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

maouse's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 796 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sczarni

I've always run that you get xp for defeating a trap. You don't learn by jumping in.....

Sczarni

Since the x rules only mention summoned monsters, wouldn't we apply the "if it doesn't specifically say" rule against the GM? The rules on summoned critters DON'T mention gates, so you get full xp on gated monsters.??? We seems to apply this logic everywhere else in PF.

Unless there is a rule specifically saying you don't get xp for gated monsters, you do. There is a rule specifically for summoned, so you don't.

ps. A gated monster is a fully functional additional foe, so of course you should get xp.

Sczarni

In PF, there isn't a limit. Some adventure paths say "you should grant enough to get x level" but that is more due to design than "rule." If the adventure would be a cakewalk for some higher level characters they simply don't want you ruining the "fun value" of the path/module. Rule #1 is fun.

Sczarni

Ps. My "build idea" is spellslinger 1, ranger (guide) 1, spellslinger to 5th, eldritch knight 2, spellslinger to 17. +11 bab, caster level 18, with perhaps a trait that ups a school to cl 20 (+2).

Using a human with the feat that gives 1 grit at first level to help clear brokens conditions.

Sczarni

I am attempting to make a spellslinger, but are they seriously broken or what? Some of the enhancements from magic bullets only apply to melee weapons, so what gives? Additionally, do these enhancements work on spells cast through the firearm? Such as "seeking" allowing you to target invisible targets with spells (thus breaking "that rule") by hitting the right square?

Lots of questions like this arise from this class. Do you only get the enhancement from the magic bullets? Or can you use a normally created +5 firearm and get that bonus? Can magic bullets give an already magic item a bonus combination greater than +10?

Any help/discussion would be appreciated. Thanks.

Sczarni

If the idea is to save on feats, lead with pounce then add lunge and such to extend the range at which he can "leap out of the shadows" and back. Dodge, Mobility, Wind Stance, Lightning Stance tree will make him formidable at guerrilla tactics... oh wait, that is a Vanarasian.

Sczarni

Rogue or Bard skill monkeys: bring intimidate/performance feats/flat footed foes/and sneak attacks (which can be stacked with sniper goggles and greater invisibility to ensure death to the opponents). Bards are particularly good at making every knowledge roll with a take 10 and no effort per se. Rogues are better if specialized in a subclass, granted, or crossed over slightly into a spell casting class.

In fact, most classes are best with a dip here or there. That's the nature of the game, I guess. It's not a "mundane" world, after all.

Sczarni

One moving greater invisibility spell caster/other archer/rogue/etc... can probably down the ranger if your intent is to kill them. 8th level is spell level 4, so there you go.

Now, if the ranger is the one who has gone greater invisible... well he will dominate combat.

I don't know exactly what their build is, but I had a rogue with a composite bow doing this sort of thing for 4 flaming arrows a round (3 sneak attacks at 4d6, so 22d6 total) with a +4 composite bow (+16), pbs +4 (within 30'). Something like that. So while not quite 280, it hit 152 max nicely. If they had known about sniper goggles the encounters would have taken place after a round of running away or something most likely.

Anyway, being able to pump out 140+ damage is possible even with the "weak" rogue class at level 8. (3 8d6 spells do 24d6 = 144 damage - so a "fast" spell and two more (one via a staff/weapon and one cast) and mages can do in the same neighborhood of damage).

Sczarni

The Archive wrote:

Back to the original topic at hand, this is a gem that no one at my table even knew existed until I saw mention of it on the forums:

Quote:
Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver.
And we thought just the AoO was bad for not having the feats!

This one kills people in PFS, so I have heard...

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So we are around to "penalty" = a specific game defined word, which only applies if it a value says it is a penalty.

Alright. Rule not ignored or under-used.

50 posts, thanks for being patient with me and using the big 2x4. :) Honest, thanks for all your help.

Sczarni

bbangerter wrote:

Things that are penalties are called out as penalties. DR is not. Penalties in this case is the game specific usage and definition of the word. The common definition cannot be used here.

DR applies to both lethal and non-lethal damage. The "underused" rule would invalidate this.

Can you find an example of a "penalty to damage"? That is part of the problem. Quote?

I found: silver bullets and sickened, etc... so yeh. OK. Those spell out a "penalty to damage rolls" (not damage result, mind you).

