Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

gatherer818's page

Goblin Squad Member. 61 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Lamontius wrote:

what were you expecting to appear under 'murder clown' that would not creep you out

i mean if I want to see pictures of puppies and rainbows I do not type 'brown recluse bite' into google images


oh holy God. brown recluse bite was so much worse than murder clown. I'm not even beginning to joke. I hurt all over just from the sympathy pains.

Thanks a ton. Just knowing it's on the way is plenty ^_^

It's probably nothing, but my order 3432827 (that said everything was in stock and expected to ship) is still Pending. I ordered last week really, really hoping to have these in my greedy little hands by this weekend, and now that it's just barely past the deadline thought I'd give you a nudge.

After some really serious shipping problems with someone else just before the holidays, this stuff makes me nervous. If I'm not going to have it this weekend, that's fine, I'll live; I just want to make sure it is coming eventually :D

Spring Attack: Since making the attack doesn't end your move, if he movement left he should move up and try again to attack (his first attempt was aborted BEFORE IT WAS STARTED since that's when the PC's readied action went off).

Minions: If BBEG has minions, let them eat the readied actions (assuming a trigger worded like, "If I am attacked, I..." or position to make them sub-optimal BEFORE BBEG attacks. That's what they're there for.

Readied total-defense: This... is a once-per-fight thing that sacrifices initiative for a possible AoO on someone who will now be faster than you for the rest of the fight. And it isn't really likely to pull an AoO, since anyone whose turn doesn't include any visible standard actions is CLEARLY dangerous to approach. Even without the fact that readying an attack means you've drawn and readied your weapon to chop the asdf out of the first thing that gets too close.

Nitpick: Anyone who says "I don't metagame" either doesn't play or doesn't understand the words they're saying. The *degree* to which you metagame is debatable and subjective. That you do is virtually guaranteed in any game system with mechanics. Even just choosing not to attack the down-but-stable PC when playing an evil/mindless/animal-intelligence NPC is metagaming. The GM has to metagame the most, because he has to craft the entire story with the mechanics in mind.

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

if you can cast instant conjurations into the field from outside, you would be able to project them outward from the inside, no such thing as a one way forcefield.

Because magic doesn't work inside the field, but it does work outside the field. An evocation cast from outside the field (eg. fireball) would not penetrate the field because magic doesn't work inside the field. However, instant conjurations (eg. acid arrow) cast from outside the field work fine, because they are only magic as they are cast.

Acid arrow magically summons some ordinary acid. By the time it hits the field, it is just acid. You would need an anti-acid field (antacid field) to prevent the acid from damaging someone inside.

The caster inside the field cannot acid arrow out of the field, because he can't summon acid inside the field.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think OP's intent was to spark a detailed analysis of every game reason that his monk might out-damage a ranger with a level of barbarian. I believe he was just bragging a bit and saying it can happen. Not every thread has to be a place where you tell people exactly how they're playing the game wrong.

However, if rage was making the character miss more often, with a very strange archetype, there IS a problem :P I'm 95% sure that the OP meant Power Attack, and/or there's a houserule in play (or maybe just the ranger doing it for flavor) where raging characters MUST use Power Attack if they have it.

CWheezy wrote:
Doesn't it say in the feat that having a cohort that sits at home and crafts will make him abandon you and is not how the feat should work?

If he is a crafting-specialized caster, he probably WANTS to stay home and craft. In this case, you're more like his patron - you've got a live-in court wizard that creates magic items from the safety of your fortress for you to use as you commission them, he takes his cut (even if that's just his room and board) and you're free to adventure while he keeps an eye on your holdings.

I'm personally iffy about him gaining experience from encounters he's not involved in, but RAW is a little open there. It seems to imply he should only get exp from encounters he's in, but then doesn't spell that out explicitly.

My group hasn't used Leadership often, but in two of the three games we're running, we intend to. One is a Ultimate Campaign nation builder, the other an evil campaign complete with criminal organizations, so I'll probably have some notes on it for you eventually. Not sure it'll be in time to help with your research now, though.

andreww wrote:
gatherer818 wrote:
Anti-magic field has two main uses. One, all-around superior creatures (main example: dragon) can use it to suffer only minor penalties while shutting down a huge portion of what their opponents can do to them (you can't hit the dragon with 95% of big-damage spells, exploit its vulnerabilities, or use defensive magics against its dive-charge or full-attack).
This is not actually true with any creature bigger than large. AMF does not radiate 10' out in all directions from your space, it creates a 10' radius emanation. You have to pick a part of your space for it to emanate from you but if you are Huge or bigger if wont do you much good as a section of your body will be targetable by spells.

Not by people inside your AMF ^_^ choose a front-center intersection for the emanation and then close to melee. The caster can't 5-foot out of the field, so they've got to either withdraw - and thus, not cast this round and risk you charging - or else provoke to get out of the range and cast on you. And that's assuming open terrain. Put the field one intersection off the corner of your space and use a cliff/cave wall to cover the other.

Also, remember the field is a 10-foot radius, not diameter. A Huge creature can choose any of the internal intersections as the center and be covered entirely, with one side extending to cover enemies and so leaving a way to disable enemy defensive enchantments still. Even a Gargantuan creature can choose the front-center intersection and have a wall of AMF along the front edge of his space. When he's on the ground, at least. If he's flying , though, a Gargantuan creature just has too many angles of attack to cover them all with a standard AMF.

