|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I am in the group of "if they did something stupid in character" then they met a good death. I don't get hung up on pieces of papers with numbers on them much. Maybe because I've been playing now for almost 40 years. One death is a tragedy. Twenty is a statistic.
Now if the GM is being a behind and intentionally making everything a character does a "life or death" decision... screw that, find another GM. But that doesn't sound like the case here.
Again, if it was an honest part of the adventure and you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... well played.
Well, I haven't looked at Unchained yet, but I know an invisible ninja throwing things at close range can be pretty devastating at low levels I don't know what Devilkiller's 1-9 ninjas did, but apparently "hide" was not in their wheelhouse). I mean, level 1 = 1d2+1d6+dex bonus every round, level 3, 1d2+2d6+dex bonus, l5: 1d2+3d6+DB, l7: 1d2+4d6+DB, l9: 1d2+5d6+DB... and that is if they just stay invisible the whole time, and only throw one throwing star... add moving to flank instead and you can dish out 2-3x the damage, or use a bow for a few more d6 and a point blank range damage bonus all the way up. Monks really ramp up at level 4 and 5 (with an extra attack for a ki point). So yay! Now they get 3-4 attacks with their 1d8 strike... um... ok... I'll still take the invisible ninja with 3d6 extra sneak attack damage every attack... who never gets hit because he's invisible... And, honestly, a +5BAB visible fighter can't really be that much better than always hitting flat footed AC's while invisible, can it? Anywho....
I'd say ninja is a decent option. But I always have played just "straight up" rogues from the book. I mean, take Merisiel for instance... I think when my son played her (because we had no lvl 5 characters) she was +19 acrobatics... tumbled past everything... only one mob posed a problem (and that was because we were under water holding our breath) and took three tries to get to flanking position. The "regular" players at our table kept sighing and going "tumbling never works" ... and like I said, with the exception of one mob, it worked every time! So don't worry about the nay sayers, and just have fun.
Gronk de'Morcaine wrote:
Ok, I can see why in PFS they would be unpopular. Unless you have a very small pool of players, you won’t know who you are going to be with at the table so they probably won’t have the matching abilities.
Hmmm... I could joke about some GMs ruling that Stealth Synergy doesn't work per RAW (if you are seen, you can't roll stealth, thus a skill that says you have to be within sight of an ally... lolz) - but for this, it certainly seems like an advantageous skill to have in the entire party. I can't explain why people wouldn't do this other that they actually didn't want to make a sneaky party.
As for the "saves" one: I can easily see why everyone would NOT do this. Namely, that almost immediately as soon as combat starts nobody should be within five feet of each other, lest you submit yourself to every kind of AOE attack imaginable. While this would grant a +3 in a party of 4 people it drops to +0 almost as soon as combat starts, the "rogue" moves to flank (no longer close to anyone in his party), the mage backs up to cast (no longer close to anyone), the fighter and ranger take their positions too... and you go from a +3 to a +0 before the second spell goes off... Naw, I'd rather have a +2 all the time.
They stack in the sense that you move to the next worse condition. You are never shakened and frightened. You move from one to the next. Since you no longer have the previous condition then the previous condition's penalties do not apply, and the rules directly state that you if you have one condition that it becomes the next one. They do not say that if you have one condition that you additionally gain the next one.
Correct, page 563 explains it. PS. please keep in mind Fear effects are (almost always?) mind affecting effects.
My book has them all listed separately... with "a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks." - each listed in the description of each one...
Saying "it is like shaken" doesn't delete the -2 from that condition's description. Which is to say "it doesn't say "you get the same -2 as from shaken, plus blah blah blah."" - It says if you are frightened, you get a -2 (separate from the -2 in shaken's description).
Kind of like nauseated and sickened don't have any common effects. Even though they are basically "more severe" forms of each other.
ps. I completely rule as GM exactly how you claim, but apparently the OP has stated everyone he asked said "they stack." And, honestly, I can see an argument for that (if you are under the effects individually).
the PRD (as opposed to what it says in the book, which makes it look like each condition carries an added -2) makes it clearer I think... http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#fear
RAW, the effective -2's would not stack, as you can only suffer one effect - and you would be "stacked" to the next one pursuant to the "becoming even more fearful" in the book. So our "original thinking" is correct on this. The "stacking" means that you follow page 563's rule on "more fearful"... so yeh, whack them twice and they become more fearful, unless it is an ability that has a "maximum fear level" like demoralize under Intimidate (demoralize under "stares" and such do stack since they don't say they are limited to extending the duration like demoralize under Intimidate does).
