to using the aid another action.

Beorn the Bear wrote:

Right, but what I am saying is, let's say Mr. Paladin charges a creature with reach and grab. THe paladin takes an AoO from moving out of a threatened square from 10 ft to 5 ft. The creature takes the AoO and hits with its normal attack. Does it still get the free grapple attempt from the grab ability at this point?

Yes, with the grap ability the grapple attempt is a part of the attack.

EDIT Oh, I unclear whether it would toggle the AoO in the first place, since charging don't provoke an AoO.

indeed charging is not a good example... unless the Paladin charges creature A (doesn't matter what creature it is but lets say a sea hag c sorcerer or something) but has to pass through creature B's (a creature with grab, lets say a giant octopus) threatened area to get to it.

Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).

Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.

Format: grab; Location: individual attacks.

Simply based upon the reading I am pretty sure that is not meant to be used with scrolls and such (wands, staves etc)... although I don't think that there would be much of a balance issue allowing it to work with scrolls.

Um, I thought grappling in PF was a standard action? Therefore it can't be used as an AOO? So no AOO-chain in this case.

doesn't the grab ability give the creature a free grapple attempt on a successful hit though? I wouldn't think that a grab grapple would be a standard action because the creature already used a standard action to make its attack...

My first Pathfinder RPG group is having a blast going through "The Sunless Citadel" being a 3.0 module means that it takes a bit more to convert to PF (although not really all that much more work then a 3.5 module), and the adventure is actually pretty cool.

I wouldn't even say that it is a bonus.

if you can carry permanent negative levels over through the cloning process I don't see why you couldn't also carry over inherent ability score bonuses.

Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

Wall of Force blocks line of effect.

Assuming that Pathfinder uses the same paradigm as 3.5, then every encounter of a CR equivalent to the average party level should use 20-25% of the "party resources" so the average party will be about tapped out after 4-5 such encounters. Encounters of lower CR then the party average will use correspondingly less resources, and thus more of them can be dealt with before the party needs to retire and rest, while encounters with a CR higher then the APL will use more resources, and thus make it so they have to rest sooner.

Hope that helps.

However the effect is on the weapon, not the character.

weapons do not make attacks... if the effect was on the weapon it would have no effect, since it is the character that makes the attacks and an extra attack is granted, the effect is on the character.

use common sense, normally the other party members will decide what happens to the fallen comrades stuff (assuming that the do not get him raised for some reason), though I had one player who generally wrote out a "will" for his characters.

Oh.. and *10* new abilities, faster DR progression... come on guys. At least recognize the improvements that were made, even if you don't agree that they are wholly sufficient.

I for one recognize a tremendous improvement in the Barbarian class in Pathfinder, I never really considered making a Barbarian character in 3.0 or 3.5, but have been thinking about making a barbarian for my next Pathfinder character.

See page 15-15 on page 491 of the pathfinder core rule book. Yes scrolls are considered to have the minimum caster level normally (although in 3.5 it was possible to make scrolls with caster levels higher then normal, you could for instance make a scroll of cure light wounds with a caster level of 5 by paying a bit more... I do not know if that is still an option in Pathfinder).

it doesn't suffer from that problem at all, because it has nothing to do with your 'facing' when you cast the spell you chose a corner of your square, the spell effect will always emanate from that corner of your square. it is not emanating from your ankle which is moving around the square, it is emanating from the corner of your square chosen at the time of casting.

I don't see much of a contradiction here.... James says a generous GM/DM might allow them to be used together, and his quote from the other thread "I would certainly allow that in my game" just shows that he is a generous DM/GM.

not any odder then the arcane spell failure or armor check penalty which come about because even light and heavy shields are fairly big and unwieldy.

You could Aldern be at his home in Magnimar (he has one there as well) when they visit, and let them bump into him (or simply see him from a distance on a crowded street)while they are in the city to let them know he is not at the manor.

My group just happened across it after the glassworks, they were following the tunnel from the basement to the beach, and decided to head down the side tunnel just to see what was there.