For Colossal (or flying Gargantuan) creatures that want to shut down a wizard, though, they get the option to grapple. If it's absolutely necessary that they use Anti-magic field, they can grapple the creature whose defenses they need to penetrate and pull them into the field.

Anti-magic field has two main uses. One, all-around superior creatures (main example: dragon) can use it to suffer only minor penalties while shutting down a huge portion of what their opponents can do to them (you can't hit the dragon with 95% of big-damage spells, exploit its vulnerabilities, or use defensive magics against its dive-charge or full-attack). This use is mostly for NPCs. Two, a caster with non-caster allies (main example: a PC wizard) can use it to disable groups of casters by sacrificing only his own capabilities (an adventuring party invading a cabal of infernal summoners and conjurers is the most contrived example, with summoned monsters winking out left and right while the fighter, cleric, and rogue wade into the casters with impunity). This is the use that PCs put it towards.

Additionally, creative uses is where AMF shines. Bypassing magical traps or walking through fields of magical fire, hiding your approach from magical detection then dismissing the spell so the +8 weapons and 15d8 chain lightnings can do their job, the best uses of anti-magic field are too situational to lump together.

Blanketing a city in AMF doesn't protect it from a spell that summons siege engines, or for that matter, entirely mundane siege engines. There is no need to shrink bathtub-sized balls of lava into marbles and drop them from over the city. You can simply fire bathtub-sized pools of flaming oil from your catapult. And probably get a better spread that way. If the citizens flee the burning city and rain of fire and rocks, your soldiers/summoned monsters/area of effect spells can mop them up. If they remain entrenched, burn (or harvest, you evil thief you) their fields and wait for them to starve.

Or if it's absolutely, entirely necessary for you to say you killed people with spells while they were inside antimagic fields, use acid arrow. AMF specifically says it has no effect on instant-duration conjurations. Acid arrow thus can be fired from outside the field to kill people inside.

memorax wrote:
I`m another person that thinks skills while not useless do get eclipsed by spells and items at later levels. Too bad they don`t offer more in game options as one invests points in them.

I can't say I'm particularly upset that skills (something everyone, even the negative-INT barbarian, gets at least one of every level and can use as often as the situation comes up) eventually become under-powered compared to spells (a class-defining class feature for half the classes in the game and very limited in uses per day, and often in either selection or preparation as well). However, I would point out the 3.5 Epic skill rules, which allowed you to pull off "unrealistic" effects with epic skill ranks (like using Acrobatics to run up a cloud or arrow volley, Stealth to hide behind your own distraction [throw a handful of grass in the air, hide in it], or Disable Device with a thrown marble while blindfolded and 20 ft away). Also, the unlimited use is a huge deal with many skills - sure, you might be making multiple Craft checks in a day, but having the ability to climb or swim could be a serious consideration if the Caster misses you with fly, or it gets dispelled, or he already cast it today, or the instant argument starter AMF (and, against reasonably powerful spellcasters like dragons with minions that could easily use a bow/crossbow, setting up in superior terrain with an AMF is not a contrived tactic, it's probably 'business as usual' for an ancient beast that's survived hundreds of adventuring parties and dragon slayers already).

Also, the very best options combine skills with less mundane uses. Some magic items (and even a few rare spells) either require specific skills to use or else give a benefit to those with those skills. All the magic items needed Spellcraft checks to create in the first place. Rings and wondrous items augment skills to supernatural levels (+10 to Acrobatics to jump is not unheard of) if you're already excellent at them.

I was kind of hoping it would end with the party fighting ANY undead creature and the Cleric "accidentally" (or unable to, owing to not having taken the feat) failing to exclude the horse when he fired his "I win against undead" channel. Please tell me that happened.

Disclaimer: didn't read the entire thread, just the first and last pages.

Last minute second disclaimer: Oh wow this turned into a wall of text, sorry. Feel free to skip it, my feelings aren't fragile :P

Just want to point out that making magical items (besides scrolls, potions, wands, and staves) doesn't take the exact effect of the spells used to create them and make them permanent on an item. In fact, it very specifically says in the item creation examples that it doesn't work that way, using True Strike as the example. (A +1 sword of Permanent True Strike is equated to being a quasi-artifact, though I don't think they use those exact terms, because even the best epic weapons can only add half of True Strike's attack bonus.) A sword "enchanted with" AMF would probably function by giving or improving some feat in the Disruptive/Spellbreaker lines, or giving a limited use effect similar to a scaled-down AMF. I could see 3/day as a swift action generating a 5ft AMF around the wielder until the beginning/end of his next turn, around a +3 equivalent bonus or so, just eyeballing it. Maybe 1/day at +3 and a "greater" version with 3/day at +4.

An interesting take would be one that only works for character with Parry class feature (originally from the Duelist PrC) that permits you to parry spells with the sword's AMF that only barely covers the sword, like a thin skin. Another one might be a sword that specifically only ignores defensive enchantments when you attack with it, since the contact is too short to make the momentary suppression of other effects matter, but it cuts through shield/mage armor/shield of faith like butter.