Sczarni

Azten wrote:
Damage isn't a check or a statistical score.

Right? So this begs the question of why mention "penalty" in the damage section at all (since it doesn't apply EVER to damage). Per RAW and the definition of a "penalty".

Sczarni

Aureate wrote:
The logic you are using is flawed. Penalties are reductions, not all reductions are penalties.

Well, that is the question, isn't it? In my original post, I asked if DR and other things that reduce damage, pursuant to the Damage rule in question, count as penalties.

Then I asked if they fit the definition of a penalty; a numerical reduction in a statistical score or check.

Then I asked, if they don't fit this definition, because a damage calculation isn't a statistical score or check (which, honestly it seems like it is not either).

Then I asked; if damage isn't either of these, why mention a penalty at all in the damage section?

Working backwards, and presuming "penalty" was used in the damage section because damage is a "statistical score", I surmised that ANY PENALTY in the damage section meant "any numerical reduction" in that "statistical score." Thus DR, as a numerical reduction, counts as a penalty to damage.

While the logic may be suspect, as "all numerical reductions might not be penalties" - "any penalties" in the damage section would indicate "all numerical reductions" in the penalties definition. Though I see your "logical point", I hope you see how it came about "backwards" given that there is no reason to mention penalty in the damage section, much less "any penalty", if they only meant one kind.

Sczarni

dragonhunterq wrote:
maouse wrote:
It most certainly is part of the hit resolution. What? You just hit and say "I did five" and then the GM applies "five damage"? No. The GM reduces the damage from the attack which hit to less than one (0). Per the rule, this attack, which was reduced to zero, should do 1 non-lethal damage. It doesn't say "only penalties from the attacker" anywhere. It says "any penalty" - which means penalties ( which is not the same thing as numerical reductions ) from any source, should apply. Including a numerical 5 point reduction from DR. The attack did (0) damage to the person, not 5, the attack is over, the person takes 5. No. The attacked person takes 0. After all penalties are applied.
fixed that

Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.

So again, no, you didn't "fix that."

Sczarni

Mojorat wrote:

Because of when the reduction in damage is applied.

spell a causes all creatures in its radius by 5 pfs.

So bob is 1d8+8 dmg normally. In the spells effect he is 1d8+8-5 or 1d8+3. His damage is reduced.

If a spell caused all creatures in an area to receive 5 less damage it shiftz things to the defender.

Bib says he does 12 damage his damage calculation is done.

Dr is not parr of bobs damage calculation.

It most certainly is part of the hit resolution. What? You just hit and say "I did five" and then the GM applies "five damage"? No. The GM reduces the damage from the attack which hit to less than one (0). Per the rule, this attack, which was reduced to zero, should do 1 non-lethal damage. It doesn't say "only penalties from the attacker" anywhere. It says "any penalty" - which means penalties (numerical reductions) from any source, should apply. Including a numerical 5 point reduction from DR. The attack did (0) damage to the person, not 5. When the attack is over, the person takes 5? No. The attacked person takes 0. After all penalties are applied.

Sczarni

The Archive wrote:
Penalties on the damage roll are things belonging to the creature that attacked.

Only? Really? Please enlighten me to where it says this ANYWHERE? That would definitely convince me I am wrong. But so far, RAW, have not found it ANYWHERE. A link / quote would be nice. I quoted the definition of a "penalty" and nowhere in that part does it mention an "originates only from the attacker" vibe. It says "any numerical reduction." Which indicates to me that the attacker does not need to be the origin. ANY source that reduces it (the damage check/ statistical score) = a penalty.

Sczarni

Sauce987654321 wrote:
There is no mention of damage reduction functioning as a penalty in the damage reduction entry. Even if it had implied it, words such as "negated" would have no place there. If it doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist. Anything else beyond that would be a house rule.

" For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic." Is 5 a numerical reduction? Yep. Is a penalty a numerical reduction? Yep.

"Attacks from weapons that are not of the correct type or made of the correct material have their damage reduced," Numerical reduction = a penalty to damage? Yep.

Sczarni

Chris Mortika wrote:

maouse, you are welcome to run DR at your table as you please. But my reading of the rule is in accord with others here: Striking a monster for 6 points, and having all the damage negated by DR, does not bestow a point of non-lethal damage. (For what it's worth, part of the rule sentence is a word-for-word import from the 3.5 ruleset, where it appears under the Strength attribute. The Pathfinder Design Team brought it out under "Damage" in the combat section, where people would expect to find it, and added the restriction that only penalties to the damage have the rider.) As others have said, DR is not a penalty.