The effects are the effects.
So if you only get panicked, you only suffer those effects. If you get panicked and shaken, you get a double whammy. They don't "stack" unless you are under their effects. So no, if you get panicked, you don't get shaken, frightened, and panicked in one shot. You just suffer the panicked condition (-2, run, can't fight). HOWEVER, if three spell casters/attackers hit you with three different effects, one which makes you panicked, one that makes you frightened, one that makes you shaken... well, you'll probably die in the nearest corner... (-2, run, can't fight)... and if another couple guys whammy you with sickened and nauseated, you're really boned (-4, only 1 move per turn, run, can't fight)
You're probably thinking of them as negative bonuses from the same source (fear) - since bonuses from the same sources aren't supposed to stack, they don't. And honestly, as a GM, I usually just use the "worst" fear condition (so I think like you do - it is a fear (negative) bonus, so it doesn't stack with itself.
Dr. Guns-For-Hands wrote:
Yes, but also remember that they forgot some doors in Scarwall (no way to get anywhere after you get inside, look at the maps). Demons the size of the room under the main squares. Dragons as big as the room they are in... Modules often have things like this - potion spears with potions that are based on spells that can't be made into potions.... yeh... then there's.... on and on...
Precedent is a bad thing. I would suggest one should look at the spell, determine if the thing affecting them is trying to inhibit movement versus attack them for damage. Attacks for damage can still hurt them. Things that inhibit movement simply slide right off... even if they are sticky spider webs, huge thickets grown up all around them, or high winds...
OK, so to be clear:
There are two schools of thought on this:
School #2 says the RAI state "This can change the outcome of the roll" meaning, it is not just a bonus, but actually part of the roll itself. Thus you add it to the d20, and can get up to a 26 on a d20 roll, as a result of the roll itself.
There are two abilities,
Seems like the "interpretation" of the second school would be sensible to me. I mean, here we have an ability to nullify autofails as soon as you become mythic. But it takes a MP AND an Immediate Action (you only get one of these a round). Then we have a Tier 1 ability that turns it on continuously for attacks. Then we have a Tier 6 ability that basically allows "unlimited" rerolls of a save (note, each one of those could also be surged to a 28).
Those who say it is merely an "untyped bonus" are ignoring the part where it says it actually changes the outcome of the roll. Nowhere does any other bonus say "it can change the roll itself..." Well, that is my two cents anyway. In contrast: why have wording if it just works like a normal un-typed bonus? Things that just "add to a roll" don't modify or change the roll, they change the result of the action, not the roll.
The "no rules to support that surge cancels auto fails" is "built in" to the fact that you automatically roll a 2 or more on the roll (itself)....
OK, so I was browsing my new copy of the MTT, and I came across this magic item:
PRICE 14,160 GP
SLOT armor CL 7th WEIGHT 15 lbs.
AURA moderate transmutation
This +2 leather armor is made of camel hide and has been worn smooth as if blasted by sand. The wearer is protected from mundane extremes of cold and heat (as the endure elements spell), and can see normally in sandstorms, dust storms, and similar conditions. Once per day as a swift or immediate action, the wearer can briefly turn to sand when hit by an attack but before damage is determined. For the purposes of resolving the damage, the wearer is treated as an incorporeal creature. Only a single attack is affected by each use of this ability.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS COST 7,160 GP
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, stoneskin
And my question was this: can this be used to survive a fall from any height?
(follow up question: what are "similar conditions"? ie. fog spells (obscuring mist), etc...)
Potion of Calm Emotions does have a target; all creatures within 20-ft. Of course, I like to agree with you that it is "impossible" - except that I found 9 doses along with 6 spears under a desk in L2 of PZ9020 House of the Beast. So, as a GM I can either completely ignore the fact that these are what are used in the module or just allow it. "Targets one or more creatures or objects" is kind of vague when something doesn't say "Target" in the description but obviously affects a bunch of creatures (thus they are targeted, and get a save, etc...).