A final, more boring take on converting AMF to an enchantment might just be to treat it like a more expensive Spell Resistance item that grants the SR in an aura that doesn't discriminate between friend and foe.

Although I could see a custom metamagic feat or higher level version of AMF that could be on an object, the same way light and darkness work now, and then carried/fired toward the enemy caster, assuming you have a friendly caster. Maybe a same-level version that lasts 1 round/level instead of 10 minutes/level and is portable like that. It'd work well enough - down the caster quick.

Apologies for the necro, but I'm looking for a decent mapping tool and rez'ing this thread seemed better than creating a very similar new one.

I have Hexographer, but honestly, while mostly it's far more powerful than I need, it also is missing some key things that are needed for Ultimate Campaign kingdom maps. Putting more than one upgrade in a hex is tough with it, and sharing terrain improvements with a settlement in the same hex looks completely stupid.

I'd strongly prefer something that can export a map easily to a Kindle (Android device), but the GM's laptop will work just as well. Any suggestions?

A lot of the differences between the castes might be resolvable using open-ended traits, like the Human +2 to any ability score. Maybe encourage the player to choose traits with flexibility, then the castes could be common racial archetypes like Worker: Choose +2 Con, Endurance as extra feat. Soldier: Choose +2 Str, Weapon Focus or Power Attack as extra feat. Queen gets +2 Cha and is allowed to spend their extra feat on Leadership, having it activate as soon as they meet the requirements. That's the only stretch I'm seeing - otherwise they could be built with just variations on humans.

Barring that (in case it doesn't give enough wiggle room for the player, if they want things that are drastically different between the castes), you might consider allowing the players to developer alternate racial traits like the core races all have. A dhampir with fangs plays a bit different from the base dhampir, and a Half-Elf with Ancestral Weapon can completely change the game from a Half-Elf with Skill Focus. Maybe even racial feats to allow them to start the same and evolve differently as they gain levels - Soldiers pick up Hivemind Defense (Teamwork, Combat, Racial; +1 to AC and CMD for each ally with Hivemind Defense within 10 feet) earlier than Workers, who get Hivemind Toil (Racial; add a bonus to Craft and Profession checks equal to the number of districts in the nearest settlement, if that settlement is primarily composed of [race] and contains at least one [race] Queen) at first level normally.

Outside of your rather specific circumstances, though, I would normally treat them as different races.

TheDailyLunatic wrote:

ultimate combat wrote:
You may purchase or build a Mansion or Noble Villa in one of the other kingdom's settlements to use as an embassy (if so, your ambassador uses it as a residence). The target kingdom's leaders may do the same in one of your settlements. Your embassy is considered your territory (and vice versa). Your embassy grants your kingdom the normal bonuses for a building of its type (they apply to your kingdom's totals but not to any specific settlement in your kingdom) and increases Consumption by 1, Economy by 2, and Society by 2.

Does that mean that if my players decide to make 10 embassies there is a +20 bonus to Society for every single podunk settlement in the nation? That means that the kingdom also gets +2 Fame for every settlement because Society modifies it. Much worse, that means that every single Diplomacy check in the kingdom gets a +20. Even the most evil kingdom becomes a utopian paradise where everyone loves each other and helps each other out all the time for no reason!

I haven't really run full force into this yet, but I think I might establish a cap on how far these shenanigans can go. Maybe a +5 or +10 cap? Also maybe the bonus only affects your capitol city?

Maybe I should just be a total douche and say that it only affects effective society in the foreign city where it's built for your citizens. Wow... that would actually make much more sense. And they'd still apply as modifiers for Fame. I think that's what I'll do.

I think that extra +20 should still be getting divided by 10 before adding to Fame. Likewise, the "global effect" to your cities' Society should only be +2. So if you have three cities totaling 16 Society together, and two foreign embassies, you have a total +2 Society modifier. It's like you have an extra settlement with just the one Noble Villa or Mansion and a 2 Society rating.

MY question with Kingdom Building is that I cannot find anywhere where cities add to Consumption. It's referenced twice in the rules and once right on the Kingdom sheet, but nothing says how much settlements add to the Consumption cost. Also, just a point of clarification: Since armies and kingdoms pay Consumption at different rates, and Farms and Fisheries reduce Consumption at the kingdom scale, how do they interact? I'm seeing three possible scenarios...

a) Farms and Fisheries do not ever reduce army Consumption. I sincerely hope this is not the case, as my Kingdom is not well-positioned for lots of +BP per turn, only lots of -Consumption, and I'd like to not die from the Kobold and Dwarf nations near me.

b) Farms and Fisheries apply to army Consumption after kingdom Consumption, if kingdom Consumption is reduced to zero, but the reduction only applies once per month. So to get an army to zero Consumption, you have to have enough Farms to cancel out four times the army's Consumption. This is what I think it is - that Farms apply to the armies' monthly Consumption.

c) Farms and Fisheries apply to army Consumption after kingdom Consumption, if kingdom Consumption is reduced to zero, and the reduction applies to each week's Consumption. This is a really nice option for the players, but pretty much means giant armies will be the norm for any reasonably sized city. Stockyard in the middle of seven Plains, with seven Farms = -14 Consumption before you even start building Fisheries or more Farms further out.

