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

leem's page

62 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Do creatured provoke aoo within lunge range? If someone stand up 5' away can you use lunge to get your aoo?

This opens up an entire new reason to choose a eldritch heritage. Awesome. Thanks!

* I obviously didn't expect sneak attack heal, but it is nice to see the mechanical reason pointed out.

This is a combination question of sneak attack and spells AND sneak attack and damage types, with a little bit of cheese tacked at the end. I am looking for any input on any part of my discussion.

1: As I understand it sneak attack (sa) can be applied to any spell which requires an attack roll and does damage. For example, you could sneak attack 3 times with your ranged touch acid splash within 30' if you took minor magic talent. Am I correct? *assuming the target is denied dex of course*

2: Does the sneak attack damage type change to the spell type? If I rolled a 2 on damage with acid splash and have 4 sa damage, would that be 6 acid damage?

3: I am making a half elf rogue that will have eldritch heritage by third level. I am going to choose the celestial bloodline that gives a ray that deals 1d4 points of damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess against evil creatures. This damage is divine and not subject to energy resistance or immunity. This ray heals good creatures of 1d4 points of damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess.

Back to question 2, would all damage be divine if I did a sneak attack with it? If so...cheese...can I sneak attack a good ally with it and heal for my sneak attack damage? It is a touch attack! You can sneak attack subdual damage with a sap. What do you think?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like I said. These are organic rules that work for our group, and we have been playing for years. I am sure every group has their own "system." I am not debating if these are superior, just stating what works for us. It is interesting to me to see how others play the game.

I have bought every book and a good deal of 3rd party content(Frog God and Rite being my favorite).

My default position is:

1: Everything in Core, Advanced, and Equipment is good to use.
2: No one class can have more then one archtype, even if they qualify. Multi-archtypes seems silly and used only for optimization. Each class in a multi class can have an archtype.
3: Magic and Combat get a general "yes," but I want them to get my approval first--particularly with spells and feats.
4: I hate summoners and really dislike the magus. I have never said yes to a summoner. I have with the magus, and I had to mask my annoyance. It was a good back story and I wanted to support the player.

* the other main DM has basically the same rules. I am in his campaigns and he is in mine. He has let summoners in, but he talked with the player and put severe limitations on the class. He HATES 3rd party as much as I hate the summoner and never allows it, but......

5: If I am running a campaign that is primarily 3rd party, then I open up the 3rd party classes from that publisher. But those are reserved for specific campaigns.

6: Race book is off limits unless you are using it for the core races.

These rules have organically grown as we have played over the years. They are not my impositions on the group. We all get along. We all trust each other. We all have a tendency to optimize. We all have a blast.

FYI: For rolling characters I have the first column be the 20 point buy and the second column be 4d6 reroll 1s. They choose the highest. That way they can plan their character before we play, but there is still randomness if they roll good enough.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I am not sure where to place this, but I have a very simple product idea that I think would do quite well. I hope Paizo reads this.

I recently got the Character Folio and really loved the folder. I loved the table layout, the high gloss finish, and all the references I would no longer need to look for in the core books.

But I burn through characters and the price point is just too high to stay caught up with all my different characters in the different campaigns I am playing/dming. Also, I don't need all the sheets in the Folio for all characters, and some characters need more sheets, like spells.

I was going to use my character folio as a folder (keeping all the reference/table stuff, and take the staple out so I can replace the character specific sheets. HOWEVER, the inside cover is where the main character info is.

Paizo...can you PLEASE PLEASE make a simple folder we can buy to put our characters in? Something like the Folio, but without any character specific information. A folder to hold our character, campaign notes, spells, etc.

If you sold a hard copy of a folder, then I could get one for each campaign I am in. As they wear out or as I start new campaigns, I would be happy to buy more folders. Surely they would be cheaper then $10.

I could then use cutePDF to print only the pages I need from the pdf version of your Character Folio. I could have my custom character sheet for every campaign AND all the benefits of the high quality folio.

Please can you make a character folder to hold our characters....? The Player Character Folio was so close to being perfect--great quality and lots of pages, but the sheer number of pages makes lots of it a waste for many of my characters, and the permanency of the Folio coupled with its' price makes it not an option for me.

I just can't spend $10 every time a character dies. But I could buy lots of folders, print only the pages I need for my characters, and continue to be a happy paying customer.


LazarX wrote:
leem wrote:
I categorically dismiss the notion wizards are more versatile.

It's different types of versatility. Wizard are more versatile in what they can PREPARE for. Sorcerers on the other hand are more versatile in making decisions in on the spot casting.

Both are good, it's a matter of choosing which you want.

True that.

leem wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
Beyond 3rd level its is absolutely 50% of the time. FIne is you don't mind being *sniff* sub-optimal :-)

You mean 50% of the time between level 3 and 17. In 12 out of 20 levels they can cast the same level of spells as the wizard. They are only behind for 8 of the levels.

I am playing, do play, and love wizards. I just find sorcerers to be more versatile. In practice I have never seen a wizard more versatile then one of my sorcerers. The only advantage I have seen is in that higher spell they can usually only cast once or twice a day at one of those 8 levels.

Really, the sorcerers power surpasses that in my experience.

I couldn't find the EDIT button.

I feel I should clarify what I mean by "more versatile" then wizards.

1: Most wizards I've seen don't use most of their spells, but they do avoid their opposition school. With no opposition schools, sorcerers tend to have a better blend of spells at their disposal.

2: Sorcerers can take feats to increase their spells known or be a human and get one extra spell per level. Careful selection with metamagic feats in mind almost completely open up any spell you need when you need it. Scrolls and wands are cheap to fill in potential gaps.