And if you run into a monster who has regeneration of a kind with no "cutoff" or "kill switch" (ie. Tarrasque) you are going to need a to figure out something else to capture it (because killing it isn't really an option). I suggest you get 20 flying mages with mirrors of life trapping. That will almost guarantee that the Tarrasque looks into at least one mirror and is trapped. Just don't let them out later (I suggest a very strong box with no light on a different planet or plane).
Once you are dead, you are an ITEM (a corpse). At this point, any "personal" or "person" or "creature" spells would cease. If some spell requires concentration to maintain, obviously it is gone. Just my opinion, but the way I usually rule things is that if you fall unconscious most of your spells end (some, with extended duration don't - like sleeping with Endure Elements on). If someone else buffs you, and you are unconscious, unless they fall unconscious too, the buffs remain. Which means that if you took a potion, it's effects wouldn't wear off until the duration ended.
The only reason I do this way is primarily historical. And things like RAGE and other "buffs" end when you go unconscious. So I just rule that personal spell effects end if you cast them and go unconscious (including buffs on other people). But if someone else buffs you and they are up, you still have the buff (for whatever help it is to someone who is KO'd). If you become furniture (dead) then all buffs end that don't effect items.
OK - the first question I had after reading all the threads on this item is: Calm Emotions? Why can't it be made into a potion (because most threads said it, and a few others found in paizo products can't be made into potions).
Ergo: potion. Seems legit to me. What am I missing?
OK. Now I am on to the first thing I thought of regarding this weapon: what if I make a masterwork one, magic it up, and add "ghost touch" (or otherwise just make it a ghost touch weapon). Can I then inject potions into ethereal monsters I come across?
And on to other stuff: the description I have says you can't throw it... but... it is... a SPEAR... Do they mean you can't inject the potion when it is thrown? Poorly written up items = the bane of PFS.
And the last thing I had to ask was regarding potions and spell resistance: do you really get none if you "imbibe" a potion (or are injected with it)? Anywhere the RAW is on this?
1/6 seconds = 10/minute = 600/hour = 4800 in 8 hours. Providing he has the bags of stuff right there to make it all. At 1/3 cost, 100 gp each item, that is 480,000 gp worth of items in a day (cost: 160,000). Which is... enough to sell in 4-5 MAJOR CITIES for an entire year (give or take). Or are you planning on throwing 4800 alchemical fires/whatever at the castle? 8 hours of throwing later you are TIRED. lol.
Lower PC would need to step to C3 or D4. Then they would be flanking - NOTE: if they are both threatening. The lower PC would need 15' reach (two diagonals = 5'+10' for the second one), if I am not mistaken.
I might be wrong about the reach (it might be ok at 10' still).
Alternately Upper PC could move 5 to B1 and Lower PC could move to B4 (or B3) and be flanking (with proper reach to threaten).
Rogue gets: Int Mod bombs per day
So, no. The feat doesn't really allow the Rogue to make the same use of bombs as an alchemist. The get no "insight" (INT BONUS) to using these splash weapons, nor the quantity that Alchemists get.
Here's an interesting idea for a Vivisectionist though: what happens when they dip Rogue to get this Rogue Talent?
If you roll a 15+ on a knowledge check it is because you have read many books, seen many zoos, watched the bazaars, and travelled all over tarnation looking for weird and exotic animals and can identify them ON SIGHT. Hate to say this, but your GM is wrong on this one. The whole "well you never have seen this before" makes no sense in the face of the FACT that you just IDENTIFIED IT FROM MEMORY. Knowledge checks aren't an "analysis of what is in front of you" (I gained the knowledge right this second) - they are a "OH I RECALL THOSE CRITTERS!" (I already have the KNOWLEDGE)
I have a question regarding the "enhancement bonus" to armor.
I understand that only the highest armor bonus, and only the highest shield bonus, and only the highest natural armor bonus apply to AC.
Now there are spells which give both ARMOR BONUS and ENHANCEMENT BONUS to AC. How does this work with regard to overlayed armor bonuses.
Here is the situation: Mythic class character has Enduring Armor (which is a force effect "spell" which gives ARMOR BONUS = Tier + 3). The character has been wearing Leather Armor (just in case they get the EA dispelled). Now along comes a possibility to drink a potion of Magic Vestment, which puts an enhancement bonus on, presumably, the leather or the regular clothes he is wearing. As it doesn't affect the force spell (as far as I know). So the question is: would he still get the enhancement bonus added to the highest AC BONUS, since it is "from another source" (ie. the highest enhancement bonus he has)?