My candidate for least-used rule is the distinction among which effects occur when attributes are altered temporarily, versus permanently. If my wizard cast bull's strength on your ranger, does the ranger's carrying capacity change? If I cast bear's endurance, does the thresh-hold for dying change? In both cases, no.

Good to know where it came from. Explains why it is ignored RAW (because it never applied like that in 3.5).

I guess from what I see the "penalties" don't have to originate from the attacker only. When you resolve damage, any numerical subtraction from damage would count as a penalty (per the definition of penalty). So when you apply the "end damage", if it less than 1 (ie. completely negated by DR or resistance), per the rule, you should apply 1 point of non-lethal damage.

I don't know if this is what the PFS devs meant to do, but it certainly seems to be a logical understanding of the rule as written.

If intent were still to only apply to STR damage modifiers, then it would still have been there in PF (one would think). The PF devs wanted it to apply to all damage modifiers, it would seem. So, does DR subtract 5 damage? Yep.

I know its an interpretation that isn't popular (even I, as I have said, have never run it this way/ever noticed what the rule actually states). I do think it is more logical to use the non-lethal damage rule (especially for damage reduction) against large quantities of foes. If fifty people attack you, I don't care if they can cut you, they can still beat you down... one would think. I know DR is a "special ability". And maybe that shouldn't be the case (maybe you can laugh off attacks forever, from everyone not attacking with magical weapons). Seems like the way the people run it has more to do with what Damage Reduction says, so I guess I should look there.

Sczarni

TheBulletKnight wrote:

DR only reduces damage that would be taken, not negates it. If you have DR 5/- and you were attacked by someone with a dagger and a 16 str, at max, it's 7 damage. 7-5=2. You would take 2 damage. But if they roll a 2, they would deal 5 damage exactly. 5-5=0.

Now, if it's as above, where the damage is 1d2-3= 1 non-lethal, 1 non-lethal damage is reduced to 0 by the DR5/-. Since the damage being done is the non-lethal, the non-lethal damage is reduced by the damage reduction.

If you hit someone, regardless of damage penalties, you do 1 point of (non-lethal) damage. Yes, if you do 1-5 non-lethal, that is 1 non-lethal, even with 5 DR. Just like if you do 1-5 lethal, that becomes 1 non-lethal (ie. you don't break the skin).

My point being that DR does not mitigate non-lethal damage (completely), as when it is a penalty that reduces (damage REDUCTION) the damage done to less than 1, the defender takes 1 point of non-lethal damage, per the (highly ignored, but there) rule.

Sczarni

Mojorat wrote:

Here is the thing dr is applied after all my penalties and then the damage is reduced. Its not parr of determining how much damage I do. If I hit a creature and do 13 damage I have done 13 damage. That the creature has dr is not relevant.

"all my penalties" - see, this right here is the problem I have. All of us GMs have always added that "my penalties" crap. Where does it say "only my penalties apply to damage" ... um. No. Damage is resolved to a creature's HP after all penalties, not just "mine" (the attacker's). It also requires you to resolve defensive penalties to damage, such as DR and resistances.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
most ignored rule in any game I've played: encumbrance.

I use encumbrance all the time. In fact, I have often checked over a sheet and laughed at someone trying to carry 400 pounds of gear. Then I have asked if they are really going to go adventuring with it all... then I ask how. Then I make them drop stuff (no 2000' of rope for you!). Then I ask for the modified character sheet. And I check it over again. Then, if possible, I copy it prior to gaming so the butthurt player doesn't just write in some crap they need on the fly and try to "pass it by" me. I might also mention to them Bags of Holding are available for the relatively reasonable price of about the same as their magic weapon (if any).

Yeh, I do encumbrance like that (unless all the players are well under their thresholds or are Dwarves).

Sczarni

For the record: found the definition of "penalty" - Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.

So that opens up that can of worms: Is damage a check? Or a statistical score?

If yes (to either), what is a "numerical value that are subtracted from" them? Damage REDUCTION subtracts the number from each attacks... so DR would count.

If no (to both), why mention "penalty" in the damage section at all?

Sczarni

If damage reduction doesn't reduce your damage, why do you have to roll damage at all?