So, I hope someone more expert than me comes along at some point to clarify, but the way I understand it is that any object that is linked to an extra-dimensional space when open (bag of holding, handy haversack, et al) is NOT an active portal to that space while closed. This is why your potions don't bounce around and break when you ride a horse or your swords don't poke through the bag when you drop it, for example.

Therefore, the animate creature inside would be unable to leave the haversack under its own power unless the haversack were left open for it to do so (and would then be as easy to steal from or have things fall into, etc, as any other container).

Moreover, the maximum volume of the container (minus about one fourth if the bag is more than half full) would be all the air the creature had, so if it needs to breathe, don't leave it in there for long.

I wouldn't say that the wizard is customizing the outsider, it's more that the wizard has researched a specific outsider that already meets his criteria. Many (not all, of course) GMs already allow customization of feats on summoned monsters normally, especially for summoners and conjurers that by nature summon really often, they summon the same monsters each time and have chosen monsters with particular feats instead of the racial average.

I don't like the power mostly because if that outsider dies, you lose it. No replacement. The fact that you're customizing it makes it even more obvious - this is a single, specific creature that is even more irreplaceable than your own character (at least you can be resurrected).

A few quick reasons I play fighters:

quick to build. As long as I'm starting with what I want them good at in mind, you can slap a fighter together nearly as quickly as you can double check to make sure you added all your bonuses and aren't writing a number that's too low on your sheet. I don't sit down "I'm going to make a fighter", I say "I want a grappler... hmm... monk takes ages to make, grapple-fighter it is!"

no baggage. "I want a two-weapon fighter who..." if the next words are anything besides "LOVES NATURE", Fighter is your best choice. Likewise, "I want a two-hander who..." RAGES and HEALS are the only answers that allow you to choose something besides a fighter.

omg versatility. Sure, I don't have unique class features, but so many feats, and the fighter archetypes give me some unique class features if my fighter fits into one of them. Just a few days ago I had a player have to step outside and calm down when he tried to five-foot away from my fighter so he could cast (Spellbreaker ftw) and died to a scimitar critical (Step Up and Strike ALSO ftw).

Raw DPS, every time. Sure, the fighter isn't going to keep adventuring once the wizard is out of spells... but when does the wizard run out of spells? Half the time the wizard is complaining that there aren't enough targets left after my turn to justify an AoE...

Also, I noticed a lot of assumptions that fighters are melee... Improved Snap Shot anyone? In the game I'm running my bow fighter, I did talk the GM into letting the 'sure shot' class feature (which does the exact same thing as Point Blank Master) count as the Point Blank Master feat, to save me one more feat pick when it was going to be completely worthless, and now my fighter has a 15-foot threatened area and a selection of +1 arrows with different abilities on them and a conserving bow. Spell storing arrows are ridiculous... I've got a few with vampiric touch and one with ray of exhaustion left, hehe.

Slightly off-topic, but my bow fighter is about to get the ranged-defense class features as well, and she's got a buckler of arrow attracting... "if you tank melee for me, I'll make you immune to ranged physical..."

Darkvision as a PC power is nearly unnoticable for anyone that sticks with the party. Assuming your party has at least one person without darkvision, your party STILL carries a light source. It might be good for the rogue if he's going to sneak away from the group though, since the concealment granted by darkness is good enough to make Stealth checks with....

I'm curious, when someone said Summoners don't fit in the Golarion lore... what happens when a Conjurer hits level 20 and gets his permanent summon? Because to me, it sounds a lot like you're saying "permanent summons don't belong in the world"... Let's also not forget the original "permanent summon", a certain re-summonable panther that faithfully served his dual-wielding master as a friend and front-line for a limited number of hours per day.

Which brings up an awesome point - Eidolons need to have "character" crafted for them, too, not simply be ignored by the party as just one of the Summoner's class features. Face it - other PCs are more likely to interact with the wizard's familiar or the cav/pal's mount than spend any time talking to the melee-bunny or wolf-made-of-blood that Summoners are likely to dream up.

At this point, it seems like your best bet is to ask the player if they'd mind playing something (ANYTHING) different that actually fits in the game, killing the barbarian, and having the GM allow your players to stumble on a raise dead scroll for when the final showdown that all the original characters will be needed to win. They made a character that simply doesn't work at all with the game you're playing. They might as well as have run a Space Marine with levels in Sith Lord and a few skill ranks in Pilot(Giant Mecha).

The OP is looking at fireballing ONE monster in his examples.... that's not the point of fireball. My dragon hunter party closes in with our group Fire Resist 10 and lets the caster lay down the fury. He pings his team for around a total 15-20 between the four of us in melee, sure, but he puts out 150+ against good sized groups of minions and gets them out of the way, while hurting the lieutenants to reduce the damage we have to get on them before they drop as well. Lightning bolt is better for when your team doesn't all have Fire Resist, though, since you can angle it to blast through a few baddies without hitting teammates.

Actually, I wish our caster had opted to be resurrected instead of rerolling when he got eaten (we were ready for a dragon... not a half-dragon dire crocodile. Charge-bite-grab-death roll, followed by death roll-swallow whole... he didn't stand a chance).