It seems RAW that it would do this; and only the highest ENHANCEMENT BONUS would apply to final AC, and only the highest ARMOR BONUS also applies. So you could have Clothes +5 and throw on leather over them for a total AC Bonus of +7, even though the leather is not enhanced. Is my understanding of this "overlapping" of bonuses correct? I understand the person could also have Natural Armor, Natural Armor enhancement, Shield and Shield enhancement bonuses - which makes me also wonder about having multiple shields (one for attacking and one for defending); If I have a +5 Shield Enhancement Bonus on a buckler, and a Kite Shield +5 to hit, can I use the Kite Shield's AC bonus and the Buckler's Enhancement Bonus? (only the highest of each type applying to AC per RAW)
Double Barrel Pistols + TWF + Rapid Shot + Quick Draw + Gun Twirling = 10 attacks at 9th level Trench Fighter?
Like I said, it all depends on where you parse those "or"s... lol. We agree, btw... common sense rules and all. :) (I was just playing devil's advocate cause I am bored today, lol)
Well, in theory, the same character with monk training could make ... it might be argued: MWF attacks PLUS TWF attack for FOB. Since they make a full round attack (which with MWF allows multiple attacks to begin with, just like having a high BAB does), and then adds one more attack, two more at 8th, etc... It doesn't say FOB replaces your normal attack routine (MWF), just adds attacks to it.
Also, the Character you are talking about getting 9 attacks is 15th level or so before they are getting 6-7 attacks. With haste, the Kasatha is getting 5 from first level, and depending on class, would keep up just fine. Multi-armed player characters don't ever "lose viability" simply because certain classes can eventually catch them. IMHO.
(ps. my house rule on monster feats is this: they are feats. If you qualify, you can use them. Feats, by their nature are stupidly outrageous things people can do - why limit it because you are human? Humans make the best monsters most days!)
Correct. And the only invisibility potion that can be made is one that affects OBJECTS, not creatures. All depends on where you parse that "or".... but I concede, invisibility potions exist in game, ergo, someone see's the variant (original, and how you understand it) parsing.
Except the caster is not an object (dead) and the spell thus fizzles when it can't see a valid target (object weighing less than 100 pounds per level)...
Invisibility: Range personal or touchTarget you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./level
Is the OR in there applied to both RANGE categories or is it a separator for the target section? If so, no, you cannot create a POTION with a RANGE PERSONAL, affecting YOU. PER RAW.
Um, no. For potions, the drinker becomes the target of the spell automatically.
Yes, but the creature is not an "object" unless they are dead. Therefore the RANGE would be "personal" which doesn't allow a potion to be made to affect you in the first place....
mostly it comes to parsing the phrase of the spell:
"the creature or object touched... etc..." OK. So does this mean "the creature that casts the spell, OR the object touched" becomes invisible. Or does it mean the object touched OR creature touched becomes invisible?
Because the RANGE makes it seem like it is either a PERSONAL spell or a spell that affects one OBJECT. Not a spell that affects a CREATURE TOUCHED (as an object). (ps. yes, I know how it has historically been used both ways... I am arguing semantics of the spell descriptor at this point).
ps. this also brings into question the classic "invisibility potion." As it would not (per RAW) work on someone drinking it (it couldn't be made into this kind of potion per RAW, only into a potion that let you touch something and make THAT invisible). Greater Invisibility has no Range descriptor, but "works like invisibility" - so it would be out for potions too?
ps. from that same section you quoted: "The character must pay the full cost for brewing each potion." - but, yeh, the formula works out to being half cost of what is on the chart. 25*3*5 = 375 for a 3rd level wiz, etc... potion. kk.
TYVM. Also straightened out the whole "cost" thing. All potions cost full cost even if crafted. Good to know. (unless there is a feat which reduces the cost somewhere).
Again: 5th edition of the rule book does NOT have this exception in the potion section (like the old 3.5 used to have):
Spoiler:I don't see the whole "personal" range discussion anywhere in there now... Updated PRD doesn't mention it either (despite the quote without a link).