3: Use magic devices opens up all magic to the sorcerer.

4: Bloodline Arcanas can be chosen to increase who your spell affects and the spell's utility. Think of Serpentine Bloodline and Undead Bloodline.

Serpentine wrote:
Your powers of compulsion can affect even bestial creatures. Whenever you cast a mind-affecting or language-dependent spell, it affects animals, magical beasts, and monstrous humanoids as if they were humanoids who understood your language.
Undead wrote:
Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them.

With so many monster types, it is easy for wizards to prepare for one type of monster and be severely limited if a surprise shows up. They have no equivalent to open new monsters to the affects of their spells.

5: You do not need to plan for the future to use your feats, nor do you need to use up a spell slot to prepare your "escape" spells or "oh crap" moments.

I categorically dismiss the notion wizards are more versatile. On paper it works, but in encounters they tend to be pigeon holed by what they prepared and sacrifice too much for having that couple uses of a higher spell for the 8 levels they are ahead of a sorcerer.

Funky Badger wrote:
Beyond 3rd level its is absolutely 50% of the time. FIne is you don't mind being *sniff* sub-optimal :-)

You mean 50% of the time between level 3 and 17. In 12 out of 20 levels they can cast the same level of spells as the wizard. They are only behind for 8 of the levels.

I am playing, do play, and love wizards. I just find sorcerers to be more versatile. In practice I have never seen a wizard more versatile then one of my sorcerers. The only advantage I have seen is in that higher spell they can usually only cast once or twice a day at one of those 8 levels.

Really, the sorcerers power surpasses that in my experience.

Funky Badger wrote:

Metamagic = full round casting :-(

Being a level late getting the new toys :-(

Full Round casting is a cheap price for the ability to use them anytime you want. The Arcane Bloodline also lets you use feats as a STA eventually.

Sorcerers are only behind less then 50% of the time. And what they gain is over the top worth it. :P

I mostly play either a sorcerer or a wizard. I did get a witch up to level 8. Currently I am playing a level 10 divination wizard.

I totally love the sorcerer the best. Every other feat level I usually alternate between a feat to add more spells to my spells known and a metamagic feat. If you are a human you can also exchange the hit point for a new spell. Shadow spells (conjuration and evocation) open up plenty of spells in those two respective schools.

That is plenty of spells for any situation. Extreme cases call for a wand or scroll.

Altho the wizard has some pretty cool bonuses (don't underestimate prescience when used with dispel magic and overcoming SR), and they rock with versatility, I find in my games the sorcerer rules supreme.

First off, I don't like sorcerers because of the amount of spells they can cast. Wizards get a fair amount of spells and the bonded item gives them that "oh crap" moment spell. Our sessions usually are only 4- 6 hours, and I have yet to run out of wizard spells. Spell number only worked to my advantage when I faced a wizard while dispelling magic--with the exception of that one blasting spell my sorcerer usually chooses.

The versatility of being able to choose metamagic feats can't be over stated. The arcane sorcerer can take on any wizard. With a few feats you truly only need one or two blasty spells (or any spell of each type), and you can modify it on the fly.

Intensified Spell feat is a must. Suddenly level 1 and 2 spells can act almost as good as 3rd and 4th level spells!

Having a high charisma with UMD as a skill can't be overstated. It doesn't take long before a sorcerer can cast divine wands with ease. I have even pulled off some awesome scrolls and staffs with my sorcerers.

At higher levels you can get a staff with both divine and arcane spells, then you can easily recharge your divine slots.

Sorcerers have bloodlines that let you use enchantments on animals, magical beasts, and monstrous humanoids or use mind affecting spells on undead.

Sorcerers rock at high level summoning and enchantment spells because their charisma lets them more easily win opposed charisma checks.

I have never made a blaster, but sorcerers rule there too.

Sorcerers can match or surpass the wizard on versatility with careful spell and feat selection, minimal money spent on scrolls, wands of all types of magic, and being able to cast any spell on the fly.

Don't get me wrong. I love me some wizard. I have played many and am currently playing one I have had for a while...and he rocks! But I have to side with sorcerers being superior.

I am assuming he is talking about as an Attack of Opportunity, and I would have to say he has it wrong. You can't do a power attack as an AoO. You must decide you are going to do it at the START of your turn, and it lasts a full round till your next turn. It's bonuses and penalties then affect all your attacks and combat maneuvers.

PRD wrote:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls...You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Yeah, you might want to take a look at at bonus types. Essentially most bonuses have a specific type (like moral, enhancement, competence, armor, dodge, et cetra). Other bonuses will not identify a type.

For example, the Bracers of Armor state: "These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor."

Later on it says, " If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning."

So the "armor bonus" on the bracers of armor DO NOT stack with the "armor bonus" of wearing a breastplate. They are the same type of bonus.

The Belt of Giant Strength states: "This belt is a thick leather affair, often decorated with huge metal buckles. The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Strength of +2, +4, or +6."

The spell Bulls Strength states: "The subject becomes stronger. The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, adding the usual benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, and other uses of the Strength modifier."

So if a wizard cast Bull's Strength on someone wearing a Belt of Giant Strength, only the highest bonus would count. They don't stack!

If a bonus is NOT SPECIFIED, it usually stacks. Also, some bonuses have special rules. Like dodge: "Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other."

You might want to "audit" your players' characters with them to verify the bonuses to hit, ac, damage, et cetera are calculated correctly.