That is what I was thinking, even though it seems... odd. Roll it every round and take the roll if it's higher than the static.

My problem with that, though, is that if that works that way, then why shouldn't multiple applications of dice bleed also work that way? If I can inflict 2d6 bleed 3 times, should we 2d6 three times a round and take the highest? My group might honestly just stick with the static-dice (roll once and use that) for simplicity, even though we're usually pretty solid on following RAW w/ errata.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
James Jacobs wrote:
Mosaic wrote:
Do you re-roll bleed damage each round, or continue bleeding the same amount each round based on the initial bleed damage roll?
If the bleed damage is expressed as a die roll... yup; you reroll the damage each round.

How does this work with the fact that multiple sources of hp bleed don't stack?

For example, the rogue in my party lands a Bleeding Strike that causes 7 bleed, on a target I've landed a Bleeding Critical against for 2d6 bleed. Do we roll the 2d6 each round and take it if it's higher than 7? Does the 7 bleed overwrite the 2d6 because 2d6 averages 6.5? Maybe they count as "different types of damage" since one is dice and the other solid, and now he bleeds for 2d6+7?

I always thought you just rolled the bleed dice once and kept that, and so my 2d6 bleed would have a single number on it - so it would be, say, 9 bleed and would make the 7 redundant. Now that I know you reroll the dice every round, I don't get how they work together.

True, but the ability states that it works just like a full attack and the FAQ answer clarifies that it does so. It's slightly less "activating a supernatural ability" at this point and simply "using a weapon other classes don't have". It even provokes attacks of opportunity (making it act more like a ranged weapon than a supernatural ability). If the supernatural ability in question specifically says to treat it as a full attack, and the official answer from the developers is that it works fully with two-weapon fighting, taking the two together makes a pretty solid case for treating bombs in a full attack as just another potential weapon choice.

Going back to the OP, your question about using a hand crossbow seems like it would work once between reloads, faster with the Rapid Reload feat (after all, your hand is empty between bomb throws). If you only take the first TWF feat (or don't take it at all) you only get one off-hand attack anyway. Nice for adding a little extra damage to one full attack during a combat anyway.

That said, an official answer on using other weapons during a Fast Bombs full attack would be nice. I always prefer offical errata to attempting to divine the intent of the devs - even when I'm GM'ing, I prefer players and GM alike know they can rely on the rules to determine what's going on.

Goblin Squad Member

I've heard it compared to a shooter, but no one can ever explain how it's like a shooter. The spells don't recharge until you rest, and rests inside a dungeon on higher difficulties are limited. Combat is almost entirely roll-based, although positioning does play a part. Tumble is nice for moving quickly through a combat (it reduces the collision you get with other models, making it easier for a tumbler to get past enemies) but it only helps you "avoid" hits if you get out of an AoE before it lands - and fireballs fly too fast for you to have predicted where the AoE was going to be and dodged it intentionally. Active shield defense gives DR, doesn't negate hits, and you can't attack during it (I don't normally play sword-and-board or actively block on my healer, so I can't recall whether you can abort an attack-in-progress and block an incoming attack or not).

Most of all, rule #1 of a shooter is not to sit still in combat so as to present a harder target. Movement during your attack animation in DDO gives you a -4 penalty to your attack rolls - unless you have the Spring Attack feat.

The only time I feel it's like a shooter or action game is in PvP - it's actually likely that you can get out of the attack animation of your opponent with well-timed dodges or strafes, or that you can get behind a caster (breaking line of sight) if he's throwing slow spells or you're a tumbler. However... PvP has absolutely no point in the game. There is no reward, not XP, not drops, not even a ranking system I'm aware of, and is always 100% voluntary with no lasting consequences (unless you use up consumables during the fight, those don't get replaced).

I'm not saying the alchemist is a terrible class at all, simply providing a few answers to the OP's question. I like the alchemist as well. I think that in most cases having EVERY melee-type splash a level in a given class is just stupid - not for rules reasons, but for flavor. It could work, but I imagine that table feels a lot more like min/max central than a storytelling station right now. Even the barbarian spends a few hours a day carefully measuring reagents and applying heat for precisely measured minutes.

Being able to drink the high-level alchie's mutagens is... impressive. The costs on Infuse Mutagen are a bit high to mass-produce them, but I could totally see major battles being decided by the entire party producing Grand Persistent Infused Mutagens from under their cloaks and totally "hulking out".

Thanks for doing the footwork on Mutagen AoOs. I might consider houseruling that - it is literally the exact same action as drinking a potion, after all - but it's a bit too late for that in the OP's game (waiting until after everyone has taken a level in alchemist and then changing how the mechanics work is simply dirty), so that's not an answer.

If you're not using an already existing city as your campaign area, if it's taking place in an area that's being defined by you instead of out of a canon book, you might consider having certain types of alchemy banned in some areas or for a time period. That hurts your main alchemist, though. I'd make sure to limit it - only mutagens is specific enough that your main alchie still has options without breaking the law every time he acts. There's all kinds of rationale you could use - maybe a Master Chemyst attacked the mayor's house in his transformed state, or some other alchemist archetype was doing experiments he maybe shouldn't have and something horrible happened. Maybe a mage guild simply managed to draw together some support to have mutagens banned through political clout. Getting them unbanned could become a storyline (mostly non-combat, even) - or your players might prefer to live as outlaws, always carrying a black market substance under their cloaks and having to make tough decisions on whether or not to risk using them.