A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when
imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance. Magic oils are
similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather
than imbibed. A potion or oil can be used only once. It can
duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting
time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or
objects. The price of a potion is equal to the level of the spell
× the creator’s caster level × 50 gp. If the potion has a material
component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create.
Table 15–12 gives sample prices for potions created at the lowest
possible caster level for each spellcasting class. Note that some
spells appear at different levels for different casters. The level
of such spells depends on the caster brewing the potion.
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character
taking the potion doesn’t get to make any decisions about the
effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done
so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and
the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster
level, the drinker still controls the effect).
The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the
object is the target.
Where in the world did you pull the "personal range" thing from?
"It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects."
page 477 of the CR... if it affects one target, doesn't "you personally" qualify? 5th edition of the rule book doesn't say what the old 3.5 used to say... on the line you quoted.
Example: Potion of True Strike = exist don't they? Overland flight? Plant Shape? Read Magic? See Invisible? Alter Self? Blink?
None of those have ever been in potion form? Seems like I have seen at least SOME of them as potions before...
Is Alchemical Allocation available to be made into a potion or to be bought in potion form in PFS play?
Here's the reason:
A handy haversack makes it easier to recover potions you need (move action from haversack, no AoO), and drinking them is standard action (provoking AoO unless you have a feat)... so one AA, then one potion the next turn seems viable.
Also regarding this and an extract: could you put two AA on the same extract/potion if you have the Combine Extract discovery - combined with two fisted drinker, can you then spit them both (two potions) into their own (or ONE?) bottle. This gets more RAI than RAW since there isn't really anything covering this situation, really. RAW might be determined that "one potion" is the first one spat out - but technically with TFD you are drinking them both at the same time and spitting them both out at the same time... so you would need two AA effects to do so... so... well, anyway. Thoughts?
Why would you be limited to "manufactured weapons per" limb you had originally? I don't see anywhere in the polymorph or any other place I looked which states that you are limited to manufactured weapon attacks you used to have. Besides for the aforementioned "game balance" I don't see that a 4 or 6, or 100 armed person would be limited in MWF by anything other than the number of arms they have. (Granted, there would be no way to polymorph into a colossal sized race to begin with) - all the polymorph rules I see are for natural attacks and such... don't see any mention of manufactured weapon attacks. So the feat's benefit (of allowing each off hand a melee strike in a full attack action) would be in play.
And yes, MWF is an available feat, at level 1, to any character with more than two arms (and perhaps the monster subtype?). So the presumption would be that anyone with such a physical advantage would try to leverage it at the start - level 1 character with 4 attacks at -2 each, instead of one attack at +1, yes please...
Diego Rossi wrote:
Right. So if you start a Kasatha, with MWF, you could use MWF for every arm of the new form? That is kind of the question (now that you answered the "two armed" version). So if someone polymorphs into say a Hekatonkheires (B3) from a 4 armed race, can you choose to resolve 100 attacks individually with MWF?
on the bonus question: if I am a person with MWF (Kasatha start race or something) and unarmed weapon mastery, and polymorph into a giant centipede, can I get 100 melee attacks? Even though traditionally the centipede doesn't have any weapon attacks (only a natural bite attack)? (and technically they are legs... I guess... alas)
Ok, I have a question regarding polymorphing into a monstrous humanoid such as a Kasatha (4 arms) or a Calikang (6 arms) and what happens with Two Weapon Fighting when you do.
Do you A) get no extra attacks with off-hand weapons (UNLESS you take Multi-weapon fighting), B) Replace Two Weapon Fighting with Multi-weapon fighting (per the feat description), C) Just go on a rampage regardless of the number of attacks you have.
Also if you are already a Kasatha with MWF, and polymorph into a Calikang, do you now get 6 attacks (because you have 5 offhands). Seems legit. Then your vivisectionist with feral mutagen, enduring (improved)invisibility is at 6 normal attacks and bite claw claw natural attacks (9 total attacks a round) while invisible... not too shabby, right?
Anyway, besides the uberness of the above, does the feat actually get replaced / updated due to having more arms? (and despite the discovery saying you don't get any extra attacks, with MWF do you get extra attacks for limb discoveries with alchemists??? or just the grapple for a tentacle?)
ps. bonus question: is there anything out there with more arms for a Kasatha to poly into? Like a giant squid or something?
my group of 3 rogue/shadowdancer mixed levels would have eaten those guys alive at 10th level... (not so much at 6th). HIPS + bookoo high stealth (shadow armor, skillz, darkness) and some sniper goggles (2 were primarily ranged rogues, one was "more melee" with str crits)...