Darksol the Painbringer said wrote:
Personally, I would have the bad guys always be at the top of the initiative order (since they were already readied, the PC's would be below them in the initiative order due to them reacting first); this is a major setback for them since they didn't act against them during what would seem to be a surprise round, or even create one for them to get an advantage.

Good point about the readied action. On second thought, I would allow them to throw the hostages in the fire, but wouldn't the sleetstorm put it out that round anyway? Maybe I would give them 1d6 fire damage and a reflex save at the start of their turn DC15 (+2 or +4 to roll because of magic) to put it out.

I agree with Quatar's interpretation of the rules. However, as a DM, even if it is a hostile encounter, if they are just in heated conversation or negotiations, I always let the first person to act to act outside of initiative--a one person surprise round. Depending on the situation, I might only allow a standard action.

In my game your Druid would start casting the spell, and everyone else would be like, "What the WHAT!!?" and roll initiative. He would get the spell off and the battle would start. He would also be the primary target for a few rounds.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

When one of us is the GM we typically touch base after each game to see how the other viewed the game. Not just from a rules perspective, but we touch base on the body language, comments and game engagement of the other players and then we strategize how to address any issues. For example, if we have a player who seems to be checking out (texting on their phone, leaving for frequent phone calls, etc.) we will discuss what we need to do to get them back into the game. But we also discuss rules interpretations because since we play together, we want to be as consistent as possible.

I can't remember the last time we had a serious rules issue interfere with fun in the game. And I have a few house rules that come into play myself.


My GM and myself (when I GM) are really good at defining what bothers us as GMs, what we disallow (I am about to start Council of Thieves and any character can be any core race + tiefling and any racial ability in Core, Combat, Magic, APG, and ARG for those races), and setting expectations on understanding the rules for any ability or spell.

If you grapple or summon or counterspell etc, you need those rules or stats on your character sheet. No flipping though books. We expect if any character has any question before a session that they talk to the GM and get a consensus of opinion on how it will work before we play.

For example, I know my GM hates, I MEAN HATES, grapple checks. He hates what grapple does, he hates how it still seems to slow down encounters, he hates how it can end an epic encounter, but he doesn't interfere with it.

Knowing it is a pet peeve of his, I decided to work out with him and clarify how the crocodile's death roll works for my animal companion. I thought it was first round grab, second round confirm grab activates deathroll (damage and prone condition) and then get my regular bite damage as maintaining a grapple.

He pointed out that maintaining a grab is a standard action and so death roll is part of what you can do on that standard action and replaces your other options because it is an enhancement to just damage (much like a wolf's trip attack). He might be wrong, but I kinda agree with him. The most important thing is we decided before the game that that was how it would work, and we both felt good with the answer.

When combat happened there was no lawyering or surprises, no disappointment on my part, and no aggravation on his part. We save that for before or after game play. My gm (and myself) make it a point to be consistent.

I cannot stress how important communication is before and after game play, how important it is to define abilities on the character sheet for identifying potential conflicts and speeding game play, and how important it is for the gm to be consistent. You do that and it will cut down on the negative stereotype of lawyering and also players who slow down game play with poor understanding of their chracter or rules that apply to them.

Gauss wrote:


The next paragraph:

CRB p549 wrote:
The caster can work for up to 8 hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day, but the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of his time as he sees fit. If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours’ worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night. If time is dedicated to creation, it must be spent in uninterrupted 4-hour blocks. This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress ( just as with the adventuring caster).
- Gauss

Yeah, I was actually trying to make the point that it is very obvious what the rules are and I am shocked that six veteran players missed it. I copied the paragraph to show how explicit the rules are, but I accidently copied two paragraphs, and then I accidently deleted the wrong one...making it look like I was sticking by my assertion it is not obvious.

Good thing humble pie doesn't taste so bad, cause I am eating a generous serving.

Gauss wrote:

Leem: The rules specifically state you do not need a workstation but at that point you are getting 1hour of result for every 2hours of work. It also states you can craft while adventuring but again at a ratio of 1hour gained for 2hours of work.

- Gauss

Well...apparently we are all blind! lol. My gosh, you are right. How did 6 of us miss it? We must of assumed teh other person read it in better detail. From the prd:

The creator also needs a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work. Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items. Creating an item requires 8 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof), with a minimum of at least 8 hours. Potions and scrolls are an exception to this rule; they can take as little as 2 hours to create (if their base price is 250 gp or less). Scrolls and potions whose base price is more than 250 gp, but less than 1,000 gp, take 8 hours to create, just like any other magic item. The character must spend the gold at the beginning of the construction process. Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day. This process can be accelerated to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof) by increasing the DC to create the item by +5.

gustavo iglesias said wrote:
I dont think that if you find a +4 holy sword, and 2000g, and you split it 500g each and then give the sword to the fighter, you can call that "even share of treasure".

How we handle it is we split the gold evenly. Then if someone wants an item, they must pay the other characters their share of that item if it was sold.

So in your example, a plus 4 Holy sword is 72,000 new. If you sold it you could get 36,000 gold. If you divide that by 4 you get 9,000 gold per character in a party of four.

So if someone wanted the +4 Holy sword, he would either have to pay the 3 other players 9,000 gold each (or get them to loan them the money), or the could sell it as a group and the fighter takes his 9,000 gold and uses it for part of the cost of a 72,000 gold item. Obviously he is better off paying his party their share!

So the fighter/paladin paid 27,000 gold for a 72,000 gold item and everyone else gets their share of the loot. Everyone wins. Of course they could just sell everything and take the money to town and get what they want, but then the item they want needs to be in the town AND they have to pay full price for it, not half.