Think about that.

If I roll d6 versus DR5/- then what happens? I have to roll to see if I do enough damage to get past it (a 6). That damage starts at 6, and 5 is subtracted from it. You didn't roll a 1, and ignore the DR. You did 6-5 = 1 point.

So in the event that you roll a 1-5, what happens? You have 5(or less) - 5 = 0 (or less). Thus, you incur the damage of 1 non-lethal hit point, per they ignored rule, anyway. Why? Because the "penalty" from the DR reduces the damage to less than 1.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Example of application: A group of 100 archers fire at a 90 HP creature with DR 10/-. Every GM I have ever seen will say "this does nothing to the 90 HP creature, even if they all hit." Per the rule (which, incidentally, is the FIRST SPECIAL HIGHLIGHTED AND BOLDED PART OF DAMAGE, as important as adding your STR Bonus, or Getting your multiplier right, etc...) if all of them hit, the creature would be knocked unconscious by the force of 100 arrows (which didn't penetrate its skin, but did knock it out).

Which, is an interesting "never been applied" rule. Eh? The obvious discussion here is "what is a penalty" - is it only from the attacker themselves (as the d2-3 example theorizes) or is it ANY penalty (such as DR and resistances and negation abilities) to damage (where you still hit, which wouldn't count cover and concealment rolls)?

To say an ability that has "reduction" in its name doesn't "reduce damage" but instead "just makes it zero" is sort of silly, IMHO. I know that GMs have never really looked at this rule this way, which is why I pointed it out. Is it being completely ignored? Or applied right (to only attacks which negate themselves out like d2-3 attacks)? Seems like they wouldn't have to bother telling you that d2-3 does a minimum of 1 point elsewhere if they meant it did 1 point of non-lethal damage.

Sczarni

Timebomb wrote:
maouse wrote:
Ah yes, but what about this: Damage Reduction: If damage reduction completely negates the damage from a called shot, the called shot has no effect. If hit point damage does get through, the called shot has normal effects. Damage reduction does not reduce any ability damage, ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage caused by the called shot.
Bolded for emphases. In your example it specifically says that DR can completely negate the damage from an attack. Negate = 0 damage.

Right. Absolutely. And the "ignored rule" says that if damage is completely negated (less than 1, and zero is less than one, right?), they take one point of non-lethal damage. Thus why I say it is THE MOST IGNORED RULE. I don't think I have EVER seen it applied in ANY situation. Because most GMs (me included) say "oh, well, you didn't take any damage from that because of xyz" and completely ignore this rule.

Sczarni

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its the height of absurdity to say that a red dragon who can swim in lava can be damaged by a pot of hot tea

Red dragon sits in lava "ahhhhhhh"

Sips hot tea while doing it "ow ow ow thats hot!"

If they sipped acid they would say "ow ow ow" - so if they "type" fits? But that is a "type of damage" question. What "type" is "scalding" - does it appear anywhere else? Is it acid(earth type)? No. Is it wind(air type)? No. Is it lightning(electrical type)? Is it loud(sonic type)? Well, there are only "five types" of elemental damage. So, in theory, the "absurdity" is to call it "untyped" just because it is "scalding". That implies "heat" which isn't any of the other four types of damage.

Does a red dragon take heat damage in the desert? Nope? The same "logic" applies, doesn't it?

Sczarni

Ah yes, but what about this: Damage Reduction: If damage reduction completely negates the damage from a called shot, the called shot has no effect. If hit point damage does get through, the called shot has normal effects. Damage reduction does not reduce any ability damage, ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage caused by the called shot.

So it is a "reduction" and something that "negates" damage... is "reduction" = a penalty to damage? What is a penalty if not something that reduces it? If it doesn't reduce the ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage - then does it negate the 1 non-lethal hit point from this "ignored rule"?

Sczarni

Defending sword +5, Dancing Defender Sword +5... then loose the dancer and get a +10 to AC (these bonuses stack, per the description)... double your attack output too... snark... only costs about 350k.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Wonder how many GMs actually apply this rule for DR/-, Damage Reduction, and anything else that mediates damage (such as a hit that is "absorbed" by a percentile ability).

Spoiler:
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html

I don't think I have ever, nor ever had a GM keep track of this unless it was purposefully applied. And consider this for a rogue/sap master that must do non-lethal damage with an attack... can they then apply that non-lethal damage feat to the target with DR/-?