It beats throwing some Red Mantis Assassins at them... that is for sure. lol (we took the title "Red Mantis Assassin Assassins" after a while in Korvosa).
If you want to challenge them: make them fight themselves (the old "you have been copied"), or make them fight someone who could kill them but choose to capture them for someone else (like a highly trained group of invisible / shadow dancing ninjas (they never know if See Invisible works or not... but get hit with 3-6 poisoned shuriken every round... etc...)).
The problem that the "NPCs" in the campaign I was going through eventually had is that most "mook" type fighters can't see for crap (seriously, lvl 16 fighter with +4 perception... no way they are seeing a stealth based character until it is too late). One of the times we got into trouble, though, involved high level fighters and a anti-magic sphere... This would work pretty well against a casting party like this as well. Couple grapple mooks with an anti-magic mage boss...
I have a question about the fame rewards for adventure paths... namely the additional "adventure" that they tag in.
"Complete an adventure with a CR appropriate for your APL7 +3Fame" = every time your APL goes up, you should get something, like a module?
note 7 states:
Which has a second "adventure" (lower case) indicating that this is a PART of the AP? Or is it the whole thing?
Seems like if you got +3 for a module (1 level) then you would get one for each level/section (usually how they are written) of the adventure. Does this make sense?
Modules being like 16-20 pages, and APs being 96 or so for 1-5 levels.
The rats/vipers can't see the thrower, so they have no reason to leave the safety of the pit... Yes, it is absolutely a silly mathematical exercise.
Pointless? Let me think about that.
For 2.25 gp in PFS you can buy 225 rats. For about 1 GP you can hire a ditch digger to dig a pit to put them in. For 20 GP you can buy an alchemical fire. It is 100% PFS legal to do all of this... You just have to survive the wrath of the GM....
For about 360 GP (Rich Parents trait works - I think it is PFS legal anyway) you can repeat this until you are the first level 20 character in PF play. You might have to find a new GM every time you try it... lol.
I have a player who has Speedy Summons (from Mythic Adv) and am curious as to the ruling on how long these critters last.
I mean, typically it is 1 round/level...
But does this mean that because he can cast the spell in less than one round that the duration is the casting round PLUS one more round per level? In other words, it comes into being, attacks, then attacks again on the next round, then disappears (level 1)?
I was discussing splash weapons in another thread and the general consensus of people is that splash weapons affect every creature within 5' of where they land (and the square they hit if not a directed attack).
So, as a SCHMOOOOZE to see how well one could level, I decided to see what the cheapest way to level using the core rulebooks is.
Vipers are CR 1/2. 225 of these tiny critters can fit in a 15'x15' pit.
Two Splash weapons at Point Blank Range (with PBS) or three without would kill all the vipers in the pit.
45,000 XP. That gets you to level 7 on medium.
Now, how much did this cost? 5 gp per Viper = 1125 GP. Which you could get to using the "Rich Parents" trait (900 of it) and perhaps a good roll on your background money (225 more)?
Alternately, you could use rats or cats (CR 1/4): But you would only get 22,500 per pit full. (cost 1cp and 3cp x 225 = 225cp to 675cp - affordable on anyone's salary). (using rats is only 160 pits full to hit level 20... well, sorta - because you don't get any more XP after the first or second pit full, right?)
Rat swarms would be ideal (perhaps starting with rats and somehow making the swarm?) as they are CR 2. (but with 16 HP you would need 8-16 splash weapons/rounds unless you are an alchemist). But 60,000 XP in a few rounds might be well worth the investment. (higher level, so XP reduction for next pit is "better")
Anyone have any other cheap ways to level and "SCHOOOOOZE" the "system"? Just for fun, post your most ludicrous VIABLE method of leveling. Speed counts (and casting usually summons things you don't get XP for, recall) - as does viability (use by everyone - specialists can speed it up, but everyone should be able to level using the methods posted).
GM's don't exist... just pure SCHOOOOOZE... ;)
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Why would a medium creature, who is covered entirely by the splash area, take less damage than a large creature, who just got hit on one side?