Win win win win win.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

In an upcoming sourcebook, we're going to write additional material for the magic item crafting rules, further explaining and clarifying the nuances of how this works. I'm going to look over existing threads, FAQ entries, and FAQ-flagged threads, but I don't want anything to slip through the cracks, so I'm asking here: Is there anything else about the magic item crafting rules that could use more explanation or examples?

This has come up multiple times in our gameplay. What exactly do you need physically with you to craft magic items?

For example, if you have a masterwork ring or sword, do you still need a forge to make it magical? Or do you just need to meditate over it and cast spells into it?

We have had lively discussions whether you can craft in a wilderness or if you need a workstation. Some people argue that since you are not creating the item it seems to suggest you just cast spells into it or imbue it with power.

However, others suggest that since it costs a significant amount of gold, you must be buying supplies that takes significant resources (like forges, work benches, etc) to work into the item.

Thanks. What a wonderful idea for a thread.

Let's say I am a druid that shifts and gets an animal with the grab feat, but I have also have the improved grapple feat. Does Garb stack with Improved Grapple?

I hope this is in the right place. I am a pathfinder AP subscriber. I am wanting to run Council of Thieves and I want th print and pdf versions.

Does anyone know if the free pdfs are just for the new APs, or if I purchase the Council of Thieves print editions will I get the free PDFs?

If not, is there any way I can get the PDFs for free? Start another subscription starting at CoT or maybe getting a discount if I buy them all at once?


Sorry for the long post, but many people are not familiar with the gladiator play in regular combat. I thought a quick review might help. It also might serve as a good reference in the future.

I am still looking for some discussion or verification of my questions. Tomorrow is gaming night.

I have a Gladiator Fighter(4)/Rogue(2). I almost have my head completely wrapped around gladiator fights outside of the arena.

In order to use performance feats out of the arena you need the Performing Combatant feat. To get that feat you need "Weapon Focus--Dazzling Display--and at least one Performance Feat." That is four feats including Performing Combatant.

Once I get a trigger (like charging, hitting with 2 weapons, critting, et cetera), I can make a Performance Combat Check. That check is my charisma modifier + a modified bonus based on BAB + a modified bonus based on ranks in a performance skill + bonus granted by the performance feat + a bonus if you have a "performance weapon."

At level 6 with a BAB of 5 and 5 ranks in a performance skill, I get a +1 (from charisma), a +1 (modified bonus based on BAB) +1 (modified bonus based on skill ranks), +2 from my performance feat (I will use savage display), + 2 from my performance weapon.

I need a Performance Combat Check to beat a DC 20 with a + 7 to my roll (1+1+1+2+2).

See rules here.

Here is my question. How does action economy work with the performing feats? If I pull off Savage Display do I get the 1d6 extra damage on the attack roll that triggered the event, or do I just get it until the end of my next turn for all other attacks?

Same with Dramatic Display. Because I made the check, does that mean at that moment I get a +2 bonus on that attack roll?

On Mocking Dance does that mean you get extra movements?... because in Murder's Circle you don't.

I am assuming with Mocking Dance I can charge 60 feet, attack, make the performance combat check, and move 30 feet back provoking an AoO.

And the wording is very confusing for Mocking Dance, "When you spend a swift action to make a performance combat check, before making that check you can either move 5 feet without provoking attacks of opportunity, or you can move your speed and provoke attacks of opportunity. You cannot end this move in a space where you threaten an enemy. If you do move at least 5 feet, you gain a +2 bonus on the performance combat check."

So if you can move and get the benefit without making the check, why even make the check? What happens if you fail? I can possibly see that in an arena battle you get the benefit of the feat but don't change the crowd's attitude, but in regular I even need to make the check, or is it worded wrong?

Thanks in advance for any answers or input.

EDIT: btw, I should add/remind that triggers can make using the feat a swift action or immediate action--depending on the trigger. For example, a critical hit, striking someone first in a battle, or vanquishing someone makes it an immediate action. Charging, dealing max damage, or performing a combat maneuver makes it a swift action. *note: I did not list all the triggers.

DarthEnder wrote:
Daniel Moyer wrote:

I'm going to disagree as the RAW uses the word "AND". Also, the performance check, from what I can tell, has ZERO to do with you enemies, it defaults to intimidate when referring to enemies. Performance is solely for pleasing crowds and changing people's 'friendliness', nothing at all to do with a 'typical' combat.

Except it's clearly labeled as a Performance feat. If you aren't using the Performing Combatant feat, you aren't allowed to use ANY Performance feats unless you are IN a Performance Combat.

You need to read the feat Perfoming Combatant.

Without that feat, you aren't allowed to use ANY of the Performance feats in regular combats.


Performing Combatant (Combat)

Benefit: You can make performance combat checks in
any combat. When making a performance check outside of performance combat, you can pick a single performance
feat to use. You automatically gain any bonus on the
performance combat check the feat grants, and then you
make a DC 20 performance combat check. On a success,
you gain the full effect of the performance feat you chose.

As you can see, you have to make a successful Performance check BEFORE you get the effect of any Performance feats when using them outside of Performance Combat.

So in order to use Hero's Display against a group of normal enemies you first have to make a DC 20 performance check(which you get a +2 on because the Hero's Display bonus is added before you roll) and, if successful, you can THEN make your intimidation check.

That said, it's a pretty easy roll to make when you take into consideration that you get to add your BAB to Performance combat checks.

Even if you had no Cha bonus, if you actually keep your performance maxed that roll becomes pretty much unfailable by level 9 or so.

Actually you DON'T get to add your BAB to to your performance combat checks. You can add a modified bonus based on your BAB and a modified bonus based on your highest performance rank.