I used 32 point buy (3.5) when I ran the first half of Rise of the Runelords and the characters were not in any way over powered (as a trip through the RotRL obituary thread should prove).

The casters they were up against were, for the most part,..Derro Savants,Aboleths and Kuo Toa Priests..its nearly 10 years ago so the specifics are a bit hazy.

That is what I remember from the boxed set as well.

Abraham spalding wrote:

(since critical hit damage is precision damage).

No, it isn't.

Each attack of a scorching ray can crit. It just can't all get sneak attack (or sudden strike, or skirmish) damage.

I think Abraham might be confused by manyshot, since you get two arrows on one attack roll you can only crit with one of them. however a close reading of the feat will show that crits are not precision based damage.

Manyshot (Combat)

You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

no need to write it like that if critical hits were precision based.

I actually disagree with Beorn the Bear... by my reading of the rules the numeric variable of a caster level 5 cure light wounds is 6-13, and thus it should all be affected, similarly the numeric variable of a magic missile is 2-5, and thus it should all be affected.

Is there not a exception to facing with regards to making Attacks Of Opportunity agaist foes against your flank who move out of threatened areas?, just curious and putting it out there.

I do not understand the question, facing doesn't exist in the pathfinder game.

I don't remember there being that many high level enemy wizards in Night Below actually.

many of the common "trap" spells (glyph of warding, fire trap for eg.) are abjurations, and I always took that to be talking mostly about the DC of a rogue finding such traps to be easier if there are more then one of them present.

The number of rays is not a numeric variable, it is a static number based upon your caster level, thus empower spell doesn't affect it because empower spell only affects numeric variables. an 11th level sorcerer using an empowered scorching ray spell would get 3 rays each of which would deal 4d6*1.5 points of damage if they hit (Note that while this is numerically the same as rolling 6d6 you do not actually roll 6d6, you roll the normal 4d6 and multiply it by 1.5 by the RAW).

I have a question that doesn't necessarily have to do with the spell compendium as it does with the spell fireball. I was recently playing the skinsaw murders and we went into the sawmill where there were a bunch of baddies. A fireball was cast, and the GM promptly had the entire sawmill burn down. What are you thoughs on this?

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area.

My players chose not to use fireball there for that very reason.

d20pfsrd.com wrote:

James recently answered in a different thread that you can only trip with a trip weapon or an unarmed attack. He stated that was an "official" response.

Am I reading this correctly? You officially can not trip with a quarterstaff, or even a long spear?

Huh.

That is a weird ruling...

nothing prevents you from tripping while holding a quarter staff or Longspear in your hands, the rules don't say anything about needing to have your hands free to trip somebody... you just don't get the extra bonuses from using a masterwork or magic weapon on trip attacks if the weapon isn't a trip weapon... feel free to describe your trip however you want... "I shove my staff behind his leg and shoulder block him back over it, attempting to trip him" etc.

yet i read somewhere james said only the first attack is flat footed then the person knows about the other person, yet i can find this nowhere in the books?

I believe James was talking specifically about the case of an invisible attacker when he said that.

If invisible from the use of an invisibility spell after your first attack you become visible and thus your opponent no longer loses his Dex bonus to AC against your attacks (one of the benefits granted by invisibility). Unless, of course, he is still flat-footed because it is the first round of combat and he hasn't acted yet.

cwslyclgh wrote:

huh? ray of dizziness doesn't stun you for one round... all it does is (using the pathfinder terminology) give you the staggered condition for the duration of the spell.

my way would be failed fort save staggered for 1 round/level
made fort save staggered for 1 round.

Whoops, sorry, getting my spells mixed up.

I wonder which one I was thinking of that stunned you for the first round...

Stun Ray perhaps?

huh? ray of dizziness doesn't stun you for one round... all it does is (using the pathfinder terminology) give you the staggered condition for the duration of the spell.

my way would be failed fort save staggered for 1 round/level
made fort save staggered for 1 round.