Sczarni

"A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one." Which begs the question: does that mean they can basically "see" them with their nose, negating the concealment?

Answer is "no." If you read the scent ability, they just have an easier time pinpointing the invisible person (and don't need to roll perception). The person is still invisible (50% concealment), just automatically pinpointed.

Sczarni

As a simple "race" build, I wanted to add "Plant" subtype to the "Human" subtype to essentially create a race of plant humans.

No problem, 10 RP, and that leaves them at 19, which is under the 20 I am limiting the campaign to. However, I kind of wanted them to be more like "Pod People" from "Attack of the Pod People" (movies). So for one RP I developed this ability and was looking for some input to see if anyone had any better idea or wording for it.

Special Reproduction (1 RP):

Spoiler:

On a successful special coup de gras attack, the Pod Person can instead reproduce another of its race. The process takes 8 hours, and the remains of the original person are completely replaced with an exact copy with the following changes: Adds Plant subtype, Alignment changes to true Neutral, and gains the Special Reproduction ability. The reproduction is innately non-hostile towards everyone and everything until it has further contact and reason to be aggressive, but otherwise possesses all memories, skills, and levels of the copied entity. Any "hatred", "hated enemy" abilities or statuses are removed (but favored enemy abilities remain). If interrupted (either the copy or copier is harmed) before the process is complete, the reproduction fails and the copy dies. The victim can be raised as its normal type during the time it takes to copy it, effectively interrupting and ending the copy process. The copier is considered prone during this time unless the process is interrupted, at which time it reverts to regular status (when the copy dies).

Because it takes a special attack (coup de gras) and 8 hours to perform (applying "prone" to the character the whole time) I feel the 1 RP is fine. Obviously it isn't going to be done "easily" and is also "easily" interrupted (if known about). I feel this really adds the whole "Pod People" feel to the race (and any new subtype race combinations that occur from it). Golarion beware, the pods have landed...

Sczarni

Yeh, the only real reason I ask is because it is the "ARCANE Trickster" elite class...

Sczarni

If you have the requisite skills to make items, is there any RAW that says you can intentionally "flub" the roll and make a cursed item? Or if you substitute a different skill (if able to use various skills), can you sub in one that you have only 1 rank (or none?) to make the roll with?

Sczarni

I am starting a 20 point, 20 RP campaign using any prebuild races (20 RP or under) or any prebuilt with a template applied (still under 20 RP - so like a Plant Human would be 20 RP).

I was carousing the books and am wondering if I might just play a Svirfneblin monk. I would like to take a monk subtype that doesn't have diamond body at level 11 (because the Svirfneblin already gets better). Also, one that would use Dex and Wisdom for damage instead of strength would be a bonus. Of course Charisma based stuff is straight out. Any help with a subtype would be great. +3 AC to start, with +2 saves (+6 poison), SR 11+CL, and dex and wisdom bonuses seem to make a decent monk, no?

The other thoughts for characters were a Kasasha whip master of some sort (fighter maybe, maybe rogue/bard).

The last choice being a plant human sorcerer or wizard (just because a druid is to obvious).

Ideas for these sorts of combinations are welcome. As would any other racial builds. I tried to start something once before like this and it was immediately "out of control" as the "races" were more designed as "how to maximize a class they are going to be" than a "race." So I am hoping to avoid that sort of thing again.

Sczarni

Yeh, entirely up to the surviving spouse. Talk to them about it and what THEY want to do. Grief is a weird thing, and I would expect at some point the spouse will cry in the middle of an adventure in the future. Be prepared for that as well, as it might be a night ender. Don't get mad at them if it happens and invite them back, but talk to them about maybe doing something else if something triggered the grief.

Never going to be the same. The closest I have come to this is gaming with divorced spouses (where we played with both of them before). Its a little weird, but not really the same at all.

Sczarni

Generally, unless you are being secretly poisoned, you notice when attacked. Even with secret poisoning, you notice that you aren't quite right. For the most part, after you figure this out, a simple divining spell could deduce the problem. A heal check might also notice the damage somehow (like sucker marks or whatever) followed by knowledge checks to see what happened/what did it/what was done.