Lets assume you are level 9 fighter with a +1 charisma. Your BAB is 9 so it gives you a +2 bonus. Your performance skill is 9 (if you are willing to invest that much of your precious skills) which gives you a +2 bonus. A performance feat gives a +2 bonus and a performance weapon gives a +2 bonus.

So best case scenario is you need to beat a DC20 check with 1+2+2+2+2. So with maxed out skills, a +1 charisma, and a weapon with performance ability, you get +9 to your performance combat check. You would still need to roll at least an 11.

However, it is a safe bet that you might not have your skills maxed, so you would get a +1 from skills making your Performance Combat Check Bonus +8 at level 9 assuming you have a +1 charisma.

I have a Gladiator Fighter / Thug Rogue that I love, but I spent a lot of time trying to understand the rules.

You should carefully read the rules on performance combat, and spend extra attention on the "Performance Combat Check section.

btw, the Gladiator archetype starts you off with an additional feat to the bonus fighter feat that makes all your weapons have the performance ability (giving a +2 on checks) at the expense of heavy armor and tower shields.

The gladiator archetype is also nice in that you start off with 1 victory point. You can use that point to make a check as an immediate action. Imagine being surprised rushed by 6 pirates--the gladiator can use Heroes Display to demoralize all of them (if the intimidate check succeeds), but you still need to make the DC 20 performance combat check. * the thug archetype extends demoralized effects by 1 round. can use the victory point to automatically succeed on 1 check a battle. Outside of the arena there really is no other way to get victory points. At level 10 the gladiator archetype starts battles with 2 victory points.

Slacker2010 wrote:
Im not saying its not a feat, i was just adding the word "Combat" to Tarantula's statement. The way he had it worded it would be a Preformance check. And its a Preformance "combat" check. They are different.

I just wanted to point out how they are different. A person with with 11 ranks in performance would get a +11 to the performance check. However, a person with 11 ranks would only get a +3 on a performance "combat" check.

See the prd about a quarter of the way down.

I should add I haven't done organized play or played with strangers. If I do, I understand RAW and would have a lot of fun playing strict RAW.

In those instances I would adjust my dm and play style. I have read the pdfs on playing the pathfinder society and liked what I read. I even got our group to move to the point buy system, and it surprisingly took a lot of hurt feelings and over/underpowered characters out of our campaigns.

I am not out to try and make everyone like me. I am just giving my personal thoughts on alignment. [EDIT] I wish there was no alignment, but because it is a discrete concrete force I recognize it is here to stay, so I keep it and modify how it affects our game as noted above.

I get the logic for the monk and the druid. I'm with ya. I understand where you are coming from Alitan, and frankly I have a hard time thinking of how to role play a druid or monk not as intended.

But the spells for the druid have no neutral descriptor under the spell itself, so I am not checking alignment. If a PC comes up with a character concept of a LG urban druid that is helping a city integrate into the environment in a healthy way, I am not going to tell him no because he is not neutral (If I created that character I would make him LN). I'm also not going to convince him or myself that he is really neutral, even tho he is helping to establish laws that helps the environment and serves people. As a DM I don't care. I'm not looking.

I have had a character build a hermit monk with incredible self focus, but he was on the fringe of society. He saw the laws of the land as being repressive to himself and the citizens. He was good. He played him very chaotic against the organized law of the land. As a DM I didn't care. I wasn't looking. We had a lot of fun.

In cases like that I am not going to look at RAW and say "no." That is what I mean by alignment not being important to me. He played his monk in a consistent way that fit his monk that wasn't RAW. Alignment is too arbitrary and fluid for me track.

Instead of doing mental gymnastics to "make it work" in my mind or setting up special rules or having a discussion, I opt not to care. However, when he got attacked by a lawful weapon, I rolled the additional damage and describe the effects. I explained why the lawful aligned weapon was so painful.

We have enough of a report (our group) that they trust how I run alignment and never had an issue. They appreciate having more options and accept my calls on how alignment based weapons/spells affect them. I always tell them what about their behavior made that spell/weapon more or less potent.

I get where you are coming from. I have read the books. That's just not me.

I personally rarely look at alignment when I DM. The way I see it alignment is known through how someone behaves and thinks, not how they self identify. I have one character that insists he is Neutral. He tells me until he is blue in the face that his character is neutral and provides a back story to back it, but he consistently plays him C/E.

I don't care how he self identifies. I know what he is, and I don't care. I DM in the moment based off his actions not his character sheet. I would love to see alignment removed. HOWEVER, there are too many alignment dependent components of the game for it ever to be removed.

The only time I look at it is if there is an alignment dependent ability/class (like paladin) or an alignment dependent weapon or spell. Then those casting or using need to show at least some small effort they are capable of using/casting that weapon/spell.

For everyone else I ignore it and just feed off their role playing. If a good character wants to drink an evil potion--hey, he has a weak will but he didn't create it.

I even let anti-paladins be L/E (changing the alignment spells of course) and don't even think about monk's and druid's alignment. No spells or skills for druids/monks/etc are based of the alignment. People play/are what they play/are.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I played my first round of "Two-Tome Bingo.

I rolled a 172 for the Tome of Adventure Design, and I got the NPC Interaction Table. My three d100 rolls for the table got an NPC as a Infiltrator that is inimical to the party but has benefits to the party and treachery down the road. It is as suspicious to the party members as they are of it. And finally it holds a key to a treasure, obstacle, or inaccessible area.