Because the medium creature only got 1 ounce of acid on them. the large creature took 2 ounces of acid, and the huge one took 3 ounces of acid splash... each ounce did 1 damage... why can't people understand the logic behind this?
Or as a rebuttal: Why would a large creature standing where acid splashed over his whole side take the same damage as when just half his side was splashed? 50% less acid does the same damage/has the same effect... hmmm... never learned THAT trick in College Chem class...
I think I win for most XP in one turn after discussing this:
Pit full of vipers, 15'x15'... 225 vipers. One splash weapon. Add int to damage as an alchemist. 675 Damage (well, not counting hp below zero).
45,000 XP. Thanks 1st to 7th level jump!
(ps. if you can buy a viper for less than 1 GP, I think this is the best value for XP ever :) )
OK. My final ruling on the entire "splash effects" thing are thus:
A targeted splash weapon hits one creature and splashes 5' in each direction PROVIDED that direction is not blocked by a creature (partial cover) or object (partial cover).
This keeps a splash weapons thrown by ANYONE from doing 900 points to diminutive creatures in a 15'x15' grid, 225 points to tiny creatures in a 15'x15' grid (room full of cats... are they alive or dead?), or 36 points to small creatures trapped in a 15'x15' room (Gnomes, Halfling slaves, Svirfbenlin, etc..).
The splash effect pattern is the same for diminutive, tiny, small as it is for medium. Large creatures block the other three squares they occupy when struck. Huge creatures block the other squares they occupy when hit in the middle square (and thus take no additional splash damage).
This allows a splash person to indirectly hit a Large creature with 2 points of splash damage by targeting the square next to them (they got hit with 2x as much acid, so why wouldn't they take 2x as much damage) and a Huge creature to possibly take 3 points of splash damage in the same manner (again, they were splashed with 3x as much acid).
It prevents any splash weapon person from effecting more than 9 combatants at a time (a reasonable limit ignored by sizes as pointed out above by the "regular" rule).
I think this is fine and logical. Sorry if you disagree with the idea that a large or huge monster might be affected more than once, but I see this as entirely logical (and they get DR versus all splash damages as separate attacks... its not magic, after all...).
They had 3x the acid land on them... they still have a tough hide in all three spots... only 1 point in each spot... soak it if you can Mr. Monster. Their entire side got sprayed (right front foot, torso, right hind foot), so they should take more damage than if only their right front foot got sprayed... if DR doesn't nullify it.
(also, I am not talking about alchemical BOMBS... I am talking about normal SPLASH WEAPONS - non-magical ones; a fireball and an alchemical bomb would affect everyone in the area of effect... splash weapons I don't really see working that way, from a physics standpoint)
Well, thanks for the discussion... I am going to run it based on logic and RAW instead of the failed "its like a fireball" - which it isn't.
If I rained acid down all over the top of a monster
It would be covered in acid and take 9 points of acid damage (one for each square). It would count as separate attacks (so if it had DR OR resistance it would do basically nothing).
I just can't equate
with being "exactly the same" as
Of course you would do more physical damage to something the more of it you hit. Anything else is like saying that if you smash all your fingers on one hand with a hammer, it won't hurt you any more than if you just hit your thumb. Which, just... makes... no... sense... to... me.
Also, the fireball argument is completely horrible, fallacious, and wrong... fireball is magic, and only affects something once... lasting fire walls and obstacles (terrain) affect per 5' squares you move though... acid is way more like that than a fireball. Splash weapon damage is not magical, it is physical, like terrain damage.
I've had similar discussions regarding magic damage versus physically manifestations before... I have to run with the "logic" of real physics when dealing with real physics items.
"area affects" and "splash damage" are simply. not. the. same. thing. "if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage," - ALL being the important part to me... not ONE/ONCE/only once... Are you in an the first adjacent square? Take damage. Are you in the next adjacent square? Take damage. Are you in the next? Take damage... and so on... Not "are you a creature in at least ONE adjacent square, take damage once please."
It just seems to be the logical (if abuse-able) way to run it.
Do you move through the first 5' of fire/bramble wall? take damage. Do you move through the next 5' of fire/bramble wall? take damage. The next? Take damage.
(ps. I'd love a FAQ quote to lay out a logical reason otherwise... but splash weapons are "real physics" weapons, and I think they should be treated as such, as opposed to magic area effect spells which are not (typically))