The theory behind the Ray spells was that your Touch AC was your save in effect... although that really tended to hose big creatures with average dexterity (such as dragons). I think they would be just about right if they allowed a save for reduced effect.

for example ray of dizziness normally lasts 1 round per level, adding a Fortitude save that reduces that to just 1 round if successful would bring the spell right to where it should be IMO, and that way the caster wouldn't have to worry about potentially having to make a ranged touch attack and see the spell completely fail anyway (as it might if there was a save negates).

I have always asumed (and thus used) the idea that you reroll after every use... so dragon breaths roll d4 get a three, three rounds later dragon breaths roll d4 again to see how long till the next breath etc.

Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments.

All in all I think there are a lot more well balanced spells in the SC then there are unbalanced spells (though I might be a bit biased in that regard), as long as the DM/GM makes a point of reading and understanding the spell in question while deciding whether or not to allow it into his or her game, there should not be a problem with allowing the majority of the SC spells in.

I am pretty sure he was talking about tumbling through the enemy's space ::roll-eyes::

Although by the RAW the DM is 'wrong' in this case, I do not think that his ruling will have a serious effect on game balance as long as he applies it evenly across the board...

since a dwarf isn't affected by encumbrance like other characters does this mean the fleet feat ( extra 5 ft movement ) can be used while wearing medium and heavy armor?

nope

cwslyclgh wrote:

part of the contest is giving them rope to see if they hang themselves with it... you don't like it don't compete.

I don't. Too bad for them.

then why are you on here b@#&~ing about it?

No. They are allowed to post in their own creation's thread. Which allows them to make a faux pas that gets them DQ'd.

part of the contest is giving them rope to see if they hang themselves with it... you don't like it don't compete.

Ice Titan wrote:

...I can definitely see the humor in the Skinsaw Man wrangling a zombie to try to get it to flank with him and stuff.

The image in my mind when I read that was a collar around the dead PC's neck chained to the waist of Foxglove, trying to bullrush those that attacked him. Maybe when Foxglove gets injured the first time and starts crying, the dead PC crawls around him in an animalistic and protective fashion and Aldern recounts his story if asked while stroking the dead PC.

Probably won't do that, but it was an amusing thought.

Ha I like it.... it would never work with my players though.... my players have a nasty habit of interrupting such "Cinema scenes" ("what they're just laying there crying... okay then" :::Chop, Chop, Chop:::)

when you get to 7th level think about taking fly as your 2nd third level spell, it can be very useful for getting out of the way of opponents and giving you a chance to buff your self up (though in clear terrain it is not so helpful against archers).

what class and level is your character? Perhaps that would help us tailor our advice to you better....

I for one have not posted my vote here... so there's at least one you haven't tallied!

doesn't really matter, as long as we got a true representative sample of the voting population the true results should be pretty close to what is predicted.

The main difference between a wand and staff of one spell is the feat needed to create the item.

The RAW states that the familiar can deliver touch spells for the wizard. The wording suggests that this is intended to be melee touch spells, but doesn't exclude the possibility of range touch spells, which can always benefit from the +1 or +2 size bonus familiars usually have.

I remember doing this all the time in 3e but I honestly can't recall if that was in the rules or a house rule of the GM with whom I was playing at the time.

a touch spell is a spell with a Range of touch, spells that require a ranged touch attack are generaly effect spells with a Range other than touch, and are thus not touch spells. No having your raven deliver that acid arrow or scorching ray spell for you.

What I did when the characters suffered a TPK at thistletop after one of the characters had attracted Aldern's obsession was to play up the heroic angle when the new characters finished the burnt offerings adventure, and having Aldern become obsessed with one of the other characters, but in a different way, instead of lusting after the character, he obsessively hated the character for stealing the thunder of his "lost beloved".

I like the way you think though, and wish I had thought of adding something like that to the final encounter with Aldern (although the bodies were not really that recoverable after the TPK, as they were washed into the sea cave and eaten by the bunyip).