I rolled a 355 for the Tome of Horrors and got Grimstalker--an elf-like fey creature that is evil, lives deep in forest, and represent nature at its' worst. It gets sneak attack damage. They work with traps, nets, and sometimes work with Redcap (from ToH) or are summoned by evil druids. They employ trained plant creatures and attack from ambushes using the advantages of the terrain.

Here is my result: A very powerful hermit druid is believed to live deep in a forest. He has restored/brought forth vibrant wild life and a rain forest ecosystem to to what was originally grass plains. His desire for the immensity of nature a rain forest has to offer has resulted in him directly and indirectly killing off entire nomadic tribes that were living on the plains.

The druid loves the bloody part of nature's survival of the fittest and is happy to see people die or be displaced. He has summoned Grimstalkers to protect his hide out and to harass the people who adapted to the new environment.

The forest is dark, deep, and filled with the worst nature has to offer.

Lately desert has started to encroach on the area and nature is dying. The forest is already starting to succumb to this erosion. THe surrounding area is already lost.

The characters must find and confront the Grimstalkers, live through the encounter, and have someone convince them (or one of them) to guide them to the Druid. Is he dead? Is he causing it? Has his tampering backfired? Will a Grimstalker eventually help the PCs so it can protect it's dark forest? Or will it just verify the druid is ok (is he?) and then kill the PCs?

Dawn R Fischer wrote:
Wow! Thanks leem for the glowing review! We at FGG think that TOAD with TOHC together make an effective arsenal for creative GMs.

It was my first review. :) Wasn't there a game that was suggested on these forums by someone at Frog God Games where you combine random tables from ToAD and random pages from ToH? I am trying to remember where I saw it now that I have both books.

eleclipse wrote:

So, i have a crafting wizard and we're playing kingmaker, we just hitted lvl 5 and started building the kingdom.

I'm a LN mage follower of Abadar, the other party member are a paladin a LG oracle, a NG inquisitor and a N druid.

I decided to add a 10% fee on the creation cost when crafting item for the party (this mean that a belt of +2 str will cost them 2200 instead of 2000, which is still a lot better than 4000); this caused an unexpected reaction on the other players (not pg, players).

They now pretty much consider me to be a jerk, just suggesting this we're arrived to the point of them preferring to buy the items at full price and they said me this is not right since the don't make me pay for cure, tanking ecc ecc.

This was totally unexpected by this group since they are always very mature, am i missing something and being "that guy" without knowing? Is this some kind of delicate argument in the average group?

Some advice on how to deal with this situation will be most appreciated! :)

I would personally ask for the dm to let your swap out the feat, since you can't use it as you intended.

In our group we have an unspoken rule that whoever crafts gets half the difference. If our wizard can make a 4000gp sword for 2000gp, then he sells it for 3000gp. The PC saves 1000gp and can get EXACTLY what s/he wants, and the crafter makes 1000gp. We have all alternated playing crafting classes at some point, and no one was ever hurt or mad.

Part of our unspoken rule comes from the fact that most of us has dmed at some point and we don't want crafting feats to be a way for everyone to get twice as many magic items that are the exact items the character wants to min/max. I guess we could control how much can be crafted by limiting down time, but we collectively like splitting the savings.

Crafting feats are boring; pcs deserve some other benefit. Wizards generally use the extra money to stock up on scrolls/wands to be able to help the party. Yes the fighter is using the enchanted weapon to help the party, but whatever the crafter buys with his share is also used to help the party.

I think you are not charging enough. I was always grateful when my tank could save 1000+gp

Just thought I would pipe in. I take turns DMing for our group. My friend and I are the only ones who have dmed our group, but we are trying to encourage others to try. Our current campaigned is custom made for us to swap out and do our own session and decide how to shape events.

Anyway, we both are bothered by how falling works and are considering using a house rule that states you take 1d4 or 1d3 constitution damage for every 10' instead of 1d6 regular damage. We have even thought of a hybrid of the official rules and our rules.

Personally I LOVE the 1d4/10 feet idea. We haven't implemented/tested it yet because we aren't in an area where we could, however it would dramatically affect spells like create pit. Maybe we would have magic spells work as usual, or raise the level of the pit spells.

Extraordi-Nerd wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Extraordi-Nerd wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
That is right, there are no auto failures, or successes on skill checks. Nobody jumps to the moon.

I have to say I'm not a huge fan of that. I think having there always be a chance to fail or succeed makes things interesting. I like house-ruling that.

The nimble rogue rolls a 1 and trips over her own two feet while trying to hop a mid size gap, but the paladin in full plate charges forward, prays, rolls a 20 and "jumps the moon".
Sure its maybe not as realistic or likely but it can add some humor which definitely counts for something.

The problem with this approach is the "where do you draw the line?" issue.

Unless you are literally going to give the paladin in full plate a 1 in 20 chance to leap to the moon, then you have to draw that line, and when you do, it will be completely reasonable for the player in question to say "WTF!? You let Mr. Iron Pants over here jump FORTY FREAKING FEET!"

True, but i guess that's when it is up to the GM's discretion, consistency is important here. I agree it could lead to arguments, but that's if the players don't trust the GM or the GM is making unfair rulings. Your word is law... until the players unite and rebel.

I completely understand the rule as written, and why it is written that way. It's not my opinion that it should be changed as a core rule because it works. These are just my thoughts on it.

I have a question about casting defensively. Last night my sorcerer cast hydraulic push against a mummy standing in front of a spiked pit. I roll 1d20+19 on my rolls. The dc is 17. My GM made me roll and I rolled a one! On the mummies turn he dropped me and got his curse off on me.