As long as you and your players are having fun ^_^

given the official FAQ answer, I can't see any way that using whatever combination of one-handed weapons you wanted wouldn't be ok with TWF. Mix and matching thrown weapons, using a one-handed melee weapon (bombs presumably count as light weapons), or using a one-handed ranged weapon (which are few and far between - I could see a single round from a crossbow, but you can't really use a longbow one-handed). Of course, you found a way around that with the revolver... and I might point out that you can get an extra arm as an alchemist. You could reasonably TWF/Rapid Shot bombs with bows for tons of fun. Suddenly I'm thinking of what cannot possibly be an optimized build... but dual-wielding bows with an alchemist seems like too much fun. Maybe I'll focus Mutagen-side and make him dual-wield greatswords instead...

that's... excellent. I knew you could attack from prone, and have used it on both sides of the screen, but for some reason I thought prone creatures no longer threatened. Threatening with reach from prone is hilarious to me. I'm going to have fun with this. Thanks all.

well, if the first thing they do in any fight is use their mutagen, there are a few easy foils. First, they are wasting a standard action on it. If the enemy surprises them or is able to quickly close, or is effective at range, then they're giving away a free turn of combat to the enemy who will use it to damage them. Second, it doesn't seem to say in the alchemist class description whether using a mutagen provokes attacks of opportunity. I'm sure a little searching whether or not it does, but my guess is that it does, since it's basically a potion. Again, enemies who surprise them or manage to close before their first move get more free shots.

Attacks of opportunity or readied actions can be used to attack the mutagen as well, breaking it so it can't be drunk. If they're using the Dexterity boosting mutagen, they're taking a Wisdom hit, so Will-targeted spells or SLAs are good. Finally, they need an hour to make a new mutagen after using one. In a dungeon, they might not have that much uninterrupted time - unless they retreat from the dungeon entirely between every battle.


You might consider whether or not to use any of these ideas, though, as you say it's not really a bad thing. Also, they're depriving themselves of benefits from their levels in their main classes. If you want to be really mean about it, design encounters where a class ability they'll get next level would be really useful - a class ability they'd have if they hadn't splashed alchie.

EDIT: GM Hands of Fate reply wasn't up when I posted this, it was intended to go after TarkXT's post.

yeah, I failed to address that point. An ill omen from the god? No, as the god mostly doesn't seem to care (although the small settlement bit, as well as it being hearsay that the creatures deserved it, might deserve attention). I got distracted by the thread and thought we were discussing an alignment hit. A warning that he's approaching an alignment change is perfectly appropriate, but power loss of some sort isn't called for in this situation unless you want to go from the "small settlement" angle, and even then probably only if at least a few of the murdered had never participated in raiding other villages and such. And I'd still go with a warning first.

EDIT again: To GM HoF, I'd strongly remind you that if the cleric is NE and his god is true neutral, that is not a situation where he should lose his cleric abilities. He does lose the ability to cast spells with the Good descriptor (and if he currently channeled positive energy, he'd have to switch to negative, but that's moot here). As long remains neutral on one axis or the other, he's good as far as alignment is concerned. He can't go to any of the four extreme alignments (CG, CE, LG, or LE) without losing his powers, though.

Hrm... Lurk3r, this just totally destroyed a character I just made. On looking it up, it seems it was ISWG/UC that nerfed it, as the APG doesn't mention it anywhere. I suppose I can live without, but only because the character has a ton of survivability. I withdraw my advice to the OP, as my weapon of choice seems to no longer be reach.

that really depends on how sure they are that the people they're killing deserve it. If they're so much weaker than the party that one channel is killing more than half of them, the party should probably be talking to them and giving them the chance to stop looting/raiding/whatever. I mean, they're really like children compared to the party at this point. Your player is throwing hand grenades through elementary school windows because he heard that the kids like to kick stray dogs.

If you try to talk and they attack you, fine. Self-defense is far more neutral than wholesale slaughter, even if it's not necessary (a single entangle, which he's probably getting from a Domain, would likely also solve the issue). At least this way they have a chance to defend themselves.

I'd personally definitely warn that player that he's risking moving to Neutral Evil if he continues slaughtering unarmed, unaware sentient humanoids because he's heard rumors they might be violent. Not that moving to NE would really affect him - a cleric can be one step removed from their deity, if I recall correctly. As long he doesn't ALSO move on the law/chaos axis he should fine. He can continue enforcing his god's will via brute force all he wants.

(However, if you as the GM want to be evil, you might consider... his god protects small settlements? If the creatures lived in those locations for a while, they could count as small settlements. Directly opposing your deity is a much worse choice than not exactly matching their alignment.)

um... can anyone point me to a place that specifies that prone creatures don't threaten squares / can't make AoOs? The fact they keep their reach made me go look... and I can't find one anywhere. The thought of a sleeping dragon landing AoOs (after someone wakes it up, but before it stands up) makes me giggle.

oddly enough, it doesn't seem to say in the description what happens to summoned creatures already within the area of the circle when the spell is cast. Does it shunt them out or do they get the benefit of the protection spell as well? Both? I was hoping to provide some kind of RAW justification one way or the other, but I can't find anything to grasp onto that hasn't already been mentioned. *marks as FAQ candidate*

Per my previous post - I was wrong. Every poison that lists 2 saves for its cure indicates 2 consecutive saves. It is possible to create poisons or other afflictions which don't require consecutive saves, but the guideline in the book and which every poison and disease in the book follows is always that the saves must be made consecutively.