Sczarni

I came to the conclusion that traps are effectively "eventually beatable." Anyone who spends the appropriate skill checks in the two areas becomes a master disabler. And, well, if they begin a life of thievery, can even become a Thief of Legend, disabling traps as they go off! As it should be. The ToL means that even if the take 10 means failure, they can still stop the trap. So even if you make a trap 30 points above their skill level, eventually they will still be able to beat it.

Game is designed that way. Game is designed with very few traps above DC37 (some 43s I've seen in a module). 27 with take 10 is pretty easy in a high level campaign where you start with CL Ranks, +3, + any feat, racial ability, magic item, etc... that gives a bonus. Now you are at 30 easily, like you said.

Why would you want to punish someone who on a normal day can spot and do the impossible (40 is near impossible, 50 is basically supposed to be impossible)? (ps. 40 perception is seeing right where an invisible person who is not moving is (as long as they aren't using stealth))

As far as "time to disable" - there are many abilities that drop the time down and down and down... until it becomes a move or swift action (with a thrown weapon, so it can be done at range even).

(ps. the three rogues in my high level campaign just stole every mage's spell books in Egorian - from every mage under level 15... without getting caught or setting off a trap... because, well, they are just that good at gather information, stealth (with greater invisibility), perception, and disable device) - pps. they made Mantles of Mind Blank prior to the endeavor.

Sczarni

So what happens when another mage casts demi-plane on your demi-plane? they get a window out from yours only, to theirs... could be an interesting "deeper demi-plane" idea.

Sczarni

Spells per Day:

Spoiler:
When a new arcane trickster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before adding the prestige class. She does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained, except for additional spells per day, spells known (if she is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one spellcasting class before becoming an arcane trickster, she must decide to which class she adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.

When one is say multi-classed as a Vivisectionist Alchemist 3 / Sorcerer 1 / Wizard 3 / Druid 1 / Cleric 1 (or some other combination of spellcasting classes) - can a Arcane trickster add the "level" to the spells per day to any of the subclasses they had prior to the prestige class? It doesn't note that the "level" boost only applies to arcane spell classes they had prior, so is this able to be applied to Divine spell casting levels?

Sczarni

I'd drop 5 skill checks into Dance and dip to Shadow Dancer for a level to get HIPS within 10 feet of dim light. (free invisibility, basically, as long as they don't have Darkvision)

Why? A darkness spell/day item is much cheaper than a greater invisibility one. So until you can do the other, do the first. Just my 2 cents (a wand of darkness, for instance, is like 4500 gp for 50 charges, or 150 per scroll (30 charges equivalent) - a 4th level spell wand you might as well buy a x/day item instead, cost wise).

The only real issue I see is that you started as an Elf instead of something with Darkvision, but oh well. At least you have some sort of low light vision. I play a lot of my rogues Human, and additional levels dipped into ShadowDancer solve the light issue too.

Don't forget Shadow Strike for those dim light conditions as well... (might ignore if Darkvision is achieved, as most 20% concealment will be dim light)

Just things to think about if you start to have flanking issues.

Sczarni

People who don't know what a sneak attack affects simply haven't read enough of the rules, FAQs, and threads about it.

Its there, just read. No, precision damage does not apply to non-precision attacks like AoEs and auto-hits. (Unless you have the arcane trickster ability, and then it only applies to one person hit, not everyone effected, per FAQs).

Spoiler:
Surprise Spells: At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.

Note: even with the AT 10th level ability, it still has many many limitations to what and how it can be applied. One could argue that only a precision damage spell could be added to with the poor poor wording on this ability. ("the additional damage is of the same type as the spell - ie Precision damage!")

Sczarni

niteowl24, additionally, precision damage can be added at any range with sniper goggles or improved sniper goggles... check them out. A must for any precision damage based ranged attacker. Generally, sneak attack is a type of precision damage limited to 30 feet... ninjas can add 10 feet increments with ninja tricks... I don't know of many other precision damage feats that indicate range limits, but I am sure there are 1 or 2. Goggles are the schniznits.

Sczarni

One has to presume that "a high degree of craftsmanship" means that you make a crafting roll... and go by the results. Since it says in ENTIRETY "You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship." - That implies "you CAN make articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship, if you make your required (to make them) Craft check."

Why is this debated?

Mithril, Adamantine, etc... are all masterwork items and can be Fabricated with the proper raw materials. So why would the "magic" of the spell have a harder time with other mundane materials like wood and iron? Silly notion.