I think I would auto succeed 1st and 2nd level spells. What do the rules say? I can't find if a natural one is an auto fail. Are concentration checks treated like attack and save rolls, or are they treated like skills?

reefwood wrote:

This may be a silly question, but what do you roll against when using dispel magic as a counterspell?

I know you roll 1d20 + caster level, but what is the DC?

Is it DC 11 + spell's caster level? This is used to dispel the highest level spell already cast on a creature or object, but this is for a spell already in place.

Is it the DC of the spell? This is used to dispel a specific spell that you can identify and name, but again, this is for a spell already in place.

Or does it depend on whether or not you can identify the spell being cast? If you can, it is the DC of the spell, but if you cannot, it is DC 11 + spell's caster level?

I am browsing the forums looking for the exact same answer....

Thank you everyone for your responses. I will refer to this post in the future. I was driving myself insane trying to rationalize every option I saw. Lol

SlimGauge wrote:
"leem wrote:

Vampiric touch states:

Target living creature touched

In in other words the caster is NOT the target. Since the temporary hit points are NOT on the target or an area, they should stack if vampiric touch is the type of spell that stacks.

I read this to mean that vampiric touch does stack with itself in much the same way...

Damage on the target stacks. The caster is not the target, nor is she taking (or healing) damage. The temporary hit points gained are the result of a spell. A second casting of the same spell is the same effect more than once, and does not stack.

However, since temporary hit points are lost first, you can get a situation where casty vampiric touches fighty, who then whacks her hard enough to eliminate ALL her temporary hit points plus a few NON-temporary ones. Casty does it again, gaining more temporary hit points. Repeat until casty or or fighty run out.

Since this was brought up in other threads, am I correct in understanding that if you also cast false life then you have two sets of temporary hit points ( like my OP option2) since you cast two different spells? Or are they considered the same effect?

And sneak attack damage and critical damage are not added into temp hit points gained, much like sneak attack or elemental enhancement damage are not applied more then once on critical hits?

I have poured over the message forums and the rules and I am still confused on the vampiric touch spell. Can someone clarify how it works, specifically does it stack with itself?

The rules state:

Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells


Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

Now I understand that some spells, like touch of idiocy, deal a penalty where other spells, like calcific touch, deals damage. Casting "touch of idiocy" multiple times only benefits you if you roll higher on subsequent castings, but the affects don't stack, but "calcific touch" does stack because it is damage.

I understand "effects" to be any type of spell result applied to the target that is not damage, like confusion, darkness, blindness, haste, et cetera.

Vampiric touch states:

Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal.

and target equals....

Target living creature touched

In in other words the caster is NOT the target. Since the temporary hit points are NOT on the target or an area, they should stack if vampiric touch is the type of spell that stacks.

I read this to mean that vampiric touch does stack with itself in much the same way calcific touch stacks with itself. Actually I can read it three ways.

1: You cast vampiric touch 3 times on the target and it functions as stated and stacks.

2: You cast vampiric touch 3 times on the target and the effects don't stack, but they do overlap. So if you damage them for 12, 7, and 9 and you get attacked for 10 points damage three times in a row, then the first attack takes 10 from 12 so you are left with 2,7,9. The second attack takes 10 from 9 and you take 1point damage and are left with 2,7. And the last attack takes 10 from 7 dealing 3 points damage, and you are left with just 2 temporary hit points.

3: You cast vampiric touch 3 times and it damages as normal all three times, but it only gives you temporary hit points once. If you roll more damage on subsequent rolls then your temp hp becomes the new highest, but it doesn't stack or overlap in any way.

The forums seem to reflect option three, but my reading of RAW does not support that in my mind. I read it as option 1, but I could see option 2 as being closer to RAW.

My reasoning is it is a damage spell and the caster is not the target.

This has confused me greatly and how this works will greatly affect whether my 8th level sorcerer takes vampiric touch.

Thank you,

I am taking over dming for a group of five 7th level adventurers. We already have a fighter who will fight with two hands, a monk, a paladin/sorcerer, and a fighter/bard. The fifth person is going to make a rogue.

Pure melee! Bwahahah! I will have so much FUN with this lot!

This friend likes to ask for rule tweaking/exceptions. I love to play with him, but it is always a challenge for me to figure out and respect the balance.

He wants to make a drow rogue that fights with two weapons. However, he doesn't like that the rogue's to-hit is lower then a fighters. In addition to the "drow," he requested his rogue gets a full BaB like a fighter. In exchange, he is willing to cut his skills from 8 a level to 4 and keep his D8 hit points.

I had hesitation for the obvious reason of seeing all of these attacks with a high likely chance of hitting with sneak attack damage. Sounds like he will outshine the fighter on damage because the party make-up almost guarantees he will usually flank.

He reasoned that Rangers get a full BaB, spells, animal companion, and ranger abilities. He doesn't see a balance problem and this fits his character concept.

As I have been thinking about it, I think a better option would be for me to keep the skill penalty, but create "weapon precision." Weapon Precision would work like Weapon Mastery from the fighter class. However, it would start at 1 and repeat at 5, 9, 13, and 17. It would only give a bonus to attack, NOT damage. But in every other respect it would be like the fighter ability. He could pick one weapon category at level 1 and get the to-hit bonus. At level 5 he would get a +2 on that weapon type and a +1 on a new weapon type.

That way he doesn't get the extra attacks earlier, but he would have one weapon category that would essentially be on par with a BaB of a D10 character, and other weapons would have good to-hit bonuses.

Think my compromise is fair? What would you add or take away? I see my job as a dm to say "yes" like in improv. I want to support his concept, but not let him outshine everyone.


If I were to cast "touch of idiocy" onto a monster with a spell-like ability, would it affect its ability to use that ability?