To the OP's question about flanking - According to what I can find in the rules as written, it seems to be impossible to flank a creature sharing your space. They're still assumed to be "everywhere" in the square they inhabit, and so if you're sharing your space with the creature you can draw no flanking line that passes through opposite sides of their square.

---non RAW---
I'd allow it as a GM myself, maybe allowing the creature to choose when it moves which side or corner of the square it is in (and therefore which three squares it could be flanked from - for example, a creature in the north-east corner could be flanked from the north, east, or north-east bordering squares, while a creature on the south side could be flanked from the south, south-east, or south-west squares) if I wanted to get technical.
---back to RAW---

Do note that creatures that take more than one space can still easily flank a creature sharing one of their spaces, as they may choose to draw their flanking lines from their own center or the center of any of the squares they inhabit. A Tiny creature inhabiting one of those squares could be flanked by the larger creature drawing a line from any of the squares around it (and would have a large number of options for doing so - more than most creatures can be flanked from. Typically, for one given flanker, the flanked creature can only be flanked from one specific other square - a Large creature sharing one corner of its area can flank with creatures in three other squares).

I should also like to point out that there is no "amulet" category of items, ergo, the text in the Bonded Object rules is useless here. By the strictest literal interpretation of RAW, an Amulet of Natural Armor cannot be used as a Bonded Object, because it's magic item category is wondrous item.

That said, in my own games (and likely any reasonable GM's games), I'd allow any neck slot item that was either a necklace or something suspended from a necklace to work. I might even go so far as to allow anything that took the neck slot by assuming that was the writers' intent when stating an amulet category, but that's veering out of rules forum territory easily.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always read it as "the new spell dispels the old AND still applies to the target normally", although this thread makes me wonder. I too will nominate the OP for inclusion in an FAQ (not that my opinion is a huge deal on these boards, but one more voice can't hurt). I'm also not sure whether I'd apply the dispel effect of slow (against haste) regardless of the save/SR of the target.... I can't find rules that say it definitely works one way or the other, but my interpretation of the opposite effects rules still makes me lean to my original interpretation.

Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally)

This is annoying the life out of me. The exact intent of the line isn't clear - does this mean that the creature no longer appears outlined (let's assume the area is NOT "supernaturally dark" - only reduced to dim light or darkness) in the area of any darkness effect? Or only that it doesn't shed the light - the creature is still outlined, but doesn't provide the candlelight effect?

Drow stand to play a fairly large role in a story arc or two in the campaign I'm in, and they get both darkness and faerie fire as spell-like abilities.

Callarek - I'm not looking at the PFRPG at the moment, but I seem to recall some poisons specifying consecutive saves and others not - I believe only the ones that specify such require consecutive saves. I'll come back with support (or an apology, depending) when I get out my book.

the Urumi (also called the Flying Talon in some of the splat books). To my knowledge, it's appeared 3 times in official Paizo stuff, so you don't have to go to 3rd party material (one of the pathfinder world setting guides, the Adventurer's Armory, and the APG I think). The description seems to vary from source to source, but it's a bladed weapon that does slashing damage and can be used one-handed to attack melee OR reach (it doesn't have the spear's drawback) and has a very nice crit range. It's Exotic, of course, it's a bit tough to be a martial weapon, and if your GM likes to use critical fumble rules expect him/her to be VERY harsh if you ever fumble one (it's the kind of weapon that asks for it - excellent stats and a description that always implies it would be nasty to mess up with).

It should be on the PFSRD, I believe.

I often like to throw away XP systems, but I should mention one important thing you should consider before you do: Parties where members aren't the same level. As Pathfinder doesn't currently have a RAW way (I know of) to handle PCs that need some kind of level adjustment, the XP system can be used to automatically handle it. In the game I'm in, the party consists of one character each at level 7, 8, 9, and 10 - created at those levels. The 10th level is a human, the 9th a tengu, the 8th a natural werewolf, and the 7th a half-dragon drow noble. They're all about equal in power for now, but the race benefits will start to mean a lot less at the higher levels (we expect this game to go to 20th, if not to epic), so just saying "now everyone level up" will leave the drow permanently 3 levels behind the human and he will start to be seriously handicapped later on. The XP system automatically handles this by letting him level more often - by 20th he'll probably be the same level, but at that point most of his abilities won't be too unbalanced compared to other 20th level characters. And he'll still always be the last to level up...

Sorry for the thread necromancy here, but I was hunting rules for this myself and didn't know it had been errata'd until I found this thread.

Just my opinion, the reason for the change is probably so that a Vampire can't control several Vamp Spawn and command them to make enslaved Wight Spawn as well, controlled by the Vampire through the Vamp Spawn. Especially since Wights seem to have no limit to the number of spawn they can control.

A lone vampire of only 5 HD could still end up controlling entire armies that way - especially if one (like myself) doesn't own Classic Horrors and is playing by the RAW, since nowhere in the Vampire entry does it say they need to or feel discomfort when they don't feed. I was trying to come up with a reason vampires would feed besides already being in the middle of a fight and needing to augment their fast healing - much easier to energy drain the pesky adventurers out.

Vampires are a ruling class in the world I'm making, so their mechanics are important to me. I'll see about obtaining Classic Horrors for myself...

Charender wrote:
Idran wrote:

Oh, so it does! Haha, my mistake. Thanks!
If I remember correctly, it happens when dragons reach a certain size category and that size happens at different ages depending on the type of dragon.

Just a quick Create Undead Thread spell here...

It can't be size-based specifically, because Reds (and likely some others) get it at an age category where they don't get a size increase..

Red Dragon
1 Wyrmling Small
2 Very Young Medium
3 Young Large
4 Juvenile Large *gains Frightful Presence*

I couldn't find where to find WHEN they got it either, I just totally didn't notice the charts at all, so thanks to the person who answered the OP (and thanks OP for asking).

I'm thinking this too, but not finding anything definitive. By the exact wording in the Overrun, Trample, and Improved Overrun descriptions, it seems like having Improved Overrun on a trampler would negate the AoOs for trampling (but not the movement!) AND the reflex saves... which seems slightly OP to me. But it seems to work by RAW.

Unless your group plays strictly RAW though, likely your DM would rule that it forces them to always choose "avoid" and never attempt the AoO for your Tramples, even though the Improved Overrun feat says that it makes targets unable to attempt to avoid you, it would just be overpowered, even with a two-feat cost to get there.

So, by my analysis, Rules As Written: YES, it negates BOTH the AoO AND the Reflex save for trample; Rules As Intended: YES, it negates the AoO but NOT the Reflex save.

Aren't Illithids available from other sources anyway? I could swear they can be found in Lovecraft... I know Aboleths can, but my Lovecraft knowledge is terribly lacking for now. I'm pretty sure WotC/Hasbro couldn't possibly own them completely. They've been a pretty strong presence in literature for a long time now, haven't they?

Beholders and Displacer Beasts were created, to my knowledge, by DnD for DnD, but I could swear Illithids were based on an outside source.

And to the people claiming Hasbro could forgo the OGL and claim ownership of every monster in the monster manual - it's impossible. The Sphinx, the Dragon, the Fairie, these things have existed in literature and art since long before the United States was founded. You might as well try to claim exclusive use of the word "God" or "marriage" or "law".

If only the creators of the "limited" monsters had thought to only give unlimited use of, and not right to control all use of, these monsters when they created them. I'm sure they were made with the intent that roleplayers everywhere should be able to fight them in the darkest dungeons of their collective imaginations.

all that stuff Smerg just mentioned are fantastic tricks :P

if you're not happy with those, I might suggest a flying talon and Imp/Greater Trip feats. (Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book) - I have a twin-flying-talon halfling fighter using AoOs to trip people who try to get into melee, getting free AoOs on anyone they trip. His main purpose in the party is to not make his two caretakers have to worry about him (a monk and a barbarian) so they can do the killing, but he does a bit of killing himself.

To get to him, you have to run up to 10 feet away, stop, suffer a full attack from a two-weapon fighter with Greater Trip without getting tripped once, then 5ft step into his range, OR charge through and provoke the AoO and pray you don't get tripped by it.

+1 DM Blake.

Not counting terrain penalties until you move out of it would open up all kinds of ridiculous situations like Blake mentioned, walking inside a wall because it didn't count against your movement until you left it would be perfectly legal that way.

The only time that leaving a square is important is for opportunity attacks (because people are watching for you to make a mistake as you turn tail to flee the square), the square itself "attacks" you when you enter it.

shields are always strapped onto the arm and shouldn't be disarmable, EXCEPT in the situation of using the Equipment Trick (Shield) feat from the Adv. Armory. This feat allows you to unattach the shield from your arm and simply hold it and still gain the benefits of having the shield, and then you can do stuff like throw the shield at people from that position.

If you are NOT using this feat, you cannot have your shield disarmed, ever, in RAW. It can still be sundered though.

heh, Charm Person. Our party is loving the "make an opposed CHA check to make him do something he wouldn't normally do". We have a witch in the party with only social spells known (Witch fit his concept much better than bard, even though a bard would be a better social caster). He's so abusive.... He soloed an encounter that should have been party-appropriate last night. Never again will our DM use creatures that are all commanded by a single leader.

I don't get all the Summoner hate. Maybe some people haven't read the final version. Eidolon doesn't get Augment, Eidolon takes away the extended summon SLA, base form restricts the mix/matching (min/maxing) of abilities, has a cap on number of natural attacks... I'm switching my Eidolon (with my DM's permission) from quadruped (permanently losing the ability to Pounce) to biped so that his reach will be better, since biped gets a reach enhancement to all natural weapons from size, and it's more important for combat control than the usually-first-turn-only benefit of the Pounce attack. Combat Reflexes is far more important than having 4 or 5 attacks per turn.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.