Sczarni

The real question is: does the "first round of combat" include the "surprise round"? The semantic argument being that the "before" includes all times before they have acted, the flipside of which is "in the first round" (only) qualifier part.

These semantic discussions being, of course, for folks who can't relate RAW with RAI.

Sczarni

Addendum on the "USE ACTIVATED" - sometimes it is command word. Sometimes it is just willing it to work. Since the Boots says "command" in the description, it can be implied that they are command word activated unlimited use user-activated items. Page 458 describes the differences. But they are definitely not continuous, since they aren't always making you levitate.

Sczarni

Hopefully the next FAQ set will sort all "precision damage" into a damage type. Thus ending the questions of "what is it", "does it have to say", "does it get blocked by any concealment", etc...

Suffice to say it does need to be described as precision damage to be precision damage. Otherwise it would be "un-typed" damage.

As far as weapon training: Fighters' = nope, not precision (it even adds to CMD, which is an obvious give-away that it is not precision). Ninja and Rogues actually give Weapon Focus feat - which is actually only on TO HIT, so no damage of any type from that weapon training.

Weapon specialization does not say it is precision, so it isn't. Unless someone can find a copy of text which says it is. It doesn't even describe it as a "more precise" hit. You just do extra damage with that weapon. Ie. you hit harder, not better.

Sczarni

I'd run the rule of "% of movement" and do the math. If you flew half your fly distance and landed, you could then run half your run distance. I might be lenient with a 5' square.

Sczarni

"as if she had cast levitate" means it has a duration. As per the spell. Continuous use items are things like "headband of vast intelligence." You wear it and it gives a benefit the ENTIRE TIME it is worn. The Boots are use-activated (specifically Command Word activated), not continuous. They are, however, an unlimited use item (you can do it "at will"). But yeh, every so often you have to roll UMD (if needed) to re-use the item, per the spell's duration.

Price breakdown:

SL2, CL4 x1800, unlimited charges (100 times material cost = 0 + 2x base cost), 1min/lvl multiplier (x2) = 57,600 gp.

Honestly, it is only 7500 gp because someone didn't follow the formula and considered levitate to be a pretty "useless" spell. Take any other 2nd level spell and make it "at will" and the cost will be closer to the real calculated cost. (Or as I tell my players all the time, "no, you can't have a "true strike at will pair of boots for less than 7500 gp!"")

Sczarni

Spoiler:
Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital
Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength
bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would
normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of
weapon damage dice you roll for that feat.
Extra damage from sources that wouldn't normally be
multiplied on a critical hit isn't multiplied by this feat.

Str Bonus = multiplied.
Magic Bonus = multiplied.
Other bonuses that would normally be multiplied = multiplied.

In other words;
precision damage = not multiplied.
rider damage (electric, acid, frost, fire) = not multiplied.

Can't think of many others off the top of my head atm. The REAL question is - can you use this with a directed spell that does 20d6 "damage dice"? (they can score a critical, after all) Think about having ANY of those bonuses multiplied in that case... lol. (I know, it RAI means x2, as would be the damage dice multiplier for a directed spell, but RAW it says "weapon damage dice" which might be argued as "spell damage dice" since the spell is the weapon... it should really read "multiply by the multiplier for a critical hit"... RAI)

Imagine a directed touch attack in the scenario of "RAW" - 20d6, Str bonus, Dex bonus, Int bonus (possibly), ... all multiplied by 20? naw...

Sczarni

Fabricate + Raw materials = easy markups for master crafted items... even at 50% (sale price).

ANY crafting is PFS illegal, so why did that even come up?

Another thing you can do is take engineering and get ahold of a Lyre of Building - using dirt to make mansions! All you need is the property rights and you can make about 18-20 mansions a day (well, 1/wk) with a few decent Fort Rolls (12-16 without a decent Fort). Let's face it, 25 for masterwork is NOT HARD to hit, even at level 5 (when you could afford a lyre). Rent them for 1000gp a month? Even 100 gp a month. Didn't cost you anything, after all. Repeat every week until you have a nice steady residual income.

In answer to the original question: all crafted and found magic items are sold at half price (crafting cost basically) - unless you have feats, skills, or abilities that let you make money on the deal. Be glad you don't have to go to a REAL pawn shop where you'd only get 10-25% value. Also, there are some campaigns/modules where you meet merchants, that if properly influenced, buy at slightly higher prices.

1 to 50 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.