Spell like abilities are based off of charisma and act like spells off the wizard/sorcerer list. “A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."

Also, "It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counter spell, nor can they be counter spelled."

An aboleth can use "hypnotic pattern (level 2) as a spell like ability and it has a charisma of 17. If I cast "touch of idiocy on it and rolled a 6, it would be reduced to 11. Does that mean it can't cast that spell like ability? My gut reaction is it would lose that ability, however the aboleth CAN cast "dominate monster," a 9th level spell with only a 17 on charisma.

So my question is what are the repercussions of temporally lowering charisma on spell like abilities? For sure the saves would be easier for the PCs, BUT can you actually suppress the spell like ability? Would there be any other benefit?

FYI: Next session my sorcerer will be fighting a buffed up aboleth. I am not going to meta-game. My soorcerer would use "touch of idiocy regardless off how it will affect spell-like abilities, but I want to be clear on the rules before she does.

carborundum wrote:

Great story - and hat-tip for the blog :-)

I've ordered a few for my friends with 6-10 year olds and intend to offer my dm skills for their first family games. Can't wait til my daughters old enough. Seven months is a leeeeeetle young for anything other than trying to eat the rule book.

Nonsense, as my experience with parenting goes, I can totally affirm that she is capable or tearing out pages or even hiding it!

Chuck Wright wrote:
leem wrote:
I am anxiously awaiting. I bought both ToH Unlimited and the full subscription for Slumbering Tsar. Love all the pdfs. Once I get a book, and if it's QUALITY is as good as Frog Gog Game's reputation, I think I will get the Tome of Adventure Design (TOAD).

You will not be disappointed, leem, I assure you. Can't wait to hear how much you like the binding.


I am not disappointed! I just got my Unlimited Edition on Halloween! Perfect timing for my session tonight!

leem wrote:
but I would only give it a +2 to it's climb bonus.

Or I would give a -2 to climb check because the +10 DC from grease is two higher then the +8 from Spider Climb. yeah, I like that better. Spiders would still have a hard time climbing a greased wall.

Lord Orion wrote:

A PC wishes to climb a wall. A caster casts Grease on said wall. What is the DC to climb the greased wall? Is it unclimbable? What if the climber has Spider Climb cast on him?

Let me add...If anyone has other good house rules, please include. Thanks.

I would make them roll a reflex save to even see if they can find a part of the wall to hold onto. Note that if a reflex save is failed on an item it is immediately dropped. Then I would add 10 to the dc of the climb check.

EDIT: Since Spider Climb is a higher level spell, I would not require the reflex save, but I would only give it a +2 to it's climb bonus.

Love it!

phantom1592 wrote:

My philosphy is this... Does the monster know the difference between dying and dead?

In the 6 seconds of that combat round... would it change it's action?

For example, if the monster gets 2 claws and a bite on character 1, and claw #2 drops him to -1.... Does the monster know enough to STOP the bite on the still twitching body that just fell over?

Personally, I would keep the attacks as I said I was going to do it when his turn came up. The NEXT round, I wouldn't waste an attack to take him from -6 to -12 and dead... Especially if there is more targets that are active threats.... But within that first round. to stop in mid attack and walk away is possibly more meta-gamey then finishing off a wounded pc...

What phantom1592 said.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ANd that little bit of raw is how the _____ shaman druids gets screwed over, because they can't take advantage of the wildshape becaue there isn't a huge version of their totem animal.

Unless you play a Saurian Shaman. There are lots of reptiles and dinosaurs that are Huge. Plus Summons as a standard action AND the War domain...hello any combat feat you qualify for as a huge monster (vicious strike)!

I just made a 5th level half orc Saurian Shaman with razor tusk. He also has step up, spell focus (conjuration), and augment summoning as his feats. His summons are pretty mean and he can dish out damage (bite and two claws at full BaB). Next level he can shapechange to huge!

I would love to give him Planar Wild Shape, but that doesn't fit in with my character concept of a neanderthal half-orc that froze several thousand years ago that the party cleric found and healed.

He is not too bright and knows nothing about planes. I am torn at 7 between starlight summons, following step, or toughness.

Anyway, as a DM I would rule the other shamans CAN shapchange into their totem with the "giant template" to increase size, but not HD.

Thanks for the rules clarification everyone. Now I know when I am using a house rule (which will be targeted at Shamans that have no huge animal) and what the rules actually are.

I don't know how I missed that in the polymorph sub-school description!


And don't forget that if the beast you shape change into has a speed better then 60, you get it. You also can begin to get burrow 30 feet, blindsense 30 feet, constrict, ferocity, jet, poison, rake, trample, and web as the new abilities....and small and medium magical beasts.

Having rake on top of pounce at 6th level, even as only a large animal, is AWESOME!

John Spalding wrote:

What I did for prep:

Print out the map. On the back label the hexes. Cut the hexes out. Make a backing so that you can glue the hexes to a board as they are discovered.

Make a short list of environmental rules you expect to come up.

Roll random encounters in advance.

Make up notecards for the NPCs you expect the party to come across in the first few adventures.

That is fantastic advice I will use in my campaigns.

I made a dragon shamen. When I summon a lizard animal, I can apply either the young, advanced, giant, or advanced+giant template to adjust what level of summon I need to cast.

Do any of these templates affect an animal's hit dice? If I summon an advanced giant monitor lizard, does it still only have 3HD and I just calculate new HP based on a change of constitution?

Or does applying a template (like giant) also give it more hit dice? I thought increasing or decreasing size affected hit Dice, but I can't find a rule.